Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive914

User:Aciram
I need help with this user re: posting false personal accusations (often about my alleged/fictitious behavior on "Swedish Wikipedia") and never being able to discuss anything, as far as I've seen, without getting personal to an extent that is not constructive. Could someone try to reason with the user to get the user to try to stick to subject when discussing and stop trying to make my work here more difficult and much moire unpleasant? Here Aciram showed up not to discuss the issue at hand but only to criticise me. It's depressing. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see what reasoning will do; that comment was a clear personal attack and I have warned them for it. But if something needs to be said:, I don't see what Woodzing's alleged behavior on the Swedish wiki has to do with their edits here, and your comments contained too much accusation, too much innuendo, to be accepted. Kindly refrain from making accusations of canvassing until you can prove them. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Drmies and think that the warning was sufficient. If it continues, Aciram can be blocked for making personal attacks.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   21:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Range block requested
Hi. I'm requesting a range block on 2606:A000:FA82:1F00:*. I came across this IP range at The Driftless Area as. A few days later, showed up to perform the same vandalism. The first IP was blocked blocked for one year by for persistent disruption. Other IP addresses on this range have also been blocked for similar vandalism, such as:

I've included a representative diff for each IP address that I hope demonstrates that this IP range is not going to contribute constructively. I raised the possibility of a range block with Spencer, but he directed me here. I'll settle for a block on the latest IP address, 2606:A000:FA82:1F00:4C81:0:1C30:9CD8, but I think it would make life easier for everyone if we got a range block. I'll alert 9CD8. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I hope you'll settle for semi-protection of the article. Or are there more articles? Drmies (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I see you. Passing the buck to a real admin. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there are probably too many targeted articles to protect, but I'll take whatever I can get. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether I meet the standards of "real admin" but I would be foolish to turn down a buck; it's 100% more than I normally receive for my work here. I've soft blocked 2606:A000:FA82:1F00:0:0:0:0/64 for 3 months. All edits from this range reaching back to December 2015 are from this same user (plus one of their blocked sock accounts). Please drop me a note if the disruption continues once the block expires. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Both Doc and you are "real" admins, of course, two of the best, in fact. Doc just likes to pretend that range-blocking is beyond their ken. BMK (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure Drmies is a real admin, he's just not a real CheckUser. All arbitrators are automatically granted the CheckUser tool, and … uhhh … not all of them are … hmmm … suited … hrmm … forgot what I was going to say. Bishonen &#124; talk 18:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC).
 * Just keep on forgetting that, Bish. Remember that my powers are AWESOME. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Bravo. -Roxy the dog™ woof 00:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

"Brian Martin professor" BLP, DR ongoing
Had no access to account so put in BLPN 4 Feb 2015 Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard Inaccurate denigrating material remains 5 days later. Have not ID'd editors involved. 4 instances of misrepresentation of source contents found and then I stopped counting. Maybe this time adminstrators can come through on serial inaccurate material in a BLP? Though I thought a BLPN would get some involvement already. But what do I know how this place actually works? Good luck and edit safely. SmithBlue (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is being actively edited and the only material identified as an inaccurate representation of the sources has been fixed. Martin is the subject of legitimate and well-sourced criticism for his support of a PhD that failed every conceivable test of valid research work, that is not our problem to fix. I note that much of your history relates to defending Hooper's discredited advocacy of the OPV-AIDS hypothesis, a common anti-vax trope. I suspect that the "inaccuracy" you identify may in fact be accuracy that you just don't like. Guy (Help!) 09:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Class act. I find 4 misrepresentation of sources in 10 minutes, all negative to Martin, I explicitly list 3 of them but you are confident that there are none. Multiple problems continue with misrepresentation of the subject of a BLP article. To be clear I am not fixing them. If WP community is prepared to let BLP's be turned into misrepresentations then I ain't the boy with his finger in the dyke. If admins can't be bothered to intervene then why not just call the whole thing off and find something less destructive to do? 124.171.129.170 (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually only one of the statements was fixed (the other remains unfixed), and that was fixed after about 5 days from the IP's original complaint highlighting the problem. I'm sure Martin is the subject of criticism, but we still need to properly source any statements in our articles. Nil Einne (talk) 12:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "Martin has supervised and supported Michael Primero whose PhD thesis alleged the Rockefeller Foundation had declared a war on consciousness through the imposition of musical tuning standards" -- this is Lyndon LaRouche stuff.  E Eng  19:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Martin seems disposed to believe any crackpot whose beliefs have been mocked by the reality-based community. Are you suggesting that this should come under the LaRouche arbitration scope? Guy (Help!) 18:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's the weird thing: I just thought this sounded like Larouche-type stuff. To my astonishment, this actually is one of Larouches' crackpot ideas: Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche_and_the_LaRouche_movement. So yes, I think this would come under the Larouche arb umbrella.  E Eng  16:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * all concerns now attended to Prof Opvaids, no need to list in many wiki forums Jewjoo (talk) 02:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

A lot of rubbish claims being made above. Here is a link to Martin being discussed on the talk page. Note this is negative opinions about Martin being traded not a discussion on the content of RS. The second paragraph of Martin article has 2 non-RS cites being used for negative misrepresentation. Next para has non-RS "Science Blogs" being used as source for "has defended Wakefield publicly.[7]". "In a 2010 paper of his, Martin disregarded previous scholarly peer reviews of a vaccine theory ..." is a whole paragraph of misrepresentation of the source. "He has also been criticised for his role in the Judith Wilyman PhD controversy", is a misrepresentation of source. " ... a strong opinion on whether people should or should not be vaccinated", does not appear to be from RS.

"In June 2013 Martin gave evidential support to AVN (AVSN) in their ..." uses a non-RS blog as a source. "Scientist critics of Martin claim that he is an example of postmodernism at its worst ..." does not appear to be from RS. "Martin supervised a PhD thesis that alleged the Rockefeller Foundation had declared a war on consciousness through the imposition of musical tuning standards" is a blatant misrepresentation of the source.

"In support of the thesis Martin was dismissive, saying c..." misrepresents source.

"In 2014 and 2015, Brian Martin published s..." and the rest of the first paragraph of "Publications" is OR.

Note that all of these edits portray Martin in a negative manner. I suggest that this makes mere incompetance and ignorance a very unlikely scenario. Add in the opinions expressed about Martin and I find it an unbelievable scenario.

There is very little that remains in the article that meets WP guideline and policies.

In view of plague proportion of POV editing I suggest that admin revert to version 05:29, 9 December 2015‎ Jamessmithpage and wipe all the rubbish from the article. 124.171.129.170 (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I put in a BLPN and then a AN/I for massive ongoing DE on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Martin_%28professor%29 Now I find one of the editors involved is actually an admin. Here is a list of breaches of WP policies and guidelines for a BLP that I have found in a scan of the article. All this appears to have been added since Guy's arrival on the page 2 months ago. Note this is a short article and very little remains once this material is removed. It is disappointing that an admin should be involved in editting of this standard.

START OF LIST Here is a link to Martin being discussed on the talk page. Note this is negative opinions about Martin being traded not a discussion on the content of RS. The second paragraph of Martin article has 2 non-RS cites being used for negative misrepresentation. Next para has non-RS "Science Blogs" being used as source for "has defended Wakefield publicly.[7]". "In a 2010 paper of his, Martin disregarded previous scholarly peer reviews of a vaccine theory ..." is a whole paragraph of misrepresentation of the source. "He has also been criticised for his role in the Judith Wilyman PhD controversy", is a misrepresentation of source. " ... a strong opinion on whether people should or should not be vaccinated", does not appear to be from RS.

"In June 2013 Martin gave evidential support to AVN (AVSN) in their ..." uses a non-RS blog as a source. "Scientist critics of Martin claim that he is an example of postmodernism at its worst ..." does not appear to be from RS. "Martin supervised a PhD thesis that alleged the Rockefeller Foundation had declared a war on consciousness through the imposition of musical tuning standards" is a blatant misrepresentation of the source.

"In support of the thesis Martin was dismissive, saying c..." misrepresents source.

"In 2014 and 2015, Brian Martin published s..." and the rest of the first paragraph of "Publications" is OR.

END OF LIST I have used up my WP allowance for the next decade and have no intention of devoting much time to this matter. If this notice of incompetence is ignored I care not two hoots. It's your nest not mine. Good Luck and Edit Safely. 124.171.129.170 (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Behavior of Slawekb at WP:RD/Math
Slawekb is responsible for my question posted at the Maths Reference Desk being hatted with accusation of trolling. Here is my summary of his posts to the discussion where 7-8 users participated today (all times are on 10 Feb.).

Slawekb - participates in answering clearly 01:04 - re-enters to make a point, using an example equation 12:10/12:17 (This was adding text to the point made.) - re-enters with an unsigned pair of posts 18:09/18:10 (This was a quick edit of an equals sign to a "less than" sign.) - hatted entire question 20:16 under the cryptic text "trolling" using summary "hatted trolling, which has now become very obvious" - re-enters 20:38 with a post that repeatedly designates me the OP as "our troll", "the trolls[sic] latest objection", "our troll".

As to the content of Slawekb's posts: 01:04 Short and encyclopedic. Immediately supported as correct by another user. 12:10/12:17 Objects to a phrase "smallest quantised approximation" and presents an equation for "a decent computer". 18:09/18:10 Echoes my call that the equals sign in his equation is incorrect, which he dismisses as "missing the point" and posts a second equation, followed by comments about "accuracy that is achievable my human activities". The second equation is said to be wrong (due to incompatible units) both by another user at 19:52 and myself at 20:07.

An immediate consideration is whether Slawekb is justified in both injecting repeated WP:NPA violations of troll accusations into a question that is under discussion by 7-8 users, apparently in dissatisfaction at his posts not being entirely approved, as well as hatting the entire discussion. In mitigation, some comments by another were unhelpful, such as "go be a crank" and "try to have some idea what you're talking about" but these were not directed at Slawekb and were outweighed by calls to civility by myself 00:55 and most patiently by SemanticMantis 17:00 and 20:23.

The hat suppresses elaboration or free comment on these points. There may also be an administrative question about Slawekb both imposing a hat at 20:16 that says "...discussion is closed. Please do modify it." as well as subsequently 20:38 adding a rude post under the same hat.

I informed Slawekb on his page of this summary so that he could use my page to give any comment or correction. Slawekb deleted the notification 3 minutes after receiving it, citing WP:DENY. He is now informed of this complaint at WP:ANI about his behaviour. AllBestFaith (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * is a new account with few edits. A quick look at WP:Reference desk/Mathematics confirms that whoever hatted the thread should be thanked. Please do not waste people's time by posting nonsense questions then arguing when the discussion is closed. If, by some miracle, you were not trolling, it would be reasonable to understand how others could view the issue, and disengage. Johnuniq (talk) 10:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Fibonacci tiling of the plane and approximation to Golden Ratio.gif

I am no troll. The question I brought to RD/Math is in the public eye as part of the presentation of a kickstarter project. Money has been invested and it is legitimate to address sceptically the claims being made to attract more investment. A Wikipedia reference desk has competence to do so independently, with helpful access to Wikipedia articles. This is not a page for mathematical discussion so the graphic will suffice to identify the subject of the question. Two claims are considered. Claim#1 is not disputed, it is endorsed in the Wikipedia article that provided the graphic which nobody at WP/Math thought to cite. Claim#2 predicts what happens if one actually computes the continuation of the converging plot shown in the graphic for much higher Fibonacci numbers than shown. Is there a more fundamental limit (says the claim) to resolution of the Golden ratio than one expects from unlimited lengthening of computing binary wordlength? As questioner I am open to answers that may be Yes, No or Indefinite. I am however not open to being denounced as a troll for asking the question, particularly not by poster Slawekb who has no excuse of incompetence to address the issue. Slawekb has made a spectacle of himself in posting two equations (which I contend are wrong) and then using a hat to gag anyone from commenting further. Since Slawekb dismisses invitations to discuss this civilly on my page, I show the the first of his equations just for illustration: $$F_{1001}/F_{1000} - F_{1002}/F_{1001} = 3\times 10^{-418}$$ Slawekb's use of a hat to shelter his own mistakes and deliver personal abuse will likely deter anyone who considers posting a new question at RD/Math where usage is already low. AllBestFaith (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Astounding that this argument over whether there's a more fundamental limit to resolution of the Golden ratio than one expects from unlimited lengthening of computing binary wordlength hasn't attracted more comment here at ANI. Sounds like a job for ... !
 * Can't we have an ANI/RD where RDers can hash these things out for themselves? Also, can someone remind me what we keep RD around for anyway? (I actually think I know the answer: it gives WP:ORers an outlet so they won't clutter up actual articles with displays of erudition.)  E Eng  06:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Uh, hi. Someone called my name? Anyway there's a fine line between trolling and crankery (is the OP bad at math and bad at assessing their badness at math, or just pretending to all that) and I don't see the point in trying to make the distinction in this case. Anyway, that discussion was never going to go anywhere interesting or useful, so hatting seems like a fine option to me. As for oscillations in series: they do occur, sometimes, and give rise to interesting mathematics, but not this time. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Slawekb deletes the notice of this ANI complaint within 7 minutes, so at least he is paying attention. @Slawekb your behavior at WP:RD/Math, specifically your construct of a hat as a hideout for delivering personal abuse, is bad for Wikipedia. Mediation is a process that creates valid consensus with the aid of a neutral third party, and it is the rational way forward. I think an Admin can easily nominate a mediator from the many computer-savvy volunteers who comprehend concepts such as a "decent computer (for 210-digit numbers)"; the mediator would advise rules, such as WP:AGF, WP:NPA and scope of our discussion, freely and in the best interests of the project. I set no precondition for entering mediation and if you Slawekb reciprocate, I shall withdraw this complaint about behavior so that mediation can proceed. AllBestFaith (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It was a great joke but you are taking it too far now. In case you are having trouble interpreting the comments on this page, no one supports your position and Slawekb has done exactly what should have been done. The purpose of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia, not to exchange thoughts. If anyone can be bothered, please close this discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "The purpose of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia, not to exchange thoughts." I hope no one takes that too much to heart and writes WP:NOPUBLICTHINKING.  E Eng  01:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Me and my big mouth.  E Eng  03:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

User:RajaRajan Tamilian
never listen to create encyclopedia or listen to others, but removes content that has valid references and add own ideas without valid references. User action is against General sanctions/South Asian social groups. I have reported at WP:AIV. Note: I already revert the page, Paraiyar twice and somebody has to recover the page to original version. --Ant a n O 18:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It also looks like the above named editor has issued a legal threat on AntanO's talk page here in this diff--173.216.248.174 (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeffed for legal threats. BethNaught (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Paraiyar Article
Hereby I acknowledge that the article about "Paraiyar", a community of South india is a sensitive information.Some Users are potraying the community as slaves.Mentioning of "Slave" or Using any defamatory words against any community or particular section is an punishable offence.There may be a chance for particular section of people were treated as slaves,but mentioning a community as slaves is unconstituional since slavery is abolished by the constitution of India.Degrading a community status is a punishable offence under India law (Promoting enmity between different classes and endangering Integrity of India.Some times some truths cannot be exposed in public.(India was once a slave nation to british,for this single reason India cannot be introduced as former slave of british).I Hope all the admins can understand well.I welcome more research and discussions about the article.I am not against removing unreliable information(without sources).But I am against discrimination in the name of religion,caste,culture,language.I Hope wikipedia will protect the true spirit of knowledge and human freedom. User : AntanO is spreading defamatory information against a particular sect of people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AntanO — Preceding unsigned comment added by RajaRajan Tamilian (talk • contribs) 19:16, 2016 February 11 (UTC)
 * The moment you begin invoking laws, lawyers, and jurisprudence, you have lost your argument by default. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 20:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The user never discuss (Look at the user's talk page.). I added the page to my watchlist after I see the edit war and removal of content. As per WP:CASTE and WP:SUE, I request proper action against the user. --Ant a n O 21:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The user was indefinitely blocked about an hour ago. Not sure what more can be done at this point. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I didn't see user's page and I wanted to report myself for WP:SUE. --Ant a n O 21:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for reconsideration
@Bethnaught, I think this user has been misunderstood. If you read his message again, you would note that he makes quite sensible points. "I welcome more research and discussions about the article. I am not against removing unreliable information(without sources). But I am against discrimination in the name of religion,caste,culture,language." He is not just issuing legal threats, but rather I see him using the legal framework to support his argument. Not a great strategy, and he is not very well-versed with the ways of Wikipedia. But he is basically protesting against what he sees as unfair treatment of a community. Please reconsider the block. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * They made a legal threat, "If you repeat these actions,the same will be bring to the notice of Government of India and the honourable Supreme Court of India." No_legal_threats this is how they get unblocked.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Serialjoepsycho's quote, which was the basis for the block, is in my opinion a clear legal threat and it has not yet been clearly retracted. I will not object to an unblock once it is retracted. BethNaught (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with the decision after having seen the evidence. I will advise him accordingly. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The user (RajaRajan Tamilian) continues unhealthy and wrong way of discussion and accused my as discriminator that I report here as personal attack. (See User_talk:RajaRajan_Tamilian) --Ant a n O 05:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit-warring at Pakistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
User:HassanKhan95 is engaged in edit-warring and disruptive editing on Pakistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. He is engaged in removal of sourced content, citation tags, better source tags and addition of unsourced content. He has also broken 3RR on Pakistan after being warned by User:Kautilya3 at User talk:HassanKhan95. He has Pashtun nationalistic agenda and tries to bump up figures related to Pahtun ethnicity and Pashto language. He accuses other of nationalistic agenda when his unsourced edits are reverted, i tried to engage him at Talk:Khyber Pakhtunkhwa but instead of talking, he keeps reverting.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 20:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * First to of All I'll say sorry for my weak English but anyways I'll try to explain the situation. In Pakisan there are four provinces each province has a dominant recognised language i.e Punjabi is provincial in Punjab,Pashto in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa,Sindhi in Sindh and Balochi in Balochistan whereas Urdu is national and English is official in all Pakistan.If u read the articles about Pakistan other provinces like Punjab,Sindh,etc in every each Proncial language is mention in Infobox so similarly i also added in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa article that Pashto is Provincial,Urdu is National and English is Official same as it is mention in other provinces articles (see here i added Pashto,Urdu and English as Provincial,National and official language respectively and added other minor languages (which are spoken by less than 30% population in collapsible list).But ShriffIsInTown (a punjabi) who want to add Punjabi on the top and he always try to bump up figures related to Punjabi ethnicity and Punjabi language. His edit can be seen here.Let me also clearify that SheriffIsInTown is also  engaged in edit-warring and disruptive editing on Pakistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.--HassanKhan95 (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all, understanding of English language should be a basic requirement on English Wikipedia. If his English is that bad then he should refrain from editing English Wikipedia because he is never going to understand the policies thus never going to abide by them. Moreover he made my job easier by providing those diffs, it can be clearly seen especially in second diff that he is trying to add name of a governor who resigned and he is trying to remove cn tags and better source needed tags. I don't know how i got into these languages issue but i have a bad habit of trying to improve things and i am pretty sure some kind of edit conflict got me into it and i found a scholarly source and started improving all Pakistan related articles with language information since this editor's focus is on Pashtun articles, he saw my edits and started adding unsourced content to prove his point then things got escalated to the point that he is keeping his unsourced and removing my sourced edits. He is preferring WP:PRIMARY sources over secondary or tertiary sources. His point of view that other pages are wrongly formatted thus these should be wrongly formatted is beyond my comprehension.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 21:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * SherrifIsInTown! I don't have objection if you improve articles, I'll apreciate if do so. But Try to undersatand what i m saying.In article Pakistan you added that sindhi is spoken more than that of Pashto and you gave references of BBC report,But actually that report is based on census of 1951,1961 and 1981 ( see here that figures).I was trying to add latest figures that are of 1998 census (  here).Once again i would say that u should observe the figures given by BBC repory , that are actually the  figures of old censuses. In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa article you can change info about governor but please do not change info about languages because they are most accurate. Hope you will understand.Thanks--HassanKhan95 (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Here you go, I got the permission to change the governor but no permission to change the languages even if I have a source and he is adding unsourced because he thinks that they are most accurate. HassanKhan95, here we are discussing your violation of 3RR at Pakistan after being warned by User:Kautilya3, we are not discussing the content dispute which you can discuss at talk pages which you should have done before violating that rule.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 23:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I m not saying to not change if u have source,You can but the sources you were talking about are based on Old census see the reports of 1951,1961 and 1981, you'll find the same figures there.My purpose is not to Show Pashto a large language,What will I get by doing this?I just wanted to put the most accurate info.BBC report is published in 2015 but doesn't means that it is based on latest sources.Did report mention that these figures are latest?or Did they told how they got those figures.

You said that I have voilated 3R rule,let me say that you have also voilated itnseveral times and it can be seen in histories of those articles--HassanKhan95 (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please discuss the content dispute at Talk:Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Talk:Pakistan.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 15:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

User:HassanKhan95 has started to canvass other editors and he is also vandalizing talk pages. Please see his canvass attempt to User:Massagetae at User talk:Massagetae, diff, please note the IPv6 address and then see vandalism at Talk:Pakistan where he removed an admin's message, see diff, same IPv6 address.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 23:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Sheriff you said an IP address is canvasing other editors, Let me say that A relevant editor is invited to participate in discussion as a neutral person, and not to give one sided view. Secondly you said the IP removed Admin message (here) but see carefully that the same IP restored back the Message (see here), it means the message was removed by mistake.--HassanKhan95 (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, i made a mistake too, i thought RegentsPark restored the edit.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 20:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

SheriffIsInTown stated on his user page that he's ethnic Punjabi and HassanKhan95 appears to be ethnic Pashtun (Pathan). Both are Pakistanis by nationality so why is one calling the other a nationalist? That could amount to a WP:personal attack. This also gives an ugly image to Pakistan. I suggest both of you think about the rest of the world who can see all of this before calling each other names, you may not like each other based on ethnicity but try to keep that to the side when you're here in Wikipedia.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Main page breakage
Main page is only showing about one-third of its normal content for me at the moment; nothing in the history so possible one of the just-edited transcluded templates broke something. —Sladen (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * …and after a few minutes outage it's back. Kudos to whomso ever repaired it!  —Sladen (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that should be "whoever"--subject of the clause. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, no. It's the object ~ you'd say "Kudos to him", right?  Just so, it's "whom", because the kudos are being given to, not received by; cheers, LindsayHello 22:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Lindsay, "x who repaired it" is the phrase that is the object of the preposition. The phrase should be in the dative (but we don't do that in English), but x is the subject of that phrase--compare "he who repaired it is a wonderful person". Drmies (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, if we're playing More-Grammatical-than-Thou, kudos is actually singular. Just sayin'.  E Eng  09:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC) Hi,, how are things at the cabal?
 * But repaired needs a subject, which role whomever cannot perform; the object of to is the entire following clause, not who(m}ever alone. Compare Kudos to the user whom repaired it! So I agree with Drmies (and EEng).—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  09:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Using "what" would have solved it, but nooooo, you had to go and get all anthrocentric! DMacks (talk) 05:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The word you're all looking for is "whomsoever". Mjroots (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * . Thank you! —Sladen (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, the word I was looking for was excessively pedantic (except, of course, that's not a word).  E Eng  01:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That might be didactic.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  05:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the teachable moment.  E Eng  07:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

IP disruptive editing
,, , – making disruptive edits now on  regarding an improper use of the hatnote (WP:HAT, Template:Distinguish). Has reverted three times:, ,. Was cautioned here; has received warnings before here. Lapadite (talk) 05:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Page protection perhaps?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, no reason for page protection at this point. Nine edits in six days is hardly an "edit war". Lapadite should have attempted to use the Alice Cooper talk page prior to issuing warnings to people who disagree with his perspective - it helps prevent warring. Yes, I did the original edit. Obviously I see nothing wrong with it or else I wouldn't have done it. But now there are others involved, some revert to my edit, and others can't agree as to where to put the information included in my edit. Rickmartyfanclub (talk) 12:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Semi protection more specifically. It blocks IP's and new users not auto-confirmed. It stops sock puppetry. This situation doesn't pass the duck test.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Has been reverted by two other editors:,. Lapadite (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * And obviously, has been un-reverted, by just as many because you included three of us in your "report".Rickmartyfanclub (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Page protection requests should be made at WP:RPP. But given Rickmarty's behavior, a short block might be in order.    05:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Leitmotiv WP:harassing me
I have asked Leitmotiv to stay off my talk page hereand here yet he continues to post here, this must stop. CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * He, like myself, warned you about edit warring and not discussing on the talk page. It's a little in bad taste, considering he's edit warring right along with you, but it's not harassment. It's exactly what talk pages are for. Now go take your content dispute to the article talk page and discuss it out, or drop it and move on. Nothing actionable here. Sergecross73   msg me  15:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * either we all play by the same rules or we change the rules.CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What are expecting here? The warnings were valid. If you don't like talk page messages, I recommend following the rules. Sergecross73   msg me  16:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Users who have been asked to stay off others users talk pages are only allowed to post *required* notices, that warning was not *required* CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Then, worst case scenario, you're at "unrequired talk page message". Still miles away from harassment or anything requiring an ANI thread, especially when the easiest scenario, "don't edit war and discuss on article talk pages", still remains to be an unattempted approach here. If you don't stop wasting the communities time on this, you're heading towards a BOOMERANG block. Stop complaining about trivial issues and go discuss your content dispute. Sergecross73   msg me  17:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * CombatWombat42 - I'm not seeing any harassment or violations of behavioral policies here. He's simply trying to ask for collaboration over a content dispute that you both appear to be edit warring over. I agree with Sergecross73; you need to discuss the issue with Leitmotiv on the article's talk page to resolve your issues. Edit warring and then coming here and asking for administrator attention because the other user is attempting to contact you and properly resolve the dispute will only draw negative attention to you. In fact, there may be a WP:BOOMERANG over the horizon per 3RR.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   17:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Putting edit warring and 3RR aside for the moment, if I request someone to stay off my Talk page I expect them to do that. For them to then post to my Talk page is WP:Incivil behaviour (although I am not sure about harassment).  If Leitmotiv wants to get input from an editor, s/he could edit the article talk page and WP:Ping the editor. DrChrissy (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * DrChrissy, not sure if you saw my reply to Oshwah so replying here. My intent to talk to CombatWombat42 was not out of disrespect or harassment of any kind, but quite simply forgetting that I got warned from an incident that was over a year ago. I would expect editors to assume good faith and not jump to conclusions. If you read the intent of my latest post on Combat's talk page, you can see my only goal was to work things out, which has not been reciprocated. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with DrChrissy. If someone is asked to stay off someone else's own talk page, then I agree that purposefully continuing to message that person using their talk page (and knowing they were asked to stop) does violate behaviors that are expected of others (sure - they were asked to stop, and they didn't stop). However, in this situation, either collaboration needs to occur between the two of them or CombatWombat42 needs to drop the stick and walk away if communication isn't going to be possible with resolving the dispute. But I acknowledge and agree with DrChrissy's response and his assertion.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   17:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I won't be around much today, but yeah I honestly forgot about the previous warnings to stay off his talk page, because it was over year ago I believe. Honest mistake considering that talk pages should be used for talking, but CombatWombat64 refuses to do that with me anywhere. Which leaves me with a dilemma of editing alongside him. Combat chooses never to take things to the talk page. So what recourse am I left with, except for discussing the edits in the edit notations? I posted to CombatWombat42's talk page as an honest attempt to put whatever differences we have behind us, but as you can see the editor is unwilling. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll just ask: CombatWombat42 - How do you plan on communicating with Leitmotiv regarding the dispute? Do you plan on communicating or collaborating with him at all about it? Where at? On the article's talk page? If you are serious about solving this dispute, a good start in the right direction would be to answer these questions so that Leitmotiv knows, drop this thread, and start working together.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   21:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Can you stay off Combatwomabt42's page? You've given them the warning. Make sure yourself are not edit warring. Use the talkpage of the article. They will either join you or not. Y'all can seek some form of dispute resolution as necessary from there. In the event that they do not you can go to WP:AN/3RR.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's been discussed already up above. I fully intend to stay off Combatwombat42's talk page. Nothing has ever been worked out on his talk page it seems. I would have stayed off before if I had recalled I was given a warning over a year ago. Simply put, I didn't remember because I don't think of CombatWombat on a daily basis, or barely a yearly basis. Everything that has transpired thus far is merely a function of lost memory regarding warnings and interacting with too many Wikipedians for me to keep them all separate in my mind. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

So this is resolved.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Self-reporting
Hi. I believe my behavior in this encyclopedia has a highly negative effect on the overall wonderful ambiance of this place. Some of my utterly despicable edits include: To conclude, I believe this encyclopedia will be better off without such disgusting people as me. So, for the betterment of this community, I hope I am permanently blocked. Thank you. Krimuk | 90 ( talk ) 15:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This personal attack
 * Swearing in an edit summary
 * Swearing in a peaceful talk page discussion
 * Hell, my own user page is highly degrading to women
 * This is not an incident. Either stay and edit constructively or leave. Simple choice.  Tide  rolls  16:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Could a CU please check if the account has been compromised? Because there's definitely something fishy going on... Thomas.W talk 19:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Considering the indef for vandalism, yes, something is weird, but I don't see what could be done at this point. -- The Voidwalker  Discuss 20:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , now you mention it... looking at this user's contributions, they appear to be very constructive up until today's happenings. I second the proposal for a CU. --Ches (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see any evidence of the account being compromised from an outside entity, the technical data is consistent throughout. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Too bad. Almost five years, and more than 17K constructive edits, and then this, right out of the blue. Thomas.W talk 22:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that CU results only indicate that this was not likely to have been an external compromise. It doesn't exclude the possibility that they left their computer unattended while logged in, or that a family member/roommate didn't get a hold of their password etc. I supposed we'll just have to wait and see what Krimuk90's next move is. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Apologies for a comment after the close, but it could just be an anger attack based on something we haven't seen - I intend to sleep on it (and let the editor sleep on it) and see if I can reach out to them in some way tomorrow. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking a bit further, something a bit similar has happened before - see edit summary here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Shahid Kapoor seems to be the article of issue. Somehow related to Priyanka Chopra in someway but in the prior article.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Problem with constant removal of content on the page Nergis Mavalvala
Hi. There is this user with changing IP addresses, that is constantly removing the part about sexuality from the above mentioned article, for no apparent legitimate reason. I have warned him or her multiple times to stop, and have reverted them, but he/she persists. Can some admin please do something about this?

The user's IP addresses were:
 * 94.201.215.177
 * 39.50.213.29
 * 212.183.140.54

Thanks. --39.44.151.39 (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Woah, there's a lot of editing going on with Nergis Mavalvala right now. Can you provide me with a diff that shows the content being removed that you have an issue with? Is it the "homosexuality" part (in the article summary paragraph)?  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   17:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, this person keeps on removing the homosexuality part from the article constantly even though it deserves to be in there, since it is a part of her personal life.

Here are the diffs:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nergis_Mavalvala&diff=704792195&oldid=704786411
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nergis_Mavalvala&diff=704784604&oldid=704784416
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nergis_Mavalvala&diff=704769757&oldid=704761846

--39.44.151.39 (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding with the diffs and the additional information. I checked out the source provided just after the "homosexuality" part, and it does not state clearly that this person is a homosexual (although it does appear to imply and perhaps assume so). It does state that she didn't know her sexual identity in her youth, and that she works closely with gay and lesbian students; it doesn't directly state that she is a homosexual. Per WP:BLP, unless there is a reliable source that states that she is a homosexual, I'm actually okay with the removal of that part until the issue with directly attributing it to a source is resolved.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   18:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the clarification. --39.44.151.39 (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't know how to use this but she does describe herself as "out, queer person of color": http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2012/06/just-herself

She is also certainly a Parsi with numerous sources stating it: http://www.dawn.com/news/1239270

Here it is stated she is married to a woman and has a son with her: http://parsikhabar.net/individuals/mit-astrophysicist-nergis-mavalvala-wins-macarthur-grant/2708/

I believe these facts are very important to be included in Wikipedia profile. Some people in Pakistan find it offensive and are trying to censor it. Please do not give in to their efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.145.24 (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what other way to interpret the "out, queer person of color" there is. However, at this point I suggest that the discussion needs to be moved to the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard as there is no admin action to be taken at this time. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 19:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   20:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I am Pakistani, and I am not offended by it. Whether she is homosexual or not, she is still a fellow Pakistani and a human being. --39.44.151.39 (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The part about her homosexuality has been removed again by user Spasage (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nergis_Mavalvala&diff=705055162&oldid=704885682). Can somebody revert it, as the page has been semi-protected. --103.24.97.66 (talk) 09:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Banned from posting sources
I posted 2 sources on talk page to be visible and the user FkpCascais is removing them. Here:. He has been accusing various people of being socks, and nationalists by trying to block them. He was reported several times and blocked for that behavior at least once. He was also topic banned from Serbs of Croatia article where he tried to block and IP, another user and personally attacked the third user. I don't feel like he is to be allowed to remove sources.I feel I should be allowed to post sources on talk pages, even if he doesn't agree with them. 89.164.134.31 (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, 89.164.134.31 - You're required to notify other users about ANI discussions that have been started that involve them. I've gone ahead and did this for you. I assume that you're referring to this thread; the IP involved in the discussion appears to have been blocked and for block evasion. I don't see what the problem is here.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   18:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, you were too fast. I'm in process of doing that. Oh, I see you've done it. Thank you. 89.164.134.31 (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, I'm not blocked. I've been discussing for a few months with that user under those accusations with 2 RfC's that ended in my favor..

It's ridiculous to discuss with someone for months and keep claiming he is a sock and do not make a single report. No other of at least dozen editors in that discussions had any problems or complaints against me. They had agreed with those 2 RfCs that I had started and they had supported my opinion for changes. 89.164.134.31 (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Also to clarify the problem. In my past discussions with that user I found out that his pattern of discussing is to delete other people's posts, personally attack them and accuse them of being socks (you can read all that in the report I referenced). I don't think that he is the one to decide whether some sources should be stated on talk page. Anyone is free to post sources on talk pages and I don't see anything wrong there. He can't delete them only because he doesn't agree with them. You can see whet the admin had done on the talk page. He didn't delete any posts while this user is trying to push his POV by hiding sources that do not agree with his stand. 89.164.134.31 (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I should also not that he has a grudge over me because I'm the ip who started the RfC on Serbs of Croatia and finished it against his stand. . He also tried to block me there, but I managed to bring that RfC to other editors who agreed with me. He was extremely rude in that discussion which had him almost blocked.

Here is that report by another user that he was extremely rude to:.

89.164.134.31 (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I note this post, added at 18:16 has had a false time added to it - Arjayay (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, that can happen innocently in certain edit-conflict situations.  E Eng  18:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I've searched ANI for other reports on the same user:

"User:FkpCascais has a history of repeated personal attacks and extreme incivility. He was previously reported [19] in the past, which resulted in a stern warning by LessHeard vanU ..."

"Hello, the user FkpCascais (talk) had been POV pushing for quite some time now and since he went from POV pushing to personal attacks I'm making this report."

" FkpCascais has gone from seemingly hating my guts to apologizing. The current problem is that I had added a "disputed" tag to one of the two main points of contention. FkpCascais removed it twice and then removed my talk page request not to do that (I see he has reverted that now, though)." -> removing other peoples comments

"This is now the second time that I see FkpCascais misusing AN/I to get rid of an inconvenient user." -> I've seen it at least 2 times, on me and another editor on Serbs of Croatia article.

"This user is being very disruptive."

"Proxing for banned user User:Evlekis. [99] and other examples. Deserves block and topic ban thereafter. Cognoscerapo (talk) 09:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)"

Those are some of the reports. I've also seen a report where he was banned for a week or so, but I couldn't find it now.

I don't think he should be allowed to remove the 2 source I posted on talk page. 89.164.134.31 (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * An indef-banned User:Asdisis has been openly violating his ban by admitingly using IP accounts, a situation admin User:HighInBC, me and some other long standing editors have been strugling to find a mechanism to cope with this.  It is him using the same old arguments and sources, he simply doesnt disengage. FkpCascais (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just caught that this IP looks to be within the same range as the IP that was blocked per block evasion in the closed thread linked here. This makes a lot more sense now. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   18:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I participated 2 RfC that lasted for a few months and you hadn't reported a single time. That's quite a struggle. I'm allowed to post sources and if you find you have to delete them I can only say, tough. It's not up to you to determine which sources can be presented on talk pages. If you don't agree with what they say, go and find sources to support your stand. 89.164.134.31 (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Yup, same guy, another IP. Once again engaging in the same tactics they were blocked for. There are 4-5 other ANI posts in the past exactly like this. Blocked for evasion. HighInBC 19:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Posting sources. That's really a tactics to get blocked for.141.136.219.204 (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * HighInBC ^^ Is that another one?  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   19:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * About a 98.5% chance. HighInBC 19:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There a reason y'all are just pontificating about how this guy is probably a sock instead of taking it to checkuser? Jtrainor (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Checkusers can't really tell us much when a person is using a wide variety of IPs. This guy changes IPs every time they get blocked. HighInBC 00:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring after 3 previous blocks.
user:Natsume96 continued disruptive editing and edit warring after two previous blocks. 2602:306:3357:BA0:5C94:91B2:B204:1F8A (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 2602:306:3357:BA0:5C94:91B2:B204:1F8A - You need to provide actual diffs and edits that show exactly what you're referring to. Where exactly is he being disruptive and where is he edit warring? Beats of Rage? I need more information before I can help.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   18:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Diffs and stuff are on the Edit warring report. -Einstein95 (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was stupid of me to ask. I should have looked there first :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   18:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Oshwah,How about actually reading his contributions. 2602:306:3357:BA0:5C94:91B2:B204:1F8A (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, how about... give me a minute, will ya?!! :-)  ~Oshwah~  ::(talk) (contribs)   19:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking at the user's block history and contribs, it looks like this person has been blocked for edit warring in the past, and also blocked recently(ish) (Dec 2015) for vandalism. I think that the AN3 report will just need to run its course.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   19:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks as if the complainant here is an IP address set up less than an hour ago. DrChrissy (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * DrChrissy - Good call. Noted.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   19:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Consider the following edits, that is not vandalism. Just type "Metro-Active X OpenBOR" in Google. The first link will take you at RuTracker with this game on board. Natsume96 (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment Maybe I am having a grumpy evening, I don't know. Whenever the edit section of this page opens, editors are requested to provide diffs. Oshwah was correct to request those in the very beginning of this thread, but we have not seen a single diff in support or opposition yet. THis is extremely frustrating for those trying to help. Furthermore, if there is an active AN3 regarding this complaint, then there is the possibility of forum shopping. The complainant might consider withdrawing their complaint here (i.e. striking) until AN3 is settled. DrChrissy (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No need to WP:FORUMSHOP it here since it's already opened at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring. An Admin will review it in due time and take the actions they feel necessary. It looks here though that we may have a possible sock using an IP account.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with both DrChrissy and Serialjoepsycho - I'm not seeing any edits outside of the 3RR issue (which has already been reported at AN3). Apart from recommending that the reporter refer to the AN3 discussion, I'm not seeing anything that warrants action here at this time. I'm considering this case closed at this point.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   20:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, I am leaving it to you guys to look through the edits and find out which ones are in support and which ones are in opposition, I am not going to do it for you. 2602:306:3357:BA0:C147:8BED:78A1:FBC9 (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This is another IP address registered about an hour ago. DrChrissy (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 2602:306:3357:BA0:C147:8BED:78A1:FBC9 - That's not how it works. You can't just open a noticeboard thread (like you did here), make claims about another user such as "making disruptive edits", etc., provide no direct proof (such as diffs or previous discussions with diffs) to back up your claims, and then say "here, you find proof for me. I'm not doing it." - ANI is not a place where you can throw a user under a magnifying glass and expect a community to dissect him like the IRS (lol). If you're going to make claims like this about another user (and, on top of that, open a noticeboard about him), you must have proof and present evidence. Now, I agree that this user has been blocked in the past (somewhat recently) and for pretty non-constructive things (like that vandalism episode). I'm iffy on the 3RR and the report, but I'll leave that for another pair of eyes. Anyways, these are my findings and I think that no action is required from anyone here. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   20:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I know, my ip address changes often. I don't know why. 2602:306:3357:BA0:C147:8BED:78A1:FBC9 (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks a whole lot like a duck. Think if we should do anything here at ANI we should archive the top and bottom.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not a sock puppet, and do not even go there. 2602:306:3357:BA0:C147:8BED:78A1:FBC9 (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I do not care what you guys expect from me, I left you the report so you can do all the work, and I can just get the results. I got better things to do on a Saturday afternoon than looking for evidence. 2602:306:3357:BA0:C147:8BED:78A1:FBC9 (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The evidence is that this has already been opened up in the appropriate location and there is no need to WP:FORUMSHOP it here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Help
I was attempting to start an article, Highfalutin. I went back today, and all my work is gone... this has happened twice. I have to type in everything again - am I doing something wrong? 400 Lux (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It appears that you and are in a conflict dispute about this page.  Your edits are in the page history.  I suggest you start a conversation at Talk:Highfalutin regarding this. —  xaosflux  Talk 23:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

She never said anything to me. I will edit the talk page. Thank you. I was worried that I was not formatting much - I don't edit often, but I read alot of the help pages. 400 Lux (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC) Do you know where I can find more help pages on starting articles fresh... and some pages on the wiki formatting? 400 Lux (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 400 Lux - Lets take your question to my talk page :-) -- Do you mind leaving me a message there?  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   23:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the response - I will stop by your page later to talk about that article. And I'd like to pick your brain about the two areas I mentioned above.

p.s. that archive thing makes it difficult to continue talking. 400 Lux (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, 400 Lux - Yes, I was hoping to close this ANI thread, since no administrator action is required. If we move this conversation to my talk page, I can close this thread and I continue assisting you :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   23:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh - I posted on the wrong forum. Please close - I apologize! 400 Lux (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 400 Lux - No apologies needed; it's perfectly fine :-). I'll await your message on my talk page with your questions, and we'll take things from there. Thanks, 400 Lux.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

SPI Problems
For some reason, SPI reports are not submitting properly for me (see here). Is there any way to fix this? I am unsure of what exactly is wrong. GABHello! 00:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There was an extra bracket in a diff. I think I fixed it.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 00:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. GABHello! 00:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * the transclusion subbed my signature for yours when I fixed. Do you mind going in and replacing it with your own sig? I've used the template in the meantime.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  00:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, done. Thank you for fixing that. GABHello! 00:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Sri Srinivasan
Recommending page protection for Sri Srinivasan due to speculation and comments about him being potentially appointed as Antonin Scalia's replacement per WP:CRYSTAL. WTF? (talk) 03:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem to be much a reason yet.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see a need for page protection yet. If major BLP issues or vandalism occur where protecting the page becomes the best way to prevent policy violations, you can request page protection at Requests for page protection.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   21:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Guestajh impersonating an admin
I am starting to suspect that the recent behavior of User:Guestajh (e.g. moving an article to the draft talk:namespace, creating a userpage for a nonexistent user) has crossed the line from innocent incompetence to malicious impersonation of an administrator. As this is not, IMO, clear-cut vandalism that would justify a report to AIV, I am bringing it here. What pushed me to make this report was, in part, the fact that on User talk:The Wiggles, Guestajh is posting messages similar to those you would expect an admin to post on that of a vandalizing editor (even though Guestajh is not an admin and "The Wiggles" is not a real user). In short, I think Guestajh should be blocked for impersonating an administrator, and for violating WP:DISRUPT and WP:NOTHERE in doing so. Everymorning (talk) 04:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Update: Guestajh has repeatedly removed the speedy template repeatedly from the userpage of nonexistent user "The Wiggles". Everymorning (talk) 04:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for reporting this. I made a mess trying unsuccessfully to undo that move. His behavior seems bizarre and aimless as it is disruptive: the user he "blocked" is imaginary, as is the "administrator" (Tim Calrissian) he signed the page as; he even acted out the blocked user requesting an unblock. — Rebbing  talk  05:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Looking at the editor's recent contribs, I'm suspecting a serious WP:COMPETENCE issue here. Will wait for a response to this discussion before deciding to block.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * [] I don't know. I'm seeing a response like this and thinking its vandalism.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and blocked for blatantly going above-and-beyond in demonstrating WP:NOTHERE, WP:COMPETENCE, or both, and from their history on their talk page the high probability that the notice for this discussion would simply be removed and the disruption continued. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for oversight
Could I request an admin to oversight an edit that is outing me. Obviously don't wish to draw attention to it here, I did try emailing oversight last night but got no response. WCM email 09:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , just wait for your reply, rather than drawing attention to the problematic edit. Just my advice. --Ches (talk) 09:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

User:JDavidovits at Geopolymer – Personal attacks and legal threats
The issues at Geopolymer came to my attention with a filing at the dispute resolution noticeboard in which User:JDavidovits reverted months of edits with the following revert and edit summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geopolymer&type=revision&diff=704588689&oldid=700673701

This definitely was not vandalism. Initially it appeared to be an ordinary case of yelling "Vandalism" to "win" a content dispute, which is a common type of personal attack.

However, the following post to the talk page requires attention: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGeopolymer&type=revision&diff=704589367&oldid=700248137

In particular "For several years, we thought that this disarray in the community by which geopolymer at large was a synonym for alkali-activated materials was a matter of misunderstandings, or an over simplification of a polymer chemistry by some civil engineers. In fact, we were surprised to discover that it was a deliberate attempt done by a small and yet defined group of people to use the word "geopolymer" as a cool marketing wording without any consideration for the real chemistry behind it. With all the evidences gathered now, some members of the Geopolymer Institute are thoroughly thinking of any legal complaint and will definitely inform their peers about this situation. The original text represents our knowledge dating back to 2012. We shall update the new current article with any new scientific data acquired since that date. Please, be patient. Prof. Joseph Davidovits (talk) 10:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)" This looks like a legal threat, an even more serious matter than idle claims of vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is a legal threat.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   21:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Blocked. Sad situation. That talk page post makes for fascinating reading, of course; I wish my conferences were this exciting. It it entirely possible that Johnprovis shouldn't be editing this article because of a COI--but that is a different matter. Drmies (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Peter O'Conner
is engaged in a sort of slow-motion edit war. The editor makes an edit (typically sourced poorly, or with a source that is not in accord with the added text,) which is subsequently reverted by other editors (at least, I have been doing so.) A few days, weeks, or months later the editor returns and makes nearly the same edit again - sometimes with a change of sources, again poor.

The editor's edits for are examples of this.


 * Aircraft range
 * 6 August 2015, unreliable sources.


 * Adding aircraft varients
 * 6 August 2015, unreliable sources.
 * 7 August 2015
 * 12 August 2015
 * 10 September 2015, unreliable sources.
 * 12 October 2015, no source.
 * 29 October 2015, unreliable source.


 * Varient properties
 * 22 August 2015, no source.
 * 24 August 2015, unreliable sources.
 * 10 September 2015, unreliable sources.
 * 18 October 2015, not in sources.
 * 23 October 2015, not in sources.
 * 30 October 2015, unreliable source.
 * 6 February 2016, no source.
 * 12 February 2016, unreliable sources.

The editor is also making substantial edits on which are also being reverted, again over several months. The editor's history contains other, perhaps lesser, examples.

The editor does not use (refuses to use? avoids?) talk pages, so it is impossible to come to any "concensus" on matters. I have attempted to use the editor's talk page, but it seems not to have had any effect; the editor has continued to use non-expert sources as sources (particularly chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.com.)

Peter O'Conner's behaviour is identical to / (accounts abandoned shortly before Peter O'Conner's creation) and I believe they are the same editors, which would suggest this has all been going on for a lot longer than Peter O'Conner's record suggests.

I am at a loss at how to proceed since there seems to be no way for me to get the editor's attention. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 08:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * RovingPersonalityConstruct I don't see an edit war at all. It just looks like edits that you don't agree with. Have you spoken to this user at all and tried to discuss your concerns with this person?  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   09:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, fix your signature. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)
 * As mentioned in my initial post, I have attempted to contact the editor on their talk page, and received no reply. Invitations to discuss matters on article talk pages also went unanswered.
 * The editor does not use talk pages; there are no instances of talk page edits in the editor's contributions list. In fact, the user has, in the past, blanked their user talk page after receiving messages. Whether they bothered to read the messages first I cannot say, but obviously the messages have had no effect.
 * And thanks for the heads up about my sig. I'm quite embarrassed that I didn't notice it myself for so long. :o - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 11:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I note that the OP has in one user talk page post claimed that User:Peter O'Conner is a sock of two accounts, User:Tamlinwah and User:AChig, the latter of which is currently blocked as a sock of the former (though the former is not blocked) diff. Indeed, a trawl through the editing history of all three accounts reveals a very loudly quacking WP:DUCK. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Very loudly quacking indeed. Also please note that Peter O'Conner was created on 25 June 2015, during Tamlinwah's two-week block for socking (see SPI), and from the very first edit they made, on 10 July (an edit I gave them a warning for...), continued doing the same type of unsourced/badly sourced edits that Tamlinwah and AChig until then had been doing, explaining why Tamlinwah stopped editing after getting blocked, even though the block wasn't an indef. So I suggest that file an SPI report, naming Peter O'Conner as a suspected sock of Tamlinwah. Thomas.W talk 14:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

SPI case raised. See. Hopefully some kind soul will move it into WP space. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thomas.W talk 15:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC) (Couldn't resist using that nifty little template...)


 * Many thanks. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Reporting the abuses of administrator Doug Weller
An NPOV template was justifiably added at the article Sovereign citizen movement but it was reverted by Doug Weller:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:160.39.203.39

Without any reasonable explanation, Doug Weller labelled this edit as "nonconstructive" and "disruptive". Even more, he is making a threat against me that I might "lose my editing privileges".

Making a threat to a Wikipedia user with no good reason is terrorism, plain and simple. Therefore I hereby demand Doug Weller be removed for his administrator privileges in order to have a free and safe Wikipedia community. Alonso McLaren (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's a little chart:
 * ANI Flavor of the Month
 * January 2016"Bullying"
 * February 2016"Terrorism"
 * March 2016   ???
 *  E Eng  01:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Good at all times: Think of the children BMK (talk) 05:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that you have been abusing administrator Doug Weller. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * But how? So it is now OK on Wikipedia for an admin to remove a justifiable edit without detailed justification? How am I abusing him? Do you still have any common sense in your brain? Alonso McLaren (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * At this point you will want to read WP:NPA AM. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 16:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Calling a fellow editors actions "terrorism" as you have done above is a gross personal attack. You are very lucky that you have not already been blocked for it. I strongly suggest that you strikeout these attacks. And as it says in the big Yellow box when you edit this page, you MUST notify editors when you start a discussion about them. You have failed to do so.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * He's editing at Sovereign citizen movement from 2 Columbia IP addresses. and . He confirmed one of them on my talk page when he complained about my edit summary at another article. Coincidentally, User:Mlpearc gave his account a warning for disruptive editing a little while ago. Thanks to MarnetteD for notifying me.  Doug Weller  talk 16:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * To clarify, "a little while ago" means a few minutes ago, and he's also using his account at Sovereign citzen as well as the 2 IP addresses. Thanks everyone. Doug Weller  talk 16:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I blocked Alonso McLaren for 31 hours for disruptive editing and gaming the system. Guy (Help!) 16:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * E/C @Alonso...Did you try to engage in Discussion with Doug Weller about this? They are actually an artbitrator, not just an admin, and in my limited dealings with ArbCom, Doug Weller has proved to be very approachable and communicative.  Furthermore, are you editing under several accounts? DrChrissy (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * He has via IP and account. He didn't raise it with the editor who gave him a warning at his account talk page. Doug Weller  talk 16:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Considering that Alonso McLaren is complaining about edits made by and  (both geolocating to Columbia University) and admitting to doing so on Doug Weller's talk page here, am I the only one who sees the obvious WP:SOCKs?  86.153.133.193 (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope, not the only one :P  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 16:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Looking at all of Alonso McLaren's contributions prior to this incident, I'm inclined to think that the account has been compromised. He has been editing, sporadically, since 2008, and overwhelmingly his edits have been either about motorsport or China (and related east-Asia) topics. All of his contributions seem to be uncontroversial and all his (few) talk page discussions uncontentious, sedate, and utilitarian. No-one seems to have any issue with his conduct, nor he with anyone else's. I can't see any substantive interest in US topics, and certainly nothing to do with US politics. Yet after 7 months of inactivity, he launches into this tendentious, but rather esoteric, ghetto of US politics. Both in style and subject it's entirely unlike the previous 2008-2015 contributions; so I think the account has been compromised.  Unfortunately the July 2015 contribs will be too old for a checkuser to confirm. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 22:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Some of the China related edits seem to confirm what their userpage indicates, that the original Alonso is a Chinese citizen.  He also appears to be rather patriotic.  Alonso would be about 23 now (15 in 2008 according to his user page), and he was a bright enough kid to get into an American college (assuming money wasn't an issue).  It is technically possible that he went to Columbia University and encountered Sovereign Citizen ideology there, but for him to actually adopt Sov Cit thinking still seems about as likely as a typical Texan Republican becoming Confucian after visiting Hong Kong for a week.  Plus there's still the issue that we don't actually know if he left for Columbia University.  If we really needed any further evidence, a simple test would be to try to converse with "Alonso" in Chinese.  I don't think that's necessary, however, and have blocked accordingly.  Ian.thomson (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Is THIS how IP editors are welcomed nowadays?
Please excuse me, but is this a proper way to greet an IP editor after just a few edits? [] 69.47.102.188 (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello. I noticed this since I made a report few topics above because I'm being prevented to post sources on talk page under accusations that I'm a sock. It's very hard to edit as an ip especially if your ISP changed your ip more often since admins here see ip changes as a proof that someone is a sock.  141.138.59.111 (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Right, so IP editor 69.47.102.188 amends a page to change the title of a picture and I reverted it with this diff .  Out of interest I looked at what other contributions this editor may have made, and found this edit on their talk page . The edit summary was "retort", which I thought a little aggressive, considering that no message had even been posted to which a reply might be required. So I posted a reminder to be civil with a reminder to be civil, even on talk pages per this .  Next, I get a reply about [WP:AGF] and another message in the edit summary about being "snarky" . My next posting was to explain that I felt this was unwarranted, and to state my case that I felt the behavior was not-acceptable . It's just escalated since then. This is clearly a user with attitude, and I suspect is trying to edit under an IP address in order to evade a block.  Can we have someone look at this further.  Thank you. KirksKeyKard (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Create an account. Problem solved. End of story. Rklawton (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Already have one, prefer not to be bothered to sign in everytime. I have every right to edit anonymously, as I have done for years now. The issue is not my account or lack of it, but baseless accusations from KirksKeyKard. Sincerely, the "user formerly known as  Wuh  Wuz  Dat ". 69.47.102.188 (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * That is perfectly OK as long as you never edit any article; talk page or discussion anonymously that you have edited as your named acount (you haven't so far - I checked). To be squeaky clean and avoid doubt or suspicion, you should put a note on your user page that you edit under another identity.  86.153.133.193 (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As an IP editor, I do not have a "user page" 69.47.102.188 (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, that appears to be the problem ... this IP editor wants to edit anonymously, as per this diff and the edit summary of "My, are we snarky this morning?). Let's not forget the first post on the talk page of "No need to welcome me, I've been here, done that before", see this diff  and the edit summary of "Retort". Am I the only one here that cannot see an attitude? KirksKeyKard (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I see nothing uncivil in "No need to welcome me, I've been here, done that before", especially when it is left on the editor's own talk page as information for people going there to welcome them. It would have been better addressed by ignoring it. Civility is important, but this is not an event that requires administrator intervention, in my opinion. MPS1992 (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * May I suggest that this (talk page belonging to one of my former IP addresses) was a more proper way to greet an IP editor, assuming good faith, and without baseless accusations? It's a pain in the Gluteus Maximus when your ISP changes your IP at random intervals, for reasons known only to them. 69.47.102.188 (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'll leave Wikipedia.  Having to deal with this level of aggression from an experienced editor masquerading as an IP Editor is a joke.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by KirksKeyKard (talk • contribs) 18:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There is not, and never was any "masquerade". My (former) account has been used only 1 time since April 2011, to rename an article, ad I consider it to be abandoned.69.47.102.188 (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. I agree. I found myself several times blocked only because my ISP changes my ip more often or because I sometimes post from my cell phone or a different computer with a different ip. Admins here do not understand that ip changing is not by itself a misdeed worth blocking for.141.138.59.111 (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's very strange. Can you point to any examples, please? MPS1992 (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Socks on "[Year] in Germany"
Pretty much every article in this format is being targeted by socks of : See the open SPI. Is there any way to protect them all? This is rather difficult to contain at this point. Thanks, GABHello! 03:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It might be more effective to have the checkuser that just finished the SPI case evaluate the possibility of making a rangeblock or two. did the last check but I don't believe he does rangeblocks so  might be able to evaluate here.
 * I do range blocks when they are feasible. I almost always check to see if they are. Ponyo did a check just before me. She probably looks at that, too. In this particular instance, I don't believe I did look at it, dunno why, maybe because I get sidetracked by the cross-wiki abuse issue. I suppose I could look at it now. --Bbb23 (talk) 14:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Aargh, look at what you guys got me into. A can of worms. I'll be posting new findings at the case page sometime later. There may be some behavioral analysis required, which I'm expecting both of you to assist with in exchange for being taskmasters.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll stop by. Feel free to ping when it's up. Sorry for piling on to your workload. GABHello! 16:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh hi guys! What's going on in this thread? Oh.... You guys need help with anything?  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   17:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We might, might want to keep the spi on the radar until the new findings are put up. GABHello! 17:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Incident with user Mona778
Hi. This message is offensive for me, and for other users. I explained to Mona that I was offended, and I demanded he/she delete his/her comment, but the only answer I received is that deleted my comment. Is it correct that Mona deletes comments of other users in a third person's talk page? I think my comment wasn't impolite or a violation of WP:ETIQ. I think we can't accept that an user is belittling another editor or group of editors. I remember that WP:ETIQ says: "Do not label or personally attack people or their edits." Then I can't accept someone says that my edits in other projects are anarchic or an example of how eswiki is a "jungle".

I'm asking for intervention of an admin to settle this incident, Jmvkrecords ⚜ Intra talk 13:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC).


 * That is my talk page that you are talking about. But not my edits.


 * Your representation of the situation is wrong. Mona778 did actually delete her own comment that you said had offended you.


 * Mona778 has certain opinions about the Spanish Wikipedia that may be right and may be wrong. Mona778 providing an example of why she feels that way is not a personal attack. Although it is not very relevant to English Wikipedia either.


 * Mona778 should re-read the English Wikipedia talk page guidelines, and be aware that here on English Wikipedia it is not generally considered acceptable to blank others' comments on others' talk pages or on noticeboards. Mona778 may not be aware of this because people on English Wikipedia and other projects have repeatedly edit warred with her on her own talk page about what she may and may not have there. For example on her talk page here on English Wikipedia. MPS1992 (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't have anything to add to what already said. So I suggest to you not to look for trouble, or stir up hatred. This community is based on cooperation, and friendship, don't try to tarnish it for some questionable purposes. I wish you luck in life and goodbye. ( Mona778 (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC) )
 * MPS, I’ not talking about your edits. See the diffs, and read again.
 * . Then, I was trying to tarnish it for some questionable purposes? Prove it! These kind of implied purposes are inacceptable. Prove it or delete it!
 * I understand that Mona is a new user, and I understand that this person still has not read all the policies of Wikipedia, and therefore I'm not asking for locking him/her account, but all I want is that he/she stops using the pages of enwiki to speak ill of other Wikipedians and other projects. I want intervention from a sysop to decide whether the messages she has left are appropriate or not. Maybe Mona has partially deleted the message in MPS’ talk page, but the message above is not better, and my message is still deleted.
 * Criticism of another's edit, of phrasing and choice of terminology, or any criticism of, or critical response to, talk page commentary and participation ought to be made clearly, directly, and explicitly in a manner that may be easily understood and replied to, out of respect for other editors. WP:ETIQ
 * I understand that someone does not agree or do not appreciate eswiki, it's normal. It is normal to say that I disagree with something or everything that happens in this project, but it is not normal to go out there, speaking ill of others. If Mona thinks my edits or actions in other projects are wrong, he/she can write me directly.
 * But not… Mona comes to offend me a second time, here in this page, and a third time here. “The same people”? After that he/she says I wish you luck in life and goodbye What? Mona expects I’ll be rest in silence?
 * Sorry, I'm on the road, and I can't edit often like I want. Jmvkrecords ⚜ Intra talk 20:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC).


 * I think that if you and others spent less time engaging with Mona778 on English Wikipedia, and on Commons and on other projects, then Mona778 would probably spend less time "using the pages of enwiki to speak ill of other Wikipedians and other projects".


 * Which brings me to wonder, how is it that you ended up seeing Mona778's comment about jungles on my talkpage, so that you could be offended by it? Have you and I worked on content on English Wikipedia together before now, so that you had my talkpage watchlisted? Or did you end up on my talkpage some other way?


 * I do not think that any administrator intervention is required, other than the thoughts already kindly offered by User:Drmies. Also I do not think it is useful for Mona778 to write to you "directly". Or to try to "prove" anything that you are arguing about. Bye. MPS1992 (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Ah yes. Great. Mona should have struck through the "jungle" comment, rather than deleting it. And she shouldn't have deleted Jmvkrecords comment. And Jmvkrecords, and all those other cats, should stop complaining. After all, the comment about a user having been blocked for socking was correct. What a waste of time and electrons--MPS, do they really want us to think there's a posse out to hound and hunt down Mona? Drmies (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * MPS1992, I can only talk about me. I’m not “the others”, and I never contacted Mona in eswiki, Commons, nor other Wikimedia Projects. If you think I’ m implicated in a wikihounding group, maybe you are nor assuming good faith. However, your point about how I was arrived to your talk page is important. Then, I will send a mail to Drmies with non public information about this. I think Drmies is a trusted user in enwiki, he/she has the confidence of Mona778, and he/she has my confidence too to solve this incident in unbiased terms.
 * Drmies, it is not a “comment about a user having been blocked for socking”. It was a comment about sysops allowing flags in other project. Maybe for you it is a correct comment, but not for me. The same critic in other spaces like here, here or here can be positive or constructive, but here isn’t the case, because it didn’t help to build a better encyclopaedia and it with other Mona messages are a lack of respect. It’s not a question of complaining, but a question of respect our local policies. Otherwise, our policies are dead letters, and ambiance here will be unbreathable.
 * Anyway, I said I have confidence in you, and you can close this thread in the way you consider appropriate. I will agree with this. Please consider the message I was send you. Jmvkrecords ⚜ Intra talk 19:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC).
 * I'm sorry, but this doesn't make it any clearer. Spanish disputes should stay on the Spanish wiki. What policy has to say about Mona's behavior and that of others, is already outlined above. That some place would be described as a "jungle" isn't an insult at any particular person, and the email actually suggests that the Spanish wiki is more jungly than ours. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Minor back-and-forth
There's a minor back-and-forth over at List of video games notable for speedrunning, where I just can't get the attention of the IP editing against the sources. Diff examples: ; — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maplestrip (talk • contribs) 20:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Billclarkok's deletions
User:Billclarkok has engaged in recurrent vandalism through unexplained deletion of sourced material at political biography articles. Warned about their behaviour here, here, here, here, and here, however said warnings are repeatedly ignored and the user's behaviour continues. The edit summaries provided by the user are disingenuous (as can be seen here and here), and are evidently designed to conceal the disruptive nature of their actions from page watchers. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Midnightblueowl - I don't see enough recent edits by the user to warrant action. The user has only edited once this entire month, and the last edit had an explanation in the edit summary (see here).  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   23:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wrong! There was an edit summary ("link no longer works") but it was a false summary. There was no link. It was the removal of sourced content with a false edit summary, which is this editor's modus operandi. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There is still not enough recent edits to warrant action here. One edit in February 2016 is not going to raise any brows.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oshwah, is it possible that you could possibly hold off on providing your opinion or NAC closing threads at an "administrative" noticeboard until at least an admin has had a chance to take a look at the complaint? There seems to be a rush to clerk and close off threads here that is not always necessary or warranted.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 05:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The content blanking is indeed an issue, especially given the false edit summaries. I've left them a message pointing them to WP:DR along with a caveat to use the article pages. We'll see how that goes...-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 05:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, on vladamir lenin it was a mistranslation. And even a person there agreed with me. From this point on I'll post on the talk pages of my edits. Thank you Billclarkok (talk) 07:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Copyright violations by the copyright holder
Hello. I would like to ask for assistance in a matter at Spring break. I'm not sure that I've handled this the best that I possibly could, but it is clear that I am not getting through. Sbp2014 continues to edit war to include copyrighted content from this dissertation, as seen here, here, and here (among a couple more times). He claims to be the copyright holder.

I tried to point him in the direction of donating the material here, but it doesn't seem that I got through as he has never commented on that subject. As he is now just reverting my messages to him and continuing to restore the copyvio, I have failed to get through. I am honestly hoping that somebody else may have better luck that I have. Apparition11 Complaints/ Mistakes 06:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if he's the copyright holder, unless he donates the copyright to us. Even then, there's only certain materials that we accept donations of.  Whether or not he does, if we assume that the work is his, his addition of the material is pretty much WP:COI spamming.  Of course, if he isn't the copyright holder (it happens), then he needs to stop or be blocked.  Ian.thomson (talk) 07:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've removed the copyvio, revdel'd the copyright violating revisions, warned him about edit warring, and left another message explaining the above options. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick and well-handled intervention! I know I should have brought this here sooner, but I was hoping that he'd slow down and we'd be able to start a dialogue and handle it without bringing too much attention to it. I failed in that. Apparition11 Complaints/ Mistakes 07:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe you are incorrect in your interpretation of copyright in regard to Wikipedia. The assumption is made that everyone who adds material here is the owner of the material's copyright as its creator, and continues to own the copyright after they have added it. By adding it, they have simply licensed it to Wikipedia, not transferred the copyright.  If the person in this instance actually does own the copyright to the material, then they can license it as they wish without giving up the copyright.  I would check in with WMF legal or ask  to confirm this, but I'm fairly certain it is correct.  The editing page says: "By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution."  It says nothing whatsoever about transferring the copyright.  In fact, the theory behind Wikipedia is that the copyright is held collectively by the editors who participated in creating the material. BMK (talk) 08:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed ping, see above. BMK (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Per Copyright_violations, "A copyright holder cannot both retain non-free copyright elsewhere over their content, and license it for one-time use here with their permission, because Wikipedia's licensing scheme requires that its readers and end users be able to reuse the content under the free license notice that is posted at the bottom of every page." If he retains his copyright over the material, everyone else ends up violating it every time they hit "save page," or use reuse that article in other projects.  His copyright precedes that of Wikipedia's copyleft, unless he wants to either donate the material or otherwise copyleft it.  Ian.thomson (talk) 09:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are correct, the copyrighted material must be licensable by the copyright holder, but it is not required (as far as I am aware) that the copyright notice on the material (in its original place) list all the places that parts of it have been licensed to. After all, the owner has the copy right , and that includes the right to license all or part of it as they see fit. Once it is licensed by being added here, the owner cannot prevent other people from using the part that has been licensed by pointing to the original copyright.  Once it is licensed here, it is usable everywhere, as long as the license terms are upheld.(One often sees this in reverse, in which a magazine article, the copyright for which is owned by the magazine's publisher) is expanded into a book, in which the copyright belongs to the book's publisher or to the author.  There is no conflict in these two copyrights both existing.) In other words, the copyright is not unitary, and can be subdivided, with the part that was posted here being licensed, and the part that never was posted or otherwise licensed still being held back. The owner of the copyright can split it up any way he or she wishes, so an existing copyright is no impediment to posting material here by the copyright owner -- that material just becomes licensed for use under our terms. BMK (talk) 09:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's look at this from the other direction. I create (using reliable sources) a paragraph about the popularity of Pokemon in Venezuala, and upload it to the appropriate article. That material is now licensed under our licensing terms.  Then I decide to wirte a book about the popularity of Pokemon around the word.  I do that, and get it published, and it includes the material I previously uploaded.  I can still copyright the book, and the material from it cannot be reused without my permission except as allowed under the fair use doctrine.  Now, if I've substantially re-written the material on Venezuala, the same goes for it as well: no re-use except under fair use.  If, however, I've been lazy, and the material on Venezuala is verbatim what I posted here, that material is still licensed, regardless of the copyright I hold on the book, and can be re-used not only under fair use, but also under our licensing terms.  So we see that there is no fundamental reason why a license for use cannot co-exist with a copyright. BMK (talk) 09:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * If he is the copyright holder, he can legally license either the entire work, or any excerpts of it, in any way that he wants. There is no legal requirement that he publicly repudiate his rights in the previously published work, nor that he grant a license that extends beyond any specific excerpts he chooses to license.  However, because the work was previously published with a copyright notice, we at Wikipedia have to assume that the work is not free unless a clear assertion to the contrary is made by the copyright owner.  The instructions at granting us permission to copy material already online explains how a copyright owner can provide us with sufficient proof of granting a license.  Dragons flight (talk) 09:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Blethering Scot
Could an uninvolved Admin please review the Talk page of where he is collecting comments about  because she asked him not to post on her Talk page. Blethering Scot is showing Ownership issues on 2015–16 Heart of Midlothian F.C. season against consensus and pushing his point to the point of WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour on WT:FOOTY. It's all becoming very disruptive. JMHamo (talk) 01:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I took just a cursory glance but I'd question if they violate WP:POLEMIC.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's the same old BS conduct of assuming that every nuance is actually a binary choice, that a misunderstanding is evidence of lying, and that every disagreement is evidence that BS is being harassed and persecuted ... and that the way to resolve this is through angry, accusatory tirades.
 * Lots of WP:OWNership, and very WP:BATTLEFIELD ... but mostly just very tedious. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am collecting comments about for the reason that she has repeatedly used the terms I am Perma angry [angry angry and shout, furious, malevolent liars. She has not provided evidence of this and she asked me to show good faith and as you will see on my talk page i clearly asked her to show good faith. I have advised  that i feel harassed by her. Until recently we have never interacted, yet now she pretty much pops up frequently reverting or disagreeing with me. I have explained clearly to [[User:JMHamo|JMHamo]] on several occasions that this is not an ownership issue, but one of wanting consistency. I asked him to provide evidence that today this is an ownership issue. He has failed to do so. Ive asked him to provide evidence that during this discussion today I've done anything but discuss. He won't. He tried to shut down the discussion despite him starting it by threatening me with an admin and using the term Stop.  Blethering   Scot  01:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I feel this is beyond a disagreement. All i ask of User:BrownHairedGirl, is she stops making comments such as those above. She has made it very personal and yes i do feel harassed by her. I have taken part in the discussion, asked questions and frankly. The reason i was collecting links was to bring her as evidence, if she continued to make these comments. All I want to do is create content and edit wikipedia, I don't want to feel I'm being stalked or targeted and rightly or wrongly I do feel this with . Consistently saying I'm angry when I'm far from it doesn't help me or her. I would like to propose either an informal or formal interaction ban between myself and User:BrownHairedGirl. Blethering  Scot  01:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Are you collecting this comments for a reason such as coming here to ANI with a case against them?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see my above comment. The reason i was collecting links was to bring her as evidence, if she continued to make these comments. I feel that if she had continued to make these comments despite her not providing evidence of Shouty comments or being angry then I needed to keep these links. As stated the best outcome of this would be that & i don't communicate. As for JMHamo it is particularly bad that he has provided zero evidence that on this occasion this is about ownership. It is not & as i stated here this is about consistency.  I would make the same argument for any season article. Blethering   Scot  01:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * To go out of my way and state the obvious, It seems like it would be a good time to bring such a case. But per WP:POLEMIC if you decide not to bring the case just yet it seems like it would be a good idea for you to immediately move them to a subpage.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As they are clearly documented above I will archive them. Blethering  Scot  01:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If BS really wants to pursue this, I can produce bucketloads of evidence of the angry, shouty, battlefield behaviour which I noted. I would hope to avoid that, but it's there aplenty if needed.
 * As to WP:OWNership, there's plenty of evidence of that too. I accept that BS genuinely wants the articles to be constructed in a certain way; the ownership comes in the angry rejection of everyone who disagrees, and attribution of malicious motive to people who hold a difft view. That's the opposite of consensus-forming. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

, are they pinging you every time they post your name?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * They should be pinging her as I did intend them to. As here I was asking her to stop with the comments. Blethering  Scot  01:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I wonder if this highly annoying practice may be in part why we are here?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd consider "Deliberately and repeatedly pinging somebody who has asked the pinging user not to post to them" to be at best seriously stretching good faith, if not WP:WIKILAWYERING around "but I haven't posted to their talk page". - The Bushranger One ping only 10:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * One thing I'm not really seeing here is evidence. I'm looking at the talk page of 2015–16 Heart of Midlothian F.C. season and it's coming up blank. Is anyone here not familiar with WP:BRD?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It was discussed back in October 2015 with BS. By the way, I didn't come here over a content dispute, but because of his overall disruptive nature. JMHamo (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Again thats not evidence of me being disruptive in todays discussion. I acknowledged previous discussion right at the start and it was acknowledged that dashes were allowed at editorial discretion. You've provided zero evidence of where in this Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football i was disruptive. Conversing and replying to other points of view is not being disruptive. I wasnt the only one to state the point in the above discussion that WP:Footy should follow the same policy as everyone else and not have its own set of rule with limited consensus. Blethering   Scot  02:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * He means this conversation Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. I did ask JMHamo to provide evidence when he threatened we with an admin. Blethering   Scot  01:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Anyway Im going offline. Blethering  Scot  01:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok so it was discussed in October. It's February now, and now in February can you provide something that sorts looks like eveidence of an issue?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This is the discussion he believes i was disruptive in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. He notifed me of discussion here and i took part in it. I firmly believe User:JMHamo is wasting everyones time with this. Although there definitely is an issue with me & BrownHairedGirl. Which I hope we can sort by agreeing to an interaction ban. We both end up having a go at each other & this isn't good on either of our parts, although I would say I'm not the admin here. Anyway I'm definitely going offline now so I will leave this for everyone else to decide on. Blethering   Scot  02:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you steal their keyboard? I'm thinking they may be able to respond for themselves. But reviewing the content they linked for October, you do seem to be displaying ownership issues there.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I would also disclose that i do have a small amount of mental health issues, but this is not relevant in this case. Being constantly accused of being angry in todays's discussion when I'm actually not is disruptive. Anyway as I've said I want nothing more to do with this discussion, it is JMHamo that has asked you to block me so ill leave this to him. Blethering   Scot  02:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Does the latest thread on WT:FOOTY look productive to you? Rather than collaborate and discuss the issue in a productive fashion, BS gets defensive and displays the usual behaviour as noted by BrownHairedGirl too, same in October. When you dare make an edit he does not like to an article he "owns" the fun starts.. BTW, BS, Serialjoepsycho is not an Admin either (which is not an issue, just FYI). JMHamo (talk) 02:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The key question is not is it productive but is it disruptive. User:JMHamo I'm fully aware he's not an admin, but as i said above I won't be continuing with this conversation as its a one way street with regards to you providing evidence that todays discussion was disruptive. As for me & BrownHairedGirl I've acknowledged we can't get on and thats not going to change. I feel she despises me and i feel harassed by her. She doesn't see it that way but i do, but again thats something I've said should be dealt with above. Other than [wanting to see me blocked what do you hope to achieve here?[[User:Blethering Scot| Blethering ]] Scot  02:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I can see the annoyance. Not really seeing much in the way of ownership there. How about an RFC to decide the format? -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Serialjoepsycho, with respect, I did not come to ANI to discuss a content dispute, this is about BS' track record of Ownership. I will drop the stick myself now, but if BS insists on reverting further changes because he doesn't like it then maybe 3RR is the way forward. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 02:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * With respect you came here to ask them to block me. But yet you have provided no evidence of my disruptive behaviour in the discussion or that this issue is about anything but consistency with article on HTML. I acknowledged past ownership issues but this isn't the case here. This would be the same on any current season article. With respect on WP:BRD you reverted me, your edit was bold & mine was the revert. Yet you reverted me again. So equally thats disruptive. I don't think any of us have behaved well and i acknowledge that, but realistically all you are trying to do is have me blocked. Thats all you want, you don't want a resolution, you dont want me to take part in the discussion, so what am i supposed to do. If you feel so strongly about HTML, then Serialjoe is right start a discussion in the proper place to have it removed altogether from the site. At this time it is allowed, so I can't see where you feel My edits are disruptive. Even BrownHairedGirl admitted that they can be used in text. She only objected to links and I get where she is coming from. Anyway enough is enough. Ill let any admin decide what they want to do. Blethering  Scot  02:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * JMHamo, I asked for evidence. You really haven't provided any. You have alluded to the possibility of their being some at the bottom of a page. I looked over but didn't really see much of anything wrong. You want to narrow it down and use diffs that would be great. Without evidence I personally have to agree with BS in that everyone has done something that perhaps they shouldn't. I recommend the RFC because it gives you more than the WP:LOCALCON you'll get from footy and it completely resolves the situation.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Category discussion
There is a discussion here that requires admin attention. 87.198.236.50 (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This duck is now migrating elsewhere. Katietalk 20:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Libel of British politician
I have posted something important at the revdel requesting service regarding seriously libellous statements in the page history of a British politician which also may require action against the editor who posted. No one seems to be responding. AusLondonder (talk) 10:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't all do IRC (or telepathy). You may have to supply some information. If it's truly libellous you should email User:Oversight. If you prefer you can use CAT:REVDEL. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Why does this page repeatedly say "if the issue concerns a privacy-related matter, or potential libel/defamation, do not post it here" in that case? AusLondonder (talk) 11:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It does not say "Do not post it here except with no informational content that can be acted upon" it says "Do not post it here". You see the difference? BMK (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - thanks for that constructive response. Any reason you feel the need to be so bloody rude? Someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed. AusLondonder (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You, like a number of other people, confuse "rudeness" with a bald recitation of the facts, which, had you followed them properly, would have meant that this thread would not have existed.  So, which Is "ruder" my pointing out that you messed up, or your complaining that my pointing out that you messed up is "rude"?  "AGF" doesn't mean "assume the other person isn't human and endowed with the abilities understand and reason". Use your friggin' brain, dude. BMK (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's get a few things clear. I have made it absolutely clear why this thread existed - I was seeking to get someone to respond at IRC. If that is "messing up" in your books, I sincerely apologise to Your Royal Highness. I posted diffs at IRC on three occasions and the matter has now been acted upon by sensible adults. You could have assisted rather than being so very eager to show off the petty and thoroughly unpleasant person you so evidently are. Editors like you, with obvious social problems, are the reason so many people are turned away from editing Wikipedia. Your attitude is water off a ducks back to me. I couldn't give a shit about your superiority complex. Feel free to crawl back under the rock you came from or call and make an appointment with a psychiatrist to discuss your problems relating to other people on an interpersonal basis. AusLondonder (talk) 02:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You should email Oversight, they are usually pretty swift. If it is less serious, contact an admin directly, either through a talk page post or email. The warning against posting a diff here is because this is one of the most visible places on Wikipedia. So contact an admin or oversighter directly. IRC can be fast (although I've never been there) but it depends on who happens to be present. Liz  Read! Talk! 11:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not always a good idea to post matters requiring oversight on AN/I as it can draw more unwanted attention to the problem. I'd just wait for your reply. --Ches (talk) 11:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment The reason I posted here, much to the fury and annoyance of some editors, was to try and attract attention at IRC. The matter still hasn't been acted upon. AusLondonder (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And have you provided any actionable information on IRC? Because you certainly haven't done so here. BMK (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I obviously have and it has been dealt with by sensible adults. If you hadn't of been wasting so much time being a condescending, arrogant, time-wasting and plain rude little keyboard warrior you could have dealt with it. AusLondonder (talk) 02:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Sock keeps creating hoaxes
is an IP used by indef blocked. The IP has been childishly creating, and in some cases recreating hoax material, for instance Simpsons-related hoax articles about a band called Party Posse (also creating a couple of draft articles named Draft:Party Posse (boy band) and Draft:Simpsons (band). Twice now he's used the name of a Chipmunk film character to create Draft:Tyler Sevill (businessman), with fake references.

is also blocked as a sock of Harry (singer). 86.5.176.46 performed a ton of edits on Simpsons and Alvin and the Chipmunks-related articles, as has 82.25.11.240. The currently active IP was blocked briefly last year because it was being used by Harry (singer) for block evasion. See this ANI discussion from September 2015. Also see Sockpuppet investigations/Harry (singer)/Archive. Can we block this IP for a year or two, and delete the drafts? Binksternet (talk) 05:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Before seeing this report, I had already blocked 82.25.11.240 for six months, and deleted some drafts. In view of what you say here, I will increase the block length, and also revert other outstanding edits from that IP address. Please feel welcome to let me know if you see any more from the same vandal, on other IP addresses. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your decisive action. I will certainly let you know if I see this guy returning. Binksternet (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Mkultraviolence
keeps warring at my talk page even after I asked them to stay away from it. Please also note that latest activity of this user was just leaving me messages.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 14:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The guy wants an apology for something that happened three months ago? Jetstreamer reverted his edit and said as much. Mkultraviolence needs to drop the stick and move on. It seems this apology quest is the only reason he's editing, and we have a solution for that. Katietalk 17:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I left this on Mk's page, just on the off chance that this is just a misunderstanding.142.105.159.60 (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Seriously, do any of you people understand how dates work? Jetstreamer did not revert his edit. Jetstreamer did revert a later edit because the colossal mess Jetstreamer made of Rafic Hariri's death date took six edits to fix. This is not the edit that caused Jetstreamer to unjustifiably make accusations of vandalism against me. Clearly this guy has some kind of insane control issue over that page that he felt the need to revert good edits I made twice. Just to be clear, I am not in any way upset about the second reversion he did since he did acknowledge his mistake straight away, fixed it and didn't leave me an unjustified accusation of vandalism over it. I only bring it up because everyone else is, when it's not the edit I care about, and because it clearly shows a pattern that Jetstreamer is territorial on that page to the detriment of the page's quality.
 * Furthermore, the fact that this happened three months ago is irrelevant. I didn't log on for a while after this happened so I didn't see the accusation for a while but when I did, I sent a message to Jetstreamer (on my Talk page, according to the instructions he had left on his talk page at the time) fully expecting that he would see it (the instructions on his talk page said he was watching the page) and like any person with an ounce of common courtesy would reply to me. Just a simple "oops you're right I made a mistake sorry." If he'd done that it would have been fixed straight away. It's taken three months because he refuses to fix it. I get that it's embarrassing to make such a mistake and he'd rather pretend it didn't happen for the sake of his reputation but it's not right to do so when not acknowledging it harms another's reputation.
 * And furthermore, the fact that all my most recent edits are about this conversation we are having right now is also completely irrelevant. Obviously they're going to be. This is the kind of dick-measuring "I have more edits therefore I'm more important than you" stupidity that makes Wikipedia an incredibly daunting and unwelcoming place for new editors and will one day kill the encyclopaedia we're supposedly here to build. I wanted to know when Rafic Hariri died. I googled it. And wikipedia told me he died 35 years in the future. By choosing to fix that mistake, so that the next person who comes along gets accurate information, I helped to build this encyclopaedia. Even if that was the only edit I ever made (and it's not) that contribution is as valuable as any edit made by a guy with a million edits. I'm not looking for a thank you, but I definitely don't deserve to be accused of vandalism for doing it. Mkultraviolence (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Alright! What fun. Jetstreamer shouldn't have reverted, and should have left a better note than just the factual "I reverted". That's clear. And Mkultraviolence (what a name!) should leave this alone: one cannot force an apology. FWIW, Mk, you were right in that edit and we thank you for it. Now, leave it be, and please stop using phrases like "insane control issues". I am going to close this, By Virtue Of My Almighty Admin Tool, and only one comment will be allowed: a brief but contrite note from, totally devoid of any other kind of commentary. Everything else will be reverted. Deverted. Whatever. Drmies (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Converted? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Perverted, smartypants. Drmies (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Assistance required - deletion of history required
Could an admin please delete history prior to 10:56(GMT) 16th Feb 16 on Elsie Fisher please, it is a page I moved from my sandbox and has personal notes I do not wish to disclose. Thankks Nordic   Dragon  22:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Range block needed
I am being stalked and harassed by a serial vandal. He's using a string of IP adresses, namely


 * 166.172.188.146
 * 166.172.189.232
 * 166.172.191.10
 * 166.172.191.73
 * 166.172.187.125
 * 166.172.188.233
 * 166.172.190.196
 * 166.172.187.147
 * 166.172.186.217
 * 166.172.191.29
 * 166.172.188.233
 * 166.172.187.157
 * 166.172.189.236
 * 166.172.188.154
 * 166.172.189.208
 * 166.172.184.59
 * 166.172.185.38
 * 166.172.191.29
 * 166.172.186.217
 * 166.172.187.147
 * 166.172.190.196

...and more. He's currently undoing my anti-vandalism reversions out of spite. Please stop him immediately with the stiffest possible rangeblock.– Gilliam (talk) 04:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe it's an IP evader. -- GoodDay (talk) 04:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've done a short block for now that should cover the IPs listed above; it can be extended if needed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 166 is community banned so RBI. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 06:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks.– Gilliam (talk) 07:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Jmwalsh3
Requesting a block of User:Jmwalsh3 for legal threats. Diff. --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 00:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 00:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Wolbo is continously editing the Tony Wilding Page.
Respected Administrator Sir/Madam

I wanted to edit a article in the Tony Wilding summary section,because i wanted people to know that New Zealand also has a good history in Tennis,but despite my notices,User:Wolbo ignored me and kept on editing this page,and puts false claims on me stating that my edits are disruptive and threatens me that i will lose my editing privileges,so i request that please block this user User:Wolbo for trying to vandalize a user.

With Regards Adarsh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.242.191.126 (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

New suspected sock of User:Dragonrap2
is a suspected sock of.

Previous socks include:, , , , , , , , , , , , and.

Similar editing pattern, and edits are to the same relatively obscure Louisiana articles (note that all of the IP socks were registered to users in Natchitoches, Louisiana).

See Template:Baton Rouge Radio where four other socks have edited:

See Template:New Orleans Radio where four socks have edited:

See Template:Laurel-Hattiesburg Radio where an IP sock has edited:

As well, (already blocked) may be another sock, as the edits are to many of the same articles. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * This belongs at WP:SPI. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Typically yes, though in the past I've reported it here and the editor is blocked immediately. It saves a lot of cleanup, and the socks are pretty obvious.  Magnolia677 (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Tylerkermit
Reporting

Diffs after block:

I was going to post this to AIV, but I wasn't sure it met the threshold for "clear" and "obvious" vandalism. Edit history for account is confusing. Possibly some well-intentioned edits (hard to tell), but far too many subtle but clearly unconstructive changes (usually on minor content like film statistics) to continue to assume good faith. User never provides sources and arguments in edit summaries appeal to "memory" or similar. Suspect disruptive intent. User has been notified. --Fru1tbat (talk) 12:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * At Tarzan (1999 film), Tylerkermit is repeatedly changing the release date to June 18. Our article lists June 16 as the premiere and June 18 as the wide release.  This is backed up by Box Office Mojo: .  So, my guess is that Tylerkermit is edit warring to override the sourced premiere in favor of the wide release.  However, it's difficult to tell, because he won't discuss his edits or provide any sources.  If he doesn't stop changing sourced data, then he'll probably need to be blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I had briefly blocked them for continued edit-warring, but caught (too-late) that they (finally) added a source in the edit summary of their final edit to Tarzan (1999 film). If there is now a discrepancy between two dates provided by reliable sources, then this has now become a content dispute.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing this out - perhaps I was too quick in my judgment of the user's intent. --Fru1tbat (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well to be fair, the first two reverts did not include a source and it may have been difficult to get past the SCREAMING in the edit summaries.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks directed towards me
has been making personal attacks towards me and other users and apparently does not regret doing them.

In regards to the Vladimir Putin article, Maunus said:
 * 1) "That article has been controlled by Putin-bots forever"

When asked to clarify that claim, Maunus then said:
 * 1) "I stand by my statement that this article is a walled garden maintained by PutinBots."

And added:
 * 1) "Now it looks like you and Etienne Dolet have taken up the mantle of protecting Putin from having his image tarnished by the consequences of his actions. Are you affiliated with United Russia, or the Putin administration? Or do you work for free?"

I warned the user here. I also wanted to clarify whether those attacks were made towards me. Maunus then deletes my warning and follow-up question with the edit-summary:
 * 1) "Calling you out on your POV pushing is not a personal attack"

Meanwhile, I removed these PAs per WP:RPA and now I'm being reverted (and again).

To sum up: I feel that these are textbook personal attacks and should be dealt with accordingly. I have been very frank and civil in my discussions with Maunus, and I plan on keeping it that way. But I don't think that such language that's overtly directed towards me is helpful in establishing a genuine, frank, and productive discussion in improving the article. And I don't feel Maunus is being cooperative in that regard. Nevertheless, I am trying to keep up the good faith. Regards, Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sticks and Stones.  E Eng  08:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * What needs attention here is exactly the fact that this article is controlled by a cadre of pro-Putin propagandists. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The first two comments are not personal attacks, nor are they directed at anyone in particular, they're just an (accurate) reflection on the sorry state of the article and how it has been hijacked by users who appear to be here to push an WP:AGENDA. The third comment is not directed at EtienneDolet but at another user and needs to be seen in context of the whole comment thread and it's basically an honest straight forward answer to this instance of taunting by User:SaintAviator. In fact looking over the discussion it's pretty clear that SaintAviator and EtienneDolet have a bit of a tag-team good cop/bad cop routine down pat - SaintAviator makes provocative comments, taunts and attacks, as well engages in massive edit warring, and when somebody gets frustrated and responds, EtienneDolet runs to the drama boards and reports them. This is a classic WP:BATTLEGROUND tactic used by POV pushers to try and get their opponents banned. The whole complaint boils down to "whaaa! They won't let me push my POV in peace, ban them!". Which brings us to the fourth comment. Critizing somebody's actions - in this case WP:TENDENTIOUS POV pushing is NOT a personal attack. It's just that - criticism. And in this case it's more than well deserved. WP:BOOMERANG time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * From WP:PA: ... some types of comments are never acceptable:
 * Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki
 * Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream
 * At some point, I'd expect to see adequate evidence of ownership, non-neutral editing, provocative comments, massive edit warring, tag-teaming behavior, etc., because presenting a laundry list of grievances and saying "it's just accurate" or "I just looked at the discussion" is insufficient.  I also want to call out that just because someone specific was not named does not make the above kinds of comments any less disruptive to discussion.  Now, of course there are folks who engage in POV-pushing, but lacking evidence, such accusations amount to personal attacks. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Many of these Russia-related articles and their talk pages (Putin, RT as well as the more specific ones covering Syria, Ukraine etc) are a mess at the moment. I'd be wary of saying each "side" is as bad as each other, but there are determined people on both of those "sides" who seem to see WP as a place to fight proxy political debates and load up pages with commentary, whether hostile or favourable. Those with a viewpoint that seems pretty negative towards Russia and Putin often take the moral high ground, accusing others of "POV" breaches and of cherry-picking sources, blissfully unaware of the extent to which they are pretty transparently engaged in the same process, but from the opposite end. The use of the term "Putin bot" by several of them, including Maunus (as cited above, and the basis for this complaint) to castigate anyone who dares not quite agree with them about Putin and Russia or even about how to write an encyclopedia entry about contentious topics is particularly unhelpful.  N-HH   talk / edits  11:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It is hard to come to any conclusion other than that Maunus is substantially correct, albeit expressing his views in a less than perfect way. The question here is whether this is something we can handle by sending in a flying squad of admins and forcibly separating the "PutinBots" from the article, or whether we need to involve ArbCom, or what. Guy (Help!) 11:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well I for one found it fairly easy to not come to that simple conclusion. Even if others disagree, it's surely not constructive to simply repeat the "Putinbot" personal attack, even if in quote marks, or to suggest that anyone so labelled at the whim of another editor should be somehow "forcibly" removed from contributing to the page.  N-HH   talk / edits  12:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Says the guy who calls 50% of editors "morons".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Far be it from me to mess with the close, but I do want to place a note, just because I can. a. Terms like "PutinBot" are indeed personal attacks, even if the editor were proven to have a COI/POV/whatever., enough already: those comments are blockable. b. , "pro-Putin progagandists" is marginally better, but only marginally. Both of you should either refrain from such comments or make 'em stick, by bringing up charges on this or some other board c. All of y'all, namecalling is childish. The article isn't controlled by anyone, I think; that's an exaggerated notion. It should probably be controlled by ArbCom, or at least draw the attention of less...shall we say emotionally attached editors. Not to shut any of you out, but for balance. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I used that term in a personal discussion with Marek, not in reference to anyone in particular. When I said it I had not edited the Putin article or the talkpage for a couple of years, did not have it on my watchlist and did not know who had currently assumed the responsibility of maintaining the article in its Putin-favorable state. It was the editors who frequent the talkpage who grabbed onto it in an attempt to demonstrate that Marek has "a conflict of interest" (presumably their way of saying that he disagrees with them, and therefore conflicts with their interests). Because I am interested primarily in maintaining the integrity of wikipedia, I am going to keep pointing out when sensitive areas of wikipedia are being controlled by POV-clubs like the one that is clearly operating at Putin. If pointing out obviously biased editing is a blockable personal attack then my block log will continue to grow as long as I continue to edit Wikipedia. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What matters, of course, is the article. If the focus is going to be on language, well, then the article might continue to be an embarrassment.  A pity to see things get sidetracked this way.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Maunus, you are missing the point. There is a difference between saying "someone's edits are POVy" and "someone is member of a POV club." If someone falsely accuses editor X or Y or VM of having a COI, let's handle that in a more appropriate manner: ask for evidence, disprove the accusation, tell them (or get an admin to tell them) to stop making those accusations. That is a much better solution than namecalling, since namecalling is not a solution. Noskedasticity, yes, what matters is the article, but of course we should make sure that there's not a toxic atmosphere on the talk page. "this way" does not point at ANI--it points at accusations made. Which should not be made. And if you looked into the matter, you would see that I'm not just whistling Dixie, having blocked Againstdisinformation and their socks. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No you are missing the point. I did not namecall (untill they themselves brought the term into the discussion). I used the term without reference to any particular individuals in a personal conversation without having participated in the discussions at the talkpage. The editors opposing Marek then chose to go back in my contributions and make it look as if I had used it in reference to them, when in fact I had not interacted with them at all at that point. They then dared me to use the term in reference to them, and not being one to shy away from a challenge I obliged them. If using the term in anonymous reference to no specific individual is a personal attack then you should block user User:N-HH since he is currently calling 50% of Wikipedias editors "morons" (obviously I dont consider that a personal attack, but following your reasoning it is). ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * One more point, if you actually look at the contributions of the editors who took offense to the term, you will find that they make accusations and langauge that is at least equally offensive and conflictive against Marek on many different occasions. He just isn't the one to drag them to ANI every time they make a remark that could fall under WP:NPA. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've made a personal attack in any of our discussions. If I did, however, it's best to bring the evidence out or open a new thread at ANI or AE if that's the case. Also, this is my first time visiting ANI since I started editing Putin, so I don't drag people here "every time". My initial concerns were that Maunus implied that I was the bot specifically, after I questioned him about it. I wanted to have that examined. At any rate, I'm glad to have come here seeing the progress. Since there's an overwhelming amount of users who consider these statements PAs, may I now remove them per WP:RPA? Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not the run-of-the-mill personal attack motivated by a perceived need to impugn the motives and/or intelligence of someone's perceived opponent. Calling someone a "bot" seems designed to dehumanise the perceived opponent. I find this type of attack particularly toxic for any environment, let alone a colaborative environment such as Wikipedia's. Dr.   K.  19:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * We're still not getting anywhere, and I stand by my statement that this is a personal attack and I hope you will kindly refrain from using such terminology in the future. The backstory is much less interesting than you may think, and yes, I am very well aware of what else is going on. You just worry about what you said., we're ready for closure, IMO. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah. lets all stand by our statements and get on with our life. I know I have.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Maunus, can you explain this ? Athenean (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Trolling the article
 * Yes I can, it means that the article is a joke.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Maunus, please don't vandalize the article like that. That's being a poor sport. Why are you doing this? and, here's another reason why this thread was closed prematurely. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * By the authority vested in me as a former admin I hereby topic ban myself from the article about Vladimir Putin. Does that work for you Etienne?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

List of Harvard University people
Over the last few weeks, a few users have tried to add a entry to the List of Harvard University people article that looks to be for a non-notable person and adding the entry to the Criminals section example. The IP address that makes the additions keeps changing, so it is difficult to inform the person (or people) that they shouldn't be doing this. Should the page be temporarily blocked for editing by non-experienced users? Thanks. Patken4 (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:RPP is thataway. <span style="color:;">  <span style="color:;"> 01:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Personal attack on admin
has been a frequent topic here. Building a comprehensive case against them would literally take hours. They just came off of a 72-hour block for making personal attacks and immediately attacked the blocking admin. Just before the block was this offensive refactoring of another user’s comment, which wasn't even the edit causing the block. There is a long history of this type of insults, attacks, and other abuse. Many examples are documented here, and there are too many more to list in the months since then. How much longer do we have to put up with this steady stream of abuse? Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 05:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This has become intolerable. Unfortunately, I have to log off for the day right now, but I'm going to get back to this ANI the moment I have the opportunity to log on again. If he's an academic, I'm a monkey's uncle (which would be a true miracle considering that I'm female). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Unacceptable indeed. I've blocked for two weeks on the basis of persistent incivility based on the ANI thread in addition to the most recent personal attack directed at the blocking administrator.  If folks who have more familiarity with the circumstances in this case feel a different remedy would be more appropriate, I encourage more discussion below.  <b style="font-family:Candara;color:green">I, JethroBT</b> drop me a line 06:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: Indefinite block
I'm going to cut straight to the quick here, as an uninvolved party with no previous experience of the users involved (outside Drmies in their administrative capacity) or the content disputes in question--because the diffs really speak for themselves. WP:Personal attacks, offensive, volatile language, WP:Ad hominems, hostility towards opposition, deep incivility, failure to WP:assume good faith, and a general WP:NOTHERE/WP:BATTLEGROUND disposition, with a proclivity towards WP:IDONTHEARTHAT with regard to each. Fresh off a 72-hour block for this edit, Trinacrialucente returns to active editing by calling another user a "dumb bitch". There's clearly a profound issue with social competence here which prevents this editor from engaging in a manner that is even vaguely consistent with community standards for civility and the collaborative process and previous sanctions have failed to alter this behaviour in the slightest. I see no alternative to an indefinite block.  S n o w  let's rap 06:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support as nom.  S n o w  let's rap 06:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support The diffs above show an unacceptable level of hostility. An isolated outburst might be overlooked, but these indicate dedication. An indefinite block is in order until the user can provide a good reason for an unblock. Johnuniq (talk) 06:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: Nevermind, looks like blocked for this behaviour just a few minutes before my proposal.  I'm personally doubtful as to whether two weeks will provide any more remedy here than 72 hours did, and people should feel free to express their perspective here for the record in case we are revisiting this in a fortnight--but as an administrative action has been taken, adoption of an indef can wait until a later date, should the editor in question displays further disruptive behaviour.   S n o w  let's rap 06:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's fair to let discussion of this proposal continue; I'm not opposed to changes in the duration of the block, but felt one was needed sooner rather than later. <b style="font-family:Candara;color:green">I, JethroBT</b> drop me a line 07:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. The combination of the polemic on his userpage, his personal attacks on other editors and blocking admins, and his general non-collaborative and combative behavior, cause me to believe that he is WP:NOTHERE, so I support an indef block with WP:STANDARDOFFER. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support This is certainly not the first time Trinacrialucente has acted out in this manner, but is a reflection of its being an ongoing issue with the user from the moment they started editing. Drmies short block was lenient given the level of PERSONAL, DE, BATTLEGROUND, UNCIVIL the user has engaged in without any indication of even beginning to understand that there is something wrong about their behaviour, and that other editors aren't personal toys to act out on. I'm convinced there's a WP:COMPETENCE problem at the heart of this as the attacks and refactoring of other editor's comments are disquietingly childish. Ultimately, whatever the problem is, Wikipedia requires that editors be HERE, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTTHERAPY. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - The user's history definitely leads one to believe that they are WP:NOTHERE and probably will never be here. Support an indef block with WP:STANDARDOFFER. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 14:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Obviously I support an indef. One need only look at the user's talk page history to see that he is a persistent disruption. They are of course free to delete content from their talk page. But this user clearly does so to hide the long series of complaints, warnings, and notices that he attracts. As I have noted elsewhere, the user has a chilling effect on others, for it is generally easier to avoid pages where they are active rather than put up with their conduct. This erodes the collaborative environment, and the user openly states on his user page that he does not believe in consensus, a defiant statement of NOTHERE. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support although I must admit there is something personal about this, since this editor has often (in my view) done all he could to irritate me, by, for instance, repeatedly mocking my supposed lack of English knowledge, piling onto unrelated business that involved me whenever he could put me in a bad light, chiming in on my talk page after I had already repeatedly asked him to refrain from writing there, and more. Check past ANI incidents to verify, I can't go over everything yet again. He takes away from Wikipedia much more than he provides for it: namely, he makes editors want to flee away. LjL (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong support - Trinacriulucente has violated WP:POLEMIC on their user page recently; I removed the paragraph in question. Having seen FLCC being reported numerous times by this user, I have come to the conclusion that they are probably on a vendetta against him. Quite frankly I'm sick of seeing their names at AN/I. Ches (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - is this an indef block or a site ban? I support both. Zero tolerance for gendered slurs. Get the hell out. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, just for the record, I preemptively oppose their standard offer unblock request. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support indef block. They can attempt the standard offer if their social skills have improved in six months. <b style="color:DarkRed">HighInBC</b> 17:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. User seems unable to contribute without drama and disruption.  Posting polemics is annoying, but refactoring comments and making gendered personal attacks go beyond a mere incivility problem. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Indef pending the user demonstrates they understands why they have been warned, sanctioned, and restricted on multiple occasions and a commitment to not return to the same behavior that has caused them to be blocked already. Hasteur (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support after reading Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive903 that demonstrated problems that have existed since October and just continued without improvement. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 23:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Reporting Fgnievinski
Fgnievinski has twice unilaterally moved the article Historia (Chilean journal) to different names. The first move occurred just after he contested my removal of some content on SciELO. When I proposed the page to be moved back to its original name he did not join the discussion.
 * Reporting

Fgnievinski has done something unacceptable, he has changed the naming convention to justify his move. . That edit was done just one minute before he made his unilateral move.

Can a an administrator move back the page to Historia (Chilean journal) so any move can be properly discussed? Or do I have to make a move proposal, wait seven days, just for Fgnievinski move it to a new name with one-click? Again, Fgnievinski's behavior is disruptive and inconsistent as his moves have been toward different names. Dentren |  Ta lk  12:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Please try to initiate a discussion in which involved parties are notified first: Talk:Historia (PUC Chile journal). Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I already did when I did the move proposal. You chose to not participate. Your behavior is not acceptable. Dentren  |  Ta lk  13:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you both just need to discuss this on the article's talk page, which appears that you two are currently doing. I don't see the moves listed here as disruptive to the point that administrator intervention is needed; again, you two appear to be discussing the issue on the article's talk page - so, why not "put down the guns" here and finish your discussion? So long as the article is renamed after you two have properly discussed it (and preferably come to an agreement), then I see no action required here.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   18:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed: no previous contact had been initiated in article or user talk pages before. fgnievinski (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The move was disruptive as it happened just after a week-long process of discussion. Why having move proposals if editors like Fgnievinski will just override any discussion making new arbitrary moves? The article needs to be moved back to its original name, and then Fgnievinski should present his move proposal – just like I did. Fgnievinski has to behave just like all of us.


 * What Fgnievinski did was dirty lest to say. Altering key essays, guidelines or policies just get his point trough goes contrary to anything like a collaboratory project like Wikipedia means. Unacceptable and a dangerous precedent.   Dentren  |  Ta lk  19:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Let's leave the discussion for Talk:Historia (PUC Chile journal). My editing of the guidelines aimed at instructing you of the current practice in WP:Academic Journals. fgnievinski (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So, is any administrator going to answer? – Dentren |  Ta lk  10:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Ankit Sihag
Hello there, Just found that user Ankit Sihag has cloned my user page along with the user rights templates which I fail to verify on his/her username (see account statistics). Thank You – <span style="font-family: monospace;font-weight: bold;font-size: 16px;color: hsl(205, 98%, 55%); ">GSS (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not an exact copy. Yes he copied the right hand side of your page (and top icons), some of which he doesn't actually have, easy enough to fix.   He's not passing himself as you, nor does he says he IS you, the stuff on the right lists different height, ethnicity, etc....    Remember, nothing in userspace is copyrighted, it's CC-by-Sa which means it's free to use (that and imitation's the most sincere form of flattery! ) :)  Anyrate I don't see an issue here, but I will remove the rollback icons or anything else that states he's a rollbacker, as he isn't.  Kosh Vorlon   16:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yh! he has not copied all the thing same as mine but few which are fine as you said so no issue. Thanks for the cleanup. Cheers – <span style="font-family: monospace;font-weight: bold;font-size: 16px;color: hsl(205, 98%, 55%); ">GSS (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * This happens from time to time, and it's almost never anything. No matter what you think the intent is, it's generally capable of being explained away as wanting a nice userpage design. That said, I do take it as a weak yellow flag, and usually watchlist the userpage, maybe drop a talk page note welcoming him or her. It's really not something worth coming to ANI over. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 17:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with you and I also don't mind if someone copy my user page but s/he also included the user rights templates and I think it happen after my last message to the user about his/her non-rs edit and s/he never bothered to reply and as per his/her talk page history s/he never replied to anyone so that's why I took it here. <span style="font-family: monospace;font-weight: bold;font-size: 16px;color: hsl(205, 98%, 55%); ">GSS  (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Conduct of editor CafeHellion on article Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA)
In short: Editor CafeHellion has transformed the article about OCLA into an unsourced attack page, using the pretext of removing edits for reason of COI.
 * Here is the diff.
 * Here are the two sections on the Talk page, which were attempts to resolve the conflict:


 * "1 Rancourt conflict of interest"
 * "2 RfC: Are CafeHellion's edits justified?"
 * I ask that the CafeHellion edit (his latest revert) be reverted by an administrator, and I ask that CafeHellion be barred or notified from editing the article about OCLA on his sole pretext of COI. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Denis Rancourt is a central member of the organization whose article he is editing. I have reverted his edits on the basis of this very strong conflict of interest. That is the entire basis of my undoing his edits. I restored the entry to how it was before his conflict-of-interest edits, and as a result he is running from venue to venue, apparently hoping to distract from the deep conflict-of-interest issue by trying to make it about my behavior instead. Google "OCLA Rancourt" to get a sense of how intertwined the two are, and then ask him why he apparently co siders himself exempt from conflict-of-interest rules. 16:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CafeHellion (talk • contribs)
 * There is certainly a COI as shown here. I quote from page 6 of the PDF: "Mr. Hickey (Executive Director of OCLA) provided an affidavit in [Denis G. Rancourt's] application for leave to appeal, for the sole purpose of giving evidence of the egregious nature of Beaudoin J.’s words and actions in court on July 24, 2012, in support of the national importance of judicially addressing the appellant’s complaint of reasonable apprehension of bias, as a systemic problem." Thus, I have reverted the page to 's version, as it is neither slander or overly positive of the organisation. Myname is not dave (talk/contribs) 16:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm satisfied with that. My intent was solely to remove the conflict of interest. CafeHellion (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify. Editor "My name is not Dave" has not "reverted the page to 's version". In fact, editor "My name is not Dave" has made substantive changes to the "Qrstuvwx version" by removing the most problematic content. Will this edit by "My name is not Dave" survive? If so, it fixes the attack-page character of what editor CafeHellion was imposing. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As a general rule: Should not content removal decisions be based on the content, and not on the person adding the content, which is a distinct question (NPOV vs COI)? The instant exercise should not replace a proper discussion and determination of NPOV regarding the content. For that reason, I continue to request that the CafeHellion edit (his latest revert) be reverted by an administrator. (Also, for information, I have not made edits to the page since learning about WP:COI potentially applying to non-financial volunteer links to non-profit organizations.) Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * note: you don't have to use that  template all the time on here :-) Thank you for renouncing your right to edit the page. On your point -- one influences the other. If you have a COI, then it is likely that your edits may be one of a non-neutral mannner (what do you mean about reverting Cafe's edits? They have been removed from the current page revision). Yet,  Before I arrived with some actual evidence to show that there was a COI, your point was nothing but an accusation -- if you don't want to get mired in WP:NPA, please provide some sort of evidence to support your claim. Myname is not dave (talk/contribs) 17:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Thanks for your help. I'd just like to reiterate that what Rancourt keeps calling my edits are really only reverts. CafeHellion (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * MNINDave asks "what do you mean about reverting Cafe's edits?". I mean if we revert CafeHellion's last edit, then we get THIS, which is valid content that should not have been removed without consensus. I'm asking that this be the clean starting point for any further discussion. I also note that CafeHellion's above assertion "I restored the entry to how it was before his conflict-of-interest edits" may not be genuine since I created the article. In fact, and the page history is clear, CafeHellion selectively reverted in order to establish unsourced trash content and then screamed COI. He also refused to remove the trash content despite a full RfC process on Talk. Let's be clear. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we haven't finished then, I apologise. Well, I did see the RfC, but since nobody uninvolved really joined in with the RfC, it can't really go far. Depending on how far you wish to go, I would consider abstaining from anything about the article now. Your COI has coloured a situation where, if this was a standard dispute, then yes, WP:BRD could go on, but your associations mean that despite your best conscious efforts not to have an agenda per se, you may find yourself having one nevertheless. The version you are wishing to propose for discussion is a little bit too liberal on praise. 's deletions perhaps also remove a bit too much as well, notably the section documenting the OCLA's rewards. Myname is not dave (talk/contribs) 17:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Editor "My name is not Dave" made a quick and premature closing, in the middle of discussion, having asked a question... I request that an Administrator review this matter, which has not been resolved to my satisfaction. Editor "My name is not Dave" selected to cut the article back dramatically but now is "abstaining from anything about the article now". The result was deletion of a large amount of content, without discussion about the content, and without consensus. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed that Rancourt had not only COI-edited the article, but as he admits above, COI-created it in the first place, an even fishier kettle of fish. Maybe this is a matter better suited for "Articles for Deletion" then, but I've already spent too much time on this. CafeHellion (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, no, you misinterpreted me. That remark was directed towards you. Myname is not dave (talk/contribs) 18:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I undid the close: not everyone seems to be happy. I made a few tweaks for neutrality, and would like to add that the article version by is unacceptably not-neutral. Drmies (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Drmies: THIS EDIT is not a change towards neutrality. It is a change towards bias. An association must be presumed to act in good faith, following its own statements of purpose. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Good faith is what we extend to other editors until we run out of it. Whether an organization actually defends something or not depends on a lot of factors, but good faith has little to do with it. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree; it's ridiculous to insist Wikipedia must take any organization's claims about itself at face value, especially what appears to be a very tiny volunteer group of very questionable notability and a heavy history of COI editing. As this discussion is no longer about *my* reversion of Rancourt's conflict-of-interest edits to his own organization's entry, I'd suggest that this section be closed and further discussion about the article, if any, go to the article's talk page. CafeHellion (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Ha, "ridiculous" is indeed the word I was going to use. We know have (see Talk:Ontario_Civil_Liberties_Association) not one but two cats from this outfit editing related articles: User:Denis.g.rancourt is trying to wikilawyer themselves out of a clear COI--a COI visible in other places as well. Let's see--we have an article Denis Rancourt (an article that itself flies in the face of all kinds of policies we have), and User:Denis has authored Hierarchy and Free Expression in the Fight Against Racism (earlier deleted by, a book written by Denis Rancourt published by the, ahem, "Stairway Press", an article consisting for 90% of a quotation from a review in the Times of India (not the first place one would look for a review of an academic book). BTW, the history of Denis Rancourt is interesting: it was created by a now-blocked account, and this first version seems similar in style to what we've seen in the other articles mentioned in this thread, with their focus on lawsuits. User:Denis also wrote up James Maurice Daniels, the Doktervater of Denis Rancourt. So, we have a COI editor (who fessed up to the COI), writing up articles on organizations they work for and people they worked with which includes content that violates our policies, and who in addition seems to plug his own work here, walled-garden style. Editors and admins, please have a closer look. I'm going to post a note on COIN as well, pointing this way. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * For those interested in the COIN thread, see here: Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. But, as Drmies stated, don't continue talking there. -- The Voidwalker  Discuss 17:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I notice that much of the (disproportionately detailed and very one-sided) material on the Rancourt entry seems to come from IP addresses with the single mission of editing the Rancourt article after Rancourt himself learned that he could no longer do so. Coincidence? Either way, yes, by all means, let's get more eyes on it. CafeHellion (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * More grist for the mill. [][][][][][][] CafeHellion (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There's not even the tiniest sliver of doubt that the first-listed IP is User:Denis.g.rancourt. Aside from the edits to Denis Rancourt notice the edits in the climate thread, where he seamlessly takes the same position with both accounts. With that one a solid lock, the other IPs range from "highly likely" on down. A bit disappointing as I've had some interesting interaction with him. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:DUCK?142.105.159.60 (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * a few notes here.
 * I opened a discussion with denis.g.rancourt about COI in Wikipedia on his Talk page. We got pretty far and it seems to be going ~relatively~ OK (not perfectly, but relatively OK), so I am hopeful that the problems he has caused will diminish going forward.  We'll see how that goes.
 * As others have pointed out, the influence of denis.g.rancourt's COI on the content he has added is very clear - the content he has added generally has failed NPOV and has been badly sourced or unsourced.  COI will out.  The actual removal of the content by CafeHellion (part of the behavior that is the subject of this ANI) was correct.
 * However the heart of the ANI that denis brought, is that it has generally not been OK in Wikipedia to remove content on the sole basis of the COI of the editor who added the content.
 * To reiterate that -- CafeHellion's rationale for the reverts he/she made was solely based on denis' COI.  See CafeHellion's first response above, and their edit notes here and here, and on the article Talk page here
 * My understanding is that we generally have not accepted removal of content on the sole basis that the editor is conflicted, and denis.g.rancourt's response to CafeHellion's remark, which is here, is consistent with that.... and so in my view it actually was appropriate (just on that basis) for denis to bring this ANI against CafeHellion, who did justify their edits in a way that we generally have not accepted in the past.
 * That part of Denis' argument has been ignored, as everyone has been understandably aghast at denis.g.rancourt's blatantly bad (in terms of our content policies) editing, his ignoring of the COI guideline, and his cluelessness in bringing this ANI when his hands were so unclean.
 * But this ANI is interesting in that it is establishing a precedent that reverting an edit on the sole basis of the COI of the editor who made it, is acceptable to the community. (I am not wiki-lawyering here -- it is just really remarkable to me that no one has even commented on this)  I think community consensus may be shifting toward more proactive COI management, especially where the surface content problems are so clear.
 * Finally, I just wanted to note that per his/her contribs CafeHellion is a new editor and somewhat of a WP:SPA with regard to the article where the edits took place, and seems to know a lot about the organization per his/her remark here, raising the possibility that there is a COI or other advocacy issue going on with CafeHellion. I have opened a discussion on their Talk page with them about that.
 * I know this was bit long and nuanced for ANI, but I wanted to add those thoughts to this case.  Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, thanks for taking this up. I agree that CafeHellion's edits need to be looked at; I have only really looked at the articles and Rancourt's edits, since they were so blatantly in violation of COI, NPOV, RS, etc. And like you I wish we had some more admins/editors looking at this, or that we had that kicked every single one of them in the rear. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Quick note. I was just going to work on improving the Rancourt article and was just reading the results of the arbitration about his getting fired, which is here.  Due to the nature of some of the material that Rancourt discussed in his SCI 1101 course, as described in paragraph 16 on page 5 of that document, which I was not aware of until now,  I am not going to work on matters related to this anymore, to remain well away from the topic of my TBAN.  No drama; I just want to abide by my restriction.  Good luck to  you all in resolving this and improving the content. Jytdog (talk) 02:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * As I see it, ​Whether reverting material on the basis of coi is right depends on the material and the circumstances. If one reverts and just says coi, I would interpret it to mean COI and not contriuting to the encyclopedia in some manner , such as being   unsourced  or promotional. It's better to specify, because it clarifies the edit. If the reason isn't obvious, or is challenged, it should be discussed on the article talk page as in any other situation.  (note:jytdog informed me about his comment, but I'd been following the discussion anyway, because I prodded the article on his book.  DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with most of the objectively-made criticisms of me, made above. This was my first "ANI" and I have learned a lot. It is too bad, from my perspective, that my original complaint, explained at the very top above and with diff, was not ever expressly acknowledged of having any merit, in this entire thread. (My initiated complaint was: "In short: Editor CafeHellion has transformed the article about OCLA into an unsourced attack page, using the pretext of removing edits for reason of COI. Here is the diff." It was made after substantive attempts to resolve in Talk.) In the process, my complaint has now been entirely resolved regarding content on the OCLA article. However, from my perspective, it would have been better if at least one contributor at any one point would have said something like "ya, there may be a problem with that diff". I guess that part of the reason is that my wording of the ANI was too accusatory of an editor for how WP operates. My next ANI, God forbid, will be more understated. I do thank those who contributed to the overall diplomatic resolution of all the problems with the OCLA page. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Remember that this is the Twitter Era. You've got to tell people right up front exactly what the issue is or they won't bother. Instead your original post gave only a fairly complex diff that people had to sift through, without being told what was the specific objectionable text. Looking back at [that diff -- yeah, a totally unsourced claim that the organization "is generally regarded as a right-wing front group... involved primarily in cases involving white nationalists" is definitely a problem. It wouldn't have changed any of the other stuff, but you might have gotten more traction on the complaint itself if you had stated the problem more clearly. That's just the way the modern world works. [[User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris|Shock Brigade Harvester Boris]] (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That is a darn good point, Boris, thanks for the advice. Another lesson for me. I hate Twitter. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism or threat?
After a long debate (with some antecedents), stated that he can produce a comprehensive list of my vandalistic edits. I am convinced that I have not made vandalistic edits, but I were also ready to change my behavior if any of my edits could be described as vandalism. On the other hand, in the universe I live someone's baseless accusation of vandalism is a highly uncivil act. Consequently, I ask to present his list of my "vandalistic edits" and I also ask administrators to express their view on my behaviour. Borsoka (talk) 03:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I will be watching this thread closely as I also have an editor making baseless accusations against me (they have been doing so for months) and I have also asked that editor numerous times for proof but, they have never provided it and certain admins have simply let that slide and let them continue making their baseless accusations. I'm curious how this plays out as I will then know how to handle my long-running situation.Cebr1979 (talk) 04:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The way to handle it is to quietly ignore it. These types feed on your outrage and resistance.  E Eng  07:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * E : I agree with that (and have even seen it referred to as a "flavor of the month" here at this very board recently) however, it is hard when the editor in question edits a lot of the same pages I do and makes the same unfounded allegations every which where she can... I agree it's best to ignore it but... that becomes hard to do when it's all the time, everywhere. I've been trying, though, and will try to keep it up.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In that case, it may be better to ask a friendly admin to keep an eye on articles X, Y, and Z, with an eye toward giving a friendly word at key moments. Then if that doesn't work after a while, you'll have a "witness" if it has to come here. Really, all remedies short of arbitration should be exhausted before coming to ANI.  E Eng  01:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. :-) Cebr1979 (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

A phone number needs deleting quickly
There's a phone number in the unsavoury edit summary here that should be deleted. Willondon (talk) 05:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * thank you for the report. The number was deleted by an administrator and I further suppressed the information. In the future, when discretion and a speedy resolution is needed, you can contact the oversight team directly. There is information on the various private avenues in the infobox at the top of this page. Keegan (talk) 07:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Reference Desk troll redux
The entire edit history of User:Partying_at_a_disco_club shows that this is an neo-Nazi troll. Can we just have them banned and done with it, please? Thanks. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like the account's been indef blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Ted Cruz presidential campaign, 2016 slow-motion edit war
Users American In Brazil and MaverickLittle have been going back and forth on this article for about a week now, with lots of sniping happening on the talk page as well, although there is some decent discussion occurring too. Could someone perhaps lock the article for a few days to get them to work it out on the talk page instead of continuing to revert each other? Thanks. —<B>Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 18:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that there are basically two bad actors here, I think it's better to address them directly, rather than locking the page and preventing everyone else from working on it constructively. was already well over 3RR, and I've blocked him/her for 24 hours.  is clearly edit-warring, but hasn't technically breached 3RR. I haven't yet blocked him/her, but I think it would be reasonable to do so (especially since they are indeed edit-warring and have already been warned to stop); thoughts? MastCell Talk 18:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Five reverts in 2 days, several after a warning message. Plus, a pet peeve of mine, defining "vandalism" as "edits I disagree with", and another pet peeve of mine, making personal attacks on an editor while simultaneously complaining the other editor is making personal attacks. Yeah, I've blocked American in Brazil for 24 hours as well. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sigh. The article as a whole has been more difficult to work with than it needs to be because of the continual mini-edit-wars erupting over this particular issue. Because apparently the Natural-born-citizen clause issue worked out so well against Obama. Here is a comment I made on essentially the same edit war a few weeks back. Does Wikipedia have a process for handling this type of dispute. It feels like this one is going to erupt continually until Cruz either stops being a 2016 contender or, if he wins, until the end of his Presidency. Wikipedia has some pretty clear policies about when a person's birthplace should be mentioned, for example. If we just treat this as a 3RR issue, that actually gives some people an incentive to put in additional mentions of Cruz' birthplace above and beyond what WP says it should have, because of the possibility that someone removing a reference that doesn't belong will then get a 3RR block.CometEncke (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This looks to be a classic edit war between American in Brazil and MaverickLittle. Since American in Brazil had not received a notice, I have alerted them under WP:ARBAP2. It seems to me that these two editors could be sanctioned under the arb case if the pattern continues. EdJohnston (talk) 03:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Self-promoting editor needs to be blocked
An article about an unsigned, non-notable SoundCloud musician has repeatedly been created by, deleted by admins, then recreated by the editor. The name of the account gives a pretty clear indication that the subject of the article is writing a promotional autobiography about himself. There are multiple warnings about this on his talk page since January, none of which have been responded to, instead he continues recreating the unsourced, promotional autobiography. He seems fairly knowledgeable about Wikipedia, too, as he requested a username change, and has been trying to prevent the article from being speedied again by commenting on the talk page while logged out ,. Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The page appears to have been deleted three times, including once by author request... this really isn't an ANI-worthy issue. Warn with and go up the series until it becomes necessary to go to WP:AIV; go to WP:RFPP for the article title. Honestly I'm not even sure the promotion is all that horrible if the content at User:Imsosincere/sandbox is any indication of what was on the article. A7 worthy, probably, but I don't think it's G11 material. And as I said, it doesn't look to be so bad as to merit an ANI thread yet. So at this time I'm gonna have to oppose block. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 17:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In fact, I see this editor's gone up the chain of warnings. WP:AIV is where you want if he keeps it up. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * My experience with AIV is they decline things like this as "too complex". All they want to deal with is run of the mill vandalism. Kindzmarauli (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If this is an issue of self-promotion as the title indicates, I'd recommend starting a new case at WP:COIN. - Brianhe.public (talk) 05:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Who says Wikipedia's not a bureaucracy?  E Eng  05:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Rowssusan edit warring and incivility
I'm seeking a second opinion or wider community input regarding Rowssusan's recent conduct. In lengthy discussions with them, it's become apparent that their WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and incivility becomes a barrier for them to productively work with others. I have additional concerns about WP:IDHT. A lengthy discussion ensued on my talk page. I advised them to let it go and that their pushing for punishment for Dsaun100 also meant an examination of their own behaviour. A point they failed to see applied to them as well. Rowssusan's demeanour and use of direct and indirect passive aggressive statements like, "any reasonable person would have", "you did nothing about it", "[you] should not be afraid", "you were coddling a disruptive editor", all culminating with me having to remove a personal attack against me. I saw nothing but a fanning of the flames with comments like these. Their edit summary when they removed my note about civilty further highlights their battleground mentality, "If and when you're able to control your temper you'll be welcome to continue explaining your unacceptable behavior".
 * Rowssusan was blocked by for edit warring with Dsaun100 at the article Super Bowl 50.
 * During their unblock process, they exhibited impatience. and  address the unblock and JamesBWatson in particular summarized that Rowssusan"failed to take in the point".
 * Rowssusan reported Dsaun100 at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard regarding the addition of controversy sections on the articles Jim Brown and Julian Edelman. Dsaun100 was wrong about how they went about adding the sections, but also clearly frustrated with being reverted and reported by Rowssusan. The accusations about stalking were noted, but after much discussion and a back and forth, Dsaun100 agreed to walk away from it. Since WP:3RR hadn't been breached and the editor was dropping it, I opted for leniency about the reverts and tempered comments taking into consideration WP:BOOMERANG and WP:BITE. Both sides had contributed to the hostile environment stemming back to the edit war at Super Bowl 50.
 * During Rowssusan's unblock requests, they "promised not to do it again" yet as the noticeboard discussion was being closed, aside from an edit conflict, they further engaged in a series of successive reverts  with the-very-same-editor to which they were blocked previously.

They've essentially been warned about edit waring (and blocked) as well as warned about civility and in both cases they re-engaged in the behaviour, almost immediately after. I'm recommending a short but escalating preventative block be put in place unless Rowssusan is willing to address his civility and habitual edit warring issues. As stated above, I'm looking for a second opinion and/or wider community input. Maybe there's another road that can be taken that I haven't seen. Mkdw talk 06:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Mkdw is here solely because I hurt his feelings in this discussion on his talk page regarding his inaction concerning Dsaun100's personal attacks made on me in this discussion and this discussion on the BLP noticeboard. You'll note that Mkdw did not wikilink to Dsaun100's account above, perhaps because he doesn't want anyone to review the edtior's short but colorful editing and talk page history. Read the two BLP discussions in their entirety and decide for yourself who was being uncivil, Dsaun100 or me. And who was arguing with literally every editor that commented. As you'll see, I was called a stalker no less than five times by Dsaun100, among other things. I ignored all of them and focused on the content issue being discussed. I figured an admin would eventually warn Dsaun100 about his behavior. But it never happened, so it was only at the very end that I decided to post my first and only reply to address the numerous stalking allegations. Mdkw was well aware of Dsaun100's highly inappropriate behavior (towards everyone; not just me), yet chose to do nothing about it - not even ask the editor to stop. And even long after Mkdw made the closure, Dsaun100 violated the closure and posted yet another personal attack about me. I attempted to revert it twice, but of course Dsaun100 kept restoring it and I let it go. Instead, I went to Mkdw's talk page to ask that he address the matter with the editor. He refused. That discussion led to Mkdw getting upset with me and threatening to report me here. In any case, that was quite a dramatic presentation above by Mkdw. Now actually read everything I said in the discussions at BLP and on his talk page, and see how they line up with what Mkdw is claiming. Rowssusan (talk) 07:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Since I was mentioned here, I'd just like to add that Mkdw has been very patient and respectful through disputes, unlike Rowssusan, who appears to have a habit of making matters personal. Much of this stems from edits made to Super Bowl 50, in which there was a lengthy discussion. I proposed a compromise, which Rowssusan refused to acknowledge multiple times. The user is extremely stubborn and doesn't engage in constructive discussion. A variation of my compromise was, eventually, agreed upon for Super Bowl 50, with other editors involved. A separate dispute later arose with edits to Jim Brown and Julian Edelman. A noticeboard post was made by Rowssusan, and Mkdw was helpful and respectful in explaining the issue at hand. The discussion was closed, but Rowssusan's stubbornness, once again, became a problem. The user claims I violated the closure, but the truth of the matter is that Rowssusan was the first person to post after the closure. I merely responded and said I was done with the matter. This can be proven by viewing the edit history. Rowssusan claims that an "edit conflict" was the reason that the post was made after the discussion was closed, however, the user didn't have to go through with posting it, once the "edit conflict" notification appeared. Rowssusan chose to continue posting anyway. This is the truth, and again, it can be verified by simply viewing the edit history. That's all I have to say.  Hopefully, this pettiness doesn't continue.  Dsaun100 (talk) 07:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I intentionally did not alert Dsaun100 because the issue of this ANI report is you not them. While they're involved, I chose not to ping them into the report because I was requesting feedback from uninvolved editors. It would have been very easy to gauge from yours and Dsaun100's previous interactions how they felt about you. I also trusted the community and the editors reading this ANI to be able to read everything in its context and find their way to the relevant discussions, including the ones reverted. Additionally anyone going to Dsaun100 would also see that other admins and editors are already discussion their behaviour from even before the first message from you so I don't see why you think this editor was getting away with it. Lastly, I think you opening sentence, "Mkdw is here solely because I hurt his feelings" is exactly the passive aggressive battleground mentality I've been trying to highlight. You're ignoring the fact that you were blocked, engaged in edit wars, warned about incivility, and continued. The community as well as other admins have invested a considerable amount of time at seemingly very little gains. Mkdw talk 08:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I didn't say anything about you not alerting Dsaun100. I said you "did not wikilink to (his) account", thus forcing editors to have to find his account on their own. Yet, you linked to the accounts of all the other editors you mentioned, and they happen to be your three administrator colleagues: Bagumba (who blocked me), PhilKnight (who declined my unblock request), and JamesBWatson (who commented on my talk page during the block). Are you saying you also pinged them to let them know about this discussion? Anyway, if you feel that my saying that I hurt your feelings is passive-aggressive, then that's a very good indication that it takes very little to offend you. Instead of making all these vague accusations about my alleged personal attacks on you and such, why don't you provide diffs to the specific instances that you consider personal attacks, and quote on here the parts that are attacks. That way, everyone can see precisely what you're referring to. After all, you're looking to have me sanctioned for these supposedly block-worthy violations. One cannot help but notice that you're working awfully hard to paint this horrible picture of me. Rather than repeatedly giving your lengthy, personal interpretations of my behavior withiout any specific examples of proof, perhaps you should just let other editors read the discussions for themselves so they can make their own determinations. And for the record, calling someone passive-aggressive, which you've now called me twice, is in fact a personal attack. Rowssusan (talk) 09:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that Mkdw titled this discussion "Rowssusan edit warring and incivility", yet he has provided absolutely no proof of me violating 3RR since my previous (and only) block. The only instance Mkdw has pointed to are my two reverts of the editor posting his attack on me in the BLP discussion long after closure. But I stopped after the two attempts because the other editor kept restoring the content,, which by the way included yet another personal attack on me in his second edit summary ("Stop the lies"). So I went to Mkdw for help about all the attacks and the after-closure post, but he refused to intervene. However, I do see that another admin later warned Dsaun100 about that edit summary attack. Anyway, this report by Mdkw makes one wonder why he would include "edit warring" in the section title and seek sanctions for it, rather than simply reporting me at WP:AN/3 if he truly believed he had a solid case against me. Maybe it's because he knows that my edit history will show that I have in fact not edit-warred since that lone previous block. Rowssusan (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * A large proportion of the time-wasting and disruption that goes on is caused by editors with a battleground approach to anyone they disagree with, and who also have a curious blindness to the nature of their own actions. Typically, they are persistently uncivil, while frequently complaining about "incivility" when other editors express disagreement with them in a perfectly civil way; they accuse other editors of personal attacks when there was nothing that could reasonably be regarded as a personal attack, while themselves attacking other editors all the time; etc etc. One of the sure signs that such editors really sincerely cannot see what they are doing is that in discussions where their behaviour is criticised, they jump in and show further examples of exactly the kind of thing that they are being criticised for, apparently unable to see that they are providing visible confirmation of exactly the things they are denying. Rowssusan, it seems to me, is a case in point. A quick look at her messages in this discussion provide plenty of confirmation of her approach: a battleground approach, incivility, attacks, and innuendo against anyone who has the effrontery to express disagreement with her or criticise her. There is also, of course, the technique, common among editors of this type, of trying to deflect attention away from her own behaviour onto that of others, manifested in attacks and accusations of bad faith an ulterior motivation against Mkdw, together with attempts to portray the whole thing as an expression of personal upset by Mkdw, instead of concentrating on dealing with the concerns that have been expressed by numerous editors about Rowssusan's behaviour. This behaviour shown in this discussion reflects other examples of the same approach to other editors whenever anyone disagrees with her.


 * I now turn from how Rowssusan treats criticism of her actions to an example of how she treats a good-faith attempt to help her. My own first contact with Rowssusan happened when I went to her talk page to assess an unblock request. In light of what I saw, I decided that I could not justify unblocking immediately, but rather than post a templated unblock decline message (which would have taken me less than a minute) I put some considerable time and work into writing a fairly long message, in which I tried to make it clear why the unblock request was unlikely to succeed, and offered advice on what changes Rowssusan could make to it to make it more likely to do so. The response I got was, in my opinion, an excellent example of passive aggression: ostensibly polite, but actually patronising and contemptuously dismissive of what I had done.


 * Those two examples of how Rowssusan deals with other editors are, from what I have seen in her editing history, typical. We are dealing with an editor who cannot act in a collaborative and civil way with other editors, and who, as I have indicated above, appears to be sincerely unable to see what she is doing, which unfortunately suggests that she may be unable to change. I would love to be proved wrong, and see her start to take a more constructive line towards other editors. Mkdw suggests "a short but escalating preventative block". Perhaps that will help: if there is any chance that it may encourage Rowssusan to reconsider how to deal with disagreements with other editors, maybe it would be worth trying. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Gee, Watson, that was quite a speech. And zero diffs provided. How surprising... an admin (who happened to be involved in my one and only block) passionately backing another admin with a bunch of rhetoric and no evidence. Now show some actual proof of the "attacks" by me that you are claiming. Provide actual quotes of mine that you consider "attacks" and are worthy of sanctions, and the diffs to support them. And provide diffs of edit warring since that lone block, beyond the two reverts of that post-closure personal attack on me. Interesting how there are many longtime editors who are beyond uncivil and are blatantly hostile almost all the time to editors, yet admins never touch them. But those same admins will join forces and spout their condescending lectures to editors who haven't been around long, like me, who's never crossed any lines. And funny how Mkdw took no action against me when all the things he talked about were actually happening, but then all of a sudden decided to come after me following our conversation on his talk page. Editors are not stupid and can see right through all the bull. Anyone can see that Mkdw got personally offended at my criticism of his not addressing the personal attacks on me, so he sought vengeance by bringing me to ANI. He even threatened it in our convo. So instead of the long-winded speeches, Watson and Mkdw, show the proof. Quotes and diffs, please. Rowssusan (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We're all here because leniency was shown to both you and the other editor in the dispute but you chose to not let it stand. You resorted to personal attacks and despite what you're saying, many quotes and diffs have been provided. Both and I have both only ever interacted with you in an administrative capacity and in fact, JamesBWatson's weighting in on this discussion is not only appropriate, it's relevant because they are already familiar with your case. Lastly, as time has gone by and with your every reply, the hostility has increased. Factoring in that you engaged in an edit warring shortly after your previous block expired with the same editor that you continued to antagonize, and the series of personal attacks to varying others that you have encountered, I am at the decision that a short block to enforce our WP:NPA and WP:EW policy is required. I recommend you take this time to review your interactions with others and how you can avoid edit wars in the future and work constructively with other editors in the future.  Mkdw talk 23:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

2607:FB90:170F:F01:0:18:8552:701
is simply a vandal, see his contributions. Please block. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, Debresser - If this is the case, you should report the IP to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism - this way, it will be visible to more administrators, and it will be handled faster. Please let me know if you have any questions.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Oshwah for the advice. And Materialscientist thanks for the block. Debresser (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. He is back from, vandalizing precisely the same two user pages. Debresser (talk) 00:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the IP and added a short term protection on the two target pages. Please let me know if you want the protection of your user page removed/extended etc. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 00:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Add to these two:, , , who for unclear reasons vandalize only me and. At WP:AIV they only do ad hoc blocks, while it seems here we need to block the whole 2607:FB90:etc. range. Debresser (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: I undid my (non-admin closure) as this seems to be ongoing and requires a bigger solution. I will allow an uninvolved administrator determine when this is closed. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 18:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I would recommend seeking indefinite semi-protection for your user pages. It seems like the anonymous editor will only continue after temporary protection has expired. There are few reasons another editor should edit your user page and even fewer for an anonymous editor to do so. clpo13(talk) 19:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I looked at a rangeblock here but it is would block an entire ISP, which is way too big. As soon as I hit save here, I'll indef protect both user pages. And I do rangeblocks from AIV reports all the time. Just can't do this one. :-) Katietalk 17:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And I see that semi-protection is already done. If either wants it done longer, ping me. Katietalk 17:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Make it indefinite, there's no reason an IP should be editing my user space. 117Avenue (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Done.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 00:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've also edited the userboxes so that only the correct one works on my userpage. 117Avenue (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Debresser, would you like your userpage to be indefinitely semi-protected (like 117Avenue's is now), so that IPs cannot edit it? If so, speak now. If no one hears from you this thread will probably be wrapped up, and if you have any trouble in the future you can request indefinite semi-protection from any admin (no ANI thread needed). Softlavender (talk) 07:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Kanhaiya Kumar - page watch
Kanhaiya Kumar and Jawaharlal Nehru University are topics of heated debate in India at the moment. Can some admins watch list the pages, and advise the involved editors of the protocols? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you want us to do, but I suppose you are an involved editor, and I'm not sure what point there is in expanding "2016 sedition controversy" with responses and reports on demonstrations and whatnot. We're not the news. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Drmies. I'm not sure of what exactly you want us to do here.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As somebody who frequently edits indic pages, I think I know why Kautilya is concerned; recent political events tend to draw hordes of POV warriors, and more scrutiny from established editors is therefore often necessary. I will watchlist this myself, for now. Kautilya3, I'm not sure why you're posting here, though, there haven't yet been problems that are too serious on this particular article. Wouldn't INB be the logical place? I'm not sure that admin scrutiny is needed, just from folks who know what they're doing. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The IND-regular admins seem to be offline, except for, who seems to have too much on his plate. But the normal practice in this type of situation is for admins to slap on some notices to indicate the current event and controversial nature of the topic, advise people to stay calm, and warn them of sanctions. Even though this subject might look like just another controversy, it seems to go to the core of India's Left-Right divide and promises to get ugly. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I had to semi-protect the article for a week following the RFPP request--Ymblanter (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Akerman LLP
I don't have much of a background in copyright but Akerman LLP has for the second time had its lede restored here to what seems like very obvious paraphrasing from. Is that ok or should it be removed and deleted? It's being restored by User:Akerman1234 repeatedly including all the promotional nonsense which seems like a clear COI problem as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's close enough to be a copyvio, even though it's not a huge one, and it's certainly promotional. Recent edits by, whose name suggests an obvious COI, improve some sections ("Famous lawyers and alumni"-->"Notable Akerman Alumni") but other sections are way too promotional, like this "Community Partnerships" and "Commitment to Diversity" stuff. But that lead, yes, that cannot be. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up. The language in the lead is from Akerman's standard boilerplate that appears in the public domain quite a bit. Often, outlets such as U.S. News... simply cut-and-paste boilerplates when profiling companies. Also, not sure how highlighting charity work and a commitment to diversity is promotional in as much as it sells legal services. Granted, Akerman is proud of it's charity work - but not sure how that carries over to someone viewing the section and then saying, "Wow, I want those folks to work on my big merger." In comparison to other law firms' Wikipedia articles, the promotional aspects land in the little-to-none range. Thanks for opening the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akerman1234 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Boilerplate" doesn't mean it's in the public domain unless it's expressly in the public domain. It's still copyrighted text until clear otherwise. It's more concerning that you keep reverting to that version rather than working with what other people have done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Ricky and I will be happy to prune those other articles as well! Drmies (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Which was immediately reverted. So we have WP:OWNership issues by a pretty clear COI here. Anyone want to explain the issues further or should we keep trying to work this out? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The additional revert suggests that User:Akerman1234's diplomatic efforts are now over. The next revert by them should qualify for a block. I've notified them about the edit warring policy. EdJohnston (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm learning. I will not revert to anything, ever. I understand the concerns. The old lead that is back up just needs a bit of adjustment, because Akerman LLP is no longer headquartered at that address, and the stats from 2012 could stand to be refreshed. I do not want to create ill will or bad vibes. Also, in the name of full disclosure - I was advised by user Liz to change my username because the word "Akerman" appeared in my username and that's a no-no. I have changed, and it was approved. New name: Carefuleye7. "Akerman1234" is dead. Do I put the waves now? Where do those go?Carefuleye7 (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , you may not have liked the edits that Ricky and I made, but chances are--given our all-too long tenure here--that they are pretty much in line with our policies. In other words, it's not a good idea to simply revert not just because that constitutes edit warring, but also because there's other stuff at stake, like the neutral tone of the article. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Carefuleye7, thanks for the name change. It's a common mistake, especially when an individual from a company, either officially or unofficially, is asked to update a business' Wikipedia article. Edit warring is also a common mistake that can lead to your account being blocked. We have a rule of thumb here at Wikipedia that is called WP:BRD meaning Be bold, revert, discuss. So, you can make bold edits but if they are reverted, you need to initiate a discussion on the article talk page. Discussion is the favored method of dispute resolution here at Wikipedia. You've offered some explanation for your edits here which is a good step to take but now the further discussion about the content of the article has to go to Talk:Akerman LLP. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 00:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Carefuleye7 and I had a discussion on their Talk page about COI and Carefuleye7 made a disclosure and understands what he/she should do going forward. Seems like a reasonable person and I don't anticipate problems going forward.  The article does need some cleanup which I will try to get to. This ANI can probably be closed. Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And i did just clean it up. Jytdog (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, thank you for your edits. I hope we get to keep the promotional content out. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Constant Editing at Madame Doubtfire
Over the past few minutes, has made 300 edits to the above page. Some have been helpful but the vast majority have consisted of adding and removing a space, with no other effect. I posted at WP:RPP and also on the IP's talk page but the edits keep coming. It's not doing anything particularly harmful, but it's definitely clogging up the edit history. Is a block in order now? Absconded Northerner (talk) 09:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I would suggest more attempts to figure out with the user what they are doing before going for page protections or blocks here. There may be some innocent explanations. I have responded to their comment on the talk page myself. Also, you didn't notify they on their talk page that you had raised an issue here at ANI. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies for forgetting to notify them. This was really a request for help, not for a block. I didn't know what action would be best so posted here in case someone had a good idea of how to proceed. Looks like they've stopped now, and a brief SPP has been applied too. I'll keep chatting on their talk page to see if there's any help I can provide. Absconded Northerner (talk) 10:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Semiprotected for a week. No idea what's going on but it ain't helping. Guy (Help!) 10:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry for being late to the party, but it looks like an attempt to circumvent the "500 edits rule" that applies to certain articles (requiring editors to have made a minimum of 500 edits on other pages before editing those articles), by just making a large number of nonsense edits. There have been many cases like that lately, so keep an eye on them to see what their real targets are, because that kind of editors are usually up to no good... Thomas.W talk 15:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * See this latest pointless edit. Blackmane (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Ethno-nationalist POV pushing
<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.

tedious ethno-nationalist vandalism. Gets reverted by various users, but always returns. Constantly changing the marked ethnicity of Kurds (Yezidi Kurds) into Yazidis, refuses to discuss, as seen from the lack of response to my advice on his talk page, vandalizing even academic article titles to erase any trace of Kurdishness from Yezidis  / Yezidi figures,. Clear WP:NOTHERE case.--Dorpater (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2016 (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.

Community ban for Nsmutte
User:Nsmutte and their army of socks has been promoting a non-notable Indian physician, called (Y.) Srihari or Sreehari, for a couple of years at this point. The case is outlined in Sockpuppet investigations/Nsmutte/Archive; their activities include creating a number of articles about the person (Y. Srihari, Dr sreeharii, Dr sreehari, Doctor sreehari, Dr y.srihari, Dr srihari, Hypnotist srihari, Doctor sREEHARI, Sreehari, Sreehari dr and maybe others). The original AfD, Articles for deletion/Y. Srihari, was plagued with sockpuppets. They have also created articles about the Global medical association which Dr Sreehari is the chairman of, but which was also found not to be notable. In addition to this, there has been a number of edits adding the person's name and that of the association to various Wikipedia articles:, , , , , and are some instances of this, where the oldest diffs are from April 2014 and the newest one's from yesterday (and a not-yet-blocked sock, who has however self-identified as a new account of one of the previously blocked socks.)

The number of confirmed socks approaches 50, and among them are about fifteen recently created accounts with names that were clearly created to look like my username - see Sockpuppet investigations/Nsmutte/Archive and the section below it. There's a couple of others that were not caught in that sweep which have been active just now, and. There's also a very large number of IPsocks involved; they don't tend to use the same IP address for more than a few edits, so the numbers add up quickly. There is no doubt that this is one and the same person, they have some very distinctive stylistic idiosyncrasies (and the sockpuppet investigations have always confirmed that it's the same person as well.)

After almost two years of this disruption, I'm calling for a community ban. I have been the target of some mild harassment, including the user accounts mentioned above, and various claims that I have personal reasons to keep the person out of Wikipedia - they have been informed many times that many different editors have been involved in the deletion processes, that the reason the articles were deleted was a lack of notability, and that I have no tools to delete articles in any case, so there is a certain amount of WP:IDHT involved. Because I've been a target I might be considered to be involved, and maybe that means I shouldn't be making this request, but I'm hoping that I've provided sufficient evidence to show that this is in fact a disruption that's been going on for a while.

I will post a notification of this discussion on the talk page of the blocked sockmaster and on the talk pages of the (as yet) not-blocked socks whose diffs I have included; I assume that all the blocked sockpuppets don't need to be notified, but please let me know if I'm wrong about this. --bonadea contributions talk 20:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Superman blocked. I found no further sleepers. Sure, this is bannable, though they are de facto banned already. Don't worry about notifiying; I think you've done your part. Drmies (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was a little concerned about the fact that I've been reverting their edits on List of records of India a lot, and didn't want to seem as if I was violating 3RR when they weren't formally banned. (Looks like they have caught on to that, too. I'll leave well enough alone, there.) --bonadea contributions talk 07:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So long as you mark your reverts as reverting what are clearly this editor's edits, you're ok under WP:3RRNO. Use an edit summary like "rv User:Nsmutte sock" and it's pretty clear what you're doing. I don't know how others feel about it, but if a banned user tries to use AN3 to report you, I would just revert their noticeboard posting (with a similar summary) rather than respond to it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support de jure ban, although Drmies is right about it being a moot point, this user is never going to be allowed back and is ripe for an WP:LTA case. Is there anything else that admins can do to limit their disruption? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * One thing that could be done is to WP:SALT all articles previously created. Mjroots (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think some of them have been salted, but the problem is the lousy spelling of these cats. Drmies (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, almost all of the ones listed here are already salted. I was thinking more along the lines of an IP rangeblock. Of course I can't tell what the users' IPs are. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The three latest socks are, and , check the page history of List of records of India. The first two are impersonation accounts, and the only contribution sofar of Coolcool1000 has been a frivolous AN3-report against Bonadea, directly connected to the article I linked to. Thomas.W talk 23:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. This user is being disruptive by trying to copy a well-known Wikipedian's username and by beating the dead horse after this "Y. Srihari" was declared to not be notable. This user has no intentions of anything else outside of that and will not be benefiting the encyclopedia as things stand. Ban. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Obvious spam is obvious. Since salting is problematic, perhaps an edit filter that catches the main combinations of Sreehari. Are edit filters case sensitive? Blackmane (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Not if you make them right. -- The Voidwalker  Discuss 02:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - Since it's already an RBI situation, an 'official' community ban can't hurt. Besides, other options might become useful. -- The Voidwalker  Discuss 02:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support site ban. This is a clear-cut case. Softlavender (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - this degree of disruptiveness is unacceptable. Enough is enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * From the looks of things, it looks like Nsmutte is gonna get their brand new userpage soon enough, all of the votes support the idea of banning the user. So my question is if all of the votes for this discussion are unanimous, how much longer would this go before being closed? Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 06:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Olamilay
Olamilay is repeatedly removing maintenance and speedy deletion templates from Olamilay, despite plenty of warnings at User talk:Olamilay. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist in wikipedia.
User:Galgarian spreads lies about some "global conspiracy" to just about everywhere in wikipedia. Please stop that nutcase user now.176.93.68.182 (talk) 10:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Rename "La Sallian educational institutions"
Summary: please swap "Lasallian educational institutions" with "La Sallian educational institutions", so that the article, as it always was until recently, reverts to "Lasallian educational institutions", with the other name a #REDIRECT, or deleted.

Detail: The long-standing article "Lasallian educational institutions" was recently moved to "La Sallian educational institutions" because "more appropriate spacing and capitalization for title". This move is actually wrong, and is WP:OR; a quick glance at any of the Lasallian Web site shows that it the term is always "Lasallian", never either "La Sallian" or, as had also got into the article, "LaSallian". I find I can't move it back, as the Move page for "Lasallian educational institutions", now a redirect, does not allow a new name to be entered. I would have:
 * temporarily moved "Lasallian educational institutions" to "Lasallian educational institutionsX",
 * then moved "La Sallian educational institutions" to ""Lasallian educational institutions",
 * and finally "Lasallian educational institutionsX" to "La Sallian educational institutions" (though this last redirect is not needed as it's never used, and could be deleted).

This should be uncontroversial: there is a discussion in the article's Talk where there is unanimous consensus that the move should be made [i.e. mine is the only opinion expressed :-) ]. Consequently, could I please ask that the names of "Lasallian educational institutions" and "La Sallian educational institutions" be swapped, so that the actual article is "Lasallian"? Thanks.

(I'd generally expect to do this sort of thing myself; if I could have done it I'd be grateful for information on how to do it without wasting others' time. I was unable to move the article to any name.) Pol098 (talk) 11:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm new to this, but I think I made the change you wanted. Let me know if I screwed up. Willondon (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thanks. Pol098 (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

They are coming to get me, apparently
Anyone know which particular group of numpties this is likely to be? . I am assuming it's the same as, which I suppose means GamerGate or some such, but it's all so incoherent I don't really know (also ping who may know something). Guy (Help!) 13:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * There's some minor chatter about your editing on Orpheus (band), but that's all I can find. Most of the obvious doxxing has gone underground in the places I usually check.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 13:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Bizarre. All they need to do is present better sources, instead they seem to be determined to have a lovingly crafted advertisement. Fans of minor bands behave oddly on Wikipedia I suppose, they always have. Guy (Help!) 13:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Block evasion by Akash3141
has been indef blocked:

Akash3141 self identifies as :

Akash3141 continues to edit:

Can we get an IP block? Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No
 * Did I do anything wrong with my edits?--2.220.128.78 (talk) 12:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes. By editing as an IP (which as Akash3141, you have confirmed is the same person as you), you are evading your indef block which is not allowed. See WP:EVADE and WP:BMB.  86.153.133.193 (talk) 13:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh shit okay.. I thought that only my user account was blocked. But oh well, I guess it's goodbye then :'( .. It looks like the UT page has been reduced to even more crap than it was when I started especially since the whole character section has been removed and someone even got applauded by media for it.. The only things it looks like was added to UT after all my edits was what Tom Fordy said about him and that he's one of the finest performers. What a shame. Maybe you guys should read other wrestlers' wikis and how they actually make the wrestlers sound like a big deal. What a shame that UT, arguably the greatest professional wrestler has a crap as f*** wikipedia page. Where backstage fights and trivial information is allowed to be on one wrestlers' page, prominent leadership roles and world records aren't allowed to be mentioned on anothers'. There's no flow, no rules. Only rule is that the UT page shouldn't make him sound good but every other wrestler's should. Anyway, i'm done. --2.220.128.78 (talk) 13:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * IP address blocked. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Block evasion by Akash3141
has been indef blocked:

Akash3141 self identifies as :

Akash3141 continues to edit:

Can we get an IP block? Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No
 * Did I do anything wrong with my edits?--2.220.128.78 (talk) 12:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes. By editing as an IP (which as Akash3141, you have confirmed is the same person as you), you are evading your indef block which is not allowed. See WP:EVADE and WP:BMB.  86.153.133.193 (talk) 13:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh shit okay.. I thought that only my user account was blocked. But oh well, I guess it's goodbye then :'( .. It looks like the UT page has been reduced to even more crap than it was when I started especially since the whole character section has been removed and someone even got applauded by media for it.. The only things it looks like was added to UT after all my edits was what Tom Fordy said about him and that he's one of the finest performers. What a shame. Maybe you guys should read other wrestlers' wikis and how they actually make the wrestlers sound like a big deal. What a shame that UT, arguably the greatest professional wrestler has a crap as f*** wikipedia page. Where backstage fights and trivial information is allowed to be on one wrestlers' page, prominent leadership roles and world records aren't allowed to be mentioned on anothers'. There's no flow, no rules. Only rule is that the UT page shouldn't make him sound good but every other wrestler's should. Anyway, i'm done. --2.220.128.78 (talk) 13:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * IP address blocked. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Nezi1111 - Disruptive editing, edit warring, and personal attacks
Today Nezi1111 just got off a two week block by for edit warring (3rd such block). User immediately blanks user talk page, reinstates repeatedly-undone edit on the lead sentence of (today's edit compared to past ones , , , , , , , , , ) which constitutes long-term edit warring, and then makes unfounded accusations of socking against.

This user is disruptive and appears to be NOTHERE. Proposing indef block.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 14:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Continues edit warring while making sock accusation again and reinstated sock accusation on talk page .  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 14:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Racism for general poor behavior including starting the section with "Do not change definition. This is wikipedia, not a Huffpost/FoxNews blogpost. thank you."  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 15:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I didn't blanck. I rewrote definition so it will be more in line with source given, Oxford dictionary.Nezi1111 (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment. I don't understand the aggressiveness of your attack on me. Instead of looking in the reason why i suspect User:Steroid Maximus. I suspect it of the limited edit user:Steroid Maximus made in the last year. Literally 3 in 2015 and said edits were insignificant. Users appearance and subsequent disappearance after tipping the argument scale to which user:Maunus responded immediately is timely in a hotly contested concusses argument don't you think? Nezi1111 (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment I voiced my suspicion of a WP:Sock violation. My suspicion is that User:Steroid Maximus is a sock puppet account and has been used to tip the balance of a consensus argument. My comment on the talk page was reverted without my approval by User talk:EvergreenFir. Also, I have not be contacted by Evergreen to discuss my suspicion, instead I was instantly reported. Nezi1111 (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You accused User:Maunus of sockpuppetry. Did you contact him first to ask about it? That combined with your edits seems enough for an ANI report. And you are clearly edit-warring. I have just reverted you. Doug Weller  talk 14:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I accused User:Steroid Maximus of being a WP:Sock. I SUSPECTED User:Maunus being the hand in the socket, User:Maunus being the most aggressive advocate to redefine the word itself. Hence why i wrote possibly. Nezi1111 (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * i contacted him on the talk page. he hasn't gotten back to me yet. Also, you haven't contacted me either about your views on the issue. you simply reported me. Nezi1111 (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see you commenting on that user's talk page and the only mention of socking was today. You didn't contact them, you accused them without evidence.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 15:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * i commented on the talk page the debate is taking place, the Racism Talk page. I also linked his username, so he'll definitely get a notification. Also, i didn't see you commenting on my talk or racism talk page before reporting me either. Nezi1111 (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Continuation of disruptive behavior within 24 hours of block release is usually grounds for immediate re-block. I chose ANI instead given your personal attacks. You had been given final warnings multiple times. There was no need to issue another.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 15:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Commment I would like to add that the edit war on said issue, the definition of racism has been going on since before i got involved. Also, user maunus, whom i initially suspected behind the sockpupet account had been warned by multiple other users NOT TO CHANGE the definition. I would like to point you to multiple Sections the the Racism talk page that ask either not to change the definition or not to use it as an activism page(if i recall correctly).Nezi1111 (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Which "multiple other"?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 14:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * multiple. mostly indirectly, by asking editors, i even read the term SWJs, not to change the definition of racism. I can see multiple instances on talk page which this has been asked of editors, not knowing the crusade to redefine racism has been led by one or 2 very aggressive individuals, who have been edit warring over the definition since 2015 at least( I didn't bother to look further back). I also asked mainly user:maunus not to misuse the source used to reference the definition, of of course. Nezi1111 (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please point to the requests... also you're using WP:BATTLEGROUND language...  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 15:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Gladly. I don't even have to go in the archives. The following Talk:Racism sections ask users not to change definition:


 * 1) .Practice vs. belief?
 * 2) .Editor Bias
 * 3) .Improper Definition

these means at least 3 user over a period of time against changing the definition. Nezi1111 (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment Reporting User:EvergreenFir is misusing source material to support his/her own agenda wich is in violation of WP:NPOV. Source given for definition says nothing about racism consisting of ideologies and practices that seek to justify or cause the unequal distribution of privileges or rights Nezi1111 (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I was going to respond to Nezi1111 about how he should provide diffs when making accusations, about WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, and so on, but then he reverted again while citing WP:BRD as if it was "BDR" or "BRRD," even though it should be pretty clear that he needs to just back away from the article. Indef blocked for disruptive editing. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Question regarding redacting multiple edits
In the past day or two there are a number of new accounts and IP editors that have been adding content to the page Dr. Luke calling him a rapist due to claims made by the singer Ke$ha. While the claims are strong, he has not been convicted or charged with any crime as of yet. My concern is that having edits calling him a rapist is a direct violation of our WP:BLP policy, and may fit the definition of RevDel due to the addition of offensive or possibly libelous content. Can an admin have a look, and redact these edits if needed please? If I'm reaching with this, let me know as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Clear BLP violations, so I have rev-deleted them and semi-protected the article. I'll watchlist it and will act further if it continues after the protection expires. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that! RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Yo Gotti
This IP user continuously changes the infobox picture of Yo Gotti without any reason. The previous one is the cropped and the better version of the current picture. I gave the IP a warning but they ignored it and revert my edit. --Eurofan88 (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Isaiah Richardson Jr.
Please see Isaiah Richardson Jr.. --109.144.170.232 (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Restored article text and added to my watchlist.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 00:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Random Blanking of Pages (SPI Needed!)
On articles such as Wikivoyage, Wikinews, Wikibooks, etc. The following accounts (and possibly more) have been blanking these types of articles at random: Note that they are all most likley the same user:

*UPDATE: The majority of these accounts are already blocked, but an SPI could confirm any sleepers via Checkuser, etc. Exempted (talk) 06:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

If an admin could take a look into this (and possibly create an SPI) that would be great! Thanks! Exempted (talk) 06:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Mathews Plamoottil appears to be unrelated to the rest. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, thanks for the correction. Exempted (talk) 06:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Racist hate speech at 2016 Ankara bombing
Would you please take a quick look at 2016 Ankara bombing and hide this edit summary consisting of racist hate speech. I expect the article to be very likely the target of further IP attacks, so some sort of protection might be a good idea. Thanks, --PanchoS (talk) 12:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Edit summary hidden...as for the protection, let's wait how it develops. Far from all IP edits are unconstructive. Lectonar (talk) 12:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick response. You're right in that there is both, but from my experience this is only a matter of time for this particular kind of topic, so we'd better keep the incident open for followups. --PanchoS (talk) 12:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hoax on Navay-E Asatid
Navay-E Asatid is currently edited by some IP-users inserting incorrect information regarding the artists name. It's the Javad Ramezani-crowd again. Regards Knud Winckelmann (talk) 12:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Citation spamming
has added a number of new citations referencing tickets4pk.com and cricketticketexchange.com, and in some cases replaced existing citations. This seems to meet the definition of citation spam. I'm familiar with our WP:ELNO and WP:LINKSPAM policies, but not so much with citation spamming (for which there appears to be no specific warning template), so it would be helpful if an admin could assess whether the user's actions are legitimate. It appears the user has received a previous warning for using Wikipedia for advertising. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> IgnorantArmies  (talk)  09:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree, I gave them a level 1 link spamming warning, but it seems they've been adding these links quite a few times. Needless to say, none of these sources are reliable sources. I think it's a new user who needs help rather than a deliberate spammer though. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The user's name gives off a strong impression that they might be related to the company, given the PK at the end of their name and the PK at the end of the business name Tickets4PK. I also note that the two ticket selling websites are identical and have their business in the same location, meaning that this is likely someone who was hired to add these links to Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've given them a more in-depth explanation and a more stern warning about spamming, as well as the template warning about COI. They've been warned that if they try to add these sites again, they run the risk of getting permanently blocked and the site ending up on the blacklist. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * They're spamlinks, and he's not the only one who has been adding them. I've removed all links to both of those sites, both for being refspam (replacing existing refs with links to sites like these is blatant refspamming) and for not being reliable sources, since blog posts on those sites (i.e. links to blog.* on those sites) were used as "references" on a couple of articles. Thomas.W talk 10:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks like they've removed everyone's warnings. I was thinking they were just a new editor who didn't understand relible sources, but makes me think less so.
 * Although PK=Pakistan, so I don't see how that immediately implies a COI. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * He's not a good-faith editor, but has been warned multiple times for spamming and using Wikipedia for promotion. This is what his talk page looked like just two days ago, before he removed the warnings, showing that he's been doing it since 2009. It's also probable that he's been using other accounts between 2010 and reactivating this account a couple of days ago. Thomas.W talk 11:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In fairness to SalmanSaleemPK, it should be noted that he reverted the removal of the warnings on his talk page just three minutes after he removed them (though, from the time stamps, probably while you were compiling your post). 86.153.133.193 (talk) 13:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I don't really understand what we're doing here. User talk:IgnorantArmies, thank you for your report: this is clearly a spam-only outfit, and should have been blocked as seen as we caught wind of them. Now that they've been warned, of course, it's poor manners to block them, so I suppose we'll have to wait for the next addition of a spam link. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Though it probably needs a formal consensus evaluation, there's nothing stopping us from using the Spam blacklist tool to fix this. Hasteur (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's spamming, but IMHO not yet on a level that merits blacklisting of the sites he adds links for. Thomas.W talk 17:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed - blacklisting is a blunt tool used as a last resort for persistent abuse. If the user resumes the disruptive spamming and link hijacking, blocks should be tried first. I have initiated a report of the urls at WT:WPSPAM in case blacklisting is eventually necessary. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Question: can anyone suggest a possible valid use of these links on Wikipedia ?  DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * no, they should be blacklisted. We have enough to do without cleaning up after spammers who spam links into WP that we would never use as sources. If this was a link to a reliable source of course it would be foolish to blacklist but not in this case.  But here there is nothing to debate - so  Next! Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Having a valid use or not has generally not been an acceptable reason in itself to blacklist in the past. Per the guidance at WP:BLACKLIST, blacklisting should be a final resort after repeated abuse and where blocks have previously failed to stop the disruption. The only exception listed at WP:EL for blacklisting sooner would be if the site served-up malware. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, a valid use is the blacklist :-) Guy (Help!) 15:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree, they aren't spammed enough for the blacklist. Blacklisting is a better solution than playing whack-a-mole here. Guy (Help!) 15:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Also agree that they're not here to contribute, as he's been spamming since 2009. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The fake citation access dates are a giveaway that this user is spamming and should have been blocked on sight. MER-C 02:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with MER-C. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

User:NMMGG. Persistent refusal to stop suggesting my editing at Ezra Nawi has personal motives.
At Ezra Nawi, I thought on a WP:BLP article, it was obligatory to get the precise nature of the conviction clear as given in reports of Israeli court records which judged the relationship ‘consensual’. Every attempt to explain this necessity has been met by personal innuendoes as to my putative motivations. In repeating these innuendoes User:Bad Dryer was indeffed (see here).

The author of the innuendo, User:No More Mr Nice Guy persists in alluding to this, and suggests I am embarrassed by what I have written, embarrassed to the point of backpedalling, and too embarrassed to report him. The record is:
 * (1) Did you get that from NAMBLA promotional material?
 * (2) Considering you repeatedly tried to justify a 45 year old having sex with a 15 year old, NAMBLA does indeed come to mind. 20:35, 29 January 2016
 * (3) That's not what you said on the Ezra Nawi talk page, but kudos for feeling embarrassed enough to try to backpedal 21:31, 31 January 2016‎
 * (4)Duly registered, meaning you won't report it because you're too embarrassed that what you said will get a wider audience.

"WP:NPA Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. . . Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks."
 * These insinuations, fishing expeditions, challenges, and suggestions that on the topic of statutory rape I am 'embarrassed' or 'backtracking' and 'justify' it are as repetitive as those made by Bad Dryer. The editor some years ago tried to put it over I was an anti-Semite, and the case led to his banning from WP:AE. In both cases, the behavior is the same, language crafted to provoke some personal exchange by insinuating I have some dubious personal fixations. Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is the statement I was responding to. The discussion is about a minor who was the the cause of a statutory rape conviction against the topic of the article. I think the statement speaks for itself. I will only note that there's not a single source that makes this argument (unsurprisingly) or that puts the word "victim" in quotes (again, unsurprisingly).
 * As for the AE case, if someone wants to look into how a single admin closed an harassment case within 24 hours based on an assumption of bad faith, I would welcome that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * NMMGG's diff shows Nishidani adding a comment, but let's start from the beginning of that section, namely the first post at Talk:Ezra Nawi. That post shows this diff of NMMNG editing the article to insert "statutory rape" at the beginning of a list of reasons for the BLP subject being convicted. Problem: the source does not mention "rape", statutory or otherwise. The source (nytimes.com) uses Nishidani's text that NMMNG replaced with rape in primary position. Johnuniq (talk) 07:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * NMMGG construed (a) as personal advocacy (b)and said I repeatedly asserted this (putative)personal advocacy when I was, on the talk page, justifying an edit by citing what the sources stated (not my views). He then furthered suggested my position was identical to that of NAMBLA, an organization I'd never heard of.
 * The text he cites for my views is a patchwork of paraphrases and quotations.
 * "'Victim' in quotes is required because the ostensible victim of his statutory rape refused to testify against him. The complaint was brought by the boy's parents, not him. And it was consensual, as his minimal sentence indicated. A victim is 'person who has been attacked, injured, robbed, or killed by someone else. : a person who is cheated or fooled by someone else. : someone or something that is harmed by an unpleasant event (such as an illness or accident)', which, from the sources does not appear to be how the Palestinian saw this. In five years he never laid a complaint."
 * I let this pass, but leaving it go, has only lead to a follow-up train of nudging insinuations about what he fantasies to be my personal views. I can't see how this is not talking about the editor, rather than focusing on the content, as is required under WP:NPA. I am not calling for a ban. I am asking the board to get him to drop his puerile attempt to be a psychologist, which is proving disruptive to editing that page.Nishidani (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A. Those are indeed your views. Not a single source says the minor was not a victim or puts quotes around the word "victim", not to mention argues about the dictionary definition of "victim". B. Anyone following the diffs above can clearly see that every single time I was responding to you bringing the subject up. All you have to do is drop it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Not a single source says the minor was not a victim'. Put that another way: 'What sources state that the minor was a victim'? as opposed to the sources that mention the case and do not use the word 'victim'?Nishidani (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You can't have consensual sex with a minor, so regardless if it was "consensual" and the victim allowed it, and there was not enough evidence in the court of law to convict, just because the victim didn't testify doesn't mean there was no victim. What is the age of consent? Victims often times don't testify because they are scared or because they don't want to relive the rape. That doesn't mean that there was no victim. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 18:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not the point. It is obvious Nawi broke the law and deserved a prison sentence of at least 6 months (unlike the 30 IDF soldiers who had 'consensual' sex with a 12-13 year old Israeli girl for 2 years, and got 3-6 weeks camp detention. They got off lightly, being neither homosexual or human rights activists.)
 * NMMGG said I repeatedly tried to justify a 45 year old (sic=37-8 year old) having sex with a 15 year old.All we have is a link to my summary of sources. He is obliged to document where I (suppoadly) repeatedly did this. If he can prove his claim is validated by several remarks I made, fine. If he can't then he has been engaged with a decidedly serious piece of calumny, which he repeated above, in the face of my objections ('Those are indeed your views.').Nishidani (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That could be because you still say you should put victim in quotes. Just because the kid didn't testify doesn't make him not a victim. That is all I'm saying. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 20:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh good grief. I made an argument for that proposition. When the consensus said no, I didn't engage in a revert war or persist ('still'). I think the word 'victim' contradicts the word 'consensual', since it implies 'violence'. But, nota bene, I did not erase it, or substitute it with another term. It was a WP:BLP fine line call. Everyone in this area should know I am extremely finicky about niceties of usage. If, we have only Nawi's word for it, the 15 year old persisted in phoning him and wanting to stay at his home, then that doesn't fit the normal sense of 'victim'. Massie for one says there was 'no real victim'. John Costello and Dearbhail McDonald instead say the minor was a victim. You have a split in opinion in the sources, and when that occurs one has a simple choice, battle over 'victim' to keep or excise it according to a POV, or, as I did retain 'victim' in inverted commas, to signal the controversy. It's as simple as that, so simple NMMGG, convinced he has some specialist insight into my personal outlook, thinks he can smear me as pushing some NAMBLA agenda, when I am simply trying to edit a difficult article according to commonsense. Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Bad Dryer was blocked indefinitely by, and the block upheld by both and , for insinuating that Nishidani's BLP concerns at Ezra Nawi are motivated by some kind of paedophilic tendency.

maintains the blocks result from Wikipedia's "shameful" bias against "pro-Israeli" editors, and agrees. Despite this, NMMNG has themselves, at talk:Ezra Nawi, three times repeated the gross and insulting ad hominem that insinuates 's somehow pro-NAMBLA editing. NMMNG also defended Bad Dryer's insinuations before that user was indeff'd - which isn't surprising since they've repeated this themselves.

If NMMNG can't accept how disruptive it is to approach this topic while accusing other editors of some kind of paedophilia, they should not be editing here. -Darouet (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I am coming here in response to the ping. In my opinion trying to gain advantage of a content dispute by accusing someone of child abuse is about the most egregious violation of WP:NPA that I can think of off the topic of my head. This includes hinting at it and slyly(or not so slyly) insinuating it. It was an easy decision to decline that unblock request.


 * I find it difficult to imagine a context where this would be appropriate, however as I have not looked into the context I will leave it for others to decide. <b style="color:DarkRed">HighInBC</b> 00:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Pointing out that an editor is using similar tactics and justifications as groups like NAMBLA is not a violation of NPA when someone is using scare quotes around 'victim' in order to whitewash someones criminal acts. That last diff you posted was in response to this comment - "'Victim' in quotes is required because the ostensible victim of his statutory rape refused to testify against him. The complaint was brought by the boy's parents, not him." - that is straight out of a rape-apologists arsenal and a very common justification for abuse of minors. From a child-protection point of view I will straight away suspect someone who uses that reasoning. It effectively boils down to 'they wanted it'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A good example of what happens when persistent loose insinuations by one established editor feed in to our work, and set up a whispering campaign. Now I am accused of 'whitewashing' a criminal act for using an orthographic device to bring people's attention to an issue requiring discussion.Nishidani (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Scare quotes'?!! Oh dear me, look I'm a philologist. One of the primary functions of inverted commas is 'to mark off a word or phrase that is being discussed' My edit suggestion was accompanied by opening a discussion on the talk page, for which I was insulted. Has the precise instruction on grammatical and verbal niceties been wholly lost in the past decades? It looks like it, and one of the consequences is that, not reading closely, editors tend to read into innocent words or devices all sorts of weird psychological conjectures, as here.Nishidani (talk) 08:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In an isolated environment you would probably be correct. When you follow it up with arguments that seek to deny victimhood and excuse rape of a minor, I am more skeptical of the motives involved. "They didnt make the complaint" is not an argument you want to be making when talking about rape victims. Oh and "Its a philogical matter" is also equally suspect. When you fall back on grammatical technicalities in order to advance an argument, it generally indicates the actual position has very little weight. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Fall back' (i.e. NMMGG's 'backpedal').In a WP:BLP article. I used no arguments to excuse the rape of a minor, and I would ask you to retract that. I cited sources that state the minor, throughout the case, was 'reluctant' to testify against the man with whom he had a 'consensual' relationship. Nawi himself admitted immediately he was guilty, apparently, so it would be absurd for someone like me to deny what sources confirm. You, like NMMGG, are attributing to me positions in the source literature which I cite, which is slipshod reading and, worse still, damaging. You are not helping clarify this issue by making frivolous and offensive quips that pretend to 'read' into my remarks some private bias in favour of abuses of this kind.Nishidani (talk) 09:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want to maintain to make arguments that because a minor didnt make the complaint and was reluctant to testify it means their victimhood is in "discussion", feel free. You will however be judged accordingly. You have a preferred content version, you have made arguments as to why it should be that version, if it wasnt your opinion you are either playing a devil's advocate or you are misusing sources to push a POV. Since none of the sources deny he was a victim of a crime, using sources that indicate he was unwilling to testify to imply he wasnt a victim is OR. Either way muttering about orthographic devices just makes you look like you are making excuses to distance yourself from your previous remarks. I suggest if you dont want to be seen to be a rape apologist, stop making arguments rape apologists make. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 'stop making arguments rape apologists make.' That makes you at least the fourth person to take up the slur introduced by NMMGG, and further evidence as to why he should retract an insinuation that questions my integrity. Nishidani (talk) 10:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps you should listen. Generally if multiple people have an issue with you, the problem is not always with them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I knew this kind of mudslinging against Nishidani would occur. This is why I suggested that these things be not treated with a sledgehammer. This is a delicate matter, and discussion should be focused on content, which was mostly what was happening on the talk page. In such an issue, it is hard to separate out personal feelings from the issue, some of which happened.

I have opened a block review of on WP:AN as well. In my opinion, the block was unfair and harsh and only serves the drama god.

In contrast, in this discussion, has stated multiple times that Nishidani is a "rape apologist", or is simply mouthing arguments that "rape apologists" make, and cast aspersions on Nishidani's motives. This is much more of an NPA that Bad Dryer has engaged in. And more importantly, it only inflames the issue. Only in death is free to think whatever they like of Nishidani, but commenting at ANI does not give one a license to engage in serious personal attacks with abandon. There are many people I don't like here, and there are others who don't like me.

should be warned (at the very least) about personalizing disputes with. This kind of thing has been going on for a long time. It is well known that NMMNG does not like Nishidani (some of the background has been given by Nishidani above), but there is no reason to be needlessly inflammatory, especially in a delicate matter like this. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 11:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "NMMNG does not like Nishidani." It would be interesting to see whether NMMNG could provide the name of a single ARBPIA "political opponent" whom he doesn't treat contemptuously.  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  23:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Nishidani is making the exact same arguments people who try to excuse sex with minors make. If he doesnt want to face accusations that he may be editing from a sympathetic viewpoint he shouldnt make the same sympathetic arguments. NAMBLA always bring up the victims lack of 'victimhood' in this situation because the argument *only* serves their agenda in attempting to push the viewpoint sex with minors is permissable. Just because Nishidani supposedly has more integrity, does not excuse him when he makes the same sympathetic arguments. Like I said, dont want to be accused of being sympathetic to a point of view? Dont make shitty arguments that proponents of that POV make. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you heard of the term "guilt by association"? You can address the argument without associating people with organizations they have never heard of, who happen to make the argument for their own reasons. If I oppose smoking due to cigarettes causing cancer, are you going to associate me with Nazis because they were among the first to make the argument? Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 13:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Guilt by association is not the same as sharing a sympathetic viewpoint. If you started editing articles in a manner that suggested Jews were not victims because of <insert Nazi argument> I would expect you to be called out as being sympathetic to the Nazis. Nishidani made edits that advanced the viewpoint the minor was not a victim and used NAMBLA arguments. If they didnt expect to get grief over that they are either unaware of what NAMBLA advocates (in which case they shouldnt be touching content that involves sex with minors) or they are just incredible naive. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * For the third time you have asserted:' Nishidani made edits that advanced the viewpoint the minor was not a victim and used NAMBLA arguments.' Retract it.Nishidani (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I tell you what, I won't say you are using NAMBLA arguments and in return you stop trying to justify a minor wasn't a victim because he didn't complain about it, deal? Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * After being warned multiple times by multiple people, refuses to comply. Admin action is needed, this is WP:ANI after all. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 05:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think it's clear that both and  need to stop their aspersions, comparisons, and personal attacks immediately (including here and on that article and talk page and anywhere else on Wikipedia), or face immediate blocks, topic bans, or IBans. Softlavender (talk) 13:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC); edited 13:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am still asking for a reply from NMMGG to a legitimate query. He said:
 * Not a single source says the minor was not a victim. No More Mr Nice Guy 18:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * He was implying that many sources used in the article state the minor was a victim, and that I was evidently in flagrant defiance of that source consensus.
 * I therefore requested him to clarify:
 * 'Not a single source says the minor was not a victim'. Put that another way: 'What sources state that the minor was a victim'? as opposed to the sources that mention the case and do not use the word 'victim'? Nishidani 20:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Apart from clearing my record of an ugly insinuation that has gathered some converts to the calumny, the point is that whatever language goes into a text must reflect the balance of sources.
 * So NMMGG. Please address this query, and possibly explain why, in a compromise edit when I reintroduced the word victim without inverted commas, your next edit erased it.Nishidani (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This is why people are questions things. A minor can't be not a victim. There's no such thing as consensual sex under the age of consent. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 16:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Are people expected to believe that the likes of NMMNG and the person who operates the Bad Dryer account or the kind of right wing Israel supporters who are attracted to Wikipedia, editors with long histories of advocacy and patently biased editing, are showing concern for the well being of a Palestinian child, their treatment in the real world and here on Wikipedia? I hope not because that notion is absurd as anyone familiar with these editors should know by now. None of this drama would have happened if Nawi had been an Israeli soldier and shot and killed the boy. What we have here is faux concern for the way Wikipedia treats a Palestinian child used as cover for the cynical exploitation of an opportunity to target a BLP of a perceived enemy of the State of Israel and harass Nishidani in a vindictive and cowardly way, all done behind masks of anonymity. Genuine issues with the content will not get sorted out in a drama-free way by collaborating with people whose priority is to advocate for the State of Israel in a BLP about an anti-settlement activist. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's right. Only Palestinians should be allowed to edit Wikipedia. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 17:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well I am not right wing, or an Israel supporter and have no history of advocacy (or even editing in any meaningful way in the IP area), so I guess I'm exhibiting faux concern too? I assure you if Nawi had shot and killed a boy and editors started scare quoting 'Victim' in Nawi's biography we would be having a very similar conversation about their motives. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know you or your editing so there is no reason to think you are exhibiting faux concern. Maybe you can help improve the article since your priority is not to advocate for the State of Israel in a BLP about an anti-settlement activist. If Nawi had been an IDF soldier and shot the boy there would be no biography. But if there were, it would be nominated for deletion by an editor whose priority is to advocate for the State of Israel. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I hope I'm not the only one who appreciates the irony of Sean's statement above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This is drifting. Stay focused, and kindly reply to my request above. Chat just buries a serious issue.Nishidani (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Which request? For sources that call the minor a victim? Here you go: victim, victim, Nawi's friend Norris calling him a victim, and a Norris supporter calling him a victim. That took one google search to find, and some of those are already in the article.
 * The reason I thought you were discussing your opinion rather than that of sources in this edit is because of the fact the only source you reference is a dictionary, your use of "ostensible victim", and your claim that it doesn't "appear" the minor saw himself as a victim, when no source whatsoever brings any kind of statement from the minor, only the fact he didn't testify. Rape victims often don't want to testify. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's replying to something I did not ask. You wrote:Not a single source says the minor was not a victim.
 * You can't see the equivocation in your sentence. This place is the despair of grammarians or precisians. You sentence implies:'every source says the minor was a victim', which is obviously untrue.3 small circulation Irish sources (in a country whose press never breathed a word for several decades of their own dirty linen, the widespread abuse of children by priests and Christian brothers) and one by an Irish correspondent for the English tabloid The Daily Mail, limited to the period of one week in 2011 when the aim was to shipwreck Norris's bid for the Presidency of Ireland use 'victim'. The numerous English-language Israeli sources for Nawi we use do not adopt 'victim' as the default term. They say:'statutory rape of a 15-year-old boy/minor'. Sources say the Israeli court found the relationship 'consensual', correct or not, and I stand by my point that, however morally contemptuous sex by an older man with a 15 year old may be, using from a short list of sources the word victim, when the indication so far is that it was consensual, is improper.  You of course never explained why, when I reintroduced, after talk page discussion, the word 'victim', you immediately elided it from the lead.


 * It is true that Palestinian minors sexually abused or sodomised by Israeli soldiers while the latter hold them in detention are reluctant to denounce the fact for fear of retribution. In 1990 the boys' parents had no qualms about reporting it to Israeli courts, but the boy wouldn't apparently testify against him. When S.Hoyland talked of editors' nationalism, I presume he means that when an Israeli civil rights activist has a dark mark in his distant past, it is played up by many editors with a nationalist POV agenda for all its worth as they express outrage. But when the same kind of abuse (mass rape of a minor) is reported in army bases, of eminent diplomats, the same editors keep mum: it is not for our Wikipedia. They don't rush to edit in the scandal, as they do if the issue touches an activist for Palestinian rights, even if it occurred 25 years ago, and, since then thousands of Palestinians have trusted him not to molest their children as he takes them on those summer camps which the Israeli army would otherwise forbid them to enjoy. Unlike Sean, I think it both inevitable and not necessarily all bad, that many editors will defend their own countries' image and interests, and don't object if they have sharp eyes and high standards for sources and texts. I object when their concern spills over into patent smears, niggling, jabbing away, trying to play on the nerves (pointless at my age, when most of them are dead) which is the case here.Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'm required to engage with that long SOAPBOX. You asked for sources. I provided them. I explained why I said what I said. At least one person who has no connection to the IP topic has also said he found your comments, shall we say, outside the mainstream, so all these attempts to claim there's some kind of nationalistic background for this fall flat. If any uninvolved editor has any questions for me, please ping me. Otherwise I'm done here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay you refuse to listen. All I am asking for is that NMMGG be asked to strike out or retract the personal insinuations he invented from his fantasy about my ostensible ulterior motives. The adoption of the calumny he started led to one indeff, because the person kept repeating it until well past the brink. Two other editors here have taken it up. He is responsible for this crap, and he should shut up and focus, and do useful editing, like finding this source which I found to be deadlinked. It's worth reading. The man who wrote it lost his bid for the Presidency of Ireland, just for expressing an informed clemency for Nawi. That smear was big time, and NMMGG's is peanuts. But I have to work here, with him, and this means he must learn to focus on content, and not sneer with sleazy innuendos every other time we encounter each other,Nishidani (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Learn to focus on content, and not sneer with sleazy innuendos" like the time you told a group of editors that we lack "capacity for pity and horror" that is not "ethnic-exclusive"? That's a fine thing for one editor to say to another. Not sleazy at all. Would you like to elaborate on what ethnicity you were referring to, before you take the beam out of your own eye? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Content issues are not usually discussed on WP:ANI - the article talkpage should be used. Regardless of who is right, stop saying that Nishidani justified child abuse or use guilt by association with NAMBLA. That is the bottom line. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 05:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What's a content issue? My capacity for pity and horror that is not "ethnic exclusive"? Was that a joke? The bottom line in this case is that your concern about NPA seems to be quite selective. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We're under an obligation to edit in such a manner that both sides are duly represented. Thus, I, for one, am obliged to edit in tragic material not only re Palestinians but Israelis as attested in RS. I've done that everyday for years, i.e.,here,here,and here. It may be a defect of cursory knowledge but I only see you editing to minutely control material deleterious to Israel or editing articles re Palestinians when there is something negative to be showcased (Ezra Nawi, 2000 Ramallah lynching. You're not alone, and it reflects the fact that mainstream Israeli papers focus intensely on whatever violence affects Israelis or settlers, but generally ignore what happens to Palestinians. This exclusively negative or defensive focus in editors breaks no rule. But the pattern of refusing to consider that there are two sides to any question and accept that one must strive to see both perspectives, is obvious.
 * In the present case, you made an extraordinary set of claims about my bias.You stated:
 * Not a single source says the minor was not a victim.
 * I came forth with a disproof of this:Alex Massie in The Spectator specifically wrote:
 * "though in a technical sense a crime had been committed there was no malice involved and no real victim."
 * You asserted a claim re sources which I showed was false. What was your reaction?
 * Excise;revert out;delete;erase
 * No real argument. Just repeated removal of information that contradicted your assertion. In an empirical world, one adjusts one's ideas as new information shows them to be inexact. In a partisan mindset, one suppresses any information which contradicts one's beliefs. At least do me the courtesy of retracting your assertion that I repeatedly justify sex with minors and the insinuation I act as a proxy for an obnoxious paedophile organization. Two people who took this up have since retracted. You ran that hare and ought to do the same. There is no evidence for it. Nishidani (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I had a good laugh when you said you strive to see both perspectives, considering I caught you more than once falsifying sources to push your POV. As I said above, I'm not going to engage with your soapboxing, and you can add strawmen and self-righteous bullshit to that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That tone and misrepresentation only serves to underline my point that some admin should sum up the general community comments here, take notice of the fact that you refuse to withdraw a remark one person was indeffed for, and 2 others withdrew or dropped from repeating, and ask you to simply retract it. That done, one can get back to serious things, like editing. Nishidani (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Any admin can read the discussion that resulted in your personal attack against me here and see if what I said above is a misrepresentation. It includes two quite straightforward examples of source falsification to push a POV. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course there's a content dispute involved, but Nishidani should not be expected to have to continue participating with respect and patience when doing so means being repeatedly slandered with allegations of support for paedophilia, and a generally sneering attitude. That is the cheapest and most egregious form of ad hominem, obviously contrary to WP:NPA, and it rightfully got Bad Dryer banned. , and others have requested that you quit it,, and you refuse. Unfortunately your conduct is living up to your chosen user name. This kind of behavior is rare among regular editors but when it appears makes Wikipedia a toxic, unpleasant and unproductive place. -Darouet (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you look up where Nishidani quoted someone who wrote that there was no real victim. That is the issue, that while it was consensual, there is still a victim becasue the kid was underage, even if it was consensual. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 21:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * My attitude towards Nishidani reflects his attitude towards me. I can give dozens of examples like the personal attack I mentioned just above, which you for some reason are completely ignoring. Also nobody said he's supporting pedophilia. That's ridiculous. Pedophilia involves prepubescent children, not 15 year olds. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In fact my point is not about personal attacks, which are a dime a dozen in I/P area. I know that, you know that and Nishidani knows that. But there is a world of difference between different kinds of personal attacks. It is routine to have personal attacks accusing that someone is biased to one side, people just shrug it off. What is not acceptable is to use guilt by association with a pedophile advocacy organization and saying that X tried to justify having sex with a minor. That is a low blow. Please don't give me any stuff about pre-pubescent children. NAMBLA advocates pedophilia in general. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 05:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you think telling another editor they are incapable of human emotion towards anyone who is not of their ethnicity is an accusation of bias rather than an outright accusation of racism (with some pedigree, but never mind), then you may need to step back a little. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You seem to be digging up a single one of Nishidani's edits from 8 months ago to justify your repeated, unrepentant, ad hominem slurs against them now. And if nobody is particularly convinced by your invocation of WP:BLP to slander an Israeli anti-settlement activist, or your loud indignation on behalf of the Palestinian boy who refused to testify against him, your own tone and editing history speak for themselves. -Darouet (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify. This is an Aristotelian distinction, as I recall noting at the time, related to the intensity of affect caused by kinship bonds (and all mankind is prone to the bias). That you are still twisting this into an accusation I was being 'racist' (your gloss, 'with some pedigree' in context means 'the history of anti-Semitism) is another example of misreading and your apparently obsessive conviction about my putative ulterior motives. Your accusation in this regard was examined and dismissed. Your continual returning to this, and insinuations I am pushing an agenda of sexual license with minors, suggests to me you have a problem in editing with me, and need to be told to retract the statement, and focus on editing.Nishidani (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposal so that we can move on
This over-lengthy thread has merely devolved into content disputes and further aspersions, comparisons, and personal attacks (and self-justification thereof). I propose that now strike all of the aspersions, comparisons, and personal attacks noted by Nishidani on Talk:Ezra Nawi. And that both and  immediately desist in making any further such aspersions, comparisons, and personal attacks, either here on this thread, on any talk page, in any edit summary, or anywhere on Wikipedia. Failure to abide by both of these proposals will result in immediate blocks, topic bans, or IBans. I also propose that content discussions cease on this thread and instead, if necessary, be resumed (without the aforementioned PAs and aspersions) on Talk:Ezra Nawi. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support striking and admonishment to desist, as proposer. Softlavender (talk) 06:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, how would you respond to someone putting victim in quotes because the sex was "consensual" (even though the kid was 15)? Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 16:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. -- IjonTichy (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Updated with arguments below.


 * Oppose, this is a rather one sided proposal. It is as if Softlavendar has not read anything up above, nor anything of how Nishidani treats any of his interlocutors. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 04:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose But largely irrelevant since its unenforceable. Personally I dont edit in the IP area so topic bans are an empty threat and if *any* editor makes edits on a BLP and uses justifications like these, they will be reverted and called out for the immoral and unethical arguments they are making, regardless of who they are (BLP violations take precendence remember). Lastly attempts to muzzle comments on editing behaviour (and motives for such) doesnt work when you have policies like NPOV at work. If no one felt free to call out disgusting comments like the above (he literally says a rape victim is not a victim because they didnt complain about it, which is not only wrong, but morally objectionable) we would end up in the situation where those with less ethics skew content towards their own POV with no ability to call them out on it. So, SoftLavender's 'proposal' is rejected in its entirety. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I feel the need to point out that is continuing the PAs and aspersions  here: "immoral", "unethical", "disgusting", "he literally says a rape victim is not a victim because they didnt complain about it", "not only wrong, but morally objectionable", "those with less ethics". I'm not inviting a whole new discussion here (and I'm not going to comment further); I'm merely pointing out that the behaviors are continuing. Softlavender (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Softlavender, the problem is that I believe putting victim in quotes for a child who is 15 just because the kid says the sex is consensual is a problem. Do you not see the issue with that? That is the problem. On a side note, are you working on running for administrator in the near future? My ESP says you are. Personally, I think this thread should just close with no action on both sides. Nishidani should just realize that he should be careful with his words. Both in terms of this, and also in terms of putting people down who disagree with him, or when he tries to show how better he is with English, or when he thinks he's better at English than everyone else. At a certain point we need to move on. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 16:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Suffice to say I have zero hesitation about about pointing out objectionable arguments and attempted victim blaming. But glad we are clear where you stand on minors not being rape victims because they didnt complain. Also you might need to read WP:Aspersions again and note the part about evidence. I have provided evidence as did NMMNG as to why we take offence at their rationale for editing. That you seem to be ignoring it is your problem.
 * Actually wasting my time responding here, last time an editor made a fuss about issues related to minors on wikipedia they ended up banned by ARBCOM and the person they complained about ended up SanFranBanned(tm) by the the WMF. I will just forward any complaints to the WMF, since they at least take this stuff seriously. This place has the bad habit of not only shooting the messenger, but also his horse and then setting fire to the message. In future you can expect zero comments regarding this on-wiki. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Your efforts to slyly label another editor a pedophile-sympathizer in a content dispute is viewed by others here as a disruptive personal attack, not as a defense of minors on Wikipedia. -Darouet (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: I would like to point out that was indef blocked a week ago for making the exact kinds of comments that  is and has been making in this same case; only  made them fewer times and in less degree. I therefore see no reason why  should be indef blocked while  remains unsanctioned. Softlavender (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Softlavender's comment. In my view the behavior of both and  is highly disruptive, and both should be blocked from further editing. IjonTichy  (talk) 11:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: For reasons I already gave in the discussion above. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 15:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging since they asked to be pinged if they were being discussed. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 06:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * SNOW Support for No More Mr Nice Guy at least. Only in Death's case is a little more ambiguous, but there is nothing ambiguous about the nature of NMMNG's behaviour, the community's position with regard to that particular behaviour, nor indeed what he should have expected the likely community response to be,  Brad Dyer was indeffed immediately for making the exact same comments, by , who noted how indefensible the comments had been.  Then two more broadly respected admins  then upheld that block .  Finally, a review of the block at AN led to a unanimous decision to uphold that block. NMMNG was fully aware of how the community had decided to classify these comments--most of the diffs which Nishandi provided in their complaint above come from Brad dyer's talk page--and his decision to pick those comments up where Brad Dyer's block forced him to lay them down is WP:Disruptive in the extreme.  Indeed, this "go ahead, make my day"-style comment seems to give every indication that NMMNG is actively baiting this discord as a means of registering his dislike of Nishandi and displeasure with how the personal dispute between Nishandi and Brad Dyer unfolded.


 * I support this proposal only because it is the one that was tabled. I'd have supported an indef block without reservation if that had been put forth, as an editor who has no singificant prior experience (that I can recall) with the parties/combatants involved here; I fully expect most editors coming to this situation with similar "fresh" eyes would view these PA's in the same light. NMMNG should himself embrace this proposal with both hands and consider himself lucky that he got off so lucky for behaviour which resulted in a swift indef for another editor.  But if he instead persists in acting like he is in a defamation relay event with a blocked user, echoing the very comments that lead to the user's block, he should share that user's sanction--for the sake of equal application of our policies and the best interests of the project alike.  Honestly, I think it's hard to know what Brad Dyer thinks of all of this--whether he is happy that someone is pressing forward with his aspersions or if he gobbsmacked that someone else is getting away with saying exactly what he did, over and over.   S n o w  let's rap 21:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It wasn't unanimous, just those in bold and drive by were noted. But again, regardless, you as well, fail to read Nishidani's comments, as well as his behavior and tone when dealing with other editors. As I posted earlier, I think both editors need to take a chill pill, but Nishidani should also realize that when he posts that "there is no real victim" he should expect blowback. Do you think a 15 year old boy having sex with a man is not a victim? That is also an issue. Nobody called him a pedophile, at least to my recollection. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 21:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "It wasn't unanimous, just those in bold and drive by were noted."
 * I encourage anyone who has doubts as to my characterization to read the thread themselves. The consensus was pretty overwhelming to my eyes.
 * "But again, regardless, you as well, fail to read Nishidani's comments, as well as his behavior and tone when dealing with other editors."
 * Why do you feel comfortable assuming that I did not look into Nishandi's behaviour as well? In any event, your argument is a complete non-sequitor. If any party feels Nishandi's has  also  failed to comport themselves appropriately, then that party can present evidence to that effect and make an argument for sanctions for Nishandi as well.  But Nishandi's conduct, no matter what it consists of, does not alleviate NMMNG of a responsibility to conduct himself within community expectations with regard to our civility standards. Nor is there any question as to where the community has decided that line is in this instance; NMMNG is parroting, part and parcel, the comments which just got another party indeffed--with multiple admins and a community review validating the action.  The community has already decided, regardless of the present context, that is not acceptable behaviour.  If NMMNG wants to act as a proxy for Brad Dyer in reasserting the exact same comments, it should come as no surprise to him when the same community inevitably hands him the same sanction.  And it certainly is inevitable if he can't back down here.
 * "Nishidani should also realize that when he posts that "there is no real victim" he should expect blowback. Do you think a 15 year old boy having sex with a man is not a victim? That is also an issue."
 * Yes, that is an issue. It's a content issue. See here's the problem with the position that Brad Dyer and NMMNG have forwarded as justifying their incivility: those personal attacks are unnecessary to undermining Nishandi's position on these issues.  Point in fact they are counter-productive to that aim specifically because they shift focus toward a battle of personalities and away from the actual policies that govern content.   Nishandi putting scare-quotes around "victim" was inappropriate because the WP:WEIGHT of our sources will obviously never support that position.  Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and our own personal moral evaluations are not meant to be a platform upon which we argue here. You and I may have views on what consent consists of which are drastically different from what Nishandi has espoused--even so completely different that we find them objectionable.  But the reason he was wrong to try to implement those changes on this encyclopdia has nothing to do with our differing outlooks and everything to do with the fact that Nishandi's perspective is a fringe one that, being so far removed from modern social consensus, cannot be substantiated by sourcing which reflects those morays.  This was a perfectly solid and unassailable platform upon which to tear down Nashandi's position.  On this project, we argue the point, not the "opposition".


 * But that is not what Brad Dyer and No More Mr. Nice Guy have done. Instead they decided to launch repeated WP:ad hominem attacks at Nishandi himself, rather than his arguments. That is a violation of our WP:CIVILITY, WP:NPA and WP:AGF policies under any circumstances.  It is absolutely unacceptable when those comments take the form of the kind of implication they are leveling in this intance.  And I'm sorry, but I am utterly unmoved by your "they technically didn't call him X or Y" argument; it is beyond any doubt what they meant to imply (see line 153), and I don't feel compelled to split hairs over exactly which terms relating to violent sexual pathology they used in relation to Nishandi.  This is really simple: all of us who are not sociopaths have strong feelings about this topic area, some of us very strong feelings because we have special reason to know the human cost.  But if one cannot control their conduct in a given content area such that they keep their comments concentrated on the content and instead feel compelled to denigrate the character of others because they view the issue differently, they simply should not contribute in that area.  And if they can't show the self-control necessary to either A) keep their impressions of another editor's character to themselves or B) leave the discussion altogether, they have to accept the consequences when their behaviour becomes disruptive to the project. Especially when that behaviour takes the form of casting these kinds of allegations, no matter how certain said editor is that they reflect "reality" and not just the product of their own animosity.  S n o w  let's rap 02:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This is the first post that actually addresses the issue rather than repeating "bad words are bad", so I would like to respond to it.
 * First of all, Brad Dyer has a whole lot of extra baggage as can be seen both by the explanations for why his unblock requests were rejected and the AN thread. So that comparison doesn't work here. I also after it came to my attention he was indeffed I did not repeat what I said to Nishidani.
 * Second, the scare quotes around "victim" was not a matter of WEIGHT, it was a matter of V since Nishidani at the time did not supply a single source supporting that kind of language. So he did that as WP:OR. But that's not even what triggered my response which brought us here. The trigger for that was this. Please read it carefully. This is quite obviously Nishidani stating his opinion rather than relying on what sources explicitly say. He is using his opinion to try to convince other editors to support the scare quotes around "victim", which again, had no source. Notice he does not refer to any sources except a dictionary. He calls the minor the "ostensible victim" (again, not referring to any source that makes this claim) and he ends by saying the fact the minor did not complain and was not willing to testify makes it "appear" he doesn't see himself as a victim.
 * That is the evidence (per WP:NPA and WP:Aspersions) for why I made an accusation (it was more of a "really?! Is that the line you're taking?" before he replied with "Why yes, yes I am"). Not a single editor has addressed it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Stop it. Repeating that my use of inverted commas was an example of 'scare quotes' and not, as I stated a week back, a means of drawing attention to a word I thought problematical, is absurd. It has nothing to do with 'my personal views'.Nishidani (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * All of which are reasons why Nishandi should have (and did) lose the content dispute, but not in any sense a blank check for the disruptive and defamatory conduct you then engaged in. You are entitled to challenge Nishandi's reasoning for the purposes of the content dispute.  You are not allowed to go further to attack his character. You made repeated and loud attempts to associate his name with an organization which promotes an ideology of violent sexual exploitation of minors.  That behaviour could serve no legitimate purpose in the content discussion, except to defame, raise acrimony and needlessly personalize an issue which could only be decided on the sources and our policies alone, not the outlook and motives of editors--which is why Bad Dryer was instantly indeffed for that behaviour and why you are super lucky to have avoided that consequence thus far.


 * Furthermore, you then took those accusations to other spaces--including the talk page of another editor. When Nashandi decided to make a statement to assert his moral opposition to statutory rape, you accused him of lying to save face. That's a personal attack under any circumstances, even if you weren't implicating that another editor was possessed of the kind of reprehensible associations you were unambiguously suggesting; no matter how certain you are of your "evidence" of his "true" disposition, you can't look into his mind to know his true outlook, and speculation about it isn't relevant to any matter at hand, even if you were still in the space for a content discussion, which you weren't.  There's not even a hint of any productive purpose to this comment--you were just continuing to register your low esteem for another editor as part of a personal dispute, by way of comments which the community regards as way over the line into unacceptable territory.


 * Nor is ignorance any defense here--you had just watched Bad Dryer banned for the very same comments, so you knew at the very least that these comments were not considered appropriate by your fellow contributors (including numerous admins) who had weighed in on the matter.  You didn't just refuse to WP:Drop the stick, you picked up the stick exactly where it was left by another editor who had to be indeffed for refusal to drop that very same stick!  How to your mind can that possibly not constitute WP:disruptive behaviour at the very least?


 * Look, you seem to have suggested above that I'm the only editor here who has spoken to what you view as the core issues of the dispute. So I maybe I can avail of that position to convince you that I'm giving you my honest, best assessment as an uninvolved party when I say you don't look good here, and the situation isn't improving.   The only position you've advocated above which does make an argument that you shouldn't suffer the same consequence as Bad Dryer is that you don't have his history of sanctions. But that's not going to be enough here if you can't back down on whether those comments were appropriate. Remember, Bad Dryer wasn't indfeffed for his block history; Drmies blocked him for the comments (the same comments you are repeating now) alone. His past history only came into play when his unblock request was denied.  If the outcome of this is that you get indeffed, but then are allowed back on, is that price really worth sticking by those comments.  Why not just apologize to Nishandi for going to far.  No one expects you to pretend to like him, to approve of his editorial approach or share his perspectives.  But your fellow Wikipedians (even the ones who agree with you on the content issue) are telling you, under no uncertain terms, that you crossed a line here, and a serious one.  Don't you think it's worth re-examining your conduct in that regard before you run the risk of ending up with a block history like that which you have compared your own record against?  S n o w  let's rap 03:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have never encountered you before so have no reason to doubt you're giving me anything other than your honest opinion. Doesn't mean I have to agree.
 * I think you are mistaken about Bad Dryer and his history. I doubt Drmies would have handed such a fast indef to someone else in similar circumstances. You are also mistaken if you think I'm trying to read Nishidani's mind or whatever. I told him he made an argument that resembles those made by a certain organization. Is that a false statement? If it's not false, then there's no personal attack. Is it false? Yes or no?
 * Do editors have some kind of right to incessantly SOAPBOX and treat Wikipedia like a FORUM and not be called out on it because it might make them look bad? Do you want to see some more examples just from that one talkpage? Stuff I let slide just because I don't usually feel like getting into this ridiculous drama? But when someone suggests that in a exploitative relationship between an adult and a minor, the minor was not a victim because he consented or wouldn't testify, that just sticks in my craw. And this without even the pretense of a single source. Am I the only one here who has kids?
 * Anyway, I hope any admin who closes this is familiar with the IP topic area. They will see that other than you, Softlavender, and Only in death, every single person who commented here is knee deep in the topic area. It's not like there's an overwhelming consensus of uninvolved editors here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "I think you are mistaken about Bad Dryer and his history. I doubt Drmies would have handed such a fast indef to someone else in similar circumstances."
 * Well, we can certainly ask him; . In any event, is that really the standard you want to adopt here, to be spared a sanction on the technicality that you haven't got as disruptive a history even though you absolutely shared this disruptive act with someone who does?
 * "You are also mistaken if you think I'm trying to read Nishidani's mind or whatever. I told him he made an argument that resembles those made by a certain organization. Is that a false statement? If it's not false, then there's no personal attack. Is it false? Yes or no?"
 * Sorry, but that argument doesn't fly, and I'm not sure how many more ways I can explain this, but here goes: On this project, it doesn't matter what group his comments remind you of; that's not relevant to a content discussion in any shape, manner, or form.  Again, you are allowed to assess whether his arguments are consistent with the sources or policy.  You are not allowed to imply he has solidarity with a group of organized sex offenders as such defamatory comments have no value to the content dispute process and can only serve to inflame and disrupt discussion and the project at large. Your argument is non-sequitor; a statement doesn't have to be untrue to be disruptive.  So his comments reminded you of that group--that doesn't mean it was a WP:CIVIL or a smart thing to say, and it certainly doesn't mean that this community can't find it utterly unacceptable--which it clearly does, since another editor just received our highest sanction for saying the exact same thing.
 * "Do editors have some kind of right to incessantly SOAPBOX and treat Wikipedia like a FORUM and not be called out on it because it might make them look bad? Do you want to see some more examples just from that one talkpage?"
 * As far as I can tell, Nishandi was not soapboxing. They were making what they viewed as a legitimate content argument.  You and I may find that argument completely untenable, even absurd, but that doesn't mean Nishandi is barred from making it, so long as they try to form consensus and then abide by the decision, which it seems they have here.  Anyway, even if Nashandi acted improperly, that would be another topic for the community to consider, for which anyone can present evidence, if it comes to that.  But their actions do not alleviate you of your responsibility to follow our behavioural guidelines, certainly not with regard to the comments you made, which go too far beyond what we can set aside as a mere consequence of a mundane clash of personalities.
 * "But when someone suggests that in a exploitative relationship between an adult and a minor, the minor was not a victim because he consented or wouldn't testify, that just sticks in my craw."
 * That's fine. You're allowed to be bothered.  You're not allowed to say just whatever you want because you are bothered.  You certainly aren't allowed to call anyone names, no matter how attenuated you make that name calling by way of talk of "resemblance", the meaning of which we all obviously see. Bad Dryer used that same intermediary and he still got blocked, why do you think you should be immune to the same community sanction for the exact same device directed at the exact same editor in the exact same context?


 * Look, I understand. Believe me, sexual assault is a topic that presents me with difficulties in discussing dispassionately, and I'd be lying if I said there weren't times when my blood has boiled.  There was one occasion when, as part of a strategic attempt to dodge their attacks on another contributor, a particularly incivil editor repeatedly accused me of indifference to the topic of rape; my partner had to physically take my laptop away from me and get me into some fresh air--I was almost in tears, I was so angry. So, yeah, I get it--some of us don't ever care to hear these acts or their consequences minimized.  But I also know that Wikipedia demands something more from me than that I let my passions completely govern how I approach my fellow editors on a topic--that it's my responsibility to control my response to the presentation of ideas I don't like, because it's a critical part of our important mission to share the sum total of human knowledge that we be able to discuss and vet things at length, without resorting to personal recriminations against those we disagree with.


 * Nishandi is allowed to hold an unpopular opinion or one you and I disagree with. Nothing in our project's community consensus prohibits that in any way.   You are not allowed to associate them with criminals and sociopaths because you disagree with them about the nature of consent in this case.  You just aren't.  And again, this isn't just me talking subjectively here.  The community has already spoken by banning another editor for making these exact same comments in the exact same context.  You're not in a position to overturn that community consensus just because you feel differently about it.  The only question here is whether you will be handed the same sanction for the same act directed against the same person.  And that is going to turn in great part on whether you can show an understanding of why that act stepped outside our community's perspective on this matter.  Again, I am urging you to try to re-evaluate this situation in the light of what others are saying here. In my opinion, sometimes there are circumstances wherein nothing will show your clarity of mind on a matter like owning up to a misstep to someone whose broader perspective you deeply dislike.  S n o w  let's rap 07:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * For the last time - Brad Dyer and I have vastly different history. He was on the community's radar already. He had previous blocks. He was widely suspected as being an sock of a blocked editor. He pissed a lot of admins off. The fact I'm still editing while he got an indef 20 minutes after being reported should be enough evidence of that.
 * Nothing in our project's community consensus prohibits people from holding unpopular opinions. That's true. But it does prohibit them SOAPBOXing and using Wikipedia as a FORUM and inflicting their unpopular opinions gratuitously on other editors, and that's exactly what an editor who states an opinion without relying on reliable sources is doing. If you think people can make content related arguments without relying on a single source that makes the argument, we have a vastly different understanding of WP:OR.
 * What do you think the Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence part in NPA is about? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, if you want to predicate your assumption that you won't be given a sanction for making those comments (in the context of a discretionary sanctions topic area, no less) on the fact that your co-commentator had a more extensive history of blocks than you, then it's clear at this point that there is nothing we can say to disabuse you of that notion. Nor indeed does there seem to be good reason to try any further if your disposition is that the behaviour in question represents a civil editing mindset, since (if that is genuinely your belief), further such disruption is probably inevitable--more's the pity for everyone involved, yourself included.  S n o w  let's rap 03:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a bit unfair. All I said is that I disagree with your statement that it is inevitable that I would get a sanction because Brad Dryer got one. But I think we've reached the point where we should agree to disagree and move on. Thanks again for being the only editor to actually engage with the issues.
 * As I mentioned above, NPA explicitly allows for accusations about personal behavior if evidence is supplied, which I believe I have provided. As I also mentioned, other than yourself, Softlavender and Only in death, the other editors who commented here are all very much involved, so there doesn't seem to be a consensus of uninvolved editors supporting your position. I have thousands of edits in a very contentious topic area and have been able to maintain a clean record so far, so I think my reading of policy and guidelines is usually fairly within the community consensus here, but I am open to being told otherwise. Let's see if more uninvolved editors comment or what a closing admin might say. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support admonishment not ANI mandated striking or Support blocking I support the admonishment and moving on but I can't support the ANI mandated striking. It's almost like a forced apology. Seems more like a great effort to make it look something big has been done while nothing has been done. Would also support a block -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, given that was indef blocked a week ago for making only a couple of the exact same comments that  has made multiple times and in multiple places, it seems logical (to me personally, at least) that the only way  can or should avoid a similar block, even an indef one, is to strike all of the sorts of comments that  was indeffed for. Softlavender (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, I can't support an ANI mandated striking. It's utter and incomprehensible nonsense. Much like a forced apology. ANI is not here to appease offended editors but to end disruption. An ANI mandated striking or redaction serves only to appease offended parties. An official admonishment from the community serves an actual purpose. In the event that they fail to take this warning and do the behavior again they can be blocked, banned, or etc. We can either give leniency or not, but I disagree that we should only grant leniency here if they kiss the communities proverbial bottom when mandated to do so. This is some Mickey Mouse bullshit better suited for saturday morning cartoons.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Joe, I'm not asking to be "appeased". I have a strong record for not running to A/I or AE to whinge over a decade. I dislike it. NMMGG implied that if I didn't report him, as he implied I should, it was because I would be embarrassed. He wanted this, not I.Nishidani (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You don't have to like my choice of words. Choose another word to replace that reflects your word preference. Here is the proposal, admonish them and mandate they strike the offending comments. The admonishment serves a purpose. Mandated striking does not. I'm not for a court mandated ass kissing that serves no purpose. If you or someone on your behalf wants to collapse those comments, I think there's policy on your side to do so. If you want to seek more than admonishment, have at it. I do not support an ANI mandated striking.If you wish to push for and support an admonishment I think that's fine. If you want a mandated striking you are going to need to justify it and the above rant about Brad Dwyer is not a justification.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support temporary blocks of some kind for both and  because instead of apologizing, they have repeatedly only redoubled their insulting personal attacks against Nishidani, even after criticism and/or admonishment from, , , , , , and others. Per , I think that asking for them to strike the insults is useless, since they've had plenty of chances to recognize their behavior and apologize, and have used those chances to repeat the attacks. Attacks which, as Softlavender points out, led  to indeff . The discussion reviewing Bad Dryer's block applies equally well to this situation, and as Snow Rise writes, resulted in a near unanimous upholding of the block. -Darouet (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Kindly quote me "redoubled their insulting personal attacks against Nishidani, even after criticism and/or admonishment". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * For your part, you have not "redoubled the insults," but originally wrote the following to Nishidani: "Did you get that from NAMBLA promotional material?", and What's in the sources? That's it's not so bad for a 45 year old to have sex with a 15 year old if there's no coercion involved? That's exactly NAMBLA territory. Show me a source that puts victim in quotes", and "Considering you repeatedly tried to justify a 45 year old having sex with a 15 year old, NAMBLA does indeed come to mind". While it' true that you haven't repeated these personal insults since Nishidani filed this complaint, you've also not apologized and accepted that this was a low and insulting editing tactic. If you do acknowledge it sincerely, without in any way needing to give ground on the content dispute, I would change my opinion here.
 * Only in Death by contrast has repeatedly tried to justify the slur, e.g. "Pointing out that an editor is using similar tactics and justifications as groups like NAMBLA is not a violation of NPA... straight out of a rape-apologists arsenal and a very common justification for abuse of minors. From a child-protection point of view I will straight away suspect someone who uses that reasoning. It effectively boils down to 'they wanted it'," and "Nishidani is making the exact same arguments people who try to excuse sex with minors make. If he doesnt want to face accusations that he may be editing from a sympathetic viewpoint he shouldnt make the same sympathetic arguments. NAMBLA always bring up the victims lack of 'victimhood' in this situation because the argument *only* serves their agenda in attempting to push the viewpoint sex with minors is permissable". -Darouet (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So when you said that stuff about me, you were lying. Not for the first time in this thread I might add, I just didn't bother to point the other ones out.
 * You have not addressed any of the evidence I provided per Wikipedia policy, so any admin closing this should ignore your !vote. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * For a moment I thought you might approach something resembling contrition. My comment referenced both of you, I gave you your WP:ROPE, and see you'd rather hang on your original statements. Plus ça change. -Darouet (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose I supplied evidence per WP:NPA for why I said what I said. Not a single editor addressed it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's a recap. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Just because people have responded to it doesn't mean they have seen it. "The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you." -WP:IDHT.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I agree with Sir Joseph. It looks to me like some bad behavior and personal attacks have occurred from all sides. Rather than taking sides, an admin should warn all participants to refrain from personal attacks and should monitor the discussion henceforth to enforce the warning.Homemade Pencils (talk) 04:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * How do you go from having 105 edits adding or removing commas to making a pronouncement at AN/I? -Darouet (talk) 06:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Couldn't wait to reach the 500 edits required by WP:ARBPIA3 by adding or removing commas before getting involved in an WP:ARBPIA related issue would be my guess. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems like there was a recent block for "gaming the system" for someone who had sped thru making menial edits so that they could edit there.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, Serialjoepsycho is right. I believe it was User:HistoryWrite who was blocked for gaming the sys. I think this is the link to the discussion and the decision to block (scroll down, or up, to Case #5 on HistoryWrite). IjonTichy (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support imposing the same sanction for NMMNG and anyone else -- i.e., the same that was imposed on Bad Dryer. Giving a green light for this sort of behaviour is really not to the benefit of Wikipedia.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: What I would judge most useful is something such as a probation period during which NMMNG has to be at least as polite as the editors he is interacting with. In my experience, it is not solely Nishidani that he has a problem with, but any editor who does not share his, obviously deeply held, political beliefs. It must take either real dedication or a patholigical level of animus to be so relentlessly obnoxious. Pleasant it would be to have relief from NMMNG's stock-in-trade snide remarks and tone of contempt.  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  13:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a nice suggestion. I wonder why this is proving so hard to conclude...  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Was that an example of how to be polite? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A suggestion: substitute the word 'civil', familiar from Wikipedia policy, for 'polite'.  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  13:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Globally NMMNG's bitterness against the wp project is so deep that he will not change. In the current case, his animosity towards Nishidani and the contributors he sees to be anti-Israelis is not acceptable and he should be sanctioned with an automatic doubling each time he repeats his attacks. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * If there are reasons why sanctioning these attacks and hostility is problematic, I'm genuinely curious to read them. The absence of even one iota of remorse, recognition, or understanding by NMMNG - when an apology is the least that would be required - appears to make this case straightforward. -Darouet (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This is Pluto's 2nd !vote in this discussion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And speaking of animosity towards other contributors, check out the last paragraph of Pluto's talk page comment here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you know how this works: if you want to ask for action against another editor, start a separate section. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be easy to find examples of civil interactions between Pluto and those who don't share his political beliefs (in the linked to example, the correspond happens to be in the same 'political camp' - and I suspect that Pluto wasn't guilty of raising the temperature of the dispute). Can the same be said of you?  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  13:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I like how you're trying to excuse that. Apparently civility and politeness aren't always that important to you? Anyway, since you're obviously going to return here every day or two in an attempt to keep this open, and we wouldn't want anyone to mistake you for an uninvolved editor, here's a diff of you telling me that you revert my edits because of me personally and not because of any particular Wikipedia policy. I just noticed that's from a few years ago, you can sure hold a grudge, eh? I'm not going to be responding to you further, so feel free to get your last word in. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Akash3141 (third request for intervention)
Abusive insults to other users and blatant refusal to collaborate was outlined in the first two requests here. WP:OWN antics have continued despite opposition from multiple users; my request for him to gain consensus has been ignored. In a childish rage over not getting his way, he has vandalised other pages. Article The Undertaker (the primary site of various users' conflict with Akash3141) was blanked by an IP at 19:40 UTC and again at 19:45; at 19:43, Akash3141 left this passive-aggressive attack on my talk page. B. Mastino (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The IP locates to Pakistan; that's a bit far-fetched. However, I have blocked them for a week for that nonsense on your talk page and for this pointy edit. BTW, can any of you wrestle editors explain to me why Bret Hart needs 157,148 bytes? We're talking about a rassler, right? Drmies (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Fan or not, Hart is one of the most internationally popular wrestlers of all time, so a sizeable article is to be expected. When you're on The Simpsons, you're pretty recognisable in pop culture. B. Mastino (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Popularity and being recognizable doesn't necessarily result in an individual having a huge article. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 21:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, but logic tells me that Elvis Presley's article will be bigger than the one for the editor of my local newspaper. Bret Hart has held championships in five decades, has headlined numerous major wrestling events, has pop culture renown, and is cited as a hero/influence by many younger people in the business. Makes sense that his article has substantial content. B. Mastino (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * B. Mastino, you're suggesting that Bret Hart (who, by the way, works in entertainment, not in sports, and whose titles were acquired by way of--wait, rasslin's not fake) is 20k more important than Martin Luther King, Jr.. And his article is a GA. I think that if all y'all were to make these articles more encyclopedic, you would offer less of an invitation to such editors to add trivia and more trivia, since it's very hard to distinguish between trivia and non-trivia. For the record, MLK was never on the Simpsons. Drmies (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * John Cena is bigger than Bret Hart, and is a good article. Suspected this was a reason vs. a thinly-veiled "I don't like wrestling" scenario. B. Mastino (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Almost all wrestling articles are filled with way too much information. Even so, what makes Akash3141's edits so extraordinary is that he takes that to a whole new level.  The last seven threads on Talk:The Undertaker talk page are all about his behavior.LM2000 (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * To be fair the need for inline citations is a lot greater in articles about living people, and to Drmies' point above those can chew up a surprising number of bytes of text even if there's a comparable amount of actual content. Nonetheless, it does seem that recording every last belch and fart a wrestler let fly in and out of the ring both during and after his/her career (which isn't as hyperbolic a statement as I wish it was) seems a bit excessive, and I agree there's a serious problem with Akash3141's editing. A topic ban from this area seems warranted, not sure on length. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 03:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wrestling seems to be the sole area in which he edits. User:Oknazevad proposed an indefinite block, which I tend to support given Akash3141's glaring lack of introspection and remorse in his two recent "it's-them-not-me!" unblock requests. With no attitude change to mention, he will return in a week only to further disrupt the encyclopaedia. B. Mastino (talk) 03:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point, Blade--but as B. Mastino's comment indicates, that amounts to a ban, basically. If you want to propose it to see if it gains traction, go for it. Right now, I don't wish to go that far, but any fellow admin (hey, like you!) is welcome to disagree with me. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Upon thinking about it I suppose it's worth waiting to see if the weeklong block has any impact, it's easy to come back if problems start up. Sometimes it works, and it'll be easier to find out if we give Akash3141 enough rope. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 04:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Definitely not enough rope, he's now editing while logged out, see this edit to Talk:The Undertaker. The IP is from the UK, which is where his bio on his user page says he is from.  He knows that using multiple accounts in such a way is prohibited because he made another account,, which got blocked.LM2000 (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, that earlier account was blocked and the user page deleted, but that was 20 December; I don't see a note from the blocking admin on either talk page. This one single IP edit isn't the biggest thing in the world either. However, when you add it all up--the unreliable sourcing, the trivial edits, the edit warring, the self-promotion in user space, the socking, the namecalling, and whatever else I may have missed--we got NOTHERE as the only possible conclusion. Or perhaps I should cite WP:CIR since, after all this happened, they wrote this on their talk page: "Then again, having Hart (one of the greatest technicians) say that you can 'make a silk's purse out of a sow's ear' in his autobiography isn't worthy of being mentioned, but Rock appearing on five wrestlemanias is..!? It doesn't make sense to me." If after all this time this does not make sense, the editor simply cannot contribute. Drmies (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yea, looking at any of these episodes without the big picture doesn't look particularly offensive, but the big picture does show major WP:CIR issues. Thanks for your help.LM2000 (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Requesting revdel
This contains a very slightly modifided version of an edit revdeleted just before per RD2. Could a nice admin come and revdel it? 96.237.27.238 (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * RD6ed. BethNaught (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Admin Mike_V making unexplained user right changes
Hello,

appears to be making significant numbers of userright changes without notifying users, either in advance or at the time the rights are changed. He also does not seem to be consulting with the admins who previously issued the rights in question. Does his "maintenance" of userrights have consensus? Is there some pressing need for Mike to be removing rights issued to users years ago, particularly when they are still needed / being used? <strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan <strong style="color:#0033CC"> T 01:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * If you're talking about IPBE, there's already a thread at WP:AN#IPBE - IP block exemption removals. Just as an FYI, if it is regarding IPBE, Mike did contact me regarding one of the accounts I added IPBE to. Elockid  Message me 01:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

hurry up
Block user:Jasonbourne213333 2602:306:3357:BA0:35FE:4761:3FC0:A24A (talk) 01:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Why?? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , because of this. Quick, before some BLP-protecting admin hits rev/delete. Seriously, if someone posts here, look into it; don't break out Robert's Rules of Orders or whatever it's called. Thank you . Drmies (talk) 03:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Xezbeth
I find the long time Sysops responses concerning:


 * "Are you fucking joking?"
 * Located at his talk page which he has both refused to respond and removed.


 * "Unless you're trying to get me to block you, I cannot understand what you are playing at. Please explain. I'm starting to think you aren't competent enough to be using tools such as Twinkle."
 * located at my talk page

My actions though in error I do not believe should have triggered such a response. A note I have not notified the account in question due to their position on the site. Krj373*(talk), *(contrib) 07:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * So you won't leave them the required notification but you think this edit is vandalism and leave them a warning? I suggest you step away now. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes that is correct. However I believe assume good faith applies to admins as well as every one else. I made a attempt to discuss the "are you fucking joking" comment on his page. I got no response other than 'get lost' in a edit comment. I have some what stepped away as the power rests in his hand. I do believe what applies to one should apply to all. I have admitted my error however that does not change the basis of the complaint. Krj373*(talk), *(contrib) 08:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Where did say anything about using admin tools? You are the only one that mentioned blocking. Perhaps their words were not the greatest but edit warring without discussion over that was ridiculous. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The link provided takes you to the section of my talk page that has the statement about Twinke. I do not believe any thing either of us did could be considered edit warring & I have never claimed that for the record. Krj373*(talk), *(contrib) 08:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that it could be classified as edit warring. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Edit summaries are important and perhaps you can understand my error due to his. However after review of the content I ceased. I have no issue with the edits. I have issue with the response & profanity used in the various responses. Assume good faith should apply to every one including admins. In this case I believe the comments "Are you fucking joking?" & "Unless you're trying to get me to block you, I cannot understand what you are playing at. Please explain. I'm starting to think you aren't competent enough to be using tools such as Twinkle." deviants from that policy. Which normally is of no issue however the account in question is a Sysops account. Krj373*(talk), *(contrib) 09:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Umm... You accuse someone of vandalism for noting that "Roelandts" is a surname. You do not (profusely) apologize for that, but instead try to get the user blocked using for a simple profanity to express justified incredulity over that action? Are you [insert profanity here] kidding me? Kleuske (talk) 13:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Relevant: WP:TWABUSE. Krj373, you reverted good-faith edits without a edit summary twice. Then you template an experienced user twice (once with a final warning no less). And you wonder why that user reacts strongly and questions whether you should be using Twinkle? I doubt any administrator action is needed here other than to warn the reporter that they should be more careful when reverting edits with semi-automated tools. Read WP:VANDAL closely. clpo13(talk) 17:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I hereby warn the reporter that they should be more careful when reverting edits with semi-automated tools. I am grateful for for suggesting this verbiage, since I had something much more severe in mind. Also, "are you fucking kidding me" is more than appropriate; the response should have been "oops, sorry, I'll be more careful next time". Drmies (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: Krj373: First off, don't edit-war with admins. Second, WP:DONTTEMPLATETHEREGULARS. Third, why don't you let go of Twinkle and do some non-automated editing, and collaborate with other users? Fourth, please withdraw this ANI filing before a big fat WP:BOOMERANG smacks you squarely between the eyes. Try asking for advice from experienced editors, or at the WP:TEAHOUSE. Softlavender (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks for everyone's comments. In particularCambridgeBayWeather I did like the conversation we had. I am sure that you had better things to do. Krj373*(talk), *(contrib) 07:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Emptying categories out of process
This all started on February 7, when User:Sundayclose removed Category:Ringo Starr & His All-Starr Band concert tours from the article Ringo's Summer 2016 Tour stating "no need for separate category". (The category had recently been created by User:U2fan01 on January 30.) As a regular patroller of Database reports/Empty categories, I noticed the category came up on the list as being empty, identified the article that was removed and added it back to the category, based on the assumption that the category is one of the exceptions to WP:SMALLCAT, which states "avoid categories that...will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme." Per Category:Concert tours by artist, "Please note that all concert tour articles should have subcategories here, regardless of how many concert tours the artist has performed". Therefore, I felt the emptying of such a category was done out of process. Upon further investigation, I noticed that there were also albums by Ringo Starr & His All-Starr Band and created Category:Ringo Starr & His All-Starr Band albums and populated it.

Ten days later, User:Sundayclose completely emptied both categories with the edit summary "too few articles for redundant categories". Again, feeling the categories were being emptied out of process, I repopulated the categories recommending through the edit summaries that the proper procedure was to take the categories to CFD. For the third time, User:Sundayclose emptied the categories with an edit summary this time that said, "Follow WP:BRD. I reverted. You discuss on talk page." I did as asked and took it the talk page of Live at the Greek Theatre 2008 while placing notes on the talk pages of the two categories. Because Live at the Greek Theatre 2008 was one I hadn't added previously and to avoid the category from nominated for speedy deletion, this was only my second revert to this specific page, but I didn't re-add other pages to the categories. Instead of discussing the matter as had been suggested, User:Sundayclose decided to send me a warning for edit warring instead. I replied to his message on my talk page, requesting that they not remove categories out of process.

Finally, since I did not repopulate Category:Ringo Starr & His All-Starr Band concert tours and despite my notice on the talk page to not request speedy deletion of the category for being empty, it was nominated for such anyway. Because I did not create the category, I removed the tag saying the category was emptied out of process in the edit summary.. User:Sundayclose readded the tag saying I didn't follow the proper procedure for contesting speedy deletion.. My note was already on the talk page, so I felt I was in the right to remove the speedy tag again, although at this point I probably should have left it up to an admin who would have seen the note before deciding whether to delete the category. I don't understand why User:Sundayclose refuses to take part in any discussion, one in which they encouraged in the first place, or to simply nominate the categories for deletion via WP:CFD. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 17:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I wondered why I've seen these Ringo Starr categories on the Empty Categories list more than once. I've posted a message on Sundayclose's talk page asking that he explain why he emptied the category out of process. Unfortunately, although this is an improper way to get a category deleted (rather than nominating it at WP:CFD), it's more common than it should be. Doing it once is taking an unacceptable short cut but doing it several times means it is behavior that needs to be explained and addressed. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 22:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I was not aware that categories that are so redundant should remain unchanged. My initial goal was to consolidate into one category Category:Ringo Starr & His All-Starr Band. I still feel that the it's overkill to have three categories that could easily have one category containing all of the related articles, but as has been said, I should pursue that through CFD, although I'll probably just drop the entire issue. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Sundayclose (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * No disrespect, Sundayclose, but have you seen the number of categories revolving around U2? I think separate categories are just fine. U2fan01 (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Not interpreted as disrespect, just a difference of opinion. Although this is not the venue to debate number of categories for rock bands, I'll make response and then leave this alone. There is a huge difference between the fame, stature, and productivity of U2 compared to post-Beatles Ringo. And that's no slur on Ringo; I'm a Beatles fan (and U2 fan). But that difference more than justifies a larger number of categories. But if it is wiki protocol to allow overlapping categories with just a few articles in each, I will accept it and move on to more important matters. Thanks to all in this discussion for your comments. Sundayclose (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * the discussion here is not about whether these categories should exist or not, which is basically a content (or organisation of content) dispute. The discussion is about the way you approached this. You should not have emptied these categories repeatedly (perhaps not even once, but that would fall under WP:BRD probably) but should have sent them to WP:CFD instead. That's why we have that process, and you shouldn't try to avoid or override it by exhausting the other side of the discussion by reverting and templating them. If there is a genuine dispute, like here, take it to a wider audience, like CFD. Fram (talk) 09:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. As I noted above, I fully realize that the discussion is not about whether the categories should exist, and I fully acknowledged that I should have first gone to CFD, which I will do in the future now that I realize that is the way it should be done. Sundayclose (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Martimc123
If someone here is familiar with User:Martimc123 (blocked or banned sockpuppeteer), they can perhaps check out the situation with User:WrestlingPS456 and User:Naitoelingobernable and take swift action instead of relying on a slower WP:SPI (considering that Sockpuppet investigations/Martimc123 has been opened since 12 February)? Fram (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and you can add User:109.49.161.139 to the above. I don't know enough about the situation or the topic o swiftly judge whether they should just be blocked, or whether their creations and edits should also be reverted / deleted or judged on a cae-by-case basis. Fram (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Rushlocmllrudo is also going around the same articles removing speedy deletion templates. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)   (ZOOM)  15:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Admin assistance request: Removing a duplicate thread from an archive
The former was unarchived, responded to, and then archived in its modified form by a bot as the latter. It no longer serves any purpose and should be pruned from the archive as per common practice to prevent clutter. I did it but my edit was reverted, which I believe to have been an honest mistake by an editor unfamiliar with how the unarchival procedure works; I've attempted to resolve the issue through discussing it with the reverting editor but to no avail; the discussion can be found here. I'd appreciate it if some reasonable administrator could remove the obsolete version of the thread from the archive; it can be done by clicking on this link and then saving the page. Thank you. Iaritmioawp (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 91
 * Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 96
 * , I think preventing this current thread from being auto-archived, twice, , is inappropriate. I'm removed that coding; please do not replace it. The fact that no admin has responded to this request in 9 days should tell you something. I'm going to suggest that you either let it drop and let this thread be auto-archived normally; or (1) post this on WP:AN, where it more appropriately belongs, or (2) approach any admin of your choice on their talk page and make this request (that way you will at least presumably get an answer if they decline your request). Softlavender (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The instructions at WP:AN are clear that specific issues are to be posted at WP:ANI, i.e. here. I realize the matter is of low importance and thus won't be handled immediately; that is okay as I don't have a deadline and don't mind waiting. Why you, or anyone, would get impatient with my patiently awaiting assistance with this minor issue is anyone's guess, but be advised that you're not being helpful. Please reinstate the content you removed from my original comment so that the section doesn't get prematurely archived; you can do it by adding 7 just under the section header. Thank you. Iaritmioawp (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The reason this request hasn't been implemented is that admins reading it have determined or decided it does not warrant being done, and that the archives should remain as they were even when a previously archived thread was revived and re-responded to and then re-archived. If you'd like an official explanation from an admin, pick one, and ask them on their talk page. Do not however delay the bot-archiving of this thread. Softlavender (talk) 03:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your opinion. You are, however, not entitled to force editors with genuine assistance requests out of this noticeboard based solely on the fact that they weren't offered assistance in what would constitute a timely manner in your opinion. You have said your piece; I have re-added the template. Now I'd advise you to move on with your day as I move on with mine. Iaritmioawp (talk) 04:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

DNAU removed again, no admin seems to care enough about this to act upon it, keeping it open any longer is unwarranted. Fram (talk) 09:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That is not the kind of admin response I was hoping for but I suppose it'll have to suffice. As there has been no opposition to my request for the ten days it was allowed to remain here unmolested, I've implemented it myself with this edit. Iaritmioawp (talk) 08:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

User:STSC and WP:NOTHERE (redux)
Hello. For the most recent ANI discussion on this user, please refer to Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive909. Pinging previous nominator User:SSTflyer.

The last discussion was archived with no administrator input or action. Predictably, as has been the case for years, User:STSC's political agenda editing has continued. As I stated in the previous discussion, though he (or she) seems to be active in any article related to controversies surrounding the People's Republic of China, I only happen to run into this user in Hong Kong-related articles, since Hong Kong is my main editing interest. So my analysis is always skewed toward Hong Kong issues but STSC is active in basically any controversial China-related subject such as Falun Gong, Taiwan, Japanese war crimes, disputed territories, Tibet, etc.

Anyway, I post here because STSC is once again censoring reliably-sourced content from articles related to political demonstrations in Hong Kong – in this case, 2016 Mong Kok civil unrest.

Often this behavior consists of subtle tweaks to the wording, which is not very harmful although the usual misleading "ce" edit summaries can be problematic:, (many other examples in the last discussion)

But I really object to arbitrary censorship of reliably sourced content like this. This is STSC's modus operandi – to pull reasons out of a hat to censor reliably sourced information (and sometimes photos) that may reflect badly on the government, and generally to subtly push the viewpoint of the government.

This edit selectively censors certain details:


 * * that Lam was departing on a planned family trip. The effect is that Lam appears to be fleeing Hong Kong to escape prosecution
 * * that the police have not commented on his arrest, which does not really reflect well on the police
 * * that Lam's school, a respected university, have called on the police to release him and to offer a comprehensive explanation. This is obviously unusual and has received coverage in local media

Details of this arrest are not "undue weight" if the case has received particularly heavy coverage in local media, which it has. It's not our job to judge what's important and what isn't – what matters is the level of coverage in other sources. I hate getting bogged down in the details of any particular case because it doesn't really matter. This is just one of thousands of political edits by STSC that serves to promote the viewpoint of the government and censor details that could reflect badly on the government. It is emblematic of a long-term pattern of agenda editing.

He is also continually leaving inappropriate warning templates on others' talk pages. He chronically places a warning for "personal attacks" on my talk page (today) even though I have only ever expressed grievances over editing behavior.

This has been a headache for years and I have no interest in edit warring with this user. Could an admin please look into this? A search of the archives here, and of STSC's talk page will reveal a pattern of years of low-level contentious agenda editing, in violation of our policies on NPOV and WP:NOT. Thank you, Citobun (talk) 06:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Arbitrarily stripping the context from a protester's earlier arrest. Citobun (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * uninvolved user comment -- I have to agree that this diff by STSC is concerning. I do actually think that Citobun would have done better to use the word "remove" rather than "censor." That said, on the whole I found Citobun's tone to be measured and factual, not the sort of thing that would justify a level-4 NPA warning from STSC. I haven't looked at this extensively and don't plan to, but this sort of over-templating suggests to me that Citobun's concerns could be well-founded.CometEncke (talk) 12:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * more from the same uninvolved user -- glutton for punishment that I am, I looked into this more, after saying I wouldn't. The arrest of Derek Lam Shun-hin, which is part of what led to this dispute, has been reported from far afield, i.e. the Washington Post, and even Ecuador/Guatemala(!). Again, Citobun appears to be right on they money -- this is obviously highly notable, and in an article about the protests specifically, lengthy coverage would be WP:DUE. CometEncke (talk) 13:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC) (Striking input by blocked sock.)
 * Citobun has in the past constantly attacked me as a "long-term agenda editor" whenever there's a content dispute, therefore the level-4 warning was issued. Regarding the content about Derek Lam, unlike Joshua Wong, he is a little-known member of Scholarism, and the excessive detail that is seemingly defending Lam would be undue. STSC (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The fact that you see this cited content as "defence" is problematic. It isn't a "defence" of Lam that to add that Scholarism said he planned the trip to Taiwan - it's simply a fact that received significant coverage in the media. Likewise, when you added that he was previously arrested for "assault" I did not view the word "assault" as an "attack" on him. It's just the facts of the story. I do not view Wikipedia as a venue to "defend" anyone. Citobun (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Disclosure: I commented on the previous ANI that Citobun raised against STSC. STSC does exhibit a certain level of zeal when it comes to performing copyedits particularly if the loss in context can lead to a misinterpretation in some readers, particularly if they view things with a political slant. In this instance, the diffs do not seem to support, in my eyes, that there is a significant political POV in STSC's edits. Excessive pruning, yes, and ultimately a content dispute. Whether the coverage of this particular arrest is DUE or UNDUE coverage should be sorted out on the talk of which there is none. Coming straight to ANI without any talk page discussion is likely only to result in this being closed as a content dispute. If STSC and Citobun are not opposed, I'd be more than happy to look into copy editing the section that is being disputed to maintain context. Blackmane (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I welcome your input on the content dispute. STSC (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've opened up a discussion on the talk page about the section that is being disputed. As there has been no discussion to date, I would invite and  to join in as well as any who would be interested. Blackmane (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Blackmane. It's late here so I'll keep this message a bit short. First, I didn't raise the last ANI against STSC. It was someone else who independently made the same observations about this user.


 * Secondly, as I mentioned above, I don't care to get bogged down in the details of this particular content case because if it isn't one thing, it's another. I have found STSC unreceptive to discussion in the past, and once he moves on from a certain issue he goes and censors something else. It's endless and exhausting. The root of the cause - STSC's long-term, low-level political agenda editing - needs to be addressed, and here is the place to do it.
 * I know I seem prickly. But this has been an ongoing issue for years, with seemingly no administrator scrutiny, and it is really getting tiresome and sapping my enthusiasm for this project. Wikipedia is not the place for political advocacy and countless other users have come to the conclusion that STSC's edits serve to bolster the viewpoint of the Chinese government/Hong Kong SAR government/Chinese Communist Party. I would name some of these users but I think I would be accused of canvassing. Evidence can be found in ANI records, in his talk page history, and scattered around countless article talk pages.
 * All I ask is that administration please scrutinse STSC's past for evidence of political agenda editing and take action in accordance with Wikipedia policy. This has gone on far too long and I am sick of picking through diffs to try to prove my point. His edit history speaks for itself. He has gotten away with Advocacy for years by being very subtle about it, but the pattern is clear. Citobun (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm just minding my own business editing the topics that I choose but you've been Wikihaunting me for a long time and you don't seem to give up. Just stop using an ANI to silent other editors who don't share your POV. STSC (talk) 08:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I would also like you to stop accusing me of stalking you and harassing you. You know just as well as I that we only run into each other on Hong Kong topics and I am not monitoring your editing. Please stop making these accusations and address the concerns we have raised over editing behaviour. Citobun (talk) 08:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * same (formerly) uninvolved user again Starting a discussion on that is fine. But I took a look at another portion of the underlying issue, and for the third time, it appears to me that Citobun right is on the money. I have no idea if these two edits cited by Citobun are appropriate in regards to the sourcing or not., But what is certain is that in both cases, an edit summary of "ce" is highly misleading. "ce" is supposed to be used for cases where you are not changing the meaning. A brief glance at each of those edits shows that a lot more than just "ce" is going on. The prior ANI discussed the "ce" problem. Here we are, two months later, and it is continuing. Obviously, admin inaction did not solve the problem.  Apparently, STSC has acted inappropriately in three different ways, there was a prior discussion, yet the problems have continued. That suggests that problems like this will continue until there is sufficiently strong admin action. CometEncke (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC) (Striking input by blocked sock.)
 * Not at all. My "ce" usually refines and makes an improvement on the content as per "five Cs" to make the article clear, correct, concise, comprehensible, and consistent. (WP:COPYEDIT) STSC (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * In the last ANI dispute I provided numerous examples where you used a "c/e" edit summary inappropriately. SSTflyer also provided many examples. Citobun (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Many of your edits don't even have edit summary at all, and how about this c/e from you? And many others I just cannot be bothered. STSC (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Sometimes I don't leave edit summaries because I don't think my editing is particularly contentious. According to X's Tools edit counter, 82.8% of my edits have a summary, but I'll try to raise that figure in the future. There's nothing inappropriate about using "c/e" in the edit you linked to. I didn't change the meaning of anything, save for changing "incontinent" to "inconvenient" which I think was the intention of the original author.
 * Anyway, rather than simply making unsubstantiated counter-accusations would you care to comment on the countless misleading "c/e" summaries I linked to? That most often subtly bolster the viewpoint of the government? Citobun (talk) 06:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You're required to input edit summary for your edit if you still don't know by now. And I just don't have your disgraceful habit of digging through other editors' edit history. STSC (talk) 07:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * So my "c/e" edit that you linked to – what's wrong with it? If you're going to accuse me of misconduct then at least substantiate your complaint. Or are you just trying to distract the discussion? Citobun (talk) 08:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * STSC has now asked on my talk page if I am a sock, without providing any similarities of my posts with any other user, or any suggestion of who I might be a sock of. This is further evidence of a pattern. Just as STSC reacted to Citobun's concerns with the NPA template, STSC is reacting to my analysis of those concerns with the sock quetion. STSC correctly notes that my account is relatively new and that I do, however, appear to have some experience on WP. The curious thing is that despite my posts above, there *were* actions STSC could have taken to at least lessen my concerns, though likely not allay them altogether. Asking whether or not I am a sock, however, was not such an action. CometEncke (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC) (Striking input by blocked sock.)


 * I "admire" you not sounding like a new user having just created your account on 27 Dec 2015? The way you pushing things here as an "(formerly) uninvolved user" seems you have a premeditated motive. Come on now. STSC (talk) 03:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I am going to continue beating this particular horse, regardless of how dead it is. Look at STSC's reaction to the "ce" concern two posts above. Although there are two users making the point, STSC fails to acknowledge the issue, and instead says "not at all," and making an assertion that his "ce" edits improve grammar. But that's not the issue, is it? A "ce" edit should improve some form of presentation without altering content. But if an admin examines any of the various linked "ce" diffs above, he or she will surely notice that the diffs marked "ce" make considerable alterations to content, often to the point where the meaning is changed entirely. This is yet another example, as if any were needed, of the pattern where STSC fails to respond to substantive concerns in a way that gives others confidence that the problem will not recur, which, of as multiple posts above demonstrate, is precisely the problem. Will an admin handle this situation, please? CometEncke (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC) (Striking input by blocked sock.)
 * My "ce" doesn't just correct grammar, it's meant to correct any misinformation in the content. Basically you're just trying to make a meal out of this. STSC (talk) 07:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It isn't copyediting if you're changing the meaning of the text or arbitrarily removing content. Citobun (talk) 08:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yup. Rather than addressing concerns head-on STSC simply skirts around the issue and peppers others' talk pages with frivolous warning templates, accuses others of "attacking him", "harrassment", "starting ANI with a pack of lies", perpetrating "hate campaigns", being "Falun Gong editors", harbouring a grudge, being "pro-colonialism", being sockpuppets – just a host of attacks meant to bully people into shutting up and deflect attention from his own behaviour. Sadly it seems to work. Citobun (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, you're the bully one who tried to use an ANI to silent other editors who don't share your POV. STSC (talk) 08:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yet another example, User:Marvin 2009 has made a grand total of three edits at Epoch Times so far in 2016 -- on Jan. 23 and 26, and on Feb. 6. STSC reacted to the third one with DE warning, stating that Marvin could be blocked. In all fairness, Marvin has had some edit warring blocks, and some of Marvin's edits at Epoch times were edit-warrish in nature. That said, three edits at an article in the first 37 days of 2016 is not DE by any measure. So what's up with the DE template? CometEncke (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC) (Striking input by blocked sock.)
 * I don't think you're in a position to make that criticism as you're not a regular editor on that topic and you don't know the background as to why I issued that warning. Maybe you just wanted to ping him? STSC (talk) 08:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Community topic ban proposal for STSC
Per User:STSC's repeated violations of the WP:NPOV and WP:NOT policies, I propose a formal community ban for STSC to be prohibited from making any edit of whatever nature to articles of topics related to the People's Republic of China, broadly construed.
 * Support topic ban as proposer. sst ✈(conjugate) 08:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban, due to persistent violations of WP:NPA and flagrant POV pushing. Plenty of evidence for both elsewhere in this thread. User apparently did not get the message from the previous ANI thread. Enough is enough. [Topic ban Wording might need improvement. Do we typically say "of whatebver nature"?] CometEncke (talk) 11:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC) (Striking !vote by blocked sock.)


 * Oppose topic ban This is way too broad, and unnecessary. Having pro or anti leanings in politics is normal as long as it doesn't cause any impact on the article quality. I agree that STSC should strive to improve the transparency in their edit summaries but I am yet to see concrete evidence of them pushing their POV into an article. If one has political leanings that are counter to STSC's then I can certainly see how their edits could be construed as violating NPOV from the opposing perspective, but as someone who looks at the politics from outside the country I am yet to see it. From my dealings with both parties in the 2016 Mong Kok riot article, both parties bring reasonable points to the discussion and that is the important point, there is discussion. Intractable political opponents would fall back on personal attacks, nationalist edits, edit warring and filibustering tactics on the talk page. However, both parties are willing to compromise when a middle ground is proposed, as I have been seeking to do. I would be satisfied if STSC made a firm commitment to ensure their edit summaries clearly reflect their edit to avoid future misunderstandings. Blackmane (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose topic ban per 's observation above. STSC appears to have a pro-government tendency, while his opponents appear to be pro-protesters. There's no right or wrong here, simply an intractable dispute reflecting the real world. And Blackmane has been doing a good job mediating the content dispute on the article talk page. I fail to see how STSC's behaviour warrants a topic ban: he has not edit warred in the dispute, and has engaged in civil discussion on the talk page. Much of the evidence above is about his misleading use of the "ce" edit comment, and he should be admonished for being lazy, but a topic ban would be gross overkill. -Zanhe (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This goes beyond a simple difference of opinion. I have provided evidence here and in the last discussion that STSC's editing behavior demonstrates a consistent pattern of subtle POV editing through inappropriate means including misleading edit summaries and arbitrary deletion of reliably-sourced content. Nobody has actually refuted this in detail. No administrator has looked into it. And how can you brush the "c/e" edit summary off as laziness? If he were lazy he would not leave an edit summary at all. He does it to mask controversial edits.


 * Let's focus for a moment on a couple diffs I provided previously. For starters, this one. The first revision is not perfect, and sentences like "the police's violent abuse of power" are not particularly NPOV. It needs work. But STSC's edit adds the sentence "The debates over China's vision of granting Hong Kong full democracy [my emphasis] have escalated into diplomatic rows between China and the United Kingdom" which totally obfuscates the actual reason for the protests - a desire for universal suffrage and a view that the Chinese proposal is not true democracy. These are basic facts reported in every international news piece on the 2014 protests. Does this repeated change really help build Wikipedia as a neutral and accurate source of information?


 * How about his repeated addition of Putonghua as the "national language" of Hong Kong? For those unfamiliar, Hong Kong's official languages are "Chinese" and English. Putonghua (Mandarin) is the language spoken and promoted by the Chinese government in Beijing, while Cantonese is spoken by 95% of Hong Kong residents. Again, is this a constructive edit? Can anyone say that it helps build a neutral and accurate encyclopedia? STSC is an experienced user and he knows better than this.


 * What about this edit? Is changing "Treaty of Nanking" to "British occupation" really in line with our policy on NPOV?


 * I know I am repeating myself but I have clearly provided evidence for a consistent pattern of subtle POV editing over a very long period of time, so I don't think it is warranted to simply brush off these concerns as disagreements from "pro-protesters" (or "pro-colonialists", as STSC previously accused me of being). All signs point to WP:NOTHERE. Citobun (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You accused me as "pro-CCP" in the first place, and I have to put up with your constant personal attacks on me as "agenda editor". In the 2nd diff it also shows you lied that "police broke into Lam's flat" while the source clearly says 'police searched Lam's flat'. STSC (talk) 10:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was wrong to write that the police "broke into" his flat. At the time, when the news was fresh and information sketchy, somehow that was my impression of what happened. I did not intend to lie, it was just a mistake. Citobun (talk) 12:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * To change the 'searched' into "broke into" has got to be intentional. STSC (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I believe I initially read the words "broke into" somewhere on social media and so that's what was on my mind. Wasn't intentional, just a mistake that I apologise for. I don't have a pattern of making such errors. I still think that the other changes you made in that diff basically represent arbitrary deletion of reliably sourced content, serving to make the protester look like he is fleeing Hong Kong to evade police capture. Citobun (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You yourself actually supplied the source, it's very clear that you knowingly put 'searched' as "broke into"; and you also insisted on that lie by reverting my correction. STSC (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I have to disagree that the first diff is any sign of POV. If anything, the diff shows a very orderly restructuring of the section compared to the previous version which was a total hodge podge. The section is "Tensions with Mainland China" and yet the first paragraph is about CY Leung's basement? How in the world is that NPOV? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a tabloid. The other diffs were bold edits but obviously controversial so should have been discussed on the talk page. This is absolutely a difference in political view point causing tensions. They way Hong Kong politics is reported is often laughable mainly because of how serious trivialities are blown out of proportion. Blackmane (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * For that first diff I have no problem with the removal of the bit on Leung's basement. It was extraneous given the context. As I specifically mentioned, I object to the arbitrary deletion of the causes of the 2014 protests, and I object to the misleading reference to "China's vision of granting Hong Kong full democracy". I don't know why I need to spell it out like this, but: China does not intend to grant Hong Kong full democracy. So that diff represents STSC adding an outright falsehood to the article – under a "ce" edit summary. Citobun (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support topic ban as ANI submitter. But I am not experienced at ANI and I am not familiar with the typical approach used by administrators in similar cases. Basically I support any measure that would solve this long-term issue. Maybe it is just a temporary topic ban to send a strong message. But above all I would like to see some acknowledgement that there is a consistent pattern of subtle POV editing going on that violates the WP:NOT and WP:NPOV policies. I am very willing to compromise and listen when it comes to content disputes, but my experience with STSC is that if it isn't one thing, it's another and it is generally just getting tiresome. I would also like STSC to stop placing warning templates on my talk page when it is not warranted. Citobun (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: If anyone has any issue with me, they should discuss it on my Talk page. If there's any content dispute, it should be discussed on the article's Talk page. Unfortunately, some users, namely Citobun and SSTflyer, view me as their enemy because I don't share their POV; and they abused the ANI process just to silent an opponent in content disputes. Particularly, Citobun's constant personal attacks on me are quite disturbing. These two users have been persistently disrupting my enjoyment of Wikipedia and must be stopped. STSC (talk) 10:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose topic ban per Blackmane as overkill. STSC's behaviour of using "ce" to describe controversial edits is concerning, but I also agree with Zanhe's assessment that some of the edits only look POV in the eyes of those with an opposite pov. Parties with different points of view should be encouraged to find consensus, this is how Wikipedia should work. At least in this case, Citobun and STSC should back off from each other. Content disputes should be taken back to the appropriate talk pages, not here. _dk (talk) 06:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It may very well be that STSC has a politically skewed perspective here (though I join most all of the previously-uninvolved editors here in pointing out that there seems to be more than enough blame for POV pushing to go around here), but Citobun needs to supply much more in terms of evidence of truly WP:disruptive actions if they wish to make the argument that this is a behavioural issue rather than a content dispute. They (Citobun) have now had substantial opportunity to make that case and yet have only supplied diffs representing edits that their fellow editors here just do not see as disruptive.  If Citobun is concerned that STSC's edits are having a skewing effect on the content, they should avail themselves of RfC's and other community measures to get more eyes on the articles in question, since a greater number of editors will tend to counterbalance any bias in particular contributors.  If STSC refuses to comport with the resulting consensus of such discussions and edit wars, engages in personal attacks, behaves uncivilly or otherwise conducts themselves in a manner inconsistent with our guidelines and the consensus-building process, then we would have something to discuss here at ANI.  As it stands though, I'm just not seeing evidence of anything but a clash of personalities here, at least not so far.   S n o w  let's rap 07:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet plans to damage article
The latest sock puppetry by Vote (X) for Change has been reported but no action has been taken. In this edit the editor states his plan to add nonsense to the Year article. I request an administrator attend to this. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I just had a look at this.  What the editor actually said was that s/he would add an agreed definition to the article if nobody objected. 86.149.11.242 (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking into this a bit more, I see Jc3s5h collapsed the thread on Talk:Year with the annotation "Thread started by sock of banned user".  Clicking on "show" I see the OP was .   Pinging Dbfirs to make him aware of the allegation. 86.149.11.242 (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you that editor? I did object because the paragraph by Vote (X) for Change did not add anything useful to the article.    D b f i r s   17:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes they wuz. Drmies (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Latest sock reported at Sockpuppet investigations/Vote (X) for Change. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks after final warning
Prestopotatoe commented on British people here, saying "You guys are aware of the fact that 90% British folk can trace their ancestry back for hundreds and thousands of years? How on Earth does that make it a multi-racial, multicultural or diverse society? Despite the fact that a couple of areas in London resemble slums in Nairobi, the vast majority of Britain is uniformly white and uniformly of a single English scots irish or welsh culture. I invite you to go down to Kent or Margate and see how diverse British culture is."

Snowded removed this, saying it was near racist. So they re-added it, with a comment -- "Remove unnecessary deletion regarding article by PC thug." I saw this, reverted it, and warned them, finding it unacceptable. They made another comment, which was again removed by Snowded as "racist nonsense." They then got a final warning. They did it once more, and were reverted again with the summary, "You are making a political statement not making any referenced proposal to improve the article. Last warning." They then made these two highly uncivil comments:. They were then advised of Wikipedia policies. I would appreciate admin action to prevent any further disruption. Thanks, GABHello! 16:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I was going to give the editor one more chance, but s/he is clearly not here to improve the encyclopaedia.  A look at the edit history alone shows that in terms of reverts of nearly every contribution.  Then we get the racist comments and the personal attacks. Snowded  TALK 16:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It's unclear to me, if the editor-in-question is proposing such additions to the article, or if he/she is merely looking to start a blog. Either way, this looks like a case of WP:NOTHERE. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia is trying to hard to be PC", "The vast majority of British cities are majority or wholly European and follow European culture. The vast majority thik mlticulturalism has been a disaster and the vast majority of the commonwealth follow a civilized anglo-culture." GABHello! 16:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Enough is enough. I've blocked for a week to show we have teeth, and I'll indef if this behaviour persists after the block expires <b style="font-family:chiller;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> - talk to me?  17:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Disruption, edit warring, and personal attacks by WillsonSS3


WillsonSS3 arrived on racism today making bold changes to the lead sentence (a perennial source of contentious editing). WillsonSS3 joined discussions on the talk page after being reverted twice. WillsonSS3 continued to revert edits on on the article beyond 3RR despite warnings from  which they acknowledged (while saying they are warning another user). Next came accusations of ownership.

This user registered 30 January 2016. Within these 22 days the user demonstrated proficiency in using Wikipedia and wikicode, even reporting other users to AN3. They have been reported for edit warring and have amassed an impressive edit history of reverts of battleground behavior. It seems the likelihood that this user was just an experienced IP user is a bit low, but possible. However, even with that assumption of good faith, this user has demonstrated an antagonistic orientation toward editing that borders on NOTHERE. The current behavior needs addressing at least.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 19:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * pf... I'm an editor on wookipedia and the song of ice and fire wiki.WillsonSS3 (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment of accused: On the (controversial) page Racism, 3 users, namely Users:Evergreen, Manaus and Doug Weller act as if they took ownership of the page. Their actions go back years, against multiple users. At least in the case of manaus/evergreen. They're adamant on keeping one definition of racism for the lead, and revert any new changes, including mine, in which I opted to keep both their definition and the ones given by the Anti defamation league and Oxford dictionary.
 * Their tactic is to bunch up on users and revert 2 a piece, if the can't give the reasoning as WP:RS violation as an issue, and if that doesn't work, wait until said user is over WP:3RR, and then report, as they did with me. Though I rationalized my edits/revert as unjustified removal of sourced content. My sources are [|ADL, |2
 * User:Doug Weller attempted to intimidate and dissuade me with my history of edit warring in hich he tought I'd be intimidated because of his position as an admin, showing clear favoritism and possible clan behavior(don't know if that's s thing on wiki)
 * oh...and on my history of edit warring. I always resolved my disputes, except in one case, where my reporter was the one blocked. WillsonSS3 (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Further comment: User:Manaus now accuses me of strong arming my definition of racism into the article. Odd since my definition didn't exclude theirs and is backed by the likes of Oxdord and the Anti defamation league. WillsonSS3 (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * In addition to repeating the exact same argumentation offered by who was blocked for disruptive editing yesterday, WilsonSS3 also has a history of editing the article Russell Wilson, specifically regarding the football players race. Nezi1111 also edited that aspect of the Russell Wilson article. Both accounts engaged in protracted editwarring with . It looks very likely that they are the same editor using two different accounts. I have filed an SPI to confirm the suspicion.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * SPI located here. -- The Voidwalker  Discuss 21:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Concerns about puppetry aside, I believe that the reason that so many editors have sided against WilsonSS3 is due to the facts that:
 * The lede has been argued over extensively for quite some time.
 * WilsonSS3 has instituted their own ideas to the page, without respecting the discussion on the talkpage. (While this is minor, it still contributes to how I, as someone who has never before seen that discussion see it).
 * When reverted, instead of following the process of BRD, Wilson has continued to revert.
 * When asked to support his changes on the talkpage, so that an appropriate discussion can occur, Wilson also includes the discussion of the conduct of other users. (ex. this, which should have been treated by explaining why, rather than just labeling it as OR)
 * Therefore, by the time that a proper discussion can take place, Wilson's own behavior invalidates his credibility.
 * I would also like to add that having a clean block log is not the same thing as having a clean history. Multiple warnings, trips to ANEW, and this very ANI thread prove that it is not 'clean'. Should WilsonSS3 not wind up blocked, I suggest that the following restrictions be placed:
 * WilsonSS3 is prohibited from discussing the conduct of other users on article talk pages. He may do so on user talk pages, or relevant administrative noticeboards.
 * WilsonSS3 is restricted to following WP:1RR, excepting cases of clear vandalism. He is advised to not make any reverts to restore any material that he added, and instead open immediate discussion.
 * I believe that those restrictions will prevent further issue. I also believe that the best case is that WilsonSS3 follow these restrictions voluntarily to prove that he is indeed editing in good faith. -- The Voidwalker  Discuss 21:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC) [Edited= 21:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)]


 * After WilsonSS3 said Maunus was edit-warring for just one revert I pointed out that he'd reverted, at that time if I recall correctly, twice, and mentioned WP:BRD. I then looked at his talk page history and saw that he had been told more than once about BRD but was ignoring the warnings. I also pointed out the 3RR was not an entitlement and that he might be blocked if he reverted again. That's a fact, this editor's behavior is exactly the type of behavior that leads to blocks. What I hadn't noticed is the sock issue. Anyway, off to bed now. Doug Weller  talk 21:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

WilsonSS3 has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Nezi1111 (Sockpuppet investigations/Nezi1111). clpo13(talk) 23:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive new editor account User:Analyi
User:Analyi is a disruptive new vandal account, for example. Modus operandi similar to User:XCONZ. Originally reported on [WP:AIV] but it was disqualified for not being obvious enough. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I have reverted numerous edits by this user as they are not constructive, and have given minor warnings. I am not sure how this user accuses me of being a bot, likely because I overlook recent edits and scan for articles in order to detect issues and tag them. I am presuming that looking at the mentioned user, this user may have tagged other human editors as bots or disruptive new accounts. Thank you. Analyi | (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess I should have reported this to WP:SPI instead, even though it's only 20% likely to be a relation to XCONZ? But I'm AFK for the rest of the day, so I'll have to leave it here. ANI can act or not as it prefers! User:Analyi only reverted one edit of mine before I complained on his talk page that he's a bot or otherwise disruptive new account. The only other user I've ever had to tag like this was User:XCONZ. Thanks, Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Umm, this is WP:CIR. I'm going to dig through the rest of this user's edits to see if there is anything else that is problematic. -- The Voidwalker  Discuss 01:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * SPI filed at Sockpuppet_investigations/Legiallity.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 01:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have posted CU results and blocked the account. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Clausnitz
The Clausnitz incident has afaik drawn international attention. But i have never seen such a grotesk story, mainly made of vandalism, visible one and a half day in a wikipedia article... --Itu (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Drive-by vandalism edits from IPs. I've restored the corrected text, plus citation. Feel free to keep the article on your watch list, and other people reading this should as well. But this isn't really an ANI issue. If you'd like to request Page Protection, go to WP:RFPP. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC); edited 03:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Persondata template removal
has made about ten thousand edits today, mimicking KasparBot in removing Persondata templates from biographies. Unfortunately, this means the template information won't be transferred to WikiData. They have been made aware of the problem and have started manually reverting themselves but that will take far too long. Is this something a bot operator can sort out easily? &mdash;Xezbeth (talk) 09:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The information was already transfered. What KasparBot is doing at the moment is just removing the templates. There is nothing dangerous about this user's edits. --T.seppelt (talk) 11:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that saves a lot of time. &mdash;Xezbeth (talk) 11:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Sand kicked in face by User:Zoupan
This editor nominated and saw deleted Costume in Gjakova which I personally created. Look here. The fact is that this has happened while I am serving a severe topic ban on Balkan topics because of my past (sock accounts). This means I was unable to defend my steak properly. Because I have been away on work since the time it was nominated, I wasn't even able to vote "Keep". Obviously I don't blame Zoupan for the time of his notification but I think it is terrible to do this to someone with a topic ban, and I am watching every page I edit to make sure there is no hint of a Balkan theme inside it and I have turned around and declined to edit in some of these "not so clear" articles, playing safe being the best bet. I feel there were political motives behind the deletion, and I am worried about saying too much more in case it damages my future agenda for getting back to Balkans articles. Sinbad Barron (talk) 10:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * But that article was an outright copy-paste from Culture_of_Gjakova? Nothing has been removed. This is made clear at the nomination. Could you please explain the political motives?--Z oupan 10:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The article Costume in Gjakova was deleted because it had been created as a clear copy/paste from Culture of Gjakova (which, in addition to leaving us with duplicate material which will inevitably diverge, is a copyright violation as it loses the original attribution). The deletion was correct and there is nothing for an admin to do here. Oh, and I'd caution against making attacks on the nominator, as that approach will not help any future appeal against your topic ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Correct according to popular opinion, but the fact was I changed, modified and added bits. I mean you could have wiped the chunk from the Culture article but instead you chose to wipe my hard work, the article was alive for more than one whole year and had 1000s of views. My irritation is with the fact that this happened while I was and still am topic banned, don't you get it? I cannot go into detail on the subject, I as original author had my hands tied and was not able to defend my position. And I never did attack the nominator. Sinbad Barron (talk) 10:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - I saw your edit summary - no, you can't close this discussion. Only uninvolved parties may. I don't see the need for admin action here, so I am closing. --Ches (talk) 10:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * No admin has even laid eyes on it yet. I have blatantly been mocked for my topic ban. I would prefer the case to remain open until at least one admin closes it. As yet it is unsettled. You say I cannot close it. That may be so but I never had any intention of doing it. Fow now, I believe it should be dealt with an official admin first. Sinbad Barron (talk) 11:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for an after close comment, and apologies in advance for any offense taken. I really have to point out that being unable to defend my steak really has made my day. Thank you for making a long day shorter. Blackmane (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Albanian Historian
Can someone watch Albanian Historian's edits? He is a blocked user at Commons, and s/he has been socking. S/he uses sockpuppets to upload copyright violations at Commons, then the main account (Albanian Historian) uses the copyvios here. See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#Cross-wiki socking, Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Albanian Historian, and these diffs:
 * Cunmulaj (one of AH's sockpuppets) uploads a picture 13 Feb at 13:32:
 * Albanian Historian uses the picture on en-Wiki in a new article one hour later:
 * Cunmulaj uploads another picture 19 Feb at 13:32:
 * Albanian Historian uses the picture on en-Wiki in a new article four minutes later:

Confirmed sockpuppets of Albanian Historian are Cunmulaj and 435rapo14. Thanks, Pokéfan95 (talk) 11:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Violation of WP:MERGECLOSE, edit-warring
User:Richhoncho has formally proposed merging Fast Car (Jonas Blue song) to Fast Car. They proposed this on the 17th of February. They have already performed the merger (three times) despite only one other editor discussing the matter, in absolute blatant violation of WP:MERGECLOSE. WP:MERGECLOSE states that "if enough time (normally one week or more) has elapsed and there has been no discussion or is unanimous consent to merge, any user may close the discussion and move forward with the merger" - despite only allowing a single day of discussion they have performed the move themselves three times despite this clearly not being the case. They have also edit-warred on this matter here and here. They have also misleadingly and incorrectly marked their edit as minor. I have tried to discuss the matter without much success. They are justifying their behaviour based on WP:NSONGS. They have a point (and policy conflicts on the matter) which I am happy to discuss at the merge proposal but this hasn't been possible. I note this editor does have a history of conflict and edit-warring, as seen on their talk page and in their contributions. AusLondonder (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This objection is based on the grounds that I did not boldly make the change without adding the merge notification. If I had been bold then this fabricated incident would not be listed. Please check the edit history and comments at the two relevant articles - including an invitation to AusLondonder to continue the discussion. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * But if someone objects to the change surely the discussion can continue for the alloted time? It's be bold not be arrogant AusLondonder (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I find it rather amusing that you use this process when the bottom line is that you object to WP guidelines and this is your get-out-clause. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't mis-characterise my view. I think the song is independently notable per WP:NSONGS which says that songs charting at No.1 are presumed to be notable. It also says "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label" AusLondonder (talk) 00:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * For a third or fourth time. There is no dispute whether the song is notable, it is whether a different recording should have a separate article and WP:NSONGS says "No". --Richhoncho (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I hate to say it but this is my understanding of NSONGS as well. But this is not a content board. I did see Chapman perform it once in front of a stadium in 1988. Mesmerising. --John (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I never raised the content issue, I raised the behavioural issue that is preventing discussion of the content issue. AusLondonder (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * How is it doing that exactly? --John (talk) 08:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It takes two to edit-war. We are not a bureaucracy. Is there an actual problem with the merge? --John (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there is no consensus for the move. That's what Wikipedia works on. AusLondonder (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That doesn't answer the question. --John (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, so if I don't agree with the merge I should accept the desired outcome of one editor to prevent a discussion taking place? The problem with the move is it against the spirit of all policies. I think we both know what you're doing here John. AusLondonder (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What admin action are you seeking here? It looks like a content dispute to me. --John (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So because one editor edit-wars longer and moves an article three times after a single day of discussion basically they win? So do I have a green light to revert the merge? AusLondonder (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Really disappointed someone would characterise this as a content dispute. Just to let other admins know John and I have disagreed on a content dispute at another article, which seems to be prompting such an extraordinary take on the matter AusLondonder (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * True enough. I wasn't going to bring it up, but you didn't show much clue in either of these instances about how to resolve disputes productively. You might want to read up on WP:DR, WP:RFC, and WP:3O. But in this matter, if you can't answer the questions "Is there an actual problem with the merge?" or "What admin action are you seeking here?" then it looks like a content dispute and you are in the wrong place. I suppose if one or both of you were to continue we could look at WP:AN3. Are you planning to? --John (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * To put it bluntly, you're talking bullshit. This was a content dispute until the other editor forcefully and unilaterally merged the page according to his wishes three times after a day of discussion. Sure we don't need to be a bureaucracy. But we need basic standards of behaviour so this thing doesn't descend into a free-for-all and utter anarchy. I have explained that the problem with the merge is its a total violation of the spirit of our merging policies. I don't know why you find that so hard to understand. As to the content dispute involving you it wasn't between two people. Dozens of editors were involved. A consensus was established in two sections of the talkpage. You didn't like it. So you started throwing around bad faith accusations of "nationalism" and calling other long standing editors blow-ins, amongst other names. Regarding dispute resolution another edit dispute you were involved in about sourcing resulted in a RSN discussion that you refused to participate it. That discussion established enough consensus you didn't like and ignored in subsequent edits. It would have been nice had you shown the deceny to leave this matter to others given your patent dislike of me. AusLondonder (talk) 01:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Gosh. I am sorry you think I don't like you. I assure you I like you very well to the degree you are a productive member of the community and (like me) a volunteer who gives up time to help this project. If you have any complaints about my behaviour it would be best to present it with diffs. I am sorry if using the word "blow-in" offended you; I do think that has been the recent problem at that article however, but I am glad a compromise solution has been found there. I repeat though, unless you are able to state what you would like admins to do to help you in this instance, it will be very difficult for them to do so. --John (talk) 08:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Well looked like content dispute to me at least on one side. Rickhoncho thought it should be merged and provided a credible reason per NSONGS, another editor agreed with them. AusLondoner disagreed, provided no guideline or policy backed reason, then resorted to process-wonkery and dragged the dispute to ANI when it didnt go their way. If anyone has a behaviour issue it wasnt Rick here. NOTBURO exists. When you engage in by-the-book rules-lawyering it tends to make your arguments weaker not stronger. If you start arguing 'It isnt in the spirit!' when trying to use policy-backed discussion to avoid a content outcome you disagree with, its not going to go anywhere. Suggest closing this ASAP. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the absurdity and hilarity of your suggestion that because I wanted decent input from other editors on a merge I oppose as the good faith creator of the article I am the one who is behaving badly. I provided, repeatedly, which you have chosen to ignore and then be deceptive about, reasons per WP:NSONG that this recording was entitled to its own article, namely that it charted at number-one in several countries, received significant coverage in reliable sources and NSONG also states that covers are "usually" covered in the main article. USUALLY. Not always. You say I took the dispute here because it didn't go my way. How the hell could it go my way when the other editor acted like a playground bully and merged it three times without allowing input from others. Shame on you for your deliberate misrepresentation of what I said. I have replied in more detail at Talk:Fast Car to your bizarre red herring that I am the one rigidly trying to enforce policy and explained my interpretation of WP:NSONGS. AusLondonder (talk) 00:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys. I wasn't aware of the 7-day rule regarding merges and for that I apologize to everybody, without exception, here and at the talkpages of the two articles. Not a mistake I intend to make again. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Richhoncho for that. I would suggest closing but I worry that with stuff like this we are veering into red flag territory, certainly enough to want to still keep this open lest some action be required. Per Only in death does duty end I wonder if this might be an example where the curved Australian projectile might need to whirl? I do hope not as the matter is capable of extremely easy resolution. --John (talk) 02:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi John and all, AusLondonder has reverted my premature closure of Fast Car (Jonas Blue song), but has also left the Jonas Blue information at Fast Car. I have asked him to revert on his talkpage in view of the heavy snow, but has just resulted in further "discussions". It seems a petulant, pointy and pointless edit. As AusLondonder brought the matter here, I thought I would add a note here, too. Thanks. --Richhoncho (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * No problem here, all good consensual editing. Not impressed however by Auslondoner's pointy bits. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I have never ever sought to be pointy. If a good faith creator opposes a merge should they allow it with input from only one other editor after one day of discussion? That doesn't seem fair to me. I think it's sad editors who have disagreed with me on other matters rush here to condemn my every move in a way that would never happen to other editors. I reverted the early close because I don't think one day and one other editor equates to consensus. That's such an integral part of the merging policy. I also can't understand the rush. Will the sky fall in if we allow a separate article to stand for a few days? But if an un-involved editor wishes to close as merge I will be disappointed but accept the community consensus. It's disheartening that when people put genuine work into content creation (as I do) other editors seek to rely on the most rigid reading of policy to delete that work. I'd really be intrigued to know what I have done that you feel would warrant sanctions or raises "red flags"? Anyway I'm going to take a WP:WIKIBREAK for a couple of days after this. I feel a little dismayed with the way office politics and WP:WIKILAWYERING is allowed to influence so much of what goes on here. I'm not throwing my toys out of my pram and I'll be back soon, much to the disgust of many editors I'm guessing :). I just feel like I need a little break from the irritation and stress of endless bickering that gets in the way of building a good encyclopaedia for readers AusLondonder (talk) 08:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * People seldom do seek to behave badly, it is something that creeps up on us. That is why we need to listen to the critical feedback of others who we trust. When every single person who comments has disagreed with you, it is worth at least considering that you have got it wrong, rather than positing conspiracy, bad faith or whatever. Edits like this one (check edit summary) show disappointingly little understanding of how this looks to those of us who utterly do not care about the subject matter. I'll spell it out for you; you look ridiculous. The misunderstanding of NSONGS is forgiveable, but the shrill, strident, angry behaviour that has followed your misunderstanding is highly off-putting. Bringing the matter (in which you were completely wrong) to this admin board and continuing to argue that you were right when every single person disagrees with you, continuing to revert, continuing to insult your opponent even after he has apologised and moved on; these are the issues I would identify as "red flags" in your behaviour. It's not obligatory that you apologise as Richhoncho has done, but I think it is important that you learn from this so you do not waste everybody's time and energy on a future occasion. You did ask. --John (talk) 12:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Gosh, thank you for showing off your startling lack of self-awareness. It actually sounds like you are recalling your bed behaviour about sourcing see Talk:British National Party. A discussion was began about the issues you raised at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons and remember what happened - the consensus went against you. Damn! But you weren't having that. Oh, no. You basically said "get stuffed" and kept editing directly against consensus to suit your own personal agenda. In your wise words "When every single person who comments has disagreed with you, it is worth at least considering that you have got it wrong". But sometimes it's important to remember the saying "Do as I say, not as I do". You talk about bad faith and being "shrill and strident". What an astoundingly ironic statement. Do you recall your behaviour at Talk:Terry Wogan? Do you recall when who failed to assume good faith accusing me and others of "nationalism"? Do you recall when you abused editors involved in the discussion, some having been here for 10 years, calling them "ignorant blow-ins"? On another note do you remember saying in that same discussion "A few days to finish the discussion won't kill you" - a principle that only seems to apply to discussions you are losing. When a consensus was reached at the talk page (in two sections) you again ignored it and used an edit summary to say "rv nationalist POV pushing; get a grown up to do this for you please". And then above you criticise me for my edit summary removing harassment from my talkpage, as I am completely entitled to do. Again, to quote one editor, "I'll spell it out for you; you look ridiculous". No one likes a hypocrite mate. AusLondonder (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well indeed. Enjoy your break. --John (talk) 10:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * This is an edit-war, and it seems to have stopped now and the normal WP:MERGEPROP discussion seems to be resuming instead. Suggest we close this now. If the out-of-process merge and edit-warring continues, report it at WP:ANEW. -- Softlavender (talk) 11:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Block review: Shootingstar88
is an editor who got off to a rough start, including when it comes to interaction with me, but eventually proved to a valuable editor. That stated, Shootingstar88 also ran into trouble regarding WP:Copyright and WP:Plagiarism issues, with warnings and an indefinite block from/by Diannaa. Diannaa began monitoring Shootingstar88's edits and talk page, and, as seen in this section, has indefinitely blocked Shootingstar88 again. Shootingstar88 argued that effort was taken not to engage in a copyright or plagiarism violation again, and that there were limited ways to reword the latest text in question. In other words, Shootingstar88 believed the text was okay per Plagiarism and Close paraphrasing. I told Diannaa and Ohnoitsjamie (who turned down Shootingstar88's request for an unblock) the following: "Looking at the comparison between the texts above, I see a genuine effort on Shootingstar88's part to avoid copyright and plagiarism violations. It's certainly better than Shootingstar88's previous efforts. Furthermore, I commonly see Wikipedia editors (including the experienced types) reword such text in those ways. How does Shootingstar88's rewording not fall under Wikipedia:Plagiarism#What is not plagiarism and Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#When there are a limited number of ways to say the same thing?" I pinged Moonriddengirl for an opinion, but Moonriddengirl is very busy these days and has already tried to help Shootingstar88.

I understand why Diannaa has indefinitely blocked Shootingstar88, but I'm not sure that it's best for Wikipedia that this editor remain indefinitely blocked, especially since this editor is adding important content and is helping to balance out the POV-pushing going on at the sex differences/gender differences articles and similar. Shootingstar88 wants a review of the block from the community, which is why I brought the matter here. I suggested it, but warned Shootingstar88 that the community might oppose an unblock and the WP:Standard offer is likely the last chance after that. Since this topic is not just a matter of administrative opinion, and since WP:ANI is often more active than WP:AN, I opted to address it here instead of at WP:AN. Below is a comparison (by Shootingstar88) of the disputed text.

Book: ...Man had right and duty to protect the "weaker" sex and woman had the right to man's protection.

My edit: Although women had the right for receive protection from men and men the duty to protect women....

Book: He granted women to be in charge of the household but spared her the weighty judgments for which was ill-equipped by declaring men to be in charge of running the world.

My edit: Kant argued women's role to primarily be in the household and men in charge of running the world

Book: According to Kant, only white men had the intellectual and moral capacity for political and leadership roles.

My edit:Immanuel Kant declared that only white men had enough moral and capable intellect for leadership roles such as in politics

Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Without commenting on the case: do we really need sections here? This isn't a "vote" like an RFA. only (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You or someone else can feel free to remove the section headings; I added them because such sections are common for cases like these and I felt it would be cleaner (especially as far as mixing arguments with the "Support block" or "Oppose block" material goes). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Block reviews belong at WP:AN, not ANI. Please move this thread there, or have someone else move it, or someone reading this please move it. Softlavender (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen that it's the case that block reviews only happen at WP:AN. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Endorse block. Shootingstar88's command of the English language is way too incompetent to be editing English Wikipedia trying to add substantive content. The fact that they are an SPA pushing an agenda, and not comprehending copyright policy and what close-paraphrase consists of, only compounds the WP:CIR problem. Softlavender (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: For what the aforementioned headings looked like, see this edit by Softlavender. Besides "Support indefinite block" and "Oppose indefinite block" options, I suggested a "Give a WP:Standard offer deal" option. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:STANDARDOFFER. It's part of any indef block (that's why it's "standard"). It also requires waiting for six months before requesting it. Softlavender (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Why would I need to read that essay when I'm already aware of it? Editors commonly endorse standard offers instead of an indefinite block in cases such as these; I should know, considering how long I've been with Wikipedia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:STANDARDOFFER isn't "instead of an indefinite block". As I mentioned, it is part of any indefinite block, and one has to wait for six months before requesting it. "Indefinite" does not mean "infinite"; an indefinite block is "a block that does not have a definite (or fixed) duration". Softlavender (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Softlavender, do stop treating me like a newbie; I do not need to be told what WP:Standard offer states, and I do not need to be reminded that "indefinite does not mean infinite," especially since that is clear by the WP:Standard offer essay, and I have seen it stated by a variety of editors for years. I stated, "Editors commonly endorse standard offers instead of an indefinite block in cases such as these." I shouldn't have to point to threads showing exactly that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You keep saying "Editors commonly endorse standard offers instead of an indefinite block in cases such as these.", but that's not true. WP:STANDARDOFFER is not something proposed " instead of an indefinite block" (that wouldn't make sense, as one is a block and the other is an unblock request). WP:STANDARDOFFER is automatically part of any indefinite block, unless someone is site-banned and it is also explicitly stated that any attempts at a request for a standard-offer unblock will likely be refused. I think what you are recalling is people proposing "indefinite block with WP:STANDARDOFFER" (a way of deliberately re-affirming that if the user reforms they can possibly come back in six months). There is no "instead of". Softlavender (talk) 04:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Softlavender, since you don't know what I mean, even after it has been displayed by KrakatoaKatie (also simply known as Katie) below, I do not see the point in continuing this discussion with you. I didn't see the point from the beginning. Some editors will state that they do not endorse an indefinite block, but that they support a WP:Standard offer proposal. You may find that contradictory, but it happens. Other editors will state they support the indefinite block and are open to the WP:Standard offer. And then there are editors who will state that they support the indefinite block and are not open to the WP:Standard offer. That is what I mean, and it has been displayed countless times at WP:AN, WP:ANI and elsewhere. Any issue with how editors apply WP:Standard offer is not necessarily my issue. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support block. The wording is uncanny and it's quite obvious that the book was copy-pasted then a few words were taken out. As much as I appreciate Shootingstar's efforts, it's easy to call copyright on this one. Even I could had written better than that. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  02:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Endorse block I'd be open to the standard offer, which will give Shootingstar88 ample time to understand the copyright policies. Katietalk 03:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Overturn block - The allegedly plagiarized lines shown above are totally fine so long as they are footnoted for the original source of the idea. I suspect the politicized subject matter is the actual cause of this rhubarb. Carrite (talk) 04:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Overturn block. Backing up Carrite; I can't see how these sentences count as plagiarism. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 05:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Overturn If the block was made for those edits there is something wrong. You could switch a word around or two but in order to make it not resemble the original source at all you would have to make a ham-handed phrasing that would look terrible. Some information really does have a limited amount of ways it can be conveyed. The hatted phrasing seems a genuine attempt to avoid copyright/plagurism issues. No comment on previous conduct. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment from Diannaa, the blocking admin. I first issued a warning to Shootingstar88 on December 19 for copyright violations on Neuroscience of sex differences . The violation was noticed while investigating a report of copyvio by a different editor to that article that appeared on the bot report User:EranBot/Copyright/rc/17. I issued a second warning when the bot detected violations on Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test on January 17. I began daily monitoring of the user's contribs, and blocked on January 21 when I detected a copyright violation on Sex differences in crime. He was unblocked on January 23 after he assured me that he now understood copyright law and wouldn't do it any more. I resumed daily monitoring of the user's contribs. Further violations were noted on February 6, and another warning issued. Further violations were noted on February 10, and another warning issued. Further violations were noted on February 17, and the block issued. The edit in question is . The material regarding Kant is an example only. Here is a comparison of the full edit, with identical material in bold:
 * Aristotle. Source: "...resulting from their lack of heat. He claimed that women's coldness transformed male embryos into females, thereby thwarting their development into the pure human type. To Aristotle, women were essentially misbegotten males, cursed by nature with lamentable physical and emotional deficiencies, and useful only for reproduction." Shootingstar88's edit: "Aristotle argued that because of a lack of "heat", women's coldness converted male embryos into females and stopping their development into the "pure human" which is male. He further clarified that women were only useful for reproduction and had physical and emotional deficiencies."
 * Plato. Source: "...defined the primordial human state as male and declared that women, who exist several steps below men and the gods, exist to punish men for their sensual desires." Shootingstar88's edit: "For example in his greek dialogues Timaeus, he defined the fundamental state of human nature as male and argued women only exist to punish men for their psychological desires."
 * Kant. Source: "...man had the right and duty to protect the weaker sex, and woman had the right to man's protection. He granted woman control of the household, but he spared her the weighty judgements for which she was ill-equipped by declaring man in charge of the rest of the world. ... According to Kant, only white men had the intellectual and moral capacity for political and other leadership roles." Shootingstar88's edit: "Although women had the right for receive protection from men and men the duty to protect women, Kant argued women's role to primarily be in the household and men in charge of running the world. Known for his negative views on the abilities of other races and women, Immanuel Kant declared that only white men had the moral and intellectual capacity for leadership roles especially in politics."
 * My opinion is that this is a copyright violation, as it presents exactly the same material in the same order, and uses wording that is only superficially changed from the original. Carrite's comment that the subject matter was the reason for the block has no basis in fact. — Diannaa (talk) 11:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Indented 's comparison lines to make it a little bit easier to read. Please feel free to undo if it changes the intent. Hasteur (talk) 13:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Endorse block but limit duration. I don't see any reason to believe that Diannaa's action was improper, and that would be the only reason to overturn this sort of block. However I'm not comfortable with this being a closed case. As far as I can tell several users have tried to explain our copyright policies to Shootingstar88 and they are obviously open to hearing criticism and trying to learn. This thread reflects what I see on their talk page: lots of "this is a bad edit" and "this is what the policy says" but I don't think anyone has ever attempted "here's how this edit would be better". Offer some examples of what would make the material better conform to policies. Everyone knows cut-and-paste edits are bad, but balancing content creation with avoiding plagiarism and close paraphrasing is a much trickier thing that can take some time to learn, not to mention finding the narrow space between copying a source and synthesizing/misrepresenting it. Hell I'm not really sure I even get it most of the time. Shootingstar88 is trying to learn. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support block Given the number of times the user has been warned about this. As others have noted, the changes to the text were strictly superficial, and the user's comment Now I understand that wikipedia is like super super touchy about even the slightest form of similarity or resemblance even though you can probably get away with these kinds of stuff in college is telling. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support block per Dianaa and Ohnoitsjamie. It says a lot about that college if it doesn't teach academic rigour to the point that plagiarism is something one can "probably get away with". Blackmane (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support block, but remit to time served if someone can be found to reach out to the user and coach them in what is and is not permitted, more or less per Ivanvector. Plagiarism and copyright are quite difficult areas for some people. I feel with the right support this is a user who could be productive. --John (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per Ivanvector - by unblocking this user, we are essentially teaching them that their behaviour was OK as they got unblocked for it in the end, which is ridiculous. I agree that the user should remain blocked, but for a shorter period of time, and if they continue to post copyright violating material, they should be subject to an indefinite block as they will have lost the community's trust. --Ches (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Tide rolls and Muhammad Iqbal
Hello respected sirs. The administrator User:Tide rolls has been causing disruption bullying editors at the article Muhammad Iqbal which seems to have become a zone for edit warring. You can see the history of the article here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_Iqbal&action=history). This all seems to have been going since a editor User:KahnJohn27 made his edit. The editors User:SheriffIsInTown and User:Justice007 started reverting them and none of them started talking later on. User:Tide rolls blocked Justice007 and KahnJohn later when they kept edit-warring. User:SheriffIsInTown instead of caring to wait for discussion to be over decided to revert after this.

I came to the article and saw his edits. He himself was edit-warring despite telling others not to do so. So I reverted him and told him not to do so until discussion is resolved. I thought no one will revert after this as everybody seemed to have gotten the warning. Then user Tide rolls came on User talk:Lakhbir87 and told me not to revert and discuss. I told him on his User:Tide rolls that I won't revert and will discuss later on. However another User: Drmies came and made another revert. This forced me to break my promise and revert him and tell him not to do so. I made it clear again that anyone who I will report anyone who made a revert after this. However Tide rolls blocked me for my revert despite me having reverted 2 times. Then he keeps on telling me after immediately unblocking to revert my edit if I don't wanna be blocked myself despite me telling him no problem if he himself wants to revert my edit. I don't see any reason why he himself can't do it. And he continues to threaten me with blocks and blames me for the problem at the article. This despite it's editors like him who think they can do what they want are the ones creating problem at the article. An edit-war cannot be solved by reverting, yes, but blocking everyone and bullying them is also no way to solve it. He has also pushed me around and tells me to keep my comments on my talk page only despite there being no rule saying that you need to do that. Tide rolls is clearly in excess of his limits now and is meaninglessly being aggressive towards everyone.

Therefore I ask you to tell him to keep in his limits and punish him for his behaviour. Additionally based on above reasons, I'll also ask you to lock the article Muhammad Iqbal until all the editors discuss it out completely first. Thank you very much. Lakhbir87 (talk) 11:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Justice007, Drmies and myself were merely maintaining the status quo with our most recent reverts while discussion took place. Tide rolls was just maintaining an order. Anybody paying attention to this request should also pay attention to WP:QUACK at Muhammad Iqbal, User talk:Tide rolls, User talk:Tide rolls, User talk:Tide rolls and User talk:Tide rolls.


 * Status quo is broken at Muhammad Iqbal after Lakhbir87's recent revert.


 * I request the admins that Lakhbir87's current block should be extended for a longer period for his disruptive and accusatory behavior.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 11:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * has made exactly 4 edits to the article; the last one was in 2013: . So your claims don't bear out. In terms of "discuss it out completely", that's your responsibility, per WP:BRD, and until that happens the article stays as it was before your addition. Start discussing and make your case. If you don't reach a WP:CONSENSUS, then you can avail yourself of some form of dispute resolution if you like. Softlavender (talk) 11:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Please also note that a possibility of canvassing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry or evasion of a block should not be ignored. Here you go, I have hinted on it without actually accusing anyone. I did not understand who your response was directed at?  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 11:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

User:SheriffIsInTown Who are you that decides what remains and what not? You haven't been maintaining any status quo, all you've done until now is do what you want and deliberately add and remove without discussion that too over irrational and improper reasons. And if you think what I say is accusatory, one only needs to see your edits at Muhammad Iqbal. I agree with KahnJohn27 that you're reasons are completely irrational and non-sensible. If someone has to be blocked, then that's definitely you since you've reverted more times than I have and even Tide rolls has told you to stop reverting. And please remember edit-warring is still edit-warring regardless of what reason you have. Even at Talk: Muhammad Iqbal you have tried to defend your edit-warring and say you did nothing wrong. You have been causing disruiption since the beginning without any regard for the policies. You have broken many policies at the same time. I request the admins to check this editor's behaviour and if necessary give him a ban in case he carries on with the same disruptive behaviour of doing what he wants and edit-warring. Lakhbir87 (talk) 11:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Softlavender I haven't said Tide rolls is edit-warring. Only that he is exceeding his limits and being aggressive. As for "discuss it out" I think that goes for everyone. And User:SheriffIsInTown particularly seems to think it doesn't apply to him. Lakhbir87 (talk) 12:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

And User:Softlavender you've become another one to revert in the article. Please don't decide what status quo is and what goes in or not. You should have waited for the discussion to be resolved. The situation at the article is now out of hand. Lakhbir87 (talk) 12:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * NOTE to admins and SheriffIsInTown: Well the sockpuppetry and block evasion is obvious (especially since the material was initially added by, who was blocked shortly afterwards, and then Lakhbir87 appears out of nowhere to continue the edit war), hence Tide roll's blocks. Suggest an SPI be opened. Softlavender (talk) 12:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Softlavender I'm not a sockpuppet, in fact I joined here a few months ago. I came upon this article a few days ago and it seems everyone just wants to do what they want. If my 2 reverts were wrong (which is why I was blocked) or were edit-warring, then I apologise which I already did to Tide rolls. But it seems you have decided not to listen to my complaint. I ask other admins to please take a look at my complaint. Lakhbir87 (talk) 12:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've just been a couple of hours getting to work. I'll be able to answer questions off and on should anyone have concerns.  Tide  rolls  13:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please apologise for your unacceptable behaviour. You are a bully and are being aggressive to me. Lakhbir87 (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Nothing inappropriate here on Tide Rolls' part. OP got blocked for edit warring. Tide Rolls actually did OP the kindness of trying to explain things rather than instantly blocking. OP's behavior at his own user talk page, if anything, is the source of aggression. (and just in case I get accused of partiality to Tide Rolls, I am a Notre Dame supporter) —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 14:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't mind ND supporters, . We have them for breakfast, almost literally: every morning when I take the kids to school we drive past a house that once upon a time, just before a certain game, had a ND banner on the front porch. We smile benevolently at those people. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Drmies sent me a notification saying self-revert isn't a revert. I didn't know that Tide rolls. I'm sorry. But you crossed the line by blocking me and then threatening me with block again if I didn't self revert. And why am I being blamed User:Mendaliv? I didn't become agressive to Tide rolls or try to bully him, however he blocked me out of nowhere. Lakhbir87 (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Vaibhav.times has joined wikipedia to promote the website skjbollywoodnews.
Till date out of 309 edits, 43 times he has inserted links of skjbollywoodnews. In every new Bollywood release, he will enter links in the movie reception section. His edit will start like this: Subhash Kumar Jha of skjbollywoodnews gave 3 stars to the movie. He works for skjbollywoodnews.com and is friend of Subhash Jha. He has edited other articles to avoid scrutiny.

proof: http://skjbollywoodnews.com/about-us/ (The name of ceo-Vaibhav Chaudhary is removed from this website page, minutes after I made this post) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.238.111.63 (talk) 12:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I failed to understand why there is a issue if i put sources about Subhash K jha, he is quite popular journalist in india and if i put his critic's rating there should not be any problem, if there is tell me why?. It is not that i am doing something which is not related or irrelevant, why putting Subhash K Jha comments and rating leads to any issue i seriously fail to understand, i also want this user to reveal his true identity by longing in and showing his real name. Just blaming on someone without any reason looks fishy. vaibhavthedestroyer--- 12:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaibhav.times (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks for not denying the accusation of your links to skjbollywoodnews. He writes for many newspapers, why are you selectively picking skjbollywoodnews in movie reception section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.226.159.136 (talk) 12:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Please go through my all edits and i have added sources from IANS and as well as other editions too but now he exclusively writes for SKJ only, so i have added those. It looks like u are hired by some producers who are not happy with his ratingvaibhavthedestroyer--- 13:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Secondly, fyi Skjbollywoodnews is quite popular site for his reviews now, so saying i pick it up from there it makes no sense at all. If you think you have some valid point why don't you reveal your true identity and say i am doing some unethical thingvaibhavthedestroyer--- 13:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaibhav.times (talk • contribs)

Strong Note -- Till twenty minutes ago, I was able to view the name of Vaibhav Chaudhary as the CEO of skjbollywoodnews. Now immediately after I made this post, The name is removed from "about us" section of that website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.226.234.222 (talk) 13:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

So you must have kept the screenshotvaibhavthedestroyer--- 13:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaibhav.times (talk • contribs)
 * You will have to update it again sometimes. You are the CEO/CFO of that website. I will be watching the page. You can't step down from the post, or give wrong information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.226.234.222 (talk) 13:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Tell me exact problem, i never said i don't know subhash k jha or skjbollywoodnews, did i ever? secondly i know lots of people not just subhash k jha being associated with this industry, once used to be consultant and no more associated with him now and once and see i am not arguing anything here.. I know u have some vested interest or past grudges.vaibhavthedestroyer--- 13:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaibhav.times (talk • contribs)

Note: I have dealt with User:Vaibhav.times at Adnan Sami and my observation is that this editor is either a paid editor by personalities belonging to bollywood or he works for a newpaper, maybe possibly The Times of India or someother Times newspaper and receives some kind of payment from these personalities to keep their outlook better on Wikipedia however they want him to do. He has been trying his best to remove Adnan Sami's connection with Pakistan or his father's connection with Pakistan so that Adnan can have a better acceptance and a better outlook in India. You know what can be at stake when someone can be accused of having ties to Pakistan in any sense so it's very beneficial for people like Adnan Sami to break any ties with Pakistan or to show that they had any relation with Pakistan in the past. There are made up date of births matching with Indian independence day all coming from primary source which is Adnan Sami's own interviews in this case and supported by editors such as Vaibhav.times.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 13:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)4

NoteThis is called jumping on to grab the moment nd prove yourself right, Sherrif you are always in argument with most of the editors not alone me and you are no one to s peak shit and accuse someone without proof. Do, you have any proof of my nexus with these personalities??? i will say you do have vested interest with putting your say on almost all pages... Please look at yourself before commenting and you are liable for action for commenting against news organisation with proof, better watch out what you sayvaibhavthedestroyer--- 15:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You should watch your language when you are here on Wikipedia, it is not some kind of skjbollywoodnews.com of which you are a CEO as claimed by another editor.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 15:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

You watch our language first, who are you to accuse me of taking money???? mind your words and i am what i am it is none of your business. Speak what is valid rather getting into someone's personal lifevaibhavthedestroyer--- 15:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaibhav.times (talk • contribs)
 * Well, we meet again, and I confirm your suspicion. You're two for two today. Flipping through their history one sees that they were spamming that site in May of 2015 already, and indeed, look at their first edit. If only we had listened to back then... Drmies (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Legal threats at AfD
left this legal threat at an AfD. I templated the user but I have to leave momentarily and won't be able to check back until later. Not sure if anything else needs to be done. Thanks, and cheers! Woodroar (talk) 14:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Blatant legal threat. WP:DOLT analysis indicates that it was issued in response to the statement at AfD that the sources used in the article were not reliable sources. Does not appear to be anything justifiable here, though an explanation that we aren't calling the sources "bad". Just not reliable for Wikipedia purposes. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 14:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Indef'ed this SPA. DMacks (talk) 14:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Personal attack
Nolantron, a user that was previously blocked for personal attacks, just decided to leave this on my Talk Page. Considering that this user has done this sort of thing in the past, this is unacceptable. I don't think there's any better way to put it. DarkKnight2149 14:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Boing! said Zebedee gave a 1-week block. DMacks (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping it was just a moment of overheated emotion, but that kind of interaction is not acceptable. I didn't escalate from the previous one-week block as it was more than a year ago, and any admin can unblock if they see a convincing request. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing
I want to report User:Eldumpo for disruptive editing and deleting references and also he does not respect WikiProject Football/Competitions. See, and .--SurAmericano80 (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Report denied: first you must discuss things on the talk page and you must talk it over with the user on their talk page. Drmies (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , I wonder if you have any interest in this report, by someone who is brand new but finds their way here very quickly. Drmies (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Drmies - No dispute resolution has been attempted.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Things out of control
Things seem out of control here - Visa requirements for Romanian citizens--Twofortnights (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Filed an RFPP  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 21:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The amount of edit warring is ridiculous from all involved parties, but I must note that (who I believe started the bold, massive WP:REMOVAL that led to the edit war) seems be be basically an WP:SPA for this article. LjL (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Locked for four days. Katietalk 21:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Blatant disregard for protocols on manors and arrogance unwarranted.
User:Mlpearc is not a person that has heard of manors, nor are they even trying to be sociable or teach instead of be antagonistic towards those that don't know as much as them about the Wiki 'does and don't', which isn't saying I'm completely ignorant at all. I feel this needs to be addressed, and yes I have tried via the talk page involved and their user page as well, which has been archived and ignored by this 'person', which is the utter height of arrogance by them, and judging by their history page, their MO. The fact that the notice in front of my writing this for the admin board, that their is already an Admin logged for the page, has not been found by me or is their a notice on my user talk page as per the regulations regarding such matters. So someone needs to have some input with authority about this or the reputation of the Wikipedia itself will continue to become worse due to such arrogant 'editors' or 'oversight' AfD 'persons' on here, as I've rejoined after a hiatus to see nothing has changed, and no I wasn't banned before, I just couldn't remember my old login details, so created a new one, obviously with a new email address, as I have many, so I'm just being straight forward about the subject. Nuro Dragonfly (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Nuro Dragonfly - This looks like an issue that you and I can discuss on my talk page. I'll be more than happy to assist you with your concerns. Can we talk there? :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, you're required to notify all involved users that an ANI discussion has begun that involves them. I have done this for you.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've placed a notice on Mlpearc's talk page. the notification goes on the talk page of the editor that you are reporting, not on the ANI page. Also, you need to link diffs as evidence. See WP:DIFF on how to do this. Blackmane (talk) 01:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * My interactions with this user is here: Talk:Motörhead.  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 01:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, concerns re protocols on manors should be discussed at WP:WikiProject Architecture or maybe Talk:Feudalism.  E Eng  05:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I screwed up here
I spotted legal threats being made, and blocked the wrong user accidentally before getting the right one (too many tabs open). Can someone check this and make sure it got sorted out? Accounts are (legit) and  (accidental). TomStar81 (Talk) 01:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * TomStar81 - It looks like you've fixed the problem and the correct account is blocked.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * On another note, I find something else quite interesting. Look how the user signed their 'letter'. ItsLassieTime. WP:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime, User:ItsLassieTime, WP:Long-term abuse/ItsLassieTime. Seems like that name has history. Is it worth a closer look? -- The Voidwalker  Discuss 02:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Good catch,, the account is indeed an ItsLassieTime sockpuppet. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Questionable edits at WP:ITN by IP editor
I'm not exactly sure what I did to warrant this strange personal attack by 87.154.210.6, but edits like this can't really be permitted under any sort of circumstances, can it?--WaltCip (talk) 01:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This has been resolved by Drmies...--WaltCip (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Lyza prim - Continued removal of CSD tags, recreation of CSD'd pages
Myself and several other editors (,, have attempted to work with and/or warn this editor on their talk page in order to resolve this matter.  User:Lyza prim is non-responsive and continues to remove CSD tags (A7, G11) and recreate the deleted pages (current incarnation is Primlyza, but has also been Lyza Prim, Prim Lyza and a few other variations if memory serves).  They have created a draft for their article, but isn't editing it, despite suggesting that they do so.  I'm not sure what else I can do to get through to them.

CSD removals for current article:

Apparently as IP user

As User Lyza Prim

And again as User Lyza Prim

Attempts at discussion (only a few of the many attempts and warnings):

Warning by Datbubblegumdoe re BLPs for article Lyza prim

Warning by C.Fred re article Chhorn sovannreach

User removed this warning from C.Fred

C.Fred attempts direct discussion

First warning by Majora for removal of CSD tag on article Prim lyza

Second warning by Majora

Third warning by Majora

Fourth warning by Majora

uw-create3 template by C.Fred

Attempt at discussion by myself

Chrisw80 (talk) 09:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * This user has now been indefinitely blocked by . However, there's another user,, who's created the same article, Prim-lyza. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * and thank you both for the speedy and awesome work!. It looks like both are blocked now. Chrisw80 (talk) 09:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Blocked that one as well. Favonian (talk) 09:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

blatant abuse of userpage for self-promotion
seems to edit only for self-promotion and her userpage User:Bella Barbee is hardly in scope of :en. --Túrelio (talk) 10:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It's been G11ed. Not much else to do right now, and since it's the first time for that editor it's probably not worth blocking... though I can't see what was on the page, so I could be wrong. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 11:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am the editor who tagged it G11. Honestly, it looked like a somewhat professional attempt at creating a social media profile page for an adult-oriented website with some pictures included. It also included about a half dozen external links to a few spammy-seeming sites and Facebook/twitter/etc., and the content was a little on the suggestive side. The user attempted to fix it by removing the links, but the remainder was still strictly a profile page, not encyclopedic in any way. Chrisw80 (talk) 12:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Bella's pictures are still on Commons, but I suppose that's not our concern here.   D b f i r s   13:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Those photos are almost certainly the work of professional photographers, so someone might want to go nominate them for deletion if they have the time. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 16:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Repetitive addition of hoax on the Royal Family article
User: 2A01:1B0:705:0:20C:29FF:FECF:9D96 is spamming the article Royal Family with the site and mention of a nonexistent or hoax Royal Family of Bosnia. This is not the first time this material is introduced. Recently he has added it here, here, here and and here. Perhaps this could be construed as spam. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably could've been handled via AIV, at least had the IP been warned with each addition (it would've been past final warning by now). Even so the IP seems to be at 4 reverts in the last 24h, so a block on that basis would be appropriate as well. I'm not up on my spamblacklist procedure, if that's what you were curious about though. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 17:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Sock of banned -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 17:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Intimidation Threat (RL) "When I'm in Leeds, I'll Look Her Up"
This is an 2014 that was never reported because the administrator worked to get the editor blocked. I believe it's a dangerous one because he says he will "look her up" when he comes to her area. Marinka Van Dam certainly isn't friendly with him and wouldn't want that.

"And oh yeah, I forgot: I missed the meetup, again. I trust y'all had a splendid time. Maybe I'll submit to the medieval get-together in Leeds one of these days and look up Marinka van Dam as well, on my way to the "Manchester circle and sausagefest", to shake y'all's hands and look at the ferrets. Drmies 01:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)." (.)

I say the motivations of Drmies and the potential threat to an editor (even though she was blocked) need to be examined. Will be back to sign this edit in 45 minutes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.203.180 (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * There's stale and then there's this. --Tarage (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Pretty sure WP:STALE doesn't apply to RL threats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.203.180 (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Realistically, it does, not to mention the fact you're using an IP to edit here (and these are the only edits I can see on the IP) makes me think this is a poor attempt at a vendetta by dredging up something from over a year ago. What's the name of your original account? — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 21:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This is stale. This does not look like a serious threat to me. If you think it does, email emergency@wikimedia.org and let that be the end of it. But make sure do you it during SanFran office hours or someone will get unnecessarily pissed. BethNaught (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Linkspam from IP address
This is borderline WP:AIV material, but since link spam is not technically vandalism, here goes: Special:Contributions/182.180.117.205 seems to be made up entirely of additions of external links to one specific website, often in addition to removing or mangling existing parts of the involved articles. Requested remedy is for the address to be blocked. LjL (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Another user left a warning. As for a block, the edits were 8 hours ago, so the IP is now stale. BethNaught (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It might be stale, but this is clear-cut long-term WP:REFSPAM. Blocked for a week and adding the site to the blacklist. - Kinu  t/c 22:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Excuse me but how can the IP be stale when the spam (always to the same domain) started in October and continued until minutes ago... always from that specific IP address? LjL (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It is correct that last edit from this IP was almost 10 hours ago (at 12:38 UTC), so it's technically stale since they were warned after (at 21:51 UTC). I'd say that's neither here nor there in this case, though, since this appears to be that IP's single-purpose since they started editing. But yes, done. -- Kinu  t/c 22:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive talk page discussions by User:Shkarter1985
has gone around starting these discussions on talk pages about how he's upset that the pages are being semi-protected. All of these discussions are rife with invalid complaints and claims that Wikipedia being free is "false advertising" because of the protections. I would go on and on about it, but I don't think there's anything else I can say about this that hasn't already been said.

Here are some links to the relevant discussions:
 * Talk:SpongeBob SquarePants
 * Talk:2016 in American television
 * 
 * Talk:The Doors (album)

Should Shkarter1985 be blocked, on the grounds that he is doing nothing but being disruptive and wasting our time with these invalid and pointless discussions? Electric Burst (Electron firings)(Zaps) 23:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * He emailed Wikipedia, we're done for. Seriously, though, it's probably safe to ignore them and hat their rants. clpo13(talk) 00:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't like like Arrogant Wikipedians and so called WikiBots. Over the years I've gave other wikipedians heck after they removed some of my edits on various wikipedia articles and I wasn't happy about it. Something tells me this editor also has a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Electric  Burst (Electron firings)(Zaps) 00:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User has been warned to stop ranting about page protection on talk pages, and to stop misusing talk pages. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

User Jojhutton not accepting results of RfC
Some months back, and I were in conflict over the following statement on the Jedediah Smith article:


 * The cowboy Jedediah in the Night at the Museum movies is said by the ship_manifesto to be based on Jedediah Smith, despite the disparity between a fur trapper/explorer and a cowboy. IMBD calls the Jedediah character in the movie "Jedediah Smith", but that he "he may or may not be based off the real life 'cowboy' from the 1700's Jedediah Smith." The Movie Pilot asserts that all the characters in the movie are based on real-life characters, including Jedediah, who is claimed to be Jedediah Smith.

I filed a Request for Comment on the talk page. Johutton did not participate on the RfC, and the general consensus was "Non-controversial information doesn't need to meet the same level of rigorous sourcing." The paragraph quoted above has been in the article since then. Now, Jojhutton has started taking it back out, stating that: "None of the sources that state that the character in NATM is the historical figure Jedediah Smith are reliable because they are from open Wikis" which is untrue. I'm not sure if one would call IMBD an "open wiki", but it's only one of the three sources, and if it can't be used as a source, a lot of information in a lot of articles are in jeopardy.

Other editors, who initially opposed putting this material in the article have accepted the RfC, but Jojhutton can't let go of the stick. I don't know where else to go with this.

Lynn (SLW) (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It's been two months since the last RfC. is free to open another one if he likes. The previous RfC was iffy/concerned about the sourcing, but there was no Survey or real consensus on whether to actually include the material or not. Perhaps an RfC with a Survey should be opened now. Softlavender (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, since he couldn't be bothered to participate in the last one, we'll see if he can be bothered to open one. Until then, I was advised to take my issues with this uncivil passive aggressive behavior here.  Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I see he started a thread on the talk page of the article a few minutes before this ANI was filed; perhaps the two postings even overlapped. Technically (as was re-affirmed by several users in the RfC) he has the right, as does anyone, to challenge (and remove) material that is not supported by WP:RS. This is a content issue, that should be resolved on the article talk page. Since policy is actually on his side and there was no Survey or consensus to include the material, in the absence of a consensus otherwise, he has policy backing to challenge and remove material that is not cited by WP:RS. My advice: Everyone should go back to the talk page and establish consensus (either with or without a new RfC), and also find WP:RS. Again, this is a content dispute, not an ANI issue at this point, given the TP discussions. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your opinion. I disagree. As I stated above, his reasoning is: "None of the sources that state that the character in NATM is the historical figure Jedediah Smith are reliable because they are from open Wikis" which is untrue.  You are incorrect when you say that "policy is actually on his side".  I consider not participating in an RfC, then reinitiating the conflict a short time later to be disruptive. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "... which is untrue". The place to make that argument is in the article talk-page thread which you quote and to which you refer, not here on ANI. This is a content dispute. Softlavender (talk) 02:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Been there, done that on Jojhutton's talk page the first time around. I asked  to move it the article talk page; he refused and told me to come here.  Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Content issues never belong on a user talk page. They belong only on the talk-page of the article. There is a discussion on this content issue currently on the talk page of the article in question, so that is where the discussion should continue. Softlavender (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, so tell that.  Until then, here is the discussion.  I have no desire to repeat it.  Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No need for either. Anyone who wishes to participate in the article talk-page discussion may do so. Softlavender (talk) 02:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I suggest, given your intense interest, that you start. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Since user:Jonathan A Jones deleted the verbiage in question in the article, it needs to be discussed where participants can see it. So, I'm moving user:Jojhutton's statement here:


 * And just by taking a look at WP:USERG, one will see that IMDB is actually named as being unacceptable because it is largely User Generated. Any source that can be written by anyone on the internet is not considered reliable. Adding to the fact that the claim being made is completely and utterly false, just adds to the fact that this should not be in the article. All this does is spread false information.-- JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  11:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Your claim, user:Jojhutton that the speculation "is completely and utterly false," is OR. Can you point to a source that states that, or is it just something you've assumed based on the fact that you can't find a source that says he is not?  I've pointed to three sources, only one of which is IMBD, that speculate that the Jedediah in the movie is based on Jedediah Smith. IMBD is quoted as saying: "he may or may not be based off the real life 'cowboy' from the 1700's Jedediah Smith."  IMBD is a reliable source for what IMBD says.  Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "IMDB is a reliable source [...]." No it is not. Please see WP:CITEIMDB. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  13:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You took that out of context, so I'm not going to bother following your link. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Bottom Line
The Jedediah Smith article is prone to vandalism, I think partly because of the pop-culture references to him. This is why I think a well rounded pop-culture section is paramount to the article. I've seen some pretty cleverly disguised vandalism on the page, such as this where the vandal inserted a wife and child of Smith. It went undetected for several days until I finally went back to check on the article. If I hadn't had done so, it probably would have remained there indefinitely. But, I'm not going to maintain the page if I have to put up with wiki-lawyering. If someone wants to have a good faith discussion of the issue, that's fine, but ignoring an RfC and summarily deleting a section that I think is important, ignoring my defense of the statement or taking portions of it out of context is just not something I see any reason to enable. So, I've taken the page off my watchlist and am leaving it up to others to maintain. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * RFC'S at an article very rarely supersede policy. Localconsensus is also relevant here. The policies regarding sourcing apply everywhere. While it is unlikely for people to object to non contentious info in articles that is sourced to user generated fan sites, if someone does, the editors who wish the info to be included in the article are required to provide reliable sourcing as per policy. What you have is a common, or garden, content dispute. If someone is objecting to material based on the sourcing, the correct place to get another opinion would be the reliable sources noticeboard. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The consensus for inclusion of this material was weak at best, and in any event doesn't overturn core policies. MOS:POPCULT is very clear on questions of this kind.  Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input Only in death does duty end. Can you please reconcile your statement: "RFC'S at an article very rarely supersede policy." with the second paragraph of the Policies and Guidelines article:  "Although Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-agreed practices. Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense."?
 * Reason and common sense say we don't use unreliable sources for material to be included in an encyclopedia. Essentially you want to argue IAR, however that only applies when ignoring a rule helps the encyclopedia, you would have to make a good case that including unreliable material justifies ignoring policies and guidelines because it improves the article. That is unlikely to get anywhere with fancruft. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You too, User:Jonathan A Jones. How do reconcile your statement:  "MOS:POPCULT is very clear on questions of this kind." with the end sentence of MOS:POPCULT which says:  "Wikipedia has no policies or guidelines addressing the content of pop-culture sections specifically"?  Lynn (SLW) (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Better option would be to proceed up the dispute resolution hierarchy because this still appears to be a content issue rather than a behavioral one. At the very least, based on the discussion that has occurred here thus far, it's pretty clear that nobody's going to act on this as a behavioral issue. I will say that my general understanding as regards IMDB is that IMDB is unreliable for Wikipedia purposes. That includes for making the WP:DUE analysis necessary to determine whether content that can solely be attributed to IMDB even belongs in the article. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 15:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Nah, I'm done. I've taken it off my watchlist.  User:Jonathan A Jones and User:Jojhutton can watch it for any hint of information from IMBD while vandals destroy the important part of the article.  Go ahead and close this.  Lynn (SLW) (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Continuous undisclosed COI editing
Hi, Leoaugust is a single-purpose account being used by the undisclosed COI editor to push his agenda to malign the image of Raheja Developers and take the page away from WP:NPOV. After repeated warning to disclose his WP:COI, he declines having any connection with the subject. As I can not disclose his COI over Wikipedia respecting his privacy, I want to share some evidence with an administrator who then may decide whether he has a COI or not. Note: I'm also a paid editor who was requested to edit the page on behalf of Raheja Developers to properly address both sides of the scene.   Mr RD    11:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You cannot disclose any personal information about another editor, either on Wikipedia or via email; if you do so you will be blocked from editing. See WP:OUTING. You also cannot personally force someone to disclose a COI that you believe he has. If you are concerned about a possible COI he might have, then that discussion should take place at WP:COIN. If you are concerned about possible repeated POV and disruptive editing, then please provide WP:DIFFs making your case here. Softlavender (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Can you point to the policy stating that you cannot post such information even via email? Email would seem like a medium of communication that Wikipedia cannot possibly have jurisdiction on. LjL (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The OP is talking about revealing personal information about someone else to an admin as a way of indicting that person. Read WP:OUTING. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I have read WP:OUTING, but I came to no clear conclusion, in particular because it says "If redacted or oversighted personally identifying material is important to the COI discussion, then it should be emailed privately to an administrator or arbitrator – but not repeated on Wikipedia: it will be sufficient to say that the editor in question has a COI and the information has been emailed to the appropriate administrative authority. Issues involving private personal information (of anyone) could also be referred by email to a member of the functionaries team."
 * This is only specifically mentioning material that was redacted from Wikipedia, not information that you may know from elsewhere (this is mentioned in previous paragraphs of WP:OUTING but then sort of forgotten about), but it at least makes a clear distinction between emailing an administrator, arbitrator or functionary, and simply repeating on Wikipedia. LjL (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That is referring to personal material volunteered by the editor in question -- in other words, self-identification. This is not such a case. Softlavender (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said, this was only indirectly related. The fact remains that I don't see any clear, direct statement on the matter of mentioning personal information via email to an administrator, arbitrator or functionary at WP:OUTING. Perhaps the policy should be expanded to make this clearer, as it seems like it's being treated as an important matter that can have consequences both for those reporting and those reported. LjL (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: This situation seems hairier than it appears at first glance; there's a whole lot of COI going on around Raheja Developers. See Sockpuppet investigations/Wikiaccnt1234/Archive (do Control+F raheja). -- Softlavender (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * After talking to Jytdog, I withdraw my request here. Kindly consider the one going on in the COI noticeboard. Sorry for being impatient.   Mr RD    20:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Continued harrassment by User:Herostratus
User:Herostratus is harrassing me. I asked him to disengage, but he continued to make statements about me. So I asked again. Even after those two clear and polite requests, he has made another statement today which insinuates some unspecified political motivation ("we understand what you're doing, and... let's just say this: there's nothing wrong with politics, necessarily, but the person closing this RfC is not required to honor anyone's political ploys"). Herostratus seems to be an opinionated, tendentious editor who is taking a particular issue very personally and thinks he can read my mind. Can an admin please ask him to stop referencing me and perhaps suggest that he disengage from Debbie Does Dallas altogether if he cannot restrain himself. Thanks. Right Hand Drive (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please provide diffs when reporting harassment or other conduct issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, truth is a defense in this case.
 * First of all User:Right Hand Drive is a WP:SPA, in fact a classic single purpose account. WP:SPA are allowed, I'm just pointing this out. I think it matters in this case.
 * Second of all, User:Right Hand Drive has an interesting edit history. In no way shape or form am I suggesting that he might be sockpuppet -- I'll leave that for others to ponder. I do think he's an admirably quick study for picking up the nuances of Wikipedia policies, and I do wish he'd turn his talents to working on articles. Brand-new WP:SPA in particular are discouraged from dragging editors to ANI, as a general guideline. If anyone wants to point this out to him it might be a kindness.
 * Third of all, I accused User:Right Hand Drive of manipulating the RfC process for his own end -- or trying to. This is not illegal or even that terrible a thing to do, and I never said it was. Many of use have done stuff for political advantage now and then, including probably me (not this overt, though), and one might even consider it clever and admirable, I suppose, depending. But it's true. Since it's true it's reasonable to point it out. ""we understand what you're doing, and... let's just say this: there's nothing wrong with politics, necessarily, but the person closing this RfC is not required to honor anyone's political ploys" is neither insulting nor false. It's just something that's worth pointing out to the closer IMO.


 * How I know that User:Right Hand Drive is playing a political game? Well, without digging up the difs (I can if you want me to), let's see:
 * We know for a fact that User:Right Hand Drive very very very badly wants the article Debbie Does Dallas to feature a click-to-play thumbnail of the film in the body of the article rather than as a link to Commons in the External Links section. It doesn't really matter, it's a minor issue, but without dragging out terms like "obsessive" let's just say that User:Right Hand Drive's entire Wiki-career is focused on this issue with laser-like intensity.
 * We know for a fact that User:Right Hand Drive opened an RfC at a different article (A Free Ride) on the question of whether the click-to-play thumbnail in that article should be replaced with a link in the External Links section. Why? Ask him. It's very simple: "User:Right Hand Drive, why did you open that RfC at A Free Ride? Do you believe in the proposition that the click-to-play thumbnail should be replaced? If so, how do you jibe this with your opposite position on Debbie Does Dallas? If not, then why did you open the RfC?" These are question that need asking if we're going to proceed further, I think. They're reasonable questions I think. I can't ask these questions, but since User:Right Hand Drive decided to come here, maybe an admin will ask him? (I concluded that the answer to these question are self-evident, that User:Right Hand Drive is expecting the usual no-consensus-no-change result at his RfC (as I said, User:Right Hand Drive is a very fast learner about the mechanics of the Wikipedia for a brand new user!), which he can then leverage over at his favorite article (Debbie Does Dallas) to force a change.)
 * We know for a fact that User:Right Hand Drive shut down another editor's RfC (!) (very bold for a brand-new editor!) at Debbie Does Dallas. Why? I'll leave it for wiser heads to contemplate whether or not this was to make sure his desired scenario went as he wished. (N.B.: the editor who did open the RfC there did close it, and I opened an idential one.)
 * OK? Any other question, I'm here. Herostratus (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * FWIW here's a diff.... "You asked to be notified if there was an RfC on including the movie in Debbie Does Dallas. I have started an RfC about a similar case which has had a hardcore pornographic movie embedded since 2012. I believe the result of this RfC could be helpful in moving the discussion forward on Debbie Does Dallas" and so forth... I you want to believe take this on face value you are entitled to, I guess.. at the risk of repeating myself the question I would have is if you want to "mov[e] the discussion forward on Debbie Does Dallas then why fight to prevent an RfC there? ( (as I noted, after this User:Alsee, who is a regular editor, got the drift and shut down the RfC claiming privilege as the initiator (which isn't automatic and doesn't apply in this case -- you can't necessarily unilaterally shut down an RfC you initiate just because you've realized it might not go your way -- but she was stone adamant about it to the point of striking thru her (supposedly irrevocably released) contributions, so no use fighting that.) Hmmm... I see here that User:Alsee avows (I'd say accuses in this case) User:Right Hand Drive of being an alternate account. Is he? Let's ask him! I'd say that using an, er, alternate account to troll the Wikipedia to the point of trying to drag editors to ANI is not what we want editors to be doing here. Herostratus (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Herostratus has just repeated the harrassment with a wall of text above and then come back over a hour later to do it again. Can someone please deal with this? I do not want to be the target of his obsession any longer. Thanks. Right Hand Drive (talk) 05:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well jeez I didn't open the thread. I'm entitled to defend myself and include diffs and so forth. If it's too much for you to read that's fine, but others do have that ability and let them do it and decide what, if anything, to do here. My hope would be that admin corps will vouchsafe that brand-new WP:SPA are encouraged to "learn the ropes" a bit before dragging 10-year editors to ANI and that this could be a learning experience for you. We'll see. Herostratus (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on having been a Wikipedia editor for 10 years, but I don't think that should mean you get preferential treatment. I hope that when an admin finally looks at this situation they will find that I have been trying to move a dispute forward constructively and that you have been rude, disingenuous, obstructionist, and harrassing. And based on your comments here, you have no intention of stopping. I would just like to be able to edit here without being harrassed. Right Hand Drive (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm an admin. I see no evidence of harassment by User:Herostratus of User:Right Hand Drive - you didn't even present any, just diffs to you asking him not to comment about you. Herostratus is hardly the only editor to note that RHD is a single-purpose account and to question the motive of RHD in opening the RFC at Talk:A Free Ride. You cannot stop Herostratus commenting at the RFC: they are not making personal attacks or being uncivil to the extent that any action is needed. There is no need for an interaction ban. My advice would be to calmly discuss at the several RFCs and not open any further AN/I threads about people who criticise your comments/actions, unless there is actually something actionable. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have given some diffs below. I have been calmly discussing things with no problems with any editor except for Herostratus. he is welcome to disagree with me, but he is not welcome to make baseless accusations or attribute views to me that I do not hold. I would like him to stop - do you think you can ask him to do that? Right Hand Drive (talk) 05:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh boy. I was pinged here by Herostratus.
 * I object to Herostratus trying to label my edit an "accusation" when I said I see no indication of abuse by Right Hand Drive.
 * Herostratus's first edit here was to abusively attack Right Hand: such people are trouble, period; they're generally trolls just here for the LULZ (or for the darker purpose of actually embarrassing and damaging the project. I've been here ten years and I know: this is just a fact.) Herost continued editing with that attitude. Right Hand was entirely justified in telling Herost to disengage and issuing a "final warning". Herost is unwilling or unable to back off when given a multitude of polite warnings that they are digging themselves into a hole.
 * I object to Herostratus's assumption of bad faith they cast against me here. They posted above you can't necessarily unilaterally shut down an RfC you initiate just because you've realized it might not go your way - referring to me. They are wrong on policy, and they are wrong on asserting bad faith motives against me. Requests_for_comment states There are several ways that RfCs end: (1) The question may be withdrawn by the poster. There were zero !votes on the RFC, other than my own. I withdrew my RFC because I'm very NORUSH / There is no deadline about getting an article to the "right version", so long as it gets there. There was no need to run virtually identical RFC's at the same time. I cooperatively left the article at the version Herostratus preferred, and I even mentioned that I might drop my intent to change the article if the Free Ride RFC reached a consensus clearly against my position. If there was a clear outcome at the Free Ride RFC (in either direction) then maybe we could have come to agreement that a second RFC wasn't needed.
 * Herostratus deleted my comments from the Talk page (see the bottom half of the diff), in violation of Talk page guidelines. I pointed this out and politely suggested they fix their error. Herost plead a lack of competence and told me to "clean if up yourself". Note that Herost is a former Admin with ~35k edits... it made me seriously wonder if some newbie might have "inherited" the account. Herost's behavior is appalling, and their knowledge and respect for policy seem almost nonexistent (further exemplified below). They seems unwilling or unable to get the message when their problem behavior is politely pointed out and they are offered a "free pass" avenue to fix or avoid the problem.
 * Herostratus editwarred a properly closed and withdrawn RFC. They continued that warring even after I said I can't stop you from opening your own RFC, but I do suggest you take a breath and try to work with us. They seem unwilling or unable to get the message when their problem behavior is politely pointed out and they are offered a "free pass" avenue to fix or avoid the problem.
 * I'd like to draw special attention to Herost's I've been here ten years comment in that last diff. With a few searches I see Herost has been dishing out the same sort of attacks for ten years. It would take me at least an hour to pull together diffs, but Herost has been on a long term disruptive battle against NOTCENSORED policy.... and Herost's notion of "controversial content" includes G-rated drawings of Wikipetan. When consensus at an article goes against removing whatever Herost wants to remove, it's because a swarm of "trolls" and "low-IQ" editors showed up. Herost forumshops on EnWiki, and when that doesn't work they forumshop over to Commons demanding deletion. They railed against Commons admins, suggest Commons shouldn't be a part of the Wikimedia family and they they should go find their own funding if they won't help him defeat EnWiki NOTCENSORED policy, he's called for Jimbo to step in to overrule our NOTCENSORED policy, he's called for the Foundation to step in to overrule our NOTCENSORED policy. A decade long fight, where anyone who defends G-rated drawing in Fanservice or Lolicon is a "troll" or "low-IQ". And that is the attitude Herost abusively took against Right Hand.


 * Herostratus just ran (oops, I just saw it was from 2011) an unhelpful MFD to delete the Help:Options to not see an image page which was unanimously rejected. I don't know if it was deliberately Pointy or some twisted "good faith" product of their frustration with Wikiepdia's NOTCENSORED policy, but in any case Herost's disgust with our content policies is clearly manifesting in an unconstructive manner. I apologize, I must have gotten lost in the pile of links. Whatever brought me to that page gave me the impression it was Herostratus's nomination. I don't recall what brought me there. Striking this entirely.
 * With the the Free Ride RFC going against Herost, they proposed The person closing should go to Random.org and generate a random number to impose a random outcome. It exemplifies the pattern of their disruptive behavior, an utter disregard for consensus&policy and seeking by hook or by crook any means to reach their goal of forcibly removing content against consensus. I really wish Herostratus would run for Admin again, just so I can cite that one diff as utterly disqualifying them from ever holding the position. Alsee (talk) 01:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Wow, "Herostratus just ran an unhelpful MFD to delete the Help:Options to not see an image page which was unanimously rejected." This caught my eye so I looked it up.
 * I didn't run the MfD (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Help:Options to not see an image). Another user did without my knowledge or support.
 * And in fact I voted to keep the page, for crying out loud. I do think it could use some reform.
 * And FWIW I wouldn't characterize 2011 as "just [recently]" (OK, Alsee struck that error) - H
 * And besides that, if any of this was true, it's not against any rule to run an MfD. (I think the person doing it might have been trying to make some sort of obscure point, though, so if that's true (I'm not sure) it wasn't a good MfD.)
 * So that's just really mendacious. But I'll do you the favor of assuming you were combing my edit history (five years worth!) looking for goodies in a hurry and just made a mistake. So OK.


 * The rest of the stuff is a little more accurate, I guess. It's complicated. If there's anything more specific beyond "tens years of being, generally, the sort of person that I abhor" that the Admin Corps would like me to answer to, I'll give it a try. Tempest in a teapot and not calling for any action would be my call.


 * But returning back to the original plaintiff here (User:Right Hand Drive), if I was an admin here I'd probably think about asking User:Right Hand Drive: Have you ever had another account here? It's a simple question. Yes or no. Per Alternate account it's not necessarily a deal killer if it's a yes, and we can talk about the circumstances and if it's legitimate or not. (If I may point out, at least a couple users, Alsee (diff) and User:Johnuniq (diff) have not questioned but flat out stated as being obvious that User:Right Hand Drive is a Alternate account, so it's not like I'm plucking this question out of thin air.) I've been accused of malfeasance and I want to know who my accuser is. I think that's reasonable. So, User:Right Hand Drive, which is it, yes or no? Herostratus (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Herostratus I apologize for my error. I was careless on that MFD section, I struck it. Alsee (talk) 08:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The open-door policy of Wikipedia welcomes all comers. The downside of that is that we see cases like this where a crystal clear SPA returned user is using every trick in the book to push an agenda. I can't tell if RHD is trolling or is just a liberty advocate who desperately believes Debbie Does Dallas should have an embedded video because we can. What is obvious is that threads like this should be closed and RHD given firm advice regarding WP:HERE. There are too many useful things that could be done with the time that would be lost in discussion with throw-away accounts who will never change their approach. Johnuniq (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * When did I go from just being an SPA to being a "crystal clear SPA returned user"? What "tricks" am I using? Starting a RfC to request comment from other editors? What is my "agenda"? Is my belief that the Debbie Does Dallas movie should be embedded in the article about the movie count as an "agenda"? Does that belief make me "an advocate"? Or a "troll"? Maybe it just makes me someone who believes that the Debbie Does Dallas movie should be embedded in the article about the movie, like other movies are usually embedded in articles. I don't mind disagreement, but why is it necessary to make accusations, call me names, and project strange associations on me? Right Hand Drive (talk) 05:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Discussion with throw-away accounts who will never change their approach is a waste of time. Log on to your normal account and we can discuss the issue. How would Wikipedia work if everyone wanting to make a fuss about some minor issue could use a new account to WP:CPUSH? Johnuniq (talk) 05:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want to discuss the issue, you can make your arguments in the RfC. You seem more interested in making assumptions and accusations. Right Hand Drive (talk) 05:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Johnuniq, the WP:CPUSH essay was primarily interesting as a checklist of things Right Hand didn't do. Among other things, being willing to follow consensus is the exact opposite of WP:CPUSH. Alsee (talk) 08:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This link shows all 94 of RHD's contributions. Can you find a single edit that does not relate to pushing the proposal to include the video in Debbie Does Dallas? If it were a matter of running an RfC and accepting the result there would be no problem and no fuss. Instead, RHD has pushed the proposal in the article, at two article talk pages, on five user talk pages (including Jimbo's), and on four WP pages. Johnuniq (talk) 11:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not seeing that the OP has provided any evidence (in terms of WP:DIFFs) of harassment by Herostratus. This seems like a non-starter unless the OP wants to stick around for a boomerang. Softlavender (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't think it was necessary to provide any further evidence once Herostratus showed up to demonstrate exactly the behavior that I was complaining about. If you need more evidence, here is the edit that made me warn him the first time . Herostratus said He's proposing something that he doesn't actually believe in or want to happen in order get an easy "win" here which he can then attempt to leverage over there. I'm not sure how that completely baseless accusation could be any more blatant. I am deliberately refraining from taking a side in the RfC, so I am neither proposing nor endorsing anything. Further, Herostratus claims to know what I am thinking in this instance even though I have not stated a position. Later, I warned Herostratus a second time when he said I'm not counting the RfC initiatior User:Right Hand Drive, since he didn't vote; if you include him it's 10-7. Again, I have deliberately not taken a side and Herostratus has pretended to read my thoughts again. There are several earlier insulting comments but I don't feel like it's worth anyone's time to list them all.
 * More to the point, Herstratus's passive-agressive, tendentious, "gee whiz" walls of text are completely undermined by his statement But my real reason for opposing it is because I don't want us to host pornographic movies. He went on to start a bad faith RfC intended to exclude the movie based on hsi misunderstanding of both policy and technical details. I have asked for editor input on the issue; Herostratus has attempted to use any and all methods to achieve his goal. I have been civil and had reasonable disagreements with editors; Herostratus has been uncivil and disingenuous. If you choose to believe that black is white and up is down, I can't stop you. Right Hand Drive (talk) 04:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Your OP accuses Herostratus of harassing you. You failed to provide any diffs as evidence of that. You have still not provided any diffs of Herostratus having harassed you prior to the opening of this ANI thread. Your only relevant diff above is this one, which is not harassment but a reasonable conclusion based on your entire editing history. I don't see any cause for this ANI thread. I think a fair amount of gaming is going on here by proponents of embedding/hosting full-length porn films on Wikipedia article space. Softlavender (talk) 05:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Softlavender, it started with Herost's first edit to the talk page, referring to Right Hand with: such people are trouble, period; they're generally trolls just here for the LULZ (or for the darker purpose of actually embarrassing and damaging the project. Wanting some sort of "family friendly" encyclopedia is a rational position. Wanting an encyclopedia where relevant useful content is not compromised by "family friendly censorship" is also a rational position. It was disruptive and abusive for Herost to address another editor in that manner, and the assumption of malice didn't end there. Alsee (talk) 07:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Again no diff, and not from the OP. Softlavender (talk) 07:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't include the diff link a second time because I posted it earlier. But here it is again. Forget "policy" and come with me to the sunlit uplands of reality: such people are trouble, period; they're generally trolls just here for the LULZ (or for the darker purpose of actually embarrassing and damaging the project). Calling an editor a "troll" and accusing them of being here for a "dark purpose" to deliberately "damage the project" is abusive, no matter who posts the diff. You may think our NOTCENSORED policy and OFFENSIVE MATERIAL guideline are stupid or damaging, but they are backed by consensus. Personal disagreement with policy is not a valid justification for making abusive comments about people who do respect policy. Alsee (talk) 08:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That diff is not even referring to the OP, and is a lengthy 300-word reply to a ping by a totally different user, . -- Softlavender (talk) 09:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Softlavender, read the full comment from Herostratus. It was quite clearly referring to me. Your involvement here does not seem to be an effort to resolve the harrassment by Herostratus, who is quite plainly continuing it even here. You and Herostratus seem to have the same non-policy-based opinion about including the movie in Debbie Does Dallas. Wikipedia is not a porn site, and should not be hosting porn films. This is WP:COMMONSENSE. You are welcome to your opinion, but please don't try to discredit my arguments by enabling Herostratus' harrassment. Right Hand Drive (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Softlavender, read the full comment from Herostratus. It was quite clearly referring to me. Your involvement here does not seem to be an effort to resolve the harrassment by Herostratus, who is quite plainly continuing it even here. You and Herostratus seem to have the same non-policy-based opinion about including the movie in Debbie Does Dallas. Wikipedia is not a porn site, and should not be hosting porn films. This is WP:COMMONSENSE. You are welcome to your opinion, but please don't try to discredit my arguments by enabling Herostratus' harrassment. Right Hand Drive (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I notice you didn't answer my question. Answer the darn question and we can take it forward from there. Herostratus (talk) 05:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I perceive no misconduct by Herostratus (at most, some instances of suboptimal phrasing, and perhaps not even that). I suggest closing this thread. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Quick block on
< NO! I am the Victim of malicious blocking and unjust posts of Nihonjoe and John from Idegon! HELP! WORLDWIDEWEB! HELP! -Ms. Gemma Linas Buquiran

For self admitted block evasion and NLT at User talk:Nihonjoe. John from Idegon (talk) 05:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * May want to go ahead and hardblock, apparently the mother account. She is apparently quite upset that Joe gave her a soft block for too long a username. Some of her comments on Joe's talk seem quite DUCKish to me. -John from Idegon (talk) 05:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Just checking, but if the software has limits for length of username, and there aren't limits in the various guides *shown to users when they sign up* why is it okay to softblock? (If behaviour is problematic admins should be blocking for that behaviour. I'm worried that username "violations" are used as an easy way to block, rather than addressing any actual problematic behaviours). DanBCDanBC (talk) 12:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And again here. Anyone home? John from Idegon (talk) 06:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

< NO! I am the Victim of malicious blocking and unjust posts of Nihonjoe and John from Idegon! HELP! WORLDWIDEWEB! HELP! -Ms. Gemma Linas Buquiran


 * I think the person wants their name erased from that blocked username, rather than be unblocked as an editor: 1. It's possibly the person's real name and apparently the person is saying they don't want their real name to appear on a block list / blocked. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 09:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the IP user for 36 hours for making legal threats. I think that should be long enough to sort this out, but if any other admin thinks it should be longer, please go ahead.
 * Looking at the relevant policy I think this was a bad block - has no edits at all, either live or deleted, there was no discussion with them about username policy - and will be telling Joe that. This will be after I explain to the IP user why that (a) they may have made a beginner's mistake in choosing a username and (b) why the have made a far, far more serious mistake by resorting to legal threats.
 * There may be more than meets the eye about this? (Putting a question mark at the end of a statement completely stolen from Elmore Leonard?)
 * Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see it as a bad block, though I think it's possible that I accidentally included the bit about the username being too long or confusing (which it isn't in this case) instead of tagging it as a promotional username. I vaguely remember thinking it seemed promotional with such as specific username, but I don't remember. Either way, I don't have a problem with the account being unblocked. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 06:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, there is one edit on the account, three days before the account was blocked. Not sure how you missed it. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 06:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd recommend the IP to wait after this. If nothing happens you should politely request removal of your name from the blocked username, perhaps some sort of revdelete. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 09:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Magoo..she is not asking her name be erased. Its pretty clear she's asking to not be labeled as blocked. And what you are suggesting cannot happen anyway. John from Idegon (talk) 09:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's what I wrote, name appearing (labeled) as blocked. And usernames can be changed and users can also be vanished. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 09:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I mean this is what the person wrote: "the publishing of my name under a blocked category". --Mr. Magoo (talk) 09:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Just a reminder that there is no policy prohibition on having a long username - the relevant policy at WP:UNCONF says "Some usernames appear problematic without fitting clearly into any of the above categories. This is often the case with confusing or extremely lengthy usernames, which are highly discouraged but which are not so inappropriate on their own as to require action". It was a bad block, and unblocking the account would achieve its removal from the blocked category that this person appears to want. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * With the agreement of the blocking admin, above, I have unblocked User:Ms. Gemma Linas Buquiran Live At Hashtags. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

User:SmokeyJoe reverting MFD relistings
Ok, I'm getting tired of this. I'm trying to close the giant backlog at WP:MFD and my relistings keep getting reverted by User:SmokeyJoe. If this was AFD, CFD, TFD, RFD, anywhere else, anyone who would be blindly reverting an administrator's choice to relist a discussion would be treated as disruptive editing. Is it disruptive if it's done at MFD? The reason this matters is largely because relisting will move it from the bottom of the MFD page to today's page just like what is done with relisting at AFD, CFD, TFD, RFD. If SmokeyJoe wants to re-write the admin closing instructions to disallow relisting, that's fine but that's a severe policy change that requires more than just blindly reverting an admin's attempts to deal with these discussions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen of this, SmokeyJoe has explained the issues, so perhaps Ricky81682 could do more listening. Unscintillating (talk) 01:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that reverting a relisting notice in the MFD (like in the diff provided) is disruptive. In this example, there was only one vote and consensus was not reached. I don't understand what he means by "pushback against mindless relisting by a self-declared deletionist", as you weren't deleting anything. Ricky81682 - Are there more instances of him doing this that you can provide? Have there been discussions between you two about this? Where can I find them?  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive913. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The only best solution to this is simply for Ricky to stop relisting the MFDs and simply moving on....., MFDs don't need to be relisted in any shape or form. – Davey 2010 Talk 02:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * SmokeyJoe, I am both acknowledging and noting the previous ANI discussion you provided. It appears to be recent, and was started by Ricky81682. Let me read the discussion and find out what consensus (if any) was reached.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I read the ANI discussion. There doesn't appear to have been any consensus reached; just opinion and discussion on both sides. In my opinion, relisting an MFD seems perfectly logical (even if there aren't many voters that participate there) if no consensus appears to have been reached. In the example provided above, with only one vote made to the discussion, I think that relisting it was a completely appropriate thing to do. But I don't participate at MFD, so I can't provide much context with the typical number of voters or input that discussions accumulate (and starting today, I think that will change; I'll start participating if you'd like :-D). I think that the best solution to this is the RfC that was created below. Without any documentation or policies on relisting, reverting, etc. in MFD - it can be argued that no violation has occurred either. Lets get a consensus going and change that :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I have created Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion. Cunard (talk) 02:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that this is the best solution moving forward from this ANI. Since there is no policy regarding it (which is acknowledged by everyone here), lets fix the root of the problem and see what should be done :-). Thanks for doing that, Cunard!  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually there is a policy (or at least clear instructions) in place since 2009 and Ricky is following them. Says either closed or relisted above': Legacypac (talk) 03:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, well, there you go. Adding this into perspective, I stand behind my original response in that reverting an administrator's relisting of an MFD is disruptive to the process. It should be discussed, not simply reverted. Using an edit summary with "pushback against mindless relisting by a self-declared deletionist" seems to me like there's a grudge or something here. WP:IDONTLIKEIT maybe?  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No need to pretend that this hadn't been discussed. I took a look at the diff.  A poorly prepared MfD nomination, a clear discussion that explained how the nominator could have handled the issue rather than bind the time of MfD volunteers; but that wasn't good enough for Ricky because he is also busy adding articles to MfD, so he posts an effete relisting, to give Legacypac a chance to "win" the MfD.  I've seen this often enough to know what is going on, and I've seen the problem with Legacypac not getting the proper corrective feedback from administrators in preparing deletion discussions.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not look at the provided diff until now because I know Smokey hates relistings. Please don't make this about me, cause all I did was nominate junk for deletion. Legacypac (talk) 04:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not hate relistings. I only hate empty relistings.  Usually, at WP:AfD, I only review relisted discussions.  Comment-less relists on empty discussions are frustrating.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What comment would you expect? There's the nominator saying delete, and you voting blank on the basis of "no need to do this" which is fine and all but is "no need" really a policy rationale here? "Hi, go take some more time here"? "Hi, I'm relisting because it's a 1-1 ratio now"? "Hi, I'm relisting and going to give my personal opinion here so that someone else can drag this to DRV under the guise of its a SUPERVOTE and I'm biased"? Now, you're going to my talk page, and at the RFC talking about "roving deletionists". Is the issue my closes? Are you saying that I'm biased in closing these as delete? Why not take these to DRV? Is it just that there's so many people voting delete and you're in the minority and you want an admin who will WP:SUPERVOTE them to blank? This feels like a way to drive out an admin simply because they have different policy views that you do and rather than actually trying to achieve a consensus ("no relisting at all" is clearly going to fail as a proposal) it's simply about pushing and pushing me around until I leave MFD alone and you can harange the next admin who is stuck with this backlog. I get you, you think this whole thing is a waste of time and are less immediatist than the people proposing these. Fine, that's a fair but I'm not closing my discussions. My MFD nominations are fairly specific and not of these types so I don't know what you want done here, a power-hungry admin who just blanks all these under the guise of WP:STALE and all the other policies are wrong because you think so and then see if that goes to DRV for further discussion? That is already going on and it's basically the same issue: everyone agrees that one vague quiet MFD discussions aren't ideal, everyone thinks more people should offer an opinion, there's a minority who oppose deleting these, there's a number of people who support deleting these, the "deletionists" (fine) are in larger force at MFD and if admins close these as no consensus, they get re-nominated and deleted, if admins relist them, you'll just revert without discussion, so what exactly do you want done? Do you just want everyone who is nominating these pages perfectly correctly under the current policies and currently having them deleted to all be topic banned from MFD? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that I'm biased in closing these as delete? Yes.  You are self-declared deletionist, as supported by AfD stats, and you, and others from WikiProject:Abandoned drafts, are overwheling the MfD reviewer with worthless harmless pages.  Then when things are ignored, appropriately even, you really try to break the process by wholesale relisting, purportedly to hide the fact that there is a backlog.
 * Why not take these to DRV? Because the specific page is not worth undeleting. Better to discuss it.  You even asked for discussing it in one place, but you keep posting different ideas in different place, and in general are not listing.  Of particular relevance, is you close of the previous ANI thread, you don’t want to talk about it, but then go back to the same thing, indiscriminate relisting messing up the only list.  Why not DRV?  There is a certain absurdity to having yet another of level of discussion over things not worth the first discussion.  Have you yet read busywork and do you see how you are creating it?
 * “This feels like a way to drive out an admin simply because they have different policy views”. When closing, you should not reflect your personal views.
 * I am less immediatist than the people proposing these? Absolutely. Now lets be rationale.  If the rate of nominations exceeds the rate of reviews, is that not an obective measure of a problem?  What is your response to the problem?  To make reviewing more difficult by scrambling the only list?
 * “a power-hungry admin who just blanks”. No.  Blanking old things, or redirecting to the superior page, is an any-editor action.
 * I don’t know that I have ever haranged an admin closer. Further, I have never hanged you over a close.  Fistly, it is the busywork nominations.  Secondly, it is the indiscriminate relisting that makes reviewing harder.
 * The "deletionists" (fine) are in larger force at MFD. I guess that is true.  Recently.  I think it is due to recent invigoration at WikiProject Abandoned Drafts.
 * I reverted your relist due to you ignoring attempts to discuss and going back to the same challenged behaviour.
 * Do you just want everyone who is nominating these pages perfectly correctly under the current policies and currently having them deleted to all be topic banned from MFD? No, I want WikiProject Abandoned Drafts to consider which of the tens of thousands of identified so-called abandoned drafts should be nominated one-by-one at MfD.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So you want all of MFD to stop in favor a project that's barely active and where you've never been involved? Why do you care so much about that project? It's hardly active. Why not propose something over there rather than volunteer that project with a giant workload that you clearly have no intention of actually helping out at? I've been active there since June 2014 at least and it existed because prior to the creation of AFC there was no G13 mechanism to delete the thousands of drafts coming out. The issue was first brought up in August 2014 with 40,000 stale drafts then and I jumped in when it got 47k. It's been nothing but complaining from all around. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like you and others are in the process of listing all 40,000 stale drafts on MfD. And then when the reviewers can't keep up, or stop commenting on unimportant things, you are going to scramble the list order, meaning that important things will get through without systematic review.
 * "So you want all of MFD to stop in favor a project that's barely active" Again, it is as if we are speaking different languages. I want MfD to work efficiently, while you are making it harder.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Then propose something, something more concrete than "don't relist things at MFD". However, there's no evidence that there's any consensus for your "slow down" for whatever reason approach. Besides would relisting these things to have more discussion be better at slowing these down than just deleting them? I honestly don't get what you want here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating, your accusations not only sound absolutely ludicrous, but they are not supported with any evidence. Do you have evidence supporting your accusation that Ricky81682 is relisting MDF notimiations for the purpose of allowing Legacypac to vote correctly on them so he can appear to correct his statistics due to "not getting the proper corrective feedback from administrators in preparing deletion discussions"? Because this is a strong accusation, and making such accusations without evidence isn't just unwelcome to do, but it can also be seen as uncivil.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   06:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think Unscintillating is exactly right. I count three editors recently active at MfD with low standards for rationales/criteria for deletion how are, unintentionally by coincidence or due to mustering at WikiProject Abandoned Drafts, tag teaming in nominating an overwhelming number of worhtless harmless pages and supporting each others nominations.  Evidence?  Look though MfD for things like: Draft already elsewhere (NB more often than not, the draft pre-existed, making the nomination technically incorrect), "Delete as unlikely needed", "Need to clear stale draft backlog" and who is using such bland statements nearly without discrimination.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What exactly would you like? To close Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Janicerj/Sherman Oaks Antique Mall with "blank, ignore the people who voted delete"? Take it to DRV if that's what you want; if you offer, I'll restore it and move it wherever you want. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * How much detailed rational is required from an editor to justify deleting a poorly written 4 year old stale draft about Hanna Montana, a roundabout in India, or some band that played some coffee houses in Spuzzum before breaking up 6 years ago? Legacypac (talk) 07:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What exactly would you like? With regard to this thread, for you to not relist without a better reason than it is in the backlog.  Have a bit more patience and we'll get to it.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So are we back to "no relistings at all" again? At the RFC you demand no "indiscriminate and comment-less" relistings? Why is that relisting to get it back up on top (since most people are going from top to bottom) so terrible when Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Geography of Christmas/to do was relisted on the 25th and you didn't care? You even voted afterwards with no mention of any objection that I didn't put a comment there? Are you only demanding no relistings when you have commented? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * SmokeyJoe, what actual evidence (diffs, revisions, URLs, anything?) do you have that directly support your statement and your agreement that this is occurring?  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   07:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are talking about. Can we focus on the reverted relist.  Was that an appropriate relist, given Ricky's close of the previous ANI thread to forstall the discussion?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:RELIST says in part "Relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended, and while having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for its editors. Therefore, in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice. Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation (in addition to the relist template) on why they did not consider the debate sufficient ." A fair implication is that no comment is needed on the 1st and 2nd relist action. The template already states a valid reason for relisting: <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legacypac (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment- This whole thread seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKERICKY81682. You can't just attack an editor for allegedly having deletionist leanings, and then invent some fanciful tale about them relisting MfDs just to give a tag team the opportunity to vote. Nobody's presented a shred of evidence for this wildly speculative attack, or for the idea that relisting MfD is disruptive at all. I suggest this discussion be closed under WP:NPA and WP:COMPLETEBOLLOCKS. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  07:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Nobody's presented a shred of evidence for this wildly speculative attack, or for the idea that relisting MfD is disruptive at all" I'm telling you, as I told Ricky, having contributed to over a thousand MfD discussions, that indiscriminate relisting is disruptive to my systematic review of MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am so watching that page. I know it's going to become blue one day. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Careful what you wish for, .  E  Eng  07:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't hate Ricky. I actually quite respect his intention to clean up, and especially his efforts in closing many old discussions including some difficult discussions.  Actually, I should not that I find his nominations deletionist, but have not been bothered by any close.
 * I was frustrated that Ricky pulled the pin on the last discussion on these comment-free relists, saying he wouldn't continue, which is all I asked, and then suddenly resumed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, the point of this section is the wholesale reverting of the relistings, not a complaint that the relistings themselves are objectionable. Can I un-do the revert and actually relist the discussion? Should I continue to go through and clear out the MFD backlog including relisting discussions? I'll await the RFC results but it doesn't seem like there's any idea on what relistings are appropriate and what aren't to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please don't send the listing back to the top unless there is a reason for previous reviewers to review it again. Note that reviewers, like myself, may review and choose to make no edit.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll ignore relistings until there's an actual consensus on when they are appropriate. There's a combination of discussions about whether to relist, when not to relist and then there's Legacypac's closed RFC about nomination-only going for softdelete (which to be honest, all of these are, there's literally no chance I would object to restoring any of these pages). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit summary
Let's put this whole MFD thing aside for a minute, if you don't mind :-). I would like to ask you, SmokeyJoe, about your edit summary here. You appear to have called Ricky81682 a "self-declared deletionist" - why did you do that? Where does he say that he is? You also use the term loosely to describe other editors here. What is this all about?  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   07:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oshwah, that was a reference to his "this user is a deletionist" userbox that he had on his userpage until today, which I note matches his AfD !voting history. Intended as a suggestion of bias, not an insult. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * But, SmokeyJoe, you said that the reversion was for "pushback against mindless relisting by a self-declared deletionist" - why wouldn't that be taken as an insult when you say that his edit was "mindless"? I would take that as kind of insulting if you said that to me. I still feel that there is some battleground/grudging going on here, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. SmokeyJoe, please be careful with statements like that. I feel that this would be widely regarded as incivility by others that don't understand what you mean, leading to fueling negativity and anger to discussions.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   07:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure. "mindless"  Sure, a bit clumsy.  I later tried "indisciminate and comment-free".  When something is relisted, I look for the relisting comment.  I was thinking of the quality of the relist.  Apologies.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So I just ran into this. Your apology is noted, but I'm inclined to continue my questioning about your behavior towards Ricky81682 - what's this all about? You said that you don't think that his removal of that userbox "was a 'dumb joke'". You also tell him that his AFD history reveals him to be "a deletionist", and that "it matters, because I think you act with a clear deletionist bias". Your edit summary doesn't appear to me to be simply "thinking of a quality relist"; this appears to be battleground conduct. Can you explain your message on Ricky81682's talk page?  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   07:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well the first discussion on it was at WT:MFD like this so I've generally been called out personally for these things for a few weeks now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Well it seems like no response is coming. As WT:MFD, concerns are expressed about relistings in general, "discriminate" relistings, "comment-free" relistings, the color of the relisting template, the placement of discussions following a relisting and numerous other grounds, none of which have any consensus supporting any proposals to change the status quo. As there's been no issues with any of my other admin actions at MFD, including closing the allegedly "mindless" relisting, can we agree that reverting a relisting is disruptive going forward? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It is an appropriate response to you shutting down the conversion with a "screw it", and then days later resuming the same practice that you were politely asked to stop. Very significantly, I begin asking you politely.  You have generally been not listening (evidenced by you repeating the same questions), and not replying to important questions.  Important questions:  (1) Is there any systematic approached to your effort to "clean" 40k plus so-call abandoned drafts largely by feeding them through MfD?; (2) Do you not see that your efforts by requiring community participation "cleaning" these worthless but harmless pages, in separating a few good pages, is causing others more work than the job is worth; (3) Do you admit to begin an immediatist and a deletionist? (3a) Doesn't an immediatist and deletionist frequent nominator of pages that are generally not harmful in any way have a problematic bias when relisting similar pages, in response to a slow review rate of MfD reviewers; (4) do you not acknowledge that shifting old nomination to the top of list hinders the systematic review of MfD?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion to date has been terribly fragmented. For example: Village_pump_(idea_lab), Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review, Wikipedia talk:User pages (several sections), Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion (many threads). Wikipedia_talk:User_pages probably caused the splintering. (I have no idea who the IP is).

Can I suggest that WP:ANI is a particularly poor place to discuss process refinement, and that discussions relating to userpage guidelines continue only at WT:UP, and discussions related to MfD process, including nomination rationale standards, !voting standards, relisting and publicizing continue only at WT:MfD? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The question here I believe is on your edit summary. The discussions on policy aren't for ANI and are split partially because proposals for new ideas, changing to deletion policy. changes to MFD policy and the like are separate and should be on separate pages. Feel free to cross-promote all of them if you want. Otherwise, (1) It's not "my" project to review drafts (either userspace or draftspace) so I don't know what you want from me there. (2) I'm not requiring any community participation since it's not "my" project again. (3) I have no idea what you are referring to but that is clear WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. (3a) Do you actually have any evidence to support this continued "relisting MFD discussions are part of a deletionist scheme" argument? Again, WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality here. (4) No, in the same way I'd say that shifting old AFD discussions when relisting to the current day's discussion doesn't shift any systematic review. And I don't know why you think there is some "systematic review" of MFD going on. It sounds like you personally only review everyone top to bottom once and seem very bothered that there's a possibility of something coming up twice since is fine and all but I don't see why the entire community should have to cow-tow to your idiosyncrasies. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yet again you prove that you don't listen. I have told you several times that in systematic reviewing I go over every nomination from bottom to top.  From oldest to newest.  In order of listing.  Shuffling the order by indiscriminately and without customised comment discussions from somewhere in the backlog to the top, to see them closable before they get to the bottom again, means that systematic review is disrupted.  A bland relist gives another closer no reason to wait for further comment.  A good relist reflects significant things, arguments ideas or new information, stated well into the discussion, and calls for past participants to have another look.  I usually review every new comment.  Again, have you ever done new page patrol?  Is it an idiosyncrasy to review in the order created?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Closure

 * This discussion, like the previous one, is not an incident that requires the intervention of administrators or even discussion by administrators. Rather it requires discussion by the community and the appropriate place for that is WT:MFD, where some discussion appears to be underway. I suggest that this discussion be closed and participants move to WT:MFD. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Seconded.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Not that we need more bureaucracy, but perhaps a solution here might be to set up a "stale drafts for deletion" process separate from (on a different page from) MfD, to avoid draft-deletion discussions swamping everything else that belongs on MfD? Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Josephlalrinhlua786 and personal attacks
A few days ago, I posted on this user's talkpage regarding a potential edit war. Further edits to the article in question where made by this user including edit summaries with personal attacks one and two. This user chose to ignore the warnings and has moved onto the article for the film Deadpool (film), continuing with personal attacks against other users in their edit summaries: one, two, three and finishing with this four. His talkpage is awash with warning notices around personal attacks and copyright violations (they've been blocked before for the latter). I also see no attempt by the user to discuss the issues on their talkpage or anywhere else. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The personal attacks are mild and I wouldn't action anything on that - to me they come across as an angry teenager banging their first on the table complaining that things are so bloody unfair rather than actually lashing out at you specifically. The lack of communication looks like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT but I hope that can be cured by dropping a note telling them to use talk pages. If they ignore that, we can block then. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * So if I call you a dipshit, that's OK, as it's only a "mild" attack?  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It depends on the context, but in the case you mention it, no it's not OK. However, I believe charging in like a herd of elephants and handing out a civility block has a nasty tendency to blow up in your face, so I'd rather go for the harder but more rewardable approach of listening to them so they drop the incivility of their own accord. If they call me a dickface in response to my message, we can deal with it then. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my mistake. I didn't understand the no part of No personal attacks. How many warnings is enough? One? Two? Three?  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 15:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

This user shows no indication of reading their talk page. They don't seem to believe in communication, other than to assert that they are right and everyone else is a meddling dipshit who should piss off and so some actual work rather than editing their brilliant additions. I see zero talk page edits out of the past several thousand, despite numerous requests to discuss various issues. I see very few edit summaries, despite requests to use them. Of the few edit summaries that do pop up, roughly 80% contain personal attacks.

As for "charging in like a herd of elephants and handing out a civility block", their first warning for civility was two years ago. That's one sloooooow moving charge. Much discussion and handwringing on their talk page didn't end the misleading edit summaries, they needed a block to temporarily fix the problem. Repeated discussion of copyright violations did nothing. Only a block temporarily fixed that problem. Discussing edit warring on their talk page didn't solve the problem. A trip to the edit warring discussion board was needed.

This editor does not seem to have an "I didn't hear that" problem. It's more like an "I'm right, everyone else is wrong, so fuck off" problem. After a couple of years of carrots not working and sticks being moderately effective, I'm getting the impression that we're wasting a lot of time and carrots on this one. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am equally amazed at how the user hasn't even bothered answering the ANI report. In fact, I also think they suffer from "teenager syndrome" as well. I am one myself, but I don't act as if I am always right and tell users to piss off and so on. Personally, just that the fact the user hasn't even explained their edits with no regards for the outcome, I'd consider a block. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  00:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

AS a general comment, we seem to be more tolerant of incivility these days. IMHO this is the wrong direction to be moving in. It is generating a battleground mentality to editing which currently appears to be un-checked. I have not looked into this case in detail, but if Josephlalrinhlua786 is showing a repeat behaviour they have been warned about, action should be taken. DrChrissy (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Wow, an actual discussion raised on another user's talkpage. Obviously this thread has been viewed by the user at fault. Lets see how long it lasts.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment: While I appreciate Ritchie333 pointing to this, considering that I'd never heard of Kevin the Teenager and got sucked into watching some videos of the character due to the YouTube link, I have to disagree with his posts above, except for the "angry teenager" part. Josephlalrinhlua786 does indeed behave like an angry teenager. But whether or not he is one does not excuse his poor behavior. He will not stop attacking editors, does not engage in talk page communication, and commonly edit wars. This has been going on for years now, and I don't see it ending in the near future. That stated, I'm not sure that Josephlalrinhlua786 needs an indefinite block. And, for whatever reason (maybe because it was his good days), he has yet to blow up at me with vile personal attacks, even though he has edit warred against me before. As for his copyright issues, Diannaa might want to check on that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

User:No More Mr Nice Guy - persistent refusal to stop suggesting my editing has personal motives
At Ezra Nawi, I thought on a WP:BLP article, it was obligatory to get the precise nature of the conviction clear as given in reports of Israeli court records which judged the relationship ‘consensual’. Every attempt to explain this necessity has been met by personal innuendos as to my putative motivations. In repeating these innuendos User:Bad Dryer was indeffed (see here).

The author of the innuendo, User:No More Mr Nice Guy persists in alluding to this, and suggests I am embarrassed by what I have written, embarrassed to the point of backpedalling, and too embarrassed to report him. The record is:


 * (1) Did you get that from NAMBLA promotional material?
 * (2) Considering you repeatedly tried to justify a 45 year old having sex with a 15 year old, NAMBLA does indeed come to mind. 20:35, 29 January 2016
 * (3) That's not what you said on the Ezra Nawi talk page, but kudos for feeling embarrassed enough to try to backpedal 21:31, 31 January 2016‎
 * (4)Duly registered, meaning you won't report it because you're too embarrassed that what you said will get a wider audience.

"WP:NPA Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. . . Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks."
 * These insinuations, fishing expeditions, challenges, and suggestions that on the topic of statutory rape I am 'embarrassed' or 'backtracking' and 'justify' it are as repetitive as those made by Bad Dryer. The editor some years ago tried to put it over I was an anti-Semite, and the case led to his banning from WP:AE. In both cases, the behavior is the same, language crafted to provoke some personal exchange by insinuating I have some dubious personal fixations. Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is the statement I was responding to. The discussion is about a minor who was the the cause of a statutory rape conviction against the topic of the article. I think the statement speaks for itself. I will only note that there's not a single source that makes this argument (unsurprisingly) or that puts the word "victim" in quotes (again, unsurprisingly).
 * As for the AE case, if someone wants to look into how a single admin closed an harassment case within 24 hours based on an assumption of bad faith, I would welcome that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * NMMGG's diff shows Nishidani adding a comment, but let's start from the beginning of that section, namely the first post at Talk:Ezra Nawi. That post shows this diff of NMMNG editing the article to insert "statutory rape" at the beginning of a list of reasons for the BLP subject being convicted. Problem: the source does not mention "rape", statutory or otherwise. The source (nytimes.com) uses Nishidani's text that NMMNG replaced with rape in primary position. Johnuniq (talk) 07:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * NMMGG construed (a) as personal advocacy (b)and said I repeatedly asserted this (putative)personal advocacy when I was, on the talk page, justifying an edit by citing what the sources stated (not my views). He then furthered suggested my position was identical to that of NAMBLA, an organization I'd never heard of.
 * The text he cites for my views is a patchwork of paraphrases and quotations.
 * "'Victim' in quotes is required because the ostensible victim of his statutory rape refused to testify against him. The complaint was brought by the boy's parents, not him. And it was consensual, as his minimal sentence indicated. A victim is 'person who has been attacked, injured, robbed, or killed by someone else. : a person who is cheated or fooled by someone else. : someone or something that is harmed by an unpleasant event (such as an illness or accident)', which, from the sources does not appear to be how the Palestinian saw this. In five years he never laid a complaint."
 * I let this pass, but leaving it go, has only lead to a follow-up train of nudging insinuations about what he fantasies to be my personal views. I can't see how this is not talking about the editor, rather than focusing on the content, as is required under WP:NPA. I am not calling for a ban. I am asking the board to get him to drop his puerile attempt to be a psychologist, which is proving disruptive to editing that page.Nishidani (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A. Those are indeed your views. Not a single source says the minor was not a victim or puts quotes around the word "victim", not to mention argues about the dictionary definition of "victim". B. Anyone following the diffs above can clearly see that every single time I was responding to you bringing the subject up. All you have to do is drop it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Not a single source says the minor was not a victim'. Put that another way: 'What sources state that the minor was a victim'? as opposed to the sources that mention the case and do not use the word 'victim'?Nishidani (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You can't have consensual sex with a minor, so regardless if it was "consensual" and the victim allowed it, and there was not enough evidence in the court of law to convict, just because the victim didn't testify doesn't mean there was no victim. What is the age of consent? Victims often times don't testify because they are scared or because they don't want to relive the rape. That doesn't mean that there was no victim. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 18:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not the point. It is obvious Nawi broke the law and deserved a prison sentence of at least 6 months (unlike the 30 IDF soldiers who had 'consensual' sex with a 12-13 year old Israeli girl for 2 years, and got 3-6 weeks camp detention. They got off lightly, being neither homosexual or human rights activists.)
 * NMMGG said I repeatedly tried to justify a 45 year old (sic=37-8 year old) having sex with a 15 year old.All we have is a link to my summary of sources. He is obliged to document where I (suppoadly) repeatedly did this. If he can prove his claim is validated by several remarks I made, fine. If he can't then he has been engaged with a decidedly serious piece of calumny, which he repeated above, in the face of my objections ('Those are indeed your views.').Nishidani (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That could be because you still say you should put victim in quotes. Just because the kid didn't testify doesn't make him not a victim. That is all I'm saying. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 20:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh good grief. I made an argument for that proposition. When the consensus said no, I didn't engage in a revert war or persist ('still'). I think the word 'victim' contradicts the word 'consensual', since it implies 'violence'. But, nota bene, I did not erase it, or substitute it with another term. It was a WP:BLP fine line call. Everyone in this area should know I am extremely finicky about niceties of usage. If, we have only Nawi's word for it, the 15 year old persisted in phoning him and wanting to stay at his home, then that doesn't fit the normal sense of 'victim'. Massie for one says there was 'no real victim'. John Costello and Dearbhail McDonald instead say the minor was a victim. You have a split in opinion in the sources, and when that occurs one has a simple choice, battle over 'victim' to keep or excise it according to a POV, or, as I did retain 'victim' in inverted commas, to signal the controversy. It's as simple as that, so simple NMMGG, convinced he has some specialist insight into my personal outlook, thinks he can smear me as pushing some NAMBLA agenda, when I am simply trying to edit a difficult article according to commonsense. Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Bad Dryer was blocked indefinitely by, and the block upheld by both and , for insinuating that Nishidani's BLP concerns at Ezra Nawi are motivated by some kind of paedophilic tendency.

maintains the blocks result from Wikipedia's "shameful" bias against "pro-Israeli" editors, and agrees. Despite this, NMMNG has themselves, at talk:Ezra Nawi, three times repeated the gross and insulting ad hominem that insinuates 's somehow pro-NAMBLA editing. NMMNG also defended Bad Dryer's insinuations before that user was indeff'd - which isn't surprising since they've repeated this themselves.

If NMMNG can't accept how disruptive it is to approach this topic while accusing other editors of some kind of paedophilia, they should not be editing here. -Darouet (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I am coming here in response to the ping. In my opinion trying to gain advantage of a content dispute by accusing someone of child abuse is about the most egregious violation of WP:NPA that I can think of off the topic of my head. This includes hinting at it and slyly(or not so slyly) insinuating it. It was an easy decision to decline that unblock request.


 * I find it difficult to imagine a context where this would be appropriate, however as I have not looked into the context I will leave it for others to decide. <b style="color:DarkRed">HighInBC</b> 00:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Pointing out that an editor is using similar tactics and justifications as groups like NAMBLA is not a violation of NPA when someone is using scare quotes around 'victim' in order to whitewash someones criminal acts. That last diff you posted was in response to this comment - "'Victim' in quotes is required because the ostensible victim of his statutory rape refused to testify against him. The complaint was brought by the boy's parents, not him." - that is straight out of a rape-apologists arsenal and a very common justification for abuse of minors. From a child-protection point of view I will straight away suspect someone who uses that reasoning. It effectively boils down to 'they wanted it'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A good example of what happens when persistent loose insinuations by one established editor feed in to our work, and set up a whispering campaign. Now I am accused of 'whitewashing' a criminal act for using an orthographic device to bring people's attention to an issue requiring discussion.Nishidani (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Scare quotes'?!! Oh dear me, look I'm a philologist. One of the primary functions of inverted commas is 'to mark off a word or phrase that is being discussed' My edit suggestion was accompanied by opening a discussion on the talk page, for which I was insulted. Has the precise instruction on grammatical and verbal niceties been wholly lost in the past decades? It looks like it, and one of the consequences is that, not reading closely, editors tend to read into innocent words or devices all sorts of weird psychological conjectures, as here.Nishidani (talk) 08:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In an isolated environment you would probably be correct. When you follow it up with arguments that seek to deny victimhood and excuse rape of a minor, I am more skeptical of the motives involved. "They didnt make the complaint" is not an argument you want to be making when talking about rape victims. Oh and "Its a philogical matter" is also equally suspect. When you fall back on grammatical technicalities in order to advance an argument, it generally indicates the actual position has very little weight. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Fall back' (i.e. NMMGG's 'backpedal').In a WP:BLP article. I used no arguments to excuse the rape of a minor, and I would ask you to retract that. I cited sources that state the minor, throughout the case, was 'reluctant' to testify against the man with whom he had a 'consensual' relationship. Nawi himself admitted immediately he was guilty, apparently, so it would be absurd for someone like me to deny what sources confirm. You, like NMMGG, are attributing to me positions in the source literature which I cite, which is slipshod reading and, worse still, damaging. You are not helping clarify this issue by making frivolous and offensive quips that pretend to 'read' into my remarks some private bias in favour of abuses of this kind.Nishidani (talk) 09:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want to maintain to make arguments that because a minor didnt make the complaint and was reluctant to testify it means their victimhood is in "discussion", feel free. You will however be judged accordingly. You have a preferred content version, you have made arguments as to why it should be that version, if it wasnt your opinion you are either playing a devil's advocate or you are misusing sources to push a POV. Since none of the sources deny he was a victim of a crime, using sources that indicate he was unwilling to testify to imply he wasnt a victim is OR. Either way muttering about orthographic devices just makes you look like you are making excuses to distance yourself from your previous remarks. I suggest if you dont want to be seen to be a rape apologist, stop making arguments rape apologists make. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 'stop making arguments rape apologists make.' That makes you at least the fourth person to take up the slur introduced by NMMGG, and further evidence as to why he should retract an insinuation that questions my integrity. Nishidani (talk) 10:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps you should listen. Generally if multiple people have an issue with you, the problem is not always with them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I knew this kind of mudslinging against Nishidani would occur. This is why I suggested that these things be not treated with a sledgehammer. This is a delicate matter, and discussion should be focused on content, which was mostly what was happening on the talk page. In such an issue, it is hard to separate out personal feelings from the issue, some of which happened.

I have opened a block review of on WP:AN as well. In my opinion, the block was unfair and harsh and only serves the drama god.

In contrast, in this discussion, has stated multiple times that Nishidani is a "rape apologist", or is simply mouthing arguments that "rape apologists" make, and cast aspersions on Nishidani's motives. This is much more of an NPA that Bad Dryer has engaged in. And more importantly, it only inflames the issue. Only in death is free to think whatever they like of Nishidani, but commenting at ANI does not give one a license to engage in serious personal attacks with abandon. There are many people I don't like here, and there are others who don't like me.

should be warned (at the very least) about personalizing disputes with. This kind of thing has been going on for a long time. It is well known that NMMNG does not like Nishidani (some of the background has been given by Nishidani above), but there is no reason to be needlessly inflammatory, especially in a delicate matter like this. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 11:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "NMMNG does not like Nishidani." It would be interesting to see whether NMMNG could provide the name of a single ARBPIA "political opponent" whom he doesn't treat contemptuously.  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  23:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Nishidani is making the exact same arguments people who try to excuse sex with minors make. If he doesnt want to face accusations that he may be editing from a sympathetic viewpoint he shouldnt make the same sympathetic arguments. NAMBLA always bring up the victims lack of 'victimhood' in this situation because the argument *only* serves their agenda in attempting to push the viewpoint sex with minors is permissable. Just because Nishidani supposedly has more integrity, does not excuse him when he makes the same sympathetic arguments. Like I said, dont want to be accused of being sympathetic to a point of view? Dont make shitty arguments that proponents of that POV make. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you heard of the term "guilt by association"? You can address the argument without associating people with organizations they have never heard of, who happen to make the argument for their own reasons. If I oppose smoking due to cigarettes causing cancer, are you going to associate me with Nazis because they were among the first to make the argument? Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 13:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Guilt by association is not the same as sharing a sympathetic viewpoint. If you started editing articles in a manner that suggested Jews were not victims because of <insert Nazi argument> I would expect you to be called out as being sympathetic to the Nazis. Nishidani made edits that advanced the viewpoint the minor was not a victim and used NAMBLA arguments. If they didnt expect to get grief over that they are either unaware of what NAMBLA advocates (in which case they shouldnt be touching content that involves sex with minors) or they are just incredible naive. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * For the third time you have asserted:' Nishidani made edits that advanced the viewpoint the minor was not a victim and used NAMBLA arguments.' Retract it.Nishidani (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I tell you what, I won't say you are using NAMBLA arguments and in return you stop trying to justify a minor wasn't a victim because he didn't complain about it, deal? Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * After being warned multiple times by multiple people, refuses to comply. Admin action is needed, this is WP:ANI after all. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 05:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think it's clear that both and  need to stop their aspersions, comparisons, and personal attacks immediately (including here and on that article and talk page and anywhere else on Wikipedia), or face immediate blocks, topic bans, or IBans. Softlavender (talk) 13:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC); edited 13:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am still asking for a reply from NMMGG to a legitimate query. He said:
 * Not a single source says the minor was not a victim. No More Mr Nice Guy 18:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * He was implying that many sources used in the article state the minor was a victim, and that I was evidently in flagrant defiance of that source consensus.
 * I therefore requested him to clarify:
 * 'Not a single source says the minor was not a victim'. Put that another way: 'What sources state that the minor was a victim'? as opposed to the sources that mention the case and do not use the word 'victim'? Nishidani 20:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Apart from clearing my record of an ugly insinuation that has gathered some converts to the calumny, the point is that whatever language goes into a text must reflect the balance of sources.
 * So NMMGG. Please address this query, and possibly explain why, in a compromise edit when I reintroduced the word victim without inverted commas, your next edit erased it.Nishidani (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This is why people are questions things. A minor can't be not a victim. There's no such thing as consensual sex under the age of consent. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 16:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Are people expected to believe that the likes of NMMNG and the person who operates the Bad Dryer account or the kind of right wing Israel supporters who are attracted to Wikipedia, editors with long histories of advocacy and patently biased editing, are showing concern for the well being of a Palestinian child, their treatment in the real world and here on Wikipedia? I hope not because that notion is absurd as anyone familiar with these editors should know by now. None of this drama would have happened if Nawi had been an Israeli soldier and shot and killed the boy. What we have here is faux concern for the way Wikipedia treats a Palestinian child used as cover for the cynical exploitation of an opportunity to target a BLP of a perceived enemy of the State of Israel and harass Nishidani in a vindictive and cowardly way, all done behind masks of anonymity. Genuine issues with the content will not get sorted out in a drama-free way by collaborating with people whose priority is to advocate for the State of Israel in a BLP about an anti-settlement activist. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's right. Only Palestinians should be allowed to edit Wikipedia. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 17:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well I am not right wing, or an Israel supporter and have no history of advocacy (or even editing in any meaningful way in the IP area), so I guess I'm exhibiting faux concern too? I assure you if Nawi had shot and killed a boy and editors started scare quoting 'Victim' in Nawi's biography we would be having a very similar conversation about their motives. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know you or your editing so there is no reason to think you are exhibiting faux concern. Maybe you can help improve the article since your priority is not to advocate for the State of Israel in a BLP about an anti-settlement activist. If Nawi had been an IDF soldier and shot the boy there would be no biography. But if there were, it would be nominated for deletion by an editor whose priority is to advocate for the State of Israel. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I hope I'm not the only one who appreciates the irony of Sean's statement above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This is drifting. Stay focused, and kindly reply to my request above. Chat just buries a serious issue.Nishidani (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Which request? For sources that call the minor a victim? Here you go: victim, victim, Nawi's friend Norris calling him a victim, and a Norris supporter calling him a victim. That took one google search to find, and some of those are already in the article.
 * The reason I thought you were discussing your opinion rather than that of sources in this edit is because of the fact the only source you reference is a dictionary, your use of "ostensible victim", and your claim that it doesn't "appear" the minor saw himself as a victim, when no source whatsoever brings any kind of statement from the minor, only the fact he didn't testify. Rape victims often don't want to testify. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's replying to something I did not ask. You wrote:Not a single source says the minor was not a victim.
 * You can't see the equivocation in your sentence. This place is the despair of grammarians or precisians. You sentence implies:'every source says the minor was a victim', which is obviously untrue.3 small circulation Irish sources (in a country whose press never breathed a word for several decades of their own dirty linen, the widespread abuse of children by priests and Christian brothers) and one by an Irish correspondent for the English tabloid The Daily Mail, limited to the period of one week in 2011 when the aim was to shipwreck Norris's bid for the Presidency of Ireland use 'victim'. The numerous English-language Israeli sources for Nawi we use do not adopt 'victim' as the default term. They say:'statutory rape of a 15-year-old boy/minor'. Sources say the Israeli court found the relationship 'consensual', correct or not, and I stand by my point that, however morally contemptuous sex by an older man with a 15 year old may be, using from a short list of sources the word victim, when the indication so far is that it was consensual, is improper.  You of course never explained why, when I reintroduced, after talk page discussion, the word 'victim', you immediately elided it from the lead.


 * It is true that Palestinian minors sexually abused or sodomised by Israeli soldiers while the latter hold them in detention are reluctant to denounce the fact for fear of retribution. In 1990 the boys' parents had no qualms about reporting it to Israeli courts, but the boy wouldn't apparently testify against him. When S.Hoyland talked of editors' nationalism, I presume he means that when an Israeli civil rights activist has a dark mark in his distant past, it is played up by many editors with a nationalist POV agenda for all its worth as they express outrage. But when the same kind of abuse (mass rape of a minor) is reported in army bases, of eminent diplomats, the same editors keep mum: it is not for our Wikipedia. They don't rush to edit in the scandal, as they do if the issue touches an activist for Palestinian rights, even if it occurred 25 years ago, and, since then thousands of Palestinians have trusted him not to molest their children as he takes them on those summer camps which the Israeli army would otherwise forbid them to enjoy. Unlike Sean, I think it both inevitable and not necessarily all bad, that many editors will defend their own countries' image and interests, and don't object if they have sharp eyes and high standards for sources and texts. I object when their concern spills over into patent smears, niggling, jabbing away, trying to play on the nerves (pointless at my age, when most of them are dead) which is the case here.Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'm required to engage with that long SOAPBOX. You asked for sources. I provided them. I explained why I said what I said. At least one person who has no connection to the IP topic has also said he found your comments, shall we say, outside the mainstream, so all these attempts to claim there's some kind of nationalistic background for this fall flat. If any uninvolved editor has any questions for me, please ping me. Otherwise I'm done here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay you refuse to listen. All I am asking for is that NMMGG be asked to strike out or retract the personal insinuations he invented from his fantasy about my ostensible ulterior motives. The adoption of the calumny he started led to one indeff, because the person kept repeating it until well past the brink. Two other editors here have taken it up. He is responsible for this crap, and he should shut up and focus, and do useful editing, like finding this source which I found to be deadlinked. It's worth reading. The man who wrote it lost his bid for the Presidency of Ireland, just for expressing an informed clemency for Nawi. That smear was big time, and NMMGG's is peanuts. But I have to work here, with him, and this means he must learn to focus on content, and not sneer with sleazy innuendos every other time we encounter each other,Nishidani (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Learn to focus on content, and not sneer with sleazy innuendos" like the time you told a group of editors that we lack "capacity for pity and horror" that is not "ethnic-exclusive"? That's a fine thing for one editor to say to another. Not sleazy at all. Would you like to elaborate on what ethnicity you were referring to, before you take the beam out of your own eye? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Content issues are not usually discussed on WP:ANI - the article talkpage should be used. Regardless of who is right, stop saying that Nishidani justified child abuse or use guilt by association with NAMBLA. That is the bottom line. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 05:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What's a content issue? My capacity for pity and horror that is not "ethnic exclusive"? Was that a joke? The bottom line in this case is that your concern about NPA seems to be quite selective. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We're under an obligation to edit in such a manner that both sides are duly represented. Thus, I, for one, am obliged to edit in tragic material not only re Palestinians but Israelis as attested in RS. I've done that everyday for years, i.e.,here,here,and here. It may be a defect of cursory knowledge but I only see you editing to minutely control material deleterious to Israel or editing articles re Palestinians when there is something negative to be showcased (Ezra Nawi, 2000 Ramallah lynching. You're not alone, and it reflects the fact that mainstream Israeli papers focus intensely on whatever violence affects Israelis or settlers, but generally ignore what happens to Palestinians. This exclusively negative or defensive focus in editors breaks no rule. But the pattern of refusing to consider that there are two sides to any question and accept that one must strive to see both perspectives, is obvious.
 * In the present case, you made an extraordinary set of claims about my bias.You stated:
 * Not a single source says the minor was not a victim.
 * I came forth with a disproof of this:Alex Massie in The Spectator specifically wrote:
 * "though in a technical sense a crime had been committed there was no malice involved and no real victim."
 * You asserted a claim re sources which I showed was false. What was your reaction?
 * Excise;revert out;delete;erase
 * No real argument. Just repeated removal of information that contradicted your assertion. In an empirical world, one adjusts one's ideas as new information shows them to be inexact. In a partisan mindset, one suppresses any information which contradicts one's beliefs. At least do me the courtesy of retracting your assertion that I repeatedly justify sex with minors and the insinuation I act as a proxy for an obnoxious paedophile organization. Two people who took this up have since retracted. You ran that hare and ought to do the same. There is no evidence for it. Nishidani (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I had a good laugh when you said you strive to see both perspectives, considering I caught you more than once falsifying sources to push your POV. As I said above, I'm not going to engage with your soapboxing, and you can add strawmen and self-righteous bullshit to that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That tone and misrepresentation only serves to underline my point that some admin should sum up the general community comments here, take notice of the fact that you refuse to withdraw a remark one person was indeffed for, and 2 others withdrew or dropped from repeating, and ask you to simply retract it. That done, one can get back to serious things, like editing. Nishidani (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Any admin can read the discussion that resulted in your personal attack against me here and see if what I said above is a misrepresentation. It includes two quite straightforward examples of source falsification to push a POV. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course there's a content dispute involved, but Nishidani should not be expected to have to continue participating with respect and patience when doing so means being repeatedly slandered with allegations of support for paedophilia, and a generally sneering attitude. That is the cheapest and most egregious form of ad hominem, obviously contrary to WP:NPA, and it rightfully got Bad Dryer banned. , and others have requested that you quit it,, and you refuse. Unfortunately your conduct is living up to your chosen user name. This kind of behavior is rare among regular editors but when it appears makes Wikipedia a toxic, unpleasant and unproductive place. -Darouet (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you look up where Nishidani quoted someone who wrote that there was no real victim. That is the issue, that while it was consensual, there is still a victim becasue the kid was underage, even if it was consensual. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 21:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * My attitude towards Nishidani reflects his attitude towards me. I can give dozens of examples like the personal attack I mentioned just above, which you for some reason are completely ignoring. Also nobody said he's supporting pedophilia. That's ridiculous. Pedophilia involves prepubescent children, not 15 year olds. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In fact my point is not about personal attacks, which are a dime a dozen in I/P area. I know that, you know that and Nishidani knows that. But there is a world of difference between different kinds of personal attacks. It is routine to have personal attacks accusing that someone is biased to one side, people just shrug it off. What is not acceptable is to use guilt by association with a pedophile advocacy organization and saying that X tried to justify having sex with a minor. That is a low blow. Please don't give me any stuff about pre-pubescent children. NAMBLA advocates pedophilia in general. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 05:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you think telling another editor they are incapable of human emotion towards anyone who is not of their ethnicity is an accusation of bias rather than an outright accusation of racism (with some pedigree, but never mind), then you may need to step back a little. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You seem to be digging up a single one of Nishidani's edits from 8 months ago to justify your repeated, unrepentant, ad hominem slurs against them now. And if nobody is particularly convinced by your invocation of WP:BLP to slander an Israeli anti-settlement activist, or your loud indignation on behalf of the Palestinian boy who refused to testify against him, your own tone and editing history speak for themselves. -Darouet (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify. This is an Aristotelian distinction, as I recall noting at the time, related to the intensity of affect caused by kinship bonds (and all mankind is prone to the bias). That you are still twisting this into an accusation I was being 'racist' (your gloss, 'with some pedigree' in context means 'the history of anti-Semitism) is another example of misreading and your apparently obsessive conviction about my putative ulterior motives. Your accusation in this regard was examined and dismissed. Your continual returning to this, and insinuations I am pushing an agenda of sexual license with minors, suggests to me you have a problem in editing with me, and need to be told to retract the statement, and focus on editing.Nishidani (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposal so that we can move on
This over-lengthy thread has merely devolved into content disputes and further aspersions, comparisons, and personal attacks (and self-justification thereof). I propose that now strike all of the aspersions, comparisons, and personal attacks noted by Nishidani on Talk:Ezra Nawi. And that both and  immediately desist in making any further such aspersions, comparisons, and personal attacks, either here on this thread, on any talk page, in any edit summary, or anywhere on Wikipedia. Failure to abide by both of these proposals will result in immediate blocks, topic bans, or IBans. I also propose that content discussions cease on this thread and instead, if necessary, be resumed (without the aforementioned PAs and aspersions) on Talk:Ezra Nawi. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support striking and admonishment to desist, as proposer. Softlavender (talk) 06:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, how would you respond to someone putting victim in quotes because the sex was "consensual" (even though the kid was 15)? Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 16:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. -- IjonTichy (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Updated with arguments below.


 * Oppose, this is a rather one sided proposal. It is as if Softlavendar has not read anything up above, nor anything of how Nishidani treats any of his interlocutors. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 04:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose But largely irrelevant since its unenforceable. Personally I dont edit in the IP area so topic bans are an empty threat and if *any* editor makes edits on a BLP and uses justifications like these, they will be reverted and called out for the immoral and unethical arguments they are making, regardless of who they are (BLP violations take precendence remember). Lastly attempts to muzzle comments on editing behaviour (and motives for such) doesnt work when you have policies like NPOV at work. If no one felt free to call out disgusting comments like the above (he literally says a rape victim is not a victim because they didnt complain about it, which is not only wrong, but morally objectionable) we would end up in the situation where those with less ethics skew content towards their own POV with no ability to call them out on it. So, SoftLavender's 'proposal' is rejected in its entirety. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I feel the need to point out that is continuing the PAs and aspersions  here: "immoral", "unethical", "disgusting", "he literally says a rape victim is not a victim because they didnt complain about it", "not only wrong, but morally objectionable", "those with less ethics". I'm not inviting a whole new discussion here (and I'm not going to comment further); I'm merely pointing out that the behaviors are continuing. Softlavender (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Softlavender, the problem is that I believe putting victim in quotes for a child who is 15 just because the kid says the sex is consensual is a problem. Do you not see the issue with that? That is the problem. On a side note, are you working on running for administrator in the near future? My ESP says you are. Personally, I think this thread should just close with no action on both sides. Nishidani should just realize that he should be careful with his words. Both in terms of this, and also in terms of putting people down who disagree with him, or when he tries to show how better he is with English, or when he thinks he's better at English than everyone else. At a certain point we need to move on. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 16:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Suffice to say I have zero hesitation about about pointing out objectionable arguments and attempted victim blaming. But glad we are clear where you stand on minors not being rape victims because they didnt complain. Also you might need to read WP:Aspersions again and note the part about evidence. I have provided evidence as did NMMNG as to why we take offence at their rationale for editing. That you seem to be ignoring it is your problem.
 * Actually wasting my time responding here, last time an editor made a fuss about issues related to minors on wikipedia they ended up banned by ARBCOM and the person they complained about ended up SanFranBanned(tm) by the the WMF. I will just forward any complaints to the WMF, since they at least take this stuff seriously. This place has the bad habit of not only shooting the messenger, but also his horse and then setting fire to the message. In future you can expect zero comments regarding this on-wiki. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Your efforts to slyly label another editor a pedophile-sympathizer in a content dispute is viewed by others here as a disruptive personal attack, not as a defense of minors on Wikipedia. -Darouet (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: I would like to point out that was indef blocked a week ago for making the exact kinds of comments that  is and has been making in this same case; only  made them fewer times and in less degree. I therefore see no reason why  should be indef blocked while  remains unsanctioned. Softlavender (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Softlavender's comment. In my view the behavior of both and  is highly disruptive, and both should be blocked from further editing. IjonTichy  (talk) 11:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: For reasons I already gave in the discussion above. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 15:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging since they asked to be pinged if they were being discussed. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 06:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * SNOW Support for No More Mr Nice Guy at least. Only in Death's case is a little more ambiguous, but there is nothing ambiguous about the nature of NMMNG's behaviour, the community's position with regard to that particular behaviour, nor indeed what he should have expected the likely community response to be,  Brad Dyer was indeffed immediately for making the exact same comments, by , who noted how indefensible the comments had been.  Then two more broadly respected admins  then upheld that block .  Finally, a review of the block at AN led to a unanimous decision to uphold that block. NMMNG was fully aware of how the community had decided to classify these comments--most of the diffs which Nishandi provided in their complaint above come from Brad dyer's talk page--and his decision to pick those comments up where Brad Dyer's block forced him to lay them down is WP:Disruptive in the extreme.  Indeed, this "go ahead, make my day"-style comment seems to give every indication that NMMNG is actively baiting this discord as a means of registering his dislike of Nishandi and displeasure with how the personal dispute between Nishandi and Brad Dyer unfolded.


 * I support this proposal only because it is the one that was tabled. I'd have supported an indef block without reservation if that had been put forth, as an editor who has no singificant prior experience (that I can recall) with the parties/combatants involved here; I fully expect most editors coming to this situation with similar "fresh" eyes would view these PA's in the same light. NMMNG should himself embrace this proposal with both hands and consider himself lucky that he got off so lucky for behaviour which resulted in a swift indef for another editor.  But if he instead persists in acting like he is in a defamation relay event with a blocked user, echoing the very comments that lead to the user's block, he should share that user's sanction--for the sake of equal application of our policies and the best interests of the project alike.  Honestly, I think it's hard to know what Brad Dyer thinks of all of this--whether he is happy that someone is pressing forward with his aspersions or if he gobbsmacked that someone else is getting away with saying exactly what he did, over and over.   S n o w  let's rap 21:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It wasn't unanimous, just those in bold and drive by were noted. But again, regardless, you as well, fail to read Nishidani's comments, as well as his behavior and tone when dealing with other editors. As I posted earlier, I think both editors need to take a chill pill, but Nishidani should also realize that when he posts that "there is no real victim" he should expect blowback. Do you think a 15 year old boy having sex with a man is not a victim? That is also an issue. Nobody called him a pedophile, at least to my recollection. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 21:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "It wasn't unanimous, just those in bold and drive by were noted."
 * I encourage anyone who has doubts as to my characterization to read the thread themselves. The consensus was pretty overwhelming to my eyes.
 * "But again, regardless, you as well, fail to read Nishidani's comments, as well as his behavior and tone when dealing with other editors."
 * Why do you feel comfortable assuming that I did not look into Nishandi's behaviour as well? In any event, your argument is a complete non-sequitor. If any party feels Nishandi's has  also  failed to comport themselves appropriately, then that party can present evidence to that effect and make an argument for sanctions for Nishandi as well.  But Nishandi's conduct, no matter what it consists of, does not alleviate NMMNG of a responsibility to conduct himself within community expectations with regard to our civility standards. Nor is there any question as to where the community has decided that line is in this instance; NMMNG is parroting, part and parcel, the comments which just got another party indeffed--with multiple admins and a community review validating the action.  The community has already decided, regardless of the present context, that is not acceptable behaviour.  If NMMNG wants to act as a proxy for Brad Dyer in reasserting the exact same comments, it should come as no surprise to him when the same community inevitably hands him the same sanction.  And it certainly is inevitable if he can't back down here.
 * "Nishidani should also realize that when he posts that "there is no real victim" he should expect blowback. Do you think a 15 year old boy having sex with a man is not a victim? That is also an issue."
 * Yes, that is an issue. It's a content issue. See here's the problem with the position that Brad Dyer and NMMNG have forwarded as justifying their incivility: those personal attacks are unnecessary to undermining Nishandi's position on these issues.  Point in fact they are counter-productive to that aim specifically because they shift focus toward a battle of personalities and away from the actual policies that govern content.   Nishandi putting scare-quotes around "victim" was inappropriate because the WP:WEIGHT of our sources will obviously never support that position.  Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and our own personal moral evaluations are not meant to be a platform upon which we argue here. You and I may have views on what consent consists of which are drastically different from what Nishandi has espoused--even so completely different that we find them objectionable.  But the reason he was wrong to try to implement those changes on this encyclopdia has nothing to do with our differing outlooks and everything to do with the fact that Nishandi's perspective is a fringe one that, being so far removed from modern social consensus, cannot be substantiated by sourcing which reflects those morays.  This was a perfectly solid and unassailable platform upon which to tear down Nashandi's position.  On this project, we argue the point, not the "opposition".


 * But that is not what Brad Dyer and No More Mr. Nice Guy have done. Instead they decided to launch repeated WP:ad hominem attacks at Nishandi himself, rather than his arguments. That is a violation of our WP:CIVILITY, WP:NPA and WP:AGF policies under any circumstances.  It is absolutely unacceptable when those comments take the form of the kind of implication they are leveling in this intance.  And I'm sorry, but I am utterly unmoved by your "they technically didn't call him X or Y" argument; it is beyond any doubt what they meant to imply (see line 153), and I don't feel compelled to split hairs over exactly which terms relating to violent sexual pathology they used in relation to Nishandi.  This is really simple: all of us who are not sociopaths have strong feelings about this topic area, some of us very strong feelings because we have special reason to know the human cost.  But if one cannot control their conduct in a given content area such that they keep their comments concentrated on the content and instead feel compelled to denigrate the character of others because they view the issue differently, they simply should not contribute in that area.  And if they can't show the self-control necessary to either A) keep their impressions of another editor's character to themselves or B) leave the discussion altogether, they have to accept the consequences when their behaviour becomes disruptive to the project. Especially when that behaviour takes the form of casting these kinds of allegations, no matter how certain said editor is that they reflect "reality" and not just the product of their own animosity.  S n o w  let's rap 02:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This is the first post that actually addresses the issue rather than repeating "bad words are bad", so I would like to respond to it.
 * First of all, Brad Dyer has a whole lot of extra baggage as can be seen both by the explanations for why his unblock requests were rejected and the AN thread. So that comparison doesn't work here. I also after it came to my attention he was indeffed I did not repeat what I said to Nishidani.
 * Second, the scare quotes around "victim" was not a matter of WEIGHT, it was a matter of V since Nishidani at the time did not supply a single source supporting that kind of language. So he did that as WP:OR. But that's not even what triggered my response which brought us here. The trigger for that was this. Please read it carefully. This is quite obviously Nishidani stating his opinion rather than relying on what sources explicitly say. He is using his opinion to try to convince other editors to support the scare quotes around "victim", which again, had no source. Notice he does not refer to any sources except a dictionary. He calls the minor the "ostensible victim" (again, not referring to any source that makes this claim) and he ends by saying the fact the minor did not complain and was not willing to testify makes it "appear" he doesn't see himself as a victim.
 * That is the evidence (per WP:NPA and WP:Aspersions) for why I made an accusation (it was more of a "really?! Is that the line you're taking?" before he replied with "Why yes, yes I am"). Not a single editor has addressed it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Stop it. Repeating that my use of inverted commas was an example of 'scare quotes' and not, as I stated a week back, a means of drawing attention to a word I thought problematical, is absurd. It has nothing to do with 'my personal views'.Nishidani (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * All of which are reasons why Nishandi should have (and did) lose the content dispute, but not in any sense a blank check for the disruptive and defamatory conduct you then engaged in. You are entitled to challenge Nishandi's reasoning for the purposes of the content dispute.  You are not allowed to go further to attack his character. You made repeated and loud attempts to associate his name with an organization which promotes an ideology of violent sexual exploitation of minors.  That behaviour could serve no legitimate purpose in the content discussion, except to defame, raise acrimony and needlessly personalize an issue which could only be decided on the sources and our policies alone, not the outlook and motives of editors--which is why Bad Dryer was instantly indeffed for that behaviour and why you are super lucky to have avoided that consequence thus far.


 * Furthermore, you then took those accusations to other spaces--including the talk page of another editor. When Nashandi decided to make a statement to assert his moral opposition to statutory rape, you accused him of lying to save face. That's a personal attack under any circumstances, even if you weren't implicating that another editor was possessed of the kind of reprehensible associations you were unambiguously suggesting; no matter how certain you are of your "evidence" of his "true" disposition, you can't look into his mind to know his true outlook, and speculation about it isn't relevant to any matter at hand, even if you were still in the space for a content discussion, which you weren't.  There's not even a hint of any productive purpose to this comment--you were just continuing to register your low esteem for another editor as part of a personal dispute, by way of comments which the community regards as way over the line into unacceptable territory.


 * Nor is ignorance any defense here--you had just watched Bad Dryer banned for the very same comments, so you knew at the very least that these comments were not considered appropriate by your fellow contributors (including numerous admins) who had weighed in on the matter.  You didn't just refuse to WP:Drop the stick, you picked up the stick exactly where it was left by another editor who had to be indeffed for refusal to drop that very same stick!  How to your mind can that possibly not constitute WP:disruptive behaviour at the very least?


 * Look, you seem to have suggested above that I'm the only editor here who has spoken to what you view as the core issues of the dispute. So I maybe I can avail of that position to convince you that I'm giving you my honest, best assessment as an uninvolved party when I say you don't look good here, and the situation isn't improving.   The only position you've advocated above which does make an argument that you shouldn't suffer the same consequence as Bad Dryer is that you don't have his history of sanctions. But that's not going to be enough here if you can't back down on whether those comments were appropriate. Remember, Bad Dryer wasn't indfeffed for his block history; Drmies blocked him for the comments (the same comments you are repeating now) alone. His past history only came into play when his unblock request was denied.  If the outcome of this is that you get indeffed, but then are allowed back on, is that price really worth sticking by those comments.  Why not just apologize to Nishandi for going to far.  No one expects you to pretend to like him, to approve of his editorial approach or share his perspectives.  But your fellow Wikipedians (even the ones who agree with you on the content issue) are telling you, under no uncertain terms, that you crossed a line here, and a serious one.  Don't you think it's worth re-examining your conduct in that regard before you run the risk of ending up with a block history like that which you have compared your own record against?  S n o w  let's rap 03:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have never encountered you before so have no reason to doubt you're giving me anything other than your honest opinion. Doesn't mean I have to agree.
 * I think you are mistaken about Bad Dryer and his history. I doubt Drmies would have handed such a fast indef to someone else in similar circumstances. You are also mistaken if you think I'm trying to read Nishidani's mind or whatever. I told him he made an argument that resembles those made by a certain organization. Is that a false statement? If it's not false, then there's no personal attack. Is it false? Yes or no?
 * Do editors have some kind of right to incessantly SOAPBOX and treat Wikipedia like a FORUM and not be called out on it because it might make them look bad? Do you want to see some more examples just from that one talkpage? Stuff I let slide just because I don't usually feel like getting into this ridiculous drama? But when someone suggests that in a exploitative relationship between an adult and a minor, the minor was not a victim because he consented or wouldn't testify, that just sticks in my craw. And this without even the pretense of a single source. Am I the only one here who has kids?
 * Anyway, I hope any admin who closes this is familiar with the IP topic area. They will see that other than you, Softlavender, and Only in death, every single person who commented here is knee deep in the topic area. It's not like there's an overwhelming consensus of uninvolved editors here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "I think you are mistaken about Bad Dryer and his history. I doubt Drmies would have handed such a fast indef to someone else in similar circumstances."
 * Well, we can certainly ask him; . In any event, is that really the standard you want to adopt here, to be spared a sanction on the technicality that you haven't got as disruptive a history even though you absolutely shared this disruptive act with someone who does?
 * "You are also mistaken if you think I'm trying to read Nishidani's mind or whatever. I told him he made an argument that resembles those made by a certain organization. Is that a false statement? If it's not false, then there's no personal attack. Is it false? Yes or no?"
 * Sorry, but that argument doesn't fly, and I'm not sure how many more ways I can explain this, but here goes: On this project, it doesn't matter what group his comments remind you of; that's not relevant to a content discussion in any shape, manner, or form.  Again, you are allowed to assess whether his arguments are consistent with the sources or policy.  You are not allowed to imply he has solidarity with a group of organized sex offenders as such defamatory comments have no value to the content dispute process and can only serve to inflame and disrupt discussion and the project at large. Your argument is non-sequitor; a statement doesn't have to be untrue to be disruptive.  So his comments reminded you of that group--that doesn't mean it was a WP:CIVIL or a smart thing to say, and it certainly doesn't mean that this community can't find it utterly unacceptable--which it clearly does, since another editor just received our highest sanction for saying the exact same thing.
 * "Do editors have some kind of right to incessantly SOAPBOX and treat Wikipedia like a FORUM and not be called out on it because it might make them look bad? Do you want to see some more examples just from that one talkpage?"
 * As far as I can tell, Nishandi was not soapboxing. They were making what they viewed as a legitimate content argument.  You and I may find that argument completely untenable, even absurd, but that doesn't mean Nishandi is barred from making it, so long as they try to form consensus and then abide by the decision, which it seems they have here.  Anyway, even if Nashandi acted improperly, that would be another topic for the community to consider, for which anyone can present evidence, if it comes to that.  But their actions do not alleviate you of your responsibility to follow our behavioural guidelines, certainly not with regard to the comments you made, which go too far beyond what we can set aside as a mere consequence of a mundane clash of personalities.
 * "But when someone suggests that in a exploitative relationship between an adult and a minor, the minor was not a victim because he consented or wouldn't testify, that just sticks in my craw."
 * That's fine. You're allowed to be bothered.  You're not allowed to say just whatever you want because you are bothered.  You certainly aren't allowed to call anyone names, no matter how attenuated you make that name calling by way of talk of "resemblance", the meaning of which we all obviously see. Bad Dryer used that same intermediary and he still got blocked, why do you think you should be immune to the same community sanction for the exact same device directed at the exact same editor in the exact same context?


 * Look, I understand. Believe me, sexual assault is a topic that presents me with difficulties in discussing dispassionately, and I'd be lying if I said there weren't times when my blood has boiled.  There was one occasion when, as part of a strategic attempt to dodge their attacks on another contributor, a particularly incivil editor repeatedly accused me of indifference to the topic of rape; my partner had to physically take my laptop away from me and get me into some fresh air--I was almost in tears, I was so angry. So, yeah, I get it--some of us don't ever care to hear these acts or their consequences minimized.  But I also know that Wikipedia demands something more from me than that I let my passions completely govern how I approach my fellow editors on a topic--that it's my responsibility to control my response to the presentation of ideas I don't like, because it's a critical part of our important mission to share the sum total of human knowledge that we be able to discuss and vet things at length, without resorting to personal recriminations against those we disagree with.


 * Nishandi is allowed to hold an unpopular opinion or one you and I disagree with. Nothing in our project's community consensus prohibits that in any way.   You are not allowed to associate them with criminals and sociopaths because you disagree with them about the nature of consent in this case.  You just aren't.  And again, this isn't just me talking subjectively here.  The community has already spoken by banning another editor for making these exact same comments in the exact same context.  You're not in a position to overturn that community consensus just because you feel differently about it.  The only question here is whether you will be handed the same sanction for the same act directed against the same person.  And that is going to turn in great part on whether you can show an understanding of why that act stepped outside our community's perspective on this matter.  Again, I am urging you to try to re-evaluate this situation in the light of what others are saying here. In my opinion, sometimes there are circumstances wherein nothing will show your clarity of mind on a matter like owning up to a misstep to someone whose broader perspective you deeply dislike.  S n o w  let's rap 07:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * For the last time - Brad Dyer and I have vastly different history. He was on the community's radar already. He had previous blocks. He was widely suspected as being an sock of a blocked editor. He pissed a lot of admins off. The fact I'm still editing while he got an indef 20 minutes after being reported should be enough evidence of that.
 * Nothing in our project's community consensus prohibits people from holding unpopular opinions. That's true. But it does prohibit them SOAPBOXing and using Wikipedia as a FORUM and inflicting their unpopular opinions gratuitously on other editors, and that's exactly what an editor who states an opinion without relying on reliable sources is doing. If you think people can make content related arguments without relying on a single source that makes the argument, we have a vastly different understanding of WP:OR.
 * What do you think the Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence part in NPA is about? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, if you want to predicate your assumption that you won't be given a sanction for making those comments (in the context of a discretionary sanctions topic area, no less) on the fact that your co-commentator had a more extensive history of blocks than you, then it's clear at this point that there is nothing we can say to disabuse you of that notion. Nor indeed does there seem to be good reason to try any further if your disposition is that the behaviour in question represents a civil editing mindset, since (if that is genuinely your belief), further such disruption is probably inevitable--more's the pity for everyone involved, yourself included.  S n o w  let's rap 03:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a bit unfair. All I said is that I disagree with your statement that it is inevitable that I would get a sanction because Brad Dryer got one. But I think we've reached the point where we should agree to disagree and move on. Thanks again for being the only editor to actually engage with the issues.
 * As I mentioned above, NPA explicitly allows for accusations about personal behavior if evidence is supplied, which I believe I have provided. As I also mentioned, other than yourself, Softlavender and Only in death, the other editors who commented here are all very much involved, so there doesn't seem to be a consensus of uninvolved editors supporting your position. I have thousands of edits in a very contentious topic area and have been able to maintain a clean record so far, so I think my reading of policy and guidelines is usually fairly within the community consensus here, but I am open to being told otherwise. Let's see if more uninvolved editors comment or what a closing admin might say. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support admonishment not ANI mandated striking or Support blocking I support the admonishment and moving on but I can't support the ANI mandated striking. It's almost like a forced apology. Seems more like a great effort to make it look something big has been done while nothing has been done. Would also support a block -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, given that was indef blocked a week ago for making only a couple of the exact same comments that  has made multiple times and in multiple places, it seems logical (to me personally, at least) that the only way  can or should avoid a similar block, even an indef one, is to strike all of the sorts of comments that  was indeffed for. Softlavender (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, I can't support an ANI mandated striking. It's utter and incomprehensible nonsense. Much like a forced apology. ANI is not here to appease offended editors but to end disruption. An ANI mandated striking or redaction serves only to appease offended parties. An official admonishment from the community serves an actual purpose. In the event that they fail to take this warning and do the behavior again they can be blocked, banned, or etc. We can either give leniency or not, but I disagree that we should only grant leniency here if they kiss the communities proverbial bottom when mandated to do so. This is some Mickey Mouse bullshit better suited for saturday morning cartoons.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Joe, I'm not asking to be "appeased". I have a strong record for not running to A/I or AE to whinge over a decade. I dislike it. NMMGG implied that if I didn't report him, as he implied I should, it was because I would be embarrassed. He wanted this, not I.Nishidani (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You don't have to like my choice of words. Choose another word to replace that reflects your word preference. Here is the proposal, admonish them and mandate they strike the offending comments. The admonishment serves a purpose. Mandated striking does not. I'm not for a court mandated ass kissing that serves no purpose. If you or someone on your behalf wants to collapse those comments, I think there's policy on your side to do so. If you want to seek more than admonishment, have at it. I do not support an ANI mandated striking.If you wish to push for and support an admonishment I think that's fine. If you want a mandated striking you are going to need to justify it and the above rant about Brad Dwyer is not a justification.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support temporary blocks of some kind for both and  because instead of apologizing, they have repeatedly only redoubled their insulting personal attacks against Nishidani, even after criticism and/or admonishment from, , , , , , and others. Per , I think that asking for them to strike the insults is useless, since they've had plenty of chances to recognize their behavior and apologize, and have used those chances to repeat the attacks. Attacks which, as Softlavender points out, led  to indeff . The discussion reviewing Bad Dryer's block applies equally well to this situation, and as Snow Rise writes, resulted in a near unanimous upholding of the block. -Darouet (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Kindly quote me "redoubled their insulting personal attacks against Nishidani, even after criticism and/or admonishment". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * For your part, you have not "redoubled the insults," but originally wrote the following to Nishidani: "Did you get that from NAMBLA promotional material?", and What's in the sources? That's it's not so bad for a 45 year old to have sex with a 15 year old if there's no coercion involved? That's exactly NAMBLA territory. Show me a source that puts victim in quotes", and "Considering you repeatedly tried to justify a 45 year old having sex with a 15 year old, NAMBLA does indeed come to mind". While it' true that you haven't repeated these personal insults since Nishidani filed this complaint, you've also not apologized and accepted that this was a low and insulting editing tactic. If you do acknowledge it sincerely, without in any way needing to give ground on the content dispute, I would change my opinion here.
 * Only in Death by contrast has repeatedly tried to justify the slur, e.g. "Pointing out that an editor is using similar tactics and justifications as groups like NAMBLA is not a violation of NPA... straight out of a rape-apologists arsenal and a very common justification for abuse of minors. From a child-protection point of view I will straight away suspect someone who uses that reasoning. It effectively boils down to 'they wanted it'," and "Nishidani is making the exact same arguments people who try to excuse sex with minors make. If he doesnt want to face accusations that he may be editing from a sympathetic viewpoint he shouldnt make the same sympathetic arguments. NAMBLA always bring up the victims lack of 'victimhood' in this situation because the argument *only* serves their agenda in attempting to push the viewpoint sex with minors is permissable". -Darouet (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So when you said that stuff about me, you were lying. Not for the first time in this thread I might add, I just didn't bother to point the other ones out.
 * You have not addressed any of the evidence I provided per Wikipedia policy, so any admin closing this should ignore your !vote. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * For a moment I thought you might approach something resembling contrition. My comment referenced both of you, I gave you your WP:ROPE, and see you'd rather hang on your original statements. Plus ça change. -Darouet (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose I supplied evidence per WP:NPA for why I said what I said. Not a single editor addressed it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's a recap. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Just because people have responded to it doesn't mean they have seen it. "The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you." -WP:IDHT.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I agree with Sir Joseph. It looks to me like some bad behavior and personal attacks have occurred from all sides. Rather than taking sides, an admin should warn all participants to refrain from personal attacks and should monitor the discussion henceforth to enforce the warning.Homemade Pencils (talk) 04:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * How do you go from having 105 edits adding or removing commas to making a pronouncement at AN/I? -Darouet (talk) 06:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Couldn't wait to reach the 500 edits required by WP:ARBPIA3 by adding or removing commas before getting involved in an WP:ARBPIA related issue would be my guess. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems like there was a recent block for "gaming the system" for someone who had sped thru making menial edits so that they could edit there.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, Serialjoepsycho is right. I believe it was User:HistoryWrite who was blocked for gaming the sys. I think this is the link to the discussion and the decision to block (scroll down, or up, to Case #5 on HistoryWrite). IjonTichy (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support imposing the same sanction for NMMNG and anyone else -- i.e., the same that was imposed on Bad Dryer. Giving a green light for this sort of behaviour is really not to the benefit of Wikipedia.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: What I would judge most useful is something such as a probation period during which NMMNG has to be at least as polite as the editors he is interacting with. In my experience, it is not solely Nishidani that he has a problem with, but any editor who does not share his, obviously deeply held, political beliefs. It must take either real dedication or a patholigical level of animus to be so relentlessly obnoxious. Pleasant it would be to have relief from NMMNG's stock-in-trade snide remarks and tone of contempt.  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  13:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a nice suggestion. I wonder why this is proving so hard to conclude...  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Was that an example of how to be polite? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A suggestion: substitute the word 'civil', familiar from Wikipedia policy, for 'polite'.  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  13:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Globally NMMNG's bitterness against the wp project is so deep that he will not change. In the current case, his animosity towards Nishidani and the contributors he sees to be anti-Israelis is not acceptable and he should be sanctioned with an automatic doubling each time he repeats his attacks. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * If there are reasons why sanctioning these attacks and hostility is problematic, I'm genuinely curious to read them. The absence of even one iota of remorse, recognition, or understanding by NMMNG - when an apology is the least that would be required - appears to make this case straightforward. -Darouet (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This is Pluto's 2nd !vote in this discussion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And speaking of animosity towards other contributors, check out the last paragraph of Pluto's talk page comment here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you know how this works: if you want to ask for action against another editor, start a separate section. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be easy to find examples of civil interactions between Pluto and those who don't share his political beliefs (in the linked to example, the correspond happens to be in the same 'political camp' - and I suspect that Pluto wasn't guilty of raising the temperature of the dispute). Can the same be said of you?  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  13:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I like how you're trying to excuse that. Apparently civility and politeness aren't always that important to you? Anyway, since you're obviously going to return here every day or two in an attempt to keep this open, and we wouldn't want anyone to mistake you for an uninvolved editor, here's a diff of you telling me that you revert my edits because of me personally and not because of any particular Wikipedia policy. I just noticed that's from a few years ago, you can sure hold a grudge, eh? I'm not going to be responding to you further, so feel free to get your last word in. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from archive: Could an admin please take a look at this and try to resolve it?
This contentious and active thread was retrieved from the archive, where it was bot-archived without closure. Could an admin or two try to resolve it? Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 09:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - I think the main effort, by many of those involved, smells quite emotively of either a Pro-Israeli or Anti-Israeli political stance, neither of which is acceptable. Doesn't this go against the 'opinion' by-laws section of wikipedia, if I'm not mistaken? I have my own issues with the 'attitudes' of editors on wikipeadia, but this is a strait forward issue. Crime is Crime. Unless your a sanctioned, Nationally accredited, retired or active Judge, with a background in International law....well....as others like to use so often, Opinion is just that. Nuro Dragonfly (talk) 10:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You need to drop the stick already. Seriously. Either nominate yourself for an RFA or tell us why you feel so strongly about doing something that you actually had to dig out this thing from the archive. Nothing is going to get done. All you are going to do is have it drag on again and bring more biased editors to scream and yell, and what will that accomplish? You should have just let it lie and let people get on with editing Wikipedia. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 15:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm the one who retrieved it, not user Softlavender. I fully support Softlavender's call for admins to resolve this. In my view, there is sufficient consensus to indef block both User: No More Mr Nice Guy and User: Only in death. Thanks. IjonTichy (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please dont Ping me back to this shit. WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE. Since I have made no comment on this for 15 days, feel free to argue its not a punitive block request. This will be my last word on the matter unless someone else decides they want to drag this out Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Same. Please don't ping me back here. Maybe an admin would like to take a look at these involved editors keeping this thing open for weeks after its natural death. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Biased Consensus is not a consensus. There was absolutely no reason to retrieve the archive. I have no idea how you got involved other than to stir up more trouble. There is absolutely no reason why anybody here needs to be blocked, and you saying so just clearly shows your bias towards those who have a pro-Israel POV. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 16:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Check out IjonTichy's second most edited page for a hint on his involvement here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I know, he popped up to discuss me on ANI as well. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 19:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Buckshot06
User:Buckshot06 is asserting that I made a personal attack by starting a topic at Talk:Mohammed Omar with the heading "Unsourced POV pushing by User:Sundostund". I know this belongs at SPI but I also want to say here that I have reasons to believe that User:Sundostund is a sockpuppet of User:Toddy1 (and possibly also a sock of User:Be Black Hole Sun, User:Im a Socialist! What Are You, User:Trust Is All You Need, User:StanTheMan87, StanMan87, and User:TheMadTim). The evidence I have is based on behavior and location. The issue here is that I try to avoid User:Buckshot06 everyday but he's refusing to leave me alone. See. When I reply to him, he says that I annoy him. When I don't reply, he WP:ADMINSHOPS in order to get me blocked. This behaviour of Buckshot06 must stop.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Users interested in the ongoing behaviour of User:Krzyhorse22 should review, this time, Talk:Mohammed Omar and also my request for a second admin opinion at User talk:Nick-D before going to my warning at User talk:Krzyhorse22. I am not entirely sure why ADMINSHOPS has been cited, given that I myself have the power to take administrative action. Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 02:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I cited ADMINSHOP because perhaps you wanted a written comment from Nick-D (so everyone can see it) as a support to justify an unjustisfied block. I've been online since early 1997, I know alot about how people behave. Based on your recent behavior, I think your "power to take administrative action" should be taken away from you. No offense but you behave more like an edit warrior.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 08:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no connection to any of the users mentioned above. That claim is just ludicrous. Any SPI would confirm that. And, I see no problem in Buckshot06's actions. The whole problem here is that Krzyhorse22 can't accept that his controversial edits are opposed by other editors (namely me and Buckshot06). And yes, I see it as a personal attack if someone accuse me of "unsourced POV pushing" just because we have differences in opinion about an article's content. I've already said, and I'll repeat - Wikipedia is built on consensus, and Krzyhorse22 must have it if he wants to implement his versions of articles in question. I hope admins will resolve this issue quickly, and let me say that I don't plan to post further responses here (or at Talk:Mohammed Omar) - I've stated my opinion there, and I'll just wait and see what other users think about Krzyhorse22's edits, and what admins plan to do here. Cheers everybody. --Sundostund (talk) 02:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact that you made Mohammed Omar a president of Afghanistan without citing a single source makes you a WP:POV pusher. This is especially so when Encyclopædia Britannica states that Omar "was emir of Afghanistan." I used POV pusher because many other WP editors use it.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 08:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You have managed two rounds of personal attacks, first, in your choice of heading and secondly, in making allegations of sockpuppetry without evidence. I suggest that you change the heading to a neutral one and retract your allegations of sockpuppetry pretty damn quick lest you find yourself blocked. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have the evidence to prove the sock connection but will not post it here, will start SPI when I'm free. If you think that is a personal attack then the accusations against me are also personal attacks.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 08:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've been doing some clicking around, and I've just discovered Sockpuppet investigations/Lagoo sab/Archive, which mentions this user a number of times. The CU was declined, but what it does show, looking through the page, is that other users have had serious concerns with this user's conduct dating back some time. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Those who reported me were themselves abusing multiple accounts. I was also wrongly reported at Sockpuppet investigations/LanguageXpert/Archive and a number of other SPIs. Please perform a CU on me if you wish, this is the one and only account I use.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 08:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh?! I've been inactive as of late, as you can see you by my WP contributions. I'm not a sockpuppet of anyone, and I'm a good contributor (or was :p) to Wikipedia, even if I sometimes suffer meltdowns. I don't want to be involved in this discussion any more than I have to, but when that is said and done, I've never (or at least very litte) edited the Omar article. I know about Afghanistan's communist past, I know way to little about its Taliban past.... Of course, if you have any questions I'm happy to answer them! :) --TIAYN (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Call it a feeling, but the bent piece of wood is on its return journey. Blackmane (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Krzyhorse22 is a joke. I have been away from Wikipedia largely since July 2015 (Though I have made 5 edits between then and now). I will however take this time to offer my analysis on the user who has mentioned me in this discussion (Of which our encounters have been plentiful). Krzyhorse22 doesn't deserve to be on Wikipedia. I am actually surprised he has managed to remain on Wikipedia this long and it really is disappointing that no one has blocked him yet. His very first edit (that's right, first edit) on his account was filing a bogus ANI against me for no reason in September 2014, diff here . He has filed a couple of other ones against me, again for no reason other than disagreeing with me on certain pages we both edited, see, . Even if I was in the wrong over copy-right (We all make mistakes), his first action would be to waste the time of Wikipedia administrators and file an ANI. It was just ANI filed after ANI, accusation after accusation. He has accused me of sock-puppetry before. And his signature move (which he has mentioned in this very discussion) when faced with the burden of proof is to resort to a tried and true bs tactic along the lines of "I have the information proving you are a sock-puppet...but I don't have time to find it right now." Seriously, he pulled that exact same line on me, though in a different context. He is a disruptive editor and loves to cause trouble, particularly when it comes to editors that have different opinions to him. He loves nothing more then to own a Wikipedia page in the literal sense of the word and despises having to contend with the additions of other editors even if they are constructive and help the project. If you don't believe me, just take a look through his contributions. The diffs showing his hostile and partisan nature are a treasure trove. I urge all editors reading this to dismiss Krzyhorse22 and all claims that he makes, both in this ANI and in any future ones. He has demonstrated zero credibility as an editor and contributor to Wikipedia. I can't help but feel sorry for Buckshot06 who is the latest target (and hopefully the last) of this idiots harassment. I know, because I was the first and had to contend with it for all to long. My advice is to just keep editing despite his tantrums and completely ignore him. He has shown he dislikes the opinions of others, so give his opinion no merit. StanTheMan87 (talk) 07:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * StanTheMan87 is making WP:personal attacks here and everywhere (e.g., using the word "nigger", ). For the record, I've explained many times in the past that my first edits were in fact nominating images, which were deleted along with my edits, I have 37 deleted edits. I'm surprised to see StanTheMan87 still allowed to edit Wikipedia. I want to point out that this discussion in this thread is about User:Buckshot06 WP:HARRASSING me everywhere, including on my talk page. I warned Buckshot06 (on my talk page) but he continues to harrass me.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 12:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You forget to mention that my mirror account, StanMan87 which made those inflammatory and offensive remarks was banned at my request due to being breached, diff here . I no longer had access to it, and the last time I had access to it was early February 2015. Take a look at the contributions of the accounts activities. It went from making constructive edits on the ISIL and other middle-eastern based articles to vandalizing the Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush and Holocaust articles in October 2015 onward to January 2016 which I have never edited before. You however have made offensive remarks yourself when you stated that "Afghans in general are corrupt and they exaggerate too much. The same goes for Pakistanis, Indians, Iranians and etc. " diff here . And there are many many more where that came from. StanTheMan87 (talk) 01:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that in October 2015 a stranger came across your account and hacked it? He then wrote on your talk page: "Get off my talk page you weeaboo degenerate" When you were making this November 2015 edit, you didn't realize anything? You were using StanMan87 without revealing it. The nonsense about me, you're bringing over 2 year old discussion, that is not what I say, it's what mainstream media says about Afghans in general. It's simply saying corruption is widespread in that country. I've been to all those countries, and I personally saw how widespread it is. I was lied to 24-7 and cheated everywhere I purchased something.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 02:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm saying the last time I logged on and edited was in early February 2015. I don't see the correlation between the edit that the compromised StanMan87 made and the constructive one I made in November on this account (After being away largely since July 2015). I had no need for the other account so I stopped logging on and editing. With that being said, I also stopped having anything to do with it entirely. I was only informed of its new erratic and disruptive nature when I logged in to this account, checked my talk page in January 2016 and saw a message from the 20th of October 2015 from User Kusma that it was vandalizing pages. You seem to have a history of insulting people and countries in Asia it seems the most disgusting thing to see on Afghan pages one person removes Pashto while another removes Persian, it's like what's the point in this? No wonder why many of these countries in Asia are so backward diff here . Anyway, with luck you will be forgotten history on Wikipedia once this ANI concludes. Good riddance to bad rubbish. StanTheMan87 (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That 2014 issue has been resolved with no action because everyone knows that it's disgusting to see people behave bad in WP (removing language from pages that they don't like). I've seen many like you gotten banned from WP, I'm sure I'll see you end up the same way one day (if not today). Like I said, you don't impress me.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 12:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Boomerang: Proposed Topic Ban for Krzyhorse22
After reading through this saga here, noting: I tend to conclude that is not engaging with editors appropriately in area of controversy and his actions are disruptive. Hence, I would propose a community topic ban for at least one year on all aspects related to Afghanistan broadly construed. WCM email 12:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) This recourse to WP:ANI and others ,,,,, asking for sanctions against other editors he is involved in a content disputes with.
 * 2) Previous ANI visits where this editors competence has been questioned ,
 * 3) WP:BATTLE mentality at Talk:Mohammed Omar
 * 4) WP:NPA Personal attacks at Talk:Mohammed Omar


 * Support As proposer. WCM email 12:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - What User:Wee Curry Monster (WCM) presented here is fundamentally unfair. 1) I'm one of the top experts on Afghanistan; 2) the accusations levelled against are all untrue; 3) those who reported me at ANI were indef-blocked for being disruptive . I have a feeling that those who don't like me are plotting (by emailing each other) to get rid of me. Their physical location supports my suspecions. For these reasons, WCM's proposition should be denied.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: Since, he is an habitual personal attacker as he has accused me of POV pushing in the past as well but what I was doing was merely asking him to refrain adding unsourced content. He also acts like he is a scholar on Afghanistan matters and his opinion should be given weight over what the sources say.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 16:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's because you were POV pushing, see Talk:Ashraf_Ghani. You attack those who are not from your ethnic group (e.g., you stated: "He has Pashtun nationalistic agenda and tries to bump up figures related to Pahtun ethnicity and Pashto language" ).--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, it's there to see for everyone (Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive907), once you saw the tide turning against you, you closed the ANI, you were proven wrong there, you were told that it was a mere content dispute and not as such you painted it to be and some editors even voted for your block due to your behavior and given the list of ANI's opened by you prove that you are a habitual accuser and personal attacker and you should be actually banned from opening any ANI's in future. As for the edit disputes you referred in your comment, they should be evaluated on their merit. There is no place for unsourced POV content on Wikipedia and i still maintain that i was in both circumstances in my rights if i asked for proper sources for the content which was being pushed in or if i removed unsourced content.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 18:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no policy that limits the number of ANI reports, you aggressively argued that Afghan President Ashraf Ghani held Pakistani national ID card and that he lived in Pakistan but it turned out that this was a completely fabricated story. You were disrupting WP and I reported you. Like others, when I suspect a disruptive editor I can't help it but to report him. You can see from my edits that I'm not deliberately breaching WP, concentrate on your own actions. I've noticed this one serial sock-maker who is editing from in and around Islamabad, Pakistan, and he often reports me, he's connected to User:LanguageXpert. He has used dozens of socks  and continues to use more.  You're also Pakistani and now you're WP:HARRASSING me here, just hope you're not related to that guy.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Lol, I didn't call you a habitual accuser for nothing. You are so quick to accuse people. You are proving me right with every statement you make. What i get from your statement is that every body whose page will say that they are from Pakistan and they would report you or vote against you would be the same user. You are hilarious, someone rightly said above that "you are a joke". Ashraf Ghani, holding a Pakistani national ID card was proven by a source and i still stand by it. Your opinion does not go over what the sources state. So many people cannot be wrong about you. It was not me who was disrupting WP, it is you as several editors pointed out in this ANI as well.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 20:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You're a habitual accuser calling me a habitual accuser. You may call me anything because it doesn't affect me. It's your overall behavior that makes me suspecious. I've been online since early 1997, just imagine all the people I've encountered. Online, you're the most famous guy on earth. It's not what others say, it's what my WP contributions show. Like I said, worry about your own actions.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * My overall behavior makes you suspicious? Like what? For example, I am editing Wikipedia or i am supporting your ban or what else? Not sure why you keep mentioning that you have been online since 1997, Wikipedia started in 2001 so you cannot be on Wikipedia since 1997, it seems like you are mentioning that you have been using internet since 1997. What do you think others have been doing since then? Do you think you are the only person in the world who have been using internet since 1997? I have been using internet since 1998 but i am not saying that it gives me an authority to judge others. Why do you think being online since 1997 gives you an authority to judge others? I mean who ever opposes you or have an edit conflict with you is a sock-puppet of somebody? What is this all non-sense about?  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 14:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose based on unsubstantial evidence: the ANI reports provided variously end in Krzyhorse22's favor, against, or by and large, undecided; all with a large amount of people making a large amount of fuss, so if disruption is taking place, it seems unlikely to be coming unilaterally from Krzyhorse22, including by judging this incident above this sub-section. LjL (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - at the moment, despite repeatedly engaging with this user to try and counsel him on appropriate behaviour, NPA, CONSENSUS, use of sources, I do have to agree that he is engaging in BATTLEGROUND and disruptive behaviour. Unfortunately, he's not a 'top expert' on Afghanistan, he's just pushing some very strange interpretations of data without being able to consider that, for example, should traditional Afghan kings and the Taliban's interpretation of their caliphate be conflated? He's also pushing them over and over beyond the point where he should recognise that consensus is against him. I tend to believe if a topic ban or other ANI action is not put in place, he will remain coming to administrators' attention, as he has done, and this will result in administrator sanctions at some point. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Discussing (peacefully, respectfully and intellectually) a world leader's "official title" at Talk:Mohammed Omar is not in anyway engaging in BATTLEGROUND or disruptive behavior. That is what the talk page of the article is designed for. My WP contributions prove that I know more about Afghanistan than all the editors in the discussions I'm involved. The Taliban created a new form of government in Afghanistan in 1996, with Mohammed Omar being the first emir. I cited 3 most reliable sources for this (Encyclopaedia Britannica, The New York Times, BBC News). Who is against this factual finding?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note - despite this user knowing this ANI debate is underway, he continues being uncivil to users who, it seems, who he disagrees with: . Telling a user, in effect, to leave a talkpage discussion is not civil in my book. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That editor stated: "Again, I have little desire to be drawn into a discussion based on edits I made eight years ago..." and I told him: "We're not asking you to discuss anything, you may go without needing to come here again."  What's wrong with that? My usage of the word "here" was obviously not referring to WP but just that specific discussion. I can't help people who can't understand my American English.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a real stretch: the other person was saying they didn't want to be dragged into a discussion, and Krzyhorse22 basically told them that they don't have to. They didn't tell them to leave. LjL (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. After everything what happened during this discussion (and many previous discussions as well), I see no other way than to support this topic ban proposal. Based on Krzyhorse22's general conduct - battleground mentality, ignoring of consensus, paranoia ("email plots" against him), uncivil behavior towards other users (including personal attacks and ludicrous accusations against me), etc it may be the only solution to finally put this problem to rest. And, what to say about this: "I'm one of the top experts on Afghanistan"... I'm sure this edit "confirms" that claim - . Making no distinction between kings of Afghanistan and the leader of the Taliban speaks enough for itself. --Sundostund (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You and everyone who're supporting this illogical/fundamentally unfair topic ban are doing it as a revenge. It is obviously clear because you're all repeating the same groundless accusations. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that email messages about me are passing around. Since 1709 Afghan kings rose to power like how Taliban rose to power in 1996, see Politics_of_Afghanistan. When I'm free I'll file an SPI and try to prove that you're connected to User:Be Black Hole Sun and his socks.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Accusing editors of being motivated by revenge is in fact a personal attack btw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.139.189 (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes Krzymeme22, just as you accused User:DocumentError of being a sock to my account (diff here ) ...without providing any evidence. StanTheMan87 (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Stop mocking their username. It's obnoxious and does you no credit.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That was in September 2014, I was very new. I was also accused of being a sock at Sockpuppet investigations/Irapart/Archive.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you cannot claim newness anymore, you accused people in this very thread and continued to do so even to the people who supported you.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 15:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Whole-heartedly support but I suggest a one year (if not indefinite) IP ban I cannot succinctly summarize (There would be many diffs and many paragraphs) why not only this user account should be perma-banned from Wikipedia indefinitely but the person behind it should have his/hers access restricted as well. The behaviour this individual conveys hasn't changed one iota since he started filing off ANI's against me in September 2014. He will just keep on wasting administrators time calling for editors who disagree with him to be blocked, ranting that new editors who make innocent harmless mistakes are in fact devious vandals (Every single ANI he has dragged me into), and accuse multiple accounts that oppose him as sock-puppets with a nefarious agenda against him/her ,. I urge the Wikipedia community to just wash their hands of this sad human-being and be done with it. He/she brings nothing to the community but divisiveness and conflict. I'll also note that this user was very knowledgeable of Wikipedia protocol (e.g he/she knew how to file an ANI against me as their first edit) which suggest that this person has been on Wikipedia before under another alias. There would be nothing stopping Krzyhorse22 from doing just that if the punishment isn't severe enough because this individuals behaviour will not change. --StanTheMan87 (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Notice that nothing but WP:personal attacks are coming from the supporters of this illogical and malicious topic ban.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Karma's a b!tch. StanTheMan87 (talk) 02:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You don't impress me.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 03:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry to here that Krispydream22. StanTheMan87 (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Amend my view re proposal of one year ban Probably against my better judgment, I would not support a one year if not indefinite ban immediately, but if the editor in question does not improve while editing topics less close to his heart, it might come to that. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've warned you about WP:HARRASSING me and to WP:DROPTHESTICK. You're not allowed to propose illogical bans of editors you simply dislike or disagree with their view. I think your admin power should be removed because I find you no longer fit, and at the same time you ahould be topic banned from Afghanistan-related pages. You obviously have very little contributes to those pages. It is also proven that you have very little knowledge about Afghanistan and Afghans.   You're still saying that an official title "Head of the Supreme Council of Afghanistan" existed in Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001 when no such official title existed.  Therefore, I correctly filed this ANI against you. Regarding the topic ban against me, it must be denied because it is not only illogical and malicious but against WP's policies, see, e.g., WP:BRD.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 10:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Honestly this view is in error. If you're not happy with the Independent or the Carnegie Center, try, , and  One of these sources is the Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought - do you really consider that they would have copied a title from wikipedia? It's your persistent defence of propositions that are not supported by reliable sources, plus your uncivil behaviour - to women and anyone else - that makes me wonder whether editing this site is right for you. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * From where do you assume Princeton might have gotten that title? It is an established fact that the title was first (in April 2008) presented for the entire world at WP. These sources you presented don't prove anything. The first one (www.afghan-bios.info), copies entire WP content to its website. Britannica, BBC, and the New York Times, intentionally chose not to use that title because it is unverifiable information.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose I may appear like an outsider right now, but I have edited under a variety of IP addresses because they always change. While I too have been attacked for my geographical location by Krzyhorse22 in the past, I engaged in a lengthy discussion with . We ultimately came to a conclusion with the help of Iryna Harpy and the dispute over the two templates, Template:Asian Americans and Template:Middle Eastern American ceased, not straight away but eventually it did. While I know the diabolical dispute at Afghan Americans has spiralled out of control into something that is bigger than what it should have been and it can't compare to the dispute that occurred last month. I believe that a one year ban on topics relating to Afghanistan for Krzyhorse22 does not sound good but I think we should wait for them to give a proper reply and not an attack or unjust reply. Yes, it may seem outrageous especially with what has happened and I too was taken aback by the number of times they vilified users on their geographical boundaries and subsequently on other matters but I believe that this ANI report in itself is something that might make Krzyhorse22 stop doing all of this. There appears to be heated animosity between Krzyhorse22 and every other user involved from their past and present but I think some of this has also affected the way this user has behaved towards others here on Wikipedia. I know this sounds silly but maybe when they see these messages on this page they may stop, I think we should wait and see what this user has to say whether they appear to change for the better of they continue to carry on with the unconstructive messages and replies on talk pages and here on ANI. Krzyhorse22, your replies to other users seem to be out-of-line in fact they appear to be quite personal, you should stop acting like this on Wikipedia, Iryna Harpy told me I should not "barrage editors with accounts (such as Krzyhorse22)" on your talk page last month, I took that seriously and decided that in fact it was barraging and I guess you seemed to be a respected user but with all of this it seems not. I opened that discussion for you and asked for your thoughts and yes you did that but not in the right way you seemed to attack Buckshot06 when you opened that discussion. I think you should stop with the bad remarks and improve your behaviour and be the "user" Iryna Harpy seemed to liken you with, because as of right now I can't see it and nor can anyone else. (121.214.57.157 (talk) 10:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC))
 * When someone merely mentions your country that is not in any way an attack. WP editors are located in different countries. So far all those who support this illegal unjust ban are from Australia, New Zealand , Pakistan and I believe one is in the EU (likely Norway).--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 11:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please desist from using words such as 'illega.' Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.139.189 (talk • contribs)
 * You're right, I meant to say "unjust".--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations, Krzyhorse22 - you managed to get into fight/argument even with this IP, who is one of the very few people who opposed your topic ban. Magnificent... Buckshot06, you have every right to change/amend your view, but I really must ask you not to do that. This user definitely needs some serious sanctions for his overall behavior (I think even indefinite ban would be really justifiable in this case)... Of course, my view for topic ban (Support) remains as I stated it above. --Sundostund (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What are you suggesting here Krazy, that all the people who support your ban are based somewhere in the world but you are out of this World? I didn't understand your logic behind the last statement that one is based in Australia, another in New Zealand, another in Pakistan and another in EU possibly Norway? Why are you playing this guessing game here? Above somewhere you seem to be linking me with someone called LanguageXpert who according to you is based in Islamabad. Not sure what are you achieving by changing your accusations from time to time? Are you suggesting that we should ban people from all these countries from opposing you? Or are you suggesting that others belong to these locations on Earth but you are out of this World?  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 11:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm showing the intelligent community (not intelligence community) the possible motive, i.e., that I may be harrassed based on my country (location, nationality, political view). You pretend to be an American police officer but you can't figure out my simple message?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 12:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not pretending to be anything, that's just my user name. Same as your user name does not make you a Krazy Horse, my user name does not make me a Sheriff and nor i am into disclosing my real identity here. That's why we have usernames here on WP so people's real identity cannot be compromised. It seems like we will have to bring intelligence of aliens to understand your messages because your messages are beyond this community's comprehension. They are definitely reflective of your user name. Did somebody else understand his message about talking about other's locations or any other of his messages as a matter of fact?  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 14:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not impersonating a police officer.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Honestly, to me it seems nothing sank in, none of the words I told you seemed to sink in. It was an attack you did not merely mention someone's country, you did not say, "hey, you're from Australia!" did you? You can't just declare someone's edits invalid based on the origin of the user or IP user and you did that, you said "You're from Australia, that means you know little about America", that's very far from what you claim to have done. You did not say it only four times you said the same thing to Iryna Harpy as well, that's more than four times. Did I say that I support this ban? I said "oppose" and then I said a lot of things that you should have thought about but obviously you didn't. You're reply shows me that you do not want to change as you continue to justify your actions without being able to accept the fact that your actions are not justifiable here. (121.214.34.141 (talk) 12:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC))
 * Who are you to judge? There are no admins here other than Buckshot06 who I reported to other admins. What you biased non-neutral/non-admins have said are pure nonsenses, false accusations, and revelations of your personal feelings toward me. You also revealed that you may be friends of Buckshot06 because all you do is attack me without even considering the accusations I leveled against Buchshot06.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 12:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , I am not friends with anyone on Wikipedia. I only highlighted the incorrect way you presented your points, did I make you the centre piece of my argument when I opened a discussion on the Middle Eastern Americans template last month? No, I didn't I presented it in a neutral fashion. (121.220.43.53 (talk) 01:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC))


 * SPI: User:Krzyhorse22 has been reported as a possible sock-puppet of User:Krzyhorse222 and User:Najaf ali bhayo at Sockpuppet investigations/Najaf ali bhayo. As i, myself did not interact with him much, anyone is welcomed to present further evidence for this case.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 15:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * An SPI-report that has already been closed by as being without merit ("There's no connection between Najaf ali bhayo and Krazyhorse22. Krazyhorse22 has been accused of being a sock of several masters (do a search), and they never go anywhere. Closing."). Thomas.W talk 16:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Krzyhorse222 is clearly not me but someone who was impersonating me, the admin who blocked him will quickly verify that. --Krzyhorse22 (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – I don't know anything about the dispute that's going on here, but seeing this attack on "female editors" is more than enough for me to vote in favour of a ban. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ??? I see no attack on female editors in that diff... Thomas.W talk 16:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The implication that "female editors" are thin-skinned by virtue of their sex is undoubtedly an attack. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it's not, it only reflects old-fashioned thinking, from the times when boys och men were taught to be polite to women, open doors for them etc. Before good manners started to be seen as sexist. Thomas.W talk 16:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There has been considerable Wikipedia-related fuss that has resonated in the media about how, apparently, (some) female editors feel an unwelcoming atmosphere on Wikipedia due in part to the widespread "masculine" war-like fighty atmosphere. So I find it somewhat... interesting that when it's female editors, and big names within Wikipedia, effectively saying that editors need to be "softer" in the presence of women, that's some admirable anti-sexist attitude, but when Krzyhorse22 says it, it's a sexist personal attack. But I'm sure you'll now consider mine a sexist personal attack, too. LjL (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What a bunch of utter tosh. Politeness is one thing, but it needn't be restricted to women. Opening doors for men is just as polite as opening doors for women. "Good manners" are not sexist, provided they are given equally to all human beings. What is sexist is implying that women are weak and require a softer hand than men. In this case, the remark was directed at a woman and was clearly a snide personal attack. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Then why, exactly, is the whole debate I mentioned centered around the fact that this "lack of good manners" allegedly results in specifically women not editing Wikipedia, with 90% of editors being men? If the implication were not that women require a softer hand than men, then this whole theory wouldn't explain why women are put off from editing a lot more than men. I find that hypocrisy is rampant. LjL (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've had no participation in the Wikipedia-wide debate, and have no desire to get into it. You'll find that I'm not on the side of those who push the "civility" business in the manner that you mention. I do not agree with the arguments you've cited. However, none of that matters in this case. What I object to is a direct remark targeted against a female editor who was acting in good faith on a talk page. This was clearly an attack, and a gender-based attack launched directly against any editor is absolutely inappropriate. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I meant to say I'll be polite to female editors, beyond normal polite. Wikipedia is based in the United States, American terms and phrases trump others.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You should not be "more polite" to "female editors". You should be equally polite to everyone. More importantly, civility is not just about politeness. It is about engaging with other editors is a professional manner, something you've shown you are not capable of doing by making such snide gender-based remarks against an editor acting in good faith. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well no, no they don't. That's a very silly claim. This is the English Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia, and I think you'll find that where specifically the Foundation is located has no bearing on the English varieties used here; in fact, the same foundation hosts Wikipedias in entirely other languages than English as well. 17:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * For example, suppose I were serving a sentence under U.S. probation and all my online activities were monitored by my probation officer, and I was required to say certain terms/phrases and avoid using others. If I don't follow the conditions of my probation, I could go to prison for that.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, now you're just talking nonsense. I'm defending you based on the fact that you seem to be picked on and piled on in a not particularly sound way, but this way, people like me will wonder why they're wasting their time even typing "oppose". LjL (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Lol, next, he is going to expose your sock-puppets!  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 17:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think he just accused you of being a sock maker. This discussion makes everyone a suspect, it's like hearing Fred Rogers' voices coming out of the puppets in Neighborhood of Make-Believe.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, i didn't. I meant, do not say anything against Krzyhorse22 otherwise he will find your sock-puppets as well as he has been linking everyone from the onset of this discussion.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 18:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose boomerang. The proposal is just yet another attempt by a small group of editors to get rid of an "opponent", with endless forum-shopping, including frivolous SPI-reports. Thomas.W talk 16:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I really resent that remark, I've not had anything to do with this matter before and started this proposal based on an evaluation of what I saw. You may have missed it, this editor kicked of this thread with a frivolous WP:ANI complaint against to get rid of an "opponent".   WCM email 18:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not defending either side, would be equally opposed if sanctions were proposed against Buckshot06, and see Krzyhorse22's accusations about sockpuppetry when starting this thread as a borderline personal attack, since he AFAIK hasn't filed an SPI; so let me clarify: I see this whole thread as just attempts to get rid of "opponents" through forum-shopping and accusations about sockpuppetry, etc. Reports about sockpuppetry should be filed at WP:SPI, and be accompanied by credible evidence, unlike the report against Krzyhorse22 that was quickly declined, and that even a minute or two of sifting through their histories showed was without merit. Just like multiple previous reports against them. Thomas.W talk 19:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Again may have passed you by but actually opposed my proposal and he responded with this personal attack, I don't see how you conclude from that this is an attempt to get rid of an opponent.  He's also argued with another IP editor who has opposed this.  Given the battlefield mentality he is displaying here I'm surprised he hasn't been sanctioned before. WCM email 19:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * My report against Buckshot06 (all the way at the top) is not frivolous, I did it to avoid unjustified block. He said that I was 5 seconds away from a block. What would you do in such a situation? I quickly came here so other admins could be witnesses to what was going on. About the SPI, I know this is not the place for it (and I've explained that) but I still felt that it was necessary to note it so admins could have a better understanding about what was going on.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 07:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * For the record, my behavior may be misconstrued as battlefield mentality, I'm not fighting or attacking anyone but just defending myself against an unjustified topic ban proposed by a complete stranger. I'm sure every honest editor who enjoys WP would do what I did here.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Amend my view - a penalty should be enforced So you do not care, do you? I actually thought you might change but you have not shown anything to prove that you will. I tried to be nice to you since that discussion I had with you on your talk page last month and I tried to be nice to you yesterday by letting other Wikipedia users know that maybe they should give you a chance and see if you will change. I opposed the topic ban against you but instead you decided to argue with me. My views were not biased, I was only trying to highlight the faults that you are committing that is making everyone seem to turn against you, a little criticism or the highlighting of one's faults should not be a ticket to argue with anyone. You do not care Krzyhorse22 and nor do I. , I'd like to amend my view, some sort of penalty needs to be enforced against this user, they obviously do not care even after I opposed this topic ban against them they do not show any sign of changing instead they want to argue. Wee Curry Monster, I do not want to support a user who will continue to argue with every user here on Wikipedia. While a one year ban may seem lengthy it might be the only way to make this user stop, I however believe some penalty of some sort should be enforced because I think this is the only way that will make this user stop. I think a penalty, not on the lines of a one year ban, should be enforced because it might just be the thing that will finally teach them a lesson. (121.220.43.53 (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC))
 * Amend my view - support one year ban - following continued battleground behaviour and constant incivility from this editor, I do not now believe a topic ban is enough. I should note that some of his incivility may be unintentional; his comments to Iryna Harpy on female editors may reveal some lack of social nous, which is needed on this worldwide website. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support ban with bells on, and without any rubbish being tossed around about mitigating circumstances. The editor is WP:NOTHERE, and has tampered with templates and articles concerning anything about Afghanistan or Afghanis making unilateral decisions as to how subject matter should be treated. Considering that I am the female editor who was at the receiving end of multiple WP:PERSONAL attacks by Krzyhorse22, I really don't care what the "Mr. Politenessman" variables to how females should or shouldn't be treated here are interpreted. This has nothing to do with just being a female: the fact of being a female just happens to be something I am prepared to disclose about myself, nothing more. However, the comment about being gentler with females editing Wikipedia alone is an affront to anyone who edits here, be they male, transgender, young, Chinese, bipolar, etc. Most editors do not disclose anything about themselves, therefore none of us should ever make any assumptions about any other editor. Essentially, what is being promoted is that it's okay to attack anyone if you've decided they're a peer (a peer in what sense, anyway?). Personal attacks are never acceptable, and I responded to Krzyhorse22 in a manner I've never done before: using a couple of mild expletives. I deserved the trout slap I've given myself for that, and smell of fish as a result. Whatever I am, I am not a fluffy-wuffy female who can't hack serious abuse. If I were, I would have stopped editing here years ago... and Krzyhorse22 is a remorseless abuser of other editors, as evidenced by his removal of the closest thing he's ever come to being prepared to apologise to anyone only a few hours ago. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Just the other day, after I said: "I'll try to be more soft when approaching other editors", Iryna Harpy stated to me: "You, sir, are a patronising arsehole." That explains everything about that user. She is also playing around with my comments. --Krzyhorse22 (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You don't appear to understand the fundamentals of WP:TPO. The edit you are referring to changed the entire complexion of the thread (i.e., redacting and removing your own comments well after the fact of their being read and responded to by other editors is a conscious attempt to misrepresent the discussion/argument). Secondly, you are misrepresenting your own comments here, at the ANI, by means of WP:SYNTH... or should I just call a spade a spade and characterise your actions as lies. Other editors are perfectly well equipped to see what is happening in the second diff you provided. The entire statement you are referring to was "I'll try to be more soft when approaching other editors, especially female editors.". You also entirely removed "No idea what you're up to this time but you don't impress me, and I'm sorry for that." Added to this, you've omitted to note that I struck the comment with an apology to you at 00:43, 18 February 2016 (and I did ping you from there). Or have you not noticed that, given that this took place before you posted here, and that I struck it after a deserved reprimand and deliberations with Buckshot06 as to my behaviour. While my comment is regrettable, I take full responsibility for having allowed myself to be WP:BAITed by you after you attacked me on my OWN talk page, and on the relevant talk page. Having to try to work in a collaborative environment with editors such as you is truly toxic. The saddest part of all of this is that, in the midst of this ANI you have added an admin hopeful userbox to your user page. Are you truly that oblivious to how disruptive and combative you are that you don't feel embarrassed about believing yourself to be a potential candidate for adminship? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I had that admin hopeful all along, look at the left . About the WP:TPO, I carefully removed completely irrelevant parts of my own comments and made note of that in my edit summary. You saying pure swearwords to me is collaborative environment? It seems that anything I say to you is an attack. I hope this message is not an attack. I accept your apology, let's cool down. Anyone can become an admin one day, many admins started off bad but eventually improved.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Amend my view - support one year ban. This editor's battleground mentality, desire for personal attacks and incivility is really astonishing (not to mention his sexist remarks, which are totally unacceptable - no matter whether they are intentional or not). His readiness to go into fights even with people who opposed his topic ban is really beyond my comprehension. Therefore, I think that a topic ban isn't enough here - one year ban would really be justifiable in this case. After everything what I saw during my encounter with him, I truly doubt that a topic ban would have some particular effect on him. --Sundostund (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is a perfect example of WP:HARRASS and WP:WIKIHOUNDING. I wonder who is behind that IP and who told him to come here? All the negative things said about me are untrue that's why you don't see supporting "diffs". I'm obviously a normal editor (since 2014) who tries to improve articles or correct information so WP remains a reliable source. I successfully did that at Afghan Americans. As you can see above, there are some who're against me. They want to see me banned for a year. What will that accomplish?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 13:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , no one told me to come here, I came across the Afghan Americans page after visiting the Central Asian American template which ultimately brought me to this. I opposed your block but you argued with me, this is not harassment. How can you argue with someone who is trying to oppose a block against you, shouldn't you be acceptive of that. Instead you called it harassment and argued with me that's unbelievable. The fact that you argued with me after I opposed your block makes me think whether you can change. It's really baffling, one does not expect to be argued with by the user they are trying to defend. Your behaviour is so shocking that it has even managed to capture users who have not even been involved in any dispute with you because your behaviour is that shocking they too have been equally shocked. Your behaviour is outrageous you have discriminated users on a variety fields and now I know you will never change. (137.147.16.237 (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC))
 * You want yet another diff showing that you have severe problems with WP:CIVIL? How about this? 118.93.77.246 (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC) Buckshot06 (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * For the record, IP 118.93.77.246 is in fact User:Buckshot06. Buckshot06, that was a year ago.  (who was blocked 4 times for being disruptive and POV-pushing ) told me: "Learn how to speak first, you are an uneducated Afghan which is pretty common amongst u. Dont waste my time and take your racism in ur own country which is a heaven at the moment..." You see I'm constantly attacked based on my nationality but what's funny is that I never even revealed my nationality.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * My apologies thankyou for catching that; I've signed in now. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support one year ban: After seeing this WP:UNCIVIL diff.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 23:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Amend my view - support one year ban against this user. That's it, I've had enough of you and that was the last straw. There were no need of diffs, I showed one when I first published an argument but I didn't need anymore because I tried to oppose a block against you, why would I need diffs for that? I tried to show the other users that maybe you might change if we wait a little longer, but I was seriously mistaken. Isn't it shocking that I managed to have a positive attitude towards you just last month and I continued to have that positive attitude towards you just a few days ago when I opposed a block against you, but you managed to show me that you will never ever change, in fact you said that I actually supported this ban by publishing this, the discussion I had with you last month, did you not read what I published, I said "oppose"? I didn't say I supported the ban. It's really shocking that I opposed a block against you but now I'm here, a few days later, asking for this ban to go through. , I'm amending my view again, this user needs to be blocked. , you asked "what will that accomplish?" It will hopefully teach you a serious lesson that you can never ever behave like this on Wikipedia again. The discrimination and attacks against multiple users including myself, is absolutely repulsive and disgusting and you deserve this ban! (137.147.16.237 (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC))
 * Support the one year ban. Looking through this entire ANI thread and the evidence presented throughout, I believe that this is the best course of action. It will allow this editor to contribute positively to other subject areas while say "enough is enough".  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose sanctions - It's fundamentally wrong to enter sanctions against Krzyhorse22 because he didn't violate Wikipedia policies. He correctly defended himself. It looks more like he's a victim of bullying, harrasment and personal attacks. I suggest capping the BOOMERANG section.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please don't refer to yourself in the third person. Softlavender (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Procedural Note: this matter is still open and does need to be addressed by a closing admin. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support boomerang of some sort. This is a difficult case in-so-far as Krzyhorse22 might actually be correct about the content issue which set off this latest kerfuffle--at the very least it's a nuanced matter that should have been settled on the basis of the sourcing, even be that sourcing weak on both sides.  Nevertheless, there are some deeper and more broadly relevant behavioural issues that need to be addressed here with regard to this editor's conduct and approach to the collaborative process.  In particular, a point needs to be made to Krzyhorse that these frivolous ANI's are not the appropriate means to resolve every petty conflict they have with another editor arising from a content dispute and they especially need to be made aware that allegations of sock-puppetry need to be based upon more than their general disregard for the people behind those accounts and an un-supported suspicion that they (Krzyhorse22) are being persecuted.   The list of supposed socks they list above just seems to be a grab-bag of other editors with whom they have come into conflict and who Krzyhorse has now grouped into a scatter-shot accusation under the assumption that they must represent a single editor with a grudge.  They haven't presented any evidence to support this exceptional claim and that, to the extent that any party has been wrongly accused, is a violation of WP:NPA.  I haven't looked at the circumstances under which krzyhorse came into conflict with each of those editors, but if they are largely or entirely in the vein of Afghanistan-related articles, I certainly support a one-year TBAN from those areas.  If those conflicts come from a more mixed collection of topic areas, I wonder if a shorter-term block might be more in order.  S n o w  let's rap 08:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You're focusing on irrelevant stuff. I started this ANI to avoid Buckshot06 from committing an unjust block and I was successful at that. I stated "The issue here is that I try to avoid User:Buckshot06 everyday but he's refusing to leave me alone. See [20] [21] [22] [23]. When I reply to him, he says that I annoy him. [24] When I don't reply, he WP:ADMINSHOPS in order to get me blocked. This behaviour of Buckshot06 must stop." Buckshot06 never denied this fact. The boomerang against me is completely wrong, it's basically telling me that I have no rights to defend my self in such situation. In the meantime, I made it clear that my sock accusation is a completely separate issue, not relevant here because this is not the place for that. Please stop trying to defend possible sock abusers. There's enough evidence to connect them, they never denied my finding, and I said that I may file SPI when I have free time. I became very busy in real life, I don't have time for it now.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 12:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's not how these matters work on Wikipedia. Making vague allegations of serious policy violations without providing evidence is considered a form of WP:Personal attack on this project, especially if done repeatedly; if you didn't have the evidence in hand to support your suspicions (and honestly, they do look like nothing more than a vague suspicion you have about numerous people you are in conflict with) then you shouldn't have made the accusation.  Nor is it in any sense "irrelevant" to the matter at hand, given you raised the claims yourself, and prominently in your request for relief. Indeed, I would view this as problematic behaviour even if someone else had raised it here.   S n o w  let's rap 19:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * My allegation against Buckshot06 was supported by evidence. About the socks, some were CU indef blocked years ago, another admitted he was using two of them, and if you had done some clicking you would've noticed the connection (like how I noticed it). I made it clear that I would take the issue to SPI, this was intended so the possible sock abuser will stop. Since you know more, then you also know that there are many sock abusers in Wp. --Krzyhorse22 (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support topic ban I wouldn't be opposed to a CBan (or indef block) because this user's behavior has gone so far down the negative conduct well that I doubt even these sanctions will remedy the problem. Attacking anybody that opposes their viewpoint and getting into fistfights with completely uninvolved editors (and IP addresses) speaks more to a "Suicide by Admin"/Scorched Earth policy than a editor here to collaborate on building an encyclopedia. I now invite the inevitable attacks on my independence/neutrality/heritage/etc as this editor has demonstrated as their modus operandi. Hasteur (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * WikiBullying states: "If you feel that you are being bullied... it is important that you report them immediately to the Incidents page on the Administrator's Noticeboard so the matter can be properly dealt with." That's what I did here. Others commented and I replied to their comments without attacking anyone. Instead, they attacked me and I kept my usual cool. Now, explain in short (be on point), why should I be sanctioned?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This ANI is filled with your attacks towards others. You almost accused everyone who supported your ban and even those who opposed your ban.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 17:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Exept you can't prove it. It was you who called me a joke. --Krzyhorse22 (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, someone else called you a joke, i just seconded it after you acted like one and that was not my first comment. My first comment was the vote to support your ban, in reply to which you tried to link me with some LanguageXpert and some IP which definitely made me laugh because you behaved the way i and others predicted you.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 17:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You're basically saying that whatever you write is fine but whatever I write should be construed as an attack.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, i called you a joke based on your behavior in this very ANI but if others as well find your behavior not much of a joke then i am willing to strike my comment and apologize to you. It's not a matter of life and death for me but its you who is not willing to change.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 18:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This line of discussion isn't helping anything. A) All you are doing with this manner of argument is validating Krzyhorse's sense of persecution, which seems to be largely overblown with regard to most of the issues above but which surely must seem all the more real to them each time they are called a joke.  B) In my interpretation being called "a joke" is not really civil under any context on Wikipedia, even if one is piggybacking on another's comments and even if those original comments reflect an honest assessment of the person being called a joke.  One can always find more on-point and useful language to discuss even a disruptive contributor: "User frequently engages in X behaviour", "They refuse to abide by Y policy".  Using a euphemism to refer to aggregate worth of another editor is almost never the way to go in the discussion of their conduct.  So let's back down from this line of discussion, because all you are doing is giving the user in question more ammunition and less cause to see why their conduct has been overblown elsewhere, as their response is understandable with regard to this "joke" comment.  S n o w  let's rap 20:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have stricken it, since you pointed out but again the thing is he is not pushing back on any of his accusations, he has accused almost every editor involved here for one thing or another but no remorse on his part. He still said in his last comment that he was right to accuse everyone. He accused almost everyone here of sock-puppeting and POV-pushing. Don't everyone else has a self-respect? These are blunt personal attacks but no action is being taken against this editor even after almost ten days for this ANI being opened and almost unanimous decision for his block. Only two editors opposed, one went away after getting fed up from his response without retracting his oppose vote but i can tell, he was very close to doing so.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 21:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * (RE to 17:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC) comment by KrzyHorse) Proving my point exactly.  You see this as a vendetta out to get you.  When several editors in good standing independently tell you you're wrong, it's not harassment it's consensus. Also seeing other well respected editors tell you here that your actions are out of line only shows that until you're willing to come to grips with your actions, the best way to minimize disruption is to indefinitely Topic ban you' from the content space. Hasteur (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have to admit that I'm finding this case far less straight forward than other such cases. I've now actually worked with Krzyhorse22 on the lead of an Afghan-related article after he posted a coherent, salient comment about its problems on the talk page. Effectively, this has most certainly improved the content, and he has proven himself to be capable of being collegial. As with other edits, he has been correct about content, but it is the unabashed attacks on other editors, and the confusion that badly explained content changes cause that are detrimental to the project. Snow Rise has made excellent observations about the chicken-or-egg aspects of Krzyhorse22's abuse, and it certainly wouldn't be the first time an editor (experienced or not) has felt that they've been ganged up on, has overreacted, and has dragged more editors into the maelstrom. It would be a pity to blur the lines between justified outrage with a punitive ban while convincing ourselves that it's really a preventative ban (and 'preventative' is, after all, the intention behind bans). I wouldn't support letting the user off the hook entirely as he does have a terrible temper, and has been confusing good faith with POV rather than attempting to discuss content issues as being about the content. Rapid-fire attacks on other editors simply aren't acceptable, and I'm concerned that it would take very little to set him off again. Perhaps some form of mentoring/supervision would be a more productive method of handling this (dependent on whether there's an experienced editor prepared to take him on). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I've asked earlier today at WP:AN for an admin to close this. I am not involved at all but his first reaction was to accuse me of colluding with other editors by email.  I'm also bemused at the attacks on editors who were opposing this proposal, which resulted in a change in their view.  I have no objection if a closing admin decides to take up your suggestion but based on his comments here have grave reservations whether it would work.  I'm encouraged that an editor who has been at the receiving end of his temper would suggest this but I would suggest modifying it with the addition of a 1RR restriction.  Mentoring hasn't been tried before and its better than going straight to the nuclear option of a topic ban.  If it doesn't work it makes the decision clearer next time.  WCM email 00:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I believe Iryna's thoughts on this editor's reasonableness on content need to be tempered. He persists in outright denial of reliable sources say, in regard to the 'Head of the Supreme Council' of the Afghan Taliban. So in some cases he may be reasonable, while in other cases he flat-out rejects our processes (like WP:RSN) and rules. This makes it very difficult for me to endorse Iryna's views on his content-reasonableness. Like Wee Curry Monster, I retain grave reservations about this user, especially given his attacks on admins merely trying to move this procedural matter forward (and bizarre attacks on users more generally). Buckshot06 (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I feel that I should qualify my observation further to reflect that Krzyhorse22 hasn't been correct in all of the incidents covered in the broader subject area. In fact, the incident he accused me of being POV about was attested to by an RS, but the RS had a typo which turned the total population statistic from 1,000,000 people to 3,000,000. As it turned out, it wasn't difficult to confirm that it was a typo, and the amount of aggravation over something that should have been easily and civilly cleared up was so disproportionate to the BATTLEGROUND that ensued that I would have been aghast had a new editor been caught up in it. Such behaviour cannot be seen to be supported by the community in any shape or form. Nevertheless, Krzyhorse22 would now (hopefully) be aware of the fact that he's right on the brink and, through mentorship, is being given a last chance to learn in situ. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure - thanks Iryna for that clarification, noted. As you say, the important thing here is that the community believes that is right on the brink here, and mentorship represents his last chance of staying on this site. In my view, that would be in addition to a topic ban. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess that it's contingent on what the closer believes to be the most appropriate action, ... and on whether Krzyhorse22 is even prepared to be mentored by Simon. So far, there's been no response to the kind offer. Ultimately, Simon has mentored many editors, and I have no doubt that there are other problem editors clamouring for his assistance. There are always editors asking to be adopted. There's absolutely no point in mentoring someone who begrudges even the idea of a mentor before a period of mentorship has even started. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - My report against Buckshot06 was completely ignored, the "going straight to the nuclear option of a topic ban" against me is manifestly contrary to WikiBullying. I wouldn't have commented had it not been proposed. I'm not engaged in edit-war with anyone and I don't plan to, 1RR clearly does not apply to me. I was called a "joke" by StanTheMan87 but nobody even warned that editor.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 01:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you willing to be mentored Krzyhorse22 (talk)? You do not know me, but I take on mentoring. It means you reign in and chill out somewhat in terms of self -control, and you discuss difficult or inflammatory issues with me on or off Wiki. I have been following this thread, and concur with the above comments that this is a complex issue. You appear to be capable of constructive work with others. Knowledge of subject is subordinate to overall conduct here, and you could teach me on areas of which my knowledge could be better. I am comfortable in giving it a go. I take no crap though, in terms of attitude. What say you? Simon Irondome (talk) 02:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I became busy in real life so I won't be editing WP as often as I used to, but sure I'll accept your offer.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 11:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * While I have tempered my attitude, I haven't changed my !vote for a topic ban given that there have been many incidents further aggravated by attacks and WP:ASPERSIONS cast on any editors commenting here. I do, however, trust Simon's abilities as a mentor and see this as a reasonable alternative should Krzyhorse22 be prepared to work collaboratively with him. Given the number of regulars keeping their eyes on Krzyhorse22's editing behaviour, the reigns will be very tight indeed (with the next step being a TBAN at the very least). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Iryna Harpy, you keep writing negatively about me (only). Anyone can come here write essays about a specific editor doing many bad stuff. You have to actually prove each violation. I have equal rights by WP policy to make a comment, especially if someone involves me. I could easily say that your every comment in this thread is an attack on me but is it? TBAN is inapplicable in this case.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 11:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * @Krzyhorse22. I take that as a no then? Irondome (talk) 14:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: Admins on this ANI are being very generous to this editor but editor's belligerence stands as per their last note. I am not sure why even mentorship was suggested while there was no improvement seen in attitude from the other end. Good luck with him!  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 09:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: I've read this I personally think that this user should be blocked and/or topic banned s/he is constantly abusing other users, which just by reading this ANI I can tell. It's annoying that editors waste their time dealing with this stuff because some users just don't know/refuse to respect each other and have to abuse each other. Now i've never personally had contact of any shape with the person being reported, but I just hope that something happens soon before people are getting driven away by this users actions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: I note that user Krzyhorse22 has accepted mentoring. I am willing to assist as required if that be the case. Irondome (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban: And I'm sorry about it, because I believe this editor is likely an expert in this field. But if I were this editor, I would speak once at the beginning of the discussion, then I would step back and let others discuss me. I would not snipe at each person after each comment, vigorously defending myself. It would take some willpower, yes, but that is my point: This editor is showing no willpower, no attempt to be absolutely calm, no attempt at humility, no attempt at kindness, no attempt to be open-minded of other's ideas, no attempt to see things from the other person's point of view. This editor feels they must defend themselves at all costs. That is not what is advisable in a discussion when things get heated. In my experience as the occasional diplomat in other discussions (as many others here have also), I have come to know what is required: A need to calmly step back, try to see things objectively, and learn the kindest way to openly communicate. A topic ban will allow this editor to do that. It will be difficult the first month due to their talents that they could be contributing, but as the months go by and as they turn to other topics and participate in the discussions on those talk pages, I hope they observe more rational article discussions, realize we are all here to help build an encyclopedia, and realize that the best skill in any discussion with other human beings is the ability to be diplomatic. I'm glad to hear that the editor has accepted mentoring; that's a terrific step in the right direction! All the best, Prhartcom (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I will see, how it goes but i think people are just being overexcited by his "acceptance of mentoring". I think he did it reluctantly just to find a way out of this quagmire he got himself into.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 16:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No doubt, but seeing things from his point of view, anyone would do the same, and regardless, it is most definitely a positive step. Prhartcom (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Pace the views of everyone who has commented, but I think it's rather naive to see this acceptance of mentoring to be anything other than a last-ditch attempt to evade the consequences of his previous behaviour, viz the almost inevitable TB. However, it is also true that the last-chance saloon is open 24/7; so if the mentoring fails, the worst case scenario is that we all end up back here at some point in the future... probably for a far shorter discussion... 17:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.139.189 (talk)
 * Well, that's the point of having a potentially valuable editor being mentored. Simon has an excellent track record for helping editors turn around and recognise their behavioural problems. If Krzyhorse22 is using this as a last ditch attempt not to be topic banned, he may actually realise that there's something to it despite himself. If not, he's already positioned himself at the end of the WP:ROPE and we'll know soon enough. Other editors have made it clear that they'd like both a TBAN and mentoring in place, so any hint of a repetition of behavioural problems will clinch it. It's going to be on record in the archives once this thread is closed off, so the only person whose time may be wasted is Simon's. I sincerely hope Krzyhorse22 actually appreciates the community's good faith (and Simon's relegating time and effort into assisting him) and gets his interaction skills together. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * For information I have begun dialogue with Krzyhorse22 on the latter's T/P. User is responding. I have laid out initial steps. Regards. Simon Irondome (talk) 00:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)