Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive882

User:Guy Macon posting large identical text blocks in growing number of venues
This user apparently has a single issue that he is now concerning himself with, which takes a discussion from November 2014 (may have been an RfC) as his inspiration for changing the infobox entry of every atheist and similarly convinced person he can find to "religion: none". I questioned that choice on an article I happened to be watching, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, as this person is notable because of her change of faith. His latest action was to post an approximately two-page (printed ones, remember those? ;) ) exposé of his motivations. In the meantime, I had contacted the closer of the debate who seemed to think the closure was less prescriptive than interpreted by Guy Macon. The twist is that Macon has now met opposition to his changes on several articles, and seems to be pasting the same boilerplate into the talk pages of all atheist/agnostic/etc. biographies where this has occurred. It looks to me like a situation that could spin out of control, and I didn't want to have to tell myself that I saw it coming and did nothing, so I'm raising a flag here. As far as my "involvement" is concerned, I'm not really interested in pursuing this debate any more, but for obvious reasons will not be posting advice or suggest sanctions or anything like that. However, like I said, in my view this could be a problem in the making. Samsara 11:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've encountered this at Christopher Hitchens, and was inclined to agree with Guy that atheism is not a religion. The closing statement on the discussion notes: "There is also a consensus that the phrase 'Religion: Atheist' should not appear, being a contradiction in terms". Is your concern with this (which sounds pretty prescriptive to me) or rather with the way in which Guy is going about the task? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As the title states, the concern is the posting of text blocks. The fact that this is happening in a growing number of venues suggests a certain likelihood to become disruptive. Samsara 12:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the clarification. Guy's post at Talk:Christopher Hitchens was rather overwhelming. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * are you referring to the use of ""Non-religious" is not a religion. Bald is not a hair color. Off is not a TV channel. Barefoot is not a shoe. Silence is not a sound. Never is not a date. Clear is not a color. Not collecting stamps is not a hobby." in the edit summary? Because other than that, the edits themselves don't look like a large block of text, but rather the removal of one or two words from the infobox. I can't see anything particularly problematic about the edits myself at the moment. It's probably worth having a conversation with the user on his/her talk page first as well - many disputes or worries can be resolved that way without needing to come here to ANI. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Look for the article talk page edits that add 13k characters. Cheers, Samsara 12:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The appropriateness of Guy's article edits in this regard seems pretty clear. The only issue is whether it's appropriate to post the same lengthy explanation on the talk pages of articles where he's met resistance. Based on a look at his history, it seems this text has only been added 11 times. That doesn't seem ideal but doesn't quite seem disruptive either. Still, imagine if e.g. Giraffedata copy/pasted his "comprises of" essay into the talk pages of every article where someone took issue with it :) Maybe the best thing for Guy to do would be to put the text on a page in his userspace or even as an essay in the Wikipedia namespace, and point people to that? &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 13:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Have to agree that it would be better for Guy to link to this text if it's basically the same thing, rather than to post it to many different places. 11 places isn't that many, but it is starting to get up there. Nil Einne (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * My own view is that Guy should take a step back from editing the Religion boxes. If you take a look at his contributions, he has made dozens (hundreds?) of edits, including a couple of dozen reverts, to eliminate with extreme prejudice "Atheist" from infoboxes, on at least two separate occasions, at the end of last year, and again more recently. I personally think this is borderline WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Even if Guy is right, is replacing "Religon = None (atheist)" with "Religion = None" really the most useful thing he could be spending his time on? Even if this is a true reflection of consensus? And I would personally dispute that anyway, see Talk:Johann Hari if you particularly care about the content dispute. But I think the issue here is more to do with conduct than content. The content dispute can hopefully be resolved by discussion and introducing a new field for non-religious spiritual beliefs. The way Guy has gone about his campaign suggests (to me at least) that he is too emotionally involved and should find something else to spend his time on until things have calmed down. The use of "shock and awe" cut and paste of a few thousand characters to multiple Talk pages on a disputed issue does not help.
 * Having been advised by Guy to consider dispute resolution I had been seriously considering raising the WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour on this page. Having taken a few deep breaths and looked at Guy's contributions history (and he's clearly a valuable member of the community) I decided there were more constructive ways to proceed.
 * My suggestion to Guy however would be to take a few steps back and consider how his actions might appear to others. Taking some time to concentrate on other Wikipedia activities might be a good idea. --Merlinme (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If it is something backed up by a large discussion, then I don't see how you, or anyone else, has the right to say he should find better things to do with his time. That's pretty offensive, if Guy is doing something that matches a more global consensus. However, I'm inclined to agree that Guy copy-pasting the same talk page argument is a tad unhelpful, although using the same edit summary consistently IS a good idea, in my opinion. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 22:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I dispute, vigorously, whether Guy's position has been backed by a large discussion. I've read the large discussion multiple times. I took part in the large discussion. I dispute Guy's conclusion, as do other editors. The summariser is on record as saying that they didn't mean the summary to be as conclusive as Guy is taking it to be.
 * But I don't wish to get into a discussion about the content here. I mean, I will if you want me to. (Have you read my response to Guy's cut and paste points, at Talk:Johann Hari?) But that is not why I am here. I am here more because of how Guy is behaving in the dispute.
 * S Marshall, the summariser who Guy is invoking in defence of his attempt to eliminate with extreme prejudice "Atheism" from the Religion box, even in brackets, has clarified their position here, at the request of Samsara: . Essentially, S Marshall says that they did not think local consensus should be trampled over in quite the way Guy seems to be attempting. (My personal comment would be that in the case of "No Consensus", the "victory" frequently goes to the editor prepared to devote most time to the matter. Guy seems to be attempting to exploit that fact.) After that clarification, on the same Talk page, Guy did a 13,384 character cut and paste which ignored S Marshall's comments:
 * At this point, I have to question whether Guy is actually reading the Talk pages he's cutting and pasting to. It seems to me more like a bulldozer approach than anything else.
 * I repeat, he should take a step back and find something else to occupy him with for the time being.--Merlinme (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The whole of the discussion is summed up in the closing statement. The closing statement says that "Atheist" should not be used because it is not a religion. That's undisputed. "Atheism" is not a religion. Period. The closer read the discussion for us. We don't need to revisit it. If you find fault with S Marshall's closing statement, take it to AN. If not, just drop it, Merlinme. To try to rehash the same thing again and again, contrary to the closing statement of a lengthy debate is real battleground behaviour, and reminds me a bit of Collect. Returning to the original poster's concern: I don't think that Guy Macon's post is excessively long. I managed to read through it in a couple of minutes. Kraxler (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The copy/paste edit summaries have been an issue. Pretty much everything I had to say on that specific matter I said here. The immediate response was just removing my comment without making any of his own but he did seem to stop that specific habit afterwards. Normally that would be the end of it but this is a pattern of his. He seems to think this is all somehow very clever and the only explanations I can think of is that he either doesn't care that behavior is an extremely unproductive way of going about things or that he actually intends to agitate. Neither is great. GraniteSand (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In reply to Kraxler's post, I repeat, I am not here because of the content dispute. There are other ways to resolve that. I am here because of the rather combative approach Guy Macon has taken to the content dispute. His approach seems to be more designed to cow into submission than persuade, and in my opinion is highly likely to start an edit war one of these days. I also think he's too emotionally involved in the Religion/ atheist content dispute, which probably leads to the style observed; and that is why I've suggested he take a break. --Merlinme (talk) 09:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no content dispute. WP:Consensus was established, was stated as such in the closing statement by S Marshall, and should be respected as such. GraniteSand, there is a maximum number of characters for edit summaries, it's impossible to complain about their size. This thread was opened by Samsara to complain abouut the size of a certain post added to several pages where users apparently were unaware of the discussion which established the current consensus. Guy Macon's intention was to discourage edit-wars by stating clearly why the word "atheist" was removed. In the meanwhile it was removed from all articles where it was used in the "Religion" field of infoboxes, as prescribed by S Marshall's closing statement, and this whole discussion has become rather moot. Kraxler (talk) 11:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * There are some atheists who exhibit characteristics of atheism being its own kind of religion. However, an infobox stating "Religion=Atheism" is kind of pretentious. "None" would be better. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * There's relevant discussion on my talk page. I'm inclined to hope that Guy Macon will consider turning down the volume a little bit on this particular subject.— S Marshall  T/C 12:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand the level of hostility and attempt to shut down debate this subject seems to provoke in some people. To be honest Kraxler, I would include you in that. I have tried several times to suggest that it's the manner in which Guy has gone about his mission which I have a problem with, but you don't seem to accept this. Surely you can see that the rather provocative edit summaries are part of the problem, more likely to cause problems than help establish a new consensus? And 13,000 character paste dumps to talk pages without really engaging with what is on those talk pages aren't particularly helpful either. At Talk:Johann Hari, 25 minutes after Guy posts 13,000 characters to a talk page you say essentially "I agree": ; and then six minutes later, before anyone else has had a chance to reply, you more or less assert that anyone who disagrees is edit warring: As I say, this seems more like an attempt to shut down debate than to achieve consensus.
 * There are very few areas of Wikipedia which cannot be debated at all. Other editors than myself have described the conclusion of the "Religion = None (atheist)" debate as controversial. The closer of the debate is on record as saying that in principle it might be possible for local consensus to override the conclusion of that debate; that it is not in fact as 100% "prescriptive" as you have suggested. And, most importantly, even if the conclusion of the debate was as clear as clear could be: it is neither necessary nor helpful to be so confrontational when looking to "enforce" a new consensus. --Merlinme (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Just got back from an out-of-town engineering project. I will post a more comprehensive reply tomorrow or the next day.

One thing I would like to mention is that an editor involved in a content dispute second-guessing the uninvolved closer of a consensus discussion and deciding for her/himself what the consensus really is, as Samsara has done in the opening comment of this section, is a really. really bad idea. It essentially makes RfCs and other consensus discussions worthless if anyone who disagrees with the closer's summary can just analyze the discussion for him/herself and come up with their own consensus.

If anyone thinks that the closer blew it, the proper course of action is to go to AN and ask an uninvolved administrator who is experienced in closing contentious consensus discussions to reexamine the comments and write up a new closing summary.

By the way, that "2 page, 13K characters" count is greatly exaggerated. The edits in question have 10 paragraphs, 715 words, and 4512 characters. You don't count "" in the wikisource as 67 characters, you count the "[4]" that the user sees as 3 characters. Nor do you count the collapsed text. ANI wants to encourage users to back up their assertions with links, diffs and collapsed data tables.

More later. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC) edited 05:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In reply:
 * The closer (S Marshall, who has contributed to this thread) responded to my query saying, I did not understand the consensus as being "prescriptive" in any sense
 * The character count comes straight from the edit histories and can be easily verified. I've tried in good faith to replicate the figures you're citing, and I find that you're off by over factor 2. In the process of trying to replicate your estimate, I discovered that a simple cut and paste into MS Word actually gives me 9 pages. I think on any scale of "TLDR" or "wall of text", that ranks fairly high.
 * As for your strange attack on the closer, I think you'll find everyone else thinks the closing summary was very well written. Closing debates is not an easy job, and given the subsequent clamour that sometimes arises, we should be grateful that anyone steps up to this job at all, never mind actually doing a good job as S Marshall did here.
 * Overall, I feel that the entrance you've made here has done very little to diffuse the reputation that preceded it. Samsara 13:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Please look at the top two entries at [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Guy_Macon/sandbox&action=history ]. The count is 4,513 characters. Again, one should only count what the user actually sees, not hidden wikimarkup or collapsed text. And my reputation is just fine, your snarky personal comments notwithstanding. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * (Sound of crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I've cut and pasted the whole of your text into Word and done a character count. I made it 4,384 characters. So, you win a point that it was about 4,500 characters (10,254 characters if including the hidden text). Although a diff reports your edit as > 13,000 characters, 13,000 is an exaggeration because it includes markup and hidden text.
 * And winning this point makes your actions better how, exactly? Regardless of the exact number of characters, your cutting and pasting of thousands of characters is not helpful. I still make it 1.5 Word pages of pre-prepared argument. Please stop treating the whole exercise as a WP:BATTLE which you are going to WP:WIN.
 * If you'd concentrated on the arguments and closing summary of the wider debate, I would have less of a problem. Offering a link to your essay on the subject, as approved by the consensus of the participants in the debate, would have been absolutely fine. But to dump thousands of characters of your own arguments into the mix is really not going to help. Your last argument was frankly bizarre: "Consider what would happen if Lady Gaga decided to list "Banana" as her birth date." I genuinely have no idea what that is about.


 * I also dispute whether the "hidden" text should be ignored. Speaking as an editor who likes to check his sources, I routinely expand detail, check notes and follow references. Having 6,000 characters of debatable argument dumped on me for daring to defend "Religon = None (atheist)", which was actually one of the better supported options in the debate, felt somewhat like being battered over the head with a typewriter. Not significantly more likely to make me change my mind; just rather overwhelming, and with unclear options for defending myself.--Merlinme (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You have my sympathy for having a word processor that cannot make an accurate count of characters, but at least it was close. If you ever need something that can count as well a spell, VIM for Windows is an excellent choice. [ http://www.vim.org/about.php ]. As for the rest, see my response in the section below. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

GM continuing postings in multiple venues, quoting selectively from ANI discussion as evidence of consensus
Posting first here and here and finally here (one of the venues that might make sense for centralised discussion). After some have suggested that this thread should not be a rehash of the discussion, Guy Macon is now interpreting it as further evidence, quoting selectively. I don't think ANI is a good venue for testing whether consensus on this issue has changed. That's simply not what ANI is for. For that reason, his interpretation of ANI as such a venue again is somewhat disruptive imo. The same goes for spreading discussion out over multiple venues, which I think we have consensus here for saying is ill-advised. Samsara 23:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And here:
 * What I find particularly bizarre about this is that the entire discussion on ANI is about whether Guy is being too aggressive in pursuing the point, and he summarises it like this: "Now this has been to WP:ANI, and as I expected, the discussion there made it clear that my changing "Religion: None (atheist)" to "Religion: none" is supported by global consensus, and that the closing summary at Template talk:Infobox person, specificly " 'Atheist' should not appear" and "The preferred phrase would be 'Religion: None' ", does indeed apply to my edits."
 * Does the above discussion support Guy's interpretation? Not that numbers are the be-all and end-all of a discussion, but I would assert that I, Samsara, S Marshall, and GraniteSand are all experienced editors who have expressed significant concerns about Guy's behaviour on this issue. Rhododendrites and Nil Einne have given some support to the thought that Guy should link to an essay rather than pasting thousands of characters to talk pages. And Guy summarises this as... "my changing "Religion: None (atheist)" to "Religion: none" is supported by global consensus"? --Merlinme (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * There is a clear consensus in favor of my changing "Religion: None (atheist)" to "Religion: None" in infoboxes. The only concern here at ANI was how I explained my reasoning for making that change on 11 article talk pages, and I have not used the text in question since the first response here that questioned my use of it. Predictably, the far shorter text I started using also generated a complaint (which was pretty much ignored by the admins reading this page), and of course if I completely stopped explaining the reasoning behind my edits that would also generate complaints. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The concern raised was that you posted walls of identical text into multiple venues disruptively. You were then advised to keep discussion central, and contravened that advice by posting your new block of text into four of the original twelve venues in addition to your previous mega-paste, here, here, here, and here (last one has the best edit summary). However, I'll also note that you seem to be discussing more reasonably now at Template talk:Infobox person. I think a lot of people would appreciate if you continued along those lines rather than as you did before. Samsara 04:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * There was zero consensus that I was being disruptive, just accusations from those who are involved in a content dispute with me. There was a consensus that eleven copies was either too many or close to it (normally, I don't re-use something like that more than ten times so as not to be disruptive; looks like I miscounted by one this time) and as I said I stopped using the text as soon as the first person not involved in the content dispute and associated flurry of random accusations expressed concern. If that's not good enough for you, I don't know how to satisfy you.


 * If you are of the opinion that there should be a policy against reusing a talk page argument ten or fewer times on unrelated pages in discussions with unrelated editors, see WP:PROPOSAL for instructions on making that policy proposal.


 * If you are of the opinion that there should be a policy against posting a ten-paragraph talk page argument or that an editor making such an argument should avoid backing up their assertions with links, diffs and collapsed data tables in order to keep the character count in the wikisource (as opposed to what the reader actually sees) down, pick a limit and make a proposal for such a policy.


 * And yes, my changing "Religion: None (atheist)" to "Religion: None" in BLP infoboxes is indeed supported by global consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The underlying problem here is that a very limited discussion is being used as a reason to change a whole swathe of articles at which no individual discussion took place. The "clear is not a color" edit summary is puerile; when asked what color a glass is, "clear" is an obvious, appropriate and meaningful response, as is "shaven bald" when asked what color a suspect's hair was.  Having no religion and being atheist are manifestly not the same thing.  A person brought up without any religious education will be of the religion "none" but calling him an atheist would be a misstatement of the facts, as he's not rejecting something he never accepted.  Likewise, an atheist (like myself) has had the notion put to him and rejected it. People like Ali and Hitchens are activist atheists, not mere agnostics.


 * Deleting the information "Religion:none (atheist)" is simply willful unhelpfulness based on some weird metaphysical obsession, not a desire to give the reader information that we do indeed possess. The behavior here is disruptive, as is the cookie-cutter approach, lack of discussion on various articles, and condescending, indeed provocative edit summaries that preemptively declare those who disagree to be foolish and illogical.  Note also, that none of this is being done according to a source, just the simple absolute formula in one person's head "atheist=religion (none)".  The rampage acrost article space should stop, and people who are known for their active advocacy of atheism should have that put in their "religion" slot in info boxes.  (There is a small case to be made for changing religion to "belief system" or "ideology" but that's a side show, and its tickets cost extra as concerns this report.) μηδείς (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from insulting personal comments.
 * If you believe that there is consensus for "Religion: None (atheist)", I suggest posting an RfC and putting that theory to (yet another) test.


 * The following recent thanks on my notification page show support for changing "Religion: None (atheist)" or "Religion: None (agnostic)" to "Religion: None". This count does not include the even larger number of comments supporting changing "Religion: Atheist" or "Religion: Agnostic" to "Religion: None".
 * User:Alison thanked you for your edit on Sheila Jeffreys.
 * User:Bastun thanked you for your edit on Ray D'Arcy.
 * User:Binksternet thanked you for your edit on Yuri Andropov.
 * User:BullRangifer thanked you for your edit on James Randi.
 * User:Carptrash thanked you for your edit on Emma Goldman.
 * User:David in DC thanked you for your edit on Aaron Swartz.
 * User:Demiurge1000 thanked you for your edit on Colin Challen.
 * User:Dr.K. thanked you for your edit on Alexis Tsipras.
 * User:Editor2020 thanked you for your edit on Abu Isa al-Warraq.
 * User:Gerda Arendt thanked you for your edit on Template talk:Infobox person.
 * User:Herostratus thanked you for your edit on Joseph Stalin.
 * User:HiLo48 thanked you for your edit on Eric Idle.
 * User:MarnetteD thanked you for your edit on Ophelia Benson.
 * User:Mlpearc thanked you for your edit on Alan Alda.
 * User:NebY thanked you for your edit on Benito Mussolini.
 * User:Plot Spoiler thanked you for your edit on As'ad AbuKhalil.
 * User:Rhododendrites thanked you for your edit on Danny Ledonne.
 * User:Rms125a@hotmail.com thanked you for your edit on James Gunn (filmmaker).
 * User:RolandR thanked you for your edit on Karl Marx.
 * User:TJRC thanked you for your edit on Michael Newdow.
 * User:Timbouctou thanked you for your edit on Slobodan Miloševic.
 * User:Timbouctou thanked you for your edit on Zoran Milanovic.
 * User:Ugog Nizdast thanked you for your edit on Sanal Edamaruku.
 * User:WWGB thanked you for your edit on John Gorton.


 * As I have pointed out before, an editor (especially one involved in a content dispute) second-guessing the uninvolved closer of a consensus discussion and deciding for her/himself what the consensus "really" is a very bad idea. It essentially makes RfCs and other consensus discussions worthless if anyone who disagrees with the closer's summary can just analyze the discussion for him/herself and come up with their own private "consensus". If anyone thinks that the uninvolved closer of a consensus discussion did not accurately describe the consensus, the proper course of action is to go to Guy Macon (talk) 10:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I really think this would benefit from some administrator attention, as Guy Macon is now starting to repeat himself in this here thread as well. I already replied to an identical message (minus the listy part) above. Guy Macon needs to be told that this repetition, whether twice in the same venue, or reposts across multiple venues, is disruptive, as is posting boilerplate as a supposed substitute to engaging in discussion. Samsara 15:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You need to drop the WP:STICK now. This has already received plenty of administrator attention, which largely consisted of some good advice (which I immediately followed), and you being told several times that reusing a talk page argument ten or fewer times on unrelated pages in discussions with unrelated editors is not disruptive. (it was never about the length, as evidenced by the fact that you kept complaining when I started using a far shorter version). Your continued pounding on this despite being told by multiple administrators that I was not being disruptive and that there will be no sanctions against me for my behavior is becoming disruptive. You are not going to get your way. Deal with it. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Guy, you are not editing constructively.
 * Selective quoting, combative editing and provocative edit summaries are not going to help improve the encyclopedia.
 * If you want to discuss a possible constructive compromise regarding the content dispute, based something on the lines I have suggested, please do that.
 * If you have an alternative suggestion on how we could resolve the content dispute, I would welcome it with open arms.
 * In the meantime, please stop pretending that AN/I is universal in its support for your mission. And in general, please stop trying to "win" the discussion. --Merlinme (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You have been given "an alternative suggestion on how we could resolve the content dispute" several times. Consensus has been established (as you have been told by several people) but you refuse to accept that fact and drop the stick. The proper method of resolving such a dispute is to post a neutrally worded WP:RfC at Template talk:Infobox person asking the reader to make a clear choice between "Religion: None" and "Religion: None: (atheist)" in BLP infoboxes, let it run the full 30 days so nobody can say they didn't have time to respond, then go to WP:AN and ask for an uninvolved administrator with experience closing contentious RfCs to evaluate the comments and write up a closing summary. If, at that point, the consensus is against me I will humbly apologize and offer to help bring the pages in compliance with consensus. And if the consensus is against you, you can choose to do the same or continue to fight, with the usual consequences. This has been explained to you before. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Call for close
There is clearly no sanctionable behavior on either side here. Rather than having to endure page after page of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT calls for some administrator to "do something" about my alleged misbehavior, I would ask that I either be given a clear warning by an administrator so that I can understand what I supposedly did wrong and stop doing it or that this be closed as being a content dispute with the usual advice about either posting an WP:RfC or dropping the WP:STICK.

Please note that at Template talk:Infobox person there are similar calls for closure (and similar WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT responses) such as "Can we draw a line under this discussion. It's clearly trying to change a recently agreed consensus, and not using the proper channels or any new ideas." and "I agree that if we're going to revisit this issue then it should be handled in the form of an RFC. Consequently, I fail to see the point of this discussion, since until it is an RFC nothing we're saying is going to have an impact. I would not support a non-RFC discussion being used to modify the prior consensus."

I feel that my time is being wasted here having to read the same accusations over and over, and I would like this to be resolved one way or the other as the closing administrator sees fit. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Uncooperative IP adding unsourced future air dates to anime articles and lists
Originally posted at WP:AIV

– This one is rather complex case. This user flat out ignores previous warnings about requiring sources for future dates of upcoming television broadcasts. This has been going on for months now, often changes IPs ever week or two, without the user ever discussion their edits with others. Because this a range block may be required. Has previous edited using the following IPs (not complete).



If this was a logged in account, the user would have been blocked long ago under WP:COMPETENCE. I would like to thank for adding some of the IPs in the original AIV report. suggested that this be moved to ANI because of the need for a range block. —Farix (t &#124; c) 22:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We're an encyclopedia, not a TV guide--but hey, I guess this is what we do these days: listing future TV broadcasts. Does anything need (semi-)protecting, or is a rangeblock enough? Drmies (talk) 02:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * How feasible is a range block? Because otherwise, we are taking about semi-protecting some 20 articles and they do get plenty of productive edits from IPs. —Farix (t &#124; c) 04:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The latest IP still continues to add unsourced future airdates despite warnings and this very topic. This demonstrates the editors unwillingness to discuss their troublesome activity with other editors. —Farix (t &#124; c) 14:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Even after inserting a editorial note that future air dates must have a reliable source, the editor removes the note and add a future air effectively sticking a big fat middle finger at the verifiability policy. —Farix (t &#124; c) 21:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Is any action going to be taken here or am I just waiting in vain? The editor still continues to add unsourced future air dates to articles. I even started a discussion at the Village Pump and consensus was categorically against such dates and I even invited the IP to the discussion. But no comment from the IP whatsoever nor even an acknowledgement that what they are doing is clearly not supported by either consensus or Wikipedia's policies. —Farix (t &#124; c) 22:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I would post it here: Administrator intervention against vandalism. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This was originally posted at AIV, but was referred here because it was too complex. Everyone is just passing the buck around. —Farix (t &#124; c) 00:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Report them like 4 at a time then? I agree, this is kinda crazy here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Editor has changed IPs again and is now editing under and returned to add unsourced future air dates. —Farix (t &#124; c) 22:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Changed IPs again, and continuing to add unsourced future air dates. Is there going to be any action taken because the editor is clearly WP:NOTLISTENING or are administrators considered these edits to be an exception to WP:V, WP:NOR, and consensus of the community discussion at the Village Pump? —Farix (t &#124; c) 20:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I just want to add that the edits involving the constant addition and removal of these dates are becoming noticeably disruptive on my watchlist, which by extension, would mean the watchlists of other editors as well. —Kirt Message 10:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

User:SPACKlick reported by User:QuackGuru at Electronic Cigarette (copied to WP:ANEW by SPACKlick)
I've copied this here from 's move to AN as I believe it's the appropriate venue for sanctions. Of note. The article in question is subject to General Sanctions of which I have been adequately notified. SPACKlick (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

SPACKlick and 3RR at Electronic cigarette, reported by QuackGuru (copied here by Zad68)
I am copying this here from this posted to Wikipedia talk:General sanctions. It's pretty clear violated 3RR there, and SPACKlick appears to admit to it.

It's more than a bit unclear where something like this should be reported: The regular WP:3RRNB? Or because this article is now under community General Sanctions (which apparently are not the same thing as Discretionary Sanctions, although DS appears to be a subtype of GS), here? Or WP:AE? I had a conversation with about this on my User Talk here, and we agree the wording is unclear. Please, if someone has an authoritative answer to this I'd love to know. 13:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Community DS can be enforced at either AN/I or 3RR. Simply make a note that the DS apply and that the subject has been notified. They cannot be enforced at AE, as they are not ArbCom DS. RGloucester  — ☎ 13:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, community DS should be reported to AN according to WP:GS (though they can be reported here too). 3RR is not really community DS; it's just normal practice - but can be reported in any of the 3 locations. AE does not apply for community sanctions as pointed out. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Plenty of CDS topic bans have been issued at WP:ANEW, in my experience. The point about CDS is that they have no set enforcement page. Wherever is fine (other than AE), though some CDS have had enforcement pages, such as WP:GS/GG/E. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

User:SPACKlick reported by User:QuackGuru (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=655461925&oldid=655457035 My edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=656291797&oldid=656291338 Revert one by SPACKlick. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=656298163&oldid=656298112 My edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=656303862&oldid=656303264 Revert two by SPACKlick.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=656305106&oldid=656303862 My edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=656306218&oldid=656305106 Revert three by SPACKlick. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=656311733&oldid=656311581 My edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=656311834&oldid=656311733 Revert four by SPACKlick.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=656362329&oldid=656345708 My edit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=next&oldid=656362329 Revert five by SPACKlick.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=prev&oldid=656384228 My edit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=656384442&oldid=656384228 Revert six. This was the previous warning. User:Mr. Stradivarius, where should this be reported since the page is under DS? QuackGuru ( talk ) 08:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I hold my hands up to this one, although I dispute that 1 is a revert. Also after whatever action is taken I'd like to ask what the appropriate method for dealing with an editor like Quack who spams lots of small edits onto the page without even attempting to find consensus despite prior discussion in some cases when there are so few editors at a page? SPACKlick (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You deleted three sentences that were not duplication. I was trying to discuss things with you then this happened. You previously claimed you made only two reverts. More text was deleted. Without evidence you are claiming I am disruptive? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 08:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am claiming you're disruptive Quack, and have done for a long time and I don't provide evidence because everyone involved here knows my reasons for thinking so. I don't claim that it's malice it seems much more like a competence issue. You add content from a wide variety of sources with no editorial consideration making the page unreadable. The page reads like a history of science on e-cigs rather than a list of things know about e-cigs. You refuse or are incapable of discussing content on the talk pages instead claiming no objection is specific enough or that a source is sufficient justification for inclusion. It took hours and dozens of posts last night for you to discuss what to insert and where for one sentence you wanted in the article, during which you conflated two differing discussions of two seperate issues. The insertion itself was either Pointy or tendentious, inserting information about advertisers use of the word circumvent in a section about user motivation where the use of circumvent had been removed and raised for discussion as potential NPOV issue. You are disruptive and yesterday I thought I could muster the energy to power through and deal with you but I've realised I have no strategy for dealing with your kind of disruption, hence the request for advice.


 * As for the reverts. 1) was a removal of redundant information in a patch of larger edits. 2) There was addition of a word "however" which drew a comparison where it wasn't inappropriate. Short of removing the connecting word I'm not sure what edit would have been appropriate. 3) Quack edited the style of a sentence adding a duplicate clause to the end of the sentence. I agreed with the intent of the edit but stylistically the redundant clause stood out like a sore thumb. Didn't think of this one as a revert at the time, I accept it technically is. 4) flat revert 5) was the revert of the content discussed above which I still believe was likely pointy. 6) flat revert. SPACKlick (talk) 09:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please stop claiming I'm disruptive. I provided evidence you deleted text. You think deleting all that text was appropriate? You were given advise. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 09:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I will not stop claiming you are disruptive Quack because it is plain to me that you are a disruptive influence at the e-cig pages. I'm confident that fewer editors edit those pages and those pages are in the poor state they're in, in large part because of your editing style. I also believe several other editors feel the same way. I also believe almost everything I removed should have been removed from the page. Not to say that reverting it all scattershot like that was correct. Some of the information in the first text removal could possibly have remained reformatted and following discussion on the talk page part of that removal was reverted. As the initial removal was a bold removal rather than a revert that seemed appropriate. The pointy edit has been refactored and re-included following discussion but a revert was the appropriate step given how and where the insertion was.
 * I don't care that I was given advice QG, you've driven editors away and make dozens of edits in quick succession. You're trying to WP:OWN the page. I didn't have a strategy for dealing with that kind of disruption and fell into the wrong one. Oh and it's advice not advise.SPACKlick (talk) 09:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You haven't explained all the text you deleted. After I told you to stop you said I will not stop claiming you are disruptive Quack because it is plain to me that you are a disruptive influence at the e-cig pages. Please stop. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 09:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ask and ye shall receive note ->(relating to the lack of explanation)SPACKlick (talk) 09:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * relating to me not stopping. Yes Quack, I won't obey your orders, you are a disruptive influence at the page. That is my finding from watching the page for months. Are you the only disruptive influence? No. Are you the worst that's been there? No. Are you the persistent one that's done the most damage that remains? In my opinion yes.n SPACKlick (talk) 09:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you should stop claiming I am a disruptive influence at the page. You made your WP:POINT. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 09:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And I think you should stop editing the page, you've done your damage. We don't always get what we want Quack, but I'mm willing to offer a trade. Also, my claiming you're a disruptive influence isn't WP:POINT which relates to argumentum ad absurdum and making deliberate bad edits to emphasise the mistake in a previous decision. You should really read policies for appropriateness before you link to them. SPACKlick (talk) 09:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Cloudjpk also disagreed with some your edits to two different sections and gave reasonable explanations. I agree some of your changes were counterproductive. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 09:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

and notice that Cloud discussed the edits in the sections I created for discussing the edits there were objections to (and the one I hadn't created for in another whole section) and sought to reach consensus through discussion to improve the article. Notice also that despite Cloud and I disagreeing quite often on how content should be included I've never suggested that Cloud was disruptive. Cloudjpk does what should be done at a battleground article (as far as I can remember); Makes clear objections to content, Makes clear arguments for content, Seeks consensus. I'm perfectly willing to discuss everything I removed, and everything that was re-instated to find consensus among editors on the talk page. I do get frutstrated having 15 or 16 round discussions in which editors make no points that are not agreed from the outset, do not respond to questions asked of them and ignore any points made. I still think the removal was correct. I await consensus to see if the reverted removals should be reapplied.SPACKlick (talk) 09:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your claiming I'm disruptive but others agree with my position. You want to gain consensus to delete the text again that is clearly not redundant? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 09:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Again you misunderstand. It gets very tiring having to explain things to you Quack. That's another part of the problem. You are disruptive in HOW you edit and HOW you discuss things. The position about Circumvention is controversial. It's being discussed by editors with opposing views to find consensus. That's what's SUPPOSED to happen. Not everyone who disagrees with me is disruptive as I've already said.
 * Let's look at how you contribute to that discussion about the word being used not the claim that is intended and sourced.


 * This is a non-controversial claim. They are even advertised to e-cig users as away to circumvent smoke-free laws.
 * Then you edited an additional claim about advertisers into the caption of an image not related to advertising in a section not related to advertising with an edit summary from which I can only conclude it was done because it ALSO contained the word circumvent.
 * After some discussion between me and cloud The sources can't be POV..
 * So you think editors can override what the sources says?
 * You then claimed I deleted your insertion because of my NPOV concerns about the original text [while continuing to bring it up in two sections on the talk page and on my talk page]
 * You stated Editors disagreed before and now, That my rewords were deletions and doubted my claim that I wasn't aware of the precious discussion before taking action
 * Then when asked for objection to a paraphrase The appeal is to use them to "circumvent" the smoke-free bans.
 * When asked again for objections to the paraphrase Citations are needed. Do you still want more citations?


 * and so on. At no point do you appear to have read or comprehended the discussion around you. At no point do you write like you are interacting with a human. At no point do you offer any justification other than a source (or a few sources) use the word. It's disruptive, it puts a lot of editors off trying to reason with you. SPACKlick (talk) 10:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * reply. Yes I am seeking consensus as to whether the word should be paraphrased or not due to NPOV concerns, nothing to do with redundancy. I am also seeking consensus on certain repeated or redundant-through-similarity points elsewhere in the article. I'm willing to let those discussions run until consensus happens. I'm willing to contribute to them and I'm willing to concede if consensus is against me. Speaking of conceding when consensus is against you, I notice over time as lots of editors stopped engaging on the pages most uses of vapor have miraculously become aerosol. Remember that consensus? SPACKlick (talk) 10:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I propose a top ban for User:SPACKlick for the disruption. The e-cig page is under special sanctions. QuackGuru ( talk ) 15:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion of proposed TBan for SPACKlick
To summarise the above discussions history. QuackGuru raised this on the talk page of General Sanctions. Zad68 Moved it to WP AN. From the comment there and my understanding of policy I copied it to WP:ANEW (referred as WP:3RRNB). Quack then moved it from there to here, hence the now confusing notes at the top.

For TL:DR 1) Quack's summary of my edits Quack edit. Revert one by SPACKlick Quack edit Revert two by SPACKlick Quack edit Revert three by SPACKlick Quack edit Revert four by SPACKlick Quack edit Revert five by SPACKlick Quack edit Revert six

2)Copies of my notification of general sanctions and a prior warning for edit warring on the same topic wrt same editor.

3) Admission and question by me I hold my hands up to this one ... Also after whatever action is taken I'd like to ask what the appropriate method for dealing with an editor like Quack who spams lots of small edits onto the page without even attempting to find consensus despite prior discussion in some cases when there are so few editors at a page?

4) Summary of edits by me 1) was a removal of redundant information in a patch of larger edits. 2) There was addition of a word "however" which drew a comparison where it wasn't inappropriate. Short of removing the connecting word I'm not sure what edit would have been appropriate. 3) Quack edited the style of a sentence adding a duplicate clause to the end of the sentence. I agreed with the intent of the edit but stylistically the redundant clause stood out like a sore thumb. Didn't think of this one as a revert at the time, I accept it technically is. 4) flat revert 5) was the revert of the content discussed above which I still believe was likely pointy. 6) flat revert.

I hope this helps with a speedy decision. SPACKlick (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Current wording: "A 2015 review found variable quality evidence that e-cigarette users had higher cessation rates than users of nicotine replacement products.[91] Two 2014 reviews found no evidence that e-cigarettes are more effective than existing nicotine replacement products for smoking cessation.[8][9] Studies have not shown that e-cigarettes are superior to regulated medications for smoking cessation.[7]" You removed text that was not redundant such as this edit. This is clearly I don't like it territory. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 16:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Quack I would ask that you hat that comment and we don't bring the Content discussion here. This is a place for editors, primarily admins, to discuss editor behaviour. It's not an appropriate venue to rehash a disagreement over content that would be the article talk page. I'm happy to defend against the claim of WP:DONTLIKEIT but with the above links and discussion I doubt the closing admin will need additional input on content. SPACKlick (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You are unable to justify deleting so much relevant text from the article. I gave just one example above. There are many more. This shows this is not a content dispute. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 16:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As a whole, with the edits surrounding that edit. Where the whole section was cleaned up. Those sentences provided repeats or near repeats of points already made. I've hatted my response to this because I don't want to clutter the board before an uninvolved editor joins the discussion. SPACKlick (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

As of 2014, research on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarette use for smoking cessation is limited.[29][87] Their benefit in helping people quit smoking is uncertain.[7] The evidence suggests that e-cigarettes can supply nicotine at concentrations that are enough to substitute for traditional cigarettes.[88] While there are some reports of improved smoking cessation, especially with intensive e-cigarette users, there are also several studies showing a decline in cessation in dual users.[14] A 2014 Cochrane review found limited evidence of a benefit as a smoking cessation aid from a small number of studies[8] and a 2015 review found variable quality evidence that e-cigarette users had higher cessation rates than users of NRT.[89] Another 2015 review concluded that while they may have a benefit for decreasing cigarette use in smokers, they have a limited benefit in quitting smoking.[90]

A 2014 review concluded that the adverse public health effects resulting from the widespread use of e-cigarettes could be significant, in part due to the possibility that they could undermine smoking cessation.[91] This review therefore called for their use to be limited to smokers who are unwilling or unable to quit.[91] A 2014 review found four experimental studies and six cohort studies that indicated that electronic cigarettes reduced the desire to smoke and withdrawal symptoms.[92] This review also noted that two cohort studies found that electronic cigarettes led to a reduction in the number of cigarettes smoked per day.[92] A 2014 review found that the research suggested that personal e-cigarette use may reduce overall health risk in comparison to traditional cigarettes.[70] However, e-cigarettes could have a broad adverse effect for a population by expanding initiation and lowering cessation of smoking.[70] A 2014 review found that the evidence suggests that "e-cigarettes are not associated with successful quitting in general population-based samples of smokers."[4]

Removed Sentences
 * 1) Two 2014 reviews found no evidence that e-cigarettes are more effective than existing nicotine replacement treatments for smoking cessation.
 * 2) One of these reviews stated that to encourage e-cigarette use as a cessation aid in cigarette users is premature.
 * 3) Studies have not shown that e-cigarettes are superior to FDA-approved products for smoking cessation.

1) we have that their benefit is uncertain, We have that some studies show improved cessation and some don't. We have that they have limited benefit in quitting smoking. Specifically saying that 2 reviews didn't overturn the null hypothesis is redundant 2) We have advice against widespread use, and we have several well quoted mentions of recommendation only in extremis. Again this seemed close to duplication and of limited benefit to the reader. 3) Is contradicted by several sources since its publication showing that studies have shown them to be superior to FDA approved products and those studies are reported with the tentative, variable quality and limited evidence caveats they require.

All three of those sentences were removed for content reasons while tidying up two paragraphs that started off written poorly with no flow to the concepts within them. SPACKlick (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "A 2015 review found variable quality evidence that e-cigarette users had higher cessation rates than users of nicotine replacement products.[91]" You want to keep this positive statement.
 * "Two 2014 reviews found no evidence that e-cigarettes are more effective than existing nicotine replacement products for smoking cessation.[8][9] Studies have not shown that e-cigarettes are superior to regulated medications for smoking cessation.[7]" But you still insist on deleting the other two statements that were not in favor of e-cigs? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 16:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

All of these endless back and forth comments between the editor that filed the request and the one being accused are counterproductive. The evidence has been presented, SPACKlick seems to have admitted that he violated 3RR and there isn't much left to discuss aside from potential sanctions. However I think it should be taken into consideration that QuackGuru seems to be the common denominator to the vast majority of conduct disputes related to e-cig articles right now, that there is currently an ArbCom case request regarding him and that warnings handed out to multiple different editors including myself and SPACKlick all involved QuackGuru in some way.Levelledout (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposal
See Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive880 for the original discussion regarding the community-imposed sanctions. QuackGuru ( talk ) 00:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Since User:SPACKlick is not getting it and is still claiming this a "content dispute" I propose an indef topic ban rather than a one year topic ban from the e-cig pages. Editors are complaining on the talk page about the recent edits. Long after the discussion was over he is continuing to argue over the word "circumvent". He deleted text that was not repetitive. For example, he delete sentences claiming it was redundant when they were not.
 * Support, as proposer. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Are we somehow still stuck on April 1st or did I transfer into another dimension overnight? Seriously. It's like a bully asking the teacher to punch the nerd who fixed his homework.--TMCk (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose that ridiculously disproportionate proposal. It seems that SPACKlick has been fairly honest about this and admitted his guilt. Anything else that QuackGuru is trying to add onto the 3RR breach is just pure and simple nonsense. I think that a final warning or a short topic ban at most would be appropriate. I would be more inclined to say a final warning if SPACKlick is prepared to say that he will watch his reverts in future. However I'm an involved editor, as of course is QuackGuru, so I think some more uninvolved opinions would be useful first.Levelledout (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I know a lot of editors sympathize with Quack because they agree with his positions on health and pseudoscience. But those of us who have crossed paths with him (and I wasn't even opposing him) know he can be relentless. SPACKlick knows they broke the revert rule but this morning, brought the incident to Bishonen's talk page basically asking for their due punishment. I don't see other incidents brought up and if this is an isolated one, give the editor a temporary block, not a topic ban. Liz  Read! Talk! 21:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Full disclosure, I brought it to Bishonen's attention following being alerted to it by QuackGuru and his original post at general sanctions, as you'll see from the timestamps. I didn't catch myself doing it and believed I hadn't till I saw the diffs. SPACKlick (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Just spotted that QG claims I'm not getting it. I fully understand that there are several separate issues here. Style of edits, Content of edits, manner of insertion, manner of removal. I have breached policy on manner of removal. The content dispute doesn't disappear for that reason but I am staying away from that discussion on the talk page until this is resolved Quack wants to bring that dispute here on top of the report for 3RR. I would like to note that this lack of understanding of discussions from QG is common, the conflating of several issues into an attack to discredit an editor. Hence why there have been ANI threads and an existing ArbCom request to sanction his involvement in pages. SPACKlick (talk) 23:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is at core a content dispute.  The behavioral aspect of it is not serious enough to warrant an indef topic ban, not by a long shot. BMK (talk) 23:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose and propose that Boomerang be considered. This is a disruptive proposal for a Tban in order to eliminate an editor who opposes the proposer's editorial viewpoint.   GregJackP   Boomer!   02:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This isn't the only such disruptive proposal made by QG recently, also see KimDabelsteinPetersen opposes a topic ban for AlbinoFerret.Levelledout (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Not severe enough to warrant a topic ban. SPACKlick has already admitted to breaching 3RR. At the most, a temporary block would suffice. Esquivalience t 20:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Blatant and active Wikistalking and harassment by Magnolia677
has long been engaging in a rather blatant pattern of Wikistalking articles that I have edited. Most recently, he has started editing such articles, including this edit, in which he believes he is imposing some sort of policy that prohibits a description of a list of notables. I had made extensive changes to that same article an hour earlier (here). Other edits by Magnolia677 in this latest edit war include this one, in which he insists that a state map must be added to an article that already has one, based on the fact that he saw it in Template:Infobox settlement. The edit he made to Scotch Plains, New Jersey was reverted by me with a warning about Wikistalking; Rather than taking the warning and walking away, Magnolia677 blindly reverted and is actively engaging in further malicious edits of articles that I have edited extensively, including several articles that he has never edited before (including here, here, here and here. A brief block of 48-72 hours, combined with clear editing restrictions, may well end this edit war and prevent further such abuse by User:Magnolia677. No editor should have to put up with this blatant harassment, which is clearly intended to be disruptive. Alansohn (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not an Admin, but you make a compelling case. Jus  da  fax   06:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say this is harassment or disruptive, just a disagreement between editors, and it does not yet call for a block on anyone. That said, I agree with you on the specifics of the dispute. There is clearly no call for adding a second map to an infobox that already has one. As for the bullet lists of notable people I don't think it matters very much. I prefer to begin sections with some prose, rather than just an unadorned bullet list, but that's just my own personal taste. Reyk  YO!  14:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Calling this a "content dispute" utterly trivializes a shameless history of Wikistalking. User:Magnolia677 has done this on dozens of occasions, stalking my edits and manufacturing disputes by misrepresenting "policy" to excuse his actions. We were at ANI in January (here) where he was similarly edit warring at Basking Ridge, New Jersey. As discussed there; 1) he edit wars with impunity, 2) WP:USCITIES is *NOT* policy, nor does it offer any guidance on wording for a notables section, and 3) this wording is used in hundreds of articles and has never been challeneged by anyone other than Magnolia677. Is one edit of an article another editor has edited Wikistalking? Does five, 10 or 20 constitute Wikistalking. Magnolia677 is probably in the hundreds of such edits, each one manufactured to provoke a dispute. Whether Magnolia677 actually *IS* a WP:DICK or merely acts like one in dealing with me, this pattern of abuse needs to end. Just look at his recent edit history and try to concoct a more meaningful excuse for Magnolia677 than a "content dispute". Alansohn (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to see a list of diffs where he started editing a page only after you did. The Editor Interaction Analyzer at https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py is a good tool for doing that sort of research. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This current wave of edit warring is highlighted by Scotch Plains, where User:Magnolia677 took an hour to edit war, but it also includes Oak Valley, Turnersville and Gibbstown on the list of articles that he had never edited before and began edit wars. In the past, Haddon Heights is an example of a case where he edited the article four minutes after I did, while he had never edited the article before. Grantwood took 13 minutes. Linden was a 16-minute wait. Closter had a one-hour delayed edit war. At Mount Holly he waited two hours after my edit. There's Battin High School, where he waited 12 hours. Then there's Basking Ridge, Cinnaminson Township, Secaucus, Lawrence Township, Frenchtown, which are but a handful of the dozens upon dozens of such articles where I had edited before he deliberately jumped in on some manufactured pretense. WP:WIKIHOUNDING is defined as "singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." QED. A block combined with an interaction and topic ban may put this abuse to an end. Alansohn (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Just to refresh everyone's memories, the conflict between Alansohn and Magnolia677 is not a new thing, it's been going on for quite a while:


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

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


 * "Actions of Alansohn in relation to continued WP:POINT disruptions on Wikipedia talk:Schoolcruft" AN/I, filed by Thewinchester, June 2007
 * "Inappropriate removal of comment from AfD Disucssion by Alansohn" AN.I, filed by Thewinchester, July 2007
 * "Alansohn" AN/I, filed by JzG, September 2007
 * "Abusive identification of Legistorm.com as 'spam'" AN/I, filed by Alansohn, December 2007
 * "User:Alansohn" AN/I, filed by Runreston, February 2008
 * "Requests for Comment/Alansohn" RfCU, May 2008
 * ArbCom:
 * "Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons/Findings of Fact/AlanSohn"
 * ""Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons/Remedies/AlanSohn restricted" May 2008
 * "Latest edit warring by User:RedSpruce" AN/I, filed by Alansohn, June 2008
 * "Apparent WP:COI issues at West Ridge Academy" AN/I, filed by Alansohn, June 2009
 * "Dispute between User:Alansohn and User:AdjustShift" AN/I, filed by Alansohn, August 2009
 * "Editor with an apparent grudge against a reporter" AN/I, filed by Alansohn, March 2013
 * "Personal attack by User:Alansohn" AN/I, filed by Nightscream, May 2013
 * "User:Alansohn" AN/I, filed by Coffee, December 2013
 * "Alansohn and civility" AN/I, filed by BrownHairedGirl, January 2014

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


 * , do you really believe your line of crap here? So User:Magnolia677 is entitled to edit war here -- in a series of actions happening right now and over the past few months where he has been the brazen initiator -- because of an AN/I filed by Thewinchester in June 2007? It takes two to tango, and it's this kind of enabling of abusers like Magnolia677 that lets these problems persist for so long. Alansohn (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe that the evidence shows what it shows, that you are a valuable content contributor, but you are also an essentially uncollaborative, uncollegial and abusive editor who takes tight ownership of entire categories of articles and fights vigorously anyone who dares to cross the line into your territory. I believe that, and the reports above show that behavior. It's a lot of words to ask people to read, but, unfortunately, there's no other way to get the sense of how you think and operate without delving into your past conflicts. BMK (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe that even you don't believe your claim, that my edits eight years ago -- or even a year ago -- justify edit wars initiated by User:Magnolia677 in the past 24 hours. You haven't refuted the fact that he has persistently edit warred in articles he had never edited before, a pattern of abuse that is happening as we speak. I've provided ample evidence that Magnolia677 is the problem here; Prove to us that I started this yesterday or that anything I have ever done over the past ten years justifies his actions. Alansohn (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your unwillingness to accept that I believe what I posted is, in itself, an example of your attitude problems in interacting with other editors: I am not in the habit of posting facts that I think are inaccurate or opinions that I don't believe in.What you're not getting is this: regardless of the specific case in this specific instance, there is a much bigger picture that the community needs to consider, and that is the sum of your behavior, not just in 2007, but in 2008, 2009, 2013, 2014 and 2015. I have seen since last November that way you have treated Magnolia677 with your obsessive ownership behavior concerning anything about places in New Jersey, and it's very much a question in my mind if Magnolia677 would have behaved as he did if you hadn't, basically, driven him to it.  Certainly, he's responsible for his own behavior, and if your report is accurate, he deserves a slap on the wrist (at best), but as far as I am concerned, the primary problem for the community is not Magnolia677, but you.  Magnolia677's name would probably never have appeared on a noticeboard if it hadn't been for your treatment of him, and his willingness to resist that, instead of just walking away, as most editors would do when confronted with someone like yourself. BMK (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for considering my reply. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec) You'll note that I said some hard things to Alansohn above, and I stand by what I wrote there, but you, also, seem to have a bit of a problem realizing that when you create an article, it is not yours, and that other editors -- including Alansohn -- can and will change the article if they think its for the better. Alansohn has a lot of experience in creating articles, and that means that he can probably see more easily than you the faults in the articles you create, and can work quickly to correct them. That doesn't mean that he should, without much thought, convert your legitimate articles into redirects, for instance, or that he should treat your article creations differently from those of other editors, or that he should expect that his judgment on every article on a place in New Jersey is going to prevail all the time, and he certainly shouldn't fail to interact with you as a fellow editor -- but neither should you think that simply because the two of you have a long-term dispute, he should stay away from the articles you create.Above, I've recommended that the community should do something serious about stopping Alansohn's long-term general pattern of misbehavior, but it may also be the case that the two of you need an interaction ban.  In this instance that's going to be difficult, because you both edit New Jersey-based articles, and I don't know how it would be possible to set up an IBan to stop this dispute from dragging on and on, but still allow both of you to edit articles in your common subject.  But, obviously, something has to be done about what are possibly two somewhat different subjects, Alansohn's pattern of misbehavior, and the inability of you and Alansohn to work together without conflict.  I'm pretty much fresh out of ideas for how to cut the Gordian knot -- do you have any suggestions about what can be done, ones which don't simply involve having the Alansohn blocked or banned?  Can you think of ways in which your own behavior can be modified in order to help smooth things over?  Because if not, I think the two of you are close to exhausting the community's patience. BMK (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


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


 * , let's look at my first dozen interactions with User:Magnolia677: 13 April 2013 - asked for sources for a notable, 13 April - provided examples of why sources are needed, 14 April - thanked him for adding some sources, 16 April - provided clarification as to where sources are needed, 9 July - more edits that need sources, 9 July - another edit the same day without sources, 17 August - uw-unsourced1 warning re edit without sources, - 27 August - uw-unsourced2 warning re additional unsourced edits, 27 August - explanation why policy requires sources, 27 August - explanation why reliable sources are needed for a list entry and 28 August - thanks for adding sources. Somehow, my insisting that sources must be provided justifies all of his belligerent edits up to and including his latest edit war. I haven't dealt with this guy for months, and now he's back haunting my edits out of the blue, starting with Scotch Plains, where User:Magnolia677 took an hour after my edit to start a new edit war, but it also includes Oak Valley, Turnersville and Gibbstown on the list of articles that he had never edited before and began a series of edit wars. This is the very definition of WP:WIKIHOUNDING. And why exactly is this blatant harassment by Magnolia677 justified by my past requests for sources? Alansohn (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your belligerence and your myopic viewpoint, in which everyone else is always wrong, and you are never at fault, is a major part of your problem. This is confirmed by the number of editors who have had serious concerns about dealing with you over the years. You've been here a damn long time, since 2005, and you've still not found the balance necessary to navigate through Wikipedia without antagonizing people unnecessarily.  I suggest you find it, and soon, and stop behaving as if you are incapable of making mistakes, or I believe you are heading not for an interaction ban, but a site ban. BMK (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , so you've prejudged this situation and imposed your biases on the evidence that User:Magnolia677 has been maliciously stalking my edits. Somehow, my interactions with other editors and my efforts to advise Magnolia677 to add sources justify his blatant and unprovoked edit warring at a series of articles he has never edited once before. I've done nothing here and you're gunning for a site ban. Magnolia677 should feel blessed to have a shameless apologist like you to ignore the evidence and cover up for his abuse. Apparently neither you nor Magnolia677 is capable of admitting a rather clear example of Wikihounding. Why won't either of you admit your mistakes? Alansohn (talk) 00:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Alansohn, please stop putting words into my mouth, there are quite enough in there already. :) I've written what I think, and exactly what I think, and none of it accords with what you wish it to mean, sorry. BMK (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , maybe now it's time to toss your biases aside and look at the evidence that you've ignored. If I triggered this edit war, have me blocked; If it's User:Magnolia677 who came out of the blue to begin the edit war, you'll gain a small measure of credibility by pushing for an appropriate block for him. Maybe it's both of us; maybe an interaction ban is needed. Make your case, but at least try to evaluate this situation with a little bit of honesty, and evaluate the facts of this edit war using the diffs of this scenario, as presented. Alansohn (talk) 02:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Considering the beam in your eye, your continued attempt to make it appear that I'm saying one thing when it should be abundantly  clear that I'm really saying something else entirely, and your apparent inability to understand that my argument is much more encompassing than your petty AN/I report, there's really no hope of my ever appearing "credible" in your estimation, so I'm not going to try. Please stop pinging me, I'll be by when I feel like talking to a brick wall again. BMK (talk) 02:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * With BMK gone, that leaves us to deal with undoing Magnolia677's edit war. His edits have revolved largely around his arguments that WP:USCITIES 1) requires the presence of a pushpin map when a map already exists in the article (as here), and 2) that a heading describing a notables section is prohibited (see here). WP:USCITIES is explicit in stating that it merely offers "advice about style" and that it "is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline and is not part of the Manual of Style"; It requires nothing here. As such, Magnolia677's edits will be reverted to the status quo ante. Hopefully he will be able to avoid initiating further such edit wars in the future. Alansohn (talk) 03:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Alansohn, you're constantly picking fights and being obnoxious to people, and you don't seem to realize that acting this way makes people want to disagree with you even when you're right. You really don't see how misrepresenting BMK and then crowing that you've driven him from the conversation makes you look completely unsympathetic? As I have said, I actually agree with you regarding the maps and, as a matter of taste, I prefer not to have plain bullet lists without an introductory sentence. I think you're in the right as far as article content goes. It's your attitude that puts you in the wrong. Magnolia edits a heap of articles about US towns and villages, you edit a lot on New Jersey. It stands to reason that towns and villages in NJ will be an overlap in your interests, and editing those articles doesn't necessarily mean Magnolia is hounding you or edit warring even if *shock! horror!* he disagrees with you on something. Neither of you are blameless here. Both of you seem to prefer screaming at each other in edit summaries, edit warring, and dragging each other to the drama boards, than talking to each other as collaborators with a difference of opinions. This seems to be a common problem with you; every time I see you anywhere, you seem to be shouting at someone. You really need to adjust your attitude. Reyk  YO!  06:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure editors used to be blocked just for having a persistently combative attitude. Both BMK and Reyk have summed up Alansohn pretty well. Not to say Magnolia is guilt free but just the tone of, well, everything that Alan says is aggressive. Blackmane (talk) 07:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The bottom line here is that all too often Magnolia677 shows up only to piss on Alansohn's edits immediately after Alansohn makes them and on articles where Magnolia677's obviously never before edited, (unless it was under a previous alias?) A good example from those listed above is the edit history of Turnersville, New Jersey.  I am not concerned with content, or Alansohn's prickliness.  I am concerned with the fact hat Magnolia677 is rather blatantly stalking Alansohn's edits and "fixing" (a word in many edit summaries) the flaws he sees once Alansohn has passed by.  Alansohn may rise to the bait, but it's Magnolia677 who's chumming the waters.  Note there's no accusation that Alansohn follows Magnolia677 about, is there?  I think a prohibition on Magnolia677 following Alansohn about is entirely warranted, there is plenty to work on other than what Alansohn has just edited, and the behavior is intentionally provocative, and endlessly disruptive. μηδείς (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Note there's no accusation that Alansohn follows Magnolia677 about, is there?" Yes, actually, there is. Magnolia677 makes exactly that claim in his statement above, and has been consistently making that claim since November 2014, when he filed this AN/I report. BMK (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec) I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that Magnolia677 is "endlessly disruptive." If you take a look above, I listed 6 noticeboard reports involving Mangolia677 and Alansohn, and an additional 14 involving Alansohn, including a 1-year ArbCom-mandated civility parole.  Magnolia has a clean block log, while Alansohn's is quite extensive -- although to his great credit the last block was in 2009.There's no doubt that these two are like oil and water -- or, better yet, like baking soda and vinegar: when they get together there's bound to be a lot of foaming dispute.  If we were a jury in an American civil trial, we'd have to ascribe percentages of blame to the parties in the suit, and, while I don't by any means think that Magnolia677 is blameless, I'd have to put the lion's share of the responsibility for the problem on Alansohn.  That's for the dysfunctionality of their entire relationship, not for this particular instance -- but since Alansohn continues to evade any sanctions when Magnolia677 presents his case against him, I can surely understand how he might be pushed into more aggressive behavior, if only to match Alansohn's inherent combativeness. Thus I can't absolve Magnolia677 of responsibility, but I am inclined to think that the bigger picture is more of an issue here. BMK (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, what I hear above is "she's following me around (true) versus he can be prickly (true). Let's assume we're focussed on a solution.  I think prohibiting either editor from reverting the other or editing the same article on a NJ topic until some third party has edited it would be a good de-escalation.  They could take urgent concerns to an admin or a volunteer like myself who am familiar with much of the state and would be happy to fix actual mistakes, rather than get involved in content disputes. μηδείς (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that would be a good place to start. Why don't you make that into a formal proposal? BMK (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's hear from and  first, if they agree to a "no editing immediately after the other IBAN", we are set, and an admin could place a formal note to the effect on their respective talk pages.  If they object, the solution will be unlikely to help unless it is draconianly enforced. μηδείς (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * I've backed off from seeking confrontations with him; he's worked diligently to create confrontations. I will be more than happy to consider any reasonable suggestion that ends his stalking, including a reciprocal interaction ban, which would only have affected Magnolia677 in his latest attacks. Alansohn (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Magnolia677's account dates from December 2012. Their first New Jersey-related edit I can find in From February 2013. BMK (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In your first edit in this thread YOU brought up 2007. He points to November 2014. Of course I know he started editing / crossing paths in 2013, because I left him a dozen messages and warnings insisting that he had to add sources, as listed above with diffs. My perception is that this is some sick kind of revenge about those first interactions. Even if it did have something to do with those first interactions, I fail to see how I am responsible for stalking by User:Magnolia677 at six articles he's never edited before, including one that I had edited just minutes before. What exactly did I do to provoke this? What is Magnolia677's explanation for this stalking? Alansohn (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


 * Support sounds good to me. John Carter (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support (non admin) after reading the above, is there any doubt this should happen at the very least? No. AlbinoFerret  22:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - We have to start somewhere, and this is a good start, very balanced. BMK (talk) 22:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - What specifically did I do wrong? I mean, really?  Every edit I made was in line with policy (I often added a link to the policy in my edit summary).  The reason I made the edits a few days ago was because a consensus had been reached at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline, so I started making a few changes.  How is this wikistalking?  Or bad faith editing?  Did you read my response above?  Alansohn spins this ridiculous victim piece like a drama queen, and after enough of it, people actually start to believe it.  Do me one favor.  Please have a look at the edit history of Bear Tavern, New Jersey.  I mean, is this what we expect from a veteran editor?  If I was a new editor, or one easily intimidated by a bully, I'd never return.  Most of you would have written to the creator of Bear Tavern to thank them for finding another place George Washington stopped for a beer.  Instead, this bully tears the article to pieces.  Look what happened when I added a photo to Battin High School.  Anyone who edits to New Jersey is stalking Alansohn!  An interaction ban would mean I am excluded from the state.  Why don't you deal with the real issue, and that is that this editor owns New Jersey, and bullies, intimidates and insults anyone who makes edits there he doesn't approve of.  So I ask you again, please tell me what policy I have transgressed with my edits, and what I am being sanctioned for?  Thank you.  Magnolia677 (talk) 22:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a very limited interaction ban. You're not "excluded from the state".  See point 2 in Medeis's proposal. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't think of it as having done something wrong. But it's abundantly clear that, for whatever reason, you and this other editor can't get along.  So for your benefit, and his, and for the community's benefit, we're going to help you stay apart so that you can both edit constructively. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Point #5 says "increasing sanctions". What did I do to deserve a sanction (my first in 18,000+ edits)?  Magnolia677 (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In case it's not clear, a first sanction might be a 24 hour block for whomever violated the terms, if they did so--it would be up to the admin. It applies equally to both parties.  You'd still have recourse to prompting a third party if an edit were so bad as to be false, and need immediate recourse.  You just wouldn't be able to revert it yourself. μηδείς (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't think of it as anybody having done anything wrong.  It's an equal and minimal restriction.  Think of it as a very even-handed way that allows both of you to edit very widely (in fact, you're not really banned anywhere except each others talk pages), but to avoid bringing another complaint here, which you have both done how many times?  You should be jumping at this, since if it goes to arbcom you're probably both looking at some nice long blocks. To be Solomonic, accept this live baby in foster care, rather than two dead half babies.  This really doesn't restrict either of you at all, since every article remains open, and in case of emergencies like a terrible format error contact me or an admin and mention the limited IBAN.  From experience I know that a situation like this can be very liberating, since  you don't feel like you have to respond to everything the other person does, and neither does he. μηδείς (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Nice long blocks"? Administrators only block editors who have violated the rules.  What leads you to suggest I'd face a long block?  What did I do wrong?  Magnolia677 (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And how on earth have my edits been placed on par with Alansohn's? Did you read the comments so many others have written about this bully?  Deal with this guy, or he'll just go on bullying and intimidating others. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Magnolia677, you're not helping yourself. BMK (talk) 01:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Look, it's a system, the interactions between you and Alansoh, and the system doesn't work, so it needs to be fixed. Medeis' proposal fixes the system by evenhandedly dealing with both parts of it, not by eliminating one part in favor of the other, or vice versa. Think of it as protection for both participants from what they each claim the other is doing: neither of you is inhibited from editing in the same area, the restrictions both of you are placed under are limited and reasonable.  If this works, it should make editing easier and less onerous for both of you, and the system will be fixed.  That's what the community cares about.  It really doesn't want to hear endless complaints from either of you, because every one of us has better things to do. BMK (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * Conditional Withdrawal of Support in the Face of Ongoing Abuse I'm more than willing to support the IBAN in theory, as it finally creates the environment in which blocks -- and lengthy ones -- will be imposed for further repetitions of this kind of shameless harassment, blocks that would have -- and should have -- been imposed here. Yet here we are with another set of edits by Magnolia677 to yet another pair of articles he's never edited before, Williamstown and Victory Lakes, where the only meaningful edit seems to be removing the word "CDP" and replacing it with the name of the place a dozen times. This guy has some rather insane understanding of what *NOT* stalking means. I'll be happy to undo all of these edits in this entire edit war, or have someone else do it, but with the same pattern of abuse going on, what is the point of an interaction ban? There are at least 8,000 CDPs in Category:Census-designated places in the United States by state in the 49 other states across the nation with the same "problem" and here he is again trying to start something over an idiotic interpretation of policy. If this can't be resolved, count me out. Alansohn (talk) 03:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just want to point out the obvious, that's while it might be a bit easier to impose an interaction ban if both parties agree to it, it's not necessary that they do. The community has the right to protect itself from disruption by imposing it with or without the parties' approval, so no one should be put off by Alansohn's comment above.  BMK (talk) 04:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This limited interaction ban is utterly worthless, if the bad faith edits made at Template:Bergen County, New Jersey and Clayton, New Jersey are any indication of User:Magnolia677 and his efforts to show a spirit of cooperation. The stalking is bad enough, but this guy is spitting in our faces now, showing that he has no intention of respecting the terms of this agreement, either in word or spirit. The "limited" portion of this is clearly useless, if he can't even offer some "wide birth" (which I assume is some weird form of labor and delivery) even at this point in time. Alansohn (talk) 05:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean "wide berth" - a "wide birth" happens to a woman with big hips. :)Please don't presume to speak for "us", the other participants in this discussion. There are a wide variety of viewpoints that have been presented here, but the majority of uninvolved commenters in this discussion have come out in support Medeis' interaction ban. I think you are mistaken in thinking that your "conditional" rejection of the IBan is going to derail it. You'd be better off accepting it, I believe, thus showing that you have some regard for what's best for the community. That would, I think, speak well in your favor. BMK (talk) 06:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: I have placed a neutral pointer to this discussion on the WikiProject New Jersey talk page in order to involve more interested community members in this discussion. It can be found here. BMK (talk) 04:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support interaction ban. Seems like a sensible solution. Reyk  YO!  07:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support the interaction ban. Both editors have strong opinions on what they think is best for the encyclopedia and both are prepared to argue their points to the death, but neither seems to be willing or able to seek a compromise, so to just stop the semi-regular flow of threads here, it's best that they just stay away from each other. Ritchie333 (talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  08:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support an IBAN. A proportionate solution to an ongoing problem. Guy (Help!) 08:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Will is be "utterly worthless" and Alansohn claims above? We will see. If it turns out that it is, we can start considering harsher measures. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. And if this doesn't work, full IBAN. And after that, ArbCom if admins cannot handle/contain the situation. Softlavender (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This, exactly. Alansohn is a decent sort, IMO, and highly committed to the project, so I really hope this will not end up at arbitration. Guy (Help!) 19:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. The most troubling thing I've read in the above is that--among those editors who don't seem to have a personal ax of their own to grind--there seems to be a fair recognition that one editor has engaged in stalking. User:Medeis puts it aptly and plainly above.  But that editor repeatedly above doesn't admit to it.  If the stalking continues, no doubt this will lead to repercussions.  But I would urge that editor to refrain from stalking, despite his above statements that he is unclear what he has done that is not appropriate. And I urge him to not take this as a license to just engage in harder-to-detect stalking.  A strong spotlight is now on the matter.   Without stalking, it appears to me that all other problems discussed above melt away. And we have a happy conclusion.  If stalking continues, I have little doubt from what I've read above that this matter will be elevated. Epeefleche (talk) 01:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but no admission of guilt is really needed (or wanted by the uninvolved), just an end to it, and both conflicting parties have once again agreed to the terms. We just need an admin to not this on the formal bans page and to formally notify the parties this is closed as agreed and we can all get some well deserved rest. μηδείς (talk) 01:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Formally request Admin Closure, with IBAN adopted per above guidelines
There are four five independent supports, no opposes, and both parties have agreed to the IBAN:


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


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

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


 * To possible closing admin: It seems that one of the parties, Alansohn, has now changed his mind and is no longer voluntarily accepting the proposed IBan. However, I've just looked back on the thread in total, and of the seven uninvolved participants who have commented on this issue, all five who have commented on the IBan have endorsed it.  Only  and  have not not commented on the IBan so far, yeah or nay. BMK (talk) 06:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Responded now. :) Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  07:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Which means that of the 7 uninvolved Wikipedians commenting on this issue, the six who have commented on the proposed IBan have all endorsed it. BMK (talk) 08:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And now all 7 of the commenters have endorsed the proposed IBan, plus an additional 2 3 editors who had not commented previously. BMK (talk) 10:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I was going to withdraw the suggested closure at this point given each of the participants still seems intent on his pound of flesh, but the consensus in favor is overwhelming, so I will leave the request for closure stand, have added the formal template, and a notice at WP:AN, and suggest the complainants read what happens to the "villain" of Merchant of Venice at the end, when, technically, he wins his case. μηδείς (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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


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

Here we go again...
I have been having numerous problems with. The most recent thread I opened was here (for an IBAN request), and now he's back to his old tricks. Is there a reason why he seems to be able to continually hound me? And the ironic thing is, this is the forum where he is allowed to explain himself but he never does; yet the threads still always get archived with him apparently having no consequences. I shouldn't have to put up with his behavior.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 03:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Erpert, you made false statements in a WP:AN discussion. Pointing that out isn't WP:HOUNDING. Rather than correcting yourself, you're blaming the messenger. The reasons your threads "always get archived with him apparently having no consequences" is that the community rejects your arguments. Note comments like

You've regularly brought spurious complaints against me (going back to 2011 !) and against an admin who took action against you. These complaints have been uniformly rejected by the community, and your repetition of this behavior is both an abuse of the dispute resolution process and a show of disrespect for the community. It needs to stop. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 04:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I clicked the first "purposefully obtuse" link (a diff to this AfD). Two points: it's from 2011, and HW deserves a medal if he is still trying to deal with the lack of understanding shown there. The second link is a diff to this AfD which shows that HW was again exactly correct. Johnuniq (talk) 11:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 *  I won't claim to have made any exhaustive study of this situation, but I do get the overall impression that HW is generally in the right in those interactions. We can hardly sanction an editor for being correct. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What is really happening here is that having lost the argument over PORNBIO Erpert has created a lot of content that is no longer suitable for inclusion. Rather then accept this, he is continuing to try to retain it come what may. This IBAN request is nothing more then a cynical attempt to prevent Hullabaloo Wolfowitz from taking these articles to AFD, where they are being deleted despite the most outrageously specious arguments. . Spartaz Humbug! 11:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It hasn't been rejected by the community; it has been rejected by you. (Have I ever been blocked? Brought to ANI? Warned, even? Nope.) You, on the other hand, seem to think you can do whatever you want around here, and then you get all surprised and upset when someone has a problem with it. And the supposed "false statement" you speak of is, "...another user moving the other article has nothing to do with me." Apparently you missed the very next sentence, which reads: "Have I moved any articles since the discussions started?" The answer to that is still no. In other words, this has nothing to do me (in fact, I actually disagree with moving anything while discussions are still going on). I always explain all my positions, and if you don't agree with them, fine, but that doesn't mean you get to degrade me (or anyone else). But I don't have to explain myself to you. You come wherever I am and bother me and you honestly think that's not hounding? You need to lay off. (And for the record, it's not canvassing just because more than one user happens to have the same opinion that differs from yours.)  Erpert ' blah, blah, blah... 08:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Since you asked the question, there is a bunch of diffs in my comment here where other editor's take you to task for your habit of personalising discussions. May I suggest that you would do yourself a real favour if you commented on edits and content and not on the character of the person making the edit? Think of it as a dream I have to make the 'pedia better. On that point, you have repeatedly been asked to provide evidence for your serial claims of harassment and poor behaviour but yet again you are casting aspersions without evidence. This is all very predictable and rather boring and makes you look like a dreadful cad. Perhaps you could either provide said evidence or just shut up? Spartaz Humbug! 18:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right about evidence/diffs, Spartaz but could we try a bit of civility all of the way around? Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 20:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * How was my post uncivil? I commented on behaviors not people and simply pointed out the affect of Erpert's behavior on the way he would be seen. Making himself look like a dreadful cad isn't the same as calling him a dreadful cad... Spartaz Humbug! 06:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Spartaz, that very diff you provided indicates that you need to leave me alone too...and where do you get off telling people to shut up?. (SN: HW's comments in that diff proves that I'm commenting on his character? Yeah, good luck with that one.) Speaking of that, I have clearly provided diffs several times, so don't just falsely say the diffs aren't there just because you don't care. Anyway, an IBAN, talk page ban, etc, is not a one-way street: if person #1 (let's say HW in this case) tells person #2 (me) not to talk to him, that certainly doesn't mean #1 can then bother #2 in various forums.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 22:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Erpert, please explain how Spartaz's citing 8 other users who've found your behavior in dispute resolation inappropriate is in any way inappropriate. Because if you can't, the only reasonable conclusion will be that you're casting aspersions on an admin you've harassed in the past, in retaliation for action he took against you -- even though your complaint against him was soundly rejected. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No matter how hard you try to turn it around on me and make it look as though I'm the disruptive one, it's never going to work. Anyway...to everyone else, I personally could easily adhere to an IBAN, but the very response above this one makes me skeptical about whether HW can.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 03:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The only person who needs to be sanctioned here is you for repeatedly casting aspersions and bringing lame cases to ANI. Perhaps I should get off my lazy fat arse and start documenting all the incidences where you have done this so we can ask the community to place a discretionary sanction requiring you to provide proper evidence when you report users to ANI? Spartaz Humbug! 06:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That has WP:IDHT written all over it (and you never did apologize for the "shut up" statement). Now, leave me alone.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 09:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And you never apologised for all the times you labeled me to try to doscredit my opinions, not for attacking my motives when you disagree with my edits. For someone really keen to dish it out you have an incredibly sensitive skin. Spartaz Humbug! 19:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

User:62.31.119.102
This IP editor is going around submitting other people's AfC drafts that are not ready for submission. Not sure what the correct response is here, but I thought it would be good to make the admins aware of this potentially harmful behavior. Winner 42 Talk to me!  14:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like 62.31.119.102 has been submitting other editors' drafts since last summer with mixed results...mostly they've been declined but a few have been accepted. It's interesting that until today, no one brought this practice up on his/her talk page. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 18:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

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


 * 1) . 1st
 * 2) . 2nd

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


 * Obvious boomerang, just check the OP's brief contribs history. WP:CIR. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

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


 * This edit says enough. It's a ref title, and I have verified that it matches the source. WP:CIR and doesn't know it. Dangerous. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


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


 * No, it's WP:CIR. Or perhaps WP:NOTHERE. Or maybe both. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and profanity
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

has been warned several times to stop deleting reliably sourced material, and making profane remarks towards Armenians. He continues to remove sources on the basis of often times racist remarks.


 * - Nationalist Armenian editors not natural. (I guess he meant neutral?)
 * - Ottoman Empire? bad Armenian bullshits.

And he continues to remove reliably sourced information he doesn't like:
 * Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24 hours. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 16:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I also notified the user in question here. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 16:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b>  No further edits should be made to this discussion. <br style="clear:both;" />

Rangeblocks needed
Cane someone please put a couple of rangeblocks in place to stop the IP-hopping block-avoiding vandal documented at Sockpuppet_investigations/Phillip_Pham? Constantly reverting the massive amount of vandalism is becoming a real chore. At the minimum, the 2602:306:8b2c:5350:0:0:0:0/64 range and the IPv4 addresses listed there need to be blocked, although blocking 24.153.175.240/28 may not be a bad idea either. --Ahecht (<span style="color:#FFF;background:#00f;display:inline-block;padding:1px 1px 0;vertical-align:-0.3em;line-height:1;font-size:62.5%;text-align:center;">TALK PAGE ) 18:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Combative editor: WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:DE and WP:BLP concerns
I came across a query by at WP:RSN and noticed their combative attitude. Looking the the history of relevant article and its talk-page, and the user talkpage, shows further signs of disruptive editing and battleground conduct. Recent comments about a book written by a Stanford University prof (Priya Satia), and published by Oxford University Press, raise BLP concerns too. I am not familiar with the topic area, especially the applicable discretionary/arbcom sanctions, so can some admins take a deeper look and see if some warnings, blocks, or editing restrictions are called for (or, if this is an AE matter)? Pinging some editors/admins who may be acquainted with user or article history. Abecedare (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I approached the RS noticeboard with a legitimate issue about a newspaper headline alone being used as a source for a claim (since the newspaper article itself does containing any content to support the claim). CorinneSD has accused me of bad faith, accused me of basically faking the issue, by stating that the article does contain content to back up the word used in the headline. I asked this editor to say where in the article is this content, but rather than provide the evidence the editor simply repeated the slur. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You might have had a point were it not for the fact that the source in question actually contains the word 'spy' in the body of the text, along with a statement that Bell was "a member of the Arab Bureau, the British intelligence office in Cairo during the war". It is one thing to dispute the reliability of a source, but another to claim that it doesn't contain content which is in plain sight. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Complaint checks out. I've blocked this user for one week. S warm   we ♥ our hive  00:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Sock evading a block and re-creating previously deleted material
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

has re-created the article Indian Cinema at Cannes Film Festival, which has previously been deleted under the titles of List of Indian film winners and nominees at the Cannes Film Festival and List of Indian Film Selections and Winners at Cannes Film Festival. Looks like a sock account of and possibly that  is also a sock too. I'd appreciate if is blocked and the article deleted. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Pretty clear case of WP:DUCK. Blocked.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC).


 * Thank you.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b>  No further edits should be made to this discussion. <br style="clear:both;" />

Sockpuppeteer Removing CSD Tags
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is a user using up to four accounts who has created four of the same article and is actively removing the CSD tags. I will list them here so an admin can review and delete them. An SPI has already been opened for the user(s). Thanks and goodnight! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 08:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Rikul
 * Rikul Chhatwal
 * Rikul chhatwal
 * Parteek
 * Agree with, the accounts are causing a nuisance at the minute. 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I've blocked all of the accounts per WP:DUCK and tagged them accordingly. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks a bunch, was getting a bit messy. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 08:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b>  No further edits should be made to this discussion. <br style="clear:both;" />

User:Davew123, personal attacks, conflict of interest
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

So, yesterday I declined a speedy deletion nomination of an article written by this user. It was originally nominated as lacking context and the user had since improved it slightly so that it had some context. However, it seemed to be a very obscure piece of technology so I nominated it for WP:PROD, and removed extraneous formatting. The user removed the PROD and re-inserted the extraneous formatting. As the reasons for the PROD had not been adresssed I then proceeded to nominate it via AFD, only to see that removed as well. I explained to them on their talk page, which they had just blanked, that removing the tag would not stop the deletion discussion and that they either needed to explain there why I was wrong or edit the article to rectify the issues identified by locating coverage from independent reliable sources. Instead of doing either of those things they have chosen to hurl a series of bizzare insults at me. They have also made it clear that my suspiscions of a WP:COI were well founded and they are in fact the patent holder for this piece of technology and another one I bundled into the same nomination. Basically I'd like someone else to take over trying to calm this person down and explain things to them, or whatever else may be necessary. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * you are either a commie or a fraudster
 * you think the only deserving dictators are hippies
 * you have a fraudulent view of the world
 * you must have an ugly daughter

Several of these don't really make sense to me, but the "ugly daughter" remark is the sort of thing someone will say to you if they are trying to see just how far they can push you before you punch them in the mouth. I don't have any kids so it didn't get to me, but obviously this is not acceptable behavior. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Needs an indef IMO. But I'm not home right now, so another admin will have to do it. Ched (on vacation) 99.148.150.125 (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I wonder about it when people lambaste others as being "hippies" as we were living in 1967. I see it on social media, too. And "commie"? They are bizarre insults, throwing out negative words to see if any of them cause you to lose your cool, man.  Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 19:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: I probably shouldn't have said "indef" .. I didn't really look at their long term contribs. But just from those links?  Yes - blockworthy.  wp:nothere comes to mind.   Not sure why you're posting here though Beebs .. the last time I looked you had the tools yourself.  Oh well - I support a block if you (or another admin) decides to do it.  signed:Ched (not in town) 99.148.150.125 (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I try to hold other admins to a very high standard when it comes to acting while WP:INVOLVED so I can't expect any less of myself. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've left a brief message on the editor's talk page referencing their attitude. From a quick scan of their contributions I see the distinct likelihood of WP:NOTHERE. Philg88 ♦talk 04:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * - he's baaack, again citing himself as a reliable source. 87.113.85.154 (talk) 23:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b>  No further edits should be made to this discussion. <br style="clear:both;" />

ScrapIronIV
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I took off notability tags off of 4 female martial artists. ScrapIron placed the notability tags on four women Judoka who by wikipedia WP:MANOTEs are notable. They competed at the highest level in Judo. Which at the time was National Championships. When I spoke to him about it, he told me to go pull a leg. Which I hope he isn't referring to his "third" leg. . Either way, it is against WP:Civil  CrazyAces489 (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The tags I restored were done so with the the summary: "Tag should not be removed until notability is established within the article." One should not remove tags without addressing the issue. There has been no edit warring, simply a single instance restoration of tags that should not have been deleted on each of those pages.  And I end up here?  SHOCKING!
 * This user's WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude includes trolling numerous pages including a trolling post about an (actually decent) article he created, removing notability tags without providing sources, nominating pages of those who disagree with him for deletion. Anyone who disagrees with him ends up in an ANI (gee, like me) or SPI  case, or ends up being accused of racism - note that he was blocked for that one.   In order to make a retributive point, he even nominated the Crispus Attucks article for deletion.
 * "Pull the other leg" - means "Stop pulling my leg, it's getting tired. Pull the other one for a while."  I was sick of his nonsense, and did not want to get pulled into his drama, as he is completely WP:NOTHERE unless it is to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS - so I told him to go away. I recommend the WP:BOOMERANG here.
 * May I go back to editing now, please? ScrapIronIV (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Only if you two can either find a way to get along or you choose to work in different areas of the project, it seems. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 19:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oddly enough, we were getting along until then. I even left a complimentary note on his page, only yesterday. Once I saw he singled me out, I knew I was in trouble.  So, telling someone to stay away from you (in an effort to protect myself from the actions he has performed on others) now makes me a bad guy?  Drama boards is right!  BUT - I stand by the meaning of my words, and my actions in this case.  I have done absolutely nothing to warrant being brought here. ScrapIronIV (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Apparently, this isn't the first issue that users have found with ScrapIronIV. There is an ongoing discussion concerning his edit wars on wikipedia.   CrazyAces489 (talk) 00:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed, like most folks, I have made some missteps along the way. But the conflict in that case was settled after polite discussion, and that editor and I have been peacefully collaborating on a different project.  I won't name that user here, because they do not deserve to have their name sullied by appearing on this board. I could point out other little conflicts I have had in my short time here, but I am learning from them. Any other little disagreements I have had here that you would like to point out? ScrapIronIV (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I recommend following the instructions at WP:DISPUTE as there is nothing for admins to do at this point. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 02:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b>  No further edits should be made to this discussion. <br style="clear:both;" />

User:66.154.176.19
is currently serving a 3 month block, but continues to post personal attacks on his Talk page. I recommend for his Talk page access to be revoked. - Areaseven (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Access to the talk page revoked for the remainder of the block. There is a threat of violence in there, although given its source and the way it's made I'm not sure that it should be considered as "serious".  Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC).

Montreal person is edit warring over multiple accounts on pop music articles
I need to report a Montreal-area person who is violating WP:MULTIPLE by using a handful of IPs to engage in edit warring, along with a registered account:

This person has violated 3RR at Little Earthquakes:
 * 16:55, 15 April, new material added by IP 65.94.164.173, not a revert.
 * 10:50, 16 April, revert by IP 65.94.164.173.
 * 13:17, 16 April, revert by IP 205.237.30.13.
 * 18:49, 16 April, revert by IP 205.237.30.13. IP 205.237.30.13 is blocked at 00:25, 17 April.
 * 01:54, 17 April, revert by IP 65.94.164.173. This is block evasion.

This person has violated 3RR at Under the Pink:
 * 10:41, 16 April, revert by IP 65.94.164.173.
 * 13:15, 16 April, revert by IP 205.237.30.13.
 * 18:56, 16 April, revert by IP 205.237.30.13. Article is put under semi-protection because of edit warring and content dispute.
 * 01:59, 17 April, revert by Britneyspearsfan17, through protection.

This person has violated 3RR at List of unreleased songs recorded by Madonna:
 * 02:37, 31 March 31, new addition by IP 65.94.164.173, not a revert.
 * 13:30, 1 April, IP 65.94.164.173 reverts.
 * 13:37, 1 April, IP 65.94.164.173 reverts.
 * 14:00, 1 April, Britneyspearsfan17 reverts.
 * 22:59, 1 April, IP 65.94.164.173 reverts.

Other violations of 3RR occurred at Oops!... I Did It Again (album) on 20–21 March and, I am willing to bet, at other articles longer ago.


 * 65.94.164.173 was blocked for disruptive editing, repeated additions of unreferenced material, the block enacted on 2 April.
 * Britneyspearsfan17 was blocked once for edit warring, the block set for 1 week starting 8 April. During this time, the person evaded the block for hundreds of edits.
 * 205.237.30.13 was blocked once for edit warring, the block set for 31 hours beginning 17 April. During this time, the Britneyspearsfan17 account was used to evade the block.

This person has no regard for being blocked, simply finding another IP address or using the registered account. This person also has no regard for whether added material is considered inappropriate or inutile by other topic editors. What can be done? Obviously, the registered account can be blocked, but the puzzler is what to do with the IPs. Can we set some rangeblocks? Should we consider a filter, targeting certain artists such as Britney Spears, Madonna, Tori Amos, etc? Binksternet (talk) 06:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * See Sockpuppet investigations/Britneyspearsfan17, filed in parallel to this ANI report. Binksternet (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think WP:AN3 is a better place to put such a report. <span style="color: #3BB9FF; font-style: italic; font-family: Lato, sans-serif'">Esquivalience t 20:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a multi-faceted case, with violations of MULTIPLE and 3RR, the likely remedy being one or more rangeblocks, one or more filters, and an easy block of the registered account. I certainly could have filed this report at AN3 but I chose to bring it here instead because of the complexity. Binksternet (talk) 04:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:OWN and Misrepresentation of sources on Lena Dunham pages
IMPORTANT NOTE: I expected I could retract this myself, that is apparently not the case. I officially request that this case be closed as I've learned this is not the appropriate noticeboard for my complaint. EmonyRanger (talk) 04:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Background
Passages in Lena Dunham's book Not That Kind of Girl sparked controversy and accusations of sexual misconduct. The passages describe three incidents:
 * 1) Examining her sister Grace's genitals when Lena was 7
 * 2) Bribing her sister with candy to kiss her
 * 3) Masturbating in bed while lying next to her sister, when Lena was 17

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

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

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

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

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

Here he edit wars to preserve that change

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









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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


 * Additionally, EmonyRanger, an account with three days of activity and less than 50 edits, is clearly already familiar with Wikipedia. This editor has focused on highly controversial topics almost immediately. User talk:José Antonio Zapato (who has already been notified, I see) has a very similar editing history. This whole thing is, at best, a waste of time, and that's putting it mildly. Grayfell (talk) 02:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This looks like a routine content dispute to me, which should be resolved elsewhere, preferably on the talk pages of the specific articles. Can the OP please explain, succinctly, how use of administrator's tools is required in this situation? <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  03:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


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


 * Per Cullen, this looks like a garden variety content dispute, and I don't see any bad-faith behavior that requires an admin to block anyone or protect an article or anything like that. Given that, WP:DR lists several options for seeking outside, impartial help in solving bilateral disputes like this.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 03:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


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


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

User talk:Dr.phillips, Ph.D. of Austrian decent
Block needed for user with username clearly in violation of WP:USERNAME; possible fraud as well. "User" notified. Quis separabit? 00:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * For future reference, usernames that are in obvious violation of of username policy should be reported to WP:UAA. However, I don't see how this is in violation of the policy unless it's obviously referring to a specific person I'm not aware of. Might turn out to be a VOA but it's been warned appropriately so far. S warm   we ♥ our hive  00:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Merger of Andreas Lubitz
On 29 March, a discussion was started about merging the material from Andreas Lubitz into Germanwings Flight 9525. There was a huge amount of input, and the debate was finally closed on 17 April, the result determined as "merge". The merge was then implemented in the normal way, moving the relevant content of the Lubitz page to the Germanwings article and turning Lubitz into a redirect.

However, on 14 April, as the merge debate was drawing to a close, an AfD (the third one) was opened for Andreas Lubitz, and it is ongoing. Following the implementation of the merger, user restored three times the content of the Lubitz page, insisting that since an AfD had now started, the consensus of the merge debate could be ignored.

I therefore request that community consensus be re-implemented by closing the AfD as an abuse of process (or whatever), reverting the Lubitz page to a redirect, and protecting it against restoration. Thanks.

Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 11:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Frankly, this speaks mainly to an unwillingness on either side to abide by any decision they don't like. Both sides have some merit, it is a matter on which reasonable people may differ, but I closed it as I read it. Obviously roughly 50% of those involved in the debate are not going to liek the close either way. Guy (Help!) 15:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

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


 * Nonsense. It has never been "hounding" to occasionally check up on a problematic editor's contribs when it's necessary to correct long-term patterns of bad edits. DS is, without any doubt, a highly problematic editor with a long and well-documented history of source misuse and poor-quality editing, so yes, I have occasionally, since 2012, seen the need to clean up after him. In the present instance, he created a series of odd little articles on rather out-of-the-way topics shortly before he got himself indef-blocked as a ban-evading sock a few months ago. Those articles, on topics of medieval philology, were no doubt a well-intentioned and deserving attempt, but unfortunately they turned out to be riddled with errors (evidently because he's way out of his depth in that field of learning), so I started cleaning some of them up while he was blocked. Obviously that wasn't "hounding" – you can't "hound" a banned user, who isn't supposed to be on Wikipedia in the first place. Who would have foreseen that the Arbcom, in their infinite wisdom, would take the ridiculously ill-conceived step to grant this person yet another chance, with this record of disruption? Anyway, it was hardly my fault that as soon as he was back, he had nothing better to do than to jump right back on that same group of articles and try to edit-war all his old errors back into them again, undoing all the corrections I made . He's been meeting every single edit of mine with immediate blanket reverts, without any regard to logic, sources or talkpage consensus. See discussions here and here to see that I wasn't the only one to notice the need for cleanup. It's his old pattern of disruptive edit-warring all over again, exactly the same behaviour that earned him his 31(!) distinct blocks for disruption earlier during his editing carreer. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * (Indidentally, it is indicative of the level of bad faith in DS's report above that in the case of the "female infanticide" article he is linking to an edit of mine where I am in fact editing in his favour, reverting a malicious sock who was, indeed, hounding him. It just turned out that I then realized that the sock had a point about one or two details in the edits they were revert-warring over, most notably because DS was trying to insert an unsourced image into the article that is demonstrably meant to show something other than what the article is about, a fact that DS has been utterly inable to counter on the talkpage..) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You should thank Fut. Perf. for helping to keep you on the straight and narrow, and consider asking for advice instead of kvetching about corrections. Guy (Help!) 19:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Darkness Shines If you can prove that user:Future Perfect at Sunrise is involved in vandalism in regard to your quality work or is otherwise making no positive contribution then there will be an issue where the other editor might even be banned. Otherwise please note, no editor owns content.  Its not about enjoyment but about suffering (joking) about satisfaction on producing quality, accurate, well presented, well cited work.  The last thing that would be relevant would be an interaction ban.  I make no judgement here regarding the quality of the work of either of you.  GregKaye 21:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Revoke talk page access?
Of checkuserblocked sockpuppet here. Keri (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Issues at Rgloucester's talk page
On April 18, 2015, User:RGloucester was [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3ARGloucester&type=block blocked] by User:Beeblebrox ("User seems to have gone off the deep end again, see edits at talk page and AN") following a heated rant at. Within 3 minutes of being blocked, RGloucester on their talk page : "I refuse to be blocked. I am not blocked. ..." In response, Beeblebrox blocked RGloucester's access to their talk page and email ("you really, really need to take a break and calm down"). Two issues follow from this.

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

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

What I would like to happen: Attribution: The draft was initially created by me and edited by other users. Although posting it under my name, User:Sroc, User:Alakzi and minor ce by User:Floquenbeam contributed.
 * The unblock of RGloucester's talk page rights and email access, as there is no signs of abuse as needed by the blocking policy.
 * The full protection of their talk page removed as it is not supported by policy or guideline.

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


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


 * Yes, I reverted the IP once and you once, User: Tutelary, because it was you — not the IP — who showed the poor judgement of restoring the IP's post. I agree the IP was probably in good faith. (I have since had a pretty reasonable exchange with them on my own talkpage.) Not so sure about you. You and I have had no previous interaction that I'm aware of, there's no baggage, so I can't imagine why you would first revert me on RGloucester's page with a spoonful of alphabet soup, and then revert my question about it on your page (together also with Beeblebrox's explanation of why RGloucester's page had better be left alone), with the edit summary "I'll be typing out a WP:ANI when I gather the diffs." No chance of a reasonable exchange there. Yes, I know you're entitled to remove posts on your page, please don't trouble to link me to the guideline. I just wonder why. Do you figure stiff-arming people on your page and instead running to ANI improves the encyclopedia? How? Bishonen &#124; talk 21:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC).
 * Paraphrasing and extending what I said on Flo's page, This isn't RGloucester's first kick at the can and past history has shown that when he's upset, he tends to make really, really unfortunate remarks. Removal of talk page rights was a good call given he was headed in that direction again to prevent further disruption. Your labeling it as a cooldown block is incorrect. If you had concerns, you should have posted to the blocking admin's talk page. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

stricken comments are form an IP being used to evade a community ban. * Comment: Since I was pinged, I will leave a quick non-voting comment. Personally, I am not convinced nor impressed with arguments of "the longstanding admins" said. What I would ask is, what did policy say and which one said it? If Wikipedia's policies (not counting IAR) can be shown to reflect that the action is or is not appropriate, then that should be stated and the appropriate action applied. The rules are there for a reason and should be utilized fairly and in a standard manner not tossed out the window whenever its convenient to the admin performing the action. It does not appear that anyone is arguing against a block and my experience and intuition lead me to believe this discussion will be a waste of time and the admins will do whatever they want anyway, but hopefully someone with some common sense and integrity will follow policy and do that. I have not seen any indication that these particular admins acted intentionally inappropriately but it does seem like some actions are excessive and our of process. In fairness I did not see the comment left by Bishonen about not posting and we have since reconciled the issue on Bishonen's talk page. 96.255.237.170 (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * All I can say is that policies are for guidance, they are not the holy word of God with no exceptions. Admins are expected to use their judgement, and I did nothing more than that and firmly believe it was for the best for all concerned. It saddens me that so many Wikipedians no longer seem to realize this, and cannot see that both my actions and those of my fellow admins in this case were as much to protect this user as to protect Wikipedia. This is a person who has basically completely lost it. They need a total break from Wikipedia and they were unwilling to just take it so they got an involuntary break. There is no need to make a big deal out of the settings. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * For further clarification, it is my opinion that my edit should not have been reverted though nor should the page be fully protected nor should Email access be revoked. The user already had access to emails offline anyway and if they were abusing that already I suspect that would have come up in these discussions in some form.96.255.237.170 (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Good block, good call. With users who go off the deep end like this, such additional measures are sometimes necessary to preserve some sort of order here. I wish, ah I wish, that editors would leave the blocked editor's talk page alone since those comments there are doing no one a favor. This thread is just another little log on the fire of acrimony; Tutelary, sometimes I really wonder what the hell you think you're trying to accomplish, and in my darkest moments I am drawn to the thought that shit-stirring is what you do best and what you like most. That you do this on purpose, and that you don't care that you're doing RGloucester no favor at all. That this is only here because the NCAA championships are over and there's nothing on TV for you. Fortunately I am a cheerful, cheerful person, and I whisk those thoughts away while doing some therapeutic kitchen cleaning. Someone, please close this. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * While I concur that the revocation of talk privileges was a bit rushed, given the users block log (and what they were posting) it probably would have happened anyway. Revocation of email privileges seemed a bit odd/unneeded, but when it comes down to it a blocked user shouldn't need those anyway, and should request an unblock (if desired) through UTRS. Talk page protection also seems unnecessary, but is somewhat allowed under the protection policy (When required, protection should be implemented for only a brief period, not exceeding the duration of the block.. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 21:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocked editors should not necessarily have to go to UTRS. UTRS is a notoriously bad process that rarely ever unblocks anyone because no one wants to be the one to make the call. Additionally, it is a completely non transparent process. It is far, better to do it in a transparent manner to prevent offline prejudice and abuse or even arguments of it. 96.255.237.170 (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * My having edited the draft should not be understood as an endorsement of it. Alakzi (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Block was good, revocation of talk page was good per "i am not blocked", protection of talk page was good per other people having fights RG couldn't participate in. Email may have been premature, but I don't see any particular need for it to be enabled (speaking of non-transparency). -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - although most admin actions are undeniably evil and malignant, I don't see a problem with this block and removal of talk/email access. RG was seriously spinning out of control.  However, if y'all decide to overturn the access removal, please ping me so I can get some popcorn and watch.  GregJackP   Boomer!   21:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Greg, I can't tell you how much I hate those "I'll get the popcorn" comments, though I appreciate that you didn't make a funny picture with a poodle or a gorilla in it and a catchy and totally funny quote. Drmies (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is one of those occasions when someone has to be forcibly and completely disengaged for a while. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose The "I am not blocked" comment can only be taken as indicating that the individual who made it is either irrational, intending to engage in sockpuppetry, or intending to use the user talk page as a soapbox. None of which are acceptable. The block was good, it is limited to two weeks, and I cannot see anything productive that can reasonably be done at the user talk page or by e-mail in the period, so there's no reason to object to those being removed separately either. John Carter (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose If I'd been RGloucester, had (correctly) surmised Dicklyon was socking, and couldn't get anyone to listen, I'd be likewise frustrated. I hope I'd acted differently. Despite my empathy, as someone who has largely sided with RGloucester in that user's many disputes with Dicklyon, and as someone who was watching these unfortunate events unfold in real time, I disagree with Tutelary's characterization of the block as cooldown. In the moment I was cautioning RGloucester to take a break from his wild ranting on a public board, fearing a block would soon be imposed by some alert admin. I feel Beeblebrox's block of RGloucester was well-deserved, preventative and certainly within an administrator's discretion. When thanking Beeblebrox for the block I predicted talk page privileges would soon need to be revoked; Beeblebrox had already removed talk page and email access. Removal of talk privileges I thought inevitable, but IMHO removal of email was premature, but still within admin's discretion, given RGloucester's lengthy history of histrionics. I felt page protection of RGloucester's talk perfectly appropriate; that was an inappropriate place for Tutelary to hold Beeblebrox accountable. Tutelary has been around long enough now to show more competence in choosing forums, and I suspect this contributed both to the unkind words Bishonen had for the ip heckler and for Floquenbeam's choice of words in explanation quoted above. In summary, there's nothing to be done by an administrator here, except perhaps admonish Tutelary for needlessly stirring shit. BusterD (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add that after rereading RGloucester's "I am not blocked" statement, the final sentence "You do not want to end up in his grasp" was the over-the-top comment that made me feel talk page access needed to be removed quickly. It clearly registered with me at the time, but I didn't remember it until rereading just now. BusterD (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - RGloucestor's history of behavior as well as the behavior which lead to this block thoroughly justified the block and the removal of talk page access. I'm less familiar with whether RGloucestor abused his e-mail privileges during previous blocks (or at any time), but I'm more than willing to trust the discretion of the blocking admin. BMK (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose From here on, the less said about this matter for the next two weeks, the better. Really. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  23:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

New user moving both articles and other users' user pages around
was created a few days ago, and has only made just enough edits to become autoconfirmed, before starting a rather odd move circus, moving both articles, including protected pages, and the user pages of other users around. So could someone please take a look at it? Thomas.W talk 19:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sir, I am not a vandalizing the articles . I just want to say that Mridul is my friend he told me to change his username and delete the user page and talk page. From his friend Ranvir Ojha. Ranvirojha (talk) 19:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * @Ranvirojha: He should have logged in himself to do that. Also, moving a user page does not change the username. —C.Fred (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That said, it's definitely a pattern of inappropriate page moves. I've reverted several and currently have User talk:Ranvirojha move-protected


 * User:Mriduls.sharma is the page of a contributor blocked indefinitely. So not only is the move pointless (it doesn't actually change the username), but it could easily be seen as an attempt at block evasion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ... the "my friend" thing also doesn't explain why the article Prakash Raj was moved back and forth. He's also continuing his move circus, most recently moving his own user pages to another name. Thomas.W talk 19:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ...and moving pages belonging to other contributors, including one that Mriduls.sharma was in dispute with. Obvious sock is obvious... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Andy you are so smart mama will so proud of you. apna to chutzpah ho gaya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranvirojha (talk • contribs)
 * That's certainly not a denial. Obvious sockpuppet is blocked obvious sockpuppet. —C.Fred (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I can obviously still trust my "gut feeling"... Thomas.W talk 19:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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


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


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


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


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

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

One more thing: To close this thread the way that you did, knowing how the archive in question will be perceived, and how that WP:Sockpuppet hangs on your every word because that WP:Sockpuppet used your words to mock me, is a mess. Yes, it's so silly of me to want an error (two errors, in fact) corrected. What the hell ever. Flyer22 (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  22:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Flyer, please. I'm the one that closed the case and not Vanjagenije. I saw his comment to you but as I considered 3RR exemption to be a perfectly accurate description, I simply closed to forgo the drama. I didn't know this would reach boiling point. I would consider while the thread is here that others may reign in with their interpretation as to whether 3RR exemption applies.


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

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


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

About continuously blanking contents..
The editor is continuously blanking the criticisms and other contents of articles (eg., this link, this link and many more), stating that the articles have defamatory contents ,weasel words and fails to meet WP:NPOV. I request someone to quickly go through his edits to find out whether they are constructive or not.. I previously was put to his feet on reverting blanking of criticisms from Basal reader, as I was not familiar with the subject... And I don't want to intervene in his editing.. Regards --<font color="CornflowerBlue" face="Times">JAaron95 &#124; <font color="Green" face= "Times">Talk  &#124; <font color="Green" face="Times">Contribs   16:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * From what i can see its 50/50ish. Their edit summaries leave something to be desired however Amortias (T)(C) 16:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I concur, I actually think it would be helpful for someone with significant more Wikipedia esxperience to review my submissions. I got fed up a couple of days ago with the amount of unsourced stuff on here and decided to start with articles that had problems, oldest first. There are many articles here from many years ago that do need looking at, but I want to make sure I'm getting it right. I'm not nuking everything from orbit, a lot of stuff is quite good, and I'm trying to fix what can be fixed, and come back to issues which are clearly larger (like the fact that there are half the "US-Country X Diplomatic Relations" articles are just copied off US government sources, and have been so for years). I tend to take a line of if something's useless, remove it, but I prefer a situation where information is made better, where it can. What do you want to see in my edit summaries? SourAcidHoldout (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing show stopping just small things like avoid having words in uppercase text as it can make it look like your shouting and remembering to use them as there are a few that have been missed which can make some people (myself included) a bit concerned about them. I've dropped a few links on your talk page that might be of help. Amortias (T)(C) 16:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 50 of what he doesn't like and 50 which doesn't meet whatever he says? That's gruesome! Is it good to go on blanking, rather than editing them to make it meet whatever it doesn't meet? I find that (blanking) extremely displeasing! --<font color="CornflowerBlue" face="Times">JAaron95 &#124; <font color="Green" face= "Times">Talk  &#124; <font color="Green" face="Times">Contribs   16:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Its more along the lines of 50% of them seemed pretty much spot on and 50% may have been able to be referenced depending on what is actually available out there. Its quite possible that we could all go out looking for references and find ther are only 1 or 2 that were possible to source in whcih case it will shoot up to 99% or so. I dont like blanking myself as I feel its better to source something and try to include it if it adds to the articles but if you cant provide the evidence you cant include it. All in all I went through and there was only one edit I disagreed with enough to undo and am planning on going back and seeing if I can improve that section later as I think it should be possible to save it. Amortias (T)(C) 16:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This editor needs to read WP:PRESERVE. Try to improve content before you delete it. Weasel words are easy to fix and do not usually warrant wholesale deletion of all criticism. A lot of unsourced material can easily be sourced, as well. Look at these edits: while the article clearly has problems, SourAcidHoldout deleted all the information about the subject's major accomplishments, leaving only trivia about his early life. They also deleted both of the images in the article for some reason, and two good sources. 173.252.16.206 (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, actually on that one, the "Personal Life" section should have been kept, that's clearly sourced and fine. My mistake there. The three paragraphs above that are unsourced items in a biography of a living person - there's a big bold message when you edit a biography saying that they need to be removed. SourAcidHoldout (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree, the wholesale blanking needs to stop. It is fine and within NPOV for articles to have a "Criticism of X" section, such as at Cóir, where perfectly valid criticism was blanked. "Weasel words" should result in changing the sentence with weasel words, not blanking a section. "BLP violation" should result, possibly, in removal of a sentence, or its alteration - not blanking. "Unsourced" should result in the addition of a 'citation needed' template, not blanking of a section. And so on. Items that "add nothing" to WP are, frankly, just your opinion - you should not be blanking large, sourced sections of articles, e.g., this, this, and this. You keep using the phrase "weasel words". I do not think it means what you think it means. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of these edits are terrible, & I have reverted most I looked at (not all of them). "Some" is not a weasel word justifying the removal of whole sections! He has proposed the deletion of both Conditional election and Liturgical drama on grounds of notability - there are shelves of books on each topic. If he wants to continue editing he should restict himself to adding or improving for a long while. Johnbod (talk) 03:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

It's OK, I'm going to stop editing. I think what this is is simply a disagrement. Everrything I've removed I can place my hand on my heart and say "this is junk, and doesn't deserve to be in an Encyclopedia". The conditional election article, to take just one, is not worth anything. It has no sources at all, making every single word original research. By JUST looking at the wikipedia page, there is no way that I can verify anything. "In relation to Scripture" section - not a SINGLE source. Fails WP:V. Remove it. The "Biblical Support" section is just a list of bible verses. It doesn't add ANYTHING. I want to clarify here that I genuinely don't believe there's a single word in that article that's worth keeping in its present state. Certainly not a single word can be verified, so nuke the whole thing until it can be. That's only my opinion. Well, the last sentence is, the other stuff is just correct.

How does this article help me, as a person with no knowledge of what Conditional Elections are, understand it? I don't even know if it's right, from the article. I don't even know if Conditional election actually exists or if anyone ever believed it, or if a billion people did, or three, or the timescales, and I can't verify anything. I'm firmly of the opinion that if it can't be sourced, written up properly and verified, it should go. People can research conditional elections not on wikipedia if there isn't an article worth reading here, and that's OK. It would be BETTER to improve the articles, but I can't, and they're sticking as a cancer here, making a great encyclopedia slowly and slowly fill up with out of date information, badly written weasel words, unverifiable comments, original research, vanity stubs about people who have no merit whatsoever and these "Critisicm" sections that just list "stuff I don't like about this bloke or thing". However, I can see and genuinely respect the argument that stuff should be left up with the warning boxes, because as long as the warning box is there, people can make up their own minds.

I hope there's a plan for the community to address some of the historical stuff with NPOV and other issues, the oldest of which date back more than seven years. If it could be rewritten by someone to make it better (which, of course, virtually everything can, and this would be the better thing), who's going to do this? When are they going to do this? In a month, a year, a decade? And until it gets rewritten, properly sourced and tidied of bias is it just going to stay here, making the wiki consist more and more of unverifiable statements?

For example, the oldest NPOV disputed article is (now) a bunch of stuff from February 2008 about countries relations with the United States, for example Bermuda–United States relations. There is NOTHING in that article that is verified. Someone could have made literally every word of it up. It claims that during World War II, Bermuda was used as a significant US military site. Was it? I don't know that. Possibly, of course, but I don't know, because sources aren't cited. I don't even know if the article is accurate, and I can't verify it from the article alone. All those articles just need nuking from orbit in my opinion, but I am (and I'm not being sarcastic here, seriously) genuinely happy to leave them, if that's the prevailing community opinion. SourAcidHoldout (talk) 05:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Articles that are not worth anything would've been deleted immediately after creation.. Wikipedia has a host of articles which are controversial, which can't be deleted just because they are controversial or a minority view... Articles which seems to contain varied logic which are opposed by the majority are continuously being worked upon to maintain NPoV, not just simply blank them or delete them... And if you can't verify them, someone else can! Ask the help of a third person who is expert on the subject and append the existing article with consensus and sources. When you don't know if the article is accurate, consider approaching an admin or another editor who is familiar in the subject asking them whether the info. should be challenged or not. Not simply blank them... I strongly express my displeasure on blanking the contents.. --<font color="CornflowerBlue" face="Times">JAaron95 &#124; <font color="Green" face= "Times">Talk  &#124; <font color="Green" face="Times">Contribs   09:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You are completely misunderstanding these policies, and completely misjudging these articles. The first is neither original research, nor unverifiable. See a google books search. The 2nd is in fact almost all from an old Encyclopedia Brittanica article, as many older articles are, and as was indicated at the bottom. There is no way these actually pretty decent accounts of their subject should just be removed because the referencing needs improving. You are just out of your depth with these huge removals. If you want to edit, restrict yourself to adding text or references for now. Otherwise I suggest you stop. Your current editing is damaging. Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Doorknob747
After seeking out some advice I am a bit concerned about this user. I do not know the user's intentions but he/she appears to be building spam pages under their user-space. When Door tried to post the "proposal" on the anime and manga talkpage he/she was reverted twice and readded the material using an IP address  which I undid. I do not know if this is a pattern but it does not appear to be constructive. I am pinging, , and as they were involved/observers. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say I'm involved, merely an observer. However observations of the user in question have proven to be quite disturbing. Summarizing what I outlined to Knowledgekid, the user in question has proven to be disruptive on the WT:A&M on numerous occasions by treating it more like a forum instead of an actual discussion page with their borderline spam-like posts. In addition, numerous project editors including, , and  have offered editing advice to the user and they have shown no attempt at taking any of it. They have also been involved in a recent edit war which included the use of an IP to game the 3RR system and have been trying to advertise the creation of numerous spam pages and look to be in the stages of linking them to the WP:A&M project in some way. Coupled with the inclusion of false information on numerous articles, I suggest some kind of action be taken here. <font color=#2F4F4F>—Kirt <font color=#2F4F4F>Message 02:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * They edit New York City Subway articles constructively, so I don't think they're totally disruptive. That is a very narrow topic, though. Epic Genius (talk) 03:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that the nerves being frayed thing is big, editors have been trying to explain things but either Door doesn't understand or doesn't get that what he/she is doing is wrong. So in the end, it is frustrating to editors involved. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * With the page User:Doorknob747/database/proposal, it looks like Doorknob wants to create something for WikiProject Anime that is similar to WP:AFC. Epic Genius (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That is what I was starting to think, its a good proposal but we already have it in that form. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * To be honest I'm not really sure what to think. It's all just a bit odd, and it's difficult to balance good faith and well, the opposite. I think it's quite clear they need to slow down and try to fit to some degree, and I really don't understand the whole proposal thing. It's very odd a user would try to implement significant changes without some sort of long term edit history. As for any proposal, it's difficult enough to organise a group focus as it is due to lack of experienced editors and their time, we really don't need to be told someone has a proposal that they can't talk about. SephyTheThird (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What Epicgenius said was true. Also, if you want to know something I have been editing since either 2012- 2013, only reason why I increased editing was because only recently I divided to start editing more.  Also, the first reverting I considered as him just saying that to post it after I created the proposal which I did.  The proposal was an idea based on the fact that, there are IP users who want to creat a article that is related to the topic anime, but due to reasons, IP addresses can not create a new page.  The doc pages which are precreated can be considered somewhat like a sandboxed proposed article with code.  Consider it a advanced version for article request on the Wikiproject anime for IP users.  Also, there was no discussion on why it was rejected after posting a link to the plan layout.  Second of all, I tought that since someone removed it withought stating a reason in the first place that that person was vandalizing.  Sephy did say that after I finish creating the proposal that to place it on the talk page.  Now how would one place 6 to 7 pages on a talk page?  That is why I placed a link.  The description of the proposal could be seen after clicking the link.  The users that think that this was vandalism, are not trying to look proper, I do not think none of them clicked that link, and assumed every thing on wikiproject anime talk page was the whole proposal.  Another thing, it would be redundant and a east of time to copy and past what ever was on the linked page.  The reason why I placed the idea of the proposal on the page was because it would give a somewhat visual feel of how the proposal after being accepted and completed will have a similar look to.  Also, few edits≠bad user.  There are admins that have been seen to vandalize the Main Page even!  # of edits does not mean anything.  The intensions of allof the edits over all and the amount of time since the account was created matters not the amount of edits.  A person that may have made 2 very good edits can not be considered as being bad if compared with a admin with 340000 edits, who knows, maybe that admin after getting adminship after 2000 edits may have 320000 edits of VANDALISM!  You guys are speculating me.  The NYCT wikiproject is much better community of people where people do not speculate but help each other.  216.37.100.94 (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also epic genius patrolled the pages and found nothing wrong. I am not accusing u of Wikipedia hounding but that's how I feel like as I you guys are after me.  😨😩☹ 216.37.100.94 (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, the reason behind the multiple IP addresses is because, I edit from my college campus, home, and from my celphone when I am on the subway.
 * Is there a reason you can't log into your Wikipedia user account from college campus, home or the subway? It's hard to have a sustained conversation when you are split between two different accounts, a user account and an IP which probably changes. For something as elaborate as what you are proposing, people need to be able to communicate with you on your talk page which is difficult if you are utilizing different types of accounts. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 22:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * For some odd reason where I edit from my cellphone most of the time, my cellphone does not like to remember the username and passwords for sites. Doorknob747 (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * My fist encounter with Doorknob747 was when he inserted a link to a Facebook fan page on Anime with comments to "go like the page and followit".[] He also inserted the same link to several other articles under both his account and with IPs.. Doorknob747, has also used IPs to insert blatantly false information into several other articles. (edit self identifying as Doorknob) After the incident with the Facebook fanpage, he has generally been harassing WP:ANIME with one frivolous proposal after another. The editor has also made several attempts to insert blatant original research into Gundam related articles and demand that other editors add in the sources to verify the information for him.


 * At best, he should be topic banned from the anime and manga topic area and probably an interaction ban with members of WP:ANIME, both broadly interpreted. He has not shown any capability to work with any of the editors there nor edit in a constructive manner. —Farix (t &#124; c) 22:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not involved with the present issue (related to anime and manga) but I have interacted with him before. 's history on WP looks to me like a failure to enculturate, something I've seen in a number of new editors recently. Door does not seem willing or able (or some combination thereof) to learn how things are already being done on Wikipedia and work accordingly. Instead he just proceeds with his own plans and methods, despite numerous comments to his talk page. In the last couple of months he's gone on a tag-bombing spree, an over-WLinking spree, insisted that article names mentioned in the opening sentence must be "referenced" to a dictionary, created several empty talk pages without putting anything on them (he apparently thought that an article or a user without a talk page was a problem of some sort), created an "award", etc. Requests for him to sign his talk page posts went on for months. And now here is this cumbersome idea for assisting IP users to create new pages, when we already have WP:AFC.


 * There is also a point that no one seems willing to mention (an "elephant in the room", if you will): Door has so far shown very little ability or willingness to construct English prose at the quality level expected here. This is not confined to talk pages: See for example the original version of this article, which he created. This was so bad that I AFDd it. During the discussion period it got improved to the point where its existence is no longer an embarrassment to Wikipedia, but... oy.


 * Does all this add up to a WP:CIR case? Or WP:NOTHERE? I feel strongly that Door is acting in GF, that he intends to improve the encyclopedia, but I don't think he understands very much about what the encyclopedia is expected to be and how we're supposed to improve it, despite his having been editing for most of a year. And IME, such a degree of English incompetency does not get better with a few talk page warnings. Jeh (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I made no mention of his poor English skills because it was obvious that English is not his native language. —Farix (t &#124; c) 23:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * At first I thought we were dealing with a child editor but then thought of this as well later on. I think that it can be summed up here that Door isn't listening to what other editors have to say either because the language barrier is too great or that it is a WP:ICANTHEARYOU issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That can be possible, but look at Doorknob's style of editing. They make edit summaries like "jdbdhdbd" and "spongebob", for, you know, edits not about "jdbdhdbd" and Spongebob. Also, it looks like their vocabulary isn't that large. Even non-native speakers of English can be fluent in the language, and it's entirely possible that he's not a college student, not that I think Door is lying. – Epic Genius (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am a native English speaker but, the edits with grammar mistakes was done on my Nokia Lumia Icon. Also, just to let you know, the Nokia Lumia Icon's onscreen keyboard is very sensitive to sweat; the Nokia Lumia Icon is known to get warm or somewhat hot.  Also, on the cellphone I edit in desktop mode, so typing can be a little clumsy.  Also, it very hard to scroll thru a edit source textbox due to a bug in its browser, that is why I do not go back and check spelling when I edit on he cellphone.  Right now, as you can see, this edit has good grammar because, I am editing on my laptop.  Most of my edits are made on the cellphone.  :( Doorknob747 (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but if your tools don't permit you to do a good job (or to log into your account!), then you shouldn't use them to edit Wikipedia—particularly not in article mainspace. But the concern applies on talk pages too, since good communication is essential to the collaborative work that is supposed to be our norm. And there is more to writing college-level expository prose than grammar. Jeh (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And now this. I'm not sure what he thinks he is trying to do, but he is definitely not helping. —Farix (t &#124; c) 02:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Can we get an admin to look into this? Im not sure what to do here, I am seeing editors getting fed up though with all of these things building up. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Doorknob747 has also done things like this which don't seem to serve any purpose whatsoever.--  十  八  08:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nommed for deletion on Commons. Epic Genius (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Actions of Wikiproject anime fits in here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding perfectly at 85%. Doorknob747 (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikihounding is generally a charge brought against one person. When a whole bunch of people find problems with your editing, it's likely it's not them, it's you. Jeh (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

This editor may be a problem. He left me a inaccurate "warning" message on my talk page, so I took a look into his contributions, and they're a combination of really silly (a new redirect, sending "withought" to "without"?), apparently incompetent (adding photos captioned by the name of the photograph, where the name is something like "WP 20150325 19 55 28 Pro"), and useful (correcting misspellings), providing information (apparently accurate) for subway articles. I didn't get very deep into the list, but the impression I got was... I dunno... a sometimes helpful but incompetent quasi-t*****. I'm not making any accusations, this is strictly a very superficial and preliminary evaluation, but it does seem to say that it's worthwhile keeping an eye on his edits, because some of them are definitely... um, not very helpful. I don't know if it's WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE or something more (or less) serious. BMK (talk) 03:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem, everyone relax! Admin WilyD removed my speedy delete request for the utterly ridiculous redirect of "withought" to "without", so now  he's  going to be responsible for Doorknob747's incompetent and incomprehensible edits from now on! Let's all wish him a fine old time, and we can all go and have a beer. BMK (talk) 11:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * His most recent edits are troubling. The "good" ones do nothing visible, while the bad ones mess up the part in quotation marks at the top. Going by this and this, he uploads videos/photos and then "finds them a home", which I find a bit puzzling. Origamiteⓣⓒ 12:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well if the admin believe that this behavior is a positive thing for Wikipedia than so be it, but it should be taken into consideration how many editors are noticing and being effected by it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * (It was a joke. As far as I know WilyD has made no general comment concerning Doorknob's edits. BTW, I'm now convinced that this is a WP:CIR problem, and not trolling or WP:NOTHERE.) BMK (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a contested redirect speedy deletion, so it should be sent to WP:RFD. Epic Genius (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Then please do, BMK (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I actually have been trying to enroll in a wikipeidia test educational course where they teach you how to edit Wikipedia. But recently the educational programs are all buggy an many users claim having a hard time enrolling in, I am enrolled in to of those Wikipedia teaching programs as a student but, the instructors ar4e too lazy too teach like the test program at Wikipedia University, which was good, but I enrolled on the last day of the course so I got a F. :(  Someone here needs to make another one where we users can learn about Wikipedia.  U guys can see what I am talking about when u go to my contribution page, and on the top it will say this user is part of these two courses, and those two courses have sleeping instructors! Doorknob747 (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Will there be a good Wikipedia education course like Wikipedia university had? :(  Doorknob747 (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Can someone here be my and another users instructor in Anke now(2015)?Doorknob747 (talk) 21:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You signed up for courses named "Education Program:Test/Anke-now" and "Education Program:Example University/Test (test)" neither of which had filled in any information, and you didn't think that just maybe Sputniza, who is both an instructor and student in both had set them up to test the program? Origamiteⓣⓒ 23:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * How to edit Wikipedia: 1. Find an article you are interested in that needs help, 2. Fix it. No proposals, no uploaded images, just start slow and then go from there please. If you need to use your sandboxes to test your edits and look at what is already in the articles. In most cases articles suffer from sourcing problems, ask for help with one article at a time that's what I did and many others have done as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you cant do that then im sorry per WP:COMPETENCE, and WP:NOTHERE Wikipedia is not the place for you. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There is also Wikipedia: The Missing Manual. Jeh (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you!Doorknob747 (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please do not take its advice as a list of "rules" which you then feel compelled to enforce by another round of tag-bombing. Jeh (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * But, technically those pages could get more catagories, and also capacitors fall under components of circuit boards, digital logic, flip flops, voltage manipulation, and etc. are related to capacitor. I do not know the category name for those categories and that is why I placed that tag there.  Doorknob747 (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please just STOP any activity concerning categories on Wikipedia. You are making unnecessary work for other editors. You clearly do not understand enough about how categories work (or about how they are used) to enable you to form valid opinions about them. In this case, "Capacitors" is a subcategory of two other categories, which in turn are subcategories of... etc. Many of the things you suggest that are "related to" capacitors can be found in other "branches" of this "tree". Just because something is "related to" or used in something else doesn't mean we put it in the same category with the something else. Jeh (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Biased attitude
First Titodutta filed a fake SPI against me ( the case was later moved here) thinking I am such a fool:________:that i will create a fake profile with my name written in Bengali.Previously  I got involved with an edit war with User:115ash which resulted in his block for 48 hours. As 115 ash recommended Titodutta as administrator Titodutta developed hatred against me and instigated others to comment against me. My Talk page. On the contrary he was kind to 115ash during block evading sock IPs, Even in Ged uk's page :-:as an old user he might know how to put an unblock request , calling me sockpuppet , questioning the rights of SPI clerk , Using words buffoon , Aditya calling me insane , calling Subhash Chandra Bose -  "King of the jungle" , 115ash questioning notability of people with Wikipages in his edit summary. All these time, Titodutta remained silent :-: but 115ash didn't stop there and asked people to remove votes according to his own will .115ash made this ridiculous suggestion about Bengalis living in West Bengal :: To conclude, in my opinion this article should possess more BANGLADESHIS' images rather than EASTERN INDIANS, GIVEN THAT  innumerable people from Kolkata do not claim to be BENGALI (although the can speak it fluently)] .I seriously have no idea who this   is ; as Titodutta is suggesting here .CosmicEmperor (talk) 10:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This user's points are very confusing, in my opinion. Replies in brief—
 * First Titodutta filed a fake SPI against me — as I had doubts and I took it to SPI, and "that's"process. The was things are going on at Talk:Bengali people — "there might be socks alert", "Sock alert" — that's not the right way. If you have evidence, take it to the clerks.
 * thinking I am such a fool:________:that i will create a fake profile with my name written in Bengali — you have started reading my thoughts?
 * Titodutta developed hatred against me and instigated others to comment against me — once again, calling an SPI notification "hatred"? Be informed that it was a "notification", there were a dozen editors involved there and I knew somewhere other SPI were also going on, I could not notify everyone manually. And also read the wording I used here As some of you had alerted about socks above and I have also felt so. ..
 * On the contrary he was kind to 115ash during block evading sock IPs, — Kind? Read this message. Did I unblock them? I asked them to follow the standard "unblock request" procedure — that anyone would give. Any experienced editor please read this line I said I don't think an admin will consider unblocking. — it was an indirectly said "no" to it.
 * All these time, Titodutta remained silent — What do you expect me to do? Should I go and block them? And why do you think I am following and carefully reading each and every comment posted by all these people on every corner of Wikipedia? Try to understand "not posting' does not mean "endorsing it". I remain silent about 99.9 incidents here on Wikipedia. In addition when was the last time, you came to talk page to attract my attention towards these edits? Did you? "No".
 * A did this, B did that — now the comment changes to "he made ridiculous comment" — these are mainly content disputes.
 * I seriously have no idea who this Nusrat Honey Bee is ; as Titodutta is suggesting here — What can I do if you have no idea? And once again the SPI notification link? Please understand the purpose of a notification.


 * Now let's look at the story from the other end:
 * It was CosmicEmperor who invited me to this discussion, not the other mentioned people. But when the other guys came to me to vote somewhere, I declined the request. So, I should be biased to CosmicEmperor here.
 * : CosmicEmperor invited me the discussion. I did only minimal works. Since then, I am doing almost nothing there. There are hundreds of votes there, but I have not voted or endorsed any entry (although I was directly invited to dos o). Discussions are going all day long, I am not posting there either. A couple of editors asked me to manage/edit a "vote count" spreadsheet, I did not respond to it as well. In brief, I am totally "silent" in this dispute now. --Tito Dutta (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Get your facts right before complaining about other. Tito didn't start the SPI. 115ash did, according to revision history. And, where exactly was Tito unkind to you and kind to 115ash? None of your diffs support your claim. You even post just one comment by Tito as a proof that he was claiming you know Nusrat Honey Bee, asking everyone to comment against you, and supporting 111ash, all rolled into 30 words. That's insane. Remember you posted a sock alert before Tito started to post about socks.
 * What is this game you are playing with all these sock puppets? Anyone can check the evidence here, here and here, and follow the links posted to see that something very sick and perverted happening here. I don't think it is a coincidence that so many socks of the same sock master are vandalizing you (posting on your name, making claims in you behalf, disguising as you) and following you around, with a lot of potential socks waiting at the sidelines. You yourself had multiple accounts, one of which was overtaken by another sock (nice "coincidence").
 * Your account looks almost like an SPA. All that you did was fight over a collage of images, fight back those socks, and complain about everyone else [please, read WP:TINC]. You have wasted a lot of people's time way more than you have done any real contribution. That's bad. We are all volunteers here, and our time can be better used building an encyclopedia. You will become very unwanted if you continue to behave like this.
 * And, what is this sadness over me calling Subhash Bose a "king of the jungle"? You have already complained about it here, here, here, and, of course, in this discussion. I haven't failed to notice that right after you sadness over Bose, you went and nominated his article to GAN, only to withdraw fast.
 * Please, stop fooling around, and try to do something useful.
 * You didn't have to use a couple of comments by me and Nafsadh, made as part of a mass messaging drive and your own query twice to prove that people came after you trying to get you voting or maintaining a spreadsheet, while you said no. Not so dramatic I believe. Cheers. Aditya (talk • contribs) 03:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You didn't have to use a couple of comments by me and Nafsadh, made as part of a mass messaging drive and your own query twice to prove that people came after you trying to get you voting or maintaining a spreadsheet, while you said no. Not so dramatic I believe. Cheers. Aditya (talk • contribs) 03:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You didn't have to use a couple of comments by me and Nafsadh, made as part of a mass messaging drive and your own query twice to prove that people came after you trying to get you voting or maintaining a spreadsheet, while you said no. Not so dramatic I believe. Cheers. Aditya (talk • contribs) 03:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I haven't failed to notice that right after you sadness over Bose, you went and nominated his article to GAN, only to withdraw fast. That was due to this valuable reply by Abecedare . And i have mentioned 115ash so many times above. You are very well aware that second SPI was filed by Titodutta and the first by 115ash. The second case was moved to other page .Game of sockpuppets? The SM and his socks vandalizes other pages also. I don't have multiple accounts till now. Many people forget password and creates new account. The SM existed much before i started editing with this account . And i don't think only one Sock Master ZORDANLIGHTER is involved this time. There are other players who have joined this game.
 * ЗОРДАНЛИГХТЕР, plus a bunch more, are almost certainly the same as the ones I listed above, who may or may not (I'm leaning not) belong to this master. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)  this comment by DoRD makes my stand clear . Whoever he is, one day he will be caught. Remember that. You can't play double game forever .--CosmicEmperor (talk) 04:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope. ZORDANLIGHTER is just one of the socks. Undertrialryryr is the sock master. Know thy enemy. And, no, I am not "well aware" of anything that you did or was done to you. I have other things to do than following someone around here. Whatever little I have seen is mind boggling enough. Can you tell why you attract sock puppets and vandals and SPAs like no one else does? Aditya (talk • contribs) 15:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Davew123 continued disruption after return from block
Several of us have been trying to explain how things work to, who may not understand (e.g., editing talk page archives and others' user pages , ), or may be choosing to not listen (e.g., ). He has been creating articles (e.g,. Draft:Nonex, Domain validation) and editing articles (e.g., TV Everywhere) to include, either unsourced or from what appear to be self-published sources, references to his own own patents (e.g., , , ).

After being warned about his actions at User_talk:Davew123, and informed about WP:COI, he attacked , resulting in a recent ANI report and then a block  by.

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


 * Session (computer science) still contains stuff he added years ago, again sourced only to himself. 80.189.137.19 (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed it, thanks. Any others? JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Here are more, two on other language Wikis:
 * Weak reference - someone else fixed
 * Chinese Wikipedia article “Weak references” - not fixed - still in subsection Java.
 * Czech Wikipedia article “Session” - also not fixed, in section Session Management on the Web server fixed JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

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


 * Dave,
 * Thank you for your civility in this response, and also thank you for not edit warring to restore the reverts of your recent article edits.
 * Other than your initial contributions to be auto-confirmed, your contributions to English Wikipedia and other wikipedias have been to add text referring to your your work. Per WP:COI, “COI editing is strongly discouraged. It risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and groups being promoted (see Wikipedia is in the real world), and if it causes disruption to the encyclopedia, accounts may be blocked. "[M]isrepresenting your affiliation with any individual or entity" is a violation of the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use. The Foundation's terms of use are Wikipedia policy, see Terms of use”.
 * These additions have either been unsourced or have been self-published. Per WP:SPS, “Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.”.
 * Finally, that you assert your additions are all factual is insufficient for Wikipedia. See Verifiability, not truth.
 * So, what can you do? You could go to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to see if references to your patents would be considered reliable. I don’t think so, but I defer to those who volunteer there. Alternatively, you find a published journal article or book that refers to your work. The details you mention are not necessary, but that a 3rd-party or peer-reviewed journal published, vice yourself, is important. Finally, if you really think that the addition of reference to your work adds appropriately (see WP:UNDUE) to a given article, go to the talk page and make a note why it should be added, rather than adding it yourself. Otherwise, your additions are going to be viewed as purely WP:PROMOTIONAL.
 * JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The fraud office comment should attract an immediate block per WP:NLT. At the minimum, it is a blatant attempt at chilling discussion. Blackmane (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking over the previous ANI discussion (it still hasn't been archived yet as of this writing), people were already talking about possible WP:NOTHERE issues. Vague legal threats really don't help his situation any. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The overwehelming impression I get from this user is that they have absolutely no intention of even trying to learn how Wikipedia works, and have decided that instead they are going to make Wikipedia work the way they imagine it should. They also seem to enjoy throwing around inflammatory terms and phrases simply for effect without even considering if their remarks make any sense (i.e. the "no ethical or ethnic fraud" remark which is complete gibberish but sounds insulting) They also don't seem to get the distinction between the community and the WMF, which is what all that "fraud office" nonsens s is about. I don't believe they are here to help build an encyclopedia, they are here to show off their patents. They have done nothing but write about their own patents and show utter disdain for every other user who tries to explain things to them, rejecting their help with rudeness and insults. You can't collaborate with someone who doesn't care how this works and has nothing but contempt for pretty much everyone here. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This seems to me a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. Blocked for a further week. Philg88 ♦talk 21:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


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

User:Cryptjohson
Anyone recognize this guy, who popped out of nowhere three days ago with fully-formed knowledge of Wikipedia and has been busting my balls ever since? Anyone interested should take a look at his contributions and edit summaries and his commentary on Talk:Cooper Union, plus his edits here, where he tried to induce another editor to get involved, until I mentioned that I was aware of Cryptjohson's virgin birth, upon which he deleted those edits.

It's an unfortunate aspect of our CU system, I believe, that "fishing expeditions" aren't allowed, so there needs to be some evidence about who this mysterious "new" user might be. Anyone who recognizes his style is welcome to post it here, or on my talk page, or to e-mail me with their thoughts. Or, if a CU recognizes this person, perhaps that would be sufficient for a check. BMK (talk) 05:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have tried my best to be civil and understanding with this editor, but his sense of superiority won't allow any constructive discussion. Cooper Union is an article that doesn't comply with College and university article guidelines, and Avoid academic boosterism. It was in an even more poor condition before I started fixing it . As can be seen from the history of the article, before I started editing it, BMK was engaged in an editwar with  and violated 3rr. I tried to bring the article, on which BMK had been adding boosterism for quite a long time, to comply with Wikipedia standards, but BMK keeps trying to sneak in boosterisms. For example I removed the  Weasel word "recent" with this edit, while BMK readded it with this edit. He accused me of being a POV editor and had been very sarcastic toward me from the start (started when I added the sourced fact "Cooper Union ranks #31 in New York State by average professor salaries"(Ithacajournal), and BMK removed it stating there's no consensus to keep it & it's bad for Cooper's reputation), calling me fraud, liar editor with agenda.... Always saying that he doesn't trust me, despite me begging him to discuss and collaborate. He seems to have a conflict of interest with regard to Cooper Union. However, I'm not the only one to be his very recent uncivility victim, there's at least three other, see, ,  and . His behavior is really unfortunate.--Cryptjohson (talk) 06:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So there's another useful sample of his writing style to go on. He can't seem to decide if he wants to be the wrongly accused innocent editor or the thorn in my side.  He posts a "divide and conquer" comment to Dwpaul's talk page, and then posts comments on the article talk page disclaiming any ulterior motives and trying to sweettalk me.  It's all a fraud of course, but the guy's not good enough at it to keep up a consistent facade. BMK (talk) 06:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, pretty much everything he wrote above is innacurate, as can be readily seen by reading the thread on the article talk page. Transparently false descriptions. BMK (talk) 06:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Remember, three days this account has been open,  three days . Does the above look like the work of an editor with 3 days experience, or the work of an editor with considerable previous experience under other account names? WP:AGF is not a suicide pact, when we block or ban an editor, it's for good reason, and to allow such editors to create new accounts at will is detrimental to the project.BMK (talk) 06:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Being a new account makes no actual implication. They could have been an active ip editor prior and they could have gotten their current understanding of policy. I'm not aware of any policy against having a new account and being familiar with policy. I see no reason they need to explain to you how they know policy. Did they do something besides guilty of being new?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, those are the usual excuses that make it much more difficult to control abusive editors, but I'm not talking about Wiki-fantasy here, I'm dealing in the real world. BMK (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * BMK -- I don't think that under the current rules there is a way to address your concerns, without more evidence (and frankly, I'm not sure that continued posts to AN/I without more are the appropriate approach). However, if you want to expand the circumstances in which CU can be used, I would be supportive of that. But this isn't the forum -- if you wish to propose changes, the proper forums to explore doing so may be at Wikipedia talk:CheckUser and/or Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations. Epeefleche (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * BMK has no regard for College and university article guidelines, civility rules, and has a clear conflict of interest with regard to Cooper Union. Even after this thread was open here, BMK editwarred on Cooper Union, and violated 3rr for the third consecutive time in the same article, just to keep School of Art's alumni listed in the "School of Art" section, when there's a separate section on alumni, as well as a separate article on alumni already. When I proposed to move the arts alumni from the "School of Arts" section to the "Alumni" section, he refused and asked me to provide a "written policy" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptjohson (talk • contribs) 21:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)  Note that after he violated 3rr for the first time recently on Cooper Union (BMK recently violated 3rr in other articles also ), I notified him about it, and even assured him that I would request for his unblocking immediately if he gets blocked.. Time and time again, I pleaded with BMK, telling him that my goal is take Cooper Union article to featured status so that more people see it, BMK refuses to abide by Wikipedia rules regarding colleges, pushes to keep the disorganization and boosterisms he added for a long time, and keeps cursing me and telling me that I'm lying.--Cryptjohson (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In POF, BMK has zero regard for sockpuppets. BMK (talk) 05:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I have no conflict of interest with regard to Cooper Union. I attended MIT and Boston University in the 1970s, and have worked for an institution connected with Harvard.  (NYC has been my home since 1976, but I enjoy the Boston area very much, it's my third favorite US city after NYC and San Francisco.)  I did not attend Cooper Union, have never had any professional connection with Cooper Union, have never knowlingly communicated with anyone in Cooper Union's administration or faculty, and have not, in fact been inside a Cooper Union building except on one occasion.  That was in trying to take a picture from inside their new building looking outward, and being denied permission by a guard.  I started editing the Cooper Union article after taking some pictures of Cooper Union buildings. (I take a lot of pictures of buildings, upload them to Commons, and then put them into articles if the article needs them or if they're better than the photos that are already there.)  I now have 13.3% of the edits to Cooper Union, making me #1 by that criteria, and 4.3% by the amount of text, which makes me #4. There, that's pretty much full disclosure.  Now Cryptjohson can reciprocate by telling us his connection with Cooper Union or with any institutions which are competetive with Cooper Union, why he's doing his best to denigrate Cooper Union with his edits, what his account name was before he started editing with the account name "Cryptjohson" just a few days ago, and whether that previous account was blocked or banned. BMK (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, read CJ's two comments above carefully, and his comments on Talk:Cooper Union and you'll see that the best he can come up with as a "boosterism" is the word "Recent" in a list of awards received by CU, as in "Recent awards include...", which I did not put into the article originally, but which came back quite accideentally in moving text from one place to another or in reverting one of CJ's edits. That is his evidence that I have a conflict of interest, the word "recent", about which another editor said "I've never thought of as a weasel word". CJ is, in fact, bending over backwards trying to find bad things to say about me, which raises the possibility that his focus may not be on Cooper Union at all. BMK (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Cryptjohson has been indef-blocked as a sockpuppet of the indef-blocked long-term abuser Mangoeater1000. As such, I have struck out their comments above. BMK (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced/poorly sourced changes at Balkan Bulgarian Airlines
The following edits made by replaced perfectly sourced information wiht poorly sourced one and, in the last diff, with no sources at all. Please also note that tha user seems to have a problematic behaviour at different Bulgarian airline articles (BH Air for example ). All the above diffs have been reverted. Please also note that the user is not using the article talk, where I started a thread regarding the matter.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 20:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyone here? There's another edit made by the user which shows their only intention is to push their preferred version. This last edit is unsourced as well.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 00:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Better off taking this to WP:ANEW – you'll probably get faster results over there. --IJBall (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You may also want to take a look at this . I've promptly removed it from my talk page.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 00:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Taken to WP:ANEW as suggested, but left this thread open too. This is not a matter of just warring but also introduction of unsourced content and therefore a violation of basic policy.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 01:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


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

Violation of IBan
Two days ago, I agreed to an IBan between myself and User:Alansohn. The details are on my talk page here. So far, this has given me two days without having every edit I make to New Jersey messed with by this editor. Then today, he changed one of my edits here. There was nothing wrong with my edit, and he had no reason to change it. It just has to be his way! This is the annoying stuff I hoped would stop with the IBan. Thank you for your help. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Assuming Alansohn's term were exactly the same as Magnolia's, it appears he has left you no choice but to give him a block. John from Idegon (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * (non admin observation) The section hasnt even been archived yet link. It looks like a clear violation of the second restriction. AlbinoFerret  02:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The terms were the same. From the section above (see AlbionoFerret's link):

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

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

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

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

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

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

BMK (talk) 02:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I would say that Alansohn clearly violated #2, "neither party shall ... edit the same article until at least one third party uninvolved with either of the two has made an intervening edit". There was no intervening edit between yours here and his here.  However, since your edit was made back on December 21, and his was just made today, I think it's a mistake which could easily happen.  I would suggest that Alansohn should be given a warning in this instance, and that both editors should be reminded that when they edit articles about places in New Jersey, they need to check the article history before they make the edit to be sure they aren't violating the IBan.  The whole IBan thing is new to both of you, so I think a little leeway needs to be provided for this very first event. BMK (talk) 02:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Concur with BMK. This is a blatant violation of condition 2. Blackmane (talk) 02:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: No one formerly left Alansohn an ANI notice on his Talk page, and while it may be perfunctory in this case, I've just gone ahead and done that anyway... --IJBall (talk) 03:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I actually linked to both the exact terms of the ANI RfC and the blocked user listing on both editor's pages, and am surprised this has come up so quickly. I'll refrain from commenting on exact consequences, although in my case the first response was a very explicit warning, not a block. Given the edit is four months old, a severe admonition seems sufficient. Certainly any repeat would deserve a stronger response. This should be taken as a mere opinion, not an uninterested response.  μηδείς (talk) 03:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I meant an ANI notice for this topic, not the IBAN (notice for which was clearly left on Alansohn's Talk page earlier...). --IJBall (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not sure of the difference, but I am also quite sure neither editor is confused as to what's going on, and both can read edit histories. My personal opinion would be to leave it to an admin and advise leniency on such an occasion, but it is only an occasion. μηδείς (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


 * Why Manahawkin?
 * Why Cherry Hill Mall?
 * Why Garfield?
 * Why Lafayette Township?
 * Why Lopatcong Overlook?
 * Why on earth is he stalking my talk page discussions?
 * If these are not explicit violations of the Interaction ban clause 4 "Both editors are admonished to give the other a wide birth" and this isn't malicious harassment, I have no idea what is. Let's hear from the other editor before taking action. Alansohn (talk) 04:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


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

nonsense "article" and trollish behaviour
's creation of "article" Morgan Norbury, which also contains a photoshopped image of Pres. Obama and had been started with the edit-summary "Not much to see here, admins.", suggests rather trollish behaviour. The same user has also uploaded the cited nonsense image (File:Obama 4-20.png), currently shown in the "article", to Commons, where it has already been requested for deletion. --Túrelio (talk) 09:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is some 4-20 humor. We should be on the lookout today for more of this. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 09:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't even realize the date. (sighs) At least it's not as much of a joke AfD magnet as April Fool's can be. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Most of his other edits have been minor and even then he's still done some vandalism as with this edit (among others) to Ysgol Dewi Sant. I'm going to go ahead and block him for vandalism. His non-vandalism edits aren't major enough to where I think he'd really contribute to Wikipedia, although if he can convince another admin otherwise then he may be unblocked. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a note- it looks like his work wasn't limited to just 4/20 and he'd been doing things like this for a while now. A shame- it looks like he didn't start off as vandalizing, which is likely why he didn't get blocked until now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

96.255.215.253 - Disruptive Gaithersburg, Maryland IP editor
Hi, I'm requesting admin sanctions against

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

Other IPs suspected of using:
 * - Gaithersburg, Maryland, US; Verizon FiOS
 * - Gaithersburg, MD; Verizon FiOS
 * - Gaithersburg, MD; Verizon FiOS
 * - La Quinta, California; Verizon FiOS - this one is weird since it's on the other side of the country. I believe found this one.

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

Anyhow, most recent edits have been problematic. User's MO in the past has been to include redundant and overly embellished prose "waist-length curly, bushy, and bright fiery orange mane of hair", "slender, slim body", "As an eighteen-year old teenager", etc. When confronted, the editor typically deletes talk page notes without replying, which they are doing from this latest IP. Editor has most recently been warned for:
 * Not adhering to British English in articles on British subjects like here.
 * Disruptive editing related to repeated submission of improper MOS:HEAD and MOS:DATERANGE formatting
 * Another warning to adhere to British spelling in British articles.
 * Submitting unsourced, speculative content, for instance here where again we have MOS:HEAD and MOS:DATERANGE problems. Also they're contravening WP:CRYSTAL.
 * Blanking at Downton Abbey here.
 * Another warning for MOS:DATERANGE and MOS:HEAD because of repeated mistakes at Winx Club.
 * Editor also has been apprised that removing talk page warnings is proof that the editor has read them and understands them.

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


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


 * Comment - While I have run across, stumbled upon and encountered this editor, I think 108.10.240.190 is a different problem, the "Fictional ages editor(s)". This editor(s) is focused on assigning ages to characters in various kids'/family TV shows (Full House (particularly the season articles), Winx Club, Little Einsteins, 64 Zoo Lane, etc. I say "editor(s)" because the edits are very similar, but the IPs are all over the U.S. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Summer, I've stricken that IP above. I may have gotten confused skimming an old ANI. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


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

User:123.140.222.75
Is continuously changing birthplaces from Estonia to the Soviet Union on numerous Estonian people's articles (here, here, and here, to name a few). Has been warned several times and their edits have been reverted, yet the USSR was still readded as the birth places and reporting the user was the next step. WikiProject Estonia has decided that birthplaces should be listed as "Estonia" and not the Soviet Union since the USSR simply occupied Estonia and the other Baltic States, they were not officially recognised as Soviet by the international community either. <font color="#AB2B2B">{ [ ( jjj  <font color="#000000">1238 ) ] }  09:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * As soon as one IP gets blocked he/she continues under next one all. 123.140.222.69 - has again changed the same 20 pages including:
 * Andres Oper 9 reverts against 5 other editors 1, 2, 3 etc. Maarja-Liis Ilus 9 reverts against 4 other editors and so on.
 * IPs she/he uses
 * 123.140.222.69
 * 123.140.222.64 - blocked ANI
 * 123.140.222.75 - blocked
 * 123.140.222.76
 * 123.140.222.70
 * --Klõps (talk) 12:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Jmichelson27
Looking at 's talk page as of this edit, he has been asked four times to stop adding content that he supports with IMDb reference. User has most recently ignored these notes here where he again adds IMDb links. There are other issues as well, for instance I had to ask the editor in this discussion I asked him why he removed the bulk of most of the plot summaries (which ideally should be 100-200 words) in favor of fatty loglines. He never replied. And in 550+ edits, the user has only discussed something once and has only explained an edit with an edit summary once. Editor has reverted this user on the basis that they submitted false information. Not sure how to proceed with an editor who doesn't acknowledge community expectations. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like some serious WP:IDHT going on there, and frankly, I'm surprised that s/he hasn't been blocked already.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 04:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not all of the edits the user has made have been unconstructive, like this recent edit after this discussion commenced. Unfortunately, there are those problematic ones mixed in, as Cyphoidbomb pointed out, plus sometimes removing necessary references like  and . But seeing five final/single-issue/level 4 warnings on the user's page since February warrants some administrative action. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Magioladitis has abused rollback.( Magioladitis has recognized this as "mistake".  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) )

I don't see what is the reason behind that. Even after this extended and serious discussion Wikipedia:Administrators%27 noticeboard/User:Kumioko ban review, where he was provided standard offer, Kumioko has violated this standard offer multiple times, also check this SPI. And he continues to make up meaningless conspiracies about Arbcom. His ban should be reinstated now.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You just reverted comments of 3 admins asking you to stop. One more admin reverted your edits. If you keep disruptive editing I'll block you from editing. Consider this as a warning. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Except when the comment includes some inflammatory stuff, you can remove them. But when you are removing the comment from others talk page just because you don't like, then it is vandalism. Yes you are causing disruption Magioladitis. Noteswork (talk) 13:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You are taking it personally because of your heavy involvement (WP:INVOLVED) with me and Kumioko, but that is not going to justify that he is a ban-evader. You are to edit others comments or remove them as long as it is not your talk page. Have you read WP:TPG carefully?  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ponyo reverted your edits too. Bishonen left you a message too. How many admins does it take that you stop without a block It's not personal. I am trying to save you. I also left you a message to read WP:HELP in case you need extra help to familirise with this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magioladitis (talk • contribs) 09:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Just because one person did something wrong, it doesn't means that you are allowed to abuse rollback. Well you even present like they are supporting Kumioko, when Beeblebrox refer Kumioko as a "ban evading troll".  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment from a totally non-involved user: Just drop the stick, because this is getting ridiculous. We're here to create an encyclopaedia, not to pursue personal vendettas all over the place. Especially not on other users' talk pages. Thomas.W talk 09:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not support Kumioko neither in his actions. I do not support you neither in your crusade. I made this clear in the emails you 've been sending me too, -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Given your history and recent acts, you do. I haven't sent you any emails related to this incident, what you are talking about?  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , and I warned you in the reverted comments on your talk page.   told you.   has reverted you today.   has reverted you today.  That is five admins that have either told you to stop or reverted you.   You still haven't explained why you left a discretionary sanctions warning on Magioladitis's talk page.  This comes on the heels of you not backing off the sockpuppet cases against  and the others you suspected.  You pissed off all the SPI clerks.  You have been told untold times to drop it and back off. Bgwhite (talk) 09:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox told that one can retrieve the comments of banned editor if they are completely removed. Ponyo didn't reverted for that reason. Thus you are using all of these examples except yours and Magioladitis in .  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log)
 * Nick told that he is not going to increase block length. Bishonen told it differently. They are that this is not allowed. They are acting within their limits while you are crossing them, by removing the comments on others talk page, when they are . You have also edit warred with  on the talk page of Kumioko before.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * OZ, told you that "if you don't like the IP or you find them boring, just ignore them". -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * HJ Mitchell didn't knew then that it is a sock, and didn't knew that it is Kumioko. Thus your misrepresentation is likely not going to work.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah it seems like it's a really good idea to drop the stick, OZ.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Who is violating the WP:TPG, and abusing rollback? This is mostly about Kumioko evading his ban.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I oppose any proposal to extend Kumioko's block to an indefinite block or a community ban. He has been very poorly treated by the community, but he can still return to productive editing if the community shows him the patience, respect and is prepared to give him the sort of opportunities extended recently to people like Peter Damian. If it wasn't for (a) a pretty badly performed ban discussion in the first place and (b) a badly behaved group of editors fighting on his talk page, Kumioko wouldn't be blocked and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Furthermore, I don't see that we're actually protecting Wikipedia from anything by keeping him blocked (blocks being preventative, not punitive and not a form of punishment for upsetting an obsessed OccultZone). If he would agree to stop pestering people like Beeblebrox and respect requests to stay away from user talk pages when asked, he could quite easily be unblocked today. As it is, I'm still recommending we let the current block expire in August and work hard to reintegrate Kumioko back into the community. He has, unlike many blocked users, lots of productive content editing to give, if given the opportunity. At this point, I'm supporting a block of OccultZone for disruption, however. Nick (talk) 10:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What "disruption" you are talking about? Kumioko has treated others poorly, not that he has been poorly treated. Get them straight.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nick's own comment speaks his obsession/bias towards Kumioko, if he can find some previous report by Occult, against Kumioko, then he might be at least correct about Occult having something against Kumiko. Since Nick could not bring such evidence, his proposal is malicious. Noteswork (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * , as an uninvolved editor, whilst I understand what you are saying, I must also ask you to please listen to what you are being told too. It is a user talk page and does not require that type of highlighting; a simple check of the IP's contributions reveals what it is you are trying to convey - as the block is highlighted at the top. If User:HJ Mitchell agrees with what you are saying, he will reinstate your edits as needed (in fact, maybe he will do so to resolve this more efficiently) - if he doesn't, feel free to air your grievance with him directly. But simply highlighting a banned user's contributions in that way here does not help and your repeated reversions do not help either. Your behaviour has really frustrated other users, and whilst Magioladitis will apologise to you in due course for misusing rollback or inadvertently suggesting you are a vandal, I really hope you will agree to withdraw this ANI in response to the apology so as to resolve the issue here. So long as you cease edit-warring on HJM's talk page on this issue and take this advice in the spirit in which it is given, I will oppose the proposed block on you. Can you please reconsider? Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not edit warring there, instead of bringing it to 3RR(could be possible if I made 8 reverts, not just 1-1). Main issue is with Kumioko evading his ban, and there was a extended serious discussion before, when he was provided with standard offer. I am adding that link to my original post, give me 2 minutes.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Administrators%27 noticeboard/User:Kumioko ban review here.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, but I see you have agreed to refrain from reverting about this issue on HJM's talk page which is good. If the community make a decision in relation to your proposal (whether it's to support or oppose it), would you be willing to avoid monitoring/enforcement thereafter? Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * He still doesn't understand he is causing a disruption (See above, "What 'disruption' you are talking about?" or this) He still doesn't see anything wrong about his sockpuppet crusades.  He only said he won't revert JHM's talk page, not any other ("I am not gonna revert or reinstate my edit on that talk page.").  He still doesn't understand why it was wrong to be editing other people's talk page in regards to the sockpuppet.  This isn't about a revert.  This is about a failure to understand and not letting go.  Bgwhite (talk) 11:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, but unless you are suggesting my above question does not take that perspective into account, it would probably be helpful if OccultZone was given an opportunity to respond to that question. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What is disruptive about reporting a banned editor? I would take them seriously if he had been told by someone who is not involved here. Though it is disruptive when you are badgering this discussion for your banned friend. Bgwhite. Noteswork (talk) 11:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

OK. Since I was asked by Ncmvocalist. In one of the issues raised after the ANI started and I have not noticed: Yes, the rollback was a mistake. I meant to undo. I apologise if I gave the impression the edit was vandalism. It was not. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support ban I am highly surprised how he is still battling over the same issues over and again. He has evaded his ban upto 350 times since July 2014, and we know that he cannot restrain himself it is just better to ban again and next time it should be reviewed after 1 year. Noteswork (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * this isn't about Kumioko. The entire discussion is about OccultZone.  Bgwhite (talk) 11:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand that some people have liked him, and you have feelings, but you should stop forcing them on others. Noteswork (talk)


 * I am not keen on what OccultZone has been doing but I am even less keen on the disruption via block evasion etc that allegedly continues to come from Kumioko. Perhaps this discussion does in fact need to address that also. - Sitush (talk) 11:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * But isn't allegedly the problem here? There seems to be a lack of evidence for the allegations unless I'm mistaken.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 11:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, OZ's reverts started without enough evidence that the IP is/was still used by Kumioko. If a calmer/slower approach was followed we would have avoided the drama. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I had checked Kumioko's changes and it seemed like he found an opportunity to bite Beeblebrox. Issue is with your abuse of rollback. You seem not to be opposing Kumioko, rather supporting his actions, that's why they view your involvement as disruptive, even if he was not a banned editor, how you could edit others messages? Noteswork (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please re-read the entire discussion. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 12:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * So, OccultZone needs to move on. Hopefully that's clear to him. Kumioko's IP address has been blocked. There's no consensus for extending the ban and even if there were it would likely be a futile gesture. Kumioko does himself no favours by trolling in project space (whereas if he was evading his ban to write articles, I doubt anybody would notice. Or even care.). Is there anything left to do here? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  14:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If block has to be extending it can be discussed elsewhere. I have observed that these discussions were usually long, before as well. I will shortly close this.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

"Big Wings" in The Battle of Britain.
I am not in dispute with anybody, I would like to know how my comments on the "Big Wing" aspect of the Battle of Britain has gone? I gave factual evidence to my post and have quoted; The Battle of Britain, James Holland, on several occasions. Can I ask how my request is going? Many thanks in advance. Ben Quinn 17:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Auk929 (talk)


 * I get the impression that you are not requesting action from an administrator. It isn't clear what matter you are discussing, as your account's contribution record shows that your only previous edit to Wikipedia was on the article Trowbridge more than 7 years ago.  If you have concerns about a particular article, that article's talk page is the place to discuss it. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I presume the editor is the IPs 81.148.30.228 and 109.150.80.237 . If so, his/her questions have received no reply, probably because there is little traffic on the Big Wing page. The editor could ask on the main Battle of Britain talk page or ask for input from members of WikiProject Military history. Paul B (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Biantez
The fellow user mentioned above doesn't communicate (sent three messages already), and is copy-pasting texts from PT Wiki, using Google Translate to translate it (see his last creation here and the relatable article in Portuguese).

IDK what's wrong with this guy, tried to remove correct sections and clubs in Gerson Sodré without any further explanation. Can anyone take a look at this?

Thanks, MYS  77  ✉ 22:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * For starters, that yellow box right above the text area where you started this thread clearly requires you to notify that s/he is being discussed here, which you didn't (although I did it for you).  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 22:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, and thanks. MYS  77  ✉ 22:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Mass de-PROD-ding
While I think that de-PROD should be as easy as PROD both instruments are not really designed for bulk operations. Apparently Arb disagrees and de-PRODs with partially obscure reasons, cf. Mass_de-PROD-ding. –Be..anyone (talk) 05:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there an issue that needs resolving here, or are you just making a general statement?  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 06:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I checked some of Arb's deproddings and AfD comments. I think many of the deproddings are reasonable, but others are very silly. IMO this user has a poor understanding of what a reliable source is, and a total blind spot when it comes to recognising spam. And the amount of deproddings is also unreasonable. You deprod when you legitimately believe the article should not be deleted or go through AfD; you don't go through the list of about-to-expire prods and mechanically decline each one. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  06:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Which article(s) is s/he even talking about?  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 06:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Arb can be extremely trenchant when it comes to de-PRODs. I've recently raised a few with them on their talk page. Eg: Ogg Writ (now redirected), Revolutionary Students Movement (now deleted via AfD) and Toor (currently at AfD). They are particularly clueless regarding WP:RS, eg: at the Toor AfD they are trying to use open wikis and mirrors. This is one of the more extreme examples of WP:ARS-member inclusionism that I have seen recently and I think they need to be persuaded to avoid matters relating to deletion until they can demonstrate a better understanding of core policies. - Sitush (talk) 06:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please note that it is not just comprehension of RS that is problematic. Ok, we all make mistakes but the rationales are sometimes bizarre given that they come from someone who appears to have quite a lot of experience here. For example, the de-PROD at the Toor article completely missed the fact that most of the incoming links are from navbox templates. - Sitush (talk) 06:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, some of them are reasonable, but simply going through removing PRODs with an edit-summary of "I found some stuff on Google about this subject" is really not helpful. If you found "some stuff on Google" about the subject, why not use "some stuff on Google" to actually source the article?  Otherwise you're just kicking the can down the road for someone else to fix.  And it's not as if Arb doesn'tknow how to cite sources. Black Kite (talk) 07:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ... Which is why I've just added something to Thorpe Park No 1 Gravel Pit and left a comment at Talk:Croydon Fire Company regarding WP:BURDEN. De-PRODing is easy but it doesn't in itself often help the encyclopaedia: far better to prove the point by addressing the PROD concern in the article, especially since they've (hopefully) done the WP:BEFORE stuff prior to actually removing the nomination. Of course, that then gets us back to issues such as WP:RS, where there really has been some incompetence. - Sitush (talk) 07:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And I've just noticed Karl Dalhouse because it was raised on Arb's talk page. That one was created by Arb and recently retained as "no consensus" in this AfD. The argument for retention was basically "something might turn up", based on vague search results, although they said in 2007 that they would sort out a specific citation soon as practicable. Worse, most of what the article did say (prior to my removals) wasn't even supported by the cited sources. I know 2007 is a long time ago but the deletion discussion was this month and there may also have been a COI. Nothing seems to be being learned: there seems to be a stubbornness to retain stuff regardless of policy. - Sitush (talk) 09:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Info forwarded to kikichugirl (closing user.) –Be..anyone (talk) 10:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No-one is going to revert that close, which correctly reflected that there was no consensus. It frustrates me that the default of "no consensus" is "keep" but that isn't going to change either. A new AfD is the only route. - Sitush (talk) 11:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Then look at another article they created. At this point in 2009, when they were the sole contributor, the one reason why this primary school article might have avoided summary deletion was because of the claim that it housed the first "integrated unit for deaf students" in Jamaica. The problem is, the source does not say that. Yep, it is old stuff but I am becoming more and more concerned as I start digging here. Are we going to have to check all of these things? - Sitush (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * A WP:USERNAME notification/name change request might be in order too; I had to re-read this thread a couple of times before it made sense as I confused WP:ARB and .  —Sladen (talk) 08:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That has been discussed previously on their talk page and is why the disclaimer appears there. That said, I too was confused when I first saw it and I'd certainly prefer it to be changed. - Sitush (talk) 08:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Tentative proposal
That some (and perhaps even the majority) of the de-PRODs are ok does not really act as a get-out clause when things are as iffy as this. As a tentative proposal, could we ask Arb to restrict themselves to, say, five de-PRODs per day and require them actually to validate such de-PRODs accordingly by working on the article, eg: if they say the verification is out there then add it? Additionally, ask them to confirm that they do now understand WP:RS and the limitations of paraphrasing/problems with misrepresentation. I don't mind keeping an eye on things, although it might be better if someone in an admin role took that on because I'm bound to be accused of stalking. To avoid gaming, might we want to include CSDs also? Not that I have any evidence that they would game, so maybe that can be put off for now.

Alternatively, someone needs to review every de-PROD that they make and needs to be willing to refer the issue back to the community if the problems continue. A sort of probationary mentorship. - Sitush (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Arb hasn't been online to respond to this section, and you're kind of dominating the discussion, so I think it's best to hold off until we hear what Arb has to say. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  14:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Sitush's proposal is a helpful step forward. But, yes, our decision may be influenced by what Arb does next. bobrayner (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

User:HistoryFightFan thinks he's 'outing' me
At Talk:MyFreeCams.com, User:HistoryFightFan keeps asserting what he believes to be my "secret identity." As per WP:OUTING, I will "not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information," even as foolish as the situation is. I wrote the MyFreeCams.com page to begin with, and I much later on added a long quote from a book addressing the subject, for some flavor. And sure, the book isn't the most authoritative source, but it's not put there to back any controversy-clad claims, but simply to provide a feel for the website which the news articles clinically dissecting its revenues and notoriety simply cannot do. And so FightFan assumes I'm the author of the book engaging in self-promotion, and deletes the quote--which I restored, which he then deleted again with some mostly irrelevant criticism of the actual author's rhetorical flourishes. And each time FightFan comments on this he smugly continues pressing this name which he foolishly believes to be my real name. Pandeist (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have removed the undue quote from the self-published book from the article. An admin can address the outing concerns independent of the content-issue. Abecedare (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I still don't see how a quote can be "undue" if it's not being used to source any proposition. Pandeist (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * See my reply at the article talk page. The content issue is best discussed there, with the outing complaint being handled here. Abecedare (talk) 20:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 'k. Pandeist (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Whole article looks promotional and self-sourced, but yeah, HistoryFightFan should stop speculating about the real-life identity of another editor on the talk page. HistoryFightFan, if you think there's concrete evidence of a COI problem, open a WP:COIN report. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

User:98.116.21.171
The user only places false information in various articles of telenovelas of Televisa, for example place as original string to Univision. For example here, Let you several notices and were arrested, but it has now returned and insists on placing the same information. So I don't know who else to do. Let you several notices and were arrested, but it has now returned and insists on placing the same information. So I don't know who else to do.


 * Here are more items on which adds the same information:
 * Morelia (telenovela).
 * Laberintos de pasión.
 * Volver a empezar (telenovela).

I hope that you can do something, because Univision is not the original broadcaster of those soap operas. And on the years in the language parameter to place it seems to me an act of vandalism.-- <font color="Black">Philip J Fry  <font color="Red">Talk    02:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

User:X3250
User is removing content and editing another user's Talk Page here and here. 79616gr (talk) 03:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Continued harassment by some disturbed individual
Some time ago, eight years or so, I created the Wikipedia page on an Australian company named SKILLED Group. Over the last couple of years some individual who has a grievance with that business has been continually harassing me on Wikipedia. Yet, I do not work for that business, I have no interest in that business, and nor do I have any involvement in whatever this guy's problem is let alone any resolution of it. He is mentally unhinged and needs to understand bugging Wikipedia editors is not going to achieve a resolution for whatever his real-world problem may be.

Previously I logged it here and Reaper Eternal dealt with it - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Davidmwilliams#Uncivil_behaviour - but he has been back several times since, and again now, under the obviously fake username 'davidmmwilliams' - his sole list of contributions under this account are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Davidmmwilliams — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidmwilliams (talk • contribs) 05:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Do we have a Daesh (ISIL) sympathizer?

 * previously
 * Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

In just the past few days, the IP has
 * Asking for censorship of ISIL's human rights crimes, on the grounds that "the citizens of IS, that is sunni muslims, are treated very well and not subject to any problems" and "The only people who face punishment are criminals who commit crimes, just like anywhere else" despite readily admitting that Daesh kills people.
 * "Otherwise by this logic we should have the islamic state Wikipedia page saying they are pure, original, perfect islam, which they are, but I can't get anybody to accept to put that in the leader because so many sources deny that obvious truth" - An admission of WP:ADVOCACY
 * "It really is silly that you allow your hatred of them to cloud your judgement" - This accusation could be true if someone was trying to justify vandalizing the article, but is questionable when launched against editors who are defending the article's current title on the basis of reliable sources.
 * Denying religious persecution by Daesh, proclaiming that Daesh "following exactly Quran and sunnah and they are adhering to shariah in every matter."
 * Denying the well-reported raping and sexual slavery by Daesh
 * "You see, terrorism is in our book! The Muslims will make the disbelievers know the meaning of terror now. Kill the men and enslave the women and children, no matter how much the disbelievers dislike it and never fearing the blame of the blamers."
 * Insisting that Daesh be "allowed a voice via quotations from its own publications"

IP is WP:NOTHERE, recommend block, if not contacting the British government. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Basically, the IP cannot accept that ISIL adherents could possibly stray from religious edicts. Fundamentally incompatible with writing a neutral fact-based encyclopedia. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, I didn't deny IS sex slavery, that is celebrated by themselves with Yazidis. What I said was that this never happened to Muslim women, which is true. sex is only allowed with muslim wife or non-Muslim slavegirl, and can't and doesn't happen otherwise! Slavery is part of Islam, so no need to be embarrased or shy about this. Anybody who denies slavery being Islamic is an apostate. My beloved prophet Muhammad peace be upon him had many slaves!

As for IS not straying from religious edicts, they don't. It's as simple as that, everything they do is in accordance with Quran and sunnah.

Secondly, regarding NOTHERE, what it is not It's not -Expressing unpopular opinions – even extremely unpopular opinions – in a non-disruptive manner -advocating amendments to policies or guidelines -Difficulty, in good faith, with conduct norms -Focusing on niche topic areas

You can have whatever opinion of me you want, but I think you can see that I haven't been editing pages disruptively and only strongly advocating my position on the IS talk page, which you all duly ignore as is your right! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.94.46 (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Celebrate"...? Even kuffar know better than to celebrate that sort of depravity.  You've shown that you're here to present the fajarah of Daesh as the legitimate form of Islam.  If WP:NOTHERE doesn't apply, WP:CIR does.  Ian.thomson (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocked.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. While we're at it, anyone interested in discussing a topic ban?  At least User:Cush and User:Aronzak have expressed support for that idea.  Ian.thomson (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support IP user will continue to be a NOTHERE borderline troll after ban, recommend topic ban or indef. -- Aronzak (talk) 04:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No! We finally found an editor who won't have any complaints about Rape jihad, and you went ahead and blocked him? Dagnabbit...   (Yes, that's sarcasm.)<b style="font-family:georgia; font-size:11pt; color:#BFA3A3"> Pax</b> 00:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you'll get no agreement from him Pax, you didn't read what he says did you? Paul B (talk) 08:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I shudder to think what Wikipedia is making of this situation. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is someone from Jersey who made the news last fall for trolling 4chan and other sites as a claimed IS supporter. The police questioned him and let him go, but are supposedly keeping an eye on him. I think we can safely treat him like any other troll.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * How do you know that? When I checked the IP yesterday I got a location in Moscow. <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#ddddcc;border:1px solid #bbbb99;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">&#9798; CUSH &#9798; 07:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you use "Alternate", which is located next to geolocation, you get a Jersey location. I'm 100% certain that this user is not Muslim but is just trolling. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 11:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I used WhatIsMyIP.com, what did you use? <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#ddddcc;border:1px solid #bbbb99;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">&#9798; CUSH &#9798; 14:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Cush, if you click on Alternate instead of Geolocation at the bottom of the contributions page, you get this location from InfoSniper. I've found InfoSniper to be more exact but you have a limited number of times you can use it over 24 hours. I'm not sure of the exact limit (a dozen?) but I sometimes hit it and have to try again a few hours later. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 19:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Moscow must've been a typo. I copy-pasted it from the top and get the same thing on Cush's site as well... wait, Liz, are we on the wrong side of the dox-zone? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 23:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's odd. Today I get Saint Helier as the location as well. <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#ddddcc;border:1px solid #bbbb99;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">&#9798; CUSH &#9798; 06:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's more reason for a community ban than a topic ban. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, a community ban is more appropriate, and in fact they (if, as seems probable, they're the same person) were charged by Jersey police, held for seven months and received probation in March, finding no link to IS. In any case they have no business on Wikipedia.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Does a community ban, or even a topic ban, work for an IP editor? Isn't it to be feared he's back in no time with a different IP ? <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#ddddcc;border:1px solid #bbbb99;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">&#9798; CUSH &#9798; 07:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a good point. Doc H e u h (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Bans are for the user, not the IP/account. If they show up again, WP:RBI can be used without any discussion or WP:3RR considerations. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Would like to add note; I have had problems with 87.244.94.46 on Eastern Lightning page, a Chinese Christian terrorist group (activities include killing an elementary school child and leaving a lighting symbol on feet, breaking arms and legs and cutting off the ears of victims, pulling out the eyes of a boy for trying to leave the religion, killing family members etc.) The IP has continuously tried to remove the terrorist organisation tag and editing other parts of the article in similar fashion, claiming he is "removing bias", despite numerous sources labelling it a terrorist organisation. He has been reverted by numerous page editors (including me), in the last few says removing the tag 3 times. I would perhaps suggest expanding the topic ban to terrorism-related articles or religion-related articles. Doc H e u h (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Heuh0, please see my message on the talk page for the article. EL is horrific, as you have shown, but I honestly disagree with not including NRM as the topic sentence reference. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 16:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Speedy Community Topic Ban for 87.244.94.46
This IP's done some very dodgy soapboxing. I can't imagine a topic ban being controversial. But sadly no one ever notified the IP of ISIS discretionary sanctions, so he cant just be topic banned by an admin. Doubly sadly he'll be back in a few days time. I therefore propose the IP be banned from all topics pertaining to Islam broadly construed. Please lets get this over with ASAP. Bosstopher (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support given my original post. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Addendum: And support because they're likely a notorious troll. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support IP user will continue to be a NOTHERE borderline troll after ban, recommend topic ban or indef. -- Aronzak (talk) 04:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support yikes. hard to enforce on an IP but we may be able to SPI future instances. Jytdog (talk) 06:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I think that's all we can really do since we can't hand him over to PKK. <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna  <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  09:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The PKK reference is not funny. <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#ddddcc;border:1px solid #bbbb99;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">&#9798; CUSH &#9798;


 * Support per DFFT and NOTHERE -- Aronzak (talk) 12:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per Hajme 13:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per my initial comment. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Yikes. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support ( tb for Islam, broadly construed Cban as per Acroterion) -When I saw him trying to purify the ISIL page of sources he did not like on the TP, I really wanted to be able to assume good-faith and be respectful, even though he probably hates my guts, but I have learned he's been given enough rope on this. I could accept his request for first-party sources (we're allowed to use first-party so in a limited sense)), but his non-acceptance of third-party sources (we have to base articles on those) and complaints that they are biased is a problem. He also has an edit warring problem:  1, 2, 3. He's also a contentious soapboxer 1. Clearly a TE. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 16:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Given that this user has specifically advocated violence against others, they can be blocked on sight with or without a ban, and any ban should be a community ban from Wikipedia, not a topic ban. We're far past a debate over neutrality of contributions.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support site ban per Acroterion, advocated violence against others shouldn't be dealt with this lightly. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That seems to be as appropriate. Hajme 00:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. Obviously. Can someone close this? Epeefleche (talk) 02:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

User:SchroCat—incivility
has been incivil and stubborn in a discussion at concerning whether "James Bond" is a title for the series of books and should therefore be italicised in the Wikipedia article (title and body). Unfortunately, much time was wasted discussing various guidelines before identifying the most pertinent guideline,, which says:

SchroCat's view is that "James Bond" is a title for the series and should be italicised as such: "My reference to WP:COMMONNAME is that 'James Bond' is the title. It's referred to as such by Ian Fleming Publications, the rights holders to the literary estate. I went through my hard copy sources at home last night; the series title 'James Bond' is explicitly referred to as such by the following publications, three of which are also IFP approved reference books."

My view is that "James Bond" is not a title for the series and therefore should not be italicised: I noted that, of the publications that SchroCat referenced, none of those I could preview online treated "James Bond" as a title when referring to the series, thus undermining SchroCat's claim. "I don't think it's true then to say that "James Bond" is regarded as a title of the series as much as it serves as a descriptor for the novels and films featuring the character of that name." "These are the only ones from the above list that I could preview on Google Books, but it shows that these sources: refer to the series by various different terms, not consistently as 'James Bond novels'; do not format the words 'James Bond' (referring to the novel series) in the same way as they do the titles of books."

SchroCat later referred to evidence of two books that use the words "A James Bond novel" on the cover: "Note the wording on the top right of the Devil May Care book cover, and at the bottom of the Solo cover. As this is a form of wording used by IFP for several decades not used to refer to the character, but to the series, it's fairly clear what they consider the series title to be." I acknowledged that this would be relevant for those novels in a series: "Thank you for finally producing some evidence of two titles using 'A James Bond novel' on the cover, which would support considering 'James Bond' a title for a series containing Devil May Care by Sebastian Faulks and Solo by William Boyd. What about all the other novels by Fleming that instead feature 'Vintage 007' on the cover—wouldn't that indicate using Vintage 007 or even 007 as the title of Fleming's series, not 'James Bond'?" I added: "Look at the covers for Casino Royale, Live and Let Die, Moonraker, and so on. They all feature '007'—they don't feature the words 'James Bond'—so, if anything, 007 would be the series title."

Sadly, while I have tried to stick to the issue in order to reach a consensus, SchroCat has failed to assume good faith by other Wikipedians from the outset, even admitting: "... forgive me if my reservoir of AGF has diminished to low levels over people who are happy to make up their own rules when they want to, but will ignore them when it doesn't suit them. I'll post some examples later, and I really wouldn't be surprised if there is a sudden u-turn on whether to look at them or not." SchroCat has consistently been dismissive, insulting and profane (while also accusing me of similar incivility). Some examples:


 * "Utter balls. ... you are too closed minded to look beyond anything but stubbornly defending a sub-standard MoS."
 * "... frankly I have better things to do than read through you repeating tedious walls of bollocks which you call 'clarification', even if you are the one that needs some points clarifying."
 * "As to the nonsense you've written again ... I'm hacked off at the misrepresentation and poor attitude to discussion here: it's not constructive and divisive, but from my experience, that's about par for the course for those who pass knee-jerk defensive judgements on the MoS."
 * "It matters not one fucking iota whether other sources italicise the names or not ... Time for you to accept that other people have a fucking clue what they are talking about from time to time, and for you to be disruptive elsewhere."
 * "My AGF has broken down because of the complete nonsense that has been dished out from the beginning on this."
 * "... it's the sort of tedious and trite rubbish that drives editors away"
 * "You can at least make an attempt to be honest." Edit summary: "Despicable behaviour, even by the standards you've displayed already."

SchroCat repeatedly accused me of misrepresenting their comment, although they never made clear how they supposed I had done so: "(For example I have never claimed, even remotely that 'COMMONNAME does not apply to italics in Wikipedia article titles'. I've explicitly said so above, and the fact that you are not bothering to read and take on board what I say to be illustrative and, frankly, tedious and rude)." "I have never said that was the case, and it's tedious to have people mischaracterise so badly what I have and have not said." (Note that I had never claimed that SchroCat said, agreed with, or disputed the quoted text.)

SchroCat also falsely accused me of "saying 'series titles are not italicised when, in fact, I had said the opposite. To their credit, they retracted the attribution of this comment to me once I pointed this out.

I previously reached out to SchroCat on their talk page in an effort to make peace and show that I was genuinely trying to be constructive only for it to be deleted with the edit summary "turns out this was all deceitful balls" After I drew their attention to another related discussion, they again deleted it with the edit summary "No point in leaving the words of an uncivil and underhand bully on here"

—sroc &#x1F4AC; 17:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Have you tried any other dispute resolution about the underlying italicization issue (which is really a content dispute)? Maybe that could relieve some of the pressure.   If there's a RFC then I might post a comment. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * IP, It took over a whopping 3,800 words of text before it was acknowledged that what I had been saying all along was correct: that the MoS says we italicise the names of a series of books. Can you imagine just how mind-blowingly frustrating it is to bang ones head against such a brick wall (and yet, irony of ironies, I'm the one being called stubborn here) It's certainly been enough to make me lose my AGF over the motivations here. I'm then accused of making up facts, which I find truly low and despicable. And now I'm being called stubborn because I hold a differing opinion to this editor on one point and haven't kowtowed towards his opinion. Despite suggesting a few times that we both step away to allow third parties to state their views, that hasn't happened. Because of the other editor's incivility in accusing me of making up facts, I've stepped away permanently. Their WP:BATTLEFIELD approach to this has worn me down past any point of caring about this article, or the point they are endlessly pushing, and makes me question why I bother with the project. – SchroCat (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Aside from the personal attacks (which an admin needs to pass judgment on), this seems like a content issue that can be better settled at dispute resolution like the third opinion process. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 19:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

When you have the time to make a whopping 9.6 kb!!! post at ANI you know you've probably been worrying yourself unnecessarily. time to move on and put that time and effort into article building. I suggest a swift close from an admin here and this editor persuaded to stop wasting everybody's time and his own.♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

There are some articles smaller than this post. If had've put in the kind of effort creating a new stub on something interesting rather than post this load of shit then we'd have all been better off for it.  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   19:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I have only just seen SchroCat's reply: "It took over a whopping 3,800 words of text before it was acknowledged that what I had been saying all along was correct: that the MoS says we italicise the names of a series of books." I must respond because this is patently false, as I have acknowledged this from : "The difference here is that cases such as List of Star Wars books and Twilight (series) are based on existing works that feature the italicised words as the title (i.e., Star Wars and Twilight) whereas the films and novels featuring the character James Bond almost never include his name in the title (certainly none of the films or Fleming's novels or short stories), so it is not appropriate to italicise his name when referring to the series." I never denied that series titles should be italicised, only that "James Bond" is not the title of this series, which is borne out by the evidence. It is appalling that SchroCat has perpetuated this lie in an AN/I. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 09:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This thread is closed and the discussion over. Please leave it that way. Philg88 ♦talk 09:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism after 24 hour block
Here. User:Céline_Rayne is vandalizing pages, again, after a 24 hour block. He also blanked his talk page which was full of warnings. --92slim (talk) 11:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit in Peace
User:Murry1975 continues to call me a sock and has done so on 3 separate occasions, ,. On multiple occasions he/she has linked me with User:Factocop yet has failed to raise a SPI. Can you please stop this pest or raise an SPI so this can end? TY Dubs boy (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weeeeellll, the first step is to follow the instruction on this page that says When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page so that Murry1975 knows about this conversation. I have done that step for you. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 18:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Liz though Murry1975 has been less than courteous to me. Just want this sorted.Dubs boy (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * To be honest Dubs boy, your edits on this site do bear a huge resemblance to those of Factocop who is a known user of sockpuppets, but that does not mean you are him. All it proves is that you are simply someone of similar sympathies. Having said that you have a long history of troublesome editing and have been blocked before, which included block evasion, and have been told by a couple f administrators that you where on thin ice.
 * It also appears that towards the end of last year you where stalking Murry1975. I'd be weary of this AN/I boomeranging on yourself. Mabuska (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think stalking works both ways. Boomerang? Completely agree. I'm here for this reason. As the heading says I want to be able to edit in peace without the constant name calling. I shouldn't have to worry if Murry1975 or Factocop have edited that page prior. The unfortunate thing is that where Factocop has edited, Murry1975 has also edited. Both have staunch, albeit opposing POV's.Dubs boy (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah stalking me isnt nice, but as you have raised it here as I was gathering info. Murry1975 (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

In my experience on Wikipedia, Murry1975's edits, whilst not of the same POV as me, hardly fall into a "staunch" POV category. Yours however do. There is a stark difference between an editor checking up on the edits of a disruptive troublesome editor who is going round pushing POV regardless of accepted policies and an editor who checks up on another editors edits to revert or poke holes in them out of spite. One is allowed on Wikipedia, the other is not. Take a guess which one.

Murry1975's revert of you on Nigel Dodds is fully qualified by the fact your edit violates WP:IMOS, a community agreed consensus on the name issue. You know this policy yet you went ahead and violated it regardless. In fact considering the recent edits on that article I have to suspect that Dubs boy may be the IP. Just to point out that on the 18th April that IP appears to have broken 3RR and is subject to Troubles restrictions remedies. If an SPI shows that Dubs boy and this IP are one and the same a longer block than Dubs last one should ensue as they know of these restrictions. Mabuska (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * They seem pretty staunch to me. As for the IP, I had actually advised the anon IP to accept status quo at WP:Derry page. See here . I can't please everyone but thanks for another personal attack. I'll take it on the chin.Dubs boy (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyone can post as a registered editor and as an IP and comment on themselves as if a different person. It's called socking. If you think raising a very relevant point is a personal attack then this site is not for you for when anyone disagrees with you or raises an issue in regards to you, your going to be offended quite a lot. Maybe that explains your behaviour which borders on battleground mentality. Mabuska (talk) 09:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Mabuska, you are getting all flustered. I'm just raising the point that if my comment was removed because it was offensive in reference to Highking then I believe I have every right to be just as pathetic and thin skinned. Its not in my nature to be that way but it seems there is a mentality on Wikipedia of who runs to the teacher first to tell on the other. Just embracing it. The fact that you have commented here and at the SPI offering no real content makes me suspicious of your agenda. I'm sure someone else can connect the dots.Dubs boy (talk) 12:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Block request
Could someone please take a look at ? I'm involved, so can't block them but they are being disruptive - see Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. SmartSE (talk) 13:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * and Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring Widefox ; talk 13:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * They've already been Indef'd, nothing to worry about. cnbr15 13:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Continued Interaction ban violations by User:WarKosign
Despite an interaction ban with me, User:WarKosign continues to revert my edits

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel&diff=657331946&oldid=657331283

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel&diff=657331283&oldid=656586151

What is the point of an interaction ban if one party is going to continue to revert the edits of the other? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you should get help with a admin by talking directly with one. It takes aproxametly 4 to 5 days for a admin to reply here I think, but directly talking with a  amin you mot likely get a respose in a 24 hour time frame I think?  Here are a few admins I know that are active a lot!  User talk:Materialscientist, User talk:Beyond My Ken,User talk:NeilN, and User:BeenAroundAWhile.  I suggest you talk with beyond my ken.  Doorknob747 (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Doorknob747, from your list only Materialscientist is an admin. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 16:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The others act like mature wikipedians and some are page patrollers, reverters, rollbackers, checkusers ect. that they are also able to help in this problem, I also forgot to mention u. Doorknob747 (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see any interaction ban logged in at Editing restrictions. Was this an informal, agreed-upon I-ban between the two of you? Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 15:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * , can you (or someone else if it infringes on the iban) reference the discussion where this ban came into effect? This seems to be utterly stupid as both of you work on Israel related topics and are both regularly involved in debates.  Either one or both editors should be banned or the iban should be lifted.
 * From my experience I have found to be an extremely tendentious and, as far as I can reasonably perceive, an extremely evasive editor.  Here is one situation:  A discussion on Talk:Israel/Archive 45 had left the template: Template:Largest cities of Israel in a situation in which it presented West Jerusalem as being marked as being in Israel as per the presentation of Israel as marked, for instance, by UN and other maps and the template, using similar reference as used within the cited source document of the template, read "Largest Urban areas of Israel".
 * Instead of resuming discussion WarKosign started a new discussion out of context at Template talk:Largest cities of Israel with the opening text:


 * A discussion at talk:Israel didn't come to a clear conclusion and there is some edit waring over Jerusalem.
 * Given that Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem is rejected by most of the international community, and that there is currently no available number on population of western Jerusalem alone, how in your opinion should Jerusalem be presented in this template ? A few options were proposed so far:


 * However, shortly after the opening of the discussion and without reference to the talk page WarKosign changed the title text from the use of the urban areas reference (which would have been more conducive to reference to West Jerusalem) and reverted back to a largest cities reference which, despite international views contesting that East Jerusalem is part of West Bank territory, would have placed Jerusalem, as a city, in an all or nothing situation as far as the template was concerned.


 * I have since found WarKosign to be very difficult to communicate with as I think contents of the talk page show.


 * I am by no means surprised to hear of WarKosign's reverts of contributions by Gouncbeatduke despite an iban and, to me, this seems typical of behaviour and approach. GregKaye 16:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ya that needed admin attention. Doorknob747 (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

My edit had nothing to do with 's iban. The reason for this iban was user's repeated baseless personal attacks against me, and until this complaint the user abided by it.

closed an RfC and since the decision was that there was no consensus for any change, per WP:NOCONSENSUS I restored the article to the state it existed in before the dispute began. If it is preferred, I don't mind undoing my change so anyone else can perform it instead of me.&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 16:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Please do not start a edit riot or a Wikipedia fight on this page, it can lead to a banning if it starts. So keep the language to a good and non derogatory language to avoid something like that, please. Doorknob747 (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * WarKosign, The initial discussion that ended with the use of reference to "West Jerusalem" and "urban areas" was this one. I haven't seen reference to the case with Gouncbeatduke but there have been many times that I have needed to figuratively bite my lip when in discussion with you and have often needed to bring things down to yes and no type questions to, from my view, try to get a direct response.  GregKaye 17:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I should not have made the change, so I self-reverted. The change itself is 100% correct but someone else should do it. I'll explain the situation if an admin asks me to, because I'm not supposed to be making even indirect comments due to the iban. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 18:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * But, WarKosign, the question remains why this I-ban isn't logged in to WP:EDR. Did it arise from a discussion on ANI? Or did you two just decide not to interact with each other? Because there isn't a record of it where there should be. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 19:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It was the result of this AE case. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 19:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link, WarKosign, I appreciate it. Looks like I need to ask Cailil about it. It could be that I missed it on WP:EDR. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 19:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * the state of the discussion of the sockpuppet question here included the edits:
 * "I am not accusing you of anything. I am just asking if was a sock you used. I don't understand why you can't give a yes or no answer. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)" which was immediately followed by
 * "The way in which you phrased this question implies that I regularly use socks, and this happens to be one of them. This is not a question, this is an accusation. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 18:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)"
 * In my experience WarKosign very often takes the route of not answering, avoiding and deflecting questions and now it seems to me that this extends to situations in which editors are faced with the potential emotional crisis of receiving death threats.   GregKaye 06:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I cannot respond regarding the content of the conversation you quoted, but note that it is not the original version. Not every question can be answered with a "simple yes or no". For example (obviously false) : " GregKaye RandomEditor, do you still intentionally insert false information in all of your edits ?" &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 08:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that you cannot respond comes, in my interpretation, in the context that you are both able to edit the same Wikipedia content but are not able to interact with another editor doing the same. Please do not use my name in any such example even if "(obviously false)".  Please strike.
 * If an editor presents a content such as "... I am just asking if was a sock you used. .." it is perfectly possible to answer yes or no and this in no way impinges on you ability to add suplimentary information.  My interpretation is that you are failing to communicate with other editors directly.  GregKaye 08:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll be able to respond regarding that specific conversation once the iban expires. In your case you repeatedly asked me the same question in different variations apparently hoping to get an answer that you would like or could use against me. Note that you are even doing it in this very conversation. I do not have to respond to your interrogations unless I feel like it. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 08:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * IMO you are taking this situation unnecessarily and inappropriately personally. There was no point that that I was hoping to get an answer that I would like or could use against you.  It is, however, fair to ask for points of clarification in regard to the editing of article and related media content.  GregKaye 09:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That RfC shows no consensus for anything, reversion or otherwise. It's irrelevant to current content. Guy (Help!) 21:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In the results section of Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive166 said: "Unless there are substantive objections from other uninvolved sysops within the next 24 hours I'll enact the following, and close this thread with the result: "User:Gouncbeatduke & User:WarKosign are banned from interacting with one another as per policy described at WP:IBAN, for three months, per this AE request."" to which  added "+1".  Can I propose that the ban is either extended to a three month topic ban to both editors or that the ban is removed.
 * Some time ago, of a length now permitting comment, an editor with whom I was associated with in connection to ISIL related topics wanted to impose an IBAN in regard, I think, to a specific incident in our interaction. I regarded there to have been a number of issues in the surrounding situation and submitted my own incident report.  A voluntary resolution was proposed to which I think  fairly commented: "This will not work. Lets game play it. GregKaye makes an edit to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant other editor reverts it with some comment such as "edit unbalances POV". GregKaye writes on the talk page in a new section "Oh no it does not unbalance the POV because..."  Other editor can not post an explanation, GregKaye reverts. Now what? WP:BRD breaks down. Second case Other editor makes an edit and explains in a new section on the talk page "edit to improve the POV", GregKaye can not reply and if GK disagrees and reverts with no discussion WP:BRD breaks down.  Also point five "If they breach these terms, anyone else can delete the comments without further debate." bad idea as the deleting editor can be seen as biased and it will shift the debate to one with a proxy. I could go through all your points one at a time, but in brief without good faith this will not work."  This current case I think totally validates comment by PBS.  Ibans on editors who work on the same topic area do not work.  GregKaye 08:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * from an administrative perspective you breached the IBAN, is there a reason you should not be blocked for the violation? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you please clarify the extent, if any, to which the current discussion falls into the context of: Banning policy, specifically: "Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum."? GregKaye 09:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I performed an edit that can be seen as a breach of an IBAN. I did not revert a specific edit by any user, but it is likely that I undid some work of the user. The edit itself was not to modify content (although obviously it did), but to implement the WP:NOCONSENSUS policy. It was a mistake, I should have waited for someone else to perform this edit. Once my mistake was pointed out I self-reverted, there is nothing else I can do at this moment. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 09:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No issue with participation here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation I don't see that any further action is needed here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * We are still left in the, I think, absurd situation in which two editors, working in the same project area, can't talk to each other. GregKaye 10:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And the I-ban was never logged in at WP:EDR so I'm not sure if it is even actually official or when the three months are up. Could some admin take care of this as Cailil has not responded? He just edited his talk page to say he would be away in April and May 2015. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 14:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

User:CrazyAces489
This user has been attacking specifically articles I have written ever since I voiced my opinion on a discussion pertaining to the deletion of one of his articles (see their history). The user places "issues" on the top of the article, that I must note have been patrolled and approved, that do not relate to it. Ghmrytle (not available right now) even stated to the user that he/she had a personal vendetta against me. It's the second time around that I removed the baseless "issues" and I warned the user. I feel the warning will be unheard so I want the user to be temporarily blocked from editing until he/she proves he/she will stop the vandalism. Thank you for your time. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2015
 * To me, the guy mentioned above (whose name I corrected) is trying to create a lot of edit wars with you, so both can be blocked. Be careful. I think this guy should be blocked indefinitely for abusing editing privileges. Cheers, MYS  77  ✉ 22:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

That is what I'm trying to avoid. He/she has been doing this and I am just trying to do the right thing by removing them. I don't intend to be involve in an edit war, but thanks for agreeing with me. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2015


 * TGS failed to put the required tag on my talk page but he did mention he would bring this to AN/I.  I put on a tag of a self published source   and he removes it.  I also put up notability tags and he removes them.  I put an African American Portal category and he removes that also.    Ghmrytle has a stated friendship with TheGracefulSlick.  He has edited articles I created and I don't make an issue about it.    He doesn't WP:Own articles and others can edit them.   CrazyAces489 (talk) 04:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * and : The true fact is that you two should be blocked for edit warring. One is following the other and creating issues where it doesn't exist. And by doing this, you two are clearly disrespecting the guidelines here.
 * Please you both, stop stalking each other and start collaborating as a team. I (and WP overall) would appreciate it very much. Thank you, MYS  77  ✉ 05:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * How is putting up an African Portal Category problematic for an article? If the individual is african american?   I see that as a problem.  I have already placed multiple warnings for 3rr.   CrazyAces489 (talk) 05:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The point is: you two are hounding each other, thus violating the WP rules. You two should be blocked for this, and maybe for 3RR (I didn't check any pages, that's why the maybe), in my opinion. MYS  77  ✉ 07:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have asked him to stay off of my page, yet he still posts on it along with personal attacks .  I don't care if he edits my articles, as he has done , but he takes it personal if I edit his articles As can be seen in this AN/I board.   CrazyAces489 (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I was telling you to stop vandalizing, perfectly right to do despite you telling me to stay off. And it's not a "personal attack", many of your articles are stubs, or are questioned, and regularly deleted. So of course you are ok with me editing it since it improves the article you clearly hardly worked on. Also, I'm fine with people editing my articles, but your negative tags are unexceptionable, as they are only your idea of revenge. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)

There are good arguments for questioning the notability of some of these articles, but the actions of are excessive, stalking and border on harassment. This, for instance, is just ridiculous. One warning would be enough. also needs reminded that is takes two to edit war and she/he is just as likely to get blocked. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 08:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The reversion template requires that each article receive notification. Thus it may seem to excessive, but it is not.  Please look at the reversion template used. He reverted more than one article, so notification for each reversion was necessary.  CrazyAces489 (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I never wanted to edit war, but the user places the notability and orphan tags when notability has been established and the articles are not orphans. So, really, I'm doing what needs to be done by removing them. The users main use of time, however, is putting them back which is unconstructive. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)

Plus, other users also removed the tags, either because they saw its baseless reasonings or the user was placing the wrong tags numerous times. He/she isn't doing it for the betterment of the article, but as a type of revenge for believing his/her page should be deleted. TheGracefulSlick (talk)

Socking at Refdesks
The Science, Miscellaneous and Entertainment Reference desks have all been the subject of a multi-socked vandal recently. I've silverlocked all three for the time being. The other desks appear unaffected so far, but could use some extra eyes in case he switches targets. I'm going offline in a moment, so would appreciate it if someone could follow up. Cheers, Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 14:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * As a long-time reference desk regular, I request that the "silverlocking" be reduced to a shorter time period (a couple of hours, max).
 * Reasons:
 * 1) Many genuine and sincere queries are posted by non-registered users.
 * 2) Many helpful, researched, and informed answers come from non-registered users.
 * 3) The desks are watched by enough people to revert the vandalism within minutes.
 * Someone is trying to sabotage the desks, and spoil it for those who aren't registered. Let's not reward him by shutting out unregistered users for long periods of time. Thank you. ---Sluzzelin talk  15:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Rangeblocked. Please consider unprotecting to see if it needs to be a larger range. See also Sockpuppet investigations/CapriSun33333. DMacks (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Just jumped back on for a few minutes - since the rangeblock seems to be working, and it's been a couple of hours, I've lifted the protection per Sluzzelin's request. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 18:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Yunshui! ---Sluzzelin talk  19:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You've got your answer to your experiment. Needs protecting again. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Can an admin hide some edits by the refdesk vandal from 11 April? Seems to be an attempt at doxxing an editor. See Special:Contributions/Cambles Horsey. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I very much don't like long-term semiprotection of the Reference Desks, either, but when there's this level of vandalism it's clearly the appropriate approach. There are plenty of eyes on these pages, so we can continue to fine-tune our approach as events progress. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * They hit up some of the other desks as well. During times of protection, questions by IP's are being posed at the talk page, where a registered editor can re-post them to the right page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I suggest we not announce ahead of time to the enemy our troop movements. Protections and unprotections should be made without fanfare.  Otherwise it's like playing "retreat", running up a white flag, dropping trow, and planting a big red lipstick ex on our buttocks. μηδείς (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * There's some other tools we're trying to use in the works to shut this down. In the interest of your WP:BEANS reminder, I'll not announce them, but if you know how to use page histories and user contribution pages, you can probably figure it out. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 22:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Most of the desks are protected in accordance with policy but Language and Mathematics are indefinitely protected (which is a policy violation).  Can someone put this right pronto? 156.61.250.250 (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Like indefinite blocking, I suspect indefinite protection means "duration to be determined", not "forever". Is there a policy that says you are required to state a duration? I genuinely don't know. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I've written an edit filter that should reduce the impact of this: 681 for those who can see such things. It should have minimal impact on good faith newcomers. I'd like to unprotect the pages to check the effectiveness of this. Comments? —S MALL  JIM   13:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have proposed that for times when one or more ref desk pages is protected, maybe there could be a catchall, "unprotected ref desk page" where new users could post questions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think the vandal(s) would respect that. —S MALL  JIM   14:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * They don't have to. They could spew their garbage there without infecting the "real" ref desk. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Their primary motivation is to cause disruption. It wouldn't take them long to figure out that they're not causing any there. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Bingo. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I misread your initial comment. I thought you were talking about a sort of relief valve for vandals. If it's for new users and unprotected, then vandals will simply vandalize it the same way they do the refdesks when they're unprotected. Again, but differently, I don't see what's gained. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. People have expressed concerns that good-faith new editors are unable to pose (and answer) questions when the pages are protected. Can we get a quick consensus to unprotect the pages so we can try my edit filter proposal, set out above. I don't think there's any beans problem in explaining how it works: unconfirmed editors are only allowed to make one edit per minute (adjustable) to those pages, allowing plenty of time to revert and block the vandal (who, if he has any nous will move on to something else). —S MALL  JIM   16:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be OK as long as you're accepting full responsibility for doing the repeated reversions in case the filter doesn't work. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * First, I'd suggest halving the disruption and going with two minutes instead of one. Second, can't you test it on some other unprotected page, logging out to test the handling of unconfirmed? Clueless as to the technical considerations. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, that's one edit every two minutes per user, so the bad guy can still create n short usernames and then do one edit every (120 / n) seconds, or as fast as he can log out/in, whichever is longer. I'm not worried about beans, many of these guys are easily smart enough to figure this stuff out. That's part of the fun, actually. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You should be cautious of spilling the beans, actually. There is a significant proportion who aren't "smart enough" to figure things out for themselves. You're forgetting about the effect of blocking anyway.  —S MALL  JIM   19:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd be very surprised if there aren't multiple off-wiki venues where these techniques are discussed. Wikipedia is too high-profile, the anti-Wikipedia sentiment is too widespread, and world population is too large for there not to be. The smart ones will educate the less smart ones, trust me. That's how hacker communities work. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Someone might consider throttling the number of registrations from a given IP address to, say, one a day. Then your edit filter might work. It might be inconvenient when ten people want to register at the same time from a shared IP, but realistically how often does that happen? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem continues. Is permanent semi protection the only solution? If more admins were watching these pages and blocking quickly, that would go a long way toward addressing the problem. Hell, give me the blocking right and I'll do it myself whenever I'm here, which is a lot these days. Free of charge, and I'd promise not to use it for any other purpose. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So would I, though I wouldn't promise not to abuse the unblocking right, so don't give it to 'me. Anyway, we are many, and the last spree was completely reverted within less than a minute, but yeah, early blocks would help, until then, it's back to time wasted in the early 80s ---Sluzzelin talk  22:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see the block came very quickly too. I think revert, block, ignore is the best way. The more eyes, the easier (including admin eyes, as emphasized by Mandruss). Semi-protection should remain the great exception, in my opinion. ---Sluzzelin talk  22:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I know what caused this problem though, actually on some forums like craiglists forums or anandtech forums, one or two moths ago I saw people talking about the fact that they are thinking that Wikipedia reference desk is a forum because of its layout (people are talking on a non talk page), maybe stating on top that, this page is not a forum in big bold letters may stop the problem. Doorknob747 (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks like someone account hopping and repeatedly blanking the pages: are the accounts being hard blocked, i.e. the person is IP hopping too? And what happened to Cluebot? It used to revert page blanking almost instantly. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Threats by Tolinjr
Yesterday I came across the works of as part of a discussion about the notability of the article Thomas F. Olin, Jr.. Looking at the articles I found a very similar style of writing at the article [Thomas F. Olin]], written by Tolinjr. Looking further, I noticed the article Brigantine Yankee, using as sources works from a mr. Olin, Sun Hwan Chung, using as sources works from a (different) mr. Olin. So I tagged those articles to request better and independent sources. I refrained from tagging them as COI, although the suspicion is there. Effect was and Tolinjr started to remove the tags on both articles. I duly warned him about that. At Thomas F. Olin I did add the COI-tag and this too was removed multiple times. I have seen POV-pushers before, so this did not bother me too much.

But what does bother me are his threats on my talkpage here and here. I asked him to stop with that in a stern but polite way on his talk page. What was followed by another accusation.

This is definitely not the way to act and I do not want to get sucked into a string of edit wars. I hope someone can take a look at this. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 14:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello. I am Tolinjr. I am an editor, semi-retired, who has not been involved with Wikipedia since my user page was deleted by vandals several months ago (since restored by a master editor). This morning, I checked Wikipedia and found that <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> had somehow searched my edit history and then proceeded to paste several maintenance templates on every article on which I have ever contributed. I do not know this person. I have never had contact with this person until this morning. I have no idea why this person is doing this. The handful of Wikipedia articles where I have contributed are random and not related.  The only way for this person to accomplish this feat is to open up my edit history and pick them out.  My only assumption is that either this person is associated with editors who previously deleted and vandalized my user page, or perhaps an editor I worked with on an income inequality article last year.


 * How can I be the threat when he ambushed me, out of the blue, this morning? I have done nothing on Wikipedia for months. However, it is clear that he is intent on damaging every page I have ever touched. He has also threatened to shut down my ability to edit. I have communicated to him that, as a result of previous malicious activity against my page, I am sensitive to such vandals and had to resort to having master editors shut them down.


 * He is not doing this because he legitimately questions the references ... his actions reflect specific motivation and intent. And in the case of Brigantine Yankee, my contributions were limited to the last paragraph (with three footnotes) and the photograph (that my grandfather took when it wrecked). But he still felt the need to tag the entire article, just like the other articles (across-the-board tagging), even when it was mostly written by other people. This is sheer malevolence.  Tolinjr (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have received a complaint from Tolinjr that he is being wikistalked by The Banner. Be on the lookout for the applicability of boomerang sanctions here. Carrite (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm starting to look at this. The OP's explanation is reasonable. On the Brigantine Yankee piece, largely devoid of inline footnotes, the REFIMPROVE flag seems very appropriate. The other flag seems excessive. I've restored one of two flags, hopefully that is a reasonable compromise. The way to lose the other flag is to source out the material better, whether it comes from a book or article by someone with the surname Olin or not. Carrite (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * With respect to Sun Hwan Chung, I believe those flags are inappropriate for that piece as it sits and endorse their removal. Carrite (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * With respect to Thomas F. Olin, Jr., I feel the COI flag was formerly appropriate, now that the article has been effectively gutted, not so much. As for the NOTABILITY flag, just haul the piece to AfD and let the matter be decided dispassionately there. I'd encourage The Banner to take down the COI flag and to list the piece at AfD for decision. Carrite (talk) 15:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think bringing the Olin article to AfD is worthwhilte - the guy was the CEO of a major company. I've done some more cleanup of it. BMK (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC) I was confusing it with Thomas F. Olin. BMK (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It should either be hauled to AfD for decision or the Notability flag should be removed, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. BMK (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I see nothing actionable here. Carrite (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is interesting to see that you say nothing about the threats. Nor did you look into the clearly incorrect allegations that tolinjr placed on your talkpage. And when I was really after him, as he claims, the would have been a sockpuppet-case by now. Perhaps you are right that my tags were sudden and harsh, but still does not warrant the threats. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 15:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The "threats" appear to have been the result of annoyance and misunderstanding, which may have been lessened if you had discussed the problem a bit more and templated him a bit less. I agree with you that Tolinjr appears to have a conflict of interest, and I have left a message on his talk page explaingin things (at least from my point of view), but I do not think you handled the situation optimally.  Nevertheless, I agree with Carrite that there is nothing actionable here against either of you. BMK (talk) 15:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with this completely. Carrite (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have listed Thomas F. Olin, Jr. for deletion debate, removing the NOTABILITY flag in the process. Carrite (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm also gonna go BOLD and remove the COI flag from the gutted version, which is fully sourced and innocuous. The flag on the earlier version was appropriate, in my view, but all possibly objectionable content is gone now. Carrite (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Thomas.W edit warring and semi-protection issue
User:Thomas.W removed several informative external links including some that were already there- which I did not add. This does not give IP editors a fair chance to contribute while allowing the user to repeatedly removes links without fair justification. He has made it a point to scan for anything linking to Omniglot, an online encyclopedia of spoken languages and scripts. This is also despite the sites main page using valid academic sources as citations. Prior to this the user made several excuses for removing external links and comes up with a new excuse each time to do this. I would appreciate that the article be unprotected or the user be at least informed to stop removal of informative external links. I also presented the argument that individual articles on movies use IMBD as an external link which he keeps evading or even once bluntly lying, claiming that it's used as a reference and not an external link.

As you can see his stubborness and evasiveness makes it very hard to avoid this problem. Please unprotect the article or at least warn the user to stop blanking out informative external links; especially when they are in no way or form "advertising" which he insists on calling them. Omniglot uses biblopgraphy .--94.204.144.31 (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Few things that you need to be aware of,
 * You needed to notify the user when you made this post. I've gone and done it for you.
 * Edit warring isnt dealt with here its dealt with here.
 * Without diffs to back up your claims nothing is likely to be done.
 * I cant see anything that appears to be edit warring by.

Amortias (T)(C) 10:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC) Thanks. The diffs are here: --94.204.144.31 (talk) 11:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't been doing any edit-warring, what I've been doing is reverting the IP's addition of links to a personal web site to multiple articles relating to languages, a web site that claims to be an encyclopaedia, but clearly violates WP:ELNO, both by being a personal web site not written by an expert in the field and by not adding anything worthwhile to the articles (sample pages on Omniglot: http://www.omniglot.com/writing/finnish.htm repeatedly added to Finnish language and http://www.omniglot.com/writing/urdu.htm repeatedly added to Urdu; as can be clearly seen they're nothing but short stubs plus lots of links to other web sites, even linking back to the en-WP articles they're added to for more information...). The web site has been reported to the spam blacklist (there are 1,100 links to it on en-WP...) so it's up to them to take it from here, but as I said, I haven't done any edit-warring. For more info about what has happened see both my talk page and the IP's talk page. The semi-protection mentioned is a reference to Urdu being protected by because of edit-warring by the IP, not by me. Thomas.W talk 11:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The IP editor already [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EdJohnston#Problem_with_semi-protecting_Urdu asked about this] on my talk page. I suggested he post at WP:External links/Noticeboard but he hasn't done so. At first glance the links do seem to go to a self-published site and are not likely to be approved. If the links are being added systematically to multiple articles a complaint can be opened at WT:WPSPAM. EdJohnston (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The site has been reported at WT:WPSPAM too now. Thomas.W talk 14:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * First you blank out most of the external links, claiming the article is nothing but a collection of links, then accuse me of "advertising" the site, even though I done nothing of such. It's simply informative content on the articles subject, but your own twisted interpretation or better distortion of them, doesn't get it. You've been evasive on my argument why IMBD is used as an external link. Now you're latest excuse is that the site is privately owned, even despite it has a bibliography section. Now you've made it a crusade to keep it off wiki and accusing anyone of adding it as a promotion. I could almost swear you have a personal feud with the owner of that site, even though it's properly sourced.94.204.144.31 (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly. A number of other experienced people who have looked at it (both here and at other notice boards) have confirmed what I've said about Omniglot violating Wikipedia's external links policy. If they get blacklisted it's because of you BTW, because it was your persistance that made me take a closer look at the site, before that I had never even seen the links. Thomas.W talk 18:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

And before you took a closer look at it, you accused it a commercial site and accused me of "advertising it". Now looking further at it, you've come up with a new "excuse" to remove it.--94.204.144.31 (talk) 11:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Another deliberate lie from you, like on 's talk page where you claimed that I had told you that it was OK to add the links, which I of course hadn't. I reverted your repeated addition of the links since it was obvious from even a very quick look at the site that the links you added violate our external links policy (the "advertising" bit is part of the standard text in the spam user warnings). Your repeated re-addition of the links, and your edit-warring on Urdu before that to get "Omniglot - the online encyclopedia of languages and writing systems" into the text then made me take a closer look at the site, a look that resulted in a report to the spam blacklist. Thomas.W talk 12:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * no wonder his RFA failed, and now he's back to his old antics. 134.208.33.104 (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC) Struck comment by now blocked sock. Thomas.W talk 16:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

User:John Carter violating WP:UPNO
(EDIT CONFLICT) John Carter's user page looks like a talk page, and has confused me and several other users into posting there instead of on his talk page. When other users have made this mistake he has allowed them to revert themselves, but for me he has been maintaining my accidental post as a "record" of my "stupid mistake", even after I tried to undo it. Upon my original mistake, he criticized me quite harshly for it, so his refusal to allow me to undo it seems odd at best.

I asked him to remove it, and he refused, repeating a bogus accusation that I think I am perfect and never make mistakes.

Could someone please tell him to cut it out and remove that section of his user page, which blatantly violates the section of WP:UPNO that says "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws" isn't allowed?

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

(EDITE CONFLICT) I tried to notify him but he reverted me. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hijiri, you do not seem capable of understanding that despite your apparent belief that you have the right to dictate to others how they conduct themselves, you do not. Frankly, others have not engaged in the rather ridiculous, pompous, insulting conduct you rather regularly have, and you also seem to be incapable of understanding that after you have clearly been told to stay off my page here, you continue to have the right to not abide by that request. The rather offensive little sermonette you had the gall to give me with the notice would in the eyes of I think most rational individuals qualify as an unacceptable violation of my last request. It is also worth noting that the history of the page revealed that it was Hijiri himself who added it there, in one of his rather regular insults directed at pretty much anyone who disagrees with him, and I reverted his reversion, because, frankly, it is not his place to do so. There is a question whether an individual has a right to keep on his user page something someone else added, and, honestly, I believe it is reasonable to do so, and in no way a violation, as it was not me, but Hijiri, who put it there in the beginning with this edit. John Carter (talk) 23:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sticking by 's side on this question. It's his user page, which he divided by sections, and if you're "confused" you can look to the URL and see that the page isn't a talk page. But Mr. Carter, I would recommend you to cool down a little bit.


 * And after reading the whole context of it, you started this totally unnecessary discussion only because Carter edited in two Japanese articles, Hijiri? Seriously, what's the need of this? MYS  77  ✉ 00:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * User:MYS77: User:In ictu oculi is among the numerous users who were also "confused by sections", I guess? Also, you didn't read back far enough: before posting the comment I had endured a weeks-long hounding campaign, in which he showed up on several article talk pages and posted nonsense comments whose sole effect was to undermine me. I'm not interested in talking about it. This is just about the section of his user page that maintains a record of my perceived flaws? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * But they engaged in reasonable discussion, which you rarely do. I find it amusing that someone who so engages in the rather ridiculous put-downs that you added there himself shows how ridiculous his own inability to understand pages is. Again, I am sorry that you, as an individual, seem to believe that you are capable of adding such rather silly insults and at the same time doing it on the wrong page. John Carter (talk) 00:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Obviously, John, you have the right to keep whatever you want on your userpage. That said, the fact that others have since made the same mistake and have been allowed to move comments to the right namespace (without issue) suggests that this is being kept there for bad-faith reasons. What's the f**king point? Your user page is confusing and even admins have made the same mistake as Hijiri88. But they didn't receive childish lectures from you. Forcing someone to maintain their obvious mistake on your userpage is dickish in the extreme. Be the bigger man and allow Hijiri88 the same courtesy you seem all too keen to allow everyone else.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have removed no other comments myself from the page. Someone else did, here. I believe it is amusing to have such an evidence of, dare I call it stupidity, on my page, when I am not the one who put it there. It is also worth noting that I had recently at least suggested as an idea an interaction ban with Hijiri, during the recent mutual i-ban with Catflap. I simply wish him to himself abide by the principles of standard acceptable behavior, which his own comment did not do, and, frankly, neither did his removal of it. John Carter (talk) 00:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And you're not required to remove other comments, nor are you required to keep them there. My user page is pretty obviously a userpage and I've still had people accidentally leave messages there. I don't lord it over them. As I said, the fact that an admin made the same mistake suggests its an easy mistake to make. You're "technically" in the right here but you're being more than a bit of d*ck about it which is a form of disruption in its own right. Some might think of that as being in breach of the principles of standard acceptable behaviour.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 01:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:UP, users don't own their pages, if it is something that is causing disruption which in this case it is then per policy it should be removed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * John Carter made no such IBAN suggestion. User:Sturmgewehr88 suggested a one-way IBAN to get John Carter off my back. And I hope John Carter realizes that if he was IBANned with me, then quoting me on his user page would be a definite no-no. Also, how is this going to end? Everyone who actually read the discussion seems to agree that the section should go, but won't it just be reverted again? What's the normal procedure here? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I've read it quickly, didn't search enough. It would be better (and very simpler) if Carter removes Hijiri's edit of his user page. I'm agreeing with there.


 * And just to clarify: I have told Carter to cool down in my previous message. So, I wasn't agreeing 100% with him. OK Hijiri? Cheers, MYS  77  ✉ 00:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * @MYS77: Acknowledged. Thank you. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with carter removing the post, Carter its one post just remove it and have this ordeal closed already. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment the root problem here is in Hijiri88's editing, again. John Carter is acting reasonably. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * @In ictu oculi: On what are you basing that? The issue at hand is that John Carter's user page is confusing enough that several experienced users including me, you and at least one admin have mistakenly posted there instead of his talk page, and while he has allowed you and the others to self-revert, he is choosing to deny me this privilege in order to keep a record of my "stupidity". UPNO explicitly forbids this. The only edit I made here that was "problematic" was the original post -- a month ago -- on the wrong page, a problematic edit you and several others have also made. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * All one has to do is look at the top left of your computer screen, If it reads User:name then it is an editors user page - if it reads User talk:name then it is their talk page. Nothing could be simpler and how there could be any confusion about this brings up WP:COMPETENCE concerns. Even better would be to not go to JC's pages at all. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 16:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And there are and have been very serious competence concerns regarding Hijiri for some time, regrettably. I have been in contact, for some time now, with editors with whom Hijiri has argued in the past, generally for dubious if not irrelevant reasons. The obvious paranoia evident in his previous comment on this page here in which he states that anyone who does not have a public e-mail account must, apparently by definition, have sockpuppets, as well as several of his other recent comments, do reasonable continue to raise WP:CIR issues regarding Hijiri in his sole area of interest. The rather extensive correspondence I have been sent off-wiki, which has already been summarized and presented in a redacted version with the identity of the sender removed, as well as his recent history at Kenji Miyazawa in which he has for a rather extensive time sought to keep information regarding the subjects affiliation with a nationalist group, apparently solely on the basis that Hijiri as an individual does not want to have the subject labeled as a nationalist, and other recent, including his obvious and apparently regular, according to the e-mails anyway, insistence on belittling anyone who ever disagrees with him on anything he is interested in, continue to raise in my eyes very serious questions whether this individual is even here to even build an encyclopedia, or whether he might just be here to promote his own personal opinions about subjects he is interested in and help ensure, through dubious conduct and insults, that anyone who might produce sources which challenge his opinions retires through either, eventually, losing his temper, or through disgust with his conduct.
 * By the way, the offending comment has been removed, by me, although I believe Hijiri's real reason for objecting to it, as I believe I said earlier, is that he cannot abide facing the apparent fact of his sometimes obvious at best dubious competence and extremely questionable judgment and behavior. John Carter (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Personal Attacks by the TheGracefulSlick
User is a self admitted novice editor, whom is still in high school. While being in high school or a novice editor is a problem to me, other things are. He has already been referred to as a possible sockpuppet. . Individual has made numerous personal attacks on me from calling me a sockpuppet  to stating that I need to attack his/her articles to seem relevant. Any edits to articles started by him receive an almost instantaneous revert by him. In violation of WP:OWN. CrazyAces489 (talk) 14:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * first you call him sockpuppet then you complain he called you sockpuppet? and you think hes the only one to blame? 134.208.33.104 (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you please identify where I allegedly called him a sockpuppet? Other users called him a sockpuppet. He called me a sockpuppet. to stating that I need to attack his/her articles to seem relevant CrazyAces489 (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I only revert your edits, no one else's reliable edits, because you make irrelevant edits. My "personal attack" was said because you started attacking my articles when I believed your article should be deleted (and was). I never called you a puppet so you are lying, too, that was me merely saying if you did such and such it would be a bad thing to do. I have been a cooperative editer until this user started vandalizing articles I made and he/she needs to stop. I just want to go back to helping Wikipedia TheGracefulSlick (talk)


 * Somebody talk me out of blocking both these guys for 3RR on not one, not two, not three, but four different articles. Give it your best shot.  <font color="FireBrick">K <font color="2F4F4F">rakatoa  <font color="FireBrick">K <font color="2F4F4F">atie   16:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I haven't made any personal attacks as listed above. I have also given the proper warnings for edit warring. I have also brought forth a 3rr. As per, I will simply put up the articles for AFD. CrazyAces489 (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * has very graciously closed the 3RR report (which you should have mentioned here) with a warning. Boomerangs can be painful, so edit with care.  <font color="FireBrick">K <font color="2F4F4F">rakatoa  <font color="FireBrick">K <font color="2F4F4F">atie   17:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This the second dustup I've seen between you two. Head immediately to dispute resolution and work it out. Repeatedly coming to ANI, trying to get another editor sanctioned is frowned upon unless there is clear evidence of sustained misconduct. Not getting along with other editors is part of working together on Wikipedia and not cause for an administrator's intervention. Figure out how to get along...that starts with avoiding antagonizing other people. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 18:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

You guys are smart, so I don't know why you are encouraging CrazyAces' behavior. He/she is lying about me saying I called him/her a sock puppet and targeted specifically my articles because theirs is sub-par at best. If you read his/her diff I said if this activity was going on, it would be bad. I'm done with this discussion, as the user is not worth anything to me or this project, although I will try to reach a truce one last time, to continue, so I am ceasing any interaction with him/her unless I need to defend myself from more lies. I'm going back to improving articles, not sure what the user will do, but it's not my issue anymore. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 16:02, 21 April 2015

Archiving backlog on this page might cause a massive problem for mobile users that might look at this page using their data plan for internet access.
More info what I am talking about can be seen here! Doorknob747 (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah? Imagine my concern.
 * There are some things that mobile devices with tiny screens and limited data plans are just not suited for. Editing Wikipedia is probably one of those things. Involving yourself in AN/I threads is most certainly one of them. There is no reason for Wikipedia to try to accommodate wannabe editors who insist on using unsuitable tools. Jeh (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Rangeblock request
I'd like to request a brief rangeblock of the 119.56.120.0/23 range (I hope I got that right). A single, IP-hopping editor operating in that range has been making disruptive edits to articles on Magic: The Gathering players. (see edit histories of Jérémy Dezani, Brian Kibler, Reid Duke, and Jon Finkel). Whenever a page gets protected, they simply move on to another one. Under normal circumstances, they would have been blocked already and that would probably have been the end of it, but since they've never made more than one edit from the same IP address this has not been possible technically. Your help is appreciated. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * According to the whois, this would be a /18 for the entire provider. I'd recommend a CU review this to see if there would be any significant collateral damage before I would be comfortable issuing the block. <font color="#C50">Nakon  05:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * After reviewing with a CU, there would be significant collateral damage to legitimate editors. I'll semi-protect the pages for a month. <font color="#C50">Nakon  05:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that, but it doesn't really address the underlying behaviour of vandalizing a single article until it gets protected and then moving on to the next one. I also don't think rangeblocking the entire provider is actually necessary, since all of their edits have been in the narrower range I cited above. (see range contribs). What I'm asking for is something comparable to a first-time vandalism block. No longer than three days. With only one edit in that range from someone else in the past week, I think the risk of collateral damage is manageable. More than anything else, I'm concerned about what kind of message inaction sends. Basically, this guy has just learned that while we may stop their vandalism eventually, there aren't really any consequences for it. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, CU has determined that there will be significant collateral damage if the range is blocked. There may be a large number of logged-in editors that use this range.  Therefore, page protection is the best action that can be done. <font color="#C50">Nakon  05:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize rangeblock affected logged-in editors as well, but if that's that case then what you're saying makes sense, unfortunate as it may be. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * (unarchived)
 * Um, a rangeblock is a normal block. It doesn't affect logged-in editors unless you make it a hardblock.  Is there a significant amount of IP editor traffic on that /23?  (for some reasons tools isn't working for me at the moment). Black Kite (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This tool is the only one working for me at the moment - https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/rangecontribs/. But yeah, there does seem to be quite a lot of collateral on the /23. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure how you're evaluating risk of collateral damage, but I can't agree with it. Obviously a long-term rangeblock would cause serious collateral damage, but for something short-term, like what I proposed above, the risk is manageable (only one edit from someone else in the past seven days, only four in the week prior), and no longer outweighs the risk of damage to 'pedia involved in doing nothing. This guy has now vandalized two further pages (see Kai Budde and Richard Garfield), and I have no reason to think they'll stop until we stop them. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

soviet balticum
i do not think there a better place to get things settled on the issue then here, i saw discssions and MASS REVERTING by baltic nationalists Klõps and Nug, this needs to be discussed on one place and reach a everlasting consensus once for all (i could not give nug a notice he protected his page) 81.235.159.105 (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I notified Nug but I'm confused on which articles you are having a problem on, are you talking about Baltic states? It's essential you provide diffs, or evidence, to support your accusations. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 17:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I beleave I know what is the problem. The two mentioned editors live in denial that Baltic states were part of Soviet Union, and make all edits n a way to show that those countries were always independent and revert any correction that mentions Soviet rule over the countries until the USSR dissolution in early 1990s.  This has been going on for years now. FkpCascais (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence of this? Diffs? bobrayner (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * 81.235.159.105 has been making a lot of unconstructive edits. It is probably connected with IPs previous report . IP has been notified to discuss things before and warned, but all she/he did was to back warn me on my talkpage.
 * The IP is edit warring for Lithuanian SSR, Estonian SSR  and Latvian SSR  articles to use her/his system for predecessor and successor flags. This system however is really complicated and misleading Lithuania/Latvia/Estonia are both predecessors and successors and Reichskommissariat Ostland also goes both directions. This is in conflict with Template:Infobox former country that states If the predecessor and successor are the same, and this predecessor/successor continued to exist during this period, do not list either. Instead, make it clear what this state was somewhere in the events section (if necessary).
 * @FkpCascais these are pretty seriously messed up claims. Hard to comment even. There is no denial, these countries were under the occupation.. see Occupation of the Baltic states, State continuity of the Baltic states. As we see there are some editors who think that de facto means de jure --Klõps (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Jytdog
On the Conflict of interest noticeboard, Jytdog told Dr. Joseph Shaw that, because Dr. Joseph Shaw was Catholic, it was a COI for Dr. Joseph Shaw to edit any article relating to Catholicism. See here.

Then, on the COI Noticeboard, I posted a message, saying that it was a conflict of interest for an LGBT Wikipedian to make edits saying that conversion therapy was "pseudoscience", See [|here].

Jytdog then posted a message on my User talk page, in which he said this:

"Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on WP:COIN. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Basing a claim of conflict of interest on a protected class (gender, race, sexual orientation, etc) is a personal attack. I am giving you a very strong warning to not go there. Others may wish to take stronger action. I have removed your posting at COIN"

I asked Jytdog, if it is ok for him to claim that it is a conflict of interest for a Catholic to edit pages about Catholicism, why is it wrong for me to claim that it is a COI for an LGBT to edit pages about homosexuality? I did not get an answer.

Something needs to be done here. If I'm wrong for calling it a COI for LGBT editors to edit LGBT-rlated articles, then somebody needs to call out Jytdog for telling Catholics not to edit Catholic-related pages. Or, if Jytdog was right to tell Catholics to stop editing Catholic-related pages, then Jytdog needs to quit telling me not to base COI claims on sexual orientation. 70.128.120.202 (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like it's about that specific user's COI, not a blanket statement about Catholics. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The case at COIN is about the executive director of Latin Mass Society of England and Wales, who clearly has a COI on that article and brings a clear POV on things Catholic. I suggested he follow COI in editing all things Catholic and he readily agreed.  No problem.
 * The COIN case brought by the IP is based purely on a claim of another editor's sexual orientation (and I have no idea if the claim is true or false and don't care). This is spurious at best and a personal attack at worst.
 * I closed the first COIN posting by the IP as spurious and after more thought I removed it as a personal attack
 * I warned the IP against making personal attacks
 * when the IP trolled my Talk page I removed it
 * after the IP reposted the case at COIN I removed it again
 * and provided a stronger warning
 * I know we cannot siteban IPs, but I reckon we can block them. Please do so.   Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I read the IP's posting at COIN least three times and I don't see it as a personal attack (and this is coming from someone who is not only pro-gay rights, but from someone who refuses to label his sexual orientation). I really don't see how rollback was used correctly in this case.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 00:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * claiming that someone has a conflict of interest (and please read WP:COI for what that means here) based on something like gender/race/sexual orientation alone is, in my view, essentialist, biased and ugly. A personal attack.  This has no place in WP, in my view.  I have a hard time seeing how it is not and you don't give a reason, .  Would you please elaborate?  Thanks.  If the consensus is that I am wrong I will self-revert and apologize. It will be interesting, to see how folks view this.  Jytdog (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's just it: "in [your] view". IMO, the IP's statement wasn't malicious, and I think you came at him/her the wrong way about it.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 00:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not really a proper use of rollback. However, the IP mis-read the COI issue with that one specific Catholic user, and made a false analogy to alleged COI's of gays. A proper analogy would be if a given user was the head of an organization whose mission is either in support of or in opposition to "conversion therapy". Either way, that could be a potential COI, depending on how careful the editor is about maintaining NPOV. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The IP's claim that Roscelese has a COI with respect to the Conversion therapy is not only a personal attack, it's utterly asinine. The IP seems to be here to promote a fringe view point, as evidenced by their edit warring and tendentious editing.- MrX 01:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Categorizing it in "pseudoscience" seems a bit patronizing. I wonder what the sources are for that claim? (I would say that conversion therapy is hogwash, but that's an unsourced opinion.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * @Bugs: Since "conversion therapy" is basically behavior modification, we would need to have unbiased scientific evidence of its efficacy in order to accept it as scientific. Without that to back it up, it's "pseudoscience", which is the default assumption. BMK (talk) 01:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

This IP began editing on April 3 and hit the ground running, with apparent full knowledge of the ins and outs of this place. Could the IP please tell us what other IP numbers he or she had edited under, so that we can have a complete record of their edits, or what account name they used to or usually edit under? BMK (talk) 01:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. I used to edit under the username Kyleandrew1. I took a long break, then started editing again without an account. 70.128.120.202 (talk) 02:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Since you have an account, you really should edit using it. BMK (talk) 03:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't. It's been so long since I've used that account, I don't know my password anymore. 70.128.120.202 (talk) 13:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * A brief history on why I posted this item on the COI noticeboard: After I had made a series of edits to Conversion therapy, I was told that I was about to run afoul of the three-revert rule, and that I should instead take this issue to the noticeboard, rather than engage in an edit-war. Since I did not want to edit-war, I immediately attempted to post a discussion about this to the NPOV noticeboard (because I think it violates NPOV to call conversion therapy "pseudoscience" or to call conversion therapy supporters "fundamentalists.")

But, I couldn't post anything to the NPOV noticeboard, because only registered users could post to the NPOV noticeboard, and I'm only an IP.

That is why I posted the discussion on the COI Noticeboard. My purpose was not to attack anyone, just to bring to light what I thought was an NPOV violation. If I couldn't post to the NPOV noticeboard, I thought I would post my concerns to the closest thing to the NPOV noticeboard. I thought that the COI noticeboard was the second-best place to post. I also said, that, it might be a COI for Roscelese, who self-identifies on her own user page as LGBT, to be editing articles relating to LGBT topics. Just as Jytdog thought that it was a COI for Dr. Joseph Shaw, who is Catholic, to be editing any Catholic-related article. (And Jytdog [| told Dr. Joseph Shaw, specifically, not to edit any Catholic-related article].)

In my post to the COI noticeboard, I said that I thought that the discussion should really be on the NPOV noticeboard, and I invited registered users to move the discussion there. This continues to be my position. Since some of you agree that my post to the COI noticeboard was appropriate (and not a personal attack on Roscelese) I am re-posting it. If anyone wants to move the discussion to the NPOV noticeboard, please do so. 70.128.120.202 (talk) 01:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed conflict with minor refactoring. Origamiteⓣⓒ 01:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see a source for the claim that the term "fundamentalist" is pejorative. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The WP article Christian fundamentalism says, "The term fundamentalist is controversial in the 21st century, as it can carry the connotation of religious extremism, even though it was coined by movement leaders. Some who hold these beliefs reject the label of "fundamentalism", seeing it as too pejorative" and the source for this is 70.128.120.202 (talk) 02:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * the IP has reposted at COIN, which is aggressive, to say the least, as the matter of whether it is a personal attack is not resolved. I will not continue the edit war, but someone else should remove it until the matter is resolved.
 * Please also note that while the IP writes above, "I also said, that, it might be a COI for Roscelese",
 * the posting actually says "Because Roscelese identifies as an LGBT Wikipedian, Roscelese has an obvious conflict of interest". So now we have just plain lying at ANI.  Beating a horse: in my view, basing a COI case (heck even an NPOV case) on sexual orientation alone is a personal attack, in my view.  The IP is editing aggressively and continues to misrepresent the Catholic COIN case and their own posting.  Bad news.  Jytdog (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The two applications of [{WP:COI]] are completely different. Dr Joseph Shaw declared that he is the chairman of Latin Mass Society of England and Wales. Jytdog's application of [{WP:COI]] is 100% correct. The IP's (Kyleandrew1) is incorrect. They could conceivably suggest bias on Roscelese's part (not that I'm saying this is the case) but that would require evidence of bias with diffs. Suggesting that Roscelese has a COI with respect to LGBT articles would suggest that, per WP:COI, that she represented in an official capacity for all members of the LGBT community, which is obviously not the case. Blackmane (talk) 06:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Clarifying issues
No one posting here has supported the contention of hypocrisy with regard to my actions at COIN with regard to Latin Mass Society of England and Wales compared with the IP's posting. In my view that was just a COATRACK over the real issue here, which is the IP's post at COIN and my removing it as a personal attack (see my diffs above for what I did). It seems to me that the community should first decide if the post was or was not a personal attack. If the community says it was not, then the issues brought there can be discussed at COIN, and we don't need to go into them here. The second issue is whether I was too aggressive in pursuing my judgement that it was, and following NPA which says "Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor." So I'd like to suggest that the community focus on those two questions, which are somewhat separate. Restating them:


 * 1) is the IP's post at COIN a violation of WP:NPA? It was about 's actions at Conversion therapy, and in it, the IP wrote  "Because Roscelese identifies as an LGBT Wikipedian, Roscelese has an obvious conflict of interest",


 * 2) Was I too aggressive in treating the post as an NPA violation and thus removing it and warning the IP against making personal attacks? I could have closed it as spurious (as i originally did), responded and discussed, or ignored it and let others respond or not as they chose.  Jytdog (talk) 11:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

discussion

 * In my view 1) is yes and 2) is maybe ( I don't think so, but the community might).
 * 1) In my view, the core claim brought by the IP - that because of Roscelese's sexual orientation, they have a COI on subjects related to sexual orientation that the community needs to manage  - is a personal attack, and an ugly one at that.
 * The IP has thrown some smoke around this by claiming that "But, I couldn't post anything to the NPOV noticeboard, because only registered users could post to the NPOV noticeboard, and I'm only an IP. " While it is true that NPOV is semi-protected, the claim that the only option the IP had was COIN is baloney because:


 * a) they know how to create an account and have an old one from 2007 ( Kyleandrew1); and
 * b) they wrote in the post: "Because Roscelese identifies as an LGBT Wikipedian, Roscelese has an obvious conflict of interest".  Not ambiguous.
 * I'm willing to acknowledge that others may not view this a personal attack, but may see the IP as simply confused, or may view this as a case where there are possibly COI issues that the community would need to take action to manage. The latter would surprise me.


 * 2) But this is where question 2 clouds the water a bit. If I had let it stand, the community could have talked through that (or not) at COIN.   But in my view the post was a violation of NPA and we don't let that stand.  It is fine for the IP to question my judgement here.  I do expect that the community will agree with me and tell the IP here, that "yes, we don't tolerate that kind of thing here"  There are two levels to this.  The first is bias based on sexual orientation.  The second, is claims of COI being thrown around in content disputes, personalizing them through the personal attack of a COI claim.  (there have been some ANI posts related to that lately, in which I have been involved, and that might be making this extra intense for me, in particular)   But we'll see.  Jytdog (talk) 11:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Obviously the conflict of interest assertion was utter bunk. It's precisely like arguing that black people shouldn't edit our article on Martin Luther King (because of his role in the civil rights movement), or that women shouldn't edit our article on Gloria Steinem (because she is a feminist).  Or, in the other direction, like arguing that white people shouldn't edit MLK, or men shouldn't edit Steinem.  The question is whether or not the IP could be 'innocently' ignorant enough to make the assertion in the context of an LGBT editor without crossing the line into intentional offense.
 * Extending the maximum possible excess of AGF, I might be willing to grant the presumption of 'unintentional' offence once. That wouldn't mean that the IP's comments were appropriate or acceptable for Wikipedia (or any public forum), but that the comments didn't cross over the line of WP:NPA because the intent to be offensive wasn't there.  In other words, the comment was objectively offensive, but the IP was too ignorant to realize it.  That doesn't mean that the offensive post should be allowed to stand, however.  Whether hatted or removed entirely is a judgement call; I'm not sure what I would have done there, but I can certainly see how it would have been a magnet for trolling.  And the IP's behavior since then confirms that you made the right call.
 * Once the IP was advised that his post was considered an attack, he was out of excuses. There was no justification for him to restore his comments (twice) – which he had been formally advised would be considered personal attacks – to the COIN.  The I-wanted-to-post-to-NPOVN-but-couldn't excuse doesn't hold water, either.  Even in his third addition (second re-addition) of his report to COIN, he didn't strike the nonsensical and offensive claim that LGBT editors have a conflict of interest, but re-asserted it:.
 * You did good, Jytdog. This IP should be blocked or topic banned, not allowed to waste any more of our time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks, ToAT. Thanks too for acknowledging the difficulty of the judgement call  (so rare at ANI)... am interested to see what others say too. Jytdog (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I come back in the morning and we're still having this ridiculous conversation? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 13:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * i apologize for asking this but i don't know you nor your stance on this. it would be helpful to me at least if you stated your position on the questions.  thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Er, "you shouldn't be editing because you're gay" is a personal attack, yes. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * sorry i reckoned you would say that, but it is not for me to put words in your mouth. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't believe what I just read. Jytdog actually publicly stated that Catholics can't edit articles on Catholicism and LGBTs can't edit gender articles or the like?  If that holds true, then medical doctors can't edit medical articles, biotechs can't edit articles on biotechnology, women can't edit BLPs about other women, scientists can't edit articles about science and so on.  Show me that policy and list of restricted editors.  I can understand recusing oneself from editing a topic or subject because of a self-proclaimed bias, dislike or hatred but this is ridulous.  If it even remotely holds true, then Jytdog should be restricted from participating on COIN because he has a COI declaration on his user page.  Curious - is there a quick way to look up the number of times an editor has appeared on AN and/or ANI as either the accuser or the accused? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  00:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your summary of the issue is incorrect so perhaps it's good that you can't believe it. Jytdog stated that Dr Joseph Shaw shouldn't edit the article Latin Mass Society of England and Wales because Shaw is the chairman of that society. It was an IP, not Jytdog, who said that someone shouldn't edit Conversion therapy because they were gay. Ca2james (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ca2james, your summary is not correct so before you make spurious allegations against another editor, please get the facts straight. I didn't provide a summary, rather I expressed incredulous amazement and followed it with a question. Note the question mark at the end of my sentence.  I couldn't believe Jytdog even asked Rosc to state a position.  He started off with an apology but if you have to apologize before asking a question, you shouldn't be asking it.  He closed the discussion as (→‎Conversion therapy:  spurious. closing) as well he should.    As for Shaw, Jytdog didn't just advise him to not edit that one article or its spin-offs, he added the following restriction in his final paragraph (my bold underline): if you edit other articles related to Catholicism, please limit yourself to their talk pages, and introduce yourself. .  My comments stand as stated.  If Shaw is restricted to Talk page editing, then the same should apply to every other chairman, owner, department head, and so on down the line including department heads in every university department, research labs, pharmaceutical company, religion, political affiliation, and right on down the line as it relates to their respective industry or research topic and the like.  Example: a physician who chairs the oncology division at a hospital could not edit anything related to cancer, hospitals, drugs, treatments, etc.  To begin, WP:COI is a behavioral guideline, and a non-admin sure as heck should not be imposing a TB on another editor or pick and choose what topics another editor can edit based on their religious beliefs, sexual orientation, political affiliations, or professions.  <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  02:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * My summary was accurate as far as it went; I didn't see that had asked Shaw not to edit Catholic article pages directly, and thank you for pointing that out.
 * Now that I know this, I think that the request should be evaluated with respect to COI and clarified, and if consensus is against it, Jytdog warned. I'm not getting the sense that this is what you think, ; what were you suggesting be done? Ca2james (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

My only concern is that more caution should be exercised in these matters. It has taken on the appearance of making up the rules as you go with a splattering of bullying thrown in rather than providing clarification and following the PAGs currently in place. That's why supplemental essays are popping up everywhere. Making up rules as we go leaves the door open to abuse, be it inadvertent or deliberate, and that is what needs to be avoided. Jytdog may have misinterpreted something, I don't know, it's hard enough for me to understand why he does certain things and I actually don't have the desire or time to figure it out. Most of the time he's right on, but when he's not it is usually quite noticeable...perhaps even glaring. I would think Shaw is deserving of an apology and retraction of the restriction regarding all topics about Catholicism. Jytdog is accomplished at striking comments he didn't mean so it shouldn't be an issue for him. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme &#9775;  Consult  19:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, . If we tell the Chairman of the Latin Mass Society that he can't edit any articles relating to Catholicism, that's unduly harsh.
 * It would also be a stricter COI policy than even the reputable encyclopedias have. I'm looking at an old edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, and Henry Ford was the author of an article on Mass Production. Now if the head of Ford Motor Company can write an article on Mass Production, then the head of the Latin Mass Society should be able to edit an article on Catholicism.
 * BTW, I don't think anyone has notified Dr. Joseph Shaw that there's a discussion going on about him. I'm going to post a message about this on his talk page, so that he can weigh in. I'd like to see what he has to say. 70.128.120.202 (talk) 01:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

A third issue here
There is a third issue, here, which is why I brought this discussion to the noticeboard. The third issue is: Was Jytdog making a personal attack when he said that Dr. Joseph Shaw had a COI because he was Catholic? I saw on the no personal attacks page, it said that it was inappropriate to attack someone because of their religion. Of course Dr. Joseph Shaw had a COI with the Latin Mass Society because he was the Chairman. But did Shaw really have a conflict with editing all Catholic-related pages, simply because of his religion? FYI, one-quarter of all Americans are Catholic (as well as over a billion people worldwide), and I'm willing to bet that a lot of the pages relating to Catholicism are edited by Catholics. It seems that Jytdog may have inappropriately singled out Dr. Joseph Shaw when he told Shaw not to edit any Catholic-related pages. If so, Jytdog should be called out for this, and the WP community should apologize to Dr. Joseph Shaw, and tell Dr. Joseph Shaw that it's ok for him to edit Catholic-related pages. 70.128.120.202 (talk) 12:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * as has been discussed above, Dr Joseph Shaw is head of an organization that advocates for the latin mass, which is a contentious issue in Catholicism. He has a COI with regard to that article for sure, and a very strong risk of advocacy for all things catholic. i asked him to follow the COI guideline, which means making edit requests instead of making direct edits, and he swiftly and easily agreed. Jytdog (talk) 13:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The IP's argument is specious, for the reasons given by Jytdog: the COI was obvious. I'd also point out that subject himself, Dr. Joseph Shaw, replied on WP:COIN that it was "absolutely fine" by him to adhere to the restrictions recommended by the WP:COI policy. Given this, one wonders why the IP contiues to pursue the matter. BMK (talk) 13:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure, I made my point clear in my earlier comment. So to reiterate, the answer is: Jytdog applied WP:COI correctly. Your argument doesn't really have a leg to stand on. Blackmane (talk) 02:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment (non admin) ) I dont see eye to eye with Jytdog on many topics. But in this case he is 100% correct that Dr Joseph Shaw has a COI problem on Catholic topics. The IP's accusations are without merit. The Dr can help on Catholic topics best by following WP:COIADVICE. AlbinoFerret  22:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * that was decent of you albino. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that, in this case, the editor in question has a COI related to Catholicism. It isn't because he is necessarily "Catholic," per se, but because he is a recognized leader of a group which has direct ties to a minority view and position regarding Catholicism. Granted, maybe the phrasing of the statement could have been a bit better, with a statement to the effect that the editor is the chairman of a group which clearly promotes certain views relating to Catholicism, but, hell, we all make typos. John Carter (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In that same regard, a physician who is Chairman of the Board of Plastic Surgery would be prohibited from editing articles about plastic surgery? An attorney who is President of the Young Lawyers Association couldn't edit articles about legal issues?  A biotech who heads up the Dept of Biology at a university couldn't edit articles about biotechnology?  The acting Head of the Department of Plant Sciences at a university couldn't edit articles about plants?  You can't be serious.  The guy isn't the Pope for Pete's sake.  What are you thinking? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  01:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure exactly what this is about Atsme, but unless I misunderstood you, a week or so ago you were contending that I had a conflict of interest because I had worked in the pharmaceutical industry a decade ago. Did you change your mind about this or is there something else that I'm missing?  I'm not trying to be snarky here, I just don't understand.
 * I haven't entirely understood all the arguments here, but I'd say the Chairman of the Board of Plastic Surgery has a COI with respect to reimbursement rates for plastic surgery procedures, but not usually when discussing the best procedure for performing a face lift. I probably wouldn't want the head of an advocacy group editing about related topics not because of COI concerns, but because of advocacy ones.Formerly 98 talk 02:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Best place to start is here . To clarify your comment about the COI issue I had regarding you, it was about disclosing your COI declaration because my COI essay was about that very topic and since your participation affected the outcome of the MfD, it was appropriate for you and other editors who had a COI declaration to simply make the disclosure known if you hadn't already.  In Shaw's case, Jytdog basically TB another editor from editing all articles on Catholicism and restricted him to Talk Page discussions which I believe was inappropriate.  I've already said what I came here to say, and now I have work to do elsewhere. Thank you. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  03:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Forum shopping

 * I note that the IP appears to be forum-shopping by bringing his complaint to WP:RSN with the loaded title "People are claiming that WP shouldn't cite sources published by evangelical Christians", which, of course, has never been the claim made. BMK (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't consider it forum shopping simply because he has this opened here at ANI and something related at RSN. ANI doesn't handle content issues only conduct issues. RSN doesn't handle content issues only content related issues.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Another errant conclusion on your part, Serialjoepsycho . The IP in question is forum shopping because his goal is to allow the person in question to edit freely without the constraints of COI. He's tried it at COIN, and failed, he tried it here, and failed, and then he tried it at RSN, where he failed as well.  That's not unexpected, since he's just wrong.  He's also admitted to sockpuppetry, which all-in-all, makes him totally unwelcome here, considering that he's here to push a pro-Catholic point of view, and not to edit an neutral and factual encyclopedia.Incidentally, what are you here for, user named Serialjoepsycho ?  Why is it that I suspect it's not enhancing the encyclopedia?(See, this is why I've always said that I would make a terrible admin, because if I had the bit, I'd block this guy on the basis of the name alone, along with the couple of comments I've seen from him.  My concern would be making the site a place where an encyclopedia can be worked on without people who choose usernames like "Serialjoepsycho" getting in the way.  I'm kinds result-oriented that way.) BMK (talk) 11:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

boomerang
With the post above, I am seeking a block against the IP. This editor is WP:NOTHERE to build the encyclopedia, but instead seems to be interested in picking ridiculous fights. This is separate from the two issues on which I am seeking clarification above. These misrepresentations are a violation of the TPG and are part of other disruptive behaviors:
 * misrepresentations of what happened at COIN in in the IPs original post here
 * here where the IP lied and wrote " I also said, that, it might be a COI for Roscelese," when the IP's post at COIN said  "Because Roscelese identifies as an LGBT Wikipedian, Roscelese has an obvious conflict of interest".  That is not "might" -  it is a definitive claim.
 * throughout this whole thing, where the IP has claimed that COIN was his/her only option b/c as an IP he/she cannot post to NPOVN - the IP has an old account and clearly knows how to make one.
 * On top of that the IP is edit warring at Conversion therapy. The IP was  warned  but removed it claiming "removed defamatory content" and was later warned again by  (who self-reverted when she saw that the IP had already been warned).
 * The user behind the IP is showing him/herself to be WP:NOTHERE. Jytdog (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It's been so long since I've used my old account, I don't know my password anymore. Sure, I could have made an account, but IPs have the right to edit Wikipedia. 70.128.120.202 (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * note - I had originally included the list above under the "a third issue here" section and subsequently moved the list down here. The IP had replied in the midst of my list, while the list was still up there.  when I moved it down here, i moved the response out of my list and into a response.  The IP's post is not a response to the boomerang but just to the line-item about the IP's issues with not being able to post at NPOVN. Jytdog (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose block - Although the behavior of the IP ((Kyleandrew1) has been considerably less than ideal, and I agree with Jytdog's list, I do not think it has quite risen yet to the level of a block. I would suggest a stern warning from an admin that the IP is at serious risk of a block, and take it from there.  If the IP is WP:NOTHERE, and only wishes to push his POV, that should become quite obvious fairly quickly, and a block can then be applied.  In other words, I'm in favor of invoking WP:ROPE at the moment. BMK (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also needed is a caution to Jytdog not to use rollback the way he did. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to me where the misuse of WP:ROLLBACK occurred. Can you link to the diff?  I can't actually find Jytdog using rollback in this dispute at all. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to me where rollback was used either, so I don't see why a caution would be needed. Baseball Bugs, can you please clarify what you were looking at? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you're right. I had taken Erpert's word for it. But looking at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard:Revision history, it doesn't look like rollback was used, just normal manual reverting. Sorry! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * fair enough, and thanks for striking that comment (and thanks in advance if you could do the same with the portion of your 00:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC) comment which talked about rollback); I'm sure anyone who tries to make heads or tails of this (let alone Jytdog) will also appreciate it. And, if you can't clarify where rollback was used in this case (and that too, how it was used inappropriately), it would be better if your comment at 00:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC) reflects the same partial strike out to ensure no further misunderstandings arise on that issue. But if you do maintain that comment, could you please clarify? Thanks in advance. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * to be clear, I didn't use rollback on either revert - you can tell since there are edit notes both here and here. i just ignored the characterization of them as rollback - i should have clarified it for everybody. Jytdog (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support block. The IP already had multiple chances to do the right thing.  Instead, he re-added and expanded on his wholly inaccurate and wildly inappropriate claims of COI twice, then carried on with his disruptive nonsense by starting this discussion with a misrepresentation of Jytdog's actions.  He's taken several lengths of WP:ROPE, and he's repeatedly tied it in knots and then set fire to it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * My claims of COI were not wholly inaccurate, nor were they wildly inappropriate. said, "I read the IP's posting at COIN least three times and I don't see it as a personal attack (and this is coming from someone who is not only pro-gay rights, but from someone who refuses to label his sexual orientation)." 70.128.120.202 (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that you still don't get that your comments were wholly inaccurate and inappropriate is clear evidence of why a topic ban or block is called for. Doing it once was ignorant, making the same claim multiple times (at COIN, earlier in this thread, and now) is wilfully offensive.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * @70.128: Please don't get the idea that because I oppose a block for you at this time, that means that I think your comments were appropriate. They most certainly were not, and can easily be construed as constituting a personal attack.  I just happen to think that we should warn about a first instance of this kind, and hold the block for if and when such behavior continues.There is no proper analogy between asking Dr. Shaw to follow the COI rules and your saying a gay person has an inherent COI on gay-related subjects.  We don't ban Asians from editing Asian-related subjects, or blind people from editing article related to sight and blindness.  We would, however, ask the head of the National Widget Manufacturers Association to make her conflict of interest explicit and follow the COI policy in regard to editing articles about widgets. That is the difference, and it's one you're clearly not seeing.  I can't tell if that's deliberate or not, but you best understand and accept it, because it's the way things work around here. BMK (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support block, and I'd like to suggest a topic ban on LGBT related articles for Kyleandrew1 (the user behind the IP). User has shown that they're here to save us from "the gays," as their only actions are only to push a pro-conversion-therapy-POV.  They're more obsessed with homosexuality than pride-parade-attending friends of mine. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support block for tendentious editing, and edit warring after two warnings.- MrX 02:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Endorse block. In addition to edit-warring on conversion therapy and The Bible and homosexuality, 70.128 removed pseudoscience templates from conversion therapy and Creation science. The forum shopping has extended to RS/N and COI/N, where 70.128 suggested that an editor has a conflict of interest because they identify as LGBT. gobonobo  + c 02:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Block for edit warring. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 09:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I am amazed to see Jtydog appear as the subject of an ANI, yet again, only a few days after they were warned for WP:Civil.__<font color="#ppccpp">DrChrissy (talk) 12:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The thread you linked to was concluded March 29. 18 days is "a few days" now? Besides that, what does it have to do with anything? This thread is not about WP:CIVIL and the result was a block for the OP for edit warring, and it was concluded the complaint was without merit. So what is the point of your comment, other than to show you continue to hold a grudge against Jytdog?--Atlan (talk) 12:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This ANI is about the behaviour of Jytdog. As I learnt at a previous ANI, it is important that the closer is  aware of the historical behaviour of the editor at which the ANI is concerned.  I was simply drawing to the closer's attention that Jtydog has a history of incivil behaviour for which they have already been warned.__<font color="#ppccpp">DrChrissy  (talk) 13:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Post-boomerang
This appears to be the same person as, who got a 2 week block for disruptive editing in early February, then Acroterion gave a month-long block in late February. In early March they started editing with, which was blocked for disruptive editing by Gilliam. They got around the block by moving to. So, there's a block evasion/sockpuppetry problem too. I haven't dug very deeply; there might or might not be an older account behind this. bobrayner (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Now, we have a confession. I would recommend longer blocks, and/or a rangeblock, for this editor. Jydog is blameless. bobrayner (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Started SPI on these IPs. <span style="color: #3BB9FF; font-style: italic; font-family: Lato, sans-serif'">Esquivalience t 20:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeffed sock puppeteer Mriduls sharma back again
During yesterday's move circus (see this section here on WP:ANI) Mriduls.sharma among other things made malicious page moves to then non-existant user names and, two user accounts that have just been created, within minutes of each other, and started testing what they can and cannot do. Which, since there's no way in h*ll two random people with no connection to Mriduls.sharma could have created accounts with those exact names within minutes of each other, indicates that Mriduls.sharma is back again today. I've posted on 's talk page (since he took care of it yesterday), but he hasn't been active today, so could someone else please deal with it? Thomas.W talk 18:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

An issue arose on the Meghan Trainor tlk page in December last year over her being a singer or a singer-songwriter. The issue was since settled and the people came to a consensus of calling Trainor a singer-songwriter. From that time, User:Winkelvi started baiting me. I initially avoided them but it has become a big concern. The first nomination stalled as the user got the article unstable. I was very upset at it. I subsequently nominated the article again on 18 January. Within 5 hours the disruptive user started the issue again note that it had been settled. I had to remove this nomination again, becoming further upset. Mustering up enough courage after about three months of the issue having already been settled, I started a nomination on 20 April. Ten minutes later he returned to start the dispute again. They have since denied this. Was this all a coincidence. I don't think so. I request a topic ban. <b style="color:Red">All About That Bass</b> (<b style="color:Blue">A word??</b> / <b style="color:Purple">Stalking not allowed...</b>) 15:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Another content dispute? SamuelDay1 (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, with a bunch of canvassing and other...stuff. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not canvassing. These are the only active editors involved with the Trainor article. What do you mean by this statement? Is there anyone else relevant I forgot to invite? <b style="color:Red">All About That Bass</b> (<b style="color:Blue">A word??</b> / <b style="color:Purple">Stalking not allowed...</b>) 17:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Me. "Canvassing" also means carefully selecting your audience. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I know what canvassing means and you were not involved in the talk page discussion at that time. <b style="color:Red">All About That Bass</b> (<b style="color:Blue">A word??</b> / <b style="color:Purple">Stalking not allowed...</b>) 17:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful, MaranoFan, if your sig matched your username. It's very confusing the way you have set it up. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 17:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Why so? For e.g. User:HĐ uses Simon. Why cant I use my sig? <b style="color:Red">All About That Bass</b> (<b style="color:Blue">A word??</b> / <b style="color:Purple">Stalking not allowed...</b>) 17:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Because editors have to go to some trouble to figure out who they are talking to instead of immediately knowing it is you. This is less of a problem when an editor sticks with the same signature so that people associate the sig with the user. But I've never seen you use this sig before. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 17:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

-- The discussion, back to the user in question. Winkelvi. <b style="color:Red">All About That Bass</b> (<b style="color:Blue">A word??</b> / <b style="color:Purple">Stalking not allowed...</b>) 17:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like Winkilev isn't happy about a content dispute. Start up a formal WP:RFC to get a stronger consensus. Then you shouldn't have any further troubles, and you can go about your work on the article. That's all that really needs to be done here. What exactly do you expect to happen here? It's not like there's anything here worth a block or topic ban. Sergecross73   msg me  18:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Winkelvi isn't a little baby who we have to work hard to make happy. This is not a request for comment, it is well-established that Winkelvi (or one-two of his friends) are the only ones with the problem. This isn't even a real dispute. This is a technique WV uses to get my GA-nom jeopardized. This drama needs to stop. And we need to discuss the topic ban here. <b style="color:Red">All About That Bass</b> (<b style="color:Blue">A word??</b> / <b style="color:Purple">Stalking not allowed...</b>) 18:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Topic Ban - Petty content dispute. Use an WP:RFC instead. If that happens, and there's still trouble, then look at a topic ban. At this point, its little more than someone being stubborn about a trivial detail. Just discuss further. Sergecross73   msg me  18:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * -But there is no dispute. This is a plain tactic WV uses to get the article failed. Everyone is ok with singer-songwriter. This was at Rfc just a few months ago. We have had singer-songwriter on the article ever since. This is not worth an RfC. He has a problem. We need a topic ban. <b style="color:Red">All About That Bass</b> (<b style="color:Blue">A word??</b> / <b style="color:Purple">Stalking not allowed...</b>) 18:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Counter proposal - OKay, I am fine if we leave WV without a block or ban, on one condition. When we go into RfC and resolve this. After which, and resolving all the other issues, I will give the article into GA reviewing. However, Winkelvi should not flare up the drama again. <b style="color:Red">All About That Bass</b> (<b style="color:Blue">A word??</b> / <b style="color:Purple">Stalking not allowed...</b>) 18:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that. Start up an WP:RFC, and make sure the relevant WikiProjects are (neutrally) notified (no canvassing), and hash it out one last time. If its closed with a consensus against Winkilev's, yet he persists, then yes, at that point, I would agree its become disruptive. Sergecross73   msg me  18:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Request removal of talk page privileges and/or page protection
Apparently is pretty upset.,,. S/he was blocked in 2009 for spamming. Perhaps one of you kind admins would revoke talk page privs and/or protect the page. It has an active block/declined unblock on it. The Dissident Aggressor 18:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, shouting nazi slurs in ALLCAPS with many exclamation marks. Nothing good will come of this. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  18:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Tiptoety  talk 19:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Abusive Edits on Asia's Next Top Model (Cycle 3) Page
These users IP 71.239.172.110, 140.118.228.170, 180.191.84.3, 180.191.76.3, 202.92.128.136 & 202.67.40.50 keep changing the call-out order section of the Asia's Next Top Model (Cycle 3) page according to their own biased judgement, as well as adding useless and false information that are nothing less than inaccurate from the show. Please check episodes of Asia's Next Top Model (Season 3) to verify the call-out order. These users do not even have a legitimate account, but they are always making incorrect edits. -Win- (talk)
 * Seems they had very similar issues in the article about the second season of this same show.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * YES! And for many other shows too! Why haven't they been blocked yet, I really do wonder. -Win- (talk)

Jody08 is also posting false information on the page. The user is attempting to post spoilers of episodes that have yet to be broadcasted, therefore there is no actual proof of final results. -Win- (talk)


 * First thing, Sign your posts. The sinebot posted on your talk page showing you how to do this. This looks more like we have a content dispute going on than a conduct dispute. Looking at the talk page, while I notice they haven't tried to discuss this there I also so note that you haven't. This case isn't really for ANI. Go to the talk page, provide source, discuss it, try to get a consensus, and if that don't work go open some form of dispute resolution WP:DR, like an RFC. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This edit warring over this reality show has been occurring since the show started several weeks ago. A week or so ago, I asked for semi-protection at WP:RPP but I guess the article was only protected for a week. Should we ask for a longer duration? It's a true dilemma because some of the IP editors make valid edits while some user accounts make incorrect edits, like reformatting the contestants' box. I think though as the number of contestants goes down, the edit warring will decrease. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 19:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I really wish we could put an end to this use of Wikipedia as a minute-by-minte tracker of every unreality TV programme on the planet. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Need quick block and deletions
Special:Contributions/PINGAS SUCKER SamuelDay1 (talk) 23:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * definitely agree, they are currently just posting pictures of penises around the Wiki. Also, can I have the edits by this user on my talkpage removed please? Joseph2302 (talk) 23:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Block review
was blocked by nearly 26 hours ago for about 72 hours. In blocking summary, HJ Mitchell cited an ANI section that was closed a few hours ago per his own agreement and there is clearly no evidence if OccultZone was pursuing this section anywhere, or any of the complaints that he had also made on this section. And there seems to be no violation of any rules, or any blockable offense. Unblock request:.

My question is that how we can keep a long term user blocked when there is no justification for the block? I am sure that he should be unblocked. Delibzr (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment by non-involved editor: There's been a lot more than that going on too, including edit warring on various user talk pages, removing comments by other users on other user's talk pages, not staying away from user talk pages after being told to do so, etc. So the only thing that surprises me about the block is quite frankly that he only got 72h. Thomas.W talk 23:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's completely opposite to what happened. He didn't removed others comments but his comment was being removed and after opening the ANI he didn't participated on retrieving any of them and clearly told that he is "not going reinstate" any. Thus how it was preventative? He restored his comment only on one talk page then came to ANI after he saw it was removed again, there were 2 reverts by him and others who he complained. You should review the situation. Delibzr (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * OZ reverted several admins' edits, sometimes on their own talk pages. He ignored the comments from multiple admins and editors to WP:DROPTHESTICK and continued to pursue sock investigations even after they had been closed by CUs and SPI clerks. Every week, he was filing more cases at AN, AN/I and AE and seemed to seek out confrontation. And if admins didn't oblige his requests to pursue investigations, he had harsh words for them. There is no question he was an absurdly prolific editor but at 18 months, I don't think you can call that a "long-time" contributor. I value OZ's work but I think he gets bored and recently, he has been on the sock patrol. This isn't a bad thing if you are actually an experienced editor but I don't think he had the antivandalism training to dive headlong into the pursuits he was undertaking. He needs to slow down and maybe this limited time block will help.  Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 00:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Liz has refused to provide any evidence, per here. Please cite evidence for these unfounded allegations. Reporting issues to AN, AE, ANI, are always welcome when they are relevant to that noticeboard, you should not be misinterpreting their purpose. Were they are redirected on a same editor? Would you also consider asking for page protection as "seek out confrontation", that's plainly absurd. If you have complaint then go write there as none of it seems to be have anything to do with this block. Neither is anything wrong with investigating socks since the the targeted sock was clearly as sock but claimed to be having brother on the account!(I was involved there) Anyone would disagree with such a bad decision, but I don't see him filing same complaint again. Bringing up some unblockable and dead issue to make current block sound is even more unprofessional.
 * The block had to be supported by a policy and well justified, blocks are not for slandering editors when you cannot even come up with a fair evidence that how an editor was breaking any rules. Delibzr (talk) 01:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec) Delibzr has challenged my statements and has asked me to either retract them or supply diffs. I stand by my words but it is evening here and I will locate supporting diffs tomorrow. I hope that is soon enough. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 01:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support quick unblock Based on what really happened, nothing ever reached to the level where block was required and the ANI withdrawn by himself. The block was seem bad and wasn't required. SamuelDay1 (talk) 23:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Support I am not involved with this issue however I think the block should be reviewed at the very least. Blocking long-term, useful contributors is a dangerous business. user:OccultZone may become disillusioned and may resign. This seems like a pretty bad downside. And would any one like to explain the upside of a 72 hour block? Further there is insufficient evidence of any serious wrong-doing on the part of this user. I don't see a good reason for this block and currently I vote for it to be reviewed. If new information is submitted my vote may change according to my direction. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  01:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Trout71, for clarity your bolded text may well read Support review then as opposed to Support unblock? Category:Requests for unblock is regularly monitored and multiple admins have certainly reviewed the request. That none of them have chosen to unblock is telling.


 * Support Not only that the block was unwarranted, we should also see that OccultZone hasn't reacted to the block the way many other editors seems to be doing these days, if he had, I would consider that the editor can lose his control. He is calm. For all that I definitely support unblocking. Hajme 00:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment OccultZone seems to have been pursuing multiple disputes related to that earlier ANI. Last edit before the block was this (modifying a post from slightly earlier) and OccultZone had also just complained to Sandstein here.  I don't understand the reason for the conflict with Magioladitis, whose comments earlier made  sense as far as I remember.  It did look to me like OccultZone was having trouble dropping the stick.  HJ's post after the block seems like an accurate summary.  Floquenbeam also thinks it's complicated and didn't support unblocking.   Basically I don't understand (and am not about to research) the messy surrounding circumstances enough to say they didn't justify the block.  I'd like to hear what HJ has to say.  I'm in any case unimpressed by OZ setting their hair on fire over those Kumioko edits, regardless of whether they were right.  I have no problem with an unblock request from OZ being granted if OZ agrees to tone down the conflict. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 01:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Good block. It is nice to want someone unblocked to encourage them to continue their Wikipedia activity, but please also consider the many other editors who are distracted by the noise of such activity. Any review of the situation shows that the block was a good remedy to prevent the spreading drama. Johnuniq (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Good block. Per Johnuniq. As to the comments by the other users above who have fewer than 800 edits to their name ... I am surprised to see so many of those, finding their way to one AfD. Epeefleche (talk) 01:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Something is weird here. Why are 4 users with less than a thousand edits each, all with similar minor English imperfections to what we see from OccultZone, all commenting within an hour of each other on this thread in OccultZone's favor? All the more experienced editors here are speaking in favor of the block, but these editors are all speaking against it. I can't see any significant interaction between these editors and OccultZone. How do they all know him? How did they know of this thread, all commenting less than an hour after it was created? If these are real world friends, I think we need to know that, and it's dishonest to try to make this look like there's some kind of groundswell of grassroots support. If there's an innocent explanation for their participation in this thread, I'd like to hear it. , how do you know OccultZone? --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  01:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I was involved with OZ a while ago on INB where he is active. Floquenbeam agrees. Though I have doubts about 50.0.136.194 and Trout71. Delibzr (talk) 02:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with Floquenbeam, same suspicions drawing my attention.
 * I am more concerned with the above incident about 87.244.29.26.87. Here I saw that "trout71" interpreting "block" as "ban" you see discussion at User talk:Trout71. Just planned to correct it and comment here. I can remove my vote if that's the problem. Hajme 02:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note Delibzr is also engaged in some discussion about this with me on my talk page, in case anyone cares. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion raised questions about 4 users by Floquenbeam, thus I think it has to continue further in the new direction. I wonder if they were notified somehow to participate in this discussion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think they were all pinged. might also want to contribute. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 07:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello User:Floquenbeam and User:Magioladitis. You have raised doubts about my independence on Wikipedia and you asked how I know occultzone. I don't know him. We are not friends outside Wikipedia and I assume live in a different country. If you doubt this check my edits and articles. They mostly pertain to Irish subjects. In relation to the timing of my edit I was nearly the first person to vote but every time I tried there was an edit conflict. I can't speak for the other users. I was not pinged by anyone. I just don't support blocking unless it is absolutely necessary. Also I resent your comments about imperfections in my english. User:Delibzr you seem to be saying that I am a just a sockpuppet. I question your impartiality in this subject. It seems wrong that you level accusations against me. Anyway this hardly an obscure page and I regularly read the notices on it. If my vote is an issue I will withdraw it. This is the second time I have been accused of been a sock. The first time I was accused of being a person living in Asia. I have been here less than 10 days. If you lot are going to accuse me of being a sock you best make your mind up as to whose. So much for assume good faith. If you still have doubts talk to me on my page. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, Trout71, it's unusual for a 10 day old account to find their way to AN/I, AfD and the Village Pump in their first few days. Many editors don't come across internal Wikipedia pages for months or years after they have created a new account and most readers don't even know they exist. Your appearance in these governance and maintenance areas so soon after creating an account raises suspicions in some longtime editors. I'd try not to take it personally. I doubt there is an editor on Wikipedia who hasn't been called a "sock" at some point in their editing career. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 18:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright fair enough User:Liz. I see your point. I am familiar Mediawiki and associated code and this is just a big version of that. It helps me find internal pages. Also if there is governance and maintenance going on I would prefer to be a part of it. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, you are a few steps ahead of most new editors, Trout71! I think it's often forgotten that while an editor might be new on en.wiki, they could have been active on other Wikipedia projects. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 19:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think there is enough here for a CU, both in the evidence and in the concerns voiced by veteran editors. I endorse the opening of a request, if a second editor is inclined to do so. That would address the possibility of us having a sock problem - though of course it would not address a possible meat-puppetry problem. Epeefleche (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Protection of User:Contribsx and User talk:Contribsx
Further to Help desk, I am concerned about the possibility of edits to User:Contribsx and User talk:Contribsx.

It appears that anyone can edit these pages. This is an important issue, because it is has been alleged that this blocked account is a sock-puppet for a prominent politician, Grant Shapps. This issue has gained traction in the UK general election, with substantial media coverage. User:Contribsx is directly linked from this Guardian article. Please protect these pages ASAP, and revert any edits made since the account was blocked. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Several dubious edits have already been made to User:Contribsx. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I referred this here from the help desk, as beyond the question of whether page protection is necessary, the situation is getting media attention, and so having a decent number of eyes on it seems prudent. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  01:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive sock/proxy IP
is continuing the unconstructive editing of recently blocked sockpuppet, like adding nonsense to a sentence about a lawsuit.

The blocked sock modified the sentence "A central allegation of the suit is that Barclays misrepresented the level of aggressive HFT activity in its dark pool to other clients." by adding stuff that cannot be found in any source. Here the IP sock modified the same sentence, also by adding stuff that cannot be found in any source.

I assumed good faith, started discussion on 17:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC) and followed the protocol of talk page explanations and warnings, e.g. here about the lawsuit. The IP, despite some niche topic knowledge about high-frequency trading, is acting as if it could not hear me. When being warned about edit warring, the IP responds by making three reverts in different articles,    inlcuding re-inserting "from using GPUs" in the lawsuit sentence (last link), with an edit summary of "senteice is not talking about lawsuit".

Obviously unconstructive and disruptive, and I think sufficient to block the sock IP and semi-protect the articles edited. I wanted to make this report concise, there are more issues pointed out in the section "April 2015" on the IP's talk page. Kristina451 (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have account just forget to log in, this person is very bad . she keep undoing everyone edit and I see admin already warn her. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kristina451&diff=prev&oldid=654233086) I ask her nicely on her talk page why she keep undoing my edit and also give reference on the article talk page before editing, she never discuss and just report me.  Mkb764920 (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The April 9/10 timestamps of your edits with and  show that you did not "just forget to log in". Mkb764920 is an obvious sock, created yesterday. Kristina451 (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * admins, I just start using en.wikipedia. using IP for few month and now create account. I have long time account in ja.wikipedia. I see she only spend time on edit war, I contribute more than her already （＾∀＾）and will no need to argue with her, I will only talk to admins. please stop her from undo war. Mkb764920 (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I would appreciate if an administrator could handle this. Thanks. Kristina451 (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The disruptive sock acting as if it could not hear me again re-inserted the same unsourced nonsense into the sentence about the lawsuit. This is the second time after my talk page explanation of 12:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC), linked above. Using faux, disruptive edit summaries like "sorry three revert rule" is the typical behavior of the recently blocked sockpuppet . I would like to request admin closure. Kristina451 (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I would appreciate if an administrator could handle this. Thanks. Kristina451 (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * administrator pls see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kristina451 she sock and violate 3RR first now want revenge to say I am socker !! Mkb764920 (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * PortugueseManofPeace based his sockpuppetry allegation on "semantic analysis" of the "writing style" of a template I posted to his talk page. The blocked sock pretended to not know what a template is, the new sock pretends to not know what 3RR is. Mkb764920's account on ja.wikipedia.org was created on April 10, 2015 and has never made an edit. Kristina451 (talk) 16:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I would appreciate if an administrator could handle this. Thanks. Kristina451 (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Congressional hearing
Is a request for an "investigation by Congress" and a "congressional hearing of Wikipedia" a legal threat? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, WP:RBI. <font color="#C50">Nakon 05:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * He is copying from, have a watch. SamuelDay1 (talk) 07:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

histmerge
Histmerge .OOO frm corresponding draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.6.156.167 (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Samsara 09:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

And Draft:Caroline Harriet Abraham to corresponding article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.6.156.167 (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Samsara 10:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry and SPI
conducted the following SPI after being contacted by a the Guardian journalist: Sockpuppet investigations/Hackneymarsh. After the block, the Guardian published an article about it: and the SPI was also on BBC's frontpage:.

The Guardian article gives the following quote: ''The site’s administrators, selected Wikipedia volunteers who patrol the site, told the Guardian that they “believe that the account Contribsx is a sockpuppet of Grant Shapps’ previous accounts on Wikipedia ... and based on the evidence the account is either run by Shapps directly or being run by someone else – an assistant or a PR agency – but under his clear direction.”''

This quote comes from the SPI as the admin initially wrote the editor is Grant Shapps (diff). The article suggests that Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry was in contact with the journalist before and perhaps during his sockpuppet investigation. And why did the journalist contact him the first place? And how much and what kind of correspondence did they have? These are pretty murky elements considering this SPI was done solo by the admin. points out much of the evidence is rather odd for an SPI: it's comparing the edits to what the politician in question did in real-life. CheckUser result was "likely", however.

I don't know if Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry did anything wrong but it's just rather obscure and doing this during the peak campaign time for the UK 2015 elections as a some sort of assigment from a journalist seems odd. Given very high-profile media coverage, this needs additional eyes and I'm posting this here. --Pudeo' 01:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Additionally, how can CheckUser link the account to one that has not edited since 2010? The IP information could have decayed already. Hackneymarsh only did 13 edits in 2010 and was only claimed to be Grant Shapps by the newspaper in 2012. Yet this new SPI is all about "evidence" of Contribsx following what Grant Shapps did in real life. Isn't CheckUser use pretty restricted when it comes to outing/political pressure? This whole affair seems worse than I thought at first. --Pudeo' 02:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I've left the case open to avoid any accusations of impropriety. I haven't looked into the matter yet and will have to do so tomorrow as it is late here. Feel free to review. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  02:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have already initiated an arbitration case request: Arbitration/Requests/Case.  Please note that I have very specifically *not* included the name of the living person who has been linked to all of this, and I strongly urge other editors to refrain from doing so as well.  Repeating unproven allegations about a living person is a violation of our BLP policy. Risker (talk) 03:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Please get rid of my obscene history
A vandal apparently thought it would be funny if they added penises to my user and user talk pages, and referring to me using racial slurs (they likely saw my userbox saying that I was black). A user reverted these edits already, but they are still in the history. If I am not mistaken, the vulgar pictures are primarily used encyclopedically, so we can't just delete them. Can you find a way to get rid of the derogatory racial slurs and the vulgar pictures from my user and user talk page history? The vandal was. I would greatly appreciate it. I'm just so upset about this. --Mr. Guye (talk) 03:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've revision deleted the content of the edits on both your user and user talk pages, hope that achieves what your looking for. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  03:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Consider this thread finished. I'm satisfied. --Mr. Guye (talk) 03:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:AIV needs attention
There's about a nine-hour backlog that could use some eyes on AIV; the bot has been 'stale'ing many reports since Friday night because of it. <font face="Myriad Web"> Nate  • ( chatter ) 09:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you should tell this to the WP:Bot talk page, I think people over there will help you. If that does not work out, you may need to contact the owner of the bot. If the owner of the bot is unreachable or is no longer editing Wikipedia, then we have a massive problem, and that means only a admin can stop the bot.  There is a request admin to stop bot page on the bots page, if not then the user that uploaded the bot is breaking the rules of Wikipedia.  Also, calm down.  Its not like the bot is going randomly to random pages of Wikipedia and vandalizing those pages, if that was the case then there is a need to panic.  The only people that need to panic right now about this bot situation is, most likely the owner of the bot that you are talking about, and maybe a few administrators.  So calm down.  Doorknob747 (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the OP meant that there were a backlog of reports rather than a problem with the bot. Anyway, the backlog is cleard now. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Since this problem has been solved please tag this for being archived to decrease this pages data size! Doorknob747 (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * After close comment I was saying the reports were up for so long the bot declared them appropriately stale, not that there was a problem with the bot, and my concern was completely calm. We have these 'WP:A-whatever needs attention' messages all the time here when things get backed up, Doorknob747; all it was meant to do was get some eyes on it. <font face="Myriad Web"> Nate  • ( chatter ) 02:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm reopening this - I just came from dealing with yet another AIV backlog. This is a daily occurrence now, sometimes two or three times a day. RFPP is almost as bad. We've got to get more admins looking at these two pages more frequently. If we discourage people from reporting to AIV because nobody ever takes action on their good-faith reports, we may as well mark the page historical right now. While I welcome and appreciate non-admin involvement here, the sysops really need to discuss this for a bit.  <font color="FireBrick">K <font color="2F4F4F">rakatoa  <font color="FireBrick">K <font color="2F4F4F">atie   10:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And I'm back after clearing another 10-hour AIV backlog. The problem seems worst in the US evening and European early morning hours.  <font color="FireBrick">K <font color="2F4F4F">rakatoa  <font color="FireBrick">K <font color="2F4F4F">atie   09:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * User:KrakatoaKatie, I see you got some of the RFPP and I got the rest. It seems to me that the most common time for RFPP to get backlogged is around 06Z or maybe that's just when I see it. I've been there at other times and it never seems that bad. Even just now it was fairly light. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with your assessment of RFPP. It's the inattention to AIV that's becoming a thing. Maybe it's been this way for a while, I don't know - I've been ill for a very long time and I'm still catching up on the last year's worth of madness. I do know that we can't afford to be apathetic about dealing with good-faith vandalism reports, even if the ones I've seen languishing are usually no edits since the final warning or haven't been warned. Has it become the norm to leave that kind of thing there without comment until it's several hours old?  <font color="FireBrick">K <font color="2F4F4F">rakatoa  <font color="FireBrick">K <font color="2F4F4F">atie   09:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference that is the subject of a civil action
Not sure where to go with this question, hence its arrival here. A number of times a user has removed a reference from the OnLive article, stating that it is "dubious", "The article author refused to fact check" and that its the subject of a libel case in Delaware. On the talk page they posted a list of allegations from the libel case and restated their claim that because of this the source shouldn't be used. I mostly agree with their current reply to another user, that at present its only being used to reference a short sentence and is replaceable, my bigger concern is that the source contains material that could actually be very useful in expanding the article, and so does this libel case mean we shouldn't use it as a source?, its OK to use as a source until the libel judgement or some other stand point? - X201 (talk) 09:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * X201, you might receive good feedback about this at the reliable sources noticeboard, WP:RSN, where they might have encountered situations like this before. Also, please inform the editors involved in this debate about any further discussion you have on a noticeboard so they can present their position on this dispute. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 10:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

OWNTV disambig page
An editor User talk:RobinColclough appears to be disrupting wikipedia and using it as a soapbox in a trademark dispute with Oprah Winfrey SageGreenRider (talk) 00:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OWN_TV&diff=643289117&oldid=511677480
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OWN_TV&diff=prev&oldid=654504363
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OWN_TV&diff=653285924&oldid=643947788
 * Going to the website listed in the 'complaint' comes up with a 404 error, and the WHOIS just lists 1&1's common private registration info. Whatever issue the editor has here, they haven't proved their site deserves listing on the DAB page or their disclaimer should be hatted on the main OWN page. A bit of WP:RFP may be appropriate here; the protection for the Oprah Winfrey Network (U.S. TV channel) page that expired days before unrelated to this issue (we were dealing with /the Dan Vs. vandal there, not this issue directly) kind of nipped the dispute there as a secondary concern and likely the user took it to OWN TV to keep the dispute up. <font face="Myriad Web"> Nate  • ( chatter ) 01:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not disrupting the OWNTV wiki page, I just included factual information that anyone can verify at the USPTO and European Trademark office. If you go to www.owntv.com the site does not list as "404 error", and is fully operational. Could someone please explain where there is a problem with including that "OWNTV" is a registered trademark since 2006? /Rob Colclough/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobinColclough (talk • contribs) 06:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your question, . The disambiguation pages are not Google searches. They are purely to disambiguate similarly named articles inside wikipedia. To warrant a listing on the page, the article must first exist. See WP:DAB . To exist, the topic must be notable, see WP:GNG. Registering a domain name and/or trademark is not in itself at all notable. By the way, a good resource for editors unfamiliar with wikipedia is Teahouse hth. SageGreenRider (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, ! I almost forgot the thing that brought me to ANI in the first place: it's considered bad form to make legal threats such as "Use of this trademark, or variations such as OWN TV or O.W.N. TV, or variations thereof, infringe the owner's rights." and "If there is a problem with this, please email me at info@owntv.com and allow my attorney to contact your legal department." Please see WP:THREAT SageGreenRider (talk) 12:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive sock: can't create SPI
User:Surya (Official Cyril Magic) is an obvious block evasion sock of User:Hendrix Adi Surya, but I can't create an SPI as the username string is blacklisted. Sock's first edit was to create Hendrix (deaf), a re-creation of salted Hendrix Adi Surya. Thanks, Dai Pritchard (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have already taken care of this. Carry on.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

PA on SPI
It happened a long time ago, but still it bothers me. On a SPI on Misconceptions2, added my name as sock out of the blue. Even asked for a checkuser. Running checkuser without strong reason is violation of privacy rights. Then he went on with his PA. The reason I am reporting it is not that it bothers me a lot, but because such behavior of listing users as sock without enough investigation because you disliked what they said and then going on with PAs is a bad habit and is not and example of WP:AGF.  nafSadh did say 05:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Leave the matter alone, you haven't discussed with Andy Dingley either. SamuelDay1 (talk) 05:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I would have; but it was evidently hapless. I do not like my name listed on SPI, and I'd love it if there is a way to remove it. An existing SPI attracts people with deliberate intention of harassment to misuse those.  nafSadh did say 05:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Has anyone actually harassed you though? If so, that you'd want to report, but&mdash;wait, at the beginning you said it bothers you, but then you said it doesn't bother you. Which is it?  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 06:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I said it bothers me is not the reason for what I brought up this.  nafSadh did say 11:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I doubt that any SPI clerk or CU would remove a name from an archived investigation, whether or not you were noted to be a sock or if you were cleared. The only comfort I can offer you is that you can find investigations with the names of a lot of editors which found no connection to socks. This is especially likely to happen with new accounts. So, yours is far from the only case of this happening, it's more common than you might think.
 * If it still concerns you though, the place to bring it up is Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 08:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Anything relevant to this was said at Sockpuppet investigations/Misconceptions2/Archive.
 * I see this as a valid SPI, for a prolific case of socking. At the time I saw behavioural evidence to link Nafsadh with this sock drawer. As he was the only user with a declared RL identity on his user page, I also considered that it was likely he was the sockmaster, rather than a puppet. A CU is quite appropriate at this point.
 * Mike V (whom I've notified of this) carried out the CU and reported that "I don't believe that Nafsadh is related to this case.". That's good enough for me. I am sure there was substantial socking in this case, but if the CU rejects it, I'm happy to accept that Nafsadh wasn't part of it.
 * If Nafsadh would like an apology for being suspected, then I'm happy to give that: Nafsadh, I don't believe you were one of the socks here. I apologise if you've felt slighted by being subjected to the enquiring probe of CU. I hope this can resolve the issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted.  nafSadh did say 11:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Users Toddy1 and Nepolkanov (Неполканов)
Related ANI complaint:WP:ANI

Could I get some attention to the removal of my recent comments please? It was my first edit on wikipedia after a long time reading and enjoying wikipedia. My comments were immediately removed and I was called a block evasion of User:Kaz as far as I can see from reading about Use:Kaz having been identified with him/her by Tody1, every time someone has come and edited the Crimean Karaites article in a way that Toddy1 and Nepolkanov do not like, they get the editor blocked saying it is a sock puppet of User:Kaz. The Crimean Karaites article is utterly appauling and I can see that Nepolkanov who also edits the Russian Wikipedia has "Outed" User Kaz and is removing all references to the International Institute of Crimean Karaites while at the same time using all of the images from the Institute!! Something really has to be done about this dynamic duo. I have to say I was extremely angered when my comments were removed from the talk page but I have been reading through all weekend to try and work out what Toddy1 was talking about when heshe removed all my comments, and after I see how petty and ridiculous the motivatin I simply can not find any pleasant words. Requesting intervention please. 79.109.203.252 (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You are doing what Kaz did, bringing up his point of views. SamuelDay1 (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Having the same view point as someone else does not mean that they are the same person. More evidence is required than that. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * First: you should provide diffs to examples of what you are complaining about. You cannot expect others to go finding them for you.


 * Second: you should refrain from personal attacks as this edit summary, "disruptive edits by insane user Toddy1 ...". that could put you on the receiving end of the WP:BOOMERANG.


 * Third: 's reversion of your addition of the synthesis tag to the Crimean Karaites was a valid reversion if for an apparently invalid reason. If you are going to claim that an article contains synthesis then, as the tag states, you should start a discussion on the talk page stating what you believe to be synthesised and from where.  I have reverted your synthesis tag because no such discussion has been started on that specific point.  You have put much material on the talk page, but unless you have any reliable secondary sources to back you up, your opinion is never going to cut the mustard.


 * Finally: having looked at the editing that was indulging in before his block, I can see little if any similarity to your editing contributions.  Toddy1's removal of your talk page comments would therefore appear to be a violation of Wikipedia policy and any admins driving past may wish to address that. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments User:DieSwartzPunkt, but I really need an Admin to look at this. You seem to be unaware that a discussion about the synthesis was begu on the talk page and the reason I am posting here is not because the synthesis tag was removed, but because my talk was removed. In the same way I would like to add User talk:SamuelDay1 to my complaint for removing my comments from the talk page again. Seems like a bit of a tag-team going on here between User:Toddy1 and User:SamuelDay1

These users made direct personal attacks against me by removing my talk!!! It is sort of hard not to snap back at someone who attacks you for no reason at all. Nevertheless, I take on board your suggestion and will try to avoid angry responses to DIRECT PERSONAL ATTACKS in future.

So these are the disruptive edits I am talking about.

Evidence that Toddy1 (a very controvercial editor on all sorts of matters pertaining to the Ukraine) removes the work of anyone whose opinion he disagrees with and says they are User:Kaz

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crimean_Karaites&diff=656961403&oldid=656930381

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard&diff=656961482&oldid=656931530

Evidence that SamuelDay is doing the same thing, apparently a sock puppet or meat puppet of Toddy1 since Samuel replied here instead of Toddy though I put the notice on Toddy´s wall.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crimean_Karaites&diff=next&oldid=657189525

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=657189916

If they are not the same person then they are one of those tag-teams who work together to get around the three revert rule.

By the way, please can any Admin tell me if the three revert rule applies to reverting attempts to delete my complaints from notice boards and talk pages.

Concernign wikipedia Outing policy violated by User Nepolkanov there is a LOT of evidence from his contributions history, but very clear example is in this edit here

It seems like Wikipedia has been inadvertently taking sides in this by blocking the wrong editors and leading to an absolute free-for-all with regards to outrageous POV pushing by a small team of editors which has started to affect the mainstream view of what Crimean Karaites are, judging by the Huffington Post.

Please can these disruptive editors be put under some sort of a leash.

Thank you79.109.203.252 (talk) 09:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I should add here that I notice Toddy1 has also contributed to outing User Kaz in so that I was able to google the info they provided here] and here to be able to find everything about this man. I am extremely concerned that this Toddy1 is going to try and stalk me now too as he has already revealed my location. 79.109.203.252 (talk) 10:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You have been making personal attacks, and false allegations of socking that Toddy1 probably is a sockpuppet of Nepolkanov. Please reconsider your actions. SamuelDay1 (talk) 08:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * 79.109.203.252. Admins may well take a look at this at some point. But regular users are entitled to pitch in and express their views.  The admins will take all opinions into account.


 * You appear to have stated the material that you objected to is seen everywhere which means that you are admitting that this is mainstream thinking (by definition). You may believe that it is, "Crackpot Right-wing Zionist Bias Fringe theory Original Research", but that is only your opinion.  I would suggest that you do not revert the article further especially given that you have now made three reverts within 24 hours and are on the edge of violating the three reverts rule which should land you with an automatic editing block.  For the sake of completeness, the three reverts are; ; ;.


 * If you wish to challenge the material then you need to produce reliable and verifiable sources supporting your position. Without them, if you continue, the best that is liklely to happen is that you get blocked for edit warring (if you are not for the 4RR)


 * I am also very concerned that a fourth revert has been made using an alternate IP address which appears to be a dynamic proxy IP address which has been unused (for Wikipedia purposes) since 2013. Since the revert is the only edit that this IP address has made in over two years, it smells very strongly of WP:SOCKPUPPETRY.  If this is a sock and, then this puts the reverts at 4RR, though not within 24 hours but that is evidence of edit warring.


 * You have also stated that your are a Christian Zionist, in which case you would appear to have a conflict of interest in the neutrality of the article.


 * Appropriate warnings have been posted at the user's talk page. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Well you all shown that you have conflict of interest in this article so I will prefer to wait until an admin pitches in then I wuill explain myself to them rathetr than to usernames which for all I know could be sockpuppets or meatpuppets of each other. No more harrassment please.

I am calling for an Admin. The issues are WP:OUTING, WP:SOCKPUPPETRY, WP:OR, WP:SYNTHESIS, Conflict_of_interest, and I would also add to that cyber-bullying, but it seems there is no policy against that. 79.109.203.252 (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * How it is outing? Also what personal attack? You are making personal attacks and using wikipedia for pushing your fringed opinions. SamuelDay1 (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

No administrator action required here in connection with the socking allegations. Discussion here and at User talk:79.109.203.252 shows that this is just another instance of an agreived editor who believes that everyone who disagrees with him must be sockpupets of each other.

However, it is also clear from that talk page that 79.109... is indulging in abuse of those that oppose him. I also find 79.109...'s use of a sockpuppet IP address to continue his edit war at Crimean Karaites convincing enough (how many times have we seen similar one off edits following 3RR?). A clear WP:DUCK test winner. These actions alone warrant a block of 79.109.203.252. The socking alone warrants an indefinite block (the IP address appears static). I B Wright (talk) 07:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Now, even I B Wright agrees that Toddy1 and Nepolkanov´s claims that I am Kaz are "just another instance of an agreived editor who believes that everyone who disagrees with him must be sockpupets of each other". So now what happens next? 79.109.203.252 (talk) 08:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You are misinterpreting what I posted. I was responding to the point that you started this thread for, not any side issues).   My point was that it is you who are accusing all those who disagree with you as being sockpuppets.  As for whether you and and user:Kaz are the same person: as you have already resorted to sockpuppetry to support the same argument, I would regard that the WP:DUCK test proves the point.  I B Wright (talk) 12:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh I am sorry, there is so much mis-quoting mis interpretation and misrepresentation going on in these discussions it gets very difficult to follow exactly who has said what! Nevertheless, my complaints that I was accused of being a scokpuppet by Toddy1 and my posts removed as soon as I started editing wikipedia still stand. I have been and am continually harrassed and called mentally ill and Nepolkanov is still calling me User:Kaz posting all the personal and private details of that User for the whole world to see which I understand is a violation of wiki policies, but it seems no admins have noticed this discussion yet. Hopefully intervention is not far away. Or perhaps you are all hoping I will just give up. Well I might just do that if there is no honest admin willing to step in. There is much more to life than suffering unnecessary stress on wikipedia.79.109.203.252 (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

NOTE:: I have had enough of the allegations and abuse so I have raised a linked ANI with a complaint about the OP. It can be found below at WP:ANI  DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Multiple 3RR violation even after admin warning
Kristina451 already has an admin warning about 3RR. but she still violate 3RR and refuse to discuss on article talk page ...


 * Frontrunning


 * Two Sigma Investments


 * Dark liquidity

You can see these articles she also use Sockpuppets to 3RR. I do my job already report her Sockpuppets but even during her Sockpuppet Investigation she continue to violate 3RR ...


 * Frontrunning
 * Dark liquidity

can some admin please protect these articles? I am not familiar enough about these articles beside their GPU content and got no time to protect.Mkb764920 (talk) 10:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Those are far from 3RR violations. Please read WP:3RR before commenting further. 129.9.75.252 (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * ok look like no problem, i close this Mkb764920 (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Miraclexix and harrasment
User Miraclexix made an article. Me, ignorant of the fact that A7 doesn't apply to software. Tagged it for speedy deletion. In his contested deletion, he tried to paint me as a disruptive editor that is only here to destroy the encyclopedia. I gave him a general notice, and he edited my comment. I warned him for it, and he continued doing it. He then wen't to EAR and sent even more put downs my way, and continued to antagonize me. According to him I tried to harass him and blackmail him with warning templates. It's gotten to the point where I feel I should bring this to ANI. Weegeerunner (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The user talk page discussion just reads like an ordinary, if irritating, dispute between editors. But with Editor assistance/Requests, he took it up a notch and made things very personal.
 * Weegeerunner, you do need to leave him a notice informing him of this discussion on AN/I. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 21:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Liz, I did leave him a notice, but he deleted it. Weegeerunner (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Good. That means s/he has read it. Iaritmioawp (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, noticed & deleted, I may so if Weegeerunner approves? He should leave my TP alone eventually? -- Kind of an interesting depiction he gives of the case (he started). He made an error and should have said sorry and let things loose and should have went on with constructive work in WP. But, User:Weegeerunner did breach the same WP guidelines on my TP over and over when he felt the urge to revert my TP and deleted comments and the like on his way, he violated the same guidelines of what he accused me of doing in the first place! I let him and did not approached him with his violations directly (did not made a case), because I have other things to do in WP. Until he tried to block me. I felt why can he do this to me over minute stuff on my own TP because of his errors based on his "ignorance", as he admitted. Please look up my TP history log and get the full picture, if - I say it again - if you like to get involved in this petty quarrel. He could not substantiate his point so far and did not show any understanding of the possibility to be wrong from the beginning nor gave a clear pardon for his doing, nor taking full responsibility for his errors & own violations. P.S.: His contributions log may reveal interesting scores and indicating signal/noise ratios, if I am not wrong. Cheers --Miraclexix (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * After my deletion of the ANI message from Weegeerunner, an IP repubished the ANI message ... why all this?? --Miraclexix (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Now User:Duffbeerforme deleted the anon ANI message from my TP! -- ??? --Miraclexix (talk) 06:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Now what? Weegeerunner (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Third-party intervention isn't needed here as User:Weegeerunner is perfectly capable of handling the situation on his/her own by simply discontinuing his/her interaction with the other user. If it hadn't been for User:Weegeerunner's pointless antagonization of the other user, which I discuss in this comment, the other user wouldn't have gotten as agitated as s/he did. User:Weegeerunner should take a step back and ponder on that for a while. Iaritmioawp (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how using warning templates is "pointless" antagonization but accusations of harassment and blackmailing are not. As we can see in WP:HA, "one editor warning another for disruption or incivility is not harassment if the claims are presented civilly, made in good faith and in an attempt to resolve a dispute instead of escalating one." I was not intending to harass or antagonize anyone. WP:AGF is being completely ignored here. While it is true that I could have handled the problem better, to say that the dispute is all my fault and because of my "harassment" is ignoring WP:AGF. Weegeerunner (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your pointed emphasis is not helpful, because we had this already discussed many times and you miss the summary-point of Iaritmioawp altogether. --Miraclexix (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't miss it. Many times we have talked about this and when I get to the part about WP:AGF, the conversation stops. Weegeerunner (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You have three guesses why! And, inherently WP:AGF is a two way street... Would you contemplate a time off? --Miraclexix (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I was assuming good faith. You blatantly accused me of harrasment. Weegeerunner (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive SPA
is an SPA whose editing is strictly limited to Jan-Willem Breure and Breure's film Are All Men Pedophiles? He adds and edit-wars over copyvios, he also uses unreliable sources and self-published promotional sites as references. For example, here he copied the sentence effort to protect our children society has started to isolate men from the film's website and repeats pearls of wisdom from the film like pedophilia hysteria and Witch-Hunt on men in Wikipedia's voice. The rest of the unreliable sources he added and restored do not support any of the stuff he wrote. In general, whenever faced with opposition to his edits, he does not discuss. He reverts. None of his 40+ edits were made to an article talk page. Most recent example here where he edit-wars over a possible license violation. He has a persistent coatrack problem. For instance, he tries to make a point about the film and pedophilia on the misandry page, and about airlines and day care centers' treatment of men on the film page. As usual, the (unreliable) sources do not support a connection between the nominal subject and the tangential subjects. Attempts to talk to him or warn him on his user talk page (e.g.,, ) have all been ignored.

I don't know what it is, a conflict of interest, misunderstanding of Wikipedia's aims and content policies, or something else that's causing him to edit disruptively. He is here to POV push, not to build an encyclopedia. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Good summary, Sonic. Blocked indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE, with a note about how they can be unblocked if they show some understanding of the problems of unreliable sources, copyright violations, lack of talkpage discussion, etc. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC).

Any awake admin?
Any awake admin that can fix this? He/she is removing people from ethnic groups, infoboxes, categories, lists, and does so by writing false edit summaries. Kind of annoying as we have to replace everything back due to his disruption....

He/she is on a spree right now.

[]

LouisAragon (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This complaint seems to be correct. A spot check showed that the "wrong info" deleted was correct, and that edits marked "typo" were actually changing information.  I gather this is an ethnic POV thing.  Block needed. BMK (talk) 00:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

User:24.234.222.201
Hi

Can we revoke talkpage access, refactoring other editors comments and personal attacks while blocked. Amortias (T)(C) 20:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure, Amortias. It looks like it's one little congratulating himself on getting his school blocked. I'm reluctant to give him cause to be even more cheerful about getting tpa revoked as well. I'll watch the page for a while. Bishonen &#124; talk 22:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC).
 * Fair enough. Amortias (T)(C) 22:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

white colour in logo's frame
Hello admins, not being an expert on processing images myself, I'd like to ask if anyone here knows how could I possibly remove the white colour from this logo's frame. I'd like it to become like this for example:. Thank you in advance for your attention. Gtrbolivar (talk) 00:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that you want the background to be transparent? Probably best to ask at WP:VPT, the technical section of the village pump, or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Images and Media.  This board is for admins to deal with incidents. BMK (talk) 01:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have taken care of your request, Gtrbolivar; a bit of time in Paint.NET and that logo is now transparent (I was unsure if the olive wreath needed the transparency though, so I left that opaque). I hope that helped you out, and we can probably close this now. <font face="Myriad Web"> Nate  • ( chatter ) 02:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Barelvi
Possible misuse of BRD at Talk:Barelvi by User:MezzoMezzo. He is removing sourced content with dubious edit summaries like this. I provided evidence for my edits on talk page  it has been ignored. I requested a compromise for my edits but its not going anywhere. he reverts with comments like these. I dont see how i can continue a discussion. It looks like WP:FILIBUSTERS. I posted on his talk page, no response Khanyusufkhalil (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Everyone has disagreed with your opinions there, you have been gratefully advised to listen what others are saying, you just don't. Fundarise (talk) 02:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * With the same rationale all time, that didn't worked earlier, how it is going to work now? Fundarise (talk) 02:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I won't pretend to know anything about this subject, but from reading the talk page, all I can say is that it looks like your forum shopping isn't going to work.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 03:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * He needs to get to the point. At least the editor has to explain why he is doing it so that there can be a reasonable discussion. Nobody responded to the RFC thats is why i brought the issue here. Khanyusufkhalil (talk) 03:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Antisemitic POV editor
I've been holding off on this, because frankly, I don't like dragging people to noticeboards -- but this is getting out of hand. User:Strivingsoul continually edits in a POV-pushing manner, edit-warring when reverted and launching vituperative personal attacks on editors with whom he disagrees. He has made several extreme fringe statements, like this (and this), many of which more than verge on antisemitism:    More recently, this general tone of inveighing against "Zionists" and "Jewish/Zionist elite power" has extended to attacking other editors for being "Zionist/US imperialist apologists":  He has also mendaciously accused editors of "vandalism" for reverting obviously POV bold edits he has made on contentious articles:

As far as I can tell, Strivingsoul does not edit anything but Iran- and Houthi-related content. He has been personally unpleasant to work with on Yemen content (unlike, I might add, a number of editors with similar pro-Houthi sympathies who have been quite cooperative and willing to work toward agreeable solutions when problems arise) and has gone far beyond the pale in several comments he has made. I'm not sure what the appropriate course of action here would be, but I would strongly consider a topic ban. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

As I have already pointed out on the Houthi talk page, what prompts such negative responses by likes of Kudzu1, is the fact that I point out and explain some of their cultural/systematic biases. I find it crucial to touch on these biases for I think they help to grow the community that can produce more objective/neutral content especially on Mid-Eastern/Islamic topics. I have already well explained myself on the links he has provided. I categorically reject charges of anti-semitism (so long as it denotes "racial hatred of Jews"). And as for the unease he (or those with his background) might have felt, I think is because of the fact that we come from opposite ends of a political/cultural spectrum with very different cultural/ethnic/religious/political backgrounds and experiences. So while I feel I have nothing in my views to fear the proposed probe, due care must be taken in examining his judgements about me and my views. Strivingsoul (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Many editors have "cultural/systematic biases" against falsehoods, propaganda, misinformation etc. These are completely appropriate biases that every civilized human possess, and there is no need for you to "touch on" them by adding such falsehoods, propaganda, misinformation to articles on Wikipedia. When you do anyway, responding negatively is exactly what other editors should do, given the inordinate amount of energy that goes into cleaning up after you and other Khomeinists who are incapable of respecting WP:R and WP:NPOV.--Anders Feder (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Outpouring of libels!! What falsehoods have I added to the articles? Again, a case of libel and defamation against me based on personal dislike! Strivingsoul (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I should also add that the content dispute he is referring to is being discussed in the talk page. And so far as my contested edits are concerned, most of them are being approved by the opponents. (The logo and the expert POV as of know.) See this and this. Strivingsoul (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment It is clear that strong political views influence User:Strivingsoul, and User:Strivingsoul does seem to have trouble understanding some Wikipedia policies in particular WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiability. User:Strivingsoul also on occasion ignores the thrust of talk page discussion to engage in diatribe. For example here; however, both Kudzu1 and User:Strivingsoul have gotten off the point at times and made personal comments. I defer to administrators regarding any appropriate warnings or sanctions.  --Bejnar (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Strivingsoul seems to be NOTHERE to contribute constructively, preferring to soapbox against a perceived ethnic/media conspiracy and periodically make wholly unhelpful content edits (more examples: ). As I said, there are a number of editors with a similar perspective as Strivingsoul on the issues in Yemen (in which I have no real personal investment or sympathies) with whom I have been working and discussing constructively. The difference is that they don't edit-war, don't regurgitate outlandish fringe theories or antisemitic screeds on the Talk page, and act in general good faith. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * His views go beyond POV—they are practically indistinguishable from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's. I encourage a topic ban on the Syrian Civil War. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Syrian_Civil_War_and_Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant). He hasn't made any edits as far as I know to Israel/Palestine-related topics, but I think a topic ban there would be a good idea too considering his many antisemitic comments. --<small style="font: 13px Courier New><small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  18:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * All I see are strongly worded political views. "Zionist" isn't a pejorative. Nothing worthy of administrative action, let alone a topic ban. Maybe StrivingSoul should be advised to keep their inflammatory political views a little more private, and Kudzu1 should be advised to be a little more tolerant. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Being an anti-Semite is arguable a character flaw, but it is not against the rules here. NPOV editing, edit waring and uncivil interaction with one's fellow editors are a different matter. I suggest a strongly worded warning that any further activity of a like nature could lead to curtailment of editing privileges. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have already explained that the charge of anti-Semitism is a gross libel; so is uncivil interaction (where have I been exactly uncivil?) As for the charge of NPOV editing, that's a charge we are just discussing and settling in the Houthi talk page! So again that's a contented charge not a proven one! But part from all these unfair libels, perhaps I should've been more cautious and took the content dispute to the talk page earlier that did but I thought my edit explanations were sufficient to dissuade the user from pushing his unexplained sweeping deletions again and again. Strivingsoul (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

This whole fuss really seems like a concerted effort by two like-minded editors to frame and defame another editor whose views and edits they simply don't like (instead of settling the difference via the ongoing discussion in the talk page!) Hopefully the fair-minded admin is not going to take your libels seriously! Strivingsoul (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * To clarify he recommended the book "Jewish Supremacism" by the ex-Klansman and notorious anti-semite David Duke. --<small style="font: 13px Courier New><small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  19:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The WP:PAG problem with this is what exactly? As long as Strivingsoul doesn't engage in any personal attacks I don't see an issue with them sharing book recommendations, beyond WP:NOTFORUM, which might warrant a tap on the wrist. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Strivingsoul has been blocked for 31 hours for battleground editing and personal attacks, such as referring here to a specific editor and his "likes" as "self-centered, self-satisfied Zionist/US imperialist apologists" (scroll down) and right here in this thread accusing specific editors of "outpourings of libels" [sic] and "libel and defamation against me based on personal dislike" and just above of efforts to "frame [sic] and defame another editor". Bishonen &#124; talk 19:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC).

IP editor resorting to abuse and malicious allegations against other users.
Editor complained of:

Related ANI complaint: WP:ANI

Related SPI Case:Sockpuppet investigations/79.109.203.252

This IP editor has raised the above linked ANI case to accuse two editors of sockpuppetry, based solely on the evidence that they agreeing with each other. The reality, as is so often the case, is that they are disagreeing with 79.109.203.252 - a subtle but important distinction. 79.109.203.252 has now gone much further and is accusing everyone who disagrees with him as being sockpuppets of each other and has resorted to abuse of those persons.

In particular he has complied a list of his 'enemies' on his talk page in violation of WP:POLEMIC (here and here). It is interesting to note that the list contains editors who have made but a single comment either at the article or the above linked ANI and (I assume) previous encounters.

I have no wish to discuss the contentious issues here, they are properly discussed by many elsewhere. All I have attempted to do is to point out to 79.109.203.252, is what policy to follow when wishing to change an article particularly where 79.109.203.252 has declared a conflict of interest (in that he has declared on the article talk page that he is a member of the affected religious sect - here (first sentence)). My post here. At no time have I expressed any opinion as to who is factually right or wrong on the subject article (mainly because I have no knowledge or even care). Nevertheless, I too have been accused of harassment here - and there is no evidence of a previous request to stop harassment. I also seem to have made it onto that list of enemies and recorded as trying to, "hide what is written about Caraims in Russian" (whatever that is supposed to mean) in spite of expressing no opinion.

Since 79.109.203.252 has admitted in his rant that what he is trying to remove from the article, that, "we see [it] everywhere", clearly implies that it is mainstream opinion and has provided no reliable evidence to the contrary. It is clear that 79.109.203.252 is simply accusing others maliciously of sockpuppetry, harassment and has even accused other editors of being directly involved in whatever problems he perceives exist (here).


 * I had not seen that list before, but it is very revealing. It lists fifty one other users who disagree with him.  However, no other user, not one (ignoring the the obvious sockpuppet) has supported him.  Apparently, even the mainstream external sources say that he is wrong, and he has produced no reliablr source to support his position.  Is he right and the rest of the world wrong?  Of course not.  Wikipedia works by consensus and the consensus is clearly against him.  I B Wright (talk) 07:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Suggested action
This editor is WP:NOTHERE to co-operatively build a neutral encyclopedia and I call upon the administrators to block this IP address indefinitely (if the SPI case does not yield an indef block).

Further, the list of enemies here and here needs to be revdeled. (I have deleted the lists but they will still be in the history). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The lists of enemies is further evidence that the IP-editor is User:Kaz. It seems to be a list of everyone who Kaz and his sock-puppets ever had a disagreement with.  I would prefer it not to be revdeled, is evidence of sockpuppetry is useful when dealing with socks.


 * The list of friends in the same diffs is interesting.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

In my defense, I do not know who the IP Editor for IP 149.254.235.196 is. I was grateful for the support, but nevertheless politely asked the IP editor to keep out of this dispute as anyone can see on the IP´s talk page. Using an IP locator identifies the IP address as being based in London, while my IP has already been identified by Toddy1 as being based in Majorca.

I dispute the validity of the content of the Crimean Karaites article as it stood on the 17th of April this year and so I posted the Original Research Synthesis tag at the top of the page. I do not believe that my strong objection to the content can be called a rant as I produced evidence to illustrate the problems, quoting the Crimean Karaite prayer books, the Crimean Karaites own websites, Seraya Shapshal, Ilya Kazas, and initially three articles in Russian. I also posted a notice on the No Original Research Notice Board about Nepolkanov´s use of Wikipedia´s Crimean Karaites article as a platform for publishing his Synthesis of various ideas. My comments on the talk page were immediately deleted by User:Toddy1 who for no apparent reason immediately accused me of being a sock puppet of User:Kaz and he also removed my comment on the No original Research Noticeboard  making the same allegation against me for no apparent reason.

Subsequently a troop of Meat Puppets jumped out of no-where defending Toddy1 and Nepolkanov. Toddy1 went uncharacteristicly quiet judging from his edit history under that username, leading me to suspect that one of these Meatpuppets is in fact a sockpuppet of Toddy1 which he inadvertently edited a response under and in order to keep up the pretense has decided to continue editing under that name, perhaps SamuelDay1 or DieSwartzPunkt whose sole contributions since the 19th of April have been in a campaign against me and apparently nothing else. When I have a better idea I will request a sock-puppet/meat-puppet investigation be opened. If it is not against wikipedia policy I would like to propose watching these users very closely in future. I welcome advice on how to proceed.

Nepolkanov meanwhile (whose only conversation seems to be when Toddy1 makes an allegation that someone is Use:Kaz generally a quiet editor  though that in itself is no cause for concern) has been busy providing all the personal details of User:Kaz   and most recently User:Neria. Evidence which DieSwartzPunkt now wants swiftly deleted falsely alleging that my open question constituted an "enemy list" as he puts it. Suffice to say all this evidence has been screenshot saved and fully documented by me and other witnesses in the meantime.

I have no where claimed that the POV on Crimean Kartaites is Mainstream as DieSwartzPunkt and his Meat-Puppets try to portray. I only compared it to the anti-Palestinian revisionism which I said is everywhere.

79.109.203.252 (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * May I suggest that rather than trying to look for wikipediapolicies which you can use to stamp out the facts you ddo not want published in the article, that you swallow the gaul and begin to engage in polite discussion about the disputed material.


 * Excellent advice! Unfortunately that is exactly what others have been trying to do.  It is you who are not heeding it by abusing everyone who disagrees with you.  Wikikipedia works by consensus.  Fifty one other editors disagree with your removal of the material from the article.  Only you (ignoring the obvious sock) want it deleted.  The material (whatever it is about) stays with a consensus of fifty one supporting it staying and only one for removal.  I B Wright (talk) 07:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * in the meantime am going to take a break from wikipedia in order to de-stress. I ask no more harrassment in this time thank you, but I will be back if I am not banned in the meantime.79.109.203.252 (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:TLDR I B Wright (talk) 07:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Support: Indefinite block. Disruptive user. WP:NOTHERE. (Edit history shows that this !vote was added by I B Wright.)

User: Hollowspaced
Hello. might be worth keeping an eye on. I am not sure what is going on. They may be perfectly innocent but their userpage is a straight copy from User:Clarityfiend and their only two mainspace edits so far are mildly disruptive. They also seem to interact, perhaps coincidentally, with the recently-banned Gavin 252. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 07:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah I liked the look of the user page so I chopped out the bits that don't apply to me. I guess that vandal Gavin 252 was following me around. Sure good thing he ain't here no more. Heads up. Hollowspaced (talk) 08:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Better to take little nibbles than swallow it whole and spit out bits. I'd start with the userpage template and maybe userboxtop and bottom. Thanks for noticing, DBaK. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've just reverted Hollowspaced's removal of one of my comemnts on this very page. Also includes a personal attack.  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's a connection between Hollowspaced and since they have in effect reverted each other, I'm more inclined to believe there might be a connection between Hollowspaced and indefinitely blocked  (who was checkuser-blocked by, showing that there's socking involved; possibly by , who has been active on Emmerdale lately...) since Hollowspaced's very first edit was restoring content originally added by YEWW. User Hollowspaced was also created only just over a day after Ye Olde Editor With Wings was blocked. Thomas.W talk 10:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've blocked Hollowspaced for personal attacks (this and this). I was tempted to sockblock per WP:DUCK according to Thomas.W's suggestion, but since checkuser Tiptoety has been pinged, we might as well wait for him. IMO Hollowspaced is an obvious sock, but I'm not 100% sure whose sock. Bishonen &#124; talk 10:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC).
 * Also, copying Clarityfiend's userpage, with all Clarityfiend's personal notes, accomplishments, etc, was disruptive. "I liked the look of the user page so I chopped out the bits that don't apply to me."? No, that didn't happen. Hollowspaced is just trying to have some fun, IMO, and must have expected to be quickly blocked. But I've fed enough already. Bishonen &#124; talk 11:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC).

FreeatlastChitchat
The problems with this editor continue. In the most recent ANI last month, Toddy1 observed: "FreeatlastChitchat is not here to build an encyclopedia. He/she wishes to remove content that he/she thinks are unfavourable to Islam..." —This modus operandi is now on display at the Rape jihad article, which FreeatlastChitchat seeks to "gut" without establishing consensus following failure at two recent AfDs (one launched by him days after the completion of the previous) to delete the article.

Edit-warring behavior consists of repeatedly blanking entire sections (he has never attempted to improve any part of the article). Difs (I'll dispense with fancy page templates since I'm not accusing him of 3RR and thus time-stamps aren't that important, but suffice to say that all of these have occurred during the last week):, (edit summary berates others to explain themselves on the talk page despite not having appeared there himself to seek consensus), (claims, ad nauseam, that sources are not reliable despite being unable to establish such a consensus on the talk page or at the AfDs),,,,,,,,, ,,.
 * Addendum: I've been adding to these as the days roll by. ChitChat has now reverted at least five different editors to blank a section, even after being warned against section-blanking. As of 4/16, section-blanking represents 100% of his editing activity at the article.

I placed a level-3 warning at his TP on the 13th (after reverting his edits when he was at 2RR); he responded an hour later by submitting the article to AfD again (see link above). It was speedily kept, and he immediately resumed reversion. The warning was not acknowledged.

In light of this unchanged pattern and demonstrated imperviousness to repeated warnings (his talk page history is a rash of warnings, including another added today concerning the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, a topic I have no involvement in) and persistent unwillingness to listen to counterarguments, I am suggesting a block for a length of time to be determined (last block was 24hrs), and a topic ban from Islam/Muslim/Jihad-related topics for a length of time to be determined (and that should be broadly construed to also include India/Pakistan conflicts, both contemporary and historical).<b style="font-family:georgia; font-size:11pt; color:#BFA3A3"> Pax</b> 07:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly I have no Idea why my entire editing behavior is under attack here. But even then I will explain my behavior and why I have warnings on my talk page. Wall of text is ahead so bear with me please. I will start with my block for 24 hours for warring on Islam. Unbeknown to me I was being tag teamed by four sock puppets. When one left off the other would take up the warring.So yes I lost my cool and I was banned for 24 hours. However due to the warring bhaviural evidence was found to administer a check on the guys who were engaging me and they were found to be a puupet farm.Here you can read about the long term abuse by the person I warred with. I would like to add that the material the puppet master wanted to add was controversial and was removed(by another editor, not me) as soon as his puppet farm was made redundant. So if I am to be blamed for a past block now, I would like to know the rationale behind it.


 * Now we come to the warnings which I have left open on my talk page. The first one is about the role of Shah Jahan(a minor prince) in the Mughal Empire. He has nothing to do with religion, the dispute was about who killed him, Islam, or muslims had nothing to with it. Furthermore you can see that even though my edit appeared to be "controversial" it was only bold and the edit was not without reason. The discussion about the edit is ongoing. So if this is something I am going to be blocked for I would like the blocker to provide me some rationale or a precedence about the block.


 * Lets now talk about the Indo Pak war of 1971. This is an article which I have edited only twice the entire time I have been on Wikipedia. I was merely correcting sourced info. If you look here, you will see that the real warrior who was reverting everyone has been blocked for making a ton of reverts on the article.This edit is also not about Islam or muslims as both Bangladesh and Pakistan are muslim countries who follow Islam. If someone thinks that this issue is Islam related they should provide some rationale. So if this is the reason I am going to be blocked I would like to inquire abouts its reasoning too.


 * The fourth warning on my talk page has not been left by the user dawndusk even if it may appear that he has signed the warning. It is actually the user reporting me who put the warning there but did not sign his name so that the next guy commenting will sign his comment and it will look as if the next guy warned me. This is clear here. Although DawnDusk has been trying to get the same material put back into the article so it will be in his favour for me to get a ban. As is clear from his comment below.


 * We now move onto my edits and reverts on the article rape jihad. I have tried to voice this on the talk page but the user reporting me does not seem to be in the mood to discuss. I reverted /deleted/removed content which says that Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal was included in rape jihad. The reasons for my removing the material were that firstly the entire page dedicated to the scandal does not mention the word jihad even once. Secondly, the newspapers which reported the scandal have not 'once' mentioned the word rape jihad as being the motivation behind these attacks. I have read almost 895 news stories by now and I have not found any mention of this being a religiously motivated attack. The only source given for this being a rape jihad is an opinion piece from the ultra right, ultra conservative, highly islmophobic gate stone institute which has been deemed not good at the reliable sources noticeboard. I tried to get this through in the talk page where one other user agreed with me and removed the material (after the user reporting me had reverted me), while one other user also agreed that that the source was controversial but said that it "doesn't appear to be quite as controversial as you're(referring to me) making it out to be." His objection was that the source I had given to prove that gatestone was islamophobic, prejudiced and known to misrepresent opinions as facts, was in itself not good enough, although such an attitude is clear from the article archive at gatestone. After this the user reporting me here did not discuss any further, he just gave his opinion which was directed at an uninvolved editor who had just pointed out that gatestone is not reliable. He said "When an editor leads off with a false statement, it becomes hard to take anything else they say seriously. You claim "in both cases the recommendation was not to use" and yet the first link you provide contains no recommendation. The second link consists of two respondents who dissemble over it being "partisan" (which is an arbitrary claim anybody can make about anything). In any event, such are not binding. Aside from notability, what makes a source reliable is that they are not peddling bullshit. Soeren Kern's article is corroborated by the other sources in the article, therefore this aspect of the discussion is moot." He then reverted me and two other uninvolved editors who removed material from the article. If an admin is going to block me for this, then I would like him to describe what I "should have done". I have only one revert in the past 24 hours while the user reporting me has two, one on my action and one on another uninvolved editors action(we both removed the same unsourced material and he reverted us both).


 * To be frank I don't know why someone's personal attack on me is being used here as an opening for a report. If someone is reporting me they should at least have the moral fortitude to open the debate with what I have done wrong and then leave me be instead of attacking me personally. They should just point out what infractions I have committed and let the admins make the decision. Inclusion of a personal attack at the very onset of the debate makes it look as if that "special" person knows everything and as they have said something personal about me then it must be true. This is kinda rude.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Chitchat, your past M.O. has been to characterize legitimate warnings leveled against you as personal attacks and vandalism (of your talk page). Whether or not a recent detractor was later revealed to be a sock-puppet is immaterial as to whether or not a sanction eventually levied against you was justified. (In my opinion it was lenient, as you offered, then as now, every evidence of being unwilling to change and continue being impossible to work with for multiple WP:BADFAITH and WP:NOTHERE reasons.) As far as sourcing for the article goes, I am not going to argue that with you here as it was within the last week center-stage at the AfDs, at which you failed to establish consensus.<b style="font-family:georgia; font-size:11pt; color:#BFA3A3"> Pax</b> 16:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I have opened up a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard on a related matter that isn't the sort of thing ANI normally addresses. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Isn't this board supposed to be reserved for reports only? Why are thread style personal attacks being directed at me? DawnDusk and PAX have the same agenda as is clear from the AFD on rape jihad and TP at rape jihad as am I supposed to reply to every baseless accusation of these two guys who want me off the wiki so that they can enter whatever they want into an article? I don't mean to be squeamish here but this guy has accused me of being a vandal for no reason using a report which started off with a personal attack and even then I took time to prove that I am editing boldly, not vandalising. He then posts another personal attack on my defense comment and now what should I do? and why am I being accused of edit warring here? WHY not just put a simple 3revert report and let an admin figure it out? Is it because these two know that multiple uninvolved users have been removing the same material that I removed, which only these two users want to add. So I would like to know when did proposing an AFD become a bannable offence and when did three users doing the same thing count as an "edit war" on part of only one of them. I will not be replying to thread style personal attacks anymore, until an admin mediates this discussion after taking a close look at rape jihad talk page and keeping in view the comments made here, here, here, and here by completely uninvolved editors.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 01:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that some of the editors are/were participants at Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 (which otherwise has no editing history overlap that I am aware of with Rape jihad article prior to your participation in the AfDs) the potentiality of covert canvassing of meat-puppets has not escaped my mind. A bunch of quacking ducks just randomly show up during the last two weeks and begin carbon-copy section-blanking this sleepy little article while providing exactly the same specious cookie-cutter edit summaries as you do?<b style="font-family:georgia; font-size:11pt; color:#BFA3A3"> Pax</b> 06:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * See also this new thread down below: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. The editor tag-teams with two other editors to edit-war and remove large chunks of material on various different articles. (I suppose a case could also be made that at least one of the team may be a sockpuppet.) Softlavender (talk) 10:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So please start a SPI so we can get this over with. I have been saying from the get go. If you see me reverting more than twice, report me for 3Rvert and show some diffs, if you see me socking, report me for socking and start a Checkuser request I will endorse it myself, if you think I am canvassing, report me for that and show some diffs. Posting your opinion about me with unrelated diffs which show nothing just cuz I remove unsourced material from an article which you are fond of is kinda rude. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You've been edit-warring for many days on that article and others, despite repeated requests to stop and establish consensus. Doesn't even need an AN3 report; an admin could block you right now for edit-warring. A slo-mo edit war designed to evade 3RR and coordinated with a tag team is still an edit war, and you are continuing to edit war even as we speak. Softlavender (talk) 11:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposal
Since is continually edit warring on Islam-related articles, I propose the following remedy:

- <span style="color: #3BB9FF; font-style: italic; font-family: Lato, sans-serif'">Esquivalience t 19:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: six months is reasonable. Recommend proposal be amended with "...broadly construed, including historical articles involving Muslim armies or political entities" just to make things very clear that old Pakistan/India/Bangladesh bio and war articles are off-limits. The editor is fresh off a new (acquired same day as <span style="color: #3BB9FF; font-style: italic; font-family: Lato, sans-serif'">Esquivalience 's proposal) 24hr block for committing five reverts in a twenty minute span. Given level of impulsiveness, suspect he'll hang himself long before the duration expires, but we'll see.<b style="font-family:georgia; font-size:11pt; color:#BFA3A3"> Pax</b> 23:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have added an amendment that places an emphasis on articles related with Rape jihad, any articles that Rape jihad has been merged from or spinoff articles, and historical articles involving Muslim armies or political entities, broadly construed. to make it crystal clear. pinging. <span style="color: #3BB9FF; font-style: italic; font-family: Lato, sans-serif'">Esquivalience  t 01:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thumbs up.<b style="font-family:georgia; font-size:11pt; color:#BFA3A3"> Pax</b> 04:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * support He's causing a ridiculous amount of problems across a wide swath of pages. It has to stop.  <font color="FireBrick">K <font color="2F4F4F">rakatoa  <font color="FireBrick">K <font color="2F4F4F">atie   16:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support (uninvolved non admin) Edit warring in one topic area is never a good idea. Consensus is how articles are edited. The actions linked to show he has is acting as an advocate, removing negative things that have some relation to Islam. AlbinoFerret  20:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you take some time to read the talk page at Rape jihad you will find that most editors (i.e 95%) support my actions of blanking the sections due to reasons ranging from synthesis to lack of RS and OR, this includes editors with good standing such as Fauzan, User:Paul Barlow and User:Nawabmalhi. Also if you see this opinion by an uninvolved editor, you will see that all edits on the Mughal wars made by me and Xtreme were rational and according to policy. At the talk page of rape jihad you can see that User:RatatoskJones, User:Rhoark, User:Fauzan, User:Blueboar, User:Paul Barlow, User:Nawabmalhiand four others 'support' the exclusion of rotherham from the article and merging the article or redirecting it. While there are only 2 people who say that rotherham is included.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 95%? You personally reverted a sum total of more editors (5) than were ever on your side during the blank-out war at the article page, or who've shown up to support you during the lockdown on the TP.<b style="font-family:georgia; font-size:11pt; color:#BFA3A3"> Pax</b> 10:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose as currently worded. Looking at the history, both the sides have crossed the line. General sanctions need to be implemented that encompass the editng of the said article. And yes, BRD is an essay, not a policy. If the content is not suitable, you can't cite BRD to retain the content. -- Fauzan <sup style="margin-left:0.5px;color:#BDB76B">✆ talk <sub style="margin-left:-26.5px;color:#BDB76B">✉ mail  16:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

User McQueen.30
has established a pattern of disruptive editing. He made his first edit on March 22. He was blocked for edit warring on April 17. Soon after coming off the block he began edit warring at Kiernan Shipka, although he did not violate 3RR after several editors intervened with warnings. He also reverted at Trevor Noah without logging in to avoid 3RR. After editing for less than one month he closed a merge discussion at Talk:Ted (film), not on the basis of consensus but on his personal opinion: "The article will not methe (sic) since it doesn't violets (sic) WP:GNG. There are other characters on this site who are less notable then Ted and he has since gain such a following". I reverted the close, and posted a message on his talk page that closure should be based on consensus, not personal opinion, and asked him to read WP:CLOSE. He immediately closed the discussion again with the edit summary "I know the rules. This discussion was over and it shouldn't have been reverted". I notified him about this report. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Same pattern of reversion without discussion on Matt Groening  -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I sense this user is not willing to compromise or admit faults. Something should be done, but I'm not exactly sure what. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 20:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * His good faith is clear from his non-contentious edits, but he seems to place too much authority in "other stuff" justifications, with little regard for consensus. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what is happening here but and a new editor  added a "deceased" tag to the user page of Atomic Meltdown,  a blocked editor who seems to share the same editing interests as McQueen.30. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There is also a suspicious similarity in the content of their User pages. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I pretty skeptical of a new editor adding a tag like that as their first edit, and nothing on the talk page. If I had a Spidey-sense, it would be tingling. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 21:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Wish I'd known about this ANI report. I've bugged to take a look, though maybe a proper sock report is warranted. My experienced guess is that McQueen is Meltdown. McQueen created his account a few days after Meltdown retired. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * For the record was indeffed for constant edit warring. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 22:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to bet real money on the outcome of a checkuser. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * All three accounts,, and  are ✅ to each other.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  22:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Mrs. Meltdown was tagged but it is still not blocked. VandVictory (talk) 22:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Bishonen &#124; talk 22:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC).
 * I actually just became suspicious myself after looking through pages the users both edited. Also, given how the last edit from the Atomic Meltdown account stated "I'm done. So long assholes, hope you enjoy editing from your computers without any social life." while blanking his talk page, should his talk page access be revoked in addition to restoring active block notice? <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 23:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, neither, IMO. If that edit summary had been recent, maybe. Bishonen &#124; talk 13:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC).

New account User:Coonman is making edits with a focus on the contents of entertainers' infoboxes and lists of occupations (areas where McQueen has been edit-warring), and reverting when his changes are undone. He appears to be taking an opposite position, probably hoping to discredit it. Circumstantial evidence, but highly suspicious. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * is ✅ from . Blocked. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * SPI report filed for completeness: Sockpuppet investigations/Atomic Meltdown Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Pointless deletes by an admin
– He deleted the page IZArc citing the CSD criteria G11. But the article was far from being eligible for that criterion. Page was restored recently upon request by another IP address. This isn't a one-off case. This admin's talk page archives and deletion log suggest a very large number of bad deletions. There have also been many complaints made on the talk page but this user seems unwilling to listen.

Examples of other bad deletions: User:MaudeG3/sandbox (copyright infringement of Wikipedia?!), User:HJ Mitchell/Main Page (clearly does not meet U5), Junior Michael Chand Mahabir (reason given is preposterous, complained on talk page but not restored), Articles for creation/CYBERSECURITY CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL (C2M2) (stupid reason: "blacklisted draft", definitely not a criteria for CSD), User:VictorMochere (reason: "WP:NOTHERE" - that isn't a CSD criteria) and in all likelihood many more.

I don't know if it is wrong, but this user always moves pages without leaving a redirect and without any explanation. 103.6.156.167 (talk) 10:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Links:


 * Comment - the issue about "blacklisted draft" was down to me and was fully explored on the relevant talk page. I was attempting to move a very poor quality new article, which had been created in the wrong place, into Draft space to allow it to be worked on (although I had very grave reservations about the content). A typo of mine produced a warning message about "blacklisted name". The decision to delete was, IMHO absolutely correct. I suggest that this issue in the list above is struck out as not relevant.  Velella  Velella Talk  11:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, the decision to delete may have been correct but the reason given is ridiculous. There's no such thing as a "blacklisted draft". 103.6.156.167 (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "copyright infringement of Wikipedia" is both possible and a valid reason to delete an infringing user-space page. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Wikipedia articles are not copyrighted. Please see Reaper Eternal's (Pinging him here for his opinion) comment here. 103.6.156.167 (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC) Your attempt to ping is unlikely to have worked, see WP:PING. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC) I think I now fixed it. 103.6.156.167 (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you ought to read Copying within Wikipedia ? --David Biddulph (talk) 11:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe, copying without attribution is unfair, but my point is that it is by no means a CSD criterion. 103.6.156.167 (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A very large percentage of editors who have had their articles speedily deleted, especially if the articles were deleted for lack of notability, i.e. being about non-notable people, organisations, events etc, will complain about it, no matter how correct the deletion was, so having a large number of messages on the talk page is not the same as having made a large number of bad deletions. Thomas.W talk 11:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * No, I was not referring to the complaints made by page creators upon having their pages deleted. But there are also a number of messages by uninvolved and third-party editors. Examples: User_talk:RHaworth/2015_Mar_11, User_talk:RHaworth/2015_Mar_11, and more recently User_talk:RHaworth/2015 Apr 20. 103.6.156.167 (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Closure of this thread by Guy has been reverted. No, this is not routine. This is a long term problem as established (in part) by the reply to Thomas.W above.


 * And can someone look at the move log of this user? Not even a single move amongst the last 100 has an attached explanation. And 90% of the all the moves are made without leaving a redirect, unnecessarily in many cases. As seen here, he is also in the habit of moving pages back and forth (without any explanation) and apparently without any reason, as if Wikipedia was his playground. 103.6.156.167 (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * There are a lot of complaints on RHaworth's talk page about pages that he has deleted. But since regular editors can not view them, I can only judge that he is a very active deleter. He is a little curt with inquiries from unhappy editors but I might be, too, after 10 years on Wikipedia. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 15:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I fail to understand how that is a reply to my comment, which is about his moves. BTW did anyone bother to click on the three links which I provided . 103.6.156.167 (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You started with a complaint regarding article deletions and when that seemed to be going nowhere you appear to have switched to complaints about page moves. What is this exactly, a vendetta against one particular editor ?  Velella  Velella Talk 16:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is going nowhere; Guy and I have already tried closing it, only to have it reopened by the IP. Anyone else motion to close? OhNo itsJamie  Talk 16:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Zeitgeist movement SPA censoring the article

 * Zeitgeist (film series)
 * Zeitgeist (film series)

Article regularly attracts WP:SPA fans who wish to censor the article. Unesco2015 has been told to quit censoring the article, and yet they continue to do so. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe the editor is at least 7RR. Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * How does the intended censorship manifest? <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#ddddcc;border:1px solid #bbbb99;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">&#9798; CUSH &#9798; 17:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Removing reliably sourced information, perhaps replacing some of it with select or slanted promotional sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm somewhat surprised that the Zeitgeist articles aren't under general sanctions. I agree that this does look like a POV warrior. In, he removes all mention of "conspiracy theory" and its sources, and it looks like he's been edit warring pretty hard on the article for his changes: , , . NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, he's blocked for now. Anyone mind cleaning up?  I'm at 3r.  Also, would anyone see reason to discuss a topic ban, or are we just going to let the block expire and rinse and repeat until he's indeffed?  Ian.thomson (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, it does give me pause that the time elapsing from the first warning on his/her talk page to being blocked was only 45 minutes. That's not much time to curb ones behavior. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 19:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Four reverts after the 3RR warning and no stopping to discuss. Plenty of rope. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Does anyone else think this edit resembles the kind of pushes Unesco2015 was trying to make? Ian.thomson (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I was just going to say that. Note that "Nathan Maas" is credited as an extra on the IMDB entry for a Zeitgeist film. I don't want to get into an edit war, but that's some suspicious editing right there. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We've also got a TZM blogger (per their own admission) trying to censor the article now. We need page protection.  Ian.thomson (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ian.thomson, you're somewhat off in terms of what is taking place at Zeitgeist (film series). The reason this was removed is because it's a WP:OR violation as I've explained here. The real problem with the article is a matter of WP:Own. I've made contact with an administrator to get assistance with this troubled article. At the end of the day we need more discerning eyes on that page and hopefully this ANI will help. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Describing TZM as an "informal social networking group" is dubious to say the least. Wile I don't subscribe for one minute to their wildly exaggerated claims regarding membership (which seem to be based partly on the assumption that anyone who signs a petition is a member for life), there is clearly more to them than "informal social networking". The Daily Telegraph for instance described them as a "protest movement", with "a large following in the German capital". 'large' is of course open to interpretation, but the NYT reported on  a "sold-out crowd, a patchwork of perhaps 900 people who paid $10 a head on Sunday night to sit in a packed auditorium at the Borough of Manhattan Community College" at one of their events.  Not really compatible with 'informal social networking' I'd have thought. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi AndyTheGrump, I'll give you three guesses as to who added that material and the first two don't count -  - The worst thing about this situation is that there isn't an administrator to be found that will put this editor in check. I tried one  here, and to be fair to him, it's clear to me that he's not privy to what makes this editor so disruptive. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It's a conspiracist cult with few actual members. The art director (and brother of the director) is also now making propaganda films promoting cancer quacks. A real prince. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's break your comment down: You said, "it's a conspiracist cult", without providing a reference (your opinion has no relevancy here) -- You also said "with few actual members", without providing a reference (again, your opinion has no relevancy here) - Then you go after his brother??? - I must say I am shocked that an administrator would post such an unhelpful comment. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's break this down. The article establishes that Zeitgeist is founded on conspiracy theories, and is surrounded by a cult-like following. The onus is on you to prove widespread membership, and as noted above the basis on whihc this is routinely done, is plainly fraudulent. The art director is not the brother of the art director, he is the actual art director and now makes actual propaganda films for cancer quacks. He is also, coincidentally, the brother of the director, which indicates that the pair of them are unlikely to have a greatly different approach tot he torrent of bullshit they spout in the film. And now I suggest you take your attempts to whitewash this crap to another website, because Wikipedia is a reality-based project and the kind of nonsense in Zeitgeist will never be reflected here as anything other than nonsense. Guy (Help!) 19:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

robertj290
To continue this user being totally blocked is totally unfair and unwarranted without any concrete proof. He was acting within the range of knowledge when applying edits. I therefore believe he should be unblocked — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnphold1 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So, a new user's only edit is to come here to complain about another case. Seems like a sock to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Robertj290 was blocked as one of several sockpuppets, so "totally unfair" is not going to cut it as a reason to unblock. We will see if Bnphold1 tries to add the same edits to the Rebecca DeMornay article. Bnphold1, I'd suggest you not do that if you don't want to be blocked yourself. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Aaaand that didn't take long. Blocked. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Thoriq Ahmad Rahmat
This user is blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet, but they are demanding to be unblocked in 6 months time. According to their talkpage, this is their 5th ridiculous unblock request, could someone revoke talkpage access? Joseph2302 (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I warned the user; let's see what happens.  Tide  rolls  19:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If it bothers you, Joseph, you could also take his talk page off of your watchlist. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 21:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have removed it. But I stand by the fact that a sockpuppet troll should have their talkpage access removed. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I speak as someone who has way too many user talk pages on my Watchlist. It's very easy to get pulled into other editor's discussions or conflicts...or, rather, find you are throwing yourself into the middle of one. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 21:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

COI editing and page creation by TITUSIIX
I am raising what appear to be very obvious and blatant WP:COI editing and page creation violations by SPA account editor TITUSIIX on Old Catholic Confederation (recent editing) and Old Catholic Church in the United States (recent page creation). It also seems obvious from the editing that this is not being done by an unexperienced editor so there appears to be be possible sockpuppet issues as well. Although I raised the COI problem on the editor's talk page this didn't achieve anything and the editor then blanked the page. I would appreciate administrators and others having a look at things and taking appropriate action. It seems clear to me that this editor is determined to ignore the COI policies. Thanks. Anglicanus (talk) 02:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally, from reading the article, I can't tell how it is a blatant COI, but if you still feel it is, you might want to start a thread at WP:COIN.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 06:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:COI is pretty specific, that an editor is someone who benefits by promoting a particular point of view or painting competitors in a negative light because they have a close association, relationship or financial involvement with the subject of the article.
 * What you might be perceiving is bias. In that case, you can take this case to Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and see what the editors who frequent that noticeboard think. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 08:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not just perceiving "bias", I am seeing what seems to be clear COI issues as definied by WP:COI, among which is this statement:


 * "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vanity press, or forum for advertising or self-promotion. As such it should contain only material that complies with its content policies, and Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia first. Any editor who gives priority to outside interests may be subject to a conflict of interest. Adding material that appears to advance the interests or promote the visibility of an article's author, the author's family, employer, clients, associates or business, places the author in a conflict."


 * I don't see how the editing behaviour (including page creation) of a SPA editor who obviously already knows more than a little about editing Wikipedia articles can be perceived as anything but violations of COI and several other editing policies. Anglicanus (talk) 10:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So, you believe TITUSIIX is trying to advance his own interests or promote the visibility of himself, his family, employer, clients, associates or business? What evidence do you have that his family, employer, clients, associates or business is the Old Catholic Church in the United States or Old Catholic Confederation? I don't believe there is even evidence that he is a member on this organization...and if he/she is, this isn't, in itself, necessarily a conflict of interest. Being a SPA is not a crime. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 10:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I do believe it. I cannot say more about this as it might constitute "outing". But I have good reason to believe that I know with a high degree of certainty who is doing this COI editing. You should become more familiar with WP's policies and guidelines on SPA editing and also sockpuppet editing as well as the COI ones if you think TITUSIIX's editing is acceptable. It isn't. Anglicanus (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I am borderline involved, having been asked to Titus's talk page by helpme template. On my suggestion, Titus has asked for help and input on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard. Anglicanus has commented rapidly on his post re-asserting his accusations. Now Titus's posts may not be ideally formatted, but I am personnally finding Anglicanus's repeated accusations in various locations in Wikipedia a little bit much. Just wanted to inform and present a different view. Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 16:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I am concerned about two things.
 * first thing: you appear to be hounding TITUSIIX.
 * at his Talk page
 * 16:33 21 April here on Titus' user Talk
 * 17:09, 21 April here on Titus' user Talk
 * 17:18 21 April here on Titus' user Talk
 * 17:22 21 April here on Titus' user Talk
 * 17:35 21 April here on Titus' user Talk
 * 02:16, 22 April here on Titus' user Talk
 * 14:42, 22 April 2015l here on Titus' user Talk
 * 15:04, 22 April 2015l here on Titus' user Talk


 * at the Old Catholic Confederation article:
 * 16:29, 21 April reverted with edit note: "Reverted recent edits due to obvious WP:COI issues."
 * 16:29, 21 April tag article
 * 17:08, 21 April reverted with edit note: Reverted due to ongoing WP:COI violations"


 * at the Old Catholic Church in the United States article:
 * 02:13, 22 April tag article with edit note "COI tag added due to blatant WP:COI editing."


 * at RPP
 * 14:21, 22 April titus requests page protection
 * 14:56, 22 April you again accuse him of COI


 * you've been asked to provide actual evidence and to stop many times, and you have provided no evidence of COI:
 * 15:12, 22 April here by
 * 15:24, 22 April here by Happysquirrel
 * 15:37, 22 April rejected by you here
 * 15:45, 22 April warned again by Happysquirrel
 * 15:58 22 April rejected by you here ("There is every good reason to believe that this is a very clear case of COI editing")
 * and Liz here several times


 * so i will ask you and please respond clearly: what is your on-Wikipedia evidence of COI? If you cannot provide any, you must stop making these accusations.  You said you have some outside-Wikipedia knowledge, but you cannot violate WP:OUTING.  That is a bright line. If you are not familiar with the Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal, you should review it. The person in your situation was banned from Wikipedia. That case ~might~ come out differently today, but that is not certain.


 * In any case, a suspicion of COI is no excuse for harassment in Wikipedia; in my view your behavior has been really aggressive and unproductive. No one is going to disclose a COI if you hit them over the head. And Titus isn't going to let it accidentally slip now either.  I will go ask him nicely and see what that does but I am not hopeful.  Because of OUTING and the way that a signficant chunk of the community holds it as sacred, managing COI takes some delicacy and diplomacy.


 * It is however good that you finally brought the case to a board (thank you for that). Jytdog (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Jytdog All of your comments about me are very seriously unjustified and way off the mark. If there is any harassment and aggression going on then it is principally from the other editor towards me - as his behaviour on my talk page and in various other places demonstrates. The COI policies exist for a reason. I acted on what I considered an apparent instance of it in accordance with the advice on WP:COI. The other editor chose to ignore my concerns and to assert himself by reverting, continuing editing the page on this church organisation and then creating a new one related to it and blanking his talk page. He has since tried to seek support from whoever he can and to attack me on multiple noticeboards. I don't buy it for a moment. And I don't think others should either. I also made it clear that I had no intention of attempting to "out" the other editor. I know this is wrong and I would never do so. COI editing is also wrong as the policies make clear. I believe I acted appropriately. If you don't agree then that is your problem. Anglicanus (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A few things:
 * WP:COI is a guideline, not a policy. I think it would be great if it were, but there is no consensus in the community to make it a policy.
 * You have acted in a bad way; the diffs are above. You  do not have the right to stop anyone else from editing WP, unless you are an admin.  If you actually read WP:COI, you will see that there is guidance there for dealing with concerns about COI, and you did it the wrong way (the exact wrong way).  Bring it up maybe once or twice nicely with the person, and if their behavior doesn't change, bring it to the community.  WP:COIN is the board for it, but ANI is fine too.
 * You really have to grapple with WP:OUTING.  Your concern seems driven by some knowledge you have that leads you to think that Titus is some person in the real world.  You must face it that you cannot OUT someone.  I know that this is a little crazy-making, but that is how things are in Wikipedia.  There is a fundamental tension here between the very, very protected anonymity of editors (the WMF just sued the NSA over privacy and Jimbo wrote a big editorial in the NY Times (here) where he talked about the very very high value WP places on anonymity ... and on the other, very strong concerns everyone has with the integrity of WP.  Currently, OUTING is policy (very strictly enforced) and COI is a guideline (which we can only try to manage with diplomacy - our hands are tied by OUTING).  So please slow down and think through the issues.
 * While your concern about COI is great and is shared by many, including me, no one who has reacted to what you have done - not happysquirrel, nor Liz, nor I - has said that you acted well.  You should reflect on that. Jytdog (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You continue to make numerous erroneous comments. How many damn times do I have to make it quite clear to you that I have no interest in outing anyone even if I knew things with certainty?! So I don't have to "grapple" with this issue at all. I understand the policy and I respect it. So you can stop going on and on about it. You are entitled to think that I have "acted in a bad way". And I am entitled to think the same about you. Anglicanus (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This discussion should probably be moved to COI Noticeboard which is the appropriate venue for COI related concerns. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't mind this being here. It might need admin intervention if it goes on like this.  Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * let's bring the COI matter to a resolution. I asked you above to bring your evidence of COI.   Please do so, clearly and concisely.  If you have none that you can bring, please say so, clearly and concisely.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - asking again as you replied above but not here - what is your evidence of COI? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I hear kangaroos hopping in the distance...  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 03:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

examination of COI
OK, i just had a long back and forth with, respectful of OUTING, and which TITUSIIX was patient enough to have, and I see no COI nor even advocacy issues. He says has no actual connection to the Old Catholic Church, but is a secular priest in some denomination or branch of catholicism/orthodox "more closely aligned to Western Orthodoxy" and that he works "in an administrative role for a NPO that supports the work of a group under the jurisdiction of the Roman church" that has nothing to do with OCC. The discussion is here: User_talk:TITUSIIX.

is very unhappy with that discussion and with me, per these 2 remarks on my Talk page.

Along with the discussion, I reviewed the edits made by TITUSIIX and they are pretty newbie edits (using way too long quotes) but I don't see any clear WP:PROMO or other advocacy in the edits themselves. In my view, there is no COI issue to deal with, nor even (based on edits and disclosure) any clear risk of advocacy. I am watching the articles now and will keep an eye on them.

But a request:
 * would folks review the discussion (User_talk:TITUSIIX) and take a quick look through the two articles:
 * 3 contribs by TITUSIIX to Old Catholic Church in the United States here
 * 13 contribs by TITUSIIX to Old Catholic Confederation that are here and say if you see a problem or not?


 * Am taking this time and care since Anglicanus is being so terribly fierce and sure. But if folks see this like I do (and if Anglicanus or someone else doesn't raise some legitimate on-Wikipedia cause for concern) we should consider warning Anglicanus to back off. I really do not understand where Anglicanus is coming from, and they will not say; it seems clear that they find some great evil in the OCC (but oddly, hasn't included well-sourced content on that in the relevant articles... so, seems to me at this time, like personal agenda/advocacy on Anglicanus' part). But one thing at a time.  I am really concerned about Anglicanus' behavior and feel that if we don't look at this carefully now, there will be problems later. I really have no idea what the agendas are here but right now i see neither COI nor advocacy from TITUSIIX and I see fierce advocacy from Anglicanus.  Maybe other folks think differently. Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Jytdog's comments are quite incredulous and hypocritical. Where is there any evidence of his claimed "fierce advocacy" on my part? There isn't any. It is a silly and ludicrous comment. All I have done recently to upset him so much is that I responded on his talk page to his constant snarky comments about me and yet he has the gall to lecture me on civility issues. I am greatly disturbed by his constant hostility towards me on this matter. I am obviously restrained in what I can say on these matters but I will state as clearly as I can that I consider Jytdog is being incredibly naive in believing any comments by the other editor. Jytdog needs to "back off" with his snarky comments and his undue haste to complain against me on here. He is being an intimidating bully who insists on having things his way. His behaviour should also come under the spotlight. And, for the record, I have not been editing the articles concerned in the last 24 hours. I try to be a very responsible editor and to follow WP's policies and guideliness. Like him and everyone else I sometimes fail to do so adequately. I don't deserve Jytdog's constant snarking and his unjustified attempts have me disciplined for trying to keep articles free from COI editing. He, of all people, should appreciate this effort on my part. I am appalled by his behaviour towards me. Let me also make it absolutely clear that there is no "advocacy" or "agenda" on my part - "fierce" or otherwise - other than wanting articles to not have significant COI issues. Anglicanus (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Anglicanus' edits on Old Catholic Church in the United States are here
 * Anglicanus' edits on Old Catholic Confederation are here
 * Anglicanus' hounding of TITUSIXX are documented above.
 * I'll ask you again, what is your evidence of COI for TITUSIXX? And I'll ask you a new question - what is your beef with the "Old Catholics"?  On my talk page, you wrote: "If you actually knew anything about the organisations that he is editing on you would not be so forthcoming with your encouragement of him and your criticism of me"  I have to tell you that sometimes at COIN, when someone brings a case, the bringer is sometimes the one whose behavior is the problem; most often it is WP:ADVOCACY - some issue that is important to them in the RW that prevents them from following NPOV here with regard to a subject or another editor; more rarely it is outright COI.  So - what is your beef with the Old Catholics? (i really have no idea what their story is, nor yours)  Thanks.  Jytdog (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have already said all that I have needed to say. If that is not enough for you then I can't do anything about it. I have had more than enough of your hostility towards me and your constant unmerited and patronising criticisms. You can believe what you like about me and my motives. That is your problem. I will not be responding any further to your attempts to misconstrue things. Anglicanus (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And I think the rest of us have had quite enough of your constant disparagement of Jytdog for no other reason than, apparently, his refusal to take your unsupported word as absolute truth. You have offered to date nothing of substance to construe or misconstrue one way or another, and such conduct is in no way acceptable. Your inability or refusal to provide any solid evidence to back up your allegations is very definitely your problem, and I believe that unless you do provide someone some sort of evidence to back up your allegations that there is perhaps grounds here for closing this with at least a very strong warning to you to refrain from any further activity of this sort, and possibly an indication that sanctions may well be likely should you choose to indulge in such unsupported allegations again. John Carter (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * if you are, as you say, limited in what you can say here, then may I suggest that you send an e-mail to Jytdog with your evidence. He can be trusted to review it without revealing anything. Alternately, you can send it to the Arbitration Committee for one of its members to review. But it is unreasonable to say "I know something but I ain't gonna say what" and expect people to accept that. If you have what you consider evidence, then it is incumbent on you to, basically, put up or shut up. John Carter (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I thank you all for you assistance and look forward to hearing the communities feedback. As I have said before I am quite new and apparently adept at striking a nerve! TITUSIIX (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * John thanks for the suggestion but I am really uncomfortable with receiving any email with information that OUTS someone and I have no authority to act on any information like that.  please do not email me anything.Jytdog (talk) 20:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Understood, and I have struck that part of the comment. I do however know from personal experience that forwarding e-mail to ArbCom which clearly indicates the COI of an editor can get a bit more welcome attention to that subject. If you have evidence of the sort that would really convince anyone, they would be the people to let know about it. John Carter (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * wow you did that? is there anything you can say in public about that and what happened? Jytdog (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The editor in question quickly thereafter retired under that account. He returned under a few other accounts rather quickly thereafter, many or most of which were caught. In this case, his particular COI was regarding a rather minor viewpoint in a rather minor area of academic interest, but one that got a good deal of media coverage at the time, and it really wasn't hard, given his writing style, to see that the socks for what they were. John Carter (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * so interesting! but what did the email to Arbcom actually do?  Did arbcom (or some arbs individually) take some action with the person in public.. or maybe reach out to the person in private? am super interested.  thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I only know what little I know. I can and do think that there may have been some contact with the subject in question that I don't know about which led to his retirement shortly thereafter. Having said that, it is pure speculation on my part. John Carter (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * hmmm ok thanks! Jytdog (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Back to the point of this subsection however, would really appreciate it if some other folks looked at the COI disclosure and provide your thoughts here. (User_talk:TITUSIIX) thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * what is at stake: if we all walk away here without giving a clear "green light" to TITUS then we leave him exposed to continued hounding by Anglicanus who has already blown me, Liz, happysquirrel, and John Carter off. So I think the community would be wise to look together and give a read on whether TITUS has COI or not, and if not, warn Anglicanus to back off.  Or say "meh" on the COI questions and still warn Anglicanus to back off. Please?  Thanks.  Jytdog (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am involved. That being said, I am satisfied with his disclosure. However, I understand that some may wish to wait a few days and see if Anglicanus e-mails evidence to ArbCom that results in an action. I would like to make an in-between proposal.
 * It is made clear that TITUSIXX is currently free to edit. However, one or more uninvolved editors in good standing are asked to keep a special eye on his contributions for any advocacy for a reasonable period of time. This period of time is calculated assuming Anglicanus sent an e-mail today and average ArbCom reaction in these cases. Perhaps someone more experienced can name a time period.
 * Anglicanus is asked to please back off.
 * Anyway, this is my first (and hopefully last) time here, so I apologize if this is complete garbage. Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 02:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

PM (BBC Radio 4)
PM (BBC Radio 4) appear to have been editing the PM (BBC Radio 4) article via the Special:Contributions/PMpuppet single-purpose account. A reference/hint to this was made in the first-few seconds of the PM (BBC Radio 4) episode at ~17:01 BST (16:01 UTC) on 22 April 2015. —Sladen (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is being discussed on PM as I type. Quite funny! For those who are unaware of the context, it's about Grant Shapps's alleged editing of his own page. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This requires URGENT semi-protection. PM has been encouraging its listeners to edit the page for testing purposes. BethNaught (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It has now been protected but only for a couple of hours. Please keep eyes on it in case protection needs to be extended or reapplied. BethNaught (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And now my comment above has been read out on air! Cordless Larry (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And was heartily approved by the presenters! Paul B (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Can someone please link a recording of the broadcast when it is finished? I'd be interested to hear what they have to say. Winner 42  Talk to me!  17:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * First trailed mention is at 00:50–01:02. First rollback was about 30 seconds later.  —Sladen (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that was pretty amusing. Winner 42 Talk to me!  18:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Subtitled-transcript of most of the relevant bits is now at TimedText:2015-04-22-1700-1800-bbc-radio4-pm-wikipedia-vandalism.ogg.en.srt. Perhaps this should be moved to the relevant Talk:PM (BBC Radio 4) page for ultimate archiving there.  —Sladen (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The ogg link doesn't work for me. For the BBC link the bulk of it begins at 28m:15s SageGreenRider (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * One will need to supply the audio media by other means, or BBC Redux; the TimedText:2015-04-22-1700-1800-bbc-radio4-pm-wikipedia-vandalism.ogg.en.srt file above is the matching subtitles transcribed and uploaded in .srt format (which unfortunately need clicking 'edit' to view in this situation).  Although interestingly, because of Speakerthon and related BBC/Wikipedia voice projects, it might be possible to get the matching audio on Wikipedia eventually.  Does anyone else want to take that forward, perhaps in conjunction with contacting ?  —Sladen (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Got it! SageGreenRider (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The audio is, I expect, unlikely to be released, but I will ask. I'm also raising the wider issue with my contacts at the BBC. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I blocked the account, by the way. Let them try and pronounce my name on the radio. Any informed admin is welcome to fiddle with the block. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There's been more coverage (and praise) on this evening's programme. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sladen, Winner 42, SageGreenRider, you can hear tonight's installment here, at 30:06. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If possible, an srt file would be most appreciated! The original broadcast was amusing to read. Blackmane (talk) 02:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Username issue
New user User:Sur13fuckyou immediately jumped in to start editing articles about another gang. Since Sur13 is an active gang (social group) and the groups he's editing are as well, WP:BLPNAMEABUSE is likely in play. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: The proper venue for this (and all inappropriate usernames) is WP:UAA, rather than here at ANI... where this user has already been Bot reported! (nice!!) --IJBall (talk) 02:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Ion G Nemes POV pushing and editing against consensus
Tendentious editing at article Traian Vuia and Talk:Traian Vuia, Ion G Nemes continues to push POV on the same point as reflected in this last edit to change the article lead against consensus. This probably constitutes slow-burn edit warring. There have been a number of talk page discussions on the issue in question, and Ion G Nemes is re-hashing the same point and failing to convince other editors - see Talk:Traian Vuia and the content in subheadings 21-38 for detail of the ongoing discussion.

Also noted are allegations of bad faith e.g. here after I made a genuine attempt to assist following discussion in a previous incident at ANI, taking potshots at other editors in edit summaries see 1, 2, 3, and 4, and pointing article talk page comments at editors Binksternet and The Long Tone as detailed in this section.

Given Ion G Nemes' view that the article subject is a "lying scumbag" I would question whether a declared COI exists. In any case: I propose a topic ban.  Flat Out  let's discuss it  06:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As one of the editors involved in what is I think accurately described as a slow-burn edit war I can hardly pretend neutrality, but I do think that it is clear that Nemes has a problem with the idea of consensus, and cannot grasp that it is possible for a number of editors to be disagreeeing with him without being part of some monstrous cabal. And I think that the way Nemes rounded on Flat Out, a previously totally uninvolved editor, when he commented on Nemes's talk page, is revealing.  Nemes is now involved with another dumb-ass edit war with me on Thomas Moy. This time he is merely adding something already in the article at an inappropriate part. Life is too short.TheLongTone (talk) 12:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Have the involved editors attempted dispute resolution? Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 15:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It looks like an RfC might be required at Talk:Traian Vuia. Basically, every editor there except Ion G Nemes is in agreement, so an RfC will establish consensus (that is, near-unanimous agreement.) However, Ion G Nemes' irked reaction to Flat Out is a behavioral issue. Binksternet (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a sensible solution, Binksternet. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 21:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree this is a good idea, however there is also a behavioural issue that will need to be addressed or it will simply be repeated in other articles like Thomas Moy is now. Any time there is a suggestion of doing things differently, the reaction is negative and personal. See this response and note the edit summary there and here.
 * There are also three allegations of bad faith editing made 1, 2 and 3.  Flat Out   let's discuss it  03:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion, long-term hoaxing
A new IP6 editor, Special:Contributions/2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:B041:B822:A099:19C3, cropped up today to continue adding hoaxes about Kenny Loggins, in the same manner seen by various Southern California IPs including the range 108.178.159.0/24 which was blocked for six months starting six weeks ago. More information about this hoaxer is documented at Long-term abuse/Kenny Loggins vandal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Binksternet (talk • contribs) 16:42, 23 April 2015‎ (UTC)
 * Does IP range blocking work on IPv6 users? Epic Genius (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes it can per . Amortias (T)(C) 20:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Then I suggest range blocking the IP user. Epic Genius (talk) 03:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Single purpose editing and ownership issues at Armenian Genocide threaten the reputation of Wikipedia
Single purpose editing and ownership issues at Armenian Genocide threaten the reputation of Wikipedia. Étienne Dolet is most at fault and should justify his editing before his peers.

Picture of the Day for 24 April 2015 (i.e. today as I write) commemorates Armenian Genocide Day. The image originally suggested, a map used in the Armenian Genocide article, nominated by Étienne Dolet, was quickly found to have issues of copyright and authenticity and discarded in favour of the image used today. The caption was agreed by Étienne Dolet with the POTD administrator. Possibly because of a misleading lede in Armenian Genocide, the administrator erroneously used the phrase "eight years of genocide" in the caption. Whereas many people, including myself, might well think the massacres over eight years were genocidal in nature (I happen to believe the massacres were genocidal over the whole period 1894-1923), what is recognised as genocide are the atrocities over the period 1915-1916 coinciding with the notorious death marches promulgated by state decree. To have continued with "eight years of genocide" might very well have provoked a complaint from the Turkish government. Yet my attempts at both and the Template Talk Page to address this issue with a reasonable edit avoiding the phrase "eight years of genocide" were met with heavy resistance from Étienne Dolet, quoting walls of OR text in support of his thesis that the genocide extended over eight years. It was only when the POTD administrator corrected his edit that the issue was resolved, apparently because Étienne Dolet was not prepared to accept liability for the edit on his own account. At no point, and I do think this is significant, did Étienne Dolet address my suggestion that the point of the POTD was to commemorate the victims of the massacres and that it wasn't necessary to seek to make historical points about the duration of the genocide.

The passage in the lede at Armenian Genocide I suggest responsible for the error reads as follows;
 * The genocide was carried out during and after World War I and implemented in two phases ...

In the first place it suggests the genocide lasted over the whole eight year period, but there is also an obvious difficulty in that the passage suggests the "genocide" after World War I was also carried out in two stages (i.e. involving death marches; these in fact ceasing in 1916, although it is another defect of the article that this important fact is not mentioned). I traced the origin of the edit on the Talk page: it is essentially a copy edit problem arising from an inadequate grasp of English. Finally there is a Wikipedia MOS issue in that the massacres after World War I mentioned in the lede are not given adequate attention in the article, save for a single mention in a single sentence in a paragraph whose section heading refers to the casualties in 1914-1918 i.e. during the war and not after it. I addressed all this at Talk:Armenian_Genocide. I said the issues needed attention, but that I was unwilling to spend yet more time on the article. Nevertheless I made it clear that if the issues were not addressed I would eventually do so myself. I subsequently introduced a new section "Massacres after World War I" and made an edit in the lede. These were peremptorily reverted by Étienne Dolet less than two hours later on the grounds they needed consensus.

Presently editors may not even correct obvious errors of fact such as the extent of the historical Armnenian homeland or the date when the Turkish republic was created, without first bringing it to the talk page for "consensus". Étienne Dolet has accused me of complicity in the Armenian Genocide and threatened to block me. Étienne Dolet has been editing for some eight years solely on Armenian related topics. I edit at Wikipedia mainly on Mathematics, privacy issues, and European Union law. I came to Armenian Genocide because I edit at Perinçek v. Switzerland, a decision at the European Court of Human Rights presently on appeal, whose crux concerns whether freedom of expression extends to denying the Armenian Genocide.

I am frankly affronted by Étienne Dolet's discourtesies to me. If they are not addressed at least to the extent that he apologises to me and restores my edits, I shall quit editing Wikipedia. c1cada (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * If you are expecting anyone to take action because someone "accused [you] of complicity in the Armenian Genocide", you will need to provide the necessary evidence - a diff showing the said accusation. Instead, you have linked one of your own posts, which clearly isn't evidence of anything anyone else did... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Concur with Andy. The diff where you imply Etienne accused you of complicity does not say anything of the sort. The threat to block you was similarly nothing of the sort. It was a reminder of the 1rr restrictions that are active on the article, presumably due to ARBAA2. As for your declaration to quit editing Wikipedia, see WP:DIVA. Blackmane (talk) 02:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Corrected the link. Not a diva. c1cada (talk) 02:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * There is nothing actionable here (a poor (accidental?) editing word choice in a Talk page post, which doesn't suggest what the OP said it does, isn't an ANI concern...) – I suggest a third party close. --IJBall (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing actionable? That the POTD nearly went out with a caption that would certainly have provoked a storm of protest? c1cada (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yup. C1cada, the link you provide does not in any shape or form accuse you of "complicity in the Armenian Genocide" (and frankly, I can't see how any sane person could accuse someone of 'complicity' in events that occurred a hundred years ago). It may possibly be read to suggest that you were trying to play down the genocide by using the term 'pogrom' - which is another matter entirely. As to whether the suggestion is justified, I would express no opinion one way or another, beyond pointing out that EtienneDolet appears to have been making a legitimate case to the effect that the word 'pogrom' was inappropriate in the circumstances described, and that your unilateral Wikilinking of the term to the phrase 'systematic massacres' in the POTD caption was thus questionable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, Grump. As I made abundantly clear in my edits, I was advancing "pogrom" in addition to "genocide" to describe the massacres after World War 1. If you look at the edit I eventually made about those, I went to considerable pains to advance the case that this was a continuation of Ottoman genocidal policy (what I happen privately to believe), while at the same time affording due weight to denialist claims that revenge massacres justified the 1915-1916 genocide. That would be right about sane. Thanks for your input.c1cada (talk) 03:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I really don't understand what I'm being accused of here. I want to clarify that the POTD should never be intended to commemorate anything. Indeed, the POTD does fall on April 24, which is the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, but that doesn't necessarily mean the wording of the blurb should be aligned to that effect. I've discussed with Crisco about that before, and I agreed with him that the POTD is not an avenue to commemorate the event.


 * I really don't like to participate in WP:NOTTHEM activity here, but frankly speaking, I'd suggest that this calls for a boomerang. I mean, I don't even know where to begin. The disruption is overt, and very noticable with a quick glance at the talk page and article revisions. The user has openly said: "I don't need consensus to correct matters of fact." and has edited to that effect. For example, even with a consensus reached by several users to exclude the word 'pogroms' from the POTD, the user has made unilateral edits to the template:
 * Consensus:
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * Unilateral edit by C1cada:
 * 


 * Please note the timing of the consensus, and the unilateral edit. The POTD template revision page is filled with his unilateral edits, much of which were voted against over and over again at the corresponding talk pages.


 * The user also wanted to exclude 'massacre' from the blurb for the Armenian Genocide. That's like excluding 'gas chambers' from the Holocaust. And when discussing it with him, he repeatedly insulted my English. Even after I warned him several times, he kept on going on and on:


 * Is English your first language, Étienne?
 * I have to ask you again if English is your first language, Étienne?
 * You're very coy on the question of whether English is your first language.
 * It is an issue for us at English Wikipedia if your command of English is not sufficient
 * I suspect you need to buy an adequate English dictionary
 * Étienne, whose peculiar mastery of the English language I should be the first to acknowledge


 * Since then, he's been hounding me for weeks. He reverts my edits of good faith, only to prove some sort of point, or to engage with me elsewhere. He refuses to discuss issues I have raised with him directly regarding his particular edits (for example: Talk:Armenian_Genocide), yet he still goes about reverts me.


 * Throughout my nine years of editing, this is my first time at ANI. I could say that I may not even have the experience to defend myself in times like this. At any rate, I wish I had more time to outline the concerning edits by the user, but perhaps I may save that for another time. However, if users here needs more assistance in that regard, just let me know. Regards, Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Sir fedora
With this edit User:Sir fedora flat out says that he plans on vandalizing Wikipedia. On his talk page, User:Mccsc warrior, User:Haxor krusader, and User:Ifartonblackppl420 (who's already blocked for having an offensive username) have commented on Fedora's talk page about joining him in battle against User:Edgar181. Seems like they are all just trolls who should be blocked. JDDJS (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)-
 * I agree; WP:NOTHERE is an understatement.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 02:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * was just caught with the same absurdness going on. <font face="Myriad Web"> Nate  • ( chatter ) 03:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Both users blocked indef. <font color="#C50">Nakon 04:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I blocked User:Ineedsmoke420 as part of this same puppet pool. Probably based around User:66.244.123.98--blocked individually, but maybe needs to be expanded to a range. I have to run, will file an SPI in an hour or two if nobody beats me to it there and no CU pops up here. DMacks (talk) 16:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * All of the above ✅ as each other. Also, now also blocked. Didn't find any others so far. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Spamming external links?
looks like he is adding spam to the External Links. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kraken347 and click on some of the edits there. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * To me, it just looks like a new editor who hasn't quite grasped an understanding of WP:EL (and judging by the AfD notifications on his/her talk page, WP:N) yet; in addition, s/he hasn't edited in almost a month. Speaking of notification, though, you didn't notify him/her about this discussion (although did).  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 07:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out and taking care of it. I am not sure why I didn't do it; maybe staying up too late, because I know the rule. I apologize to everybody involved. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You actually did notify, but at talk:Kraken347 rather than user talk:Kraken347. I deleted the malformed notification and re-did it (sorry not to have mentioned this sooner; I must have been sleepy myself). There's been no mention of our external links guideline on the user's talk page. I have now done that, using one of the handy templates available at Template messages/User talk namespace. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Appears to be a paid editor who is on to there next sock puppet already. Rarely do they use the same sock for more than a few jobs. The best one can do is revert all the spam. There 4th edit makes is very clear they are not a new editor  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

New category of Supercar had been deleted earlier
I'm not sure of the right place to request this, but the Category:Supercar was just created. A variation of it, Category:Super car, was deleted earlier at Categories for discussion/Log/2015 March 9. I would appreciate an admin deleting the new category. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ✔️ by, and I have emptied the category. Epic Genius (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, very quick. Thanks! Bahooka (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Epic, genius! Guy (Help!) 21:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * hmm ... in Germany we have this category, but we have a very strong definition for it. Supercar, that word is common around the world. May be you should follow the strong definition we have in Germany. Also in wikicommons you have this category. In Category:Car classifications you have the category supercar and so on. I think, you should follow the strong definition of supercar in Germany. Doesn't make sense to delete such a category, the category is well known around the world. Wega14 (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * we do. It has to fly. Anything that doesn't fly, doesn't make the cut. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment*: Does it matter that much if supercar is somewhat arbitrary (bleeding-edge + stupidly expensive)? Other automotive categories have wiggle-room.<b style="font-family:georgia; font-size:11pt; color:#BFA3A3"> Pax</b> 10:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparently it does, since the category was deleted after a debate. I have no real view on it myself. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Tag-team edit-warring on Rape jihad counter to WP:BRD
Three new or newish editors, with edit counts of less than 700: , , , have since April 5 been tag-team edit warring to remove a section (now titled "Rotherham") of Rape jihad that has been there since December 2014 (retitled in February 2015) and which as of now has 8 citations. I've started a BRD consensus-establishing section on the Talk page and tried to encourage the editors to present their cases rationally and establish consensus before wholesale deletion, but they continue to edit-war and remove the section. I have no personal opinion on the matter at hand (and beyond reverting the wholesale deleters twice have only made a grammatical change to the article); however I do have a personal opinion on edit-warring against BRD. I would appreciate the article being locked (with the Rotherham section restored/retained please; it has been deleted again as of this moment), until consensus is established that it should be removed. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 05:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We have been through a debate about sourcing. The entire section has only one source, the gatestone institute, the rest of citations have been copy pasted from the original article and do not mention rape jihad, the word jihad, holy war, struggle for God, Islamic jihad and in no way do these 7 other citations give the impression that the said sexual abuse is part of any "jihad" or motivated by religion. A discussion here was carried out to acsertain the reliabilty of the single source on which the entire section is based and it was established that source as unreliable. Having ascertained the source was unreliable the material was then removed by me, and as it was unsourced other editors also removed it whenever it was restored. I do not think that once consensus has been established about unreliability of a source, a second consensus needs to be established before removing the material from an article. If there is any policy which says so I will be glad to hear of it. To be frank this kind of editing cannot be classed as warring anywhere, they are just a bunch of editors removing unreliably sourced material and to be honest the people who restore the material should be taken to task for putting unsourced material back , but I do not like reporting people as I am prone to bold editing myself. So, in a nutshell, the material has been established to come from a single unreliable source and has therefore been removed. An editor who wants to restore it must provide rationale as to why it should be restored.


 * Further more I have not been warned on my talkpage that this discussion is ongoing, badfaith I dont want to assume, lets just say it was forgotten "by mistake"
 * FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You were pinged in my OP, and also told in the BRD discussion I linked that I would file a report unless you self-reverted, which you have not done. This ANI is not solely about you, but about the fact that the article should probably be locked with the complete version until consensus is established per BRD. Softlavender (talk) 06:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not being picky but this is written at the very top of this page. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page.You may use subst:ANI-notice to do so. Anyway, as I said I don't mind this, what would like to ask however is that who will determine what the 'complete' version of the article is? The reliable source noticeboard says that the 'complete' version is one without anything from the gatestone institute. So what evidence is there to support your POV that gatestone is included in the complete versionFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This is not the first time these editors have tag-team edit-warred to remove large chunks of materials in articles. See Third Battle of Panipat (March 28 to present), Mughal–Maratha Wars (March 27 to present). -- Softlavender (talk) 09:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Note #2: See also the related thread Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents above. (I was unaware of that discussion because FreeatlastChitchat continually blanks his Talk page.) Softlavender (talk) 10:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Softlavender, if your issue is with these editors, you need to notify them about this discussion on their user talk pages as FreeatlastChitchat says. A ping is not sufficient as per the orange notice at the top of the page when you edited this complaint that says this step must be done. I have left messages for RatatoskJones and Xtremedood. If this issue is about protecting an article, maybe you should be making your case at WP:RPP. Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 11:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I noticed a section of a highly controversial article (twice voted for deletion, barely got a no consensus on its third iteration ) that completely failed to mention the topic, and only had a single source  attached that actually mentioned the topic of the article (once, in the title, nowhere in the text). The source used has now been brought up to WP:RSN three times, and has been all but laughed out of the room every time. User:Раціональне анархіст then added a second source: an op-ed that barely mentions Rotterham. Here User:Раціональне анархіст attempts to defend their (first) source:
 * I see nothing but assertions made, as well as some troubling comments:
 * "The fact that you're using the coined smear-term "Islamophobic" speaks volumes."
 * "Of course these "reputable academic sources" wouldn't dream of explicitly promoting a particular point of view"
 * I've now added a citation needed-tag to the section. Hopefully more editors will look at the page, as it's one of the worst Wikipedia has to offer. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's only "controversial" due to the antics of you and ChitChat. But I must congratulate you upon being ahead of your cohort in actually forming your very first edit to the article which didn't consist of a wholesale section blank. (I've reverted it for being a sneaky attempt to bury the important link to the main Rotherham article.)<b style="font-family:georgia; font-size:11pt; color:#BFA3A3"> Pax</b> 21:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? First, removing the main article link was a mistake, but your motivation for removing the "citation needed" tag ("You do not have consensus that those sources are unreliable.") is utter nonsense. Your refusal to defend your sources is also noted. I hope the administrators are looking at your behaviour. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 03:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So removing the main article link was a mistake when it was the only part of the section you were removing, but it wasn't a mistake when you blanked the entire section (including the main article link) multiple times. Got it.<b style="font-family:georgia; font-size:11pt; color:#BFA3A3"> Pax</b> 10:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you can't calm down and WP:AGF, I suggest you remove yourself from the article until you've composed yourself. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a suicide pact.<b style="font-family:georgia; font-size:11pt; color:#BFA3A3"> Pax</b> 19:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, I am not a part of any tag-team edit war. I simply made one edit, of which I felt it was necessary to remove content as the suspected perpetrators of the crime did not utilize religious motivations. It is racist to say that their ethnic origin has anything to do with religion. It would be like saying every white-person who rapes does it out of Christianity or a crusade, which I believe is fallacious. FreeatlastChitchat and I have a dispute going on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, so we are definitely not working as a team. Like I said, I simply made one edit and I am in no way a part of any edit-warring tag team. Therefore my name should be removed from all this. Xtremedood (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Xtremedood, you have edit-warred for mass deletions alongside FreeatlastChitchat on Third Battle of Panipat (March 28 to present) and Mughal–Maratha Wars (March 27 to present), as well as having participated in the Rape jihad section deletion edit war, so you are indeed part of this discussion and this situation. This discussion is about more than simply protecting the page (and its complexity is beyond the scope of RPP); it's about the continually disruptive tag-team edit-warring by these editors to remove masses of information, which has been going on in several articles since late March, and which is currently continuing in spite of repeated requests to stop and to observe BRD. This, in addition to the thread further above on this page, needs administrative analysis. Softlavender (talk) 01:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban, for a length of time to be determined, on Islam-related topics, broadly construed to include historical articles involving Muslim armies or political entities. Sneaky edits like this one, (in which a section's "main article" link is removed under cover of applying a citation-needed tag), and antics such as this, (in which, one hour after administrative lock commenced, RatatoskJones canvassed unrelated-topic RFC forums, transparently gaming to build up a war-chest of support for article disruption once the one-week lockdown expired), convince me that WP:BADFAITH and WP:NOTHERE problems are not going to stop.<b style="font-family:georgia; font-size:11pt; color:#BFA3A3"> Pax</b> 05:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've explained that the link removal was a simple mistake; WP:AGF. Just how "sneaky" it was supposed to be is anyone's guess. I want people to go to the Rotherham article and see how utterly irrelevant it is to the Rape jihad article. Also, I tend to doubt asking for comments from neutral parties is "gaming the system". Ratatosk Jones (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * My entire deletion/removal was based on | this consensus formed at the original article of the Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal. But I was hounded and bereted and not one but two reports were lodged against me. Seeing that no one is going for a WP:BOOMERANG against <b style="font-family:georgia; font-size:11pt; color:#BFA3A3"> Pax</b> (I don't have anything to say against the guy who started this report, he just saw what looked like a violation to him and acted accordingly), I have decided to forget that rape jihad article exists for the next 4 months, after which I will push for its deletion. I have removed it from my list and will not be contributing to it anymore, seeing that even blatant POV pushing and hounding will not result in anything for the perpetrator. If an admin thinks that my actions were objectionable I would be happy to engage him in debate and provide him with a rationale of my every single edit, I don't have that many to be honest. However I will not replying to any threadlike discussion here until an admin takes part FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As has been explained ad nauseum during the most recent AfD discussion, the "original article" is entirely irrelevant since as it has been entirely rewritten. You also had no participation in either the original article or its AfD. Your promise to "forget the article exists" for four months, but then push for its deletion does not bode well as it implies you won't care what form the article is in at that time, changed substantially or not.<b style="font-family:georgia; font-size:11pt; color:#BFA3A3"> Pax</b> 19:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm close to recommending a WP:BOOMERANG with respect to <b style="font-family:georgia; font-size:11pt; color:#BFA3A3"> Pax</b> here. He has been pursuing this POV-fork over several noticeboards and seems to suffer from a severe case of WP:TRUTH in the face of substantive opposition to his understanding of neutrality and reliability of sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The user above arrives from an ideological viewpoint which concludes that all of the sources currently in the article are "ultra-conservative propaganda". Such a viewpoint will likely only be satisfied with complete deletion of the article, and that matter has already been decided.<b style="font-family:georgia; font-size:11pt; color:#BFA3A3"> Pax</b> 19:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I second Stephan Schulz. "Pax" is not exactly living up to his user-name. He's the only one whose approach to this topic can legitimately be called sneaky, to use his own word. The rape jihad article is a disgrace, treating the topic as though "rape jihad" is a real concept in Islam, rather than a derogatory term invented by anti-Islamists. We even have the claim that "Rape jihad is claimed to be a form of sexual slavery sanctioned in Quranic scriptures", as if Muslims have actually defended something called "rape jihad". No legitimate report into the events in Rotherham has ever suggested that they were in any way motivated by Islamism or constituted any form of "jihad". Paul B (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * First, I did not coin the term "rape jihad" or write the first version of the article. Second, WP:ADHOM represents a poor defense of section-blanking edit-warriors. Third, if you wish to pursue the matter of whether or not the concept exists within Islam, you should take it up with ISIS or Boko Haram, because they are in agreement that it does. The Justification section of the article is liberally linked, and the supportive material exists in several other articles besides this one. In any event, these concerns of yours are not speaking to the subject of this ANI.<b style="font-family:georgia; font-size:11pt; color:#BFA3A3"> Pax</b> 19:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I criticised your behaviour by using the very same word you had used ("sneaky") to describe another editor's. Calling that WP:ADHOM constitutes WP:SELF-INCRIMINATON. I was legitimately commenting on your behaviour because you called an obvious mishap "sneaky", even though it had already been explained to you, and you referred to a legitimate RFC request on the talk page as "antics". There is no well supported evidence that any such concept as rape jihad exists. Paul B (talk) 08:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment "rather than a derogatory term invented by anti-Islamists." so? doesn't wiki's npov mean that it contains such articles, as long as they are well referenced? ie. "the good, the bad, and the ugly"(apologies to Sergio) Coolabahapple (talk) 07:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Coolabahapple, you completely miss the point. It's quite legitimate to have articles on notable terms, derogatory or otherwise - a point I have already made at the NPOV board. I have no problem with the existence of an article called "rape jihad" if the expression is shown to be notable, which I think is borderline. But the article should explain that it is, as I said, "a derogatory term invented by anti-Islamists", which is exactly what it does not do. Instead it implies tht it's a real interpretation of scripture in Islamic culture. Of course it should also cover those aspects of Islamic traditions regarding concubinage that have been used to justify the claim that "rape jihad" exists. Paul B (talk) 11:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Paul B oops, sorry, yes the article does need quite a rewrite, when i dipped my toe in the water of one of its afdsArticles for deletion/Rape jihad (2nd nomination) I mentioned the Rotherham words as overcite (but was thinking is it necessary?), intro could be rewritten "Rape Jihad is a term coined by ..... and adopted by ..... to mean ...." Coolabahapple (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * None of the editors listed atop this ANI has shown any interest in actually improving the article. All difs have consisted of removing material. I agree with Paul above that the Justification section could use expansion, but such "nice things" are difficult to have in the face of constant disruption by section-blankers.<b style="font-family:georgia; font-size:11pt; color:#BFA3A3"> Pax</b> 17:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You are misrepresenting what I said. There is no Islamic justification for "rape jihad" anywhere. There are reports of rapes, yes. This is, sadly, utterly normal in war-torn areas. There are also reports of captured women being forced to convert to Islam and being sold or given to fighters as wives. Yes, that does have precedent in Islamic tradition, but calling it "rape jihad" is either just using an attack term for something that is already known and long established, or a spurious conflation of separate phenomena. Throwing in the wholly unrelated issue of events in Rotherham, which have never been justified by any interpretation of Islam, suggests that rape jihad is nothing but an attack buzz-phrase. Of course the article can't be 'improved' at the moment as it's locked. Paul B (talk) 11:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * When you say "There is no Islamic justification for 'rape jihad' anywhere," you need to distinguish between whether or not you're referring to the English term (which is, of course, not employed by Arabic-speaking jihadists, but otherwise possesses sufficient usage in notable RS), or the concept (which Boko and ISIS are happy to publicize their sura justification for). Your sentence is only correct when the two are conflated into something like "ISIS doesn't use the phrase 'rape jihad', so this article is terrible!". In any event, this is side-tracking into an pointlessly interminable de facto AfD discussion, and that matter was recently settled with the closing admin recommending a five-month breather.<b style="font-family:georgia; font-size:11pt; color:#BFA3A3"> Pax</b> 05:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no sura justifying rape as part of "jihad", and the phrase is not some English translation of an authentic Muslim concept for which there is an Arabic equivalent. So no, Boko H and ISIS do not and never have justified rape as a 'jihad'. There is of course Quranic justification for concubinage, which is hardly news. We already have articles on the subject. And none of this has anything to do with taxi drivers in Rotherham. You are right, this is evolving into an AfD debate, since you have just provided a perfect argument for redirecting the whole sorry mess to Slavery in 21st-century Islamism, since you have just directly stated that it's the same thing. Paul B (talk) 08:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Take it up with Boko Haram, ISIS, and their critics (who agree with them that their right to rape kafir captives is supported in religious script). But this is immaterial to this ANI, and pointless in any event since the article has survived AfD (with the closer recommending five months cooling off prior to resubmission).<b style="font-family:georgia; font-size:11pt; color:#BFA3A3"> Pax</b> 11:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As I say, that's exactly what Slavery in 21st-century Islamism is about. It's the same thing. Your "reply" merely confirms the point. But yes, this thread is clearly now dead. No action, it seems, will be taken on the original complaint about tag teaming (rightly IMO) and no boomerang is spinning back. Paul B (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The unsuitability of that article was addressed at the recent AfD.<b style="font-family:georgia; font-size:11pt; color:#BFA3A3"> Pax</b> 22:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't going to bother to prolong this by replying, but I can't let a falsity stay unresponded to. The article is not mentioned in any of the AfDs. Do you just make this stuff up so you can says you have "answered" an argument? Merely writing some words under someone else's is not answering an argument. Paul B (talk) 11:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Paul is right: Slavery in 21st-century Islamism was not mentioned as a merge target during the AfDs (although several others were); it's mentioned in a TP section.

Sock of User:Ravi kumar sah-sonar
- sock of User:Ravi kumar sah-sonar. 81.141.41.174 (talk) 02:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you filed a report at WP:SPI?  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 02:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I haven't yet. What's my incentive?Dandtiks69 (talk) 06:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Obvious sock, IP blocked for 3 months. --<font face="Book Antiqua"> Kinu   t/c 18:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. (note: User:Dandtiks69 has replied "No, I haven't yet", but I am not Dandtiks69) - 81.141.58.213 (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC) (previously 81.141.41.174 (talk))
 * Wait, was that Jack? I'm sorry, then if it wasn't.Dandtiks69 (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion
admits to being at the DRN here (look near the bottom of their explanation). Mriduls.sharma is blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry and harassment.  Kharkiv07 Talk  17:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This was also posted on my talk page as I'm the original blocking administrator. I've blocked the IP for two weeks.--5 albert square (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Links: --IJBall (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

LaLa200090
Not sure of I am in the right place, but to my opinion is not here to contribute to the encyclopaedia. Just a few weeks here, but his talk page is a plain list of speedy removed articles as recreations, copy & creations or plain copyvio. Even a block did not put him or her on the right path.

I doubt of this user will get his/her act together. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 16:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support a long term block (at least a week). I concur with the OP that the editor is engaging in abusive mass creation of articles, most of which clearly do not meet our standards. Many are naked copyright infringements and most do not appear to cite any sources (WP:V is not optional). If the problem persists after that then I'd just indef them per NOTHERE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yikes! Winx Club character articles?!? Is nuking from orbit an option?... --IJBall (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Croatian War of Independence
Would like permission from any admin to override 3RR re the above article due to editor who insists on inserting POV text with undue emphasis on partisan sources (see ). "I disagree" is insufficient grounds for him to violate NPOV, especially in the article lede. Quis separabit? 21:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Better option is to wait for other like-minded editors to revert (aside: is asking for assistance from other editors in a circumstance like this considered "Canvassing"?...), and then report for 3RR. I don't think it's a good idea for you to indulge in 3RR on your end, regardless of the circumstances... --IJBall (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I would love for like-minded editors to step in but who knows when/if that will happen. I will, of course, heed your advice. Quis separabit?  22:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)