Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Legacypac's persistent bullying

Moved from AN — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Again – after his cursing and threatening me in November 2014 – Legacypac (LP) wants to bully and threaten me. In a November2014 ANI discussion, colleague Serialjoepsycho concluded (24Nov2014,20:42 and 27Nov,01:38) that LP should not have threatened me the way he did and no one stuck up there for LP’s threatening and cursing; yet LP this month threatened/tyrannized me again.

If he can’t stop bullying me, there’s a good chance he does that to a lot more editors. In that mentioned 2014 ANI discussion, editors DocumentError and Skookum1 indeed seem to have attested of similar problems they experienced with LP. I’m not in the position to verify and judge all their complaints about LP, but for me, LP now surely starts to have appearances against him. Perhaps, therefore, it is time now for a real tough warning for Legacypac to stop his bullying and bossing of others?

The occasion this time was a posting from me on Talk:Syrian Civil War,5Jan2016,10:13 where I criticized LP and two others for posting comments in a discussion section that seemed to be not addressing the issue there under debate. LP quickly accused me (5Jan,14:34) of having made a “personal attack” there by being not civil, impolite and/or disrespectful. I asked him (6Jan,14:02) how he meant that.

LP then replied/repeated/explained/threatened/accused/bullied (6Jan,14:36):
- “your rude comments…”
- “[do] not comment on other editors”
- “you have been warned”
and (14:50):
- “[you] insult and belittle…an experienced editor”
- “your behaviour is disruptive”
- “stay off this talk page…”
- “…(for a while) and I’ll not pursue this”
and (14:56):
- “quite inappropriate to do that”
- “… Your comments and behaviour are quite offensive…”
- “… and could easily result in sanctions like a topic ban or block”
- “If you stay off Talk Syrian War for a while I'll save myself the effort of reporting you”
- “…but if you continue acting inappropriately…”
- “… all this will become evidence”
- “ [you are] warned again”.

Apparently, according to LP’s explanation, the whole blow up is about LP reproving me for criticizing specific edits of specific editors including himself which he considers “commenting on other editors” which he fiercely denounces as not “civil”, “rude”, “impolite/disrespectful” and “personal attack” and – (partly) perhaps bearing on my later edit TalkSCW6Jan,14:23 but in that case in my opinion equally unjustified: there, too, a simple disagreement on content is no ground for such incriminating and bullying – reproving me for being “insulting”, “belittling”, “disruptive”, “inappropriate” and “offensive”; reason(s) for LP to try to extirpate all that with threats/injunctions like “you are warned” (2x), “...pursue this” , “reporting you” , “all this…evidence”, “sanctions like…”, and “stay off this talk page” (2x).
Since when is criticism on actions/edits of Wiki colleagues off-limits? Why does LP call criticism/comment on an edit “comment on an editor”? (‘Edit’ is not ‘editor’.) If my criticism would have been unjust LP could simply have said so or have reproven the criticism – but even a refuted or refutable criticism isn’t automatically a disrespectful or impolite criticism nor automatically an unacceptable personal attack – but Legacypac never even tried to rebut that criticism, he straight resorted to his threatening and cowing habit.

Meanwhile, editor Knowledgekid87 seems to have been enticed to join in that LP’s game of groundlessly accusing me (6Jan,14:31-32): of wittingly “reviving” a debate that “has died” and of being uncivil – ofcourse also without specifying my incivility – just to have me (and you) wondering and intimidated – safe behind Legacypac’s back and at the same time covering LP’s back: another reason perhaps why it is high time now to call an end to that (presumably contagious) harassing/intimidating/bullying mentality of Legacypac’s? --Corriebertus (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I was going to provide diffs of the problematic behavior I warned , Corriebertus about but he kindly provided them himself. So here Corriebertus is Talk:Syrian Civil War,5Jan2016,10:13 telling other editors to stay out of a discussion and here he removes a close [1] by User:Knowledgekid87 to continue discussing changing the name of the Syrian Civil War to "The Early 21st Century War in Syria". Taking the Civil out pf the name has been discussed to death and clearly is not going to happen. Last formal request [2] plus the archives are littered with informal move requests. Admins should also look at [3], and soliciting an editor into this discussion I have no interest in interacting with [4] [5]

As for the 2014 activity, that has been mischaracterized and the user needs to get over it. The named editors who were complaining were later blocked for the activity I noted. The allegation that I cursed is not true. Legacypac (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Legacypac, I fail to see any incivility by Corriebertus. I'm becoming annoyed with your sensitive skin. I'm not addressing the move requests here – that's not the issue that was brought to us. The issue is your conduct, and it has been brought to ANI over and over again. Corriebertus is being completely civil and your outrage over his tone is uncalled for. People are allowed to discuss issues, and disagreeing with you is not a license to get all bowed up and ruffled. He is allowed on any talk page unless he has been topic banned, and he is allowed to ask questions of editors whom you don't like. What is your problem, and why shouldn't we consider your behavior to be chronic disruption? Katie^talk 16:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Just read this discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Syrian_Civil_War#Is_the_title_correct.2C_.22Civil_War.22.3F and WP:CANVASSING an editor who was banned specifically for his interactions with me is not cool. Legacypac (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I already read that discussion. Now answer my question. Katie^talk 18:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Editor did not like the answers given after they continue to push a rename that is never going to happen, told other editor to get out of the discussion and accussed them of not discussing, and reverted a discussion close 2x. I warned the editor and moved on. Several weeks later they start this thread. That's it. Legacypac (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• I understand the frustration with the constant move discussions; but, I think Katie's points are well taken. — Ched :  ?  17:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I, too, have been on the receiving end of Legacypac's bullying, thin-skin hyperbolic reactivity, personal attacks, and groundless accusations recently and in the past. Why he hasn't been dealt with more severely by now for his behavior is beyond my understanding. KrakatoaKatie's assessment of "chronic disruption" is wholly on the mark, in my opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Several days ago WV removed my talk comments and when I restored them used that dif to accuse me of breaking 3RR. I can dig up difs but it was in an unrelated 3RR report I filed. Legacypac (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

If the comments were on WV's talk page, theyhave every right to remove them at will, and you were in the wrong to restore them. This is standard practice, and it's probably enshrined in a guideline somewhere as well. If your comments were on an article's talk page, then WV should not have removed them unless they satisfied one of the criteria outlined in WP:TPO. BMK (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• While it is on my watchlist, I have been uninvolved with the Syrian Civil War article nor have I met or had any contact with Corriebertus before. I agreed with Legacypac that this edit was not civil: [6], what does it even mean "Seriously discussing"? Corriebertus points out my edit here [7] but never explained what he got out of all the past discussions that were held already on the matter. Given the past consensus I suggested to wait a month or two [8] which in my mind seemed reasonable. What I am seeing now is more of a WP:POINTy attitude that the discussion MUST be held now despite ones that had already taken place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• I don't know what this is about, don't care, and am uninvolved in all of this. That said, while I don't spend much time at ANI, every time I do come here - without fail - Legacypac is filing a complaint about someone or someone is filing a complaint about Legacypac. A quick search [9] seems to indicate I'm not imagining this. That's all. LavaBaron (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

WV conduct

@BMK to answer your question WV removed my comments on an AfD [10] which I restored [11]. He then calls for a boomarang at a related 3RR.[12] (sorry not sure how to link to diffs in a closed 3RR) and when I ask "why the heck are you deleting my comments?" he "votes" again with "Another Support for boomerang following this[13] revert taking Legacypac over the 3RR mark. -- WV"

I'm a little frustrated that WV has

• Deleted my comment at AfD, and when this is questioned...,

• Called restoring my own comment on an AfD breaching 3RR,

• Wording his comments in such a way to look like there are two editors calling for a boomarang - leading his second comment with "Another Support"

• then coming here saying I'm using "personal attacks, and groundless accusations"? He sure likes to call for Boomerangs... Legacypac (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Administrators and editors please take note that Legacypac opened this subsection as a complaint regarding my conduct 3 1/2 hours ago [14], but I was never notified by him that he had done so. When Chesnaught555 kindly informed me of this on my talk page just a short while ago [15], Legacypac immediately responded to Chesnaught's comments here with a very lame excuse: "I responded to allegations he made in the thread, so notification is fine but I don't believe it is required." While I do believe Legacypac is trying to distract by starting an entire sub-section about me, I don't believe his reason for the non-notification. If he were merely "responding to allegations", he would have just responded, not started a sub-thread calling for a boomerang and looking for someone he views as an enemy be blocked. This, clearly, is retaliation for my comments above. It's obvious bullying. Further, he's been here long enough to know that something like this requires a notification. The strange creation of sub-thread, the attempt to distract, the suggestion of a boomerang being appropriate when it's not, the retaliation, and the non-notification only further prove Legacypac's disruptive behavior and battleground mentality, making the initial report by Corriebertus to be a legitimate and necessary filing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The editor doth protest too much, methinks. This is an active discussion already involving you, the section name contains the abbreviation of your username that you show in your signature, I suspect you have this page watchlisted. The odds you would have been discussed here without your knowledge are slim to none. Failing to notify you might have been a minor faux pas but it didn't warrant the above arm-waving. And, WV, your use of "battleground mentality" to refer to another editor is pot-kettle in spades. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have been too busy today researching sources for an article and working on it to take time to notice or care what Legacypac has been doing here or anywhere. Moreover, if I knew about his mention of me here (as you are trying to claim), why would I ignore it? In spite of your ridiculous allegations, Mandruss, this filing is not about me, regardless of how you are trying to spin it and as much as Legacypac wishes his behavior and editing style were not under scrutiny right now. Congratulations on doing nothing to improve the encyclopedia but doing everything to further the distraction created by Legacypac. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

A wall of text with no answer to my diff substantiated allegations or diffs to support WV's serious allegations against me. I was recently blocked for failing to convince admins to sanction (what I later realized was) an Admin and Lugnuts about editor misconduct. Can we expect the same for WV here? Legacypac (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Continued discussion

I'm not here to pile on to a witch-hunt (no, really), but I think there's possibly some WP:CIR issues with Legacypac. I'd like to believe he's editing in good faith, esp. as he's been here since 2007, but some of his recent activity is akin to someone who doesn't really understand the basics. Aside from the misguided enforcement request against me, there have been some bizarre deletion rationales at AfD of late. For example, one and two. I hope that future AfD rationales can be built on policy, as other users might see it as being disruptive. Unless anyone else has anything of substance to add, I recommend this is closed as I don't think it's going anywhere. Obviously bring back concerns to ANI if issues are continuing AND there's clear evidence of no improvement. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

We did have an issue recently in which Legacypac AFD-ed a discretionary sanctions article, the AfD failed, and he went ahead and did a "guerilla deletion" (blank and redirect) of the article five hours after his AfD failed [16], then undid other editors attempts to repair it. Some of us asked him on his Talk page to self-revert and he basically told us to drop dead. An admin finally had to intervene to undo the blanking [17]. It caused more than a minor inconvenience as we were trying to settle the article for the DYK queue at the time. LavaBaron (talk) 09:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Please don't use your content dispute to try to paint me as bad. The close was keep, but with explicit direction "The result was keep. Merger can be proposed on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Yash! 02:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)" which I had already done on Oct 28 (7 days before).[18] and only LavaBaron opposed. Given the other comments on the AfD including a Delete, and a "Keep and Merge" I decided to be bold. There is an open merge proposal on the proposed target [19] which shows I continued to seek consensus. Legacypac (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

(1) Do not characterize this as a "content dispute" unless you have some diffs. I had no involvement in the page, or the topic range at all, other than some minor copyediting to conduct a QPQ for DYK. This is not a topic area, nor article, on which I edit. (2) Do not start firing smoke round diffs to make this look like something more complicated than it was. You AfD'ed an article, your AfD failed [20], you did a "guerilla deletion" (blank and redirect) less than five hours after your AfD failed [21]. Polite attempts to reach-out to you by multiple editors were rebuffed in aggressive fashion and an admin ultimately had to intervene to undo your damage [[22]. That this was an article under discretionary sanctions should have landed you a 30-day block right then, but everyone involved in this (myself included) were coming from DYK Review and had no interest in the topic area to pursue it. LavaBaron (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Legacypac has a clear track record of disruptive and deceptive behavior to force their own preferences over established policy and practice. Less than two months ago, they ended up here because they were NAC-ing articles as delete, sometimes not even acknowledging NAC closes, then applying speedy tags to try and trick admins into thinking that these were just deletions that had fallen through the cracks. Their anti-Neelix jihad has been a long-term disruption. It's astonishing what some editors are allowed to get away with. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

To this I can only say hogwash to this "disruptive and deceptive " characterization. This issue was extensively discussed at ANi, DRV, and various talk pages with zero action taken against me. There is clear policy arguments for and against my one NAC delete close which BTW survived a DRV. I've not done a NAC close since - too much grief. Legacypac (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

As I previously mentioned, I don't spend much time at ANI but every time I do come here - without fail - Legacypac is filing a complaint about someone or someone is filing a complaint about Legacypac. A quick search of the archives of this noticeboard seems to indicate I'm not imagining this, that the last couple of years has been a parade of warning after warning he's been given. This is not the track record one would expect of a normal, content-focused WP editor. He seems to know how to push just far enough with his edits and how to be just nasty enough with other editors to only get yellow cards. My limited interaction with him just in this thread has left less than a good taste in my mouth - instead of offering explanation or reasonable rebuttal for questions about his edits his first inclination is to unsheathe the knives and start swinging. He seems to treat WP as a giant barroom brawl. LavaBaron (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

"He seems to treat WP as a giant barroom brawl." Yeah. That's clear. This should be the place to deal with that, but it often seems to not work out that way. Go figure. Begoon ^talk 14:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for Resolution

The original ANI notice seems to be vague. A number of editors such as Begoon, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Lugnuts, Corriebertus, Knowledgekid87, Winkelvi have provided thoughts, but this has rapidly descended into a complaint fest and parade of horribles with no suggestion for resolution, which is unfair to Legacypac and other editors themselves.
As a concrete proposal, therefore, I recommend - based on the issues raised by aformentioned editors in the preceding discussion - a one-year WP:CBAN applied on Legacypac by community consensus on all topic pages covered by the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL case. LavaBaron (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support as per reasons described in "continued discussion" (above) by me, specifically the "stealth deletion" of a discretionary sanctions article by Legacypac. LavaBaron (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support per LavaBaron. I have to wonder, however, what will change in the future with the behaviors noted by myself and other editors above. If this CBAN proposal becomes a reality, it will be interesting to see if LPs behavior changes for the better outside the specifics of the CBAN. If not, we will likely be back here again (and again) with LP as the subject of more filings. One thing at a time, I guess. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

What a dumb idea. I've edited quite responsibly in the SCW&ISIL area for several years. I have started and built out a number of good articles there, have no record of edit warring sanctions there, and regularly patrol changes and revert vandalism in this area. Large parts of both the text and organization of the pillar ISIL article still stand as written and organized by me last year. Some people don't like my cleanup efforts but targeting my participation in ISIL topics is wrong headed.

I'm also surprised to see WV still posting in this thread after he failed to answer for his own behavior just above, claiming he was too busy. Someone should look at his falsifications and act on them. Legacypac (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Within the context of the behavioral issues that have been raised, starting a response to another editor with "what a dumb idea" may underscore that this is not such a dumb idea after all. Just a thought. LavaBaron (talk) 07:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh. [23] kettles, pots and all. Legacypac (talk) 08:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The formal proposal is in revisions history. Feel free to use it. But it won't have my support until any of the sides properly establish their viewpoints. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 08:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Appreciate you providing a better worded proposal QEDK. I agree it's preferable to the current version, as it's more precise and fairer to Legacypac as it leaves less ambiguity, but I'd rather defer to another editor to introduce it as I'd rather not become more involved in this than I am already. LavaBaron (talk) 08:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Anyone can introduce a proposal, however only uninvolved editors can close it. That's how it works. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 08:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed it is. LavaBaron (talk) 08:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Legacypac, I've noticed that you've nominated a bunch of redirects by Neelix for speedy deletion, branding them as nonsense. Why? They seem perfectly fine to me. Neelix is an experienced editor who clearly knows why such redirects are required. I therefore support the CBAN proposed by LavaBaron as I think you need to learn that your behaviour is unacceptable. Chesnaught (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

You do know that Neelix disappeared up his own orifice in a blaze of self-failure, right? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

If Ches doesn't know it, he must be living under a Wiki-rock. Even so, it does seem at this point, from the edit summaries as well as the fervor behind the deletion nominations by this one editor, that there is an unhealthy flavor of vendetta afoot. Just my observation. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

'A bunch' of Neelix redirects is a very unfair characterization. I processed (CSD, RfD, AfD, or cleared as ok) over 2,200 Neelix redirects just this weekend on list 5 so far [24]. [25] plus some on lists 1-4 too. You must have missed the community decision that any Neelix redirect can be deleted G6 housekeeping if an Admin thinks it would not survive RfD.

Also Someone should look into WV's false allegations above since he keeps spouting nonsense about me here please. Legacypac (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Despite Legacypac's incessant breast-beating and pronouncements of their editing's importance, their efforts are proving indiscriminate, disruptive and spiteful. Just a few minutes ago, Legacypac reinstated a pair of speedies I declined without substantive explanation, without bothering to check out the reason I gave, with a snarky (at best) edit summary. It's one thing to whack Neelix's hundreds of synonyms for female mammaries; it's quite another to aggressively try to delete redirects like "possession of a firearm", when the simplest Gsearch would shows several million uses, included frequent references in US statutes and court cases. Their jihad is more disruptive than the problem; the reason that nobody noticed Neelix's crap for years was that it was mostly harmless. That can't be said about Legacypac's behaviour. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I saw the reinstatements and thought of coming here to mention them, but am glad someone else took the initiative. At this point, yes, the Neelix-related deletion requests by LP do seem spiteful and disruptive. As I noted above. Is his war on Neelix really doing any good at this point? I submit, "No". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz just a gentle reminder, this isn't the place to "pile on" against Legacypac. Please clearly state whether you Support or Oppose the Community Ban proposal, preferably with a bullet point and bold, in the main threadline, for ease of bookkeeping. LavaBaron (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for late reply. Lugnuts, of course I am aware of Neelix's departure, but as Winkelvi was saying, LP does seem to be on a vendetta against him for some reason. Chesnaught (talk) 07:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no vendetta - there is still a BIG cleanup job to do. Neelix created thousands of fake words and other misleading redirects. It remains easy to pick off dozens of these in minutes. Editors that are spending their time bitching here instead of cleaning up or doing something productive should be ashamed of themselves for they truly are the proverbial peanut gallery. Legacypac (talk) 11:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

That sort of language won't help you out at all here. Furthermore, these redirects that you are nominating for SD aren't always the malicious ones which Neelix created; some of them were actually fine. Chesnaught (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The VAST majority of my noms are deleted. Sometimes others see stuff that can be retargeted or think something should be saved. That is why we have Redirects for Discussion. I don't see a result of not delete as a failure.

• Regarding Legacypac's apparent "vendetta" against Neelix redirects, there are some 80,000 nonsense creations by that one editor which the community agreed needed to be dealt with in this piecemeal fashion (rather than mass-deleting all of them, and rather than keeping all of them as good-faith contributions). To support this, the community also passed a special criterion for WP:G6 to allow admins to speedy-delete them. Both of these discussions were large threads with broad community support, not just one or two editors deciding to go rogue. This was happening entirely in the background until about a week ago when a handful of editors began executing their own vendetta against Legacypac, following him around removing his CSD notices, and that's the entirety of the reason that these masses of obvious-delete redirects are getting dumped at RfD again (and then speedy deleted anyway). So if you want to end the disruption entirely, stop removing the notices. I have no comment on the proposal. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support This edit, with the summary "the peanut gallery can choke on their nuts" is probably enough to convince any rational editor that a CBAN is necessary for Legacypac. The pattern of abusive personal attacks and provocations has gone one far too long. An editor that has no qualms dragging any and every editor who differs wih him to ANI or Arbitration Enforcement on a daily basis should realize that he has been hit by a long overdue WP:BOOMERANG. Alansohn (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support per Alansohn. Despite the issues being brought to the attention of the user, they continue with the same behaviour that brought their habits to the attention of ANI. And Legacypac should count himself lucky it's not a block/lenghty ban/indef. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Editors calls other editors SCUM and FUCK on the top of their talk User_talk:Lugnuts should not be talking about bans over civility. Anyway I was already blocked for complaining about Lugnuts rudeness, so punishing me again because he is still annoyed at me taking him to AE is quite wrong. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not calling any editors scum, if you take your head out of your arse, you'll see it links to a highly funny TV show. Yes it fucking does. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. It stroke me what Ivanvector wrote which I trustfully accept as a fact. It thus looks to me that Legacypac's only fault (apart from his less-than-civil commenting style) was that he was cutting procedural corners in his efforts to undo all of Neelix's vandalism/contentious edits, by XfD'ing and re-XfD'ing Neelix's redirects (as anyway approved by a large consensus). Uninitiated editors could well not have the knowledge of the context and tried to stop/revert him, leading him to that less-than-civil behaviour. Still, I believe Legacypac's initiative deserves at least a degree of recognition. As for the civility issue, I believe a punitive ban block of a day or two should suffice, as it is often done with editors too quick to revert or who show outbursts of aggression. In short, there is a problem with Legacypac's civility, as this thread's title shows anyway, but topic bans are NOT a right remedy to civility issues. — kashmiri ^TALK 16:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Kashmiri - my impetus for the proposal had nothing to do with his civility, though that is definitely a concern based on his rap sheet at ANI. My proposal was based on my non-Neelix experience in which he AfD'ed a page under discretionary sanctions and, five hours after the AfD failed, "guerilla deleted" (blank/redirect) it. After being asked by multiple editors to undo the guerilla deletion he simply dug in his heels. An admin finally had to be sourced to undo it as everyone else - everyone except, apparently, Legacypac - was treading carefully to avoid violating the discretionary sanctions. Based on the whole of the non-Neelix issues, it appears he has a shoot first / ask questions later approach to editing sensitive articles and an unwillingness to collaborate with others on this topic. (And I say this as someone who is not active at all on the topic, but came across it quite by accident, as I've detailed in my original case in the preceding section). LavaBaron (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@LavaBaron: Sure, but this post is about persistent bullying by Legacypac, as this precisely is the problem stated by the OP. You have rightly noticed that the thread has descended into a complaint fest and a few editors started digging out their content disputes with LP. BUT we are still - or should be - discussing the original problem which is LP's "bullying". Topic bans are preventive, their aim is to prevent damage to a certain subset of Wikipedia articles. But nobody here suggests that LP damages any topic. So, when talking about behaviour, we can only look at punitive sanctions, like formal reprimands, short-term blocks, etc.

You mentioned an instance of blank-and-redirect. I am not involved in the ISIL topic but where I edit (India & Pakistan) we also have discretionary sanctions. Still, articles are frequently blanked and redirected with little fanfare or consequences. This is not to say these topics are comparable, but I'd like to put an single act of blank-and-redirect in correct perspective. Regards, — kashmiri ^TALK 08:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

This isn't a single act, first of all. Second of all, it was not simply a "blank and redirect" - he AfD'ed it and there was a wide consensus it should be kept as is. Less than five hours later he decided his opinion was more important than the community and did a blank/redirect - overriding a just-established consensus on this discretionary sanctions article. Multiple editors requested he voluntarily undo it and he basically told them to GFY. With a great expenditure of time that could have been spent editing, editors then had to source an admin to clean up the mess Legacypac left. This also caused problems with DYK bookkeeping as the article was in the queue at the time. Through his history of edits, Legacypac seems to believe there's one way to do things: his way. And if you're not on board, you better get out of the way, as Begoon noted. LavaBaron (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Absurd to apply "a one-year WP:CBAN applied on Legacypac by community consensus on all topic pages covered by the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL case" for continuing to clean up Neelix redirects that are - so far as I know - quite unrelated to the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL case. NebY (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't always agree with Legacypac, but IMO he's right here. So are kashmiri and Neb above. A topic ban wouldn't make sense. ansh666 19:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not a proposal for a topic ban, but rather a community ban. Ches (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

No, it's a proposal for a WP:CBAN topic ban from pages covered by WP:GS/SCW&ISIL, as I quoted above - you may find it helpful to review WP:CBAN. This raises the question of what it is that you are supporting. Is it a topic ban from WP:GS/SCW&ISIL pages, or a complete ban from Wikipedia for continuing to clean up Neelix's redirects? NebY (talk) 13:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The former, sir, although given LP's recent bullying of other users, I would be in support of the latter should it ever be proposed. Ches (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support per Lugnuts. 97.95.68.240 (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose LP is on the right side of the Neelix redirect issue. He is explicitly carrying out the stated view of the community. I've had occasion to see Legacypac in action over the last several months because of our mutual interest in pruning the WALLEDGARDEN of "World's Oldest People" articles. LP is often brusque and snarky but generally right. His contributions are a boon to the project. It is not a violation of civility to call dumb ideas dumb, nor is it unconstructive to ridicule the ridiculous. David in DC (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Gotcha. So if you act like an uncivil ****, but hunker down with a thankless task in the meantime, you get a free pass. Glad that's clear. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't strike me as a reasonable recapitulation of my comments. Nor of LP's behavior. Which is unsurprising, but still sad. David in DC (talk)

Well Dave, I can't account for your reading skills. No doubt we'll see Legacypac back here sooner rather than later. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Any opinion on the non-Neelix related issues that were mentioned? Specifically his "guerilla deletion" (blank / revert) of a discretionary sanctions page after it failed his AFD and his refusal to undo it, ultimately requiring admin intervention? LavaBaron (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Not really, but this thread is supposed to be about "persistent bullying." What you're describing as a "guerilla deletion" may or may not have been improper, but I'll be darned if I can figure out what it's doing in this thread at all. David in DC (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The thread is about whatever we make it about. A thread title is not a suicide pact. LavaBaron (talk) 04:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

LP dared to blank a page under sanctions and you are proposing a one year TBAN? Is that correct? — kashmiri ^TALK 10:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support looking for any justification to invalidate perfectly independent viewpoints. I do believe this has gone well beyond CIR levels to the point of questioning if a suicide by admin defense is being put forth. And now for the obligatory attack to invalidate myself as per the modus operandi. Hasteur (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: There seems to be a pattern of behaviour here, which I cannot personally speak to, which is informing many of the positions with regard to Legacypac, and it may very well be that there is some long overdue community action that needs to be taken. Certainly there seems to be a bit of battleground mentality involved here. However, reviewing the diffs supplied above and looking over the talk page discussions, it doesn't seem as if the digression into polemics is altogether one-sided--including particularly the failures to assume good faith and attempts to discredit the opinions of others via an implication of disruption. Both LP and corriebertus seem inclined to engage in this kind of behaviour, with each apparently oblivious to the irony of their charges: [26], [27]. Even recognizing that editors who routinely fail to operate in a collaborative fashion should be called to account, and further acknowledging that the editors commenting here seem to have valid points about a pattern in Legacypac's collaborative approach, I'm still concerned that it may not be appropriate to invoke a sanction in this case, where the behaviour of the filing party is arguably as, or more, combative and disruptive as LP's. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support. If the above arguments are not enough, LP also casts totally unbased aspersions on editors who don't support his arguments at AfD and elsewhere. This action is long overdue. Jacona (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support. There's a lot of cleanup to do with the list(s) of Neelix redirects. Legacypac has done good work on getting that process started. But the behavior problems listed here, including incivility and outright personal attacks, disruption at RFD and in CSD tagging, and general unpleasantness? Nope. There are enough editors working the Neelix list. Right now Legacypac's involvement is doing more harm than good. Walk away. Edit something else. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Going through Legacypac's extensive rap sheet at ANI, it appears he's already been subject of a one-year ban, which makes me wonder if one-year is even too little given this is a chronic issue.EDIT - nevermind, just noticed that was a TBAN on BLPs, not the different topic this one proposes. LavaBaron (talk) 17:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. I have a ‘better’, or at least a competing, proposal: see below. --Corriebertus (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - it's apparent there is a group of editors out to find a way to punish Legacypac. Again, there have been numerous discussions approving Legacypac's course of action regarding deletion of the Neelix redirects, yet this group continues to bring up that entirely unrelated behaviour as a reason to sanction him in whatever topic area this thread is about. While Legacypac's behaviour may have been tendentious within that topic, it's this group's behaviour which is disruptive to the project as a whole. I endorse no sanctions, and suggest this be closed with no action for the good of the project. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the rhetorical strategy of the minority of Legacypac supporters in framing this as a Neelix issue but once again, for the record, I'm the proposer and I've never even mentioned Neelix as a reason for a ban. I've also only co-edited two articles with Legacypac and my gross quantity of edits on those articles was a whopping six (6) edits [28] so I'm not sure which "group" that makes me part of? Does that still make me a part of this vast conspiracy you've alleged - like kind-of a second gunman type-of-thing? LavaBaron (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, hey, the LP opposers were the ones who brought up Neelix in the first place. ansh666 22:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, I have never mentioned Neelix except to say I haven't mentioned him. I assure you I am not part of some type of shadowy cabal of "LP opposers" [sic] and, as noted, only six of my mainspace edits - out of 8,000 total WP edits [29] - have even been on articles also edited by Legacypac. Finally, the OP's original title was "Persistent Legacypac Bullying." If all that isn't enough to dissuade you from the idea this is nothing more than a Neelix issue, I dunno what to tell you. LavaBaron (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Then, in the same vein, I assure you I am not part of some type of shadowy cabal of "LP supporters". I wasn't saying that you were the one who brought up Neelix (it was Hullaballoo Wolfowitz). I am aware that this isn't a Neelix issue; I didn't mention or consider it in my reason to oppose the topic ban (apart from citing others who did). In addition, at least one person who supported the topic ban used the Neelix issue (for which there is a community mandate, btw) as the reason. ansh666 03:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

"Shadowy cabal?" Oh sheesh. LavaBaron (talk) 12:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice, I was directly copying your text. Besides, haven't I mentioned that Legacypac and I don't always get along? ansh666 12:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

This is a forum for discussion and dialog, not "copying" other editors or yelling "I know you are, but what am I?" Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 12:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

And I am attempting discussion and dialog! But it is obvious that I will not be able to get my point across here. ansh666 13:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Fret not, ansh. You can only control what you send, not what others receive. I sense the Force of WP:IDONTHEARYOU is strong in this one. David in DC (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Adding exclamation points is unlikely to help you get your "point across here" and, to get ahead of the donkey cart on this one, all caps is not likely to help either. Best of luck - LavaBaron (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per Ivanvector and the others above. Many of the proponents of this block should focus on their own behavior and not Legacypac's. It's probably about time we close this thread because it's likely not going anywhere and no editor deserves to have the sword of Damocles hanging over his head so long. Calidum T|C 15:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Since you brought it up here, I'd appreciate it if you could provide more detail on what's wrong with my "behavior". Thanks. As for why this proposal is open still, it's because it's running 2:1 in favor of the CBAN. That's not a consensus to CBAN, but neither is it a consensus to close. LavaBaron (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support Legacypac has a history of focussing his efforts on WP:HOUNDING and making personal attacks on any editors that he thinks he disagrees with. These efforts have in the past led somehow to blocks and retirements of his "enemies", which he interprets unsurprisingly as evidence of the widespread community support for his actions. For whatever reason, it seems that this support is now wearing thin. The SCW/ISIL topic area will manage fine without him, no doubt. zzz (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

See [30] and [31] Legacypac (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

You didn't understand then, and I guess you still don't, that a statement such as "ISIL aims to bring most Muslim areas of the world under its control" needs to be sourced. Your argument to keep the statement was twofold: that because it was in the lead section it can be "agreed by consensus" instead (WP:original research); and that it's your summary of various sources (WP:synthesis). By raising this again, you demonstrate that you (still) lack the WP:competence to edit. In view of your inability to grasp the concept of WP:verifiability, in my opinion a topic ban on SCW/ISIL articles would be insufficient. zzz (talk) 01:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Legacypac is a good editor who may ruffles some feathers, but many of those supporting a ban are people who have been banned themselves. There are a whole lot of sharks in the water here. Lipsquid (talk) 08:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: Legacypac does good work on the thankless Neelix redirect cleanup, and in fact seems to be nearly alone in doing that for the past several months. He has also learned to be reasonable and calm in his RfD nomination wordings, and has learned to avoid snark and ridicule there. This causes me to believe that he is educable. The problem seems to be that he has not carried this civility and collaborativeness and calm rationality into the other areas of Wikipedia. He has simply got to learn that he needs to remain calm, remain collaborative, remain patient, remain respectful, and remain a gentleman, everywhere on Wikipedia, no matter how people disagree with him or "upset" him. Doing good work in one area of Wikipedia does not give one a free pass to be uncivil, uncollaborative, or bullying elsewhere on Wikipedia. Unfortunately his replies and comments in this thread have not shown calmness or understanding of the problem; they seem to present more personal attacks. Legacypac needs to take the issues brought up on this thread to heart, and show by his actions and his words here that he understands. He should not continue to snark, bully, and indulge in personal attacks when behavioral issues are brought to ANI. Softlavender (talk) 10:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Competing proposal: block from Wikipedia for one week

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

---

Out of curiosity to understand what type of editor, or what type of person, Legacypac (LP) is, I looked up his User contributions list, and was dumbstruck: LP pulled it off to achieve 308 edits on 3Feb2016 between 00:00 and 13:14 o’clock. I dare say, with no irony intended: this man must be a genius, an IQ of 140 or more (but, to avoid misunderstandings: being extremely intelligent doesn’t say anything – in my opinion – about ‘being a good person’).
Then, I started to read this discussion I kicked off myself, and was immediately very, very disappointed by already the first reaction of the accused, mr LP. In those only 158 words (16Jan), he manages to tell a lot of (pardon my French) rubbish and seems to be ‘playing the fool’ – very convincingly, I must admit:

• “5Jan,10:13 telling other editors to stay out of a discussion”: No, people. I did not tell anyone to stay out of a discussion, I only asked everyone to leave out of discussions posts that do not address the issue there under debate.
• “Taking the Civil out pf the name has been discussed to death…”. That may very well be a correct statement of LP. The whole point however is: LP should have clearly, squarely and fairly said so IN THAT SCW DISCUSSION SECTION, immediately. Then nothing of this mess would have come about.
• “As for the 2014 activity, that has been mischaracterized…”: ??? how, then?
• ”… and the user needs to get over it.” Thanks; and I really was ‘over it’; until Jan2016, when I got involved in a conflict with some editor, LP, in a way that seemed slightly to resemble an earlier conflict with some editor back in 2014, whose name was … (just checking to see who that was, back in 2014 …) LP!
• “The named editors who were complaining were later blocked for the activity I noted.” That may or may not be so, but is slightly beside the point here. We don’t have time to check all such contentions of LP, especially because he doesn’t conveniently add links or diffs to them to enable us to quickly check them. He thus seems to gamble on us not having the time and intelligence and patience to check every excuse he brings to the fore.

Now, on 24 January, LavaBaron here (above) proposed “a one-year WP:CBAN applied on Legacypac by community consensus on all topic pages covered by the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL case”. I do agree that some sort of ban or block seems the way to deal with the assumed accumulating and long-standing problems with LP’s behaviour. But is that proposal of LavaBaron’s the best option?
8 Supports for Lava’s proposal are from: Lava (‘stealth deletion…’), WV (…but wonders ‘if LP’s behaviour will change outside the banned topics’—that’s exactly my problem with Lava’s proposal), Alansohn (‘…pattern of personal attacks…long overdue’), Lugnuts (per Alansohn), 9795 (per Lugn), Hasteur (‘LP seems to sollicit for suicide by admin’—well, I agree LP really triggers us to react, but I believe topic ban is not the best option to do so), Jacona (‘aspersions…’), UltraE (‘behavior problems as listed here; LP has done good work but now is doing more harm than good’).
4 Opposes are from: kashmiri (‘topic ban is inadequate reaction on civility issue; punitive block of two days is better suited’), NebY (‘CBAN absurd for Neelix affair’), ansh666 (‘topic ban makes no sense’ because ‘LP is right here’—sorry, I don’t understand in what exactly LP is right ‘here’: perhaps the Neelix stuff?), DavidDC (‘LP is brusque, but on content his contributions are often good’—which I don’t challenge: my criticism was never his article content, was always his unacceptable uncivil behaviour; sort-of what Katie says too (16Jan)).

Competing proposal: It seems to me not very logical, not helping, to ban Legacypac only for certain topics: considering his presumed high intelligence and drivenness he’ll probably continue his uncivil behaviour in other topics. This is feared also by WV, and is even confirmed by Lava’s latest discovery(3Feb,17:16) that LP has already had a one-year ban on another topic!
Presuming LP is addicted to Wikipedia (as I probably am myself, too, I admit), I think it would be more suitable and better ‘curing’ to simply now block him from Wikipedia for just a short time, say one week (kashmiri proposes a block of only two days, I guess that is too short, here. Five days minimum, I’d say). Gives him time to detox, and time to think over his behaviour, and perhaps his ‘sins’, on Wikipedia; time to decide for himself if it would be worth while to try on a different, more civil, more polite,[struck out CB,5Feb.12:01] behaviour. Then, when he comes back into the community after a week, if he falls back into the same old ‘mistakes’ again, just block him again for a week. And the third time, block him for two weeks. Next time longer. Et cetera. --Corriebertus (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Support in Addition to One-Year CBAN ->edit: as per Hasteur<- for reasons stated in preceding two threads LavaBaron (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I think that LBP's conduct is so far gone that it is unlikely they can reform, but per the minimal restrictions policy, we are obligated give them an opportunity to demonstrate their disposition outside of the topic space. Kicking this down the road one week by a one week block after the extended nature of the existing conduct is not sufficent. Hasteur (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't really understand this proposal, but throwing around cool-down blocks when you can't really specify what is the problem is certainly not in the best interest of this project, and plainly punitive blocks are verboten. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - LP's behavior does not merit a block. LP does good work, improves the encyclopedia and apparently his blunt style provokes others. In my view, that tells us more about the people who claim his words provoke them. Perhaps this is a case of "Shoefitz syndrome". When LP ridicules the ridiculous, it's possible that the ridiculous recognize themselves and overreact. There's a difference between defamation of character and definition of characters. David in DC (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per David. Best I can say to everyone offended by LP is to grow a thicker skin. ansh666 22:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Also, @Corriebertus: it's been a while since I made the comment, so I'm not 100% sure, but I believe what I was referring to LP being right about was the content dispute on Talk:Syrian Civil War which started this. I also don't see this as bullying or harassment; it's pretty typical for Wikipedia (not to mention the real world). I'll repeat the advice I mentioned above: grow a thicker skin. ansh666 03:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
• I am a completely uninvolved editor that happens to have been following this thread and I feel that certain claims being made are addressed on the CIVILITY page, specifically: "Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment. Even if you see the comment as ridiculous, he or she very probably doesn't, and expressing ridicule is likely only to offend and antagonise, rather than helping." In this case, it would seem, not having a thick skin, though no doubt disadvantageous, should not preclude one from a positive editing experience. Primergrey (talk) 07:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. This sounds clearly punitive rather than preventive. Perhaps if no resolution or consensus is reached here, a simple admonishment would suffice, with the condition that if the behavior continues, sanctions will ensue. Softlavender (talk) 11:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender, I'd suggest you do a search for "Legacypac" in the ANI archives. It appears he's up to something like his 47th final warning ... (exaggerated for emphasis, though just barely) LavaBaron (talk) 12:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

If you can produce a final warning from an admin that stated that sanctions will ensue if not heeded, then please do. Softlavender (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Here [32] he was warned not to persist making questionable WP:NACD (the kind other editors have, in this thread, noted he's continuing to do). Here [33] 3bdulelah asks him to please stop calling other Wikipedians edits "terrorist propaganda". Here [34] SlimVirgin nicely asks he be more attentive in his deletions and he comes straight out of the gate swinging. Here [35] WordSeventeen requests he stop redirecting articles that he doesn't like but that have passed notability (the same issue I described in the preceding thread). I could go on, but I'm not the ANI secretary and this could literally extend for pages. His entire history has been one of combative interaction with other editors, of treating WP like a giant barroom brawl in which he needs to preemptively beat-down any editor who shows the slightest whiff of disagreement with his edits. That said, I agree it's undeniable, after looking at his edit history, his contributions in some areas have been good. This is why, like you, I oppose the idea of a block (but support the CBAN). Hitting pause on his editing on a relatively small section of WP for a relatively short period of time might give him a moment of reflection that would allow him to re-start on a collaborative foot, instead of treating other editors like hurdles he has to barrel through. His last TBAN and his most recent block seem to have been useful in behavior modification and triggering an additional one might pivot the dial a little further still. We should intervene to help useful editors like Legacypac modify their behavior before it gets to the point where they're no longer salvageable. It takes a village. LavaBaron (talk) 13:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I can provide one other: this thread which I regrettably opened with a comment bordering on personal attack about Legacypac's CSD tagging. Rather than devolving into a back-and-forth where everyone insists someone should be banned, the exchange led to a constructive discussion about ways to better execute a difficult thing that several editors have been working on, which was informed by Legacypac's constructive input. While I do believe that Legacypac has misinterpreted some guidelines here and there, I've found he's always open to polite criticism and quite willing to adapt if he's doing something against consensus or convention, notwithstanding defending himself if he believes he's being unjustly attacked. Editors like LavaBaron and Corriebertus are painting a picture of an editor with his head buried in the sand who won't listen to anything, refuses to collaborate and insists on bulldozing their way through all opposition. I've encountered editors like that, we all have, but I don't see it in Legacypac. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I struck out the word ‘polite’ from my posting of 3Feb.19:17. It seems vague there, seems not to make the case or my case clear, could even be incorrect. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment on reactions hitherto: I ofcourse only ventured a hopefully ‘improved’ proposal because a solid majority of respondents seemed conviced that something should be done towards Legacypac’s behaviour.
Of the eight editors who were in favour of the (punitive) proposal of Lava (‘CBAN on topics SCW and ISIL’, see previous subsection), by now only Hasteur and Lava have responded, both with one rationale.

• Hasteur said on 1Feb: ‘LP’s behaviour has gone well beyond ’Competence is required’ levels’;
  Wonders “if a suicide by admin defense is being put forth”;
  And supported a CBAN on two topics.
  3Feb, Hasteur says: ‘we are obligated to give them opportunity to show better behaviour outside topic space’: I agree; but in both proposals (mine and Lava’s), LP is given that opportunity.

My proposal does something more: incite LP to think for a whole week about his own Wiki performance while being blocked from making edits.
Also Lava’s proposal does something more: ban or block LP for a whole year from some topics. That seems to me overly severe, not necessary or useful:

• Too severe: 3Feb, Hasteur says: ‘it is unlikely that LP can reform his behaviour’. I disagree: every intelligent person can reform. If we have not yet even slightly punished someone for a specific ‘misbehaviour’, it is too early to say it is unlikely he can reform. LP has not yet been ‘punished’ on topics SCW/ISIL; therefore a first punishment of one week seems appropriate, bombing him right away with a one-year ban overly severe.
• Not necessary: if a first week-block ‘cures’ LP, he is free again to work in every topic. If it does not cure him (if he does not reform), we’ll very soon find out and give him a second, or third block, etc. Which can lead to a total block, eventually. Hasteur expects a one week block to be “insufficient”: that is pessimistic, and I don’t think editors/trespassers should unreasonably ‘pay’, suffer, for (unfounded) pessimism of Hasteur (or others).
• Hasteur seems to suggest that LP is hopeless on two topics but quite a decent contributor on other topics. What is the rationale to suspect that?

Of the four editors who were against the (punitive) proposal of Lava, by now ansh666 and DavidDC opposed also my proposal:

• Ansh says (and implicitly, DavidDC said the same on 29Jan): the conflict or event that triggered this whole discussion (my post of 16Jan) was ‘no bullying or harassment of LP’. That places them outside the rather solid consensus in this discussion until 3Feb, but of course makes it fully consistent that they oppose all proposed measures against LP.

As for new respondents: I’ll react on them later. --Corriebertus (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, please give us a new comment for every new respondent. Others cannot be counted on to bring their critical skills to bear on this deeply complicated issue. Play-by-play from someone who's involved is near-mandatory. David in DC (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Corriebertus started this thread with "Again – after his cursing...". Please provide diffs to substantiate the first allegation before making additional comments here. Legacypac (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

An answer, three questions:
@LP asks for the cursing to be corroborated. This was all talked over etc. in 2014, in this discussion, linking to this edit, 24Nov2014, for the cursing.
Now, Just three questions, for:
@ansh666 and David in DC: As I stated here (16Jan), LP accused me of personal attack, and even after my asking he could not tell me where my PA had taken place (except that he apparently judged criticism on an edit as “personal attack”), nor did he withdraw that accusation. The two of you claim or suggest however, that LP has not harassed/bullied me. Does that mean it is OK to accuse someone of PA when that is not true? Or does it mean I did perform a PA on LP and that you can tell me what and where that was?
@David in DC: Your sentence “Play-by-play…”: I assume you are saying I am doing ‘Play-by-play’. What is that?
@Hasteur: I see you have hidden parts of my postings. What gives you the right to do that? Aren’t we all reacting on, and thus ‘analysing’, postings of other discussants? --Corriebertus (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment forgive me for not reading the whole thing, but I have seen LP's name quite a lot so I do want to comment and I do think something should be done. Those who are opposed to a block or a ban, what about a TBAN on "admin" stuff? LP would be allowed to edit, but would not be allowed to close AFD's, would not be allowed to revert vandalism, etc. This should stop some of the interaction. We could also make this the last stop. If LP makes it to ANI again, then it's a guaranteed block. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in. (Some of) those who oppose a block or ban, seem to hold the opinion that LP did nothing or nearly nothing wrong. And probably they won't even allow me to write this latest statement down, and (try to) find a way to obscure this latest statement of mine. --Corriebertus (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Sigh...it is perfectly clear to me even as an outside observer why someone would take your statement as an attack. Saying please, have the politeness not to disturb legitimate discussions of others on some Talk page when they've been attempting to convey the general consensus on the very issue you're discussing? I can't see how that's, as you describe yourself, polite in any way. And nor is he or anyone else bullying or harassing you. The discussion was closed by an uninvolved editor in accordance with general consensus, and you undid it - which is disruptive behavior. He was justified in warning you. Legacypac has not been any more impolite than you have. ansh666 23:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Uncited ethnicity categories added again by User:Eruditescholar

Last February, I brought the issue of uncited ethnicity categories being added to BLPs based on very flimsy evidence by Eruditescholar. It has come to my attention that this is happening again, again and again. This is at least the second if not third time that this editor has been notified that WP:BLP requires that BLPs require affirmative proof of ethnicity.--TM 02:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@TM, This is beginning to look like you have a personal issue with me based on past discussions on this topic. Your basis for bringing this issue here is unwarranted for because I have observed that you make hasty revertions to some of my ethnic categorizations without checking the references first. For example, Candido Da Rocha and Sola Abolaji. I don't need to remind you that only Yoruba people use their native Yoruba language names for their ethnicity. Sometimes, I cite any of the first, middle or last name for males and only the fist, middle or maiden name for females. This is usually evident from the fact that they have multiple names in the Yoruba language. This is sometimes reinforced by the fact that they or their ancestors either have Yoruba ethnicity or originate from Yorubaland which comprises about 1/4 of Nigeria's population. If I can't find name sources, I look for other sources to cite their ethnicity. I don't add ethnic categories to BLPs unless I am sure of it. I have recommended before and I re-iterate that you keep away from Yoruba-related articles. Eruditescholar (talk)

Adding ethnic categories based on a name is Original Research which is not permitted. It is also not permitted to try to enforce ownership over articles or topics by telling other editors not to edit. So stop doing both of those things Eruditescholar, or you may face sanctions. It is not a requirement that articles be categorized by ethnicity, and policy is to omit such classification in the absence of explicit support in reliable sources. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@·maunus. Thanks and I understand your explanation but Wikipedia's rule for ethnic categorizations easily applies to ethnic groups outside Africa. Africans have unique ways of identifying with their ethnic groups and it may not be in concord with non-Africans. Besides, there's too much under-representation of African ethnic groups in Wikipedia. I have not claimed ownership of any article but only gave my recommendation regarding the other editor's unwarranted edits and reverts on Yoruba-related articles. Eruditescholar (talk) 05:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

As long as Wikipedia does not have special rules applying to African ethnicgroups you will have to follow the rules we have in the way you categorize African people.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Eruditescholar has persisted with this form of disruptive editing even since this issue was brought here. I think we need administrative action since clearly the editor is unwilling to stop.--TM 22:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

It is now clear that inspite of the glaring evidence of ethnicity stated in most of these articles, especially on Abayomi Olonisakin, you have decided to be irrationale. You happen to be the only editor who brings this issue here for discussion. This a continuation of your grudges on past admin discussions regarding this topic and not necessarily because you want the articles in question to be good or informative. If you have personal issues with me or my editing, this is the wrong place to let it out. Eruditescholar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 5:00, 2 February 2016

I have some sympathy with Eruditescholar's POV in the sense that it is true assumptions are commonly made and accepted in certain places based on name, look, place of origin or whatever and so it's often simply not stated as it's considered unnecessary. However our standards for living people are clear, WP:BLPCAT and Euriditescholar needs to follow them. If they wish to make exceptions or change the general guidelines, they'll need the WP:RFC before, not after. (And frankly despite my sympathies, I don't think I'll support any such exceptions.) BTW, if you are persistently adding WP:OR to WP:BLPs despite clear requests to stop, this is indeed the right place to deal with it. You should also learn to WP:AGF as even before you were replied, you were already told by another editor who isn't Namiba that adding cats based on OR was unacceptable. Also remember it is your responsibility if you are adding ethnicity categories to ensure that such categories are supported by the article with references. The fact that it's in one of the references somewhere, doesn't make it acceptable to add categories to the article if it isn't actually mentioned in the article (at least in the infobox) with references. Mentioning some references in the edit summary also isn't the way to handle it. People should be able to see the support for the categories by looking at the article, they should not need to look through the edit history. Nil Einne (talk) 07:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

BTW, I see in the previous discussion you were warned about our requirements by multiple people Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive874#Continued addition of uncited ethnicity categories by User:Eruditescholar. Personalising this as some sort of grudge by Namiba, when you were not only already informed of our requirements by someone else here, but the 'grudge' you refer to was actually your failure to follow our sourcing requirements which you were warned about by multiple other people, is extremely disappointing. It's entirely reasonable for people who've observed your poor behaviour before to follow your contribs to make sure it isn't happening again. And I suspect Namiba probably wasn't even following your contribs but happened to notice the problem when you edited an article they were watching. Problematic behaviour that an editor isn't willing to change is generally an appropriate topic of discussion at ANI. If it's repeated bad behaviour that they've already been warned about it's even more appropriate. In other words, the only "grudge" that anyone has is that we want you to stop adding categories without appropriate sourcing because consensus is that it does damage wikipedia and our articles when you do so. While you're welcome to disagree with out sourcing requirements for ethnicity categories until and unless you get them changed, you do have to follow them. Nil Einne (talk) 11:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Still more of the same adding of ethnicity categories without reliable sources saying that a BLP is in fact of a certain group. Will an admin please take action against this user who refuses to comply with WP rules?--TM 22:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Wondering if @EdJohnston: has anything to say, as they warned EruditeScholar last time. Nil Einne (talk) 13:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Eruditescholar is unrelenting despite being warned over and over again.--TM 14:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Can anyone please bring TM to order? His recent reverts to some of my edits (even when ethnicity is obvious and sourced) are getting on my nerves, most especially on Mosun Filani. Eruditescholar (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry but you are the one who needs to be "brought to order", you simply cannot add claims of ethnicity without a reliable sources specifically stating that. Having a Yoruba name, speaking Yoruba or appearing n Yoruba films is not enough for the purpose of Wikipedia's ethnic categorization. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@·maunus: The sources are not only based on her Yoruba names or the fact that she can speak Yoruba! Please see her talk page. The sources extracted either specified her family s' native roots as Ekiti State which is part of the Yoruba cultural region or call her a Yoruba actress. What other proof is needed? Eruditescholar (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Coming from the Yoruba region is also not evidence of anything. Only a source that specifically states that she is Yoruba is enough. I would probably accept a source saying that she is a Yoruba actress. But if there is any reason to believe that that may not accurately reflect her own sense of identity - for example if there is a conflicting source calling her an "Igbo person", then it would not be enough. And in all cases, when your edits are contested you need to start discussing it on the talkpage.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with you, coming from a Yoruba region is not sufficient proof of origin. It is possible for a non-Yoruba person to be born in Yorubaland but in all cases, it is simply stated that they were born there. It is only the Nigerian state that they or their ancestors hail from, coupled with their Yoruba names which qualifies their ethnicity. For example: former Miss World, Agbani Darego and British actor, Hugo Weaving were all born in Yorubaland but their family's roots are in Rivers State and Europe respectively. Neither of them bear Yoruba names. That's why the Yoruba names and other sources are used with their places of origin. I have never encountered anyone with a Yoruba name, hailing from Yorubaland who isn't a Yoruba person. Babatunde Fashola, Folake Solanke and Adekunle Fajuyi all fulfilled this criteria before citations were added to support their ethnicities. Eruditescholar (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it is also relevant to refer to past editing related to this topic regarding the other editor in question: (User:Ukabia). This past discussion revealed his disruptive nature especially on some Yoruba-related articles. He edits mostly Igbo-related articles but he had a history of removing sources from Yoruba-related articles. This was also mentioned by another editor on his talk page:User talk:Ukabia#Yoruba Page. Eruditescholar (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Just to repeat one last time, it is not acceptable to give someone an ethnicity based on where they came from or their names, that is WP:OR and particularly wrong in WP:BLPs. That means it's still not acceptable to use both the details to claim ethnicity, that remains OR in particular WP:Syn. If you continue to do so, you should expect to be blocked. And no it doesn't matter what you have or have not encounter in the past. Whether most people fulfill these criteria before you found proper sources it even more irrelevant.

I'm not sure what your complaint about Ukabia is. You didn't provide any diffs and I don't recall seeing Ukabia in the articles I saw you editing. The 3RR link shows you were both violated 3RR, but that was something dealt with. The discussion there suggests your edits were a bigger problem, since while violating 3RR is never acceptable (barring the exceptions which I presume didn't apply), Ukabia seemed to be following and arguing in favour of following wikipedia policies and guidelines which require sources for ethnicity. You seemed to be doing what you're doing here, violating our policies and guidelines by trying to add ethnicity tags based on OR. The other link was to something in August 2013. Perhaps it's relevant if you can show a pattern of very long term problematic editing but it itself it's not particularly relevant.

09:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Besides, TM, Ukabia was the only editor who engaged in edit warring with me over Yoruba-related articles. That prompted me to reveal his motive here. His tendencies to vandalise Yoruba-related articles seemed similar to the former editor who reported me here. I will comply with Wikipedia's policies and stop adding Yoruba ethnic categorizations based on people with Yoruba names and births in Yorubaland. Notwithstanding, I want to clarify a criteria which still passes WP:BLP: I want to emphasize that originating or hailing from a place is different from being born there as explained earlier. In Africa including Nigeria in particular, irrespective of names and places of birth, a person's ethnicity is usually primarily first determined by the community, village, town or city that he or she is indigenous to. All other factors or additional criteria used in ethnic identifications becomes secondary. Therefore, if reliable sources state that the person in question (hails from or is a native/indigene) of a place which also implies that he/she has family roots or ancestry from the place, I deem it more accurate to ascertain ethnicity than when it simply states that the person was born in the place in question. Eruditescholar (talk) 12:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

EauZenCashHaveIt

Seems this user at Talk:Harold Holt has very strong opinions about me personally. He has multiple times insisted on placing my name in an unflattering manner in a section title ("‎Sources confirm Gillespie was his lover. It has been User:Collect vs. formed consensus for the past two discussions. Move to close please") on the article talk page, has told me in crude terms to go away, and has ignored my posts at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#smithsonianmag.com where another editor specifically agreed with me that where a person says an affair was not "intimate" that using the term "lover" about that person as a fact in Wikipedia's voice where the sources make clear the use is not implying sex, that there is a misuse of the sources. He refuses to allow the word "rumoured" in the article. And the posts at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_202#Sydney_Daily_Telegraph_.22Sydney_Confidential.22_article about the same claim in the past, sourced to a self-described "gossip column." By the way, there is no sound reason at all for any of this speculation in the biography of Harold Holt in the first place.

[36], [37], [38], [39] etc. etc. I pointed out that using an attack in a talk page section name was improper, and you can see his response. Collect (talk) 14:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

In the words of the late great Abe Vigoda, nothing personal here. Anyone reviewing this, please note the length of the section with all its subsections. Then please note the amount of editors who repeatedly displayed an array of sources to reach a consensus. Then please note the amount of replies by Collect which ignore a good chunk of those sources in favor of making their point at all cost. Then please note the amount of times Collect was asked to quit fighting against consensus. Then notice my own polite replies, reminders of policy, and bringing of actual sources to the article. I could go on for a while, but the reality is that Collect has been exhaustinfont color="000FF">Electricg the editor community on that talk page for days now, and someone needs to put an end to it. What I am noticing is that this very report is a staggering display of stubborn and warrior-like behavior, since each and every point they are currently raising has already been disproven on the talk page, and all of us found a plethora of other sources. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 15:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: as for the matter at hand, "lover" is her own quote from several reputable sources, brought up numerous times by myself and every other participating editor. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 15:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

"Consensus" can never allow any source to be misused. The source provided specifies that the person denied being in an "intimate" relationship. In the US, "lover" is generally reserved (as a claim of fact) to "intimate" relationships and not to "intellectual" relationships, which is what the source specifically states in pretty much the next sentence. Cheers. And yes - I am known for loathing abuse of sources, especially when the claim has no encyclopedic value to the subject of the article. Collect (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• This appears to be a content dispute, with no real call for admin intervention. It's understandable that there is frustration among editors in that discussion, but I see nothing that requires use of admin tools. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• You seem to have missed the use of a section title as a place to make a personal attack on another editor, etc. And there remains an issue about misuse of sources (including use of a "gossip column") as detailed in the two RS/N discussions as well. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, other users pointed out, and justly so, that you have been trolling that page for a while. The section title merely states that it has been you vs. a formed consensus, which is far from a personal attack. The gossip column is ancient history - I personally replaced it a while ago. The "misuse" of sources has been disproven to you numerous times. The RS/N discussions were not brought up until right before you went here. You accuse other editors of canvassing (without a valid reason), yet you keep canvassing across multiple noticeboards in spite of a formed consensus - now you are here. Just accept that the consensus exists and move on. Your obsession with this issue is affecting other editors, and is detrimental to our community. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 23:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• I closed the RfC. I doubt wither side will like the close much. Guy (Help!) 13:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

[40] is the close - which is exactly what I was asking for. "There is a remarkable degree of heat given that this is basically tabloid tittle-tattle. As Collect notes, agreement of various editors cannot trump policy: independent sources establish that the term is at least somewhat speculative, and even the subject of the claim appears not to have used it." (more follows which does not alter the basic premise for the close). Thanks. Collect (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• "[T]he subject of the claim appears not to have used it" - another false claim that has been disproven by a direct quote. Christ, do you have anything new to present? EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 06:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

It should probably be noted that Collect reverted back to his desired version after the discussion had been officially closed and it had been determined that the RfC was not in his favor. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 03:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Ticket to Sydney, anyone? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• I'm going to post the RfC close in its entirety below so that there is no question of what it says. Softlavender (talk) 07:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

There is a remarkable degree of heat given that this is basically tabloid tittle-tattle. As Collect notes, agreement of various editors cannot trump policy: independent sources establish that the term is at least somewhat speculative, and even the subject of the claim appears not to have used it in the unambiguous sense supported by some editors here. The solution is to use attribution and to take care not to exceed what is stated by the sources (e.g: "Mrs Gillespie was once the secret lover of Australian prime minister Harold Holt - or the alleged secret lover, as has frequently been recorded in the years following Holt's disappearance and prior to her own - as is reporting convention." from the Aus. Daily Telegraph). Terms such as "claimed lover" or "alleged lover" would not violate policy, an overt claim of "lover" probably does, from my reading of this debate, the sources and the relevant policies. And omitting it altogether? That would be perfect. Guy (Help!) 13:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• It should also be noted, again, that the quote "Harold Holt's lover" comes directly from Gillespie herself, through a book published by the Australian National University. Whoever closed the RfC probably missed this, along with the fact that the fact was printed by numerous respected publishers, and is therefore notable by Wikipedia's standards - not "tabloid tittle-tattle". More importantly, we cannot and should not reward lone warriors who go for days or even weeks after the community had reached a consensus, constantly thwarting everyone's collaborative efforts because they don't like the edit. I cannot speak for anyone else, but I am not here to fight windmills. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 11:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Also, Collect's behavior has been the same throughout this ordeal, see User talk:Collect#Holt: sticks to the same source that was replaced ages ago in order to disprove claim as "tabloid", while completely ignoring ample new evidence. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 11:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, his tone has indeed been consistently moderate throughout. Yours, not so much. Are we done here? Guy (Help!) 11:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe they are called civil POV warriors. Pushing their point in a very moderate tone, but consistently repeating what was disproven to them as if no prior discussion happened. This is the one case where moderate tone is not the virtue you look for in an editor. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 13:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

You believe that, do you? And what's your analysis of your own behaviour in this matter? Guy (Help!) 01:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

In a nutshell, a natural reaction to a deliberate waste of my (and others') time by what I just described. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 11:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah, so it's all about you, you have no problems with the way you approached it, and you consider that you are gifted with a unique insight into Wiki[pedia policy that means you alone have the ability to judge this matter? Or do you admit of the possibility that you might be wrong? Guy (Help!) 17:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I just love these moments of pure self-inflicted irony... Seems like you're cashing in that ticket to Sydney - isn't that right, Erpert? EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 10:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not even in this discussion anymore because, frankly, it's become very confusing. An uninvolved admin needs to close it, imo. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 10:14, 8 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#NMMGG WP:OR. 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 ^(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 ^(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 Drmies, and the block upheld by both Liz and HighInBC, for insinuating that Nishidani's BLP concerns at Ezra Nawi are motivated by some kind of paedophilic tendency.

Sir Joseph maintains the blocks result from Wikipedia's "shameful" bias against "pro-Israeli" editors [41], and No More Mr Nice Guy agrees. Despite this, NMMNG has themselves, at talk:Ezra Nawi, three times repeated the gross and insulting ad hominem that insinuates Nishidani'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. HighInBC 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 Bad Dryer 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, Only in death 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.

No More Mr Nice Guy should be warned (at the very least) about personalizing disputes with Nishidani. 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 ♝ ♚ 11:14, 3 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)

@Only in death: 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 ♝ ♚ 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, Only in death refuses to comply. Admin action is needed, this is WP:ANI after all. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I think it's clear that both No More Mr Nice Guy and Only in death 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 ^(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. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

That's right. Only Palestinians should be allowed to edit Wikipedia. Sir Joseph ^(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. 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"?[42] 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 ♝ ♚ 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. Kingsindian, HighInBC and others have requested that you quit it, No More Mr Nice Guy, 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 ^(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 ♝ ♚ 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 No More Mr Nice Guy now strike all of the aspersions, comparisons, and personal attacks noted by Nishidani on Talk:Ezra Nawi. And that both No More Mr Nice Guy and Only in death 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)
• Support. -- IjonTichy (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
• 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 ^(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 Only in death 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)

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)

• Comment: I would like to point out that Bad Dryer was indef blocked a week ago for making the exact kinds of comments that No More Mr Nice Guy is and has been making in this same case; only Bad Dryer made them fewer times and in less degree. I therefore see no reason why Bad Dryer should be indef blocked while No More Mr Nice Guy remains unsanctioned. Softlavender (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with Softlavender's comment. (I think Softlavender's comment may be referring to Only in death, not to No More Mr Nice Guy, although NMMNG's behavior is problematic, too.) In my view, Only in death's behavior is out of control, and he appears to be almost begging to be indef blocked. IjonTichy (talk) 11:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support: For reasons I already gave in the discussion above. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

66.94.202.246

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

---

IP editor previously banned 2 weeks (Jan 18) for unsourced changes, no edit summaries, and not engaging on Talk. Block has now expired and IP immediately resumed prior behavior. User talk:66.94.202.246#February 2016. UW Dawgs (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The disruption caused by this editor is tremendous. We'll need an army to go through his numerous year and number changes to check for the many, many errors he's introduced into articles. 02:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I have been policing this user's edits (their IP address seems to change every few months but the editing style is identical, one IP address was blocked for a month) on and off for over a year now and while the user has gotten somewhat "better," they continue to be unresponsive. The editor has actually found some factual inaccuracies and recently has seemed to be acting in good faith. Unfortunately, they also don't seem to fact check many of the dates and have never used the Edit Summary to explain why they are making the changes. With their continually switching IP address I am not sure how long a block will last, but it is better than nothing. (see User talk:66.94.206.60, User talk:66.94.209.81, User talk:66.94.195.79, and User talk:66.94.205.235 in reverse chronological order) Yosemiter (talk) 03:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

It's 66.94.192.0/19, too much collateral damage for a rangeblock. If he doesn't respond here during his usual editing time today, I'm willing to block this single IP for as long as three months. (Am I the only one thinking that someone editing from 'Family Video Movie Club' is a guy sitting in the back room of a video store who's bored out of his mind?) Katie^talk 13:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

And he picked up right where he left off, so he's on a 90-day vacation. Katie^talk 03:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Golbez

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

Golbez wrote, "What should happen: People ignore Victor and return this talk page to the business of discussing the page instead of politics. What will happen: TheVirginiaHistorian, The Four Deuces will respond to Victor telling him how wrong his babby's-first-libertarian politics are, Victor will respond back with another couple paragraphs about how awesome Republicans are and how evil liberals are, and this bullshit will continue unabated.[43]

I told Golbez to remove the personal attacks,[44] and he replied, "Yay, adult supervision!"[45]

This is part of Talk:United States#Edit break for Proposals, where VictorD7 asked editors to choose between two alternatives. I opposed both.[46]

Golbez's comments are not helpful and I would ask other editors to explain that to him.

TFD (talk) 05:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments like this are pretty uncivil, but I'm not sure it's a personal attack. I also think this is a content dispute, not a matter for ANI. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, since we're here... There is a discussion on the talk page as to how to describe the political parties. I'm guessing that roughly 90% of it is incessant political arguing, mostly from VictorD7, but then people - sometimes TheVirginiaHistorian, sometimes our friend TFD here - will respond, and the cycle starts again. It's less a content dispute and more a massively-off-topic dispute that is really monopolizing the traffic of the talk page. It's clear I'm over it. I just don't have the energy or, frankly, knowledge to do anything about it; where does one go to complain that a talk page is being abused? Here? Hardly seems like an admin issue at this juncture. But it is an issue. So, I offer my pointed complaints as to how they're conducting themselves. I know my remarks are not helpful, but yet they are somehow more on topic than what the remarks are snarking against. But considering I have an intense dislike for the three loudest voices in the talk page, I suppose I should do what I said I'd do, hit alt-W, and go on with life. I was once the top contributor to the article, but it's moved on, though not in a direction I'd like (well, the talk page has moved on... the actual article, very little gets accomplished there, in large part because the talk page is so toxic). --Golbez (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Old-as-dirt content dispute. Golbez is right that the talk page is toxic, though. Nevertheless, definitely not an ANI matter. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

If there is a conduct issue, such as toxicity on the talk page, anyway, arbitration enforcement is a better forum than here for matters that are under discretionary sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Golbez could probably stand to phrase his commentary in a fashion less likely to bait acrimony (especially given how disinterested he claims to ultimately be in the proceedings), but I'm not seeing a behavioural or civility issue here that even remotely rises to the level of requiring community intervention; certainly I see nothing which represents a WP:NPA violation. I dare say, on the basis of what has been presented here so far, that there is more disruption implicit in bringing such a minor personal dispute to ANI than in anything Golbez has said or done (again, in so far as the complained-of behaviour is concerned). The only action that seems appropriate here, insofar as ANI is concerned (other dispute resolution forums may be useful, as others have suggested) is a therapeutic trouting with the hope that it might promote the growth of some thicker skin. Happy to revisit my opinion if the community is presented with more diffs or context, but that's how I see it presently. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Suspicious account holder

I keep seeing on music articles that I patrol an account name which consists of just numbers and letters, and it only ever makes a small amount of edits over a few days, or just one edit. After this, an account name of the same structure but different numbers and letters makes more edits in same fashion. They are usually unhelpful edits, but I can't work out why there are so many accounts like this. For example, on S&M (song), the account 2601:84:4601:84d1:9982:78f0:7f71:2b made two edits on 2 Feb, I reverted them, then the next day 2601:84:4601:84d1:b059:aea0:18f0:eb67 tried adding the content back again. I've seen this for months now. Someone must be creating multiple accounts and using them for a day or two, or it's a sock puppet. The same thing happened on 15 December 2015 on The Sweet Sweet Fantasy Tour by 2604:2000:9080:9100:703F:1F08:143F:8F49, and on 3 November 2015 on Rated R (Rihanna album) by 2601:86:400:2A61:C055:47D0:7F0A:ECF9. I'm sure it's the same person, the pattern is too regular in how they edit.  — Calvin999 09:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment: See IPv6 address. Keri (talk) 09:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

So what does that mean in simple English?  — Calvin999 10:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It's a fancy new IP address. It's just like a normal IP address except it's bigger. --Tarage (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

So it's the same person and the same account? Or the same person using multiple accounts?  — Calvin999 10:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Each one is an individual IP, so either it's one person using multiple IPs, or a bunch of users using different IPs. Ask yourself the same question if they were just editors with IPs that looked like 123.345.583.574. Would you be worried? --Tarage (talk) 10:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

If there were octets like 345, 583, or 574, I would be worried, but we know what you meant. :-) --David Biddulph (talk) 11:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

If different IPs kept editing the same articles making the same kind of edits, then yeah.  — Calvin999 10:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

That's exactly what it is. They're just IP addresses (in an unfamiliar format) rather than registered accounts' user names. Keri (talk) 10:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It's really irritating.  — Calvin999 11:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

As mentioned below, if things get too bad then a request for temporary semi-protection at WP:RFPP is the way to go. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The IPv6 addresses in the S&M article geolocate to the same part of New Jersey and to Comcast ([47], [48]). It's safe to assume that's the same person. The IP address at Rated R is also from New Jersey (though in a different but nearby part) and Comcast again, so maybe the same person. The IP address at the Sweet Sweet Fantasy Tour geolocates to Kansas and a different ISP ([49]), so probably not the same person (although my IP address does currently geolocate to Columbia, SC despite being in Hangzhou).

To be completely clear, they are not accounts, those are just a new IP address format (in other words, same ol' anon users as before, different packaging). As such, if things start to get really problematic at S&M (Song), the only real option will be page protection of some sort, since their IP address is about as stable as a drunk elephant on stilts. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Your S&M (Song) IP is one person. See how the first four sets of numbers are the same? That's one network, or one end user. The other two IPs you're talking about, though, are two different networks than the first. We can rangeblock 2601:84:4601:84D1::/64 and get the first guy if he continues, but I don't think we're there yet. Katie^talk 14:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Calvin999: - you said the edits are "unhelpful", if the edits are vandalism or otherwise disruptive, you can file a report at WP:AIV. - ^theWOLFchild 00:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Troll IP

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

---

86.187.167.167, related to this. Eik Corell (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

86.187.160.0/21 blocked one week for disruption. Very few good edits from this range for the last month. Katie^talk 16:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't look like the filter is working; [New troll IPs here]. Eik Corell (talk) 12:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

It's working, but the new edits are from outside the rangeblock. I've looked at the contributions of this expanded range, 86.187.128.0/18, pretty hard for the last half hour and while there are more editors, and some good edits, there's also more vandalism of a different type than this hounding of Elk Corell. Based on that, I've blocked the /18 range for one week for disruption. I work UTRS and ACC also so I'll try to catch any problems that might arise. We shouldn't put up with this jerk, but anything bigger than the /18 range might not be possible. Katie^talk 15:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Same thing resumes as soon as last incident is archived

The best thing to explain this I suppose is to link here [50] and then here [51] and then here [52] and here [53]. At least as long as there is an incident on this board the user seems to be more polite. Any advice on what to do would be greatly appreciated. YuHuw (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• I hope that's not the best way to explain "this". Please don't send us on fishing expeditions. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, I'm still new here but I should have thought through more and pinged the administrators who are already familiar with the history of this case. User:Wbm1058, User:Dbachmann, User:Tide_rolls, I am also sorry I can not get the Archive link to work better than that. It seems to arrive in the right place initially then suddenly jump three or four cases down for some reason. But the title is correct (Harassment_on_Talk_Pages_and_edit_summaries) Since nothing has changed, shall I copy and paste the whole thing here again? YuHuw (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

No, linking to the prior discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive912 § Harassment on Talk Pages and edit summaries should be sufficient. Sorry, I see that nobody else besides me responded after you listed the diffs that concern you, as requested by Tide rolls. I don't like to see talk of "lining up the ducks on this meatpuppet." I view the term meatpuppet as derogatory and that should be used with care, in keeping with Wikipedia's civility policy. - Wbm1058 (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• I will respond here to avoid a perception that "no comment equals disregard". I still see no harassment. I do see brusque language and what could be construed as less explanation that could be required for a newcomer. To be honest, the OP exhibits a rather oblique manner in which they communicate. This could be due to a failure on my part; I've been speaking English for over 50 years and still discover that I fall short on occasion. I'm simply not seeing anything actionable here. Tiderolls 20:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I didn't know what I was supposed to see where. Where'd you learn that English of yours, Tide? Drmies (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
    • That'd be L.A. Lower Alabama. Tiderolls 21:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

At 23:27, 26 January 2016 Warshy asked YuHuw not to post on his talk page again.[54] Since then, YuHuw has made four edits to Warshy's talk page.[55] In this edit[56] to Warshy's talk page, YuHuw accuses @Vadcat: of being a sockpuppet of Warshy. When Warshy objects to this,at 15:24, 4 February 2016, YuHuw responds at 15:43, 4 February 2016 by posting a complaint at WP:ANI. If admins wonder who Vadcat is - try his contribution history on Russian wikipedia.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, meatpuppet sounds pretty nasty to be honest, at least certainly not civil :( but I suppose I should also just stipulate having revised my knowledge of WP:Meatpuppet that I am not "friends, family members, or communities" with that user. Yet it seems a group of friends from the same community appears to be ganging up on me though (or perhaps even on anyone/everyone who tries to disambiguate/clean up some of those messy articles).

I thought making a user account would be a fun way to engage with intelligent people on such topics, but am starting to think perhaps the socializing might not be as jolly as it seemed it might be. User:Tide rolls you did see that by equating me with that User over and over again they are calling me a pedophile right? YuHuw (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I did not see that, no. Tiderolls 21:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It was the very first diff I posted in response to your request at that time. Here I will post that reply again and bold it for you. But it is just a needle in the ever-increasing hay-stack so I won't including today's insults yet because I am tired and need to go to bed now but will add them tomorrow since it looks like the insults will continue all night with some more coming on my talk page now as we type. I will wait till they finish before adding them tomorrow.

Quoted text: "If someone continues to make references to you being a sockpuppet in talk pages and edit summaries again and again even when you ask them again and again to stop that is an harassment designed to prejudice other users against you (which has worked in this case with Warshy). Especially considering the things I discovered were suggested by the same users about the sock in question[57] the references are exceptionally insulting.

Here are the examples: edit summary insult edit summary insult edit summary and talk page insult edit summary insult edit summary and talk page insult edit summary insult talk page insult talk page references to suggest I am that despicable person discussion board insult apparently from Toddy1's IP based upon this dif [58] and the fact (s)he signed later [59] although he also completes User Nepolkanov's work sometimes too [60] talk page insult edit summary insult talk page insult anotther indirect reference to sockpuppetry more talk page insults same again edit summary insult talk page insult & canvassing more of the same more of the same more of the same canvassing refactoring my comments on talk page to confuse order suggesting need for more canvassing finally Warshy is convinced by Toddy1 and joins in the insults more of the same baseless prejudice suggestion that there is some sort of business agenda behind their aggression against those of us who might ask for un-sourced musings to be deleted strange comment in light of the business agenda about this being a nightmare

These Users' edit histories shows they does this type of conduct is his normal way of dealing with random users who challenge her/his edits or post things they do not like. If you want me to provide diffs it will take a long time since they appear to have done it really an awful lot of times but I will make a start collecting diffs if asked, although my objective is not to attack them for their conduct in general just get them to stop doing it to me. Afterall, there may be instances where their suspicions have paid off. Although other times they seem pointless [61]. It certainly seems Toddy1 has been misleading others but Nepolkanov (whose edit history shows only appears to deal with people who are not anti-Polkanov -a Crimean author- which is what Nepolkanov means "Anti-Polkanov") has not exactly been angelic in regards to being beyond hurling the insults -even though I had no idea about Polkanov when this began and don't even agree with Polkanov's ideas now that I know them. It seems Nepolkanov who decided that User:31.154.167.98 was User:Kaz for some reason simply got confused and thinks that is my IP. As a result he continued his insults towards User:31.154.167.98 [62], firstly against User:Wbm1058 [63] [64] and then became fixated on me after I agreed to take on the role of second author for the article as per his suggestion. For example: first apparent reference to me by use of phrase "your claims" as the despicable user again by use of term "your fake" same again canvassing support, trying to guess meaning of YuHuw while desperately concocting link to the despicable user this is difficult to understand because the URL is fake but it seems more desperation and he is calling me a "thief" in Russian although I may be wrong on this one another reference to the despicable user more canvassing and another ref to that user refactoring my comments another insulting ref to me as that user again declares his suspicion that I am the blocked user more refactoring my talk and more reference to me as the despicable user canvassing and still the same insult while apparently also saying I am so wealthy that I control the internet 0.o directly insulting me again by calling me that user again trying to claim I am not what I say I am

But at least Nepolkanov has engaged in (even if he is aggressive and belligerent editing) some useful discussion on the issues which need to be discussed, unlike user Toddy1 who does not really engage much at all. I don't want anything but to reassure them I am my own person and make sure they don't try such tactics again just because they don't like the challenge. I don't mind fierce debate, I believe thrashing out diametrically opposed views can lead to a clearer picture on foggy issues, but preferably without the insults to intelligence and without the horrendous and potentially damaging references. I didn't create an account to hide my light. I hope I have something that given time will shine here. Best regards. YuHuw (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)"

But the behaviour YuHuw complains of, is behaviour he exhibits himself:

• 15:21, 4 February 2016 accuses Vadcat of being a sockpuppet of Warshy on Warshy's talk page.
• 13:31, 4 February 2016 edit summary accuses Vadcat of being a sockpuppet of Ancientsteppe.
• 21:07, 30 January 2016 edit summary accuses Vadcat of being a sleeper.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

For admin attention :the wrong YuHuw's translation above of nick Nepolkanov as Anti-Polkanov (while actualy means not Polkanov) is erronious argument of blocked User Kaz.This charectirizing Kaz only repeated mistake is additional argument that YuHuw actually is Kaz's clone.Неполканов (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually I got the translation from the number 1 hit when anyone googles your user name [65]

Concernign the "four edits" to warshy's wall which Toddy1 mentioned here they are a mandatory call to dispute resolution notice board, a mandatory call to ANI, my polite response to his resuming attacks against me based upon the insulting edit summaries since no one gave me any advice on how to deal with these things from last time I simply copied Toddy1's method as he seems to know how things work around here. If his method is bad please tell me and him so that other new users do not pick up bad habits from his style. I also understand that one should attempt to initiate a discussion before returning things to ANI. The response was that I should P***-off as he thinks I am a plague. I am really quite shocked at the level of instant hostility to me simply because I have been asking for discussion on sources. Finally number 4 is just another mandatory call to ANI. So whenever Toddy1 presents a link from now on I think everyone should definitely check the details which he tries to hide with spin. YuHuw (talk) 07:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

As for Vadcat, judging from the user's edit history [66] he is indeed *very* sleepy here on English WP (a bit like Not-Polkanov). I doubt the two accounts are the same person. Unless someone who speaks Russian recruits him from Russian wikipedia as and when required for support? YuHuw (talk) 07:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

And here are the incidents of insult to me which took place last night while I was sleeping (as I expected very rude rant the user who says Dunlop is not RS says in this edit summary and this comment that I am faking sources which he knows are just direct copies from Russian wikipedia. Just another couple of straws on the haystack mission to paint a bad picture of me to other users. here he refactors my talk page again here he lies in the edit summary to make it look like I am breaking rules which I have not. Not even Edit warring since the extensive discussed context of the edits he there pretends do not exist. again he calls me a thief in russian he calls me that pedophile again here he calls me the same pedophile again in the edit summary he makes reference to me as that pedophile (albeit mis-spelled) again. I'm getting very depressed as the incessant abuse is really grinding me down. My post here last week was to ask for advice, and this week too. Please Admins, I really want some amicable resolution which can make this constant abuse and harassment stop once and for all. Yours faithfully. YuHuw (talk) 07:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding what you call refactoring of your talk page...

• 10:56, 29 January 2016 Неполканов created a new section under the heading: "YuHuw's " ridicilious Edit Wars.
• 11:03, 29 January 2016 YuHuw changes the section heading above Неполканов's post to: Rant from barely literate Disruptive Editor who supports User:Ancientsteppe's work
• 11:08, 29 January 2016 YuHuw changes the section heading to: Nepolkanov's complaint
• 11:14, 29 January 2016 Неполканов restores section heading
• 11:20, 29 January 2016 YuHuw changes the section heading
• 20:51, 4 February 2016 Неполканов restores section heading

I think that he made it clear that he strongly objected to your putting your heading above his text.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

So if Warshy tells me not to touch his talk page (even though I must by wiki policy) that is fine, but I am not allowed to organize my own talk page? It means anyone is allowed to post any title on anyone's talk page and no one is allowed to correct it? I'm sorry I'm still new here, where is the wiki policy on this? YuHuw (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Wbm1058, User:Dbachmann, User:Tide_rolls if any of you might be around to catch up that would be gretly appreciated. YuHuw (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• You have my assessment. Tiderolls 17:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

If you were the person who had been being equated with an alleged pedophile I think you might understand better how horrible that feels User:Tide rollsYuHuw (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• YuHuw, I see that you have given ~four diffs accusing other editors of "refactoring" your comments above. Please explain to me what that means in the context of editing Wikipedia, and what are the rules and guidelines on that. I see you are asking what the policy on this is; can you search for it and link to it here? I'm wondering why you use the term refactor here, if you haven't read the policy, as it's not an everyday word outside this community (kind of like "disambiguate" in that regard). Wbm1058 (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Wbm1058, I understand the term re-factor to mean change the factoring. for example I recently tried to "factor" my talk page to be less rude (the first time I factored it I felt my heading was uncharitable so I changed it again) by finding the "factor" at the base of what the problem was but he changed that. So that is what I mean by re-factoring my talk page. Is that what you wanted me to comment on? I was trying to find a more polite and charitable heading. googling Wikipedia refactoring policy as you requested has given me this result WP:RTP but I can't understand if that is what I mean when I use the term or not.

In other cases my comments on talk pages have been factored somehow resulting in a slightly different presentation or outcome. For example Toady1 changes the base of what I did here [67] to make it look like something different had taken place. This example [68] is quite a bit more complicated than that which led me to miss some of his replies until I went through the history, even though my intention is to deal with every issue raised. I do not ignore. It might be a small thing but just like them appearing on every page I touch. It seems it would be better to quote me rather than chop about my original posts like that. I don't mind Warshy deleting my comments from his talk page (as I saw another user do that in the past without answering my comment I can't remember his name and am too stressed to go through and check) because after-all it is his talk page and replaced with uncivil language about me [69] [70] (besides equating me with an alleged pedophile of course e.g. "plague" "psychotic" "sh*t" "religious fanatic" (though I have never state whether I have a religion or not) etc, and so anyway it is his wall, it seems he can do what he likes there am I right? But when my comments have been altered even though slightly on a talk page it is a bit unpleasant when the same users are equating me with a pedophile over and again as well as appearing on almost every page I try to edit. It really feels like I am being singled out or targeted. It is also weird that some of these users are IPs which appear once or twice then vanish or User accounts which checking through the contexts of their history only appear when Toddy1 needs support for some crusade or another on Ukraine-related topics. Is there a way to remove all these insults from wikipedia by the way? Being equated to an alleged pedophile is really a dangerous insult to throw at anyone. YuHuw (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm struggling to understand the meaning of "change the factoring". Factoring (disambiguation) offers three options, and none of them seem to fit this context. Factor (disambiguation) leaves me guessing, too. Is English your first language? How did you come to understand this meaning of "factor(ing)" – somewhere outside of Wikipedia, or is this something you learned from Wikipedia? I'm certainly uncomfortable with seeing that "p" word flying about here, but can we focus on this first? It's hard for me to follow all the accusations without investing a lot of time into research. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I am glad someone else besides me is uncomfortable about that. Wbm1058, I'm sorry I am not familiar with exact meanings of all wiki terminology. I do regard myself as a near if not native English speaker though. Maybe I should have said changing the factor? This is my own understanding of the term factor. There was a lot to write and I tried to be as succinct as possible. Taking my talk page as an example, what is the common factor of Nepolkanov's post from both his point of view and from my point of view? He has a complaint. OK so that is the common factor. To change the common factor all one has to do is cut out one of the points of view. In that case the POV bias will shift the common factor. To re-factor a discussion in my understanding means breaking down the cohesion of a post which is talking around (trying to establish) a common factor and then re-assembling it in a way that the cohesion of the original argument (and with it the orgininal attempt to find the critical "factor") is lost. Is this not a correct use of the term re-factor in common English? Or as Toddy did, editing my quote of Nepolkanov's post to make it look like Nepolkanov's original post and thereby hide the efforts I have gone to to try and bring cohesion to discussions which have been splattered all over the place instead of held all together in as few relevant places as possible. It is but one element of the problem that the common base truth (fact) is being shifted by Toddy1's team to change the subject and present me as that alleged "P" rather than discuss the issues they have with anyone touching the pages they seem to want a monopoly on. I have only been asking for sane discussion on sources rather than a John Procter style witch-hunt where "Team Toddy" decides I am guilty and then tries to frame me somehow by changing the contexts (spinning attention away from the facts).

Meanwhile I see Toddy1 has finally started a sockpuppet investigation here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kaz so perhaps this will finally be my chance to vindicate myself to the Wikimedia offices. YuHuw (talk) 12:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

User:FL or Atlanta

This is the second time I've been here about this guy. The last time resulted in a firmly worded warning, which he took to mean that the admin didn't know what he was talking about. Since then, the same admin advised me to come here (advice I initially took as him saying he didn't feel admin attention was necessary, but which he later corrected me on), then warned FLoA about his attitude. I didn't want to come back here, but after my latest exchange with FLoA, I'm at my wit's end. He seems so removed from reality, and is so condescending in his tone that I have trouble believing he's not trolling. The core issue is that he's been editing tendentiously to push the unsupported view that an Argument from authority is always a fallacy, and engaging with me and others with absolutely no respect for honesty whatsoever. Below are diffs (and some points) illustrating the problem.

Content issues

• Introducing a paper on cybernetics as a reliable source on philosophy.
• Claiming a professional martial artist (who has a degree in medieval history) is a reliable source on philosophy.
• Giving a false quote from a source which doesn't directly address this issue, while presenting it as one that does. (You can see here where I pointed out that this quote does not appear in that source and provided proof of this.)
• More insistence that the martial artist is an expert on philosophy subject, due to his degree in history
• arguing with the reliable sources I presented, essentially advocating his own WP:OR instead of these RSs. Also note that he claims none of the other sources agree with the one he argued with, despite several of them explicitly doing so.
• Cherry picking quotes from sources. (As evidenced by the further quote from that source I provided later on.)
• Claiming that the RSs showing he was wrong represented the views of a 'a minority of philosophers'.
• Citing sources for claims they don't support and citing non verifiable sources. The only source which supported his view was an article hosted on a geocities account which was attributed to a newspaper that has no accessible record of such an article having been published. You can see the outcome of my request for help in verifying that source here. Note that Original Position also tried to verify the article, without luck.
• Cherry picking quotes and using non RS sources to advance a WP:SYNTH interpretation that he insists is true.
• None of his sources are philosophers. This has been pointed out to him numerous times, but he insists that environmental scientists, martial artists (with a bachelor's degree in history), computer scientists and neurologists are all reliable sources for the definition of a term in philosophy. You can see this in this diff.

Honesty issues

• Drastically mischaracterizing the content dispute in an RfM in which he mentioned none of the other editors. You can see at the current version of the page that Original Position also pointed out the problem with the wording used (once the Mediation chair invited him to participate, as FLoA didn't bother doing so).
• Claiming that 'progress is being made' when the only edits to the article they'd made were either reverts of my edits, or edits which pushed the article further into falsehood.
• Questioning the admin's competence.
• This diff represents a number of problems. In it, he repeats a false claim that the page is currently on "my" version, due to the fact that he had reverted himself once. However, he made several edits to the page since, and reverted an edit I made that brought it closer to the version he considers mine. (I had previously pointed out that if he reverts to the version he considers mine, then keeps editing, that it is no longer "my" version, but to no avail) Also note that it is not, in fact my version, but that the Editor Original Position was primarily responsible for the differences between "my" version and the older, factually inaccurate version. He also repeats an earlier assertion that the admin "...said my behavior's alright." in the very section of his talk page which the admin created to warn him about his attitude (a warning to which he replied, so I know he got it).
• It has been pointed out to him many times the irony of him quoting "experts" to support his case that appealing to authority is always a fallacy. He said once that he was aware of the irony, but has since refused to even attempt to justify it. What's worse is that he appeals to illegitimate authorities exclusively. Whether he is right or wrong (and he is wrong, indisputably so) about the nature of the argument, he's still knowingly engaged in a fallacious, dishonest method of advancing his case.

This is just a sampling of diffs. There are many more to illustrate the problem, but including them all would get unwieldy. If any admin doubts my interpretation of any of those diffs (or just doesn't see what I'm referring to), I will happily provide more diffs and quotes to illustrate my case.

I've been trying to be patient with him. I started by discussing the issue on the talk page, and when that failed, I initially tried for mediation. After an extremely fishy (I can provide diffs to illustrate why, but don't think I need to get into it now) opening of the mediation case, I declined to continue further and came here. Since then, the problem seemed to have been resolved (with some admin attention wrt another user who supported FLoA's interpretation), until FLoA returned the other day to begin making sweeping changes to the article and reverting any attempt on my part to edit it. Even then, I elected to follow through on an RfM he filed in lieu of returning here. I had every intention of doing that until I logged on tonight, and saw the latest round. To say that there has been no indication that he intends to comport himself reasonably, honestly, and with respect to WP's standards of evidence would be a massive understatement. I've just reached a point where I can't bring myself to humor him any more. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Won't the source and content issues be resolved in our mediation? There's lots of stuff I could point to, and lots of stuff I could and have said about your view of my actions and how you describe them, but I think the main issue is just frustration about the long-running impasse we've reached as far as the article's content goes. I know hammering out a good version of the article's been slow and tough, but we're almost there! The page and our understanding of each other's positions is getting much better than it was at the beginning and a bit of mediation's all we need to get it fully sorted. FL or Atlanta (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

(Also, what exactly do you mean by "latest round"? The last edit I made to the article in question was days ago, you've edited it since then...No one's making substantial edits until mediation's done, and that'll just be someone adding the consensus version at last!) FL or Atlanta (talk) 05:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment – It appears that the reported editor, User:FL or Atlanta, is trying to resolve the content issues, by having requested formal mediation. Requesting formal mediation is not characteristic of article ownership. However, the filing editor, User: MjolnirPants, by filing here, is blocking the effort to resolve the content dispute. The rules concerning mediation include "8. No related dispute resolution proceedings are active in other Wikipedia forums", and this is a conduct dispute resolution forum and so a form of dispute resolution that precludes mediation. This is not the first time that the filing party has declined content resolution. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_130#Talk:Argument_from_authority, in which I tried to conduct light-weight mediation at the dispute resolution noticeboard. User:MjolnirPants disagreed with my approach to moderation (in particular, my hatting of commentary on contributors), and requested to close the dispute resolution. They could instead have asked for a different moderator. If User:MjolnirPants actually wants to resolve the content dispute, they should request closure of this thread as withdrawn. If they actually insist on treating this as a conduct dispute, they should read the boomerang essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: You have mischaracterized and over simplified the events surrounding the closure of the previous mediation case. You never mentioned that the mediation case had been accepted, before you appeared to hat commentary of mine (while ignoring similar commentary of FLoA), and finally declaring yourself the mediator after I disputed the hatting. I am further left wondering why I had to search for your reason for taking over the case myself. That is the sort of information one thinks might be important to pass on to the participants, especially when the case has been taken over by someone who's already butted heads with one of the participants, a fact which is, itself, more than a little improper. I understand, having gone through the effort of tracking down the cause, why another mediator needed to take that case. What I do not understand is why that mediator should have been someone who'd just been in conflict with one of the participants, and why no effort to explain the situation was made. If that is the way in which you normally comport yourself as a volunteer, then be assured that I would never participate in a case with you as moderator, nor advise anyone else to do so. It was just poorly handled.

This is not the first time that the filing party has declined content resolution... Nor the second, third, nor any other ordinal number. I did not refuse to follow through with the mediation. I explicitly agreed to continue with it. That's not all, however. You stated that FloA was trying to resolve the issue through formal mediation, but left out that he had explicitly posted a refusal to proceed just yesterday. I would provide diffs of this, but naturally, the page has been blanked and its history deleted.

In fact, you have yet to offer even the slightest hint as to why our entire history of interaction has been you inserting yourself uninvited into discussions in order to align yourself firmly against whatever position I've taken. I don't know why this is, and I don't care to speculate, but it's quite apparent.

Finally, I have read the boomerang essay. It's part of the reason I didn't come back here the moment FLoA began arbitrarily reverting my and Original Position's edits to the article. It's part of the reason I explicitly told Nyttend that I didn't want to make a new filing here. I don't like posting here, and I don't want admin intervention. I've just come to a point where it's impossible to converse rationally with FLoA, and his behavior is making it impossible for me to edit the article [71] [72] [73] [74] [75]. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The filing party writes: "I don't want admin intervention." This noticeboard is a place to request admin intervention. What is the purpose of this post if not to request admin intervention? Is the filing party willing to withdraw this post and allow formal mediation? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to pay taxes, either, but I do. Because I want to stay out of jail, more. In this case, I want to improve that article more than I want to avoid getting admins involved, so I came here because I've reached the point where I strongly doubt anything short of admin intervention will get through to FLoA. If that attention consists of something as simple as an admin reiterating that he should not be editing that article, I will be happy. It may be necessary to ban or block him to enforce that, but again: I don't care about that. I care about the article.

I am willing (as I've stated multiple times now, but which you seem to keep missing) to go forward with mediation, though I have serious doubts as to whether it will work. FLoA has already contradicted himself and made blatantly false claims multiple times in his mediation request, which I remind you again; he opened in a highly dishonest way.

Don't take my willingness to engage in mediation as a willingness to engage in any mediation in which you are involved, however. I don't know why you have a problem with me, but it is clear that you do, and as a result I don't trust or respect your judgement at all. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not a formal mediator. If there is formal mediation, it will probably be conducted by User:Sunray. However, the request for mediation is on hold (and blanked) because of your filing here. You can't pursue mediation and WP:ANI at the same time. Do you want to withdraw this filing and pursue mediation, or do you want to request admin action such as a topic-ban? You can't do both at once. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I can't help but notice that for the very first time, you've actually addressed me directly. I'm not sure what to make of that. I have some hope that a formal mediation deciding the issue might convince him to knock off this sort of behavior. It's not much, but it's some. Admin intervention however, comes with a mechanism of enforcement so that it doesn't matter whether he agrees with it or not. If I can indeed only pursue one course, then I must balance my options and when faced with the choice between a slim chance and what amounts to a sure thing... Well, that's really not a choice. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I see that no one except the filing party, the other editor, and I have said anything. That may be partly because the original post is too long, difficult to read, and also because the filing party hasn't requested any specific admin action. The filing party says that they are willing to follow formal mediation, but the presence of this report is blocking mediation. There are several ways forward. First, the filing party can request that this report be closed to permit mediation to advance. Second, the filing party can request some specific admin action, such as a topic-ban of the reported editor, which may either be implemented or declined. Third, this report can sit here until it is archived. I don't know whether formal mediation will be able to continue if this report is archived with no action. Those are the possible ways forward that I see. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The commenting party might want to read Grammatical person and Personal pronouns and familiarize themselves with the usual norms of address in the English (and every single other) language, as the insistence upon maintaining the third person represents a facade of addressing an audience (whose existence the commenting party has questioned) and suggests that addressing the subject directly is beneath the speaker. tl:dr: Your mannerisms are arrogant and rude, and your opinions are unwanted and irrelevant. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Here is the basic issue. There was a discussion of this situation on this page a month ago. The result of that discussion was an admin (User:Nyttend) telling FL or Atlanta and PerfectOrangeSphere to stop doing more than minor editing of the Argument from Authority page. PerfectOrangeSphere was not able to abide by this and so was given a one-day block with warnings that the blocks would get worse if he kept editing the page. Then, a week ago, FL or Atlanta did the same thing, reverting the disputed edits back to their favored version three times, before agreeing to keep the page mostly unchanged pending the result of mediation.

So, to me this issue has already been decided. An admin warned FL or Atlanta that reverting the recent edits made to the article by Mjolnirpant's and myself would result in a block. FL or Atlanta reverted those edits. Ergo, a block should have ensued.

That being said, it's been almost a week now, and the admins have decided to not block FL or Atlanta. Fine. But now we're left in limbo. Is Nyttend's warning to FL or Atlanta about editing the Argument from Authority page still active? If so, then there is no reason to go through mediation. If it isn't, then fine, let's proceed with mediation. Original Position (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I decided not to block FL or Atlanta because the point of the original warning was "you don't know what you're doing, so stop it or you'll get blocked", and FL or Atlanta has stopped: the problematic editing seen before, hoaxing with the sources and claiming arguments from authority to be fundamentally fallacious, has stopped as far as I've seen. Before, it was a Wikipedia:Competence is required situation at best, with these two editors misunderstanding everything quite badly; this is one of those rare exceptions to "admins don't decide content issues with admin tools", because sheer incompetence produces results that nobody familiar with the sources could ever produce, so we're free to intervene on one side's favor with admin tools, including blocking the incompetent party if needed. Now, it looks more like an ordinary content dispute, a situation with better-understanding editors disagreeing with each other, and as such, admins shouldn't intervene on one side's favor. This needs to be treated more as an editor-behavior situation, a completely different issue. Nyttend (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

PS, starting with a disclaimer: this sounds odd, but bear with me. Basically, this situation is what I was trying to encourage with the warnings and the block for PerfectOrangeSphere. Before, we had a situation that looked like the Dunning-Kruger effect, with POS and FLorAT misunderstanding so badly that they produced major problems. Now, we have a situation in which FLorAT understands better and is trying to engage the sources. The point of the warnings and block was that you need to inform yourself about the basics of a concept before overhauling its article, learning what the sources are talking about so that you don't unintentionally produce a huge mess, and as far as I can tell, FLorAT has made progress in understanding the sources. Maybe sanctions are needed, but if so, that's probably on the behavioral grounds; if it's again a situation of him making a mess because he doesn't understand the sources, you'll need an admin more familiar than I am with formal logic. Nyttend (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I find this confusing. You can look at the history page for the Argument for Authority and see that on January 31 FL or Atlanta three times edited the page to reintroduce back into the article both of the problematic content issues you specifically bring up here, i.e. the claim that arguments from authority are fundamentally fallacious and the english archers video as a source. Not only that, FL or Atlanta also introduced additional false claims because of a misunderstanding of one of the basic concepts in the academic literature relating to this topic (i.e. the difference between presumption and assumption).

I'm not asking for a block--it's too late for that in my opinion. I just want guidance going forward on whether in editing the page we can refer back to your earlier admonition to FL or Atlanta or whether we need to go to mediation to resolve our disagreements. More specifically, I took your warning to be that they should not make substantive edits to the Argument from Authority page because of a lack of understanding of the subject matter. Is that still the case? Original Position (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

That's hardly a "misunderstanding of one of the basic concepts". The definition being used is a legal definition that's being adopted by one of the cited sources, like we discussed. You yourself agree its unclear enough that more explanation is needed with a blue link - and note that the page it redirects to, "presumption", is about legal matters. When you use technical legal terms outside of a legal context, misunderstandings are bound to happen. FL or Atlanta (talk) 04:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Long-term problematic IP editor

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

---

45.26.44.116 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and their previous IP's have a long history of problematic editing, with lots of mildly constructive edits mixed in with occasional additions of blatantly unfounded info, POV pushing, and name calling. Their only response is typically to blank any warnings from their talk page. They were most recently blocked in October for a month, but that has not changed the behavior. Some examples since then:

• Trump Hotel Las Vegas: [76]
• Jessica Moore: [77] [78]
• Reed Cowan: [79]
• Repeated strings of adding unsourced info and being reverted:
  • Democratic debates: [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87]
  • Republican debates: [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93]
  • Brian Kelly: [94] [95]
• Labeling local broadcasting companies as ISIS affiliates: [96] [97] [98] [99]

I think a longer-term block is in order. Toohool (talk) 04:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Well the ISIS stuff alone merits the longest possible block. Softlavender (talk) 10:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Blocked three months. Katie^talk 15:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Considering the nature of the disruptive editing, and the fact that it has been going on for almost 7 months (counting only edits from this IP address), I might well have blocked for longer, but block lengths are always a matter of judgement, and KrakatoaKatie has gone for three months. However, Toohool, you refer to "their previous IP's": can you give some or all of the other IP addresses? If you can, I will look into the editing history to see whether there seems to be a case for a rny range blocks. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Concur that longer block is warranted, but the dynamism of the IP was my concern and I don't have a list of priors. Toohool, list the IPs here and one of us will look into a rangeblock. Katie^talk 15:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

From looking at the edit histories and geolocation I think Special:Contributions/108.233.161.0 is possibly them. Again based on edit histories (but not geolocation) in particular to the same draft articles, I think Special:Contributions/2602:306:CE9A:860:7880:862D:4FB4:1D6B Special:Contributions/2602:306:CE9A:860:DC9A:75D3:8CA5:A080 Special:Contributions/2602:306:CE9A:860:11A6:812B:33D:A2AE etc are them too, but I guess not surprising since these are IPv6, they change a lot more and in any case it looks like the IP changed ISP (and possibly moved if the geolocation is accurate) so not particularly helpful for a range block. Nil Einne (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Yep, those are some of their older IP's. Haven't seen any others in the 45.x range so not much use for a rangeblock. Toohool (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Revenge-reverts of multiple unrelated articles

After the latest episode in a debate that saw Lipsquid repeatedly reinstate content which he had previously even himself agreed didn't belong in the lede of Laffer curve, he now seems to have decided to "retaliate" against me for the revert (which, of course, is being discussed on the talk page) by making three of completely unrelated reverts to articles I had not seen him ever touch before; in all except one, he is undoing changes where I had removed non-lede-worthy content according to an actual incident here at ANI.

This is outright unacceptable and the editor in question isn't even trying to thinly disguise the fact that these consecutive reverts, all in one night's spain, are a simple retaliation (I suppose he hasn't read WP:HOUNDING maybe). It's made more blatant by the fact they include reinstating of things that were reported at ANI as bogus/disruptive edits.

The reverts in question are [100], [101] and [102] (about this last one, I note that primary sources are of course fine for showing the existence of something, and that they are being used right next to the things he reverted for similar things, but he didn't have a problem with those apparently; just saying).

LjL (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I did not make serial reverts, I undid edits that I saw as disruptive. I was unaware of the ANI discussion, but have read it now and still believe my reverts were good faith. LjL marked his edits as WP:UNDUE in the lead and removed the content. If someone believes that sourced content gives UNDUE in the lead, normally they move the sourced content out of the lead and into another section. LjL did not move the content, he deleted it. This is a pattern with him and disruptive behavior. If he had marked the edit as VANDALISM, I would not have reverted it. I actually still see the deletion of sourced content as disruptive and the better policy would be to move it elsewhere in the article or don't tag your edit as UNDUE. In the ANI itself, an Admin makes the statement about the alleged vandal "His edits appear to be in good faith, if perhaps in the wrong part of the article or accompanied by other problems. I would not immediately dismiss arguments citing WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, or WP:Recentism, but do not care to make them myself" Yet LjL did in fact mark his edits as UNDUE. As far as HOUNDING, which makes me chuckle, see my edit below. LjL isn't incompetent, he is a vindictive serial reverter with a long memory of past arguments. Lipsquid (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if Lipsquid did anything wrong or if they simply noticed that User:LjL was being disruptive on one article, so they decided to check the history of their contributions, but I think it's hillarious for LjL to come to AN/I to complain about WP:HOUNDING when they don't have an exactly clean record on this score themselves. In Nov 2015, I got into a dispute with LjL on the article November 2015 Paris attacks. He claimed consensus when they didn't have it (IMO). After about a week I shrugged my shoulders, dropped it, and moved on. LjL kept trying to make drama out of it but the whole thing died out simply because I ignored it. But then, almost two months later, when I had an argument with another user which wound up at WP:AE, LjL popped out of nowhere claiming that s/he was "at his wits end" in dealing with me (even though we haven't interacted for two months! even though I let them have their way on the Paris attacks article!) and demanded I be sanctioned [103]. The request was actually closed with no action.

Point being, if you act in a petty, immature, vengeful way yourself, you don't really have much of a right to show up at AN/I complaining that someone somewhere reverted you and you think that was "revenge".Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

(and for the record I'm involved in the article Laffer Curve which is how I saw this posting).Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You can come up with ad hominems based on past incidents (the funny thing being you still insist there was no consensus for the thing you are hinting about, even in the striking presence of this, but whatever); what matters here and now is that Lipsquid literally reverted previous ANI consensus against edits universally agreed to be inappropriate (though possibly in good faith, yet with a potential COI), and did it just based on the fact that I was the one undoing them (since obviously, unless he's incompetent, which I don't believe, everyone else was in agreement those edits were obviously bad: do look at the report against JoeSakr1980 if you want to comment further).

Anyway, since this has resulted in the reinstatement of some of those "bad" edits, I'll be pinging the editors who intervened in the previous ANI report: @JoeSakr1980, EtienneDolet, Liz, Elie plus, Ian.thomson, and Jbhunley:. LjL (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not engaging in "ad hominens". I am describing your actions. The fact that they don't look good is your problem not mine. Oh, and good luck with that disruptive WP:CANVASSing you've got planned there. Maybe it's WP:BOOMERANG time here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow is this pot calling the kettle black. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=685861157#Lipsquid_edit_warring_just_short_of_WP:3RR_with_very_personal_application_of_WP:RS_principles

"First reverts"? What are you talking about? I've been reverting countless edits on many articles. I also had started participating in the Laffer curve-related debates before this ANI. I am also pretty much entitled to see if someone who, in my opinion, is breaking policy (such as edit warring) in one place is doing the same in other places - that's not WP:HOUNDING, in fact it's explicitly mentioned there as not being. Note also WP:AOHA please. LjL (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I also am entitled to review the edits of someone, who in my opinion, is breaking policy... Lipsquid (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• I am not sure who follows whom, but at least on page Laffer curve User:LjL appears for the first time on October 9 to fix edit made a few hours before by User:Lipsquid [104]. No judgement about content; I never edited these subjects. My very best wishes (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, this is getting even funnier. So apparently after getting into a dispute with Lipsquid on Flat Earth, LjL followed them to cause trouble on the articles Supply-side economics and Laffer curve (I've been wondering what LjL was doing there as that's pretty out of their usual topic area - this explains it). And now they're complaining that they're being followed? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I would like to point out that LjL has a long track record and pattern of bringing baseless accusations to the WP:ANI boards rather than appropriately using the {WP:TALK]] pages to gain consensus. When any user reverts an edit (and if he had bothered to ask for reasons, he would have received them) such users are either brought here as WP:BOOMERANG or they are called "trolls" among other ad hominem [[105]]. As you will see from that last link, LjL has abused the WP:TALK pages to "grand-stand" and states repeatedly there are users he is unwilling to " engage with, because of previous personal reasons" rather than discuss the article. This user needs to realize when others point out his errors in English grammar or disagree with his reverts it is not a personal attack, and stop the disruptive behavior of taking everything to the WP:ANI simply because he is not mature enough to talk things out. Frankly, if he is unwilling to participate in discussions resulting from his edits, then he does not belong here.Trinacrialucente (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

All there if you follow the contribs, I angered him on an edit on October 9th on the Flat Earth article and he has been following me around and reverting me since... Can't hide from the logs. I would like to see a BOOMERANG topic ban on Supply-Side Economics related pages for LjL to discourage bad behavior.. Lipsquid (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I would agree. He initially followed me around (wouldn't call it WP:HOUNDING and did some reverts, ask for citations (already mentioned in previous sections of an article) etc, then got upset when I took a look into what he was up to (which was essentially a lot of bad English grammar and intervening in disputes which he had no part in to antagonize other editors). I would support your topic ban, but also feel based on his constant abuse of WP:ANI, ad hominem, unwillingness to discuss topics appropriately, and misuse of WP:TALK pages that he should get a 72-hour "cool-off" WP:BLOCK.Trinacrialucente (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@Lipsquid:, Trinacrialucente:"I would like to see a BOOMERANG topic ban . . . for LjL to discourage bad behavior." That sounds like you want a ban on the user as punishment. Isn't that not allowed? --Mr. Guye (talk) 04:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

What is it that you assume that a BLOCK is? A reward? Incentives, both negative and positive, are used to alter behavior. People can make up nice wording (labels) for concepts if they like, but that is still how the world works. A BLOCK is a means to alter bad behavior, the label we use (punishment, cool-off, whatever) doesn't change the root concept. A WP:BLOCK is in order Lipsquid (talk) 05:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

A topic-ban from starting AN/I threads would be a good start as a preventive measure.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

A topic ban to give some space and allow things to blow over, assuming the person is capable of letting things go, would certainly be welcome. Lipsquid (talk) 07:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Look, any admin at this point is of course free to do what they want, including a "topic ban" (from just about everything? so a block, I guess) on me, since really, my ability to edit Wikipedia is not worth losing my sanity over these three particular people, Trinacrialucente constantly mocking my English just because he saw I used to have an "Italian native" user box on my page (his Italian is horrid but he kept talking to me in Italian even though I repeatedly asked him not to, and he also kept writing to my user talk page after I said he was NOT welcome there, and the other two jumping on any chance to bite back, and Lipsquid reinstating disruptive edits against ANI consensus (note that they have been reinstated again now by Someguy1221: [106], [107]; are you going to revert them again, Lipsquid?). I throw the towel, I give up, I wish one of the reasonable people I've met here, namely NeilN, could have a look at all this, but he isn't around, and that the people who previously handled the incident involving Economy of Uruguay etc. showed up to object to these arbitrary reverts, but they aren't, so really, do what you want. I honestly wish what you wanted is to go to hell, but that's not up to me. I'm done. LjL (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

What more does anyone need to see to know the community needs to be protected from this guy until he can get his head straight? Lipsquid (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's see, now we have one more gratuitous revert where he re-adds material that I had removed from Popcorn Time because it was purely sourced from a blog (and there is an actual danger as there currently appear to be two competing Popcorn Time "factions" accusing each other of shipping malware, so we definitely don't want to endorse one as legitimate without very very valid sources). Who's damaging Wikipedia? You really have no shame. LjL (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

You forgot to mention you first had another gratuitous revert on the same material that brought us here. More pot calling kettle black. At what point is enough, enough? Lipsquid (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Indiscriminative addition of articles to language-category

Can someone block User:Vivek Sarje right now? He's indiscriminately adding a massive amount of articles to Category:Hindi words and phrases, despite three requests + explanation by Uanfala not to do so.

NB: maybe he already stopped; the times given at his contribution-list seems to be dated one hour later than the times that I see at his talkpage. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

campaign to undermine the Wikimedia Foundation on behalf of an organisation whose interests are in direct conflict

I've just had an "interesting" message on my talk page [108] "You have been chosen at random as the next target for vandalism and trolling. Fear not, it is nothing personal, merely a campaign to undermine the Wikimedia Foundation on behalf of an organisation whose interests are in direct conflict. As such, I have been commissioned to select Users, in this case yourself, and to continually harass them until they leave before selecting a new target."

I've blocked the IP as a vandal, but does anyone know anything about this? Thryduulf (talk) 17:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

That's just a troll I'm thinking, trying to act "tough" RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

That does seem likely as the block seems to have shut them up for now, but we'll see. Thryduulf (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Obviously English form the text and the IP is a UK mobile gateway, are you in the UK? Guy (Help!) 18:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I am. However the last troll I pissed off (to my knowledge) was from Texas. Thryduulf (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• I noticed that the IP made some edits to the talk page for Comeonbrowhy. They also edited Fraternities and sororities, which was edited from the same account. Here's one by Comeonbrowhy and one by the IP. Apparently they were both trying to add File:Alpha Delta Gamma.jpg to the article. I'm not entirely certain if they're the same person or not, however, but this is a little too random to really ignore. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Same pest from UK IP addresses (usually dynamic Vodaphone blocks) that occasionally pesters me and a few other editors by reverting a handful of our recent edits. Might be the same primary schooler that kept posting messages to ANI warning about "his friend that was going to unleash a MASSIVE SOCK ATTACK" that caused massive amounts of yawning. Nothing that the occasional temp rangeblock can't handle. The only connection to User:Comeonbrowhy is that I'd reverted edits by that user earlier. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Multiple IPs adding copyvio images and completely unverifiable information to articles

At Nevzat Halili, multiple IP addresses have been adding an inappropriately-uploaded image to the article. The uploader of this image has been blocked on commons for uploading such images as his own work. It would seem that the uploader and these IPs are the same individual. Also at Republic of Ilirida, the same group of IPs have been adding an infobox containing a flag and coat of arms that were uploaded with no sources backing their validity. It also contains unverifiable information since the "republic" is more of a concept and has no defined borders or official languages, etc. --Local hero ^talk 17:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I just realised that the uploader of these images that was just blocked on commons, User:Sinani milaim, is banned on the English Wikipedia for sockpuppetry. Therefore, all these IPs are likely sockpuppets. --Local hero ^talk 19:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Local hero, have you filed an SPI? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes I have, Oshwah. It's still open. The problem going forward seems to be his ability to use an infinite amount of IP addresses. --Local hero ^talk 16:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hasteur messing with my postings in a discussion

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

---

In a discussion on WP:ANI, editor Hasteur—with whom I indeed have not always agreed in everything, in that discussion—on 5 Feb 2016 started to hide parts of my postings. That feels like a major invasion of my freedom of speech and discussion. I can only assume that he either is not happy with some comments etc. of mine, or disagrees with them. That can’t be valid reasons to obscure parts of postings from others, I guess? I’ve asked him why he did it and what his right is to do that, and have restored my postings as they were; but I fear, he or a colleague will repeat that obscuring-edit. Can someone have at look at it?
A remarkable ‘coincidence’ is, that the whole discussion there on ANI came about after another colleague, Legacypac, seemed to also obstruct/frustrate a discussion I was holding, on another page: Talk SCW. --Corriebertus (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment: You do not have freedom of speech. Wikipedia is not a government. You have no rights here. --Tarage (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• Well, rights...let's talk about manners. "questionably impartial judge" is not great word choice on Hasteur's part: such headings should be neutral of course. Then again, whatever is being proposed by Corriebertus seems to gain little traction--perhaps someone who is not about to play a board game can look at it and maybe close whatever needs closing. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Srsly Drmies, priorities much? UPDATE: Oh wait, you came back and closed it. Softlavender (talk) 06:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender, my marriage and my children are more important than this website. In the event, we didn't actually play any games, but I did clean the kitchen--and later watched High Society with my daughter. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Corriebertus:, the general purpose of collapsing a section is when a discussion veers more or less off course or is at least mildly unconstructive. There's nothing we can do to prevent people from making that judgment call in general, but it shouldn't be done if you're not detracting from the discussion. I think it's fine to make proposals, but it becomes disruptive to assess all or most comments that are contrary to your position. Also, I don't see where you talked to Hasteur directly about this (edit summaries do not constitute actual communication), did that happen someplace other than your talk pages? I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Your postings were collapsed because you were nitpicking every last point of view you disagree with constitute the prime case of Harassment and trying to misrepresent the will of people. I stand by the collapses (which I see that 2 other editors in good standing agreed with) if not the message I put at the top of the collapses. I further enddorse the general close of your attempt to water down the discussion by proposing something that is a complete non-starter. If I was feeling less calm right now I would describe your actions/editorial decisions as wikilawyer/wikitrolling, but we're obligated to Assume Good Faith, so I'll simply say that "I think the editor doth protest too much". Hasteur (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Repeated personal attacks despite several warnings

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

---

An IP has reiterated personal attacks despite being warned several times by at least three editors about it. His most recent attack: [109]. This might be interpreted as begging to be blocked. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

He is likely the same person as DifensorFidelis. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

He falsely promised to take heed of those warnings: [110]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Admission that he is the same person at [111] (talking about his former talk page). Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Fake apology (nothing but another attack) at [112]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• It looks like his registered account has replaced his IP editing; therefore it may be too soon to file this ANI (he's only made 15 non-userpage edits and you haven't provided any diffs of the new account's behavior). If the behavior continues, then that would be the time to either file an ANI or notify the user or Doug Weller. Softlavender (talk) 12:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• • There is this where DifensorFidelis wrote an edit summary including "; most likely another deliberate misrepresentation of the source material by an anti-theist, anti-Jewish or anti-Christian contributor". Doug Weller talk 14:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• • • The IP was blocked at 18:04 UTC today, but the account was created earlier yesterday. It's my opinion that the 72 hour block should be placed on the account, and yes, they are the same. Doug Weller talk 20:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• • • • To be exact, DifensorFidelis started editing at 17:12 yesterday. Interesting that they quickly found userboxes for their userpage. The attack I mentioned above was made last night at 21:29, so the editor was editing as an IP and with the account at the same time. Doug Weller talk 21:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Definitely not a new user, the IP got blocked in 2014 for edit warring at The Exodus, and he has recently edit warred at the same article before being blocked. See [113]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorted. Hardblocked. Doug Weller talk 12:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Copyright violations at WVU Libraries articles

Editor Melissarogue has been repeatedly adding promotional copyvio from the WVU Library website to a few articles, notably to the article currently titled West Virginia University Libraries. Repeated warnings and explanations at her talk page have been ignored; her only reply so far is a claim that she's somehow being victimised by me, or by Wikipedia policy. The latest addition is this edit with copyvio from https://lib.wvu.edu/evansdale/about and https://lib.wvu.edu/healthsciences/. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 00:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

She's also uploaded at least one blatant copyvio file, which I've tagged for speedy. Her other two uploads, which are less blatant, I've sent to PUF. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, she hasn't edited since February 1, so I'm inclined to wait to block for copyvios until she responds here or on her talk page. I think she's trying to do the right thing but she simply doesn't understand that she has to rewrite the content. She claims to be working with a Wikipedia librarian - is there a Wikipedian in residence at WVU? Paging the GLAM folks. Katie^talk 01:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I've done the copyvio clean-up on the article and given it the once-over copy-edit-wise. — Diannaa (talk) 02:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The clean-up looks good to me. Good work, Diannaa :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes indeed, thanks Diannaa. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 09:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I have just started editing on wikipedia. I obviously know now that I should have had some more training before I just started editing. I was using a trial and error technique and admitting failed to read the instructions and just jumped right in due to impatience. I now understand what it means to post copyrighted material. I hope I can explain this right... One section of information, about Evansdale Library, has been disputed the most. Originally the section was on the West Virginia University main page under the Libraries section. It was out of place in this location. I copy-pasted it, which I know now was incorrect, and moved it to the West Virginia University Libraries and made no changes. If was then flagged, for being a copy-paste. I then re-wrote the section and added new citations, it was then flagged. It was approved on the WVU main page, but not on the Libraries. I know now that I should have looked into having this section moved over to a different wiki. Now I lost the information and all the past editing, and the specific editors of it, which is all my fault. I don't know if there is anyway to restore what I messed up on. I have a saved copy of the information, but not which users did previous editing. I would like to be able to fix this, but it might now be gone for good. Second, is the matter of the photos. I had hoped I added the correct tags to upload copyrighted photos, but I must have done it incorrectly. I am remedying this situation by replacing the offending photos with ones that I, personally, have ownership of.Melissarogue (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The section in question is this: The Evansdale Library supports the academic programs and research centered on the Evansdale Campus. The library holds materials in the disciplines of agriculture, art, computer science, education, engineering, forestry, landscape architecture, mineral resources, music, physical education, and theater. In addition to the collections, Evansdale Library is home to da Vinci's Cafe, an Information Technology Services Big Prints! poster printing lab, and the Academic Innovation Teaching and Learning Commons Sandbox.

The original editor was User:That_librarian_88. Is there anyway to revert this back to her? And then, see if I can get this section moved over to WVU Libraries?Melissarogue (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Ibkib

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

---

User:Ibkib has clearly admitted a conflict of interest here "we are Abdul Aziz Saud Al BAbtain company, we are the responsible for inserting or modify the information for Abdul Aziz Al Babtain"

The article Abdulaziz Al-Babtain was started in October 2011 by an SPA User:Amadah and massively expanded by User: Zagreat who also started the article Foundation of Abdulaziz Saud Al-Babtain's Prize for Poetic Creativity, The article was fairly stable until 21 December 2015 when User:Ibkib started adding massive, promotional and copyright additions. These were reverted by several editors, including User:Diannaa who deleted 407Kb here with an edit summary "not the kind of content we are looking for, and at least some of it is a copyright violation". Since then there have been several attempts to re-insert this unsourced, promotional, "information", which were reverted by several editors.

I have explained to the editor about COI, and what the editor should do, rather than edit the article itself, at User talk:Ibkib#Abdulaziz Al-Babtain, at Talk:Abdulaziz Al-Babtain#Unsourced additions and Conflict of interest and at User talk:Arjayay#Abdul Aziz Al Babtain. This advice has been totally ignored.

On 4 February, User:Ibkib created Www.albabtainprize.org, a WP:COATRACK article, into which was pasted a 52Kb version of what he is trying to push. I changed this to a redirect to Abdulaziz Al-Babtain, so he created a 60Kb version at AbdulAziz Saud AlBabtain which I also turned into a redirect.
On 6 February he created Abdulaziz saud albabtain (330kb) which was turned into a redirect by User:NeemNarduni2, reverted back to an article by User:Ibkib⋅and re-reverted to a redirect by User:NeemNarduni2, He then created Abdulaziz saud AlBabtain which was also turned into a redirect by User:NeemNarduni2 ⋅

It seems that this user, who is "responsible for inserting or modify the information for Abdul Aziz Al Babtain" is determined to get his/their version of the article into Wikipedia, even if it is under a different title, and is unwilling to take advice. There have been other SPAs, such as User:Sul59 and User:TurnBrain who appear to be sock/meat puppets. Could someone please look at this, and take action to prevent this "information" being forced into an article - Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you for reporting, Arjayay. I have blocked Ibkib indefinitely, since they seem impervious to advice and warnings. I don't think it's the old problem of not being aware they have a talkpage, since they did respond here to this message. They can be unblocked if they request it and show some understanding of what you have been telling them. I'm watchlisting Abdulaziz Al-Babtain, but, as always, we depend on the kindness of strangers to keep a lookout for new articles with related content. Please let me know if the other accounts you mention continue to edit problematically; then it might be time to ask a CheckUser. Bishonen | talk 21:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC).

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

User:Akash3141

Concerns were outlined by multiple editors in this version of the page, but weren't acknowledged. The user has returned to further edit war, adding to a long legacy of warring, puffery, article ownership and highly abusive edit summaries. B. Mastino (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I've fixed B. Mastino's link above to link directly to archived thread.LM2000 (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

How am I being abusive?? I'm being so polite, and all my edits can't be dismissed as irrelevant yet you're still getting raged!?!? WHy?? User:Akash3141 —Preceding undated comment added 22:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Your serious abuse is detailed in the link above. B. Mastino (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Your incivility has ended but your problematic edits have not. I'm disappointed that no admin stepped in during the last thread, Akash3141 has continued adding the exact same material that brought him here a few days ago.LM2000 (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@LM2000: not to mention Akash3141 always blanks their talk page when a warning is posted. They don't discuss anything, they just edit to their hearts content without discussion of issues. CrashUnderride 03:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Akash and B. Mastino have both been blocked for 3 days for edit warring but I would like an admin to look into extending those blocks further. Akash's behavior goes well beyond run-of-the-mill edit warring and B. Mastino is an obvious sockpuppet of The abominable Wiki troll.LM2000 (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

IP editor copying plot summaries from IMDB

183.81.9.244 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been copying plot summaries from IMDB despite having been informed of policy on their talk page. Most have been wholesale copying of short summaries but there are also two blatant cases: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sapho_(film)&diff=703239775&oldid=682743476 https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Almost_Married_(1932_film)&diff=703241505&oldid=685590583. To make sure that they weren't the original authors, I looked at the Wayback Machine version of two IMDB pages and found the plot summary already present. I've already gone through and reverted all their plot edits, the rest are just additions to actor filmographys or infoboxes. Opencooper (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The IP editor is still doing this. Block, please. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

That edit took place five hours before Opencooper's post. — Diannaa (talk) 13:18, 7 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 Mona778 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 MPS1992 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) )

endless dispute over Gospels on the Jesus page

This conflict is about the Jesus page: Jesus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). It involves these editors:

• StAnselm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LittleJerry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Farsight001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jonathan Tweet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

To a lesser extent, these editors have also been involved in related discussions:

• FutureTrillionaire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Johnbod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jeppiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mangoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• John Carter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For months, one opinionated editor has tried to push their unpopular views on the other editors, advocating for major changes to the page. Most other editors have repeatedly denounced these suggestions as biased, unnecessary, contrary to the WP way of doing things, and against consensus. Currently all actual discussion on the topic has broken down, and the ad hominem comments are increasing. I'm here asking an administrator to help us resolve this impasse. I'm the opinionated editor with the unpopular views. I say we should describe Jesus the way RSs describe Jesus. The most active, vocal editors, on the other hand, strongly prefer that the page describe Jesus primarily the way the Gospels describe him. Please help us.

On the surface, the issue is content, but underneath it's conduct. Vocal editors have established a norm on the Jesus page that editors should decide how to describe Jesus based on their best judgment rather than on policies or RSs. Their approach is to say that no big changes can be made to the page without consensus, and then they withhold consensus from changes they don't like. Meanwhile, no consensus is required to keep the page the same. Since they back up their decisions with personal opinion rather than policy and RSs, there's no evidence I can look at with them to come to a mutual understanding. In fact, they dismiss the idea of evidence. I've been working on the page slowly but steadily for over a year now, and now my progress is at a standstill. For their part, the editors genuinely believe that they are in the right, and they are absolutely sick of me and my refusal to go along with the majority. More and more, they refuse to even explain why they revert my edits, remove dispute tags, etc. With no progress possible, I'm escalating this issue and hoping for a resolution.

Why is this issue so heated? The point of the other editors' stance is to protect the Gospel accounts of Jesus. Contrary to WP guidelines and the examples of RSs, this page describes Jesus primarily by summarizing the Gospels. Critical commentary is explicitly excluded from the body of this section, which is the biggest section on the page. Historical information is relegated to a secondary section, so the article has two different sections to describe Jesus' life, baptism, teaching, miracles, crucifixion, and resurrection. An open discussion based on policies and RSs would potentially lead to the Gospels no longer getting favored treatment as the primary way we tell the reader about Jesus.

Naturally, these editors sincerely think that they are following policy and RSs. They just don't point to any policies or RSs to support them. The big questions they don't answer are:

• What RS describes Jesus primarily by summarizing the Gospels?
• What policy says we should describe Jesus' life twice, once as a Bible character, and once as a historical figure?
• What guideline or RS demonstrates that we should exclude critical commentary from the Gospel summaries?
• How would it hurt the page for it to emulate Britannica's approach and merge the historical and Gospel descriptions?

My last attempt to reach consensus was a request on the dispute resolution noticeboard. A few potential moderators recused themselves, one editor refused to participate on the grounds that it's a conduct issue and not a content issue, and no moderators volunteered to handle the dispute. Previously I had tried an NPOV request on the question of whether the historical section should go first. One commenter said put the historical section first, and another said merge the historical and Gospel sections, but neither suggestion was acted on. I also tried an RfC on the the same question. The results were mostly No, although no policies or RSs were referenced in opposition to the idea.

For the nine years that I've been editing WP, the Gospels section of the Jesus article has been a source of recurrent conflict. In 2006 when I started editing WP, the Gospels section had no historical introduction (link). Other editors and I added one, but only against resistance from certain editors. The compromise at the time was to have a historical intro to the section but to exclude historical and scholarly comment from the body of the section. There is no support for such a compromise in WP guidelines or among RSs. To this day, editors put up a lot of resistance to the historical approach to describing Jesus, even resisting additions to the parallel "historical views" section. This resistance is a big problem because the historical approach is the mainstream approach, which WP should summarize faithfully.

You can see how far the Jesus article diverges from RSs by comparing it to good encyclopedias.

Here is Encyclopedia Britannica Online.

Here are Jesus entries from several online encyclopedias.

Here are several diffs where the other editors have their say. They offer several opinions on why the page should be this way, but none of those opinions are backed up by WP policies or by RSs.

Historical information restricted.

• Special restriction on what we can put in the history section: diff
• Historical information excluded from Gospels section: diff diff
• This sentence was modified back and forth and then finally deleted: diff
• Reference to world's top scholar on historical Jesus deleted. diff
• Deleting references to the notability of historical works: diff
• "There are no 'historical accounts'": diff
• Historical commentary excluded from Gospels section, only description of the text allowed: diff
• Historial commentary has no value other than to whisper doubt into the ears of the naïve: diff
• Primary-text tag removed from Gospels section: diff
• Primary-text tag removed from Transfiguration section: diff

Policies, guidelines, and RSs do not apply.

• We should use other WP articles as our guidelines rather than RSs: diff
• RSs aren't relevant to this issue: diff
• Gospels are primary sources so they go before history, the examples of RSs don't apply: diff
• The issue is not about evidence or facts, but about what editors prefer: diff
• Rules for WP:STRUCTURE and POV do not apply to Gospel accounts: diff
• Policies don't apply because Gospels are primary sources: diff

Discussion is stymied. For example...

• Undue weight tag removed: diff
• LittleJerry refuses to carry on discussion of why he reverted Undue Weight tag: diff
• Undue weight tag removed and historical commentary deleted: diff
• Farsight refuses to explain why he reverted the Undue Weight tag: diff
• Done with my petulant bullshit: diff
• Refusal to discuss Due Weight tag link
• Refusal to conclude conversation about Gospel contradictions: link
• Refusal to explain what's wrong with the Britannica approach or really to discuss anything further: diff
• At Farsight's suggestion, StAnselm shuts down my thread as tendentious: link

The norm of making decisions without reference to RSs or policy spreads to new editors who join the page. Here's a new editor agreeing with an approach where no RSs or policies have entered the discussion: diff

The Jesus page gets a lot of traffic and is mirrored by other Internet sites, so this page should show WP at its best. This page is important enough that I think that this conflict deserves high-level attention. Please help. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

There are a couple problems here. First, this is a WP:TLDR post. Second, this is a content dispute and, since there is little that admins can do about that, you should move this to WP:DR. MarnetteD|Talk 16:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

MarnetteD beat me to it, I was going to make exactly the same comment. Guy (Help!) 16:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'm happy to take this someplace else if that's better. So far, content-oriented disputes haven't worked. I took this issue to dispute resolution already. The main editor I'm in disagreement with, StAnselm, refused to participate on the grounds that the dispute was over conduct rather than content. And no moderators volunteered to take the case. The moderator who closed the case suggested I could take it here. Likewise, the advice we got from the NPOV noticeboard was ignored. Since the content-oriented approaches failed, I came here. WP:DR didn't get us anywhere before. Should I just try again? Or are there other options? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

What dispute resolution forum did you try? Given the number of editors whom you say are the problem, it sounds as though it might be appropriate to request formal mediation. Have you tried that? If so, what happened? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. This is the first time I've had to go past dispute resolution with an issue, so maybe I took a wrong turn. Mediation looks like a good bet. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

And the dispute resolution that went nowhere was on the WP:DRN page. Potential moderators recused themselves because of personal attachment to the topic and previous interaction with one of the editors. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

By the way, your statement that the other editors say not to make major changes without consensus, and then your claim that the other editors "withhold consensus" from changes they don't like, seems to be a description of how the consensus process is supposed to work. Are you saying that you should be allowed to decide what is consensus? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for asking me to clarify. You're right about consensus. I'm saying that since policies and RSs aren't used as our touchstones, consensus is being withheld based on personal preference. If we could look at RSs together and work to make the page represent them better, we could reach consensus. Withholding consensus because of one's personal beliefs is against WP policy, I think. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment As I was pinged, a short comment. Jonathan, I often agree with you on content matters and you're very knowledgeable, but maybe it's time to drop the stick. As you say, you haven't been able to gain a consensus on the talk page (in my view you were correct some times and wrong some times) but I fear your unwillingness to accept that is becoming a problem (see WP:HEAR). As you also say, you've tried several different boards here on WP. Discussions going in circles for months, several boards implied, and no change in consensus. As Robert McClenon says, that's how consensuses work. I'm afraid that the only thing you'll accomplish by this campaign that approaches a year is to earn yourself a topic ban if an admin decides to imply failure to WP:HEAR. That would be a shame, as you're a knowledgeable user. If nothing has changed after all the different ways you try, then maybe it's time to move on. Jeppiz (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. I agree that maybe it's time for me to move on. I had hoped for resolution in the dispute process, but no one would moderate it. I'm looking for resolution and, if I'm wrong, an answer to the question of how I'm reading policies and guidelines wrong. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Other editors have said that the way we do the Gospels is wrong. They're just not willing to make a big deal over it. So I feel as though I am representing others, not just myself. It would be a lot harder to keep going if several other editors hadn't also called for changes. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Previously when I have needed to escalate an issue on this page and others, I've used a dispute tag. The dispute tag shakes things up, gets attention on the topic, and leads to a resolution. This time around, my dispute tags are summarily deleted, so I haven't been able to resolve the dispute in the usual way. I could recast this incident as "These editors revert my dispute tags." Then it's a narrower incident, and it's about conduct. Or maybe mediation is really the way to go. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

It would appear that your dispute tags are being reverted because there is consensus that they are not needed. If there is consensus that they are not needed, there is no conduct issue. If one editor were reverting dispute tags, that might be a conduct issue. If multiple editors are reverting them, then you are tagging against consensus. I would suggest either requesting mediation or a Request for Comments. You must understand, however, that the RFC might determine that consensus is against you. Also, if consensus is against you, the mediation might not get your changes made. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I take your point. Plenty of editors have called for changes to this section, so it doesn't look like a consensus to me. Honestly I'd rather stick to content issues. But the advice we got from the NPOV notice was ignored, and my main disputant has stated he refuses to discuss the issue in terms of content. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: This looks like a case for WP:ARBCOM. StAnselm (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd rather discuss content, but you said before that you want to treat this as a conduct issue. I guess this means there's no need to ask if you want to take it to mediation. Would you like to proceed, since it's your idea? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

You're certainly treating it as a conduct issue yourself, with all the accusations you've made in this thread. StAnselm (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to let the ad hominem comments etc slide and just talk about the content. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• Has the conduct of some or all of the named editors related to this article come up before here at ANI? If so, I'd say that is probably a reasonable case for ArbCom. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 21:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

From taking a cursory look at the history of the talk page, I do not see any glaring conduct issues. In fact, I see remarkably civil discussions for an extremely sensitive topic. It seems more to me like Jonathan Tweet is upset consensus has not fallen on his side, and wishes to escalate the dispute until it does, or he wins by ArbCom fiat. I'm sure that Jonathan is completely sincere in his belief that he is right, but I see nothing actionable in what he has presented or what I can find myself. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• I think that I speak for ArbCom when I say that no, the less work we get the better. I don't see any reason here, besides Anselm's suggestion, that this can should be kicked that far down the road. In fact, ANI has been remarkably gospel free recently, which is usually a pretty good indication of it being trouble-free in the first place (when was the historicity of Jesus a big deal? is it still?). I'm waiting to see if the other editors who are pinged here are going to weigh in, because their comments, and of course those of others who look into the matter, can suggest a way forward. Pardon me for being crude here, but if indeed the plaintiff is the only one with a problem, then there's two quick and easy suggestions already: a. ignore them and b. topic-ban them. If, on the other hand, there is something to their complaints, we should probably hear about it from more/other editors. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
• Comment (as one of the named parties): Jonathan Tweet says that he wants to keep this about content, but there are lots of references in this post to user conduct: "ad hominem comments", "refusal to discuss", etc. Jonathan Tweet accuses me of refusing to conclude a conversation - as the time stamps indicate, Tweet made a comment on 30 December, and I replied the same day; he then made a comment on 3 January, and I replied the same day; he was then silent for 9 days and then made comments on 12 January and 23 January. It's a bit rich to call this "refusal to conclude"; the discussion had gone stale because he was away for more than a week. This has been a pattern with his editing: there may be good reasons why he has to be away from WP, but he shouldn't blame other editors for not waiting for him (which is, I think, a corollary of WP:OWN). And if I can generalise a little, Jonathan Tweet does seem to be insisting that discussions are conducted on his terms. He admits that he accepted a compromise way back in 2006, but then criticises that compromise position that he accepted. He started an RfC (see Talk:Jesus/Archive 126#RfC: Which should go first: the historical account or the canonical Gospel account?) but doesn't seem to want to accept the result (which was, in fact, closed a WP:SNOW in favour of keeping the "Gospel account" section). StAnselm (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
• I've read this entire discussion and looked over the article. Reliable sources should be the deciding factor in any content or conduct dispute. If one party wishes the entire article to contain content that is cited to reliable sources and another wishes the article to contain content according to their religious beliefs, then clearly we as editors support the first party over the second. We're not going to take the Kim Davis approach here and insist that the beliefs of our faith should always trump Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Having said that, I see that this was made a Featured Article by nominating editor User:FutureTrillionaire just before Jonathan Tweet came along and therefore is probably already is cited to reliable sources throughout. Jonathan, have you discussed this issue with this editor? Do you think anyone, including yourself, is failing to maintain the article according to the strict standards of an FA and the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia? If so, and certainly if anyone's religious beliefs are being held to a higher standard than Wikipedia policy, then this seems like a fairly open-and-shut case. Take this to ArbCom, as User:StAnselm suggests. Prhartcom (talk) 06:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Some independent eyes at these articles would be a good idea. We have statements such as "Some of those who claimed to have witnessed Jesus' resurrection later died for their belief, which indicates that their beliefs were likely genuine", cited to a theologian. Anyone else see a problem with that sentence, or is it just me? Guy (Help!) 12:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by 'problem'. Theologically speaking, someone who has been persecuted and martyrd for their beliefs, does indicate their beliefs had weight depending on the viewpoint of the person making the statement. Jesus died for our sins and all that. Of course thats complete rubbish for any science or evidence based article but in context and attributed correctly may be relevant on religious/theological/faith articles depending on how it is used. Can you link where that is from? Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind, found it. It could be worded better but in context its meant to emphasise that the witnesses of the resurrection died for their beliefs, not that their beliefs regarding the resurrection were real - but that their faith in what they saw was real - hence 'dying for their belief'. Its not meant to comment on the fact of their belief, only the strength of their faith. Its relevant in context due to the subsequent motives ascribed to the authors of the gospels - that they may have been less than truthful. That some of them died for their beliefs (for theologians) indicates they did believe what they wrote. It could probably use a re-write but in the context in which it is used, its a relevant theological argument. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Prhartcom, " I see that this was made a Featured Article by nominating editor User:FutureTrillionaire just before Jonathan Tweet came along and therefore is probably already is cited to reliable sources throughout. Jonathan, have you discussed this issue with this editor?" Yes, I have.. If you look at the Gospels summaries, you will see that they are sourced mostly to the Gospels themselves or to sources that merely paraphrase the Gospels without critically analyzing them. Certain scholarly commentary is allowed, but most is excluded See the diffs above. Historical commentary that's cited to the best RSs gets reverted if it's too likely to whisper doubt into the ears of the naive, as Mangoe phrases it. Compare how we treat the Gospels to how any other encyclopedia on Jesus does. We're the only ones to set the Gospels off without historical commentary, context, etc. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• Content comment Since we apparently discuss content at ANI, my view is that Jonathan Tweet, while a good and knowledgeable editor, is very much mistaken in presenting this as an argument between faith and sources. If that were the case, it would be easy. It's not. Contrary to what Jonathan says, I don't see the article relying on gospels nor do I see anyone suggesting it should. Mainstream academia in this field "rely" on the gospels. Not that they accept them as the truth, but as some of the earliest records. What the article should do is of course to present this mainstream research. Now, I have deliberately stopped following the talk page discussions months ago, but looking back, I get a bit of an impression that it's not really gospels vs RS, it's rather RS saying one thing vs RS saying another thing. That's fine, but it's not an issue for Ani nor for ArbCom (Drmies, correct me if I'm wrong). I really do not think it's helpful when Jonathan continues to present this dispute as a "believers vs scholars" and accusing some of those involved of preferring faith. Jonathan, you know I've supported you in several matters, including the table we both supported and unfortunately didn't gain consensus, but I really must tell you that I fear you be the problem. I see no bad conduct from anyone involved, just serious users arguing their case. I may not always agree with all of their views, but there's nothing wrong with their conduct. Wikipedia works by consensus, and neither ANI nor ArbCom nor Jimmy Wales nor anyone else is going to step in and overturn that. I've lost count of the number of RfCs and other venues taken to overturn the consensus, none of them going anywhere and probably rightly so. I encouraged you yesterday to drop the stick and I repeat it now. I do think you're right in some of your concerns but I do not think it justifies all of the endless discussions that have become very repetitive and frankly is the reason I left that article. Jeppiz (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Jeppiz, ArbCom can handle most everything but prefers to handle nothing, and not just because we're on strike pending a dispute over our lunch and dinner allowances from the Foundation; it's always best if editors handle stuff by themselves--content- and conduct-wise. I do not see any reason to think that this can't be solved here, at DR, or on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Mess at Guernsey with one editor unilaterally moving, creating, and mass-editing articles

Following a discussion at Talk:Guernsey, it was agreed to split the article into two. User:BushelCandle has attempted to move the article to a new title and create a third article without consensus. See Guernsey: Revision history, Guernsey (island): Revision history, and Bailiwick of Guernsey: Revision history. I don't know what I can do at this point. Rob984 (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the article (Guernsey) needs to be rolled back to revision 699771192 (10:50, 14 January 2016) (before any reorganising began), and any new articles deleted, and then discussion needs to be had to determine how the article should be split/reorganised. But someone needs to enforce this. Rob984 (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't really know what needs to happen, but I do hope the move-warring will stop so I can get on with editing the content, wherever it ends up. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• When are we going to institute some kind of modest badge of shame to be permanently displayed on user pages – one for every time the user comes whining to ANI about a kitten up a tree, a lost pencil, or (as here) a non-important, non-urgent, just-a-content-dispute-with-discussion-in-progress-at-this-very-second non-incident? EEng 21:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• I don't see a good deal of move-warring; all I see is Guernsey getting moved to Jurisdiction of Guernsey and back, just once. That's hardly move-warring. Did I miss something? Anyway, Rob's asking for technical assistance at resolving a big mess with page histories, something that requires G6 housekeeping deletions among other things; the admin boards are the best place to make such a request. I disagree with his assessment of the situation, but it's not a run-too-fast-to-ANI situation. Nyttend (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Every post here sucks up something like an hour of editor time, just for 200 stalkers to spend 20 seconds eyeballing it. ANI is for urgent or incorrigibly chronic situations. First step: ask a friendly, neutral admin to take a look. Next step: post at AN (not ANI). Maybe after two months, bring it here. EEng 22:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Well I give up. It's impossible dealing with that editor. They also surpassed 3RR, so you could deal with that. This is the first time I have come here I think? Where the hell am I suppose to go? Or am I expected to keep reverting his crap? I can't be bothered. Rob984 (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Also there is not ongoing discussion. At the time I submitted this he was simply reverting. Now he is just yelling at me because I apparently have no knowledge of the topic... Rob984 (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I already said where you should go: ask a friendly but uninvolved admin to take a look. EEng 05:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

So just drag in some random admin I know who may or may not want to be involved in the issue? Where they can say "Ugh, here, let me get a hold of admin X", who then gets ahold of admin Y, who then finds the right solution to the problem? Alternatively, post to an admin board, where an interested and willing admin can step forth, solve the issue, and save everyone time. Your proposed "wasted time" is no more than a few minutes of reading. Hardly an issue. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 06:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Not drag, but ask some random admin, who may or may not want to be involved. If he or she does, great. If not, then you might go to WP:AN, but not here to ANI. There's a huge difference between the two, and it's not (as you say) a few minutes of reading. Hundreds of editors watch here, and even 20 seconds from each, just to skim the thread and move on, represents a huge waste of editor time. And BTW, the only reason I suggested an admin is that, apparently, some admin tools may be needed to correct page histories etc. If it weren't for that, I'd be telling the OP he should have tried WP:3O, WP:DRN, etc. before coming to AN or ANI. EEng 07:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I admit I did not know the difference. You could have just pointed me there to begin with (if I new of "a friendly, neutral admin", I would have asked). Though the editor has now decided he is actually willing to discuss his proposals. Thanks anyway. Rob984 (talk) 12:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Rob984 writes above "it was agreed to split the article into two" but provides no diff of where this mythical agreement was reached (unless the agreement was with himself). In fact a knowledgeable local editor developed our Bailiwick of Guernsey from the re-direct it had been for several years and then, to his great anguish, User:Rob984 unilaterally reverted all his hard work. I do agree that all this moving and re-naming and reverting needs to stop and a plan for article development relating to Guernsey be agreed. If both User:Rob984 and myself agree to abstain from that discussion, I should imagine that agreement can be agreed within a matter of hours and days. BushelCandle (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Flurry of vandalism at Star Fox-related articles

I've managed to stem the tide - I've blocked two vandalism-only accounts and have protected Fox McCloud, Wolf O'Donnell, and List of Star Fox characters for one week each. I'm concerned there may be others I miss, too - anyone fancy a look to see what else needs to be done?. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Probably a result of the new Star Fox on the WiiU (buy it now!) thats just been released - I will take a look. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Obstructive IP editor at Barbara Allen (song)

Earlier today I made this report at AIV regarding continued disruptive editing by User:23.241.194.45 at Barbara Allen (song) after 4 warnings. The administrator dealing has directed me to ANI instead. The talk page discussion Talk:Barbara_Allen_(song)#Origins is pertinent, possibly also the discussion on the AIV admin's page.

A content dispute (regarding origins of the song) was the background but after trying to persuade the IP to engage in the WP:BRD cycle by accepting the status quo ante and discussing, they effectively refused this path, adding back the contentious text to the article. The issue then became the unco-operative and disruptive behaviour of the user.

The first vandalism warning was issued for this edit as it included the clear misreperesentation of the text of a quote (in the citation by Raph). The text was added back by the IP here, minus the alteration to the quote this time, and on investigation it became plain that the cited sources therein, at least in some cases, did not support the edit. In the light of the previous edit's manipulative character, it seemed reasonable that the intent was again to misrepresent. Another warning was issued, the improperly cited material removed but it was added back. Rather than attempting to remove the material again, I tagged the article that its factual accuracy was in dispute, tagged the specific disputed element, tagged the sources which were demonstrably misrepresented and requested quotations from the remaining sources, there being reasonable suspicion they were similarly misrepresented. The IP user immediately removed the tags, was warned this was disruptive, then repeated the removal: here and here.

My issue is thus less the inclusion of the misrepresented material now but that the IP is blocking me from even noting in the article that the material is contested.

I requested both on the article talk page and in attempted dialogue with the IP at the AIV admin's page that "Progress would be made by allowing me to indicate my dispute of your edits on the article page without templates being blanked and by addressing those tags that request quotations from the sources which you claim to support your case but refuse to provide." No such reversion to inclusion of the tags has been made to the article and neither are the requested quotes from the citations forthcoming at talk. Any path to resolution of the dispute is thus blocked and the existence of the dispute obscured from the article itself.

Per my AIV submission, I would have thought the IP's continued obstructive and disruptive behaviour worthy of a temporary block but I'd be interested in any views as to a way forward on the matter. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• As I have stated before, I was not being disruptive, Mutt Lunker repeatedly deleted well sourced information and violated the three delete rule. He has also used reporting me, on pages such as this one and others as a form of bullying in an attempt to gain leverage for his poorly source and unsubstantiated view. He's resorted to things such as name calling, giving me a "final warning" as a first warning and then attempting to force his view by reporting me. All of my edits, are supported by the sources I provided, his are not and he has engaged in an edit war accordingly of which this is part.23.241.194.45 (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Getting called out on something is not yet "bullying", but false claims of vandalism are disruptive and blockable. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
• I'm going to take this edit as emblematic of what's going on here. The IP's formatting is messed up, the style in the citations is all over the place and they freely offer (unwarranted) editorial commentary, and the sourcing, what I can see of it, is below par. Not many links are provided but this one is not a reliable source, and it's remarkable that they left the BBC source in, quote and all, "This folk song originated in Scotland". Combine that with the vandalism claims and the lack of good faith presented in one of their very first edits to the article, "seems to have been inserted to push false narrative", and I think we're dealing with someone who is riding a hobby horse without decent knowledge of our guidelines regarding behavior and policy. If they continue in this vein they should be blocked. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• Drmies as I stated, I don't think I was "called out" on something I think I was accused of something, something which I contend I didn't do. As you say about the BBC source, I argued that that was not a valid source, but Mutt Lunker argued it was. The edit that you label as not being in good faith was, as I stated on the talk page of the article, simply an error. Also, you state that my sourcing is below par, but I don't see how the sourcing it replaced isn't? As I stated before, I was given a "final warning" as a first warning by Mutt Lunker, the sources I provided match the info I provided and I would contend that the charge of someone "riding a hobby horse" would much more accurately be directed at Mutt Lunker.23.241.194.45 (talk) 06:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I've just added these sources to the talk page of the Barbara Allen page: Barbara Allen is addressed on page 382 as explicitly "English". No mention of Scotland. Specifically described as an "English vernacular song"

Barbara Allen is described once again as an "English folk song" with no mention made of Scotland.

This is one that analyzes the song in depth and describes it's tune as being "English". Not a single mention of Scotland. Barbara Allen is analyzed on page 330

All of these are peer-reviewed academic sources, whereas the edits by Mutt Lunker and now Drmies would have these be outweighed by one sentence from an inaccurate BBC article, a book on the Irish potatoe famine that is NOT about musicology, and I don't have access to this particular book so I can't comment on the ostensibly relevant quote, but it is from a different field than that which pertains to the article. (Arthur Gribben, ed., The Great Famine and the Irish Diaspora in America, University of Massachusetts Press (March 1, 1999), pg. 112.) and lastly by a non-academic songbook from the 1980s which is not peer-reviewed and was published privately. I still contend that I am not the one being disruptive but rather that Mutt Lunker is. Thankyou for hearing me out23.241.194.45 (talk) 06:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

References

• Points:

1. This is a content dispute.
2. This is an edit war (and both parties should receive talk-page warnings re: edit-warring).
3. The article should therefore probably be fully protected until both parties stop edit-warring and establish consensus on the Talk page.
4. The IP made the BOLD change (to England); therefore since the BOLD change was contested and reverted, per WP:BRD is it incumbent on the IP to establish a WP:CONSENSUS before replacing that BOLD change, no matter how many citations they provide.
5. If no WP:CONSENSUS for the change to "England" is ever reached, the IP can avail themselves of some form of WP:DR if desired, but cannot replace the change. The status quo ante, which in this case was "Scotland", must remain until a verifiable WP:CONSENSUS is present to change it.

-- Softlavender (talk) 10:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks all.

Regarding the IP's claim that their first warning was a final warning, the users talk page clearly bears out the timed sequence of warnings with a first warning first and a final warning fourth.

Regarding edit warring, I appreciate that the edit history is convoluted:

This first edit directly contradicted the quote in the source from Raph, hence my reversion. I had not noticed that the IP was altering the quote itself at that stage. I did not contest this aspect of the IP's edits as it was uncited and OR-ish (though potentially correct).

This edit repeated the last, so again contradicting the existing source and this time adding a new source which the included hyperlink showed that it did not address the issue at hand (not without a considerable dose of interpretation at the most charitable).

Arguably these edits could have been seen as disruptive with their plain contradiction of the existing source and improper use of a supposed second, even with my not having noticed the alteration in the quote, but the somewhat chaotic nature of the edits made me think the IP simply hadn't read the article and existing sources properly so I issued no warnings and engaged on the talk page.

Per my edit summary, this was the point that I noticed the misrepresentation of the quote, clearly disruptive in nature, indicating the suspect nature of the IP's campaign and that a first warning was clearly now warranted. Now that bad faith was apparent, my subsequent reversion and vandalism warning was on this basis, with the IP's misuse of unsupportive citations supporting the bad faith assessment. I have always understood that reversion of clear vandalism does not consitute warring. The IP subsequently claimed that "changing that source was an error" and as there are evident competence issues, even if error were to be accepted, the edits' nefarious appearance warranted treatment as being of bad faith when addressed.

It was then clear that the IP was not going to heed the warnings given to them and would continually revert to their text. On that basis, I left their content in place and, as mentioned above tagged the article that its factual accuracy was in dispute, tagged the specific disputed element, tagged the sources which were demonstrably misrepresented and requested quotations from the remaining sources, there being reasonable suspicion they were similarly misrepresented".

The IP user immediately removed the tags, was warned this was disruptive, then repeated the removal: here and here. Such removal of maintenance templates is also, to my understanding, classed as vandalism.

In summary my reversions at the article thus regarded: 2 of content which clearly contradicted sources but were not treated as active vandalism at that stage, per WP:AGF; 2 regarding content edits but where the disruptive nature was plainly apparent, so action on vandalism rather than a content dispute; one of the removal of tags rather than content, where the disruptive nature was likewise apparent. In each case, when it was evident the IP would persist in restoring their edits, I left their verison in place. Reversion of two evidently questionble versions followed by that of three plainly disruptive ones, with each issue being left when it was plain the IP would revert, could not reasonably be classified as warring.

Again, thanks everyone. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Australian bush flower essences

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

---

I thought I left an entry about this last week, but I can't find it, so I'll try again. The above article was recently deleted, but I was not informed that it had been nominated for deletion. Shouldn't I have been informed?

Sardaka (talk) 06:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Help reporting User

Hi. There us a Jacob Page (talk) who is constantly reverting everyone's edits on the American Idol (season 15) page. I've warned him and he still keeps vandalizing it with wrong information and whenever I revert it he changes it. Back. Help? The only reason I'm here is cause I have a short temper and I don't want to get blocked if I tell him off. Please help asap. Thanks {{Wanheda (talk) 06:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)}}

Firstly, you need to notify the other party that you filed this notice. Secondly, I don't think this is the right place for this. It seems to be a content dispute. Have you discussed the topic on the talk page? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 07:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Wanheda, you need to provide proof in the form of WP:DIFFs that the user is "constantly reverting everyone's edits on the American Idol (season 15) page". You should also provide proof that you have attempted to discuss these content issues on the article's talk page (which at the moment is blank). I think you should probably withdraw this ANI filing and proceed with discussion on the article's talk page, and reach a WP:CONSENSUS. If you have a short temper, then walk away from Wikipedia until you are calm; do not edit while you are angry and do not call people "idiot" in an edit summary. You may want to read WP:BRD. Also, remember to use a fully explanatory edit summary for every edit you make to the article (and to any article). Hope that helps. Softlavender (talk) 08:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Remove content

Could someone blank a violating WP:BLP posting to Talk:"Weird Al" Yankovic‎ Trackinfo (talk) 10:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• Looks like you already did. If you are asking for WP:REVDEL, I don't think it warrants it, although the editor (who has placed it there twice) may need a further warning/explanation on his talk page and if he doesn't stop, possibly a block. Softlavender (talk) 10:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Request that User:OCCUSpriest be blocked

I request that User:OCCUSpriest be blocked due to this user's personal relationship with Craig J. N. de Paulo and clear violations of wikipedia's policies concerning Biographies of a Living person, especially in not keep a neutral point of view, as his statements on this user's talk page, calling the subject a "pervert" and in this user's contributions to Craig J. N. de Paulo profile page and talk page, making conspiratorial statements and unsourced accusations. Thank you. JustTryintobeJust (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)