Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk | contribs) at 03:02, 8 December 2015 (→User attacking other editors; ongoing non-encyclopedic content: added comments. Wasn't log in.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    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

    Allie X Topic Ban Proposal

    As you can see in the closed ANI post, an admin already put page protections and closed the previous incident report on this page, but the people, (WordSeventeen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Zpeopleheart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), involved are still refusing to discuss any of the issues on the CollXtion I and Allie X talk pages. This is obviously not an isolated incident, at least for WordSeventeen; they have been blocked for harassment before: [[1]] They are repeatedly undoing edits like alternative covers on all the Catch (Allie X Song) page.dif here:[[2]] (for being "WP:UNDUE" even though that has nothing to do with this. Undue is for viewpoint is it not? Including such things offers no opinion on the material. WordSeventeen, I have had issues with in the past as well, with another ANI post detailing similar behavior. Cursory looking can show obvious signs of WP:DISRUPT, WP:HOUNDING, WP:VANDALISM, WP:POINT, WP:GAMING, WP:HUSH, and WP:IDHT. Even though they are obviously still on Wikipedia and making edits, they continue to ignore repeated attempts at discussion which is making a negative impact. Zpeopleheart and WordSeventeen have been disregarding established guidelines like WP:MUSBIO, picking it apart like their trying to to illustrate their tendentious view on MUSBIO. And since they are using tools like Twinkle, they seem to be committing WP:TWINKLEABUSE as well. After filing the premature arbitration request, instead of making comment there, they harassed me yet again on my talk page as well as WordSeventeen proceeding to propose deletion for the locked articles that are very much the same, if not improved articles, from when AfD was voted against before. His AfD was immediately declined [[3]], see there, and yet he refiled , see here,[[4]], with the exact same AfD proposal statement. He has done this in the past before as well, and was told not to do so. He has been violating the same policies over and over for vast stretches of time, exemplified here [[5]] and here [[6]]. Why has he not be sanctioned? It's an obvious pattern in behavior. Pages that illustrate their refusal to co-operate:

    It was suggested to me to pursue moderated dispute resolution, but one of the requirements on that page is that the topics must have been discussed thoroughly on the talk page; this does not meet that requirement because they are refusing to talk about anything. I really feel like a topic ban is the only thing that will make them stop. WordSeventeen's persistence over such a vast span of time is disturbing. It also appears Zpeopleheart is calling me a bitch [[15]] WordSeventeen practically confessed to his improper behavior here as well : [[16]] The administrator Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also comments on this review page's history "Not done. I'm quite certain that my motivation in asking about this was and is preventative. You have acted quite disruptively and dishonestly in the past. As you say, your record is right there to see, so you must have known..." So again, this seems very cut and dry that his conduct is wrong, and the amount of hurdles I have had to go through just to ameliorate such an obviously horrible situation is irritating. SanctuaryX (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) SanctuaryX, after a cursory look, I've placed warnings on the two editors who have repeatedly "warned" you - regardless of who is at fault, it's pretty clear that their actions are verging on harassment samtar {t} 17:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I notice that neither Zpeopleheart nor WordSeventeen have used the talk page at CollXtion I despite being prompted to by SanctuaryX clpo13(talk) 20:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have prompted them on all the talk page articles CollXtion I, Allie X, and Catch (Allie X Song); Zpeopleheart only bothered to reply to the birth date question in Allie X after Karst began discussing it with me.SanctuaryX (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why has he not been sanctioned? Because, generally speaking no matter how many times I'm accused of being a block-happy fanatic, we're generally quite hesitant to sanction people. When I locked the pages, I wasn't really suggesting arbitration - just engaging on the talk places, bringing in people through appropriate noticeboards, and then coming back to another board if, after the solution doesn't resolve itself in the time the article is protected, the disruptive parties will find themselves having a hard time editing Wikipedia. WP:DRN was suggested by someone else in the arb request, but I wouldn't even suggest going that far. I'll make a comment on a relevant talk page, but if this is still an issue f complete failure to engage when the protection wears off, the disruptive parties will find themselves the blocked parties. Also, wrote this before taking a full look at the diffs involved, which I'll now do and potentially take action on. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed that misquote; sorry. I never meant you were suggesting arbitration. I got ahead of myself.SanctuaryX (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic-Ban for WordSeventeen

    I propose a topic-ban from all articles related to Allie X for User:WordSeventeen. His or her campaign to delete the articles is disruptive and has aspects of an obsession. The singer is referenced by multiple reliable sources and passed an Articles for Deletion nomination six months ago. So now the editor has again opened another AFD, arguing WP:TOOSOON, when that argument was already considered and dismissed, and then opened yet another AFD (3d nomination) while the second nomination is still pending. That is disruptive editing having aspects of an obsession. I was uninvolved until an ill-advised Request for Arbitration was filed and is in the process of being closed, but it is clear from that evidence that WordSeventeen is being disruptive and should be topic-banned.

    This behavior has been going on since May, intermittently albeit. SanctuaryX (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify my oppose - what I really meant is if he keeps doing the same stuff until I block him for longer and longer periods of time, or he'll voluntarily get the point and stop being an issue (with, which the rather stern warning issued, is the hopeful outcome.) Tbanning him from Allie X will throw him in to being a problem in some other part of the encyclopedia; he needs to either get on board and fix the problem, or get tossed off the ship. Hopefully he'll get on board and be a genuinely productive editor even re: Allie, but if he doesn't, I have no problem personally tossing him overboard. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Makes sense, but I would hope if he did just go making problems elsewhere instead of just whomever requesting a topic ban at the new place, they would just try to get him flat out banned after seeing his previous history. SanctuaryXStop talking in codes 17:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's slightly confusing that we use both 'block' and 'ban,' but I can indefinitely prevent him (block) from editing all articles by myself if he continues to be disruptive, unless another admin strongly disagrees. A ban is much harsher, more like a 'community endorsed indefinite block', requires more evidence of disruption, more discussion, etc. If he was tbanned from this area, I would either have to start following his behavior in another area to see if the disruption persists, or drop it (letting him potentially be equally disruptive in an area no one is paying attention to.) If he's not tbanned, I can just block him for increasingly long periods of time until he either gets the point or is unable to edit effectively permanently. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense and either way sounds marvelous. Thanks for explaining. SanctuaryXStop talking in codes 16:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as initial complainant. It should be noted that Zpeopleheart clearly shares the same ideas, as per his reasoning for the delete vote in the AfD. He filed an ANI for edit warring and he was sanctioned himself [[17]] SanctuaryX (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support WordSeventeen has a history of harassment and hounding and it all seems to stem from him either not knowing when to stop or not wanting to stop: [18], [19], [20] [21], [22]. It should also be noted that with the last block for harassment, WS's permissions (rollback and reviewer) were revoked. From what I can see with this particular instance, a topic ban seems quite appropriate considering the circumstances (the proposer's note that WS seems to be "obsessed") as well as the user's history of disruption and inability to back off when advised to do so. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC). Arbitrary break[reply]
    • Support – I have filed a checkuser on Zpeopleheart and WordSeventeen; I would be very surprised if they are different people. Oculi (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oculi:Thank you for doing this. I thought the fact they shared the same tendentious views was odd, but with everything going on I did not want to be the one to make such an accusation. SanctuaryXStop talking in codes 00:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you didn't notice, he made that request. We both noticed it didn't check out. Try to be civil. SanctuaryXStop talking in codes 16:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Kevin Gorman: @Robert McClenon: I am on my phone so I can't easily tell, but someone has illicitly segregated WordSeventeen's response. I'll assume it was Zpeopleheart because he added a reply. This has messed up the voting for topic ban etc. Someone fix this please. SanctuaryXStop talking in codes 16:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like Zpeopleheart attempted to highlight a couple of things WordSeventeen said, possibly to call for a topic ban on SanctuaryX. I restored the original flow of the voting and comments. clpo13(talk) 17:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    _

    If anything, your removal of your own harassment from my talk page at the same time as this seems like a confession. SanctuaryXStop talking in codes 23:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And now, you're only furthering your ban because you can't even stay civil and neutral on the request for closure page.SanctuaryXStop talking in codes 21:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given the totality of the user's behavior, including their ridiculous warnings on SanctuaryX's talk page and behavior on Allie X related articles, I am blocking the editor for six months. This block is not meant to supercede the community discussion above, as the block will lift in six months while a topic ban wouldn't (and the block may be lifted before six months if the user convinces me or another administrator that their disruption is unlikely to continue.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban for SanctuaryX

    There is no way that consensus is going to be established to tban SanctuaryX, and, if anything, the discussion below provides valuable feedback about appropriate action in this situation towards other actors involved. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • Support and Speedy Close - I agree that obsessioni is a good topic t o be discussing but instead about the about the editor SanctuaryX. Regardng a pattern of disruption by SanctuatyX in the article set regarding the articls about AllieX and watched the back and fort between SanctuayX and the other one with a Z name something or other. Of course all those articles are still on my watch list from when I tried to edit them, but SancuaryX was so disruptive during that period of time since she had taken complete and final WP:OWNERSHIP of them it was really to tedious to even try to to edit the Allie X article. I would propose today SanctuaryX is a SPA. Practically all of her edits have been about all those articles with the exception of a few toke plant species artice. at this particular moment in time I only have a mobile. I will add the diff to all these points. Please note I am out of my regular town and on emergency military to act in response to the expected, and or possible bombings within the United state on the night before Thanksgiving. But I will respondmore fully when we stand down here in USA. So anyways, I kept seeing these edited and the articles popping up on my watch list and when I saw the first disruptive Ani pop up, I went ahead and read over it. I entered a comment on the ani. So I would say that me editing a group of articles months ago, and thanks to the obsession ally disruptive user sanctuary ally User:SanctuaryX who is continuing to show ownership and take over everything about definitely needs a topic ban on all AllieX, articles topics discussion or any other matters abount in or around the topic of the 'artist' Alliex, and or a WP:BOOMERANG . or any tother sanctions or blocks they may wish to apply to the editors account of Sanctuatryxxx.

    Thank you all, please have a wonderful American Thanksgivg. Zoe any other holiday you and your May celebrate. hoooooo RrrrrrrrrrAaaAaaHHHH. ----

    peace to the world!!! WordSeventeen (talk) 10:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I admitted already my behavior wasn't the best. But you have no proof of any of this. Just please stop stirring up trouble. They can see where you've made these evidenceless accusations towards me before. And considering I have worked on many more plant articles at a scholarly level, than those related to Allie X, I am clearly not a "SPA." And even if I was one, as long as my edits are generally unbiased, it wouldn't matter. They saw how I behaved as well. This isn't a one way road. WP:STEWARDSHIPSanctuaryXStop talking in codes 15:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic-Ban for Zpeopleheart

    See everything in above two sections involving this editor and WordSeventeen for more detail on his obstinately disruptive behavior (WP:DISRUPT, WP:VANDALISM, WP:POINT, WP:GAMING, WP:HUSH, and WP:IDHT)in addition to the following dif's and associated edit comments: [23], [24], [25]. Edit: And as you can see below, it's really quite impossible to show all the difs, much simpler just to look at history pages like this: [26] and to look at my talk page where he is continuously "warning" me.

    • Support as nominator. SanctuaryXStop talking in codes 16:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment umm not sure what you mean. Is this a new stick? or what? I just got back into town, been away for a while. So if you think I of all the in the a I above please provide the diffs and concrete proof from within the past 12 hours or so. Otherwise I will have to consider having you charged with a PERSONAL ATTACK. Did you not understand the rules and procedures here. Acting in good faith, I will give you one chance to apologize, we will call it a day, and I will leave all alone for a bit and let you work out your WP:OWNERSHIP issues. Have a great evening all! And remember I got 99 problems and this ain't no fun. Cannot we have peace on a holiday? A sort of detente. Peace Zpeopleheart (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a personal attack. You clearly aren't doing what is asked by many people. I wasn't overly nice at first, but I have been civil since even with your repeated poor behavior. I'm not sure where the communication here is failing, but it's clear you have issues. I am clearly not experiencing ownership issues. I repeatedly tried to advise you of Wikipedia policies, I tried to explain to you why what you're referencing doesn't apply or isn't true, and I tried to discuss it with you, and you failed on all three counts. I have no problem with people editing the page, only when people like yourself constantly remove things that are perfectly acceptable not by my standards, but according to Wikipedia itself. For you to come here and try to silence me on the ANI just adds to my case. SanctuaryXStop talking in codes 20:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Editor is showing signs of being difficult/slightly disruptive, both here and on the article you've linked to. However, they above state that they will "leave all alone for a bit" - due to this I don't think a topic ban would be preventative anymore -- samtar whisper 20:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A bit is kind of vague; that could be minutes, hours, days, a week before they start being obstinate and tendentious again. SanctuaryXStop talking in codes 20:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, it is vague - perhaps Zpeopleheart would agree to voluntarily leave the article alone for a set period of time, to allow people to chill out? -- samtar whisper 20:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I've been pretty calm, do I seem particularly obscene or uncivil? @Samtar: And as you can see now, that a bit didn't even last a day.SanctuaryXStop talking in codes 21:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This isn't the first article Zpeopleheart has refused to actually discuss the changes they want to make. See the Black Lives Matter article history. They repeatedly reintroduced material that had serious issues (no citations, BLP claims, ect.) that was removed by multiple different editors. A talk page section was started after the second revert and they refused to participate. Refusing to participate in a collaborative project is a serious issue and the multiple articles they have done this on is a pattern of behavior. They claim to be dropping it and leaving it alone for a bit. However, the "for a bit" is what concerns me. Are they going to pick up right where they left off in a week after the holiday is over? There needs to be some assurances that this is going to stop and they are going to start participating in the discussions that people are asking them to participate in. --Stabila711 (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And if you search through the above sections, you'll see he has been sanctioned for edit warring before as well. SanctuaryXStop talking in codes 20:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose Nothing more to say here. Zpeopleheart (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support - clearly disruptive editing, repeatedly reverting to maintain their preferred version of an article, and failing to make any reasonable effort to discuss their issues on the talk page despite being pinged repeatedly. Multiple editors have tried to reason with this editor both to understand their weird view of neutrality, to ask them to expand on their rationale or provide any sources at all for their insistence that the subject must be viewed negatively or not at all, and to try to explain why this behaviour is disruptive including a fairly dire warning the last time this page was full-protected to prevent the same disruption they're continuing with right now. Competence is required; consensus is not optional. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: After posting my comment above, Zpeopleheart has continued to try to push their own view on Allie X. They also posted a false warning on SanctuaryX's talk page claiming that they filed a bad AIV report [27] when SanctuaryX has not even posted to that page at all according to their recent contributions [28]. Their abuse of Twinkle to add pointless and false warnings to other editor's talk pages is purely retaliatory and needs to stop. --Stabila711 (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per nom, Ivanvector, and Stabila711. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per nom. The 2 apparently different editors Zpeopleheart and WordSeventeen share an obsession with Allie X. WordSeventeen has taken it to afd twice (both snow keeps) and Zpeopleheart redirected it to Catch (Allie X song). Between them they have made 63 edits to Allie X, most of which are against the consensus at the article (ie all other editors there disagree with Z and W). Oculi (talk) 12:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note - Zpeopleheart has been blocked 36 hours for continuing to disrupt the Allie X article. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unarchived per request. Cunard (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given the totality of the user's behavior, including their ridiculous warnings on SanctuaryX's talk page and behavior on Allie X related articles, I am blocking the editor for six months. This block is not meant to supercede the community discussion above, as the block will lift in six months while a topic ban wouldn't (and the block may be lifted before six months if the user convinces me or another administrator that their disruption is unlikely to continue.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive behavior with ethnic overtones on Blue Army (Poland) Talk Page

    The issue
    E-960 is accused of being a SPA, of being uncivil and of disrupting Blue Army (Poland) and associated talkpage. On each of these:
    a) SPA account: - focused on Poland, but this is a big set of articles and interests. In any case being a SPA is not of itself an offence.
    b)Incivility: diffs are borderline per SMcCandlish, and also fairly old. Relevant to a claim of long-term issues but not by themselves sufficient to require admin tools.
    c)Disruptive editing: some low-level disruption going back over a long period and including previous ANI threads that were regrettably left unresolved. Some validity in concerns over presentation of source context, RfC wording and the recent (minor) edit-warring. Nothing earth-shattering, but just barely adding up to a genuine issue over time.

    Outcomes:
    *Moderate support in the thread for an E-960 topic ban from Eastern Europe under WP:ARBEE, but the locus of this dispute is really the Blue Army article and not the entire subject area. On balance, and as an uninvolved administrator, E-960 is topic banned for three months from Blue Army (Poland) and associated talkpage per WP:ARBEE, noting that they received an appropriate DS alert in July this year.
    *0RR and semi protection of Blue Army was proposed by TomStar81 but not done at this stage as insufficient evidence of need. No prejudice to these being added per ARBEE at any future point.
    *Insufficient support for a topic ban for Faustian per subsequent thread on this page. But please don't speculate on the ethnicity of other editors or the likelihood of this affecting their ability to edit neutrally.

    Other comments:
    I appreciate this close is unlikely to please anyone. However this minor topic ban aims to prevent the current cycle of disruptive editing at this article while permitting productive editing elsewhere. It does not imply anything about resolution of the underlying content issue. It is also without prejudice to further sanctions if required during or after the expiry of this one. Happy to discuss further if required, ideally on my talkpage. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I'd like to report User:Faustian for disruptive behavior on the Talk:Blue Army (Poland) page. Several editors are in the process of agreeing on a consensus based on the results of a nearly finalized RfC, which concluded that the there is a issue of undue weight and coat-racking within the article. Unfortunately, despite the outcome of the vote, Faustian has continued to argue that more information should be added, contrary to the RfC results, more importantly his behavior is taking on the characteristics of bullying when Faustian wrote: "So far every non-Pole thinks thinks that it reflects the source" and "Double-standards motivated by nationalism" and "You are presenting with a pattern of dishonesty" [29] . I would request that Faustian is blocked before this gets out of hand. Also, he continues to revert edits which have gained support — here: [30] [31] and [32]--E-960 (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I agree with Darouet's assessment that your RFC is non-neutral and thus rather problematic. Additionally the most support is for the third of three options ("Other possible solutions") so it does not seem as though consensus is really very strong. I don't see that Faustian is doing anything to be blocked for. I would recommend you withdraw the RfC and rephrase it in an unbiased way, plus have only clear options for people to support rather than a vague "other." —МандичкаYO 😜 22:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    —Мандичка, the RfC is a separate item (btw most folks clearly voted for option 3, no need to question the results), the problem I'm reporting on has nothing to do with the merits of the discussion. But, the tone struck by user Faustain, pls address my request. --E-960 (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just telling you my unbiased impression. I don't think Faustian has done anything worth banning for and may have a point. You shouldn't be making those changes before the RfC is complete so Faustian is right to revert you. I don't agree with your assessment that it's a nearly finalized RfC. The tally vote math has "Option 1: 1.5 votes/Option 2: 2 votes/Option 3: 3.5 votes to reduce the text / 1 vote to expand the text" IMO this is not very clear at all and not much of a majority. Additionally, the RfC as you formed it clearly violates policy as it is very leading and biased, and thus an admin may choose to close it with no consensus by default. So I recommend starting over with a neutral question. —МандичкаYO 😜 22:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    E-960 is operating as essentially a SPA devoted to removing negative information about the Blue Army. This is part of his disruptive process. The talk-page is filled with his mostly one-editor struggle to do this. He has already been caught deliberately misrepresenting what a source says. On another RFC he claimed [33]: " Also, as noted by Encyclopedia Judaica such actions were the result of "individual soldiers",[2] so the article text should not overemphasize controversial subject matter to tacitly imply that the entire army was a pogroming force." The actual source stated [34]: "Attacks on individual Jews on the streets and highways, murderous pogroms on Jewish settlements, and deliberate provocative acts became commonplace. While these may have been on the initiative of individual soldiers, they were known to their officers, if not openly supported by them." This sort of thing has been common with him. He is clearly not here to build an Encyclopedia but to remove information he doesn't like, and to disrupt the efforts of those who are here to build the encyclopedia. If anyone ought to be sanctioned, it should be him. Please do so.Faustian (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note the results of the RfC vote, I think most editors who commented have a genuine desire to improve the article, however the recent tone struck by Faustian is counter productive:
    • Option 3: As suggested by users SMcCandlish and Ivanevian. I think that the proposed "third way" approach is fair and worth pursuing. --E-960 (talk) 07:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Option 2: Keep as is no changes. Faustian (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Option 3: Certainly keep lead and body material that describes pogroms, but add more information that also describes the causes of anti-Semitic and anti-Ukrainian violence, as we discussed in the Talk Pages above. -Darouet (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Option 2: Keep as is no changes. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 01:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Option 3: There is clearly a WP:UNDUE / WP:COATRACK problem here, but it is not as significant as the nom suggests. I do agree that this material can be compressed by about 50%, but a summary of it should not be removed from the lead. As noted below about Enc. Judaica, Haller's Army is notorious for this; i.e., it's one of the things that establishes WP:Notability. It's not WP's job to do a WP:SYNTH analysis of our own on how significant the alleged pogromming was in relation to the Blue Army's role in the war. Just follow the sources. That said, don't dwell and dwell on one aspect from cherry-picked sources.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Option 3: I wouldn't go as far as option 1, but the emphasis on anti-Jewish violence by the BA completely distorts this article, so a re-edit of some kind is definitely needed. Ivanevian (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Option 1/3 I second Ivanevian; the article currently has an undue focus on this issue. I'd suggest shortening the lead a bit (what are "numerous segments"?), and trying to be more concise in the body. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Option 1: Re-edit the sections as recommended. Reason: It is too one-sided, hence POV now. Zezen (talk) 00:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

    --E-960 (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    He has now violated 3R. Reversions are here: [35], here: [36], here: [37] and here: [38]. He was warned here: [39].

    Most of his reversions involved removing sourced information without consensus and despite a previous RFC having concluded that the information was acceptable in the article (RFC here: [40]).Faustian (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Faustian, the removal of this text was seconded by an experienced user Volunteer Marek, because the text originally cited to back it up was taken out of context and was missing key verses that completely changed the meaning of the statement. --E-960 (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    False. The full passage was included and RFC passed with the full passage. Anyone can follow the RFC here: [41], just scroll down. The missing verses actually made the RFC less likely to pass. When I included the full paragraph it was determined that the statement in the article did reflect the original source. Had I deliberately left out information to make my case better (as you falsely claim I did) people wouldn't have disagreed with me initially.
    At any rate, this is off-topic, although it does highlight your negative approach to wikipedia.Faustian (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, lord. Could we please have an admin involve themselves here? In all honesty, any editors who have had dealings with E-960 have been subjected to his blunderbuss techniques to the point of EXHAUSTion and should no longer be expected to assume good faith. He's an SPA who's NOTHERE being allowed to continue BATTLEGROUND tactics on all things ARBEE. Please see these archived ANIs: here, here, and here. He's a bully, pure and simple. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I respectfully disagree with this assessment, as I told Faustian, that the current discussion on the talk page, is attracting input from several experienced editors and we are receiving feedback on how to improve the disputed section, however Faustian wants to add material without gaining consensus and reverting text which was seconded by another user. I suggest any admin should look at the ongoing discussion before rushing to judgement. --E-960 (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • On quick note, my last recommendation was to initiate a cool-off period until other editors can review the proposed edits. [42] I don't think that by making such statement I'm engaging in battleground tactics, just simply trying to get more editor to review possibly controversial text. --E-960 (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • On a quick note, I don't accept this piece of WP:CRUSH as being 'respectful' in good faith. I'm afraid your reputation precedes you here. Paying lip-service to 'civil' when you believe it serves your purposes is a misrepresentation of the machinations of how and why you edit, and how you interact with other editors. Incidentally, starting this thread and posting this slanted 'request' on the AN is FORUMSHOPPING. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum: Anyone who reads through the protracted dispute on the article's talk page will see for themselves that the context in which you 'initiated' a 'cool-off period' belies your claim not to be batteground... and anyone who knows the first thing about how RfCs work know they are not a !vote... so why do you keep counting !votes? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The RfC has several editor comments and we are in the process of agreeing on how to fix the disputed actions, the votes are just a quick reference point. No need to ridicule my method, also because several editors have lend their feedback, I don't think that Faustian's approach is productive, when he tries to insert more information to the disputed section while the discussion is on how to reduce the size of the text to avoid Coat-racking with in the article. --E-960 (talk) 05:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Faustian inappropriate comments questioning editor's ethnicity

    Moved up from bottom of page as new report. BMK (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, for the the third time User:Faustian has questioned an editor's ethnicity on the Talk:Blue Army (Poland) page. This again happened after I submitted an ANI yesterday — 21:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC) — to check his behavior before it got out of hand. Unfortunately, my request was ignored. Since, then Faustian has made the same obnoxious remarks to Volunteer Marek.[reply]

    • Double-standards motivated by nationalism? Faustian (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
    • So far every non-Pole thinks thinks that it reflects the source. Faustian (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
    • In the RFC and here every non-Pole felt that it reflected the source. Faustian (talk) 08:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

    Prompting this response:

    • I have no idea how you know the ethnic background of everyone who's commented here. Second, you are ascribing views to people based on their ethnicity "Y believes X because Y is Z". This is at best a form of offensive stereotyping and at worst a form of bigotry. Third, you've been on Wikipedia long enough to be aware that the proper way to carry out discussion is by commenting on content, not editors. Volunteer Marek 22:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

    I'm very frustrated by the apparent selectivity of how admins discipline editors, I myself have been accused of being an instigator, yet no disparaging remarks were made on my part. All the while user Faustian has been blocking content which was agreed on with other edits and making rude comments. Yet, no disciplinary action has been taken against him. Is this going to continue? --E-960 (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This is your second complaint here about Faustian on the Blue Army article and the other one is not even closed. The reason why you're accused of being an instigator is apparent. —МандичкаYO 😜 22:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I ask that you address the statements made by Faustain, pls. Yes, it's the second request because I'm afraid you ignored the first. --E-960 (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC
    He was just blocked for edit-warring: [43]; after coming off his block he is continuing his pattern of disruptions and harassment.
    My statements that he is complaining about, in the talk section of an article about a Polish military unit that killed Jewish civilians: "In the RFC and here every non-Pole (once the full paragraph was included) felt that it reflected the source: [12]. Me, SMcCandlish ☺, Malik Shabazz, and here Darouet. truther2012 felt it wasn't but that was before I provded the full context, and he didn't respond after that. RFC was closed by Robert McClenon (talk who concluded "The statement does properly reflect the source." My statement that all the people who happened to not be Polish, felt that the statement reflected the source, was accurate. I suspect this may not be a pure coincidence. I have respect for you as an editor and I think you edit in good faith, but like all of us you might not be completely free of unintentional bias. A good thing about an RFC is that it can get neutral voices. In this case, the neutral voices didn't agree with you. I would be happy to do another RFC. My next and final comment on this topic was: " Volunteer Marek , I'm disappointed in your harsh tone; I had been quite civil with you. I did not ascribe views to people based on ethnicity but suggested the possibility of subtle bias, due to one's background, in you (as in anyone), whom I consider to be a good-faith editor. I pointed out that it would be good to have non-Eastern Europeans comment on these issues as they have no "dogs in this fight" and that on this specific issue concerning a Polish military unit non-Polish peoples' attitudes differ form Polish editors. Something to think about. that being said, I won't comment on this anymore and will stick to content."
    This discussion was finished, but then E-960 (talk decided to use it to continue his pattern of harassment and disruptions.Faustian (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and this was simply false: "All the while user Faustian has been blocking content which was agreed on with other edits".Faustian (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already addressed Faustian's behavior and once again I don't feel Faustian has done anything wrong. IMO he is arguing for a neutral viewpoint here, not just the Polish POV, which I think is necessary for content such as this. —МандичкаYO 😜 23:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, majority of users who commented recently on the Talk:Blue Army (Poland) page: User:Piotrus, User:Ivanevian, User:Zezen, User:Volunteer Marek, User:SMcCandlish and User:SageRad believe that Faustian is not arguing from a neutral POV, but unfortunately when an admin is selectively looking through the content you can justify just about any kind of behavior. --E-960 (talk) 05:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet another misrepresentation, but off-topic here so I won't get drawn into a discussion here.Faustian (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    E-960, please stop attributing sentiments to me. I do not endorse that attribution above. Please strike it. I haven't looked closely into the matter to make my own judgment. I was only called by Legobot to an RfC on the Blue Army (Poland) page, and my only contribution i believe was to help discern what the Morgenthau Report actually said. I did not weigh in as you suggest. SageRad (talk) 15:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed topic ban for E-960

    It's been suggested here that E-960 is a SPA for Poland who is WP:NOTHERE. I've noticed seriously problematic, non-neutral and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior so far on the talk page for the Blue Army, and elsewhere E-960 does not appear interested in engaging in a civil manner[44], [45]. We have previous ANI complaints[46][47] and I propose this be dealt with via a topic ban for Eastern Europe, which is already under WP:ARBEE. —МандичкаYO 😜 19:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Just for the record, WP:TAGTEAM is very different from WP:MEATPUPPET. And Мандичка isn't an admin.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @SMcCandlish:: See WP:TAGTEAM: "Tag teaming is a controversial form of meatpuppetry" —МандичкаYO 😜 07:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You are extremely bias in your accusations. Yes, my interest focuses on Poland and it's history. I'm not going to get involved in editing subject matter I know nothing about like Quantum mechanics or history of History of Canada. Unfortunately, in an effort to pin me down, you are distorting the definition of "single purpose" account to fit your needs. --E-960 (talk) 08:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Too much drama and disruption coupled with silly accusations. OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support This has been a long-running problem Nick-D (talk) 05:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I don't see anything even close meriting a topic ban. I also do think that E-960 brings up valid points on talk. There's a lot of discussion but that is precisely what is suppose to happen in these situations. Volunteer Marek  08:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, and take this to ArbCom. The only evidence presented is two diffs of questionable civility (one is more like excessive stridency, and neither are from the talk page in question), followed by a suggestion for an excessive topic ban from all Eastern Europe articles, which isn't justifiable. I don't think E-960 is the only problematic editor at the article. The page has been subject to months of editorial controversy (I've participated, via WP:FRS, in several RfCs there, which were basically rehashing the same issues). I'm skeptical that singling out one editor for a topic ban will resolve the problems at that article, and may simply amount to supervoting in an ongoing, long-term content dispute. This mostly appears to be a conflict between those who view the subject's notability as primarily or at least deeply tied to antisemitism, versus those who see the anti-Jewish violence material as a PoV/OR coatrack, overplaying the relation of alleged pogroms to the subject's history. There's a second dispute axis, alleging anti- and pro-Poland PoV pushing that doesn't seem tied to the antisemitism-or-not arguments. Finally, some of us with no dog in the fight(s) thought some coatrack and/or NOR and/or PoV concerns were valid, and some of them were not, and thus supported compromise; the multiple RfCs have not reached one. It's not primarily a two-editor or even two-faction dispute, so I'm skeptical that WP:DRN or WP:MEDCOM would be useful. This can probably be done at WP:ARCA, as a request related to WP:ARBEE, or maybe the clerks would instruct the filing of a new WP:RFARB (I don't spend much time at ArbCom, so I'm not sure). That won't resolve the content dispute but it will deal with the (non-singular) behavioral problems that are preventing resolution of it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    E-960's problems extend beyond mere content dispute. He is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but to (disruptively) advocate for the Blue Army. Opening these ANIs against me seems to be part of that struggle. He has also made numerous false accusations, such as of tag-teaming, as well as edit-warring, on this very ANI. He made a false claim of what another editor stated on this ANI, as described by that other editor here: [54]. In addition to frequent misrepresentation of other editors' actions and words, there is also a pattern of misrepresenting sources to suit his agenda. For example, here: [55], here: [56] and here: [57]. He advocated for "During the fighting on the Ukrainian front individual soldiers within the ranks of the Blue Army acting on their own initiative attacked segments of the local Jewish population" when the original source stated "Foreign officers and the ties with France kept Haller's forces independent of the official Polish command, a fact exploited by Haller's soldiers (called the "Hallerczycy") for undisciplined and unbridled excesses against Jewish communities in Galicia. Attacks on individual Jews on the streets and highways, murderous pogroms on Jewish settlements, and deliberate provocative acts became commonplace. While these may have been on the initiative of individual soldiers, they were known to their officers, if not openly supported by them." Fixing this took a lot of effort due to multiple reversions by E-960. E-960 has also tried to blame the anti-Jewish assaults on links between Jews and Bolshevism ([it took an RFC to clear this one up: [58]). Here I found a piece of information, reliably sourced, that could result in a brief 6 word addition to the article: [59]. As seen from the diff, he falsely claimed one of the sources was not reliable and will of course fight to keep the information off the article. So apparently an RFC will be necessary for every piece of info that is critical of the Blue Army...or to remove every piece of "information" that (as in the case of the alleged Jewish support for Bolshevism I linked to above) seeks to justify or exonerate the Blue Army's actions by misusing sources. It just goes on and on. I fear that WP:ARCA and WP:ARBEE will simply be more tools for him to use in his efforts to defend the Blue Army. He may have already worn down Darouet (talk, who had been quite active but who has recently disappeared from this article, with his efforts.Faustian (talk) 13:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Faustian, pls do not suggest that I insert bogus claims into the article — a source which you cited in the BA article has this statement: "In the borderlands many Ukrainians, Belorussians and Jews accorded an enthusiastic welcome to the invading Red Army." Nationalizing a Borderland: War, Ethnicity, and Anti-Jewish Violence in East Galicia, 1914-1920 p. 108. In any case, I don't think this is the place to argue about specific text.--E-960 (talk) 14:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    There are a number of editors who share aspects of E-960's concerns, including Volunteer Marek, Piotrus and SMcCandlish, who are vastly more competent and well able to guarantee that the article maintains appropriate balance while describing violence against minorities in eastern Poland. E-960 however has long stonewalled any kind of improvement of Blue Army (Poland) because of their commitment to exonerating the unit from actions for which they are notorious, and lack of interest in what either WP:RS or other editors really have to say on the issue. I wish I could say that they can be brought around, but I think that's a lost cause. Whatever we do, I don't think E-960 will ever be a productive editor at Blue Army (Poland). -Darouet (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Darouet (talk, I take this this is a support?Faustian (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm too involved to offer any meaningful support to this proposal, and I don't think that E-960 has nothing to contribute to Polish articles in general (it might be true but if so, I'm not aware). However, I do maintain they have nothing good to contribute to this article. -Darouet (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "E-960 however has long stonewalled any kind of improvement of Blue Army (Poland)" - seeing as how the current version reflects almost entirely Faustian's views I don't think your statement is true at all. E-960 has engaged in detailed and perhaps drawn out discussion on talk but a lot of their suggestions or approaches to improving the article have been ignored or... stonewalled. If there's stonewallin' going on here I think it's on the other side of the argument. Volunteer Marek  17:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've opened up neutrally worded RFCs and abided by them, and the current version reflects a compromise that you were involved in also, and not some sort of "Faustian's views" (except that, my view is that the article ought to reflect compromises that follow wiki guidelines with respect to reliable sources, etc.)  Volunteer Marek , E-960 has been caught making obviously misleading "interpretations" of sources (see my comment on this very section: [60]) to support his POV- any comment on that?Faustian (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support for all the reasons already voiced here by other editors who support a topic ban. Disruptive, battleground, and exhaust tactics have been used by E-960 not only on the article in question, but on all articles the user has been involved in since they began editing. As an editor, E-960 is unadulterated WP:SPA: prepared to get his/her own way by hook or by crook. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Iryna Harpy, unfortunately your opinion of me has an inherent bias — from the start you were accusing me of various "alleged" offenses, example: @E-960 and Ivanevian: Two editors now playing at WP:TAGTEAM in order to minimise the BA's reliably sourced violence does not make for consensus: --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC) But, then you realized you were wrong: Also, my apologies to Ivanevian. The allusion to tag-teaming was unwarranted. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC). --E-960 (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you've taken that comment out of context. I apologised to Ivanevian, not to you. My opinion of your SPA, battleground, tendentious editing (etc.) activities still stands, and is not based on WP:GRUDGE but in following your behavioural patterns on articles and talk pages. Note that a handful of edits on articles such as Gothic architecture, Brick Gothic and Baroque architecture fit squarely in the middle of the promotion of the same subject matter beginning with your first edit to each article in the same sequence, and continuing on elaborating on the same tangent thereon: Gothic here, Brick Gothic here, Baroque here. Hardly a show of a diversity of interests and input on Wikipedia... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. This looks to me as persistent disputes between two or more contributors, maybe a case of WP:TE/WP:DE, but it is very difficult to tell who (if anyone) was at fault. If anyone feels there is a serious problem here (I am not sure), please submit this to WP:AE. This subject area is covered by EE sanctions. My very best wishes (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not merely a dispute, it's about a pattern of disruptive behavior, harassment (he opened this ANI in order to harass), misleading edits, wrong claims (evident here on this very ANI) etc. all done not in order to build the encyclopedia but to remove negative info about the Blue Army from the article about it. There's a reason why all the people who have interacted with E-960 extensively have had very negative experiences about him, that they do not have with others who may also agree with him on some issues.Faustian (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's the case, why do not you or someone else submit a request to WP:AE? Most contributors who supported the topic ban above seem to be heavily involved in these particular disputes. I was not, but after quickly looking at this, I am not at all sure what should be done about it. Perhaps you are right, but this is not immediately obvious. My very best wishes (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I hadn't thought about it. We are here because he opened an ANI against me here for no legitimate reason, in order to harass me. Another editor, uninvolved in my interactions with him, reviewed the situation and proposed that he be topic-banned as a result of his behavior. Hopefully this is settled here; he has caused enough disruptions and spent enough of others' time. So far both admins who have reviewed this have supported topic-banning him. Faustian (talk) 00:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, after looking more carefully, I think his editing in Allies of World War II and several other pages was problematic. Does it warrant the broad topic ban? That could be properly decided by uninvolved admins on WP:AE. However, I think you all need to simply compromise on the issues, because bringing this to WP:AE might result in sanctions with regard to several contributors. I can be wrong of course. My very best wishes (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin perspective

    Well this is a spectacular and complicated mess. Beginning with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_Europe#Final_decision, closed in 2007, the article the editors are dog-fighting over is subject to discretionary sanctions, for which Faustian (talk · contribs) was previously warned under in 2014. E-960 (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly named as a possible sockpuppet of COD T 3, logged at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/COD T 3/Archive (see October 2015), for which he was apparently cleared (repeatedly) and more obtusely at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WKS Śląsk Wrocław/Archive (alleged behavioral evidence as mentioned in the first SPI listed here). Given the above observations, I'd say that leaves the motives of both of the editors suspect here. My suggested course of action would be to topic ban both E-960 and Faustian, adopt a 0RR policy on the Blue Army (Poland) page, and permanently semi-protect the Blue Army (Poland) article to prevent ISP-based editing around a 0RR position and to better track any alleged sock accounts of interested editors working to undermine the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have not committed misconduct on this article since my warning. I have sought consensus, opened neutrally-worded RFCs, etc. I am guilty of being present and active when someone else has been disruptive and feel that a blanekt topic ban would be unjust and would essentially be punishment for my presence, not for any actions. Please see this comment: [61] by User:Darouet, seconded by User:Iryna Harpy( [62]) Please consider the commnents by User:Wikimandia at the beginning of the ANI here also: [63].Faustian (talk) 04:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really think punishing Faustian is extreme. I don't see any diffs of him violating policy. This most recent episode, from what I can tell, started with a very non-neutrally worded RfC by E-960, who decided to begin removing info from the article claiming "consensus" on the still open RfC. (It has since been closed as no consensus.) Several of the editors active on the page have stated E-960 is an SPA and Faustian is helpful. —МандичкаYO 😜 05:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would also like to see diffs demonstrating misconduct by Faustian. @TomStar81: I intend no offense, but Faustian and E-960 have essentially nothing in common, except their disagreement at Blue Army (Poland). Banning Faustian from the article would, in my opinion, be a fundamentally lazy response, since it requires the most superficial examination of what's been happening at Blue Army. Many editors have been able to disagree on the article and make some progress, but the combination of E-960's POV and inability to evaluate sources has repeatedly poisoned discussion there. It's entirely unclear on the other hand what Faustian's infraction is. -Darouet (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • No offense is taken. Remember, this is a suggested course of action, and its based on a cursory glance through the article and its history. This also relates to me insofar as I usually take an all or nothing approach to these matters - meaning either everyone gets disadvantaged in the arena or no one gets censored - as such an approach usually lets me gauge who the problem people are. Often, but not always, its the people who complain the loudest when being locked out of articles who are the most disruptive editors. So far three independent people have come to Faustian's defense, I fact I have noted and it does seem to suggest that he is not part of the problem here, but part of the solution. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Proposed Topic ban for Faustian

    Consensus was to oppose the proposed topic ban. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I'd like to propose a topic ban for user Faustian on Eastern Europe, who has been blocked several times for his editing approach on the Blue Army (Poland) page, disrupted other pages with related topics, and has used inappropriate tone to comment on other editor's ethic background instead of focusing on the content of the article.

    • Double-standards motivated by nationalism? Faustian (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
    • So far every non-Pole thinks thinks that it reflects the source. Faustian (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
    • In the RFC and here every non-Pole felt that it reflected the source. Faustian (talk) 08:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

    Also here is a list of complaints from the ANI, which were filed against user Faustian by other edits:

    • Vandalism of page tags by nationalist tag-team, Iryna Harpy and Faustian
    • User:Faustian reported by User:Jacurek (Result:Page protected )
    • User:Faustian and User:Ward3001 reported by user:jmh649 (Result:Page Protected )
    • User:Faustian reported by User:194.44.15.214 (Result: Semi)

    And a recant warning about Faustian's behavior on the Blue Army (Poland) page by admin User:MSGJ: @Faustian: Looking further I see you have been blocked previously for edit warring on this very same article. If evidence is produced that more than three of your five edits on this article yesterday were reverts, then I will consider blocking you too. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC) --E-960 (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The above is a good example of this editor's dishonest and disruptive approach. A quick example - "user:Faustian reported by User:194.44.15.214 (Result: Semi)": (link through google): [64] IP's claim was rejected by an admin, who followed my advice and semi-protected the article to prevent the IP who reported me from disrupting it. E-960 is using this as evidence to prove I am "bad?"Faustian (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Proposed topic ban for E-960 and Faustian with Pending changes protection

    I'm closing this section as both topic bans have been proposed in their own section above and there is currently no support apart from OP for PC (not that PC would make a difference for this anyway. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This conflict has been going on for several years with no hope in sight. It is a terrible drain of Wikipedia resources. Some commentators (including an admin) since left Wikipedia. No uninvolved editors are being acknowledged by the active participants in this feud ... one of the better established puppet theatres I've seen. Repeat assumptions of bad faith shown in reverts and in uncivil comments never stopped since the article was created. It takes two to tango. User:Faustian has been warned by the Arbitration enforcement numerous times for edit warring in Eastern Europe, User:E-960 even worse (with repeat warnings: Callanecc, MSGJ). These two editors (incl. blocked: Factor01 and COD T 3 among numerous "cameo appearances") constantly goad each other and everybody else into prolonging the conflict by personal attacks, vilification, and accusations of bad faith as well as "falsehoods". Please be informed. The General restrictions affecting all users editing in this area have been defined in § 11 of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe as follows: "Any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. The restriction shall specify that, should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling." – We do already have in place all the administrative basis necessary for imposing this topic ban; and installing the Wikipedia: Pending changes protection in the article, in order to finally stop the bleeding! Poeticbent talk 17:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    What have I done to deserve a topic ban? I have not been warned "numerous times" by arbitration enforcement for edit warring. In 9 years of editing I have had one (24-hour) block on an eastern European topic, which involved reverting the removal of reliably sourced information by a since-permanently banned user (compare to your own block history: [65]). When I have run into trouble, it was simply due to not walking away from an article that was undergoing attack or disruption by a clearly disruptive editor. When someone provides a falsehood, I describe it as such and provide clear evidence for that. I have created about 30 articles on Eastern European topics (see my use page: [66], several of which were featured in the "did you know" section of the wiki main page, and made about 10,000 edits. Equating me with E-960 and proposing to ban me from eastern European topics is, sorry, just not right. Faustian (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Try to see the forest for the trees, please. This is not about you, but about the time and energy wasted by the community members tricked into believing that this thing with the Blue Army (Poland) can be resolved with their pointless and useless attempts at helping you. The waste of time and resources will never stop until we stop it. Think about the Wikipedians other than you, who could use a break from this never-ending story for a change. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 20:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - this is nonsense. Faustian has not done anything to deserve a topic ban and Poeticbent's reasoning of "This is not about you, but about the time and energy wasted by the community members tricked into believing that this thing with the Blue Army (Poland) can be resolved with their pointless and useless attempts at helping you" shows it is a bad faith proposal. —МандичкаYO 😜 21:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (as nominator). None of them has shown any desire to resolve their differences between themselves, ever! This is a good faith proposal with everybody else in mind. Faustian made 231 edits to that talk page beginning in January 2011, E-960 made 118 edits there. The unresolved issues today, are the same as they were in 2011 long before E-960 showed up on the scene; nothing has changed one iota in spite of numerous attempts from the community. They need help, Poeticbent talk 21:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Equating a disruptive editor and someone else very active on the same page is wrong. I have opened several RFCs on that page to resolve issues, and I have worked collaboratively with non-disruptive editors with whom I disagreed (such as here: [67].Faustian (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Faustian, has been the main editor who disrupted the article from the beginning. Most of the conflicts started when he inserted highly controversial material as seen in the talk page over the years, he has been edit warring with established edits on this page such as User:Volunteer Marek and User:Piotrus not to mention all the newer edits like myself or User:Ivanevian.--E-960 (talk) 06:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Move discussion watching needed

    No admin action needed at this time. --NeilN talk to me 05:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Can one or more uninvolved admins keep an eye on Talk:Bangalore#Requested move 29 November 2015 please? RMs on the names of Indian cities have been a tense issue and the current proposal expresses concern about canvassing in previous RMs which does nothing to settle this. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Accusations of racism at Talk:Bangalore

    I wish to propose a ban on User:Loginnigol from commenting on race in any forum. Two weeks ago, he claimed that stating an issue was "manifestly two-faced (Western/white versus non-)" was "not ... making it a race issue". He was asked to withdraw the comments, apologize and desist from making similar comments in the future. Today, he has returned to the attack by accusing opponents of "white supremacy (Indian sources are regarded as inferior to lily white Anglo Saxon sources)". DrKay (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Notified the editor as required here. Is there a reason we shouldn't block under WP:NOTHERE? Race-biting over sources is not a good use of time here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 13:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He is editing since 2011 though and looks active, right? D4iNa4 (talk) 14:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    DrKay had notified in a different section, perhaps you missed that Ricky. I'm pinging Future Perfect at Sunrise who had proposed placing this page under discretionary sanctions. —SpacemanSpiff 14:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He should have been blocked for edit warring at Apple pie where he seems to have an anti-western or anti-American pov and introduced ridiculous "facts". Although others tried to use the article talk page to address his changes specifically, he did not engage. Also, he blanked different editors attempts to discuss with him on his own talk page. This may be more than just race issues.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Can I propose a ban on the DrKay for making false accusations and for attempting to ban discussion on a TALK page? It's bad enough that the article is biased but that's not enough for some. They also want to prevent discussion on the talk page. Needless to say I categorically reject his claims that I am "accusing opponents" of racism whatever that means (I didn't even know there were "opponents" here. That itself sounds like racism to me. My comments today or yesterday refer only and exclusively to content, not "opponents" or persons of any other sort. —Loginnigol (talk) 14:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Opponents of the move. DrKay (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, there will be no such "ban". I actually agree with Loginnigol that the comments on Talk:Bangalore aren't racist or race-baiting--they're just completely inane. I hasten to add that I have not looked at the issues signaled by Berean Hunter. Drmies (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Inane isn't better. Either way, dismissing sources due to the race of the author accomplishes little and doesn't get you taken particularly seriously. And this is the sixth discussion (all five prior opposed) in just over a year so I'd say a ban on proposing the move again is prudent. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree, that's not better. But a move ban, sure. Drmies (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Der Statistiker and Paris-based articles.

    Map of the Greater Paris Metropolis (Métropole du Grand Paris) and its 131 communes.

    New Development

    This has just taken on an entire new dimension. Outright canvassing forum members to target several Wikipedia contributors specifically.

    English link: [68] - Original French: [69] - targeting 3 Wikipedians, posted on the 30/11/2015
    English link: [70] - Original French: [71] - mentioning just one (yours truly), posted on the 30/11/2015

    I got there by:

    1. looking for sources for unsourced numbers that Der Statistiker and Minato ku had insisted were the 'right' ones (without providing sources) [72]
    2. that turned up only two Google results:
      1. A post by Minato ku on the aforementioned skyscrapercity.com forum, citing (banned, but member since 2006) forum member "Brisavoine" [73] (fr)
      2. But more importantly, a post (most likely the one cited) by "New Brisavoine", member since 2007, on the forum.skyscraperpage.com forum [74][75] (en)
    3. So, in the forum.skyscraperpage.com forum, reading a few pages ahead from the 'numbers' post, it seems that Brisavoine "knows" the London French correspondant for the French newspaper "Le Monde" - funny, the same one that interviewed Der Statistiker and I last year? [76][77]
    4. And those maps look really familiar, just like the one Der Statistiker uploaded to Wikipedia (the one to the right), especially the oldest version [78]
    5. So a google image search for that [79]...
    6. ...turns up yet another forum, pss-archi.eu, where forum member "Brisa" had posted it [80]
    7. And a google search for "wikipedia" and "paris" in that website ... [81]
    8. ...turns up, right at the top of the list, our targeted-canvassing post; it had been removed (why is in the post itself), but Google still had a cached version. [82]

    And, since it's relevent once again, the link to the canvassing from last year's meat-debacle [83](fr) [84] (en - gt): Brisavoine was probably already banned then, which is why it could never be proven that User:Der Statistiker was a member there.

    What gets me most was the craftiness of hiding the targeted Wikipedians' names through posting their names in image... and how even those other forum members were lied to and WP:GAMEd to get them to help disrupt Paris articles.

    Cheers, and sorry for the mess. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Concerned and Canvassed Contributors

    I'm putting these here because they are related to this case (not part of it, this is only about Der Statistiker) and are still registered wikipedians here. It is up to whoever decides here to decide to decide what they want to decide if they find the evidence acceptable. Apologies for the links, but it seems that skyscrapercity(dot)com has been blacklisted, so I can't post them directly, or the translated version - please use google translate (just paste the corrected url into the 'French' input field)

    First off, perhaps it's useful to mention now that Der Statistiker is Hardouin, which sets this canvassing (and other bad behaviour) much farther back, but, in addition to the same trying to publish the same WP:OR and same 'tactical' disruptive behaviour, one tie-in (I can provide more) related to the above evidence:

    Minato ku's first 'backup' appearance on the 2007-07-20 when Statistiker (Hardouin) was creating/publishing WP:OR for which he could not provide references (but was trying to preserve by reverting/edit warring all the same) : [85]
    then Brisavoine (Statistiker) mentioning me in a skyscrapercity forum conversation with Minato ku on the September 22nd, 2007 : www.skyscrapercity(dot)com/showthread.php?t=284568&page=8#149.

    www.skyscrapercity(dot)com/showthread.php?t=385785&page=149#2962
    In the link above, the canvassed contributors in the skyscrapercity forum thread (being instructed by Minato ku where to go and how to edit Wikipedia); they were:

    Minato ku (who has made a few wikipedia edits between his 2007 first appearance until 2011, but returned in 2013 directly to the vote debacle, and has been 'backing up' Statistiker ever since [86]) - edit-warring & voting [87]
    Sesto Elemento (most likely also Sesto92 - [88]) - edit-warring & voting [89]
    Clouchicloucha - voter only [90]
    Abdel-31 - voter only [91]
    AvemanoBZH - voter only [92]

    These are the votes they were called to: [93][94][95]

    If anyone has any further questions or would like any further evidence, please feel free to ask. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 12:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Original ANI

    Der Statistiker (and his www.skyscrapercity.com allies [96]) has, in all impunity to date, been disrupting editing to Paris-based articles since years now, and this is I-don't-know-how-many-th'd case opened against him [97][98][99][100][101], and many contributors, including administrator jmabel[102], expressed overwhelming support for a topic ban over a year ago [103].

    Der Statistiker is particularly good at WP:GAMEing Wikipedia. Wikipedia's default 'assume good faith' is easy to abuse: for one example, he repeatedly creates false claims that look plausible on the surface so that, if an administrator takes only a quick look, they will seem legitimate. He then directs complaints to precisely those administrators who have taken his claims at face value in the past [104]. Concerning that last diff/complaint: I made my first real edits to the article (and I had announced my intentions on the talk-page well before) in a year on November 11 [105], and Der Statistiker, after a total absence of a year from the article, came a week after [106].

    But that in itself was not really a problem at that point, until Der Statistiker replaced recently-edited (by SiefkinDR) article-relevent data with out-of-context data [107], and I edited that back into context (without removing anything)[108]: Der Statistiker reverted this with another false accusation (calling it 'starting a revert war') and, again, threatening admin intervention [109]. Again there was no rationale for this, even after SiefkinDR's protesting questioning [110], only an 'answer-sounding' non-sequitur...

    ...because the rationale for that, and everything from there on, was pure WP:POINT disruption: one of the skyscraper-forum members (who by now has been around long enough to be considered a real wikipedian), Minato ku[111] first edit on wikipedia in months is to remove a just-edited Paris-events paragraph [112], and the same day, reverts a just-edited entire section to a state last edited by Der Statistiker over a year before (under the edit summary 'reorganising')[113], and Der Statistiker's response to this was only to update Minato ku's outdated revert himself, and, even after voiced opposition, re-insert the removed content under a misleading edit summary [114]. The entire 'what happened' is on the Paris talk page. Der Statistiker and Minato ku have worked as a 'team' since around 2007, as made obvious in the Economy of Paris article (the scene of his 'bigger than thou' battles with other big-city articles) and talk page.

    While writing this, yet another skyscrapercity.com-er, Clouchicloucha[115], just showed up to 'vote support' Der Statistiker and Minato ku.

    This is only the tip of the iceberg, but I can provide more data if it is needed. Please do check up on my record, and any questions are welcome. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree completely with Promenader. Der Statistiker has a very long history of problematic behaviour surrounding the Paris article. I still remember his trolling comments when I promoted the article to GA, disgusting. He has shown time and time again he canvasses support from offwiki as evidenced by the recent Clouch "support", gaming the system. Based on what Jmabel told him before I strongly suggest we topic ban this editor from Paris articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh... Here the only person I see contacting people off-wiki is ThePromenader, who, in the admission of Jmabel himself, contacted Jmabel last week (see [116]), despite the fact that there is no trace of any message by ThePromenader in Jmabel's talk page history ([117]). So we have an obvious case of off-wiki contact there, from someone who accuses other editors of "gaming" the system. And I suspect User:Clouchicloucha is an account created by ThePromenader himself to discredit me by writing what looks like awkward messages of support in the talk page right in time for ThePromenader to open his complaint against me here. Like how timely and convenient! Der Statistiker (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I did contact Jmabel off-wiki (an admin here, by the way, not an off-wiki forum member), for advice and to intervene, which he did, and he said as much [118]. The only difference is that now he doesn't have his talk-page full of complaints.
    The User:Clouchicloucha accusation is just lame. Both Der Statistiker and Minato ku know full well who they are. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I see nothing wrong with a user asking me (or anyone else) off-wiki to take a look at what's going on with an article and my openly indicating that I did so. If you think something about this was inappropriate, please say precisely what it was. If you don't, then stop making insinuations. - Jmabel | Talk 00:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Again!! The problem came from a badly written transportation section full of errors that did not bother anybody until I changed it to put more information (accurate information). I think this bothers ThePromenader because it does not follow the plan he wants. In his few edits of the transportation section prior to my edit he kept the numerous errors that were there. Does he really care about the quality and accuracy of the information in the Paris article?
    I don't understand why this change of the transportation section has created such noise. No content was deleted; quite the opposite, information was added.
    I don't get the war between Der Statistiker and ThePromenader and I'm tired of being used as a pretext for this war (find another scapegoat). I want a good wikipedia article about Paris at the level of New York City article. Nowadays Paris article is more like a tourist guide focused on history (more like the history of anecdotal events rather than a history of the development of the city) and stereotypes. You just need to compare Paris' article with London's article to see this problem. The quality of the information in the Paris article should be the goal of everybody rather than this stupid war of ego. Minato ku (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    For both comments above, I'll let the Paris talk page speak for itself. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    But about the 'scapegoat' issue: the article quality concerns you mention here is what the article talk page is for. If you see a problem, open a discussion, and you may find people even helping you. You and Statistiker have overlapping goals (showing Paris as the most modern, etc., city possible), but his example of "impose X (in total disregard for other contributors); use 'tactics' to make it stick" is an extremely bad one to follow; Wikipedia is a collaborative project based on cooperative reasoning, not 'tag-team tactics' (against (an)other contributor(s)), so if you're going to 'team up' with the latter, it's going to turn around to bite you in the end. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 06:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    As per above, there has been clear evidence that Der Statistiker is gaming the system and causing disruption of a large scale with Paris-related articles. ThePromenader has already supplied the diffs above and previous evidence as well as another proposal to topic ban Der Statistiker from Paris-related articles last year. The evidence is overwhelming and the disruption caused seems to go at no end. He has also been cautioned about meatpuppetry and despite the warnings, he is clearly doing it again. I propose that Der Statistiker be topic banned indefinitely (provisionally) from Paris-related articles, although it might be more suitable if an admin determines the length. JAGUAR  14:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support Long time coming, should have been topic banned last time. I'd suggest a permanent ban as he has a habit of returning after a year or two and causing trouble.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. There has been too much disruption at the Paris article and several editors have been forced away because of the behaviours exhibited there; this needs to end. - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. The foremost challenge when editing Paris articles should be article quality, not Der Statistiker. This has gone on for too many years already. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I reviewed and promoted the article for GA and was dismayed at what happened to it thereafter. Der Statistker's repeated interventions seemed to me to go beyond what was reasonable and collegiate as we understand it in Wikipedia. I hope we can eventually rescue the article and restore it to GA standards. Tim riley talk 21:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The is no "clear evidence". There is insinuations from always the same user, ThePromenader, who apparently thinks the more something is repeated the more people will believe it. It reminds me a lot of Saddam and weapons of mass destructions in 2003. None of the diffs above prove anything. This wouldn't stand a chance in a regular court of justice.

    As for "disruption", here the one who creates the most troubles in this article is ThePromenader, as is obvious with repeated complaints on this noticeboard despite the fact that User:Future Perfect at Sunrise asked all editors from the Paris article to stop doing so, and with ThePromenader's aggressive behavior in the Paris talk page and the history of the Paris article (for example here accusing another editor of "POV creep", or here rewriting Minato ku's edit from just a few hours before, and in the process introducing various errors such as a dot after "daily" instead of a comma, or repeating "257 stops and 587 km (365 mi) of rails" twice in the same sentence; isn't that the very definition of disruption?). Der Statistiker (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for pointing that out, fixed. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I don't see what Der Statisker has done wrong. He is bringing useful information in the article. I find rather funny to see ThePromenader saying Der Statistiker is disrupting the article because since I am a member here I found ThePromenader much more of a problem in this article concerning the quality of the article's content. Also I find strange that SchroCat and Dr. Blofeld suddenly found this complaint here that is not mentioned anywhere in the talk page of Paris. Minato ku (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support The evidence is clear, and this has been going on far too long. A waste of everyone's time. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: While there's certainly disruption here that may be in need of admin intervention, I'm not convinced a unilateral ban of Der Statistiker is the right way to go. Last year when I intervened as an admin in this conflict, my impression was clearly that of an it-takes-two-to-tango situation: There are two parties with equally strong POV perspectives, Statistiker and Promenader, who are both backed up by their respective tag teams, are both equally allergic to each other's presence, and both probably suffer from "m:Megalomaniacal point of view" to an equal extent, insofar as they both seem quite unable to realize that their own POV is just that, a point of view like others. The article was quiet for a year as long as both of them were away, it exploded again within a matter of days as soon as the two of them were back. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, that is what it may look like on the surface (according to statistiker's complaints to you), but, if you look further, namely at the diffs I provided above concerning the complaint to you (and everything else, for that matter), that's not the case. I don't see where the POV accusation comes from, nor the 'tag-team' one: just because article contributors find themselves having to deal with statistiker's behaviour doesn't make them a 'team' pushing a POV. And even then, it was article contributors opposing one contributor and others summoned off-wiki... I don't see how it is possible to overlook that. When this happened two years ago, I only became aware of it after it was already in full swing, so I'm hardly any 'ringleader' in this. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 15:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is repetition, but concerning 'just me', statistiker had been gone over a year when I announced [119] that I was available for editing (and would be editing soon) just to be sure, and it was another month before I made my first edit to the article [120]. Statistiker showed up one week later [121], and for everything after that, I refer to you to the Paris talk page. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 15:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support:Der Statistiker has consistently been rude, sarcastic and aggressive, attacking and insulting any editor who disagrees with him. He makes it very hard to work on this article. SiefkinDR (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. The biggest disruption on Paris has come from Promenader. If anyone is to be topic banned it is he. It certainly does not help when his friends dr blo and schrocat add to the disruption. Their POV pushing has been going on forever at Paris. Caden cool 18:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any evidence of that, then? JAGUAR  20:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    All editors who have had long-time involvement in either of the tag-teams mentioned, as well as their habitual wikifriends and wikifoes, need to lay off this discussion; their !votes here are unhelpful and unwelcome. (Caden, that certainly applies to you just as much as anybody, given your long-standing feuds with Blofield and friends.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. The evidence of off-wiki recruiting for meatpuppets to aid in an edit war is clear and damning. No opinion whether ThePromenador is also behaving problematically, since it isn't important to this case: two wrongs don't make a right. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reluctantly support. I think Der Statistiker has good content to bring to this, but in practice he doesn't seem to have worked out a way to work on the articles cooperatively. I'm sure he will be able to make solid contributions elsewhere, in articles with people with whom he gets on better. At the same time, I'd recommend to the others working on the article that they think long and hard about the general issues he's raised, and how the article might better address these concerns (especially that it shorts Paris as a present-day city). - Jmabel | Talk 06:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Note to the admins

    ThePromenader already asked for my topic-ban from the Paris-related article ([122]) but his request was suspended by admin Future Perfect at Sunrise who set the following rule: [123]

    " from this moment on, the talkpage of the Paris article (as well as all related discussions elsewhere, edit summaries etc.) are under a strict, no-exceptions, "comment on content, not on contributor" rule. You can all continue to discuss what content should be in the Paris article, but until further notice, no contributor with a prior significant involvement on the Paris discussions is allowed, in any context, to engage in any negative remarks about any of the others. This includes, in addition to the usual forms of incivility and personal attacks: any complaints or accusations of wrongdoing, speculations about the other person's motivations or POV agendas, reminders about (real or alleged) past misbehaviour or allusions to such, talk about somebody's behaviour off-wiki, ad-hominem arguments about somebody's lack of qualifications or of editing merits, "tu-quoque"-types of responses to accusations from others. Anybody who engages in any such behaviour, on either side, will be blocked, immediately, without further warning, for substantial periods of time."

    After nearly a year without editing the Paris article (in a large measure due precisely to previous witch-hunting by ThePromenader, which doesn't really induce people to spend time to work on this or other articles... I note that the French editors who used to work on that article are all gone now), I finally made my first edit in almost a year in this article on November 19, 2015 ([124]). Almost immediately, and despite the fact that I had had no contact or interaction with ThePromenader in almost a year, ThePromenader:

    a- accused me of "POV creep" ([125])
    b- then opened this new complaint against me with for the most part with the same old recycled paranoid and unsubstantiated stuff as last year

    If words have a meaning, a- and b- both breach the rule set by Future Perfect at Sunrise for this article. I find it unfair that I have to defend myself against someone who breaches rules and harasses me within 24 hours of my 1st edit to this article in a year. Der Statistiker (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If your first edits to an article since a year are confrontational [126][127][128][129][130], there's already a problem, and some sort of (not 'harassment', push back ) reaction is only to be expected, don't you think? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Der Statistiker has been bringing out this one-time 'ruling' every time his behaviour is questioned since... a year now, and seems to think that it's an excuse to act in all impunity (because people aren't 'allowed' to complain about his behaviour). A look at the Paris talk page will show this clearly enough, but I can provide diffs if needed. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, distorted presentation of facts... I haven't made a single edit in the Paris (or Paris-related) article between November 30, 2014 ([131]) and November 19, 2015 ([132]), i.e. almost an entire year. Yet you somehow imply that during this one year when I have not been editing the article my "behavior" has been "questioned" and I have brought out this rule "every time"... in a year when I haven't even edited this article. Like... right. Der Statistiker (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thus the '...' in my reply. Before, after, here, like a day never passed inbetween. Shall I provide examples? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks to me like it's high time for an interaction ban. It's pretty clear that these two editors will argue forever. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not like before. I actually regret leaving my last comment, there was no need to. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Steve Summit, I have no opinion about whether an interaction ban is a good idea or not, as that decision belongs entirely to the admins, but I think if an interaction ban is decided, it should also include User:SiefkinDR as per for example the case that I've detailed here on Future Perfect at Sunrise's talk page: Usertalk:Future Perfect at Sunrise#Your opinion on this. An interaction ban limited only to ThePromenader and myself would fail to achieve the goal of pacifying this article I think. Der Statistiker (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This has no place here - one cannot use admin attention to an inquiry into one's own behaviour to try to 'enforce' a personal vendetta against another contributor - but it is a perfect demonstration of the aforementioned WP:GAMEing. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 05:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Note to the admins: ThePromenader is now moving around comments from other editors in the talk page and deciding where they should stand inside the talk page: [133]. Der Statistiker (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Also of note for the admins: in the Paris talk page, SiefkinDR claims that he rewrote the section about the Greater Paris Metropolis that I had written and created only 3 days before because "it lacked specifics about the area, population, and competences of the Metropole." ([134]) The diff of my edit from 3 days before shows that this section in fact DID contain the area and population of the Metropolis ([135]), contrary to what SiefkinDR is claiming. This is an example of what I'm confronted with in this article. Der Statistiker (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    New attacks against editors

    I hope the administrators are aware of the posts that were made at the end of November on two French urban planning sites, urging members to come into Wikipedia to support Der Statistiker and specifically to attack me, Promenader and Blofeld. The attacks on me, by name, and the other editors are quite personal and insulting. This kind of behavior is unfortunately typical. Der Statistker has to stop using articles on Paris to promote has personal agenda. See the posts below.
    English link: [136] - Original French: [137]

    I hope administrators will act to stop this kind of behavior. SiefkinDR (talk) 09:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm wondering why this isn't getting any attention at all - it's been six days since this was opened. I have to keep making silly comments just to keep it from being archived. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jmabel and Jeppiz:: since you have been concerned in/submitted past same-subject ANI-cases [138][139], your input would be of value here, thanks. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 14:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    That link constitutes pretty shameless stealth canvassing, including naming individual editors to oppose, and asking for the notice to be removed before anyone here sees it. I don't have a stake in nor overview of the Paris issue, but this is not acceptable behaviour.-- Elmidae 07:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Do we know the person on those external fora is Statistiker? So far the only thing that seems clear is that it's somebody who's friends with Minato Ku. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you did look it over, please go through it again. There are so many overlaps that it's just not not possible, and that's even without considering the WP:DUCK aspects of it all. And the silence reigning speaks volumes, too. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 15:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    178.217.194.100

    178.217.194.100 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has, over the last few weeks, been trying to add a huge table about birth rates by the country of birth of the mother and father in England and Wales. When reverted at Demography of England, the IP posted it at Demography of the United Kingdom, then when reverted there at Foreign-born population of the United Kingdom, and now Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom, despite warnings not to continue doing so. Seeing their latest edit, I thought that I would see what they have been adding to articles on other countries. I found this addition to Demographics of France, including the text: "If French people (whites) didn't wake up they will be minority in their own country, and they arleady lost Paris". Is it time to block? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Following my revert, the IP has restored the unsourced commentary less the racist postscript. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And I have removed and deleted it as a copyvio of http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2014/04/race-in-france-a-sketch-based-on-first-and-second-generation-immigrants/. They began editing in June with gnoming table edits on demography, they appear to be an experienced editor. Their recent commentary noted above reveals a disturbing motive for their editing, it may be time to block if they won't properly engage in discussion. Fences&Windows 08:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of the user's edits can cause improvements, as the information added to demographics of the UK was then turned into prose by myself. The problem is that they have never engaged in discussion or edit summaries and most of the edits miss the mark on the style of Wikipedia (i.e. overloaded tables). The scale of articles with such tables added is staggering and I'm amazed this has gone on for so long without being picked up. Maybe a block will force the user into discussion... Jolly Ω Janner 09:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Abstracting out the content issue, there's an interesting question regarding tables and data, especially tables which collate readily accessible (and verifiable) information, possibly from multiple sources, but which don't fit well, stylistically. Is there a place to put big data tables? Wikidata seems to be the wrong place, but articles do suffer from large tables. Argyriou (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's worth saying that excessive lists of statistics are discouraged by WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    A reply from 178.217.194.100: "My mistake, I'm sorry for that. It won't happen again. I'm still learning what is acceptable. I like French people and I want to help not hurt anyone. Notice that I help in editing many pages about demography in many countries". Cordless Larry (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I am trying to get 178.217.194.100 to understand how to use decimal points, but I'm not getting a response and they continue to use commas for this purpose. Any suggestions? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You could try reverting a few of the edits, since that's normally when the user is prompted to engage in discussion. It's rare that any of the edits are worthy of inclusion anyway. Another alternative would be to follow the user's every edit and cleanup after them, but this is very time consuming and perhaps a waste of time since these tables are barely worthy of inclusion (I certainly don't want to volunteer!). Doesn't look like the topic is attracting much help from admins, sadly. Jolly Ω Janner 21:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite a further reminder yesterday, this has continued this morning. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted that edit as suggested, Jolly Janner, but 178.217.194.100 just reinstated it. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 178.217.192.79 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to be previous IP for this user. The edits with this IP address go back to December 2014 with the exact same edits. This user has shown the ability to read and write in English and engage in discussion with us. I don't think the user will ever listen to our construction criticisms. Jolly Ω Janner 20:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Politically partisan disruption of Proportional representation

    Since Aug.16 a new user, Ontario Teacher BFA BEd, has been disrupting the proportional representation (PR) article for politically partisan reasons. He displays all WP:DISRUPTSIGNS except cite-tagging. He is WP:NOTHERE to improve WP but to help the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC). I am the only person protecting the PR article, I don't see a way out except to get the user blocked, so I come back to WP:ANI.

    Story so far: I have tried talk page discussion, WP:BRD, not reverting to encourage cooperation, a WP:ANI incident to block him which attracted no admin response, a request for help at WP:WikiProject Politics which also brought no response (it appears to be moribund). The article has twice been protected to encourage cooperation. After the ANI failure my only recourse was reverting but we were both blocked once for edit warring. Others encouraged me to try WP:DRN, which I did twice, here and here, both attempts failing because Ontario, although agreeing to both mediations, failed to cooperate.

    Political bias: Apart from PR, almost all Ontario's edits have concerned Canadian politics, obviously in connection with the Oct.19th Canadian federal election, and obviously in support of the Conservative Party of Canada (e.g.here, here, here). In the PR article he puffs FPTP and diminishes the various PR systems, particularly MMP. MMP is the official policy of the New Democratic Party, and reform of the electoral system to a more proportional one is a policy of the new Liberal government. The CPC wants to retain FPTP. Ontario has also misleadingly changed a number of other electoral system articles with crude copy/paste from the PR article, as well as a template:

    The basic dispute: Ontario insists that mixed member proportional representation (MMP) is not PR but "mixed", and has mutilated the article's structure in consequence. MMP is both mixed and proportional, as its name implies. That it is "usually considered PR", as the lead says, is uncontentious, has unimpeachable sources, and has not been challenged since being introduced on Dec.11, 2014 (diff) (in those eleven months, though the article receives ca.1000 hits/day, the only changes to the MMP section have been some commas and the words "Scotland and Wales".) Although I have referred him seven times to these sources, and they were the subject of both DRN incidents, he has yet to justify his removal of the statement. He allows only that MMP is semi-proportional for which he produces thirteen (!) sources, none of which supports his contention. His only arguments are some specific MMP elections which did not produce proportional results, one of which, Hungary, is already mentioned in the article as an example of gerrymandering.

    WP:DISRUPTSIGNS:

    Tendentious
    Ontario's edits are determinedly anti-PR and pro-FPTP, and sources are bent to this end. Not only concerning MMP, but also party list PR (e.g.that open and closed systems do not use districts, a nonsense - he uses the word "zone" rather than "district" as an evasion), and, since Nov.5, he has removed sourced statements about STV in the article lead that were the result of a consensus (here) presumably what the comment "removed/moved redundant or superfluous sentences" refers to.
    His Talk posts are wilfully misleading. His most recent post is typical, a whole paragraph about an uncontentious classification of electoral systems; the actual problem, that MMP is nonetheless proportional, is not mentioned. He adds: "I have, in good faith, retained all of your minor edits...": as far as I can see he has retained one, a positive (for him) change in emphasis at the beginning of the section "Link between constituent and representative", but removed all other changes, for e.g.that some researchers question the importance of this link, and the sources for that. Another example is this post to user Reallavergne: none of his claims in it is correct.
    He repeatedly protests that his edits are mostly minor edits (he doesnt' t grasp WP:MINOR), spelling & grammar (there was one spelling error, I think), layout errors (presumably the mangling of the article's structure) or formatting that doesn't change the meaning (the table in "PR systems in the broader family of voting systems", probably a WP:COPYVIO), implying I am unreasonably reverting trivial changes. But this is deception: his changes are not at all trivial, and his revised structure (sections "Party list PR" and "Mixed electoral systems") is chaotic. User:Reallavergne, invited by Ontario to comment, and who has suffered at my hands in the past (e.g.here,here) and so is no fan of mine, agrees that my mass reverts were "largely justified".
    Qualifications are frequently used to mislead: e.g. fully proportional, pure PR, delineated districts. Another deception is his trying to imply that it is I making unacceptable edits to his text and not the other way round. He accordingly changed the talk section title, this in his first (!) talk post in WP (it was later changed by User:Drcrazy102). But until Nov.26 - when after eleven days without an edit I assumed Ontario had withdrawn - I had not added any text at all since Ontario began editing on August 16. I am just protecting what was there before.
    Verifiability
    He cannot produce sources when challenged (e.g.here), but boasts about the "plethora" of sources he has introduced, bamboozling with quantity, knowing they won't be looked at. They seldom support his arguments. For e.g.his lead, para 3, "MMP is a middle ground between" is supported by none of the nine (!) sources; the same for "This has led to some disagreement...". In the section "PR systems in the broader family of voting systems", only one source (from which it was copied) supports the table, the other nine (!) don't; neither do they all support the classification. On Sep.27 I complained that a RS did not support his text: he has removed the RS but not the text, which is not correcter for now being unsourced. His ref.30 (Geometric Voting) ostensibly supports MMP producing semi-proportional results, but it in fact says this happens only if the system is "deliberately" designed that way (see my Oct.3 post). His references in DRN #2 to p.22 of the Forder book are fiction. I haven't checked them all. I have repeatedly pointed him to WP:VERIFY and he retorts it is I who should provide sources to justify my revertions!
    Does not engage in consensus building
    Not once has he straightforwardly answered a question of mine. From the start his tone has been confrontational. For example, after I proposed BRD he replied: "Know this, if you continue to simply reinsert the same flawed text..." - this tone in only his second ever post to a talk page. And I'm not inserting anything. When, at his request, I posed three central questions (on Sep.21), he avoided answering them by answering different questions. He has several times been told by others to discuss point by point, but has yet to do so. This statement to admin User:Abecedare is therefore an outrageous untruth.
    Ignores community input
    There hasn't been much community input, but there is the failure to partake in the WP:DRN incidents; ignoring this earlier proposition from User:Drcrazy102 to mediate. And when User:Reallavergne (Ontario's invitee) confirmed that "MMP should be considered proportional", Ontario simply "overlooked" this inconvenient truth.
    Exhaust the patience of productive editors
    This seems to be Ontario's tactic, keep the tsunami of text coming until I give up. What the text says is secondary, so long as a semblance of reasonableness is preserved to mislead the uninvolved; he knows no-one else is going to read it all.
    Failure to 'get the point'
    One example: I wrote on Aug.26 that MMP is mixed, but on Nov.3 he was still maintaining I "flip-flop" on the very existence of "mixed" systems. But the point is uncontroversial and irrelevant, a distraction to avoid confronting the real point, that MMP is proportional, which would bring down his house of cards. Another: he seized on a recent anonymous IP edit as a new battleground, insisting it was from me. I denied that it was. Nonetheless, in the following posts he continued to claim it was from me, an entirely synthetic dispute, another red herring. There are more.

    Ontario should be permanently blocked from all electoral system articles. --BalCoder (talk) 10:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: This is a content dispute
    I've been watching this content dispute unfold. It really needs to start from scratch, back to the beginning, dumping all baggage. Though interested, I'm largely ignorant re different voting systems and how they impact elections in Ontario or Canada. As an outsider, I don't see a solution in this fog, but I can see a shadow of hope in the direction of discussing edits and putting aside editors' behaviour. There's a lot of animosity here (on all sides) that needs to be digested and disposed of.
    To BalCoder & Ontario Teacher BFA BEd: I direct the comments above to you personally. If you respond as if I directed these comments to you personally, you will have missed my point about discussing edits, not editors, even though you have been attacked. A solution will need editors to make heroic efforts to completely ignore comments on their motives, competency, and adherence to rules.
    BalCoder, you might step back and see this from an outsider's perspective. Statements such as "I am the only person protecting the PR article", and "a WP:ANI incident […] which attracted no admin response" are red flags to me that an editor has invested their interest too personally, and may not be able to retreat to a consensual position.
    Yes, there has been a frustrating failure to resolve this with talk pages, dispute resolution and appeals to administrator intervention. Perhaps a lot of that has to do with the intricate nature of the topic, and the nuances that are in contention. I bet I'm among many readers that would have loved to have helped out, but were not knowledgeable enough. This one is going to take a painstaking slog through edits one at a time. Apart from ejecting egos, my other recommendation is making edits in small steps, and allowing agreement to settle before proceeding. The article has been unsettled for three months now. I see no harm in proceeding carefully for another three months. My two cents. Willondon (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Is this really just a content dispute?
    I would not be so quick as to call this just a content dispute. As BalCoder points out, I have had my own quarrels with his ready use of mass reversions when a more constructive approach might have been called for. That said, I think he and I did succeed in improving the Proportional Representation entry somewhat together. It was just way more tedious and time-consuming than I could afford, and I had to move on to other things, abandoning with regret some of the work that Balcoder had block-reverted. Later, I saw Balcoder adopting the same approach with someone else, but I got involved in helping to come to a constructive solution and found that this worked out well.
    Whatever difficulties Balcoder and I may have had, there is much to be said for his willingness to go the extra mile to protect the integrity of a polically-sensitive Wikipedia entry like this one. One can forgive a lot of sins when one witnesses such a high level of dedication.
    From a content perspective, I can vouch for the fact that some of the changes proposed by Ontario appear to be politically motivated and make no sense to me from a strictly content perspective. The example that Balcoder gives of Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) treating MMP like it was not a proportional system stands out very strongly in this respect. Ontario's views on this are nonsense, and I spent a considerable amount of Talk time explaining that, apparently to no effect. Balcoder cites a number of other quite convincing cases where political motivation appears to be involved in Ontario's Wikipedia edits.
    I suggested earlier that Balcoder's mass reversion probably makes sense in this case. I stand by that suggestion. More difficult is the question of whether Ontario should be blocked as politically motivated. I believe this option should be more carefully considered, looking at the examples that Balcoder has cited, than I can afford to do right now, but I would not be too quick to dismiss it as an option. In fact, if our concern is to protect the integrity of the site, I would say that this is the risk-management option to choose. That's my two cents worth. Wish I could afford to do more than that!Reallavergne (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - This is only a "content dispute" in that many disputes arise as content disputes and are then complicated by conduct issues. Both another DRN volunteer and I tried to mediate this dispute, and we both had to fail it because User:Ontario Teacher BFA BEd didn't participate constructively. In the case of my thread, they agreed to mediation and then didn't reply for five days, after a statement having been made that every editor must participate at least every 48 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, I have to Support a topic ban, because content remedies have not worked. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello User:Robert McClenon,

    There are currently two disputes: a conduct dispute and a content dispute. In terms of conduct, User:BalCoder has repeatedly used uncivil language such as calling me an unscrupulous liar on 27 Sep 2015. Comparatively, I have, in good faith, used 'adaptive edits' in order to build consensus whereas BalCoder has merely mass reverted content based on the author alone. Furthermore, I have contacted other editors who have previously contributed to the article in order to build consensus and have input their suggestions/points of view several times through adaptive edits. Moreover, BalCoder has accused me of being politically motivated, and holding an anti-MMP stance. This accusation is quite shocking as I am personally in favour of MMP, as it is a compromise between the other two voting systems families. In fact, I voted for MMP in the Ontario electoral reform referendum, 2007. I do feel, however, WP editors have a responsibility to compare the advantages and disadvantages of electoral systems fairly. For this reason, I have attempted to ensure fair and neutral language is used throughout the article, while BalCoder has used severe language ripe with biased tones in his/her edits.

    In terms of content, User:BalCoder has renamed the subtitle 'Mixed or Hybrid' from the WP article on 11 Dec 14 to the seldom used term 'Two-tier systems'. I reverted this change. This user has deliberately misrepresented the truth by acting like his/her subtitle is the original version in order to establish a false incumbency. The premise of his/her arguments is that he/she is "protecting what was there before" is blatantly false. In truth, it is the other way around. Additionally, BalCoder removed the entire, and extremely well sourced section, 'PR systems in the broader family of voting systems'. This user has mislead others to believe I created this section- I did not! This section of the article was present prior to my contributions. I merely transferred existing information into an easy-to-understand table.

    Proportional Representation Systems Mixed Member Systems Plurality/Majority Systems
    Single Transferable Vote Mixed Member Proportional First Past the Post
    Party List Proportional Representation (closed/open/local) Alternative Vote Plus Alternative Vote/Instant-runoff voting
    Additional Member System Preferential block voting
    Majority Bonus System Limited Vote
    Supplementary Vote
    Two-Round System
    Borda Count

    [1][1][2][3][4]: 22 [5][6][7][8][9]

    This table primarily comes from the Electoral Reform Society of the UK. However, the classification of electoral systems into these three groups: PR systems, Mixed member systems, and Plurality/Majority Systems is universally used around the world by academic scholars, journalists, and electoral reform advocacy groups alike from a wide variety of political persuasions. For this reason, I provided examples from around the world to demonstrate that this classification is global. So, in addition to the aforementioned British example from an electoral reform advocacy group, I provided an example from a major Canadian magazine(Aaron Wherry from Maclean's Magazine), and from an Italian (Associate Professor of Comparative Public Law and School of Law Claudio Martinelli from the University of Milan-Bicocca) University professor. [1] [8] [9] This quite blatantly disproved BalCoder's wild accusation that I am somehow exclusively using Canadian sources.

    In terms of the accusation that I have not worked to reach consensus or that I have not provided sources which list MMP/AMS as semi-proportional, consider the following:

    As notes in the Direct Party and Representative Voting (DPR) website,

    "Mixed member systems differ slightly from country to country. In AMS (The UK term for MMP) the number of MPs in the parliament is fixed, and as a result AMS is sometimes called a semi proportional system. With MMP additional MPs may be required to achieve the required degree of proportionality. The degree of proportionality varies depending on the ratio of MPs elected by FPTP to the number of party list MPs, and the rules by which the party list MPs are appointed."[10] I have added this source to the list substantiating the phrase "This has led to some disagreement among scholars as to its classification.". This phrase has been added under the suggestion by, and consensus with, Øln on November 4th, 2015.

    Therefore, I believe User:BalCoder should be banned from the WP article based on both uncivil conduct, and the intentional misrepresentation of facts. The content of the proportional representation article can be resolved by other editors who have demonstrated good faith such as User:Reallavergne and Øln. Thank you for your time.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 04:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ a b c "Voting Systems Made Simple". Electoral Reform Society.
    2. ^ "Electoral Systems". Administration and Cost of Elections (ACE) Project. Retrieved 31 Aug 2015.
    3. ^ O’Neal, Brian. "Electoral Systems". Parliament of Canada. Retrieved 31 Aug 2015.
    4. ^ "Voting Counts: Electoral Reform for Canada" (PDF). Law Commission of Canada. 2004. p. 22.
    5. ^ Forder, James (2011). The case against voting reform. Oxford: Oneworld Publications. ISBN 978-1-85168-825-8.
    6. ^ "Electoral Systems and the Delimitation of Constituencies". International Foundation for Electoral Systems. 2 Jul 2009.
    7. ^ ACE Project Electoral Knowledge Network. "The Systems and Their Consequences". Retrieved 26 September 2014.
    8. ^ a b Wherry, Aaron (8 Dec 2014). "The case for mixed-member proportional representation". Maclean's Magazine.
    9. ^ a b CLAUDIO MARTINELLI. "ELECTORAL SYSTEMS IN COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE" (PDF). UNIVERSITY OF MILAN-BICOCCA. pp. 3–4. Retrieved 29 Nov 2015.
    10. ^ "Voting Systems compared". Direct Party and Representative Voting (DPR). Retrieved 3 Dec 2015.

    So, the editors here plus FreeKnowledgeCreator have been edit-warring again over the page, see the article revision history. May I propose several solutions? I am aware that I am at least partially involved, if not fully by this point.

    1. Topic-ban Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (per oblique request by filing party, BalCoder')
    2. Topic-ban BalCoder (per request by Ontario Teacher BFA BEd)
    3. Topic-ban both editors, Ontario Teacher BFA BEd and BalCoder (per WP:BOOMERANG)
    4. Indef. fully-protect the article, Proportional Representation at a diff prior to the edit-warring between users: Suggested diff by Drcrazy102 (talk) (new request; this will require the users to either work co-operatively or not have the article corrected by using edit requests to Admins.)

    Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 05:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment For starters, calling someone a "new user" in the first sentence is attempting to paint an overall picture that "all new users are bad", which makes me sour (and absolutely contrary to what the community and foundation has been doing). Judging on the discussion itself, all I see is a wall of text, lots of policies and their abbreviations thrown around, and lots of diffs being tucked inside the wall of text that blends in with article links and policies pages. Talk page was working fine until BalCoder decides to send it to ANI. I suggest to send this back to the talk page where it is most suitable to this type of discussion. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic-ban Ontario Teacher BFA BEd

    Topic-ban BalCoder

    Topic-ban both editors, Ontario Teacher BFA BEd and BalCoder

    Fully-protect the article, Proportional Representation at a diff prior to the edit-warring between users

    Suggested diff by Drcrazy102 (talk)

    Rhema Media

    Disruptive edits are being made to Rhema Media.

    Thanks. Paewiki (talk)

    Very, very clear promotional and COI edits. Note the usernames: Leenz - Lee is a named employee in the article about this New Zealand (nz) company. MikeMediaNZ - Mike is also the CEO's name. RM1251 - Rhema Media 1251 (AM 1251 is a their radio station). Requested page protection and left a message at WP:COIN pointing here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Page protected for two weeks and all editors notified about COI. Let's see how they respond. --NeilN talk to me 15:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. With three COI editors inserting fluff such as "Star reflects that life really does begin at 50 and has the music and teaching programmes to prove it, but... don’t tell the kids!"[140], the article had turned into ad copy. It still is. Reliable sources for this article subject are surprisingly few for a broadcaster; I've been looking. See Talk:Rhema_Media#Deletion? It's one of those situations where the article subject is just barely notable, and AfD seems inappropriate, but there's very limited third party coverage. John Nagle (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Nonsensical Edit-Warring, Hostile Editing and MOS:LEAD Violation by TheRedPenOfDoom (TRPoD)

    Zee Bangla is a major Indian television network in the Bengali language. It has a viewership of over 55 million. [141] Just to put that into perspective, this network has a larger viewership than NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX and the CW combined. [142] Due to WP:BIAS, naturally there's not a lot a proportional amount of editing in English WP.

    But you wouldn't know it's even a television network due to TRPoD's edit-warring.

    User:TheRedPenOfDoom has been hell-bent on getting this deleted with either blanking redirects to the network's holding company or "Notability" tags.[143][144][145][146]. During a WP:TNT job he deleted the lede.[147] You would have no idea what the article topic is by TRPoD's edit. Naturally I added a lede per MOS:LEAD. That lede was:

    Zee Bangla (Bengali: জ়ী বাংলা) is a Bengali language cable television channel in India. It is offered by Zee Network, part of the Essel Group.

    TRPoD deleted this sentence and didn't replace it with anything so nobody has any idea what even this topic is! His edit summary was "WP:BURDEN it is obviously a claim and unsourced." [148]

    Either this editor is operating on the assumption that every single sentence in WP mainspace must be cited by sources or he's just being combative for the sake of combativeness. Given his history, I'm wondering if it's the latter. I wouldn't have brought this case to this board but I see that this editor was blocked by Administrator User:HJ Mitchell for "edit-warring and creating a hostile editing environment" so this behavior is clearly nothing new to him and he has learned nothing from that block. I also see TRPoD has been the subject of multiple ANI cases.[149][150][151][152]

    Can something be done about this longtime problem editor? TRP

    Also, can someone please fix the MOS:LEAD violation on the Zee Bangla page? --Oakshade (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This looks like a content dispute to me. In my opinion his edits do seem a bit too aggressive in terms of removing unsourced stuff (rather than tagging it), since it's not like this is a BLP or a situation where leaving tagged unsourced stuff up for a bit while people search for sources would be a problem; but I don't see how it's a policy violation, so it doesn't really belong here, especially since there seems to have been no attempt by anyone but him to resolve the dispute on the talk page for the article. In any case, if it's as big as that, answering his objections by finding sources should be easy to do, so I don't understand why this dispute has gotten so far -- just take the sources you presented here and put them in the article, if you think they pass WP:RS (I'm not sure myself, but that's something you can hash out with him on the talk page if it turns out to be an issue.) Also, you're required to notify people when creating an ANI thread about them, though I went ahead and did it for you in this case. --Aquillion (talk) 02:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of what you said is correct. This is more about this editor's long-term edit-warring pattern of behavior of that has displayed and still hasn't paid heed to the community's request he stop this behavior.--Oakshade (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are correct about Aquillion being correct, we can close this thread. User:TheRedPenOfDoom, the fate of the world is not at stake in this article. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Feel free to close this. But I guarantee this is not the last time someone is going to bring this editor to community scrutiny.--Oakshade (talk) 03:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? Does anyone still have the energy to resist Red Pen? This is one of the most destructive editors here (and yes, quote me on that). They have a vast history of edit-warring, wikilawyering bureaucracy to the overall detriment of the encyclopedia. How often does anyone see an edit from them that isn't an edit war?
    Yet WP is seemingly powerless to act. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, take a look at the recent history of Krampus for yet more of the same. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, we've all had our little blah blah blah and everyone feels self-satisfied. Now read this again and let it sink in: "Zee Bangla is a major Indian television network in the Bengali language. It has a viewership of over 55 million. [153] Just to put that into perspective, this network has a larger viewership than NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX and the CW combined. [154] Due to WP:BIAS, naturally there's not a lot a proportional amount of editing in English WP. " — Why are we not taking this seriously? Carrite (talk) 05:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Taking what not seriously? Do we ignore WP:BURDEN because someone yells WP:BIAS? No one says find an English language source, just find a source. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Better delete the lede of MSNBC - "MSNBC is an American basic cable and satellite television network that provides news coverage and political opinion (mostly progressive) on current events." - because of WP:BURDEN and there's no citation supporting that claim.--Oakshade (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not helping your cause here. Feel free to go around with WP:POINTy idiocy and test everyone. One reason I hate editing anything India related is there's almost guaranteed to be some claim that it's biased or racist or whatever. That and the ginormous overreaction to every little slight. And that's from someone who's Indian so I'm used to it. To summarize, unsourced content was removed, sources were provided and people still want TRPoD blocked anyways due to Gamergate it seems. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing the simple sentence lede for which a vast majority of WP articles don't have a citation under the pretext of WP:BURDEN is what's WP:POINTy. I see even in your good and helpful edits, even you have opted not to delete the lede which is uncited - "Zee Bangla (Bengali: জ়ী বাংলা) is a Bengali language cable television channel in India." - as that would be POINTy.--Oakshade (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The lede doesn't require a source if the content below repeats it and contains a source. You don't get an out on sourcing by making all the content into the lede. The MSNBC page has extensive citations regarding those facts so the lede is superfluous in that regard. Even then, you argued about not just the lede but about a notability tag, the removal of an non-reliable source, and the redirect of the article. And as noted below, in all the complaining you've done here, the only talk page comment you have is "send it to AFD" which ignore the source concern entirely. Did you really want it taken to AFD or were you just being argumentative as you are here? Even then the lede isn't clear. It's discussing the fact that the channel was banned in Bangladesh without any indication that it is a channel in that country (if it is a current channel there). As I note on the talk page, there's three separate years when it allegedly began. Do you care about any of this or do you think that everyone should just ignore it all in favor of an unsourced list of programs and whatever else people want to post there? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The source supporting the lede content, that this was a cable channel in India, was indicated in a source in the article, but TRPoD deleted the lede anyway. As pointed out below by Swarm who opposes a block, TRRoD should've brought this to AfD as opposed to unilaterally redirecting. As for what would transpire in the AfD, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:AFD, WP:BEFORE and WP:DELETE all make it explicitly clear that notability is indicated by the sources that exist, not that are present in the article. No editor with common sense would believe a television network with a viewership over 153 million [155] (it was even more than I thought earlier) would not have existing sources, and in this case, most likely in the Bengali language.--Oakshade (talk) 01:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been concerned with similar edits from TRPoD for a long time. I'm fairly certain I've seen several such edits from TRPoD, but the one previous instance that I can remember where I interacted with TRPoD for a similar situation was for the now-deleted article Heartstone (artifact) (see User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom/Archive 12 and User talk:Calathan#Nomination of Heartstone (artifact) for deletion). In that case, TRPoD edited the article to remove all explanation of what the subject was, leaving the article as just one line of trivia mentioning that a single TV series had heartstones in it. As I explained at the time, while taking the article to AFD was appropriate (it couldn't be backed up by sources, and was deleted), removing any explanation from the article about what the article was actually about seemed ridiculous. I'm dismayed to see that TRPoD is still making similar edits. It seems like the most obvious of common sense that an article should contain a statement of what the article is about. If that statement can't be backed with reliable sources, then the article will clearly be deleted, but in such a case one of the deletion policies is the right solution. Removing any statement of what the article is about will just make it harder for people to either determine if it should be deleted or find sources (not everyone will think to check the history). In a case like Zee Bangla, where it seems obvious that some sources should exist, just adding a "citation needed" tag to the line in question seems like a fine way to handle an uncited lead statement. While WP:BURDEN is policy, it feels like TRPoD treats it as if it is the be-all and end-all of policy, trumping things like cooperative editing and the goal of building an encyclopedia. That simply isn't the case, and other editors need to know what an article is supposed to be about if they are to participate in editing it (or deleting it, or whatever the appropriate outcome is for the article). If anyone needs a policy justification for leaving articles in a state where other editors can understand what they are about, I would say Wikipedia:Civility, specifically the part that states "Participate in a respectful and considerate way". I'm not asking for any specific action against TRPoD over this, but just want TRPoD to please stop editing like this. Removing explanations of what articles are even about does not lead to a better encyclopedia, and isn't at all the right way to cooperate with your fellow editors. Calathan (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Block TRPoD for disruption

    No consensus to block plus proposing IP is from a range known for disruption --NeilN talk to me 05:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I think it's clear that TRPoD's conduct is disruptive. There is no need to remove content. 166.176.59.69 (talk) 04:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

    • Oppose Did banishing TRPoD improve either the content of the deportment at Gamergate? It did not; things got worse. Yet some of the same actors who were so earnest in their pursuit of Gamergate’s targets, the five horsemen of wikibias, are back here. A block discussion is not the answer. A block is not the answer. The answer is to pick up your toolbox, go look at the television network page, and improve it. A network this large should should be covered in plenty of reliable sources; go use them. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OTOH, if even Gamergate won't have him, that's a strong suggestion that there is a problem here. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. This is a content dispute that has barely been discussed on the talk page. If discussion and regular dispute resolution procedures are fruitless, then we can consider it here. Gamaliel (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is about TRPoD's long term hostile disruptive behavior and inability to properly work with others. The "content dispute" is just another example of his behavior that demonstrates his recent block for the same behavior has had no effect on him.--Oakshade (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • wut? I have no idea what Gamergate has to do with this (though I realise it is the horse Bernstein loves to ride) but the rest of his post is correct. It should also have occurred to TRPOD that this is a significant network; perhaps TRPOD has realised this now pablo 19:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose This is a content dispute. (A) What article are we talking about? If people object about Gamergate, start a new discussion. (B) As to Zee Bangla, things are unsourced and so it can be removed. (C) The WP:BURDEN is on those who assert the statements not on the rest of us to just go with it. Cite needed is fine too but we do have over 100 pages with issues for over a decade. (D) Regardless of the claims about English-language bias or whatever, there is no requirement that sources be in English. The fact that no one has found sources in any language is problematic but not particularly disruptive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      "Things" may be unsourced but the second paragraph of the source cited backs up both those sentences. You know, if you actually read it.  pablo 22:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • The content dispute is the thread above, this is about the long-term pattern from Red Pen.
    Wikilawyering is using policy to find an excuse to act in a particular way, regardless of whether the end result is useful or not. This typifies Red Pen's editing. I've known of them for a few years, this is all I've ever seen from them. Sometimes the end result is useful (real spam is spam and we're well rid) but all too often - and I'd hazard that it's 50:50 for Red Pen - the results are both harmful and yet policy-compliant. This is the behaviour of the cop who thanks you for pulling over to let the ambulance past, then issues you a ticket for parking on the grass. Red Pen's contribs history is one long slew of red - bulk sections of articles removed on the slightest of whims. Nearly every time he bulk-removes it's against another editor(s), and he will always then edit-war repeatedly to enforce his view and his remarkable persistence. He wins out by sheer doggedness.
    Most of these removals are unwarranted. Repeatedly removing mention of a big budget film release as "unsourced" (see Krampus through November) is no excuse when the real fix is to find some sources and add them (It is implausible that a multi-million film doesn't make a footprint of good sources). I do not believe that it is acceptable editing to make this deletion-only edit repeatedly, even when policy permits that, when the better alternative is so obvious and so easily achievable. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - The deleting the the simple lede of this television network article was another act of WP:POWER rather than the benefit of the readers. This additional example of absurdity is demonstrating his recent block for this kind of behavior has had zero effect on him. Something more substantial needs to be done.--Oakshade (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose blocking an editor over a content dispute. TRPoD can be abrupt and abrasive but I find his edits usually improve articles. Liz Read! Talk! 20:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not just a "content dispute", but another example of an overall long-term pattern of hostile and disruptive editing that this editor has demonstrated. --Oakshade (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you point out the long-term pattern? Simply saying "editor was brought to ANI multiple times" isn't going to cut it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only has there been multiple ANI cases against this editor for the same edit-warring and hostile editing, he was blocked earlier this year for such behavior.[156] I'm not alone on this board when feeling this behavior has gone on long enough. --Oakshade (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    TheRedPenOfDoom has been an editor since 2007 and has 135,990 edits and one block (one fewer block and 120,000 more edits than you). I am having trouble seeing this as evidence that "this behavior has gone on long enough". --Guy Macon (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Duration of time at WP is just a red herring and does not absolve an editor from persistent hostile edit warring.--Oakshade (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Completely deleting the lede and breaking MOS:LEAD because they were mad the article was still there did not improve the article. That edit-warring beyond "abrasive". --Oakshade (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose If you block TRPoD you may as well hand over the keys to this asylum to every promotional sock farm and paid editing group that proliferate our Indian and Pakistani entertainment articles. I don't think anyone who has not edited in this area can comprehend the amount of puffery, promotion and outright falsification of references that occurs in this topic area. Does he get it right every single time? No, though with 135k+ edits I can imagine it would be hard to achieve perfection. I see TRPoD started a discussion on the talk page prior to the issue being brought here and the response was pretty much "take it to AfD if you disagree", which is hardly constructive. I don't see this as an intractable dispute requiring blocks, people just need to talk to each other and figure out what content should be included (or not) in the article. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose "Multiple ANI threads" is just a red herring. Persistent hostility is unproven. BTW you do not need to respond to every post made here by those who do not agree with you. MarnetteD|Talk 23:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I don't find TRPOD's conduct in this article to be helpful or constructive, but no case has been made to demonstrate a blockworthy, ongoing problem. If the effort put into complaining about it at ANI was instead put to actually resolving his complaints, we wouldn't have an issue to begin with. Three problematic things I did see that I would caution him about: Notability does not apply to content found within an article, it applies to the subject of the article itself, and thus, content should not be removed for being "non-notable". The accusations of content being promotional appear to be empty. Do not label information as "promotional" unless it's clearly intended to advertise. Lastly, existing articles should not be unilaterally redirected. This is what AfD is for. Swarm ♠ 00:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a good summation and I agree with a lot of it. I would point out, as pointed out above, TRPoD has been an editor since 2007 and has 135,990 edits. He knows all of this. He knows about notability not applying to article content, he knows what is "promotional" and he knows what should be the sent to AfD as opposed to unilaterally redirecting. But he ignored all of this, edited un-constructively and went to to edit-war to supporting these edits which he knows were wrong. That's why this behavior, which is nothing new, was brought to ANI. --Oakshade (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Tripod is a case study in why civility is not the be-all end-all of evaluating an editor. He does what needs to be done. I don't see any indication here of the personal attacks that crossed the line and got him in trouble before. Rhoark (talk) 02:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Before life ate me into a lengthy Wikibreak TRPoD was regularly hauled to ANI and regularly had nothing come of it but sound and fury. I return and I may as well set my watch to it, because here he is again. And again, there's nothing here seeming to rise to the level of blockworthiness. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. TRPoD is a good editor who has the gumption to keep a lot of our problematic articles sailing straight. For these pains of course they get dragged here a lot. TRPoD deserves the community's support. Alexbrn (talk) 12:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support and block Ricky81682 as well for his meat puppetry. The lede must not be touched. Ever. 166.170.50.225 (talk) 14:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per the many opposers above. Strong good faith editor who edits in many difficult areas of the project, certainly not afraid to show a strong approach to NPOV as we know it in some of the more lawless spots! -Roxy the dog™ woof 14:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. TRPoD tirelessly works to bring problematic articles into compliance with our community's most important policies and guidelines, including WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, and the manual of style, and to maintain them in that state. Regardless of any merit to the objection to his behaviour in this particular case, there is no evidence of an ongoing problem which would warrant a block. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. This is a content dispute which (when it was brought here) no one but TRPoD had made any attempt to resolve on talk. He should have looked for sources or tagged rather than just deleting, but calling the deletion of unsourced material "disruptive" is silly. Just find a source and restore it with that. --Aquillion (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleting the lede so nobody had any idea what this major television network was is what was just silly, not to mention disruptive. Calling bad behavior a "content dispute" simply because his disruptive behavior was instigated by a content dispute only masks the disruptive behavior.--Oakshade (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Supporters haven't shown any good reason to block TRPoD. The edit deserves, if anything, a WP:TROUT, not a block. There's no evidence of a long-term pattern here. clpo13(talk) 22:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Some of my neighbours watch Zee Bangla, yet i would support Red Pen to edit Indian entertainment articles. He doesn't have any personal hatred against Zee Bangala. There is too much paid editing and promotional editors in Indian entertainment articles, due to which people are bound to make mistakes. Last few weeks I am removing tons of crap websites being used as references and i found it strange that Filmfare and Stardust (magazine) a Bollywood magazine founded in 1971 is less likely to be used as reference, while these new unreliable websites are frequently used as reference though they don't have much popularity. filmfare 1958, filmfare 1960, stardust 1974, stardust 1980 The Avengers 05:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User Springee Canvassing

    User Springee has taken to canvassing to find support for his point of view on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. He explicitly asked SlimVirgin to contribute to the discussion after discovering s/he held the same position as him in an earlier talk page discussion from 5 years ago. [157] I warned[158] him about canvassing which he dismissed as an attempt to "intimidate"[159] and then continued to recruit SlimVirgin to weigh in on the discussion.[160] His statement wasn't neutrally stated and he didn't contact anyone with an opposing point of view to join the discussion. This is a violation of WP:VOTESTACK and Campaigning as described by WP:CANVASS.Scoobydunk (talk) 04:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Except for that there isn't a vote, and that this could just as easily be seen as someone asking an expert opinion. Your warning consisted of nothing more than dropping a template on their talk page. No doubt this results from all the animosity on the talk page, where Gamaliel has already asked for the thermostat to be turned down a little bit. Drmies (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Springee's Reply This is simply a case of an editor with a wp:battleground mentality trying to game the system rather than assuming good faith in addressing a content dispute. It is similar in nature to an ANI the editor filed against me in September also related to the Southern Strategy article [161]. Admin Ricky81682 was the only admin to reply to (excluding some unrelated IP harassment) noting that "There's a perfectly good reason it's been ignored. These kinds of arguments also keep going to WP:AE (which at least has a word limit) and no one particularly cares because everyone can see what this is."[162].
    Over the past few weeks I have been trying to edit a section of the same article. Scoobydunk has reverted my edits a number of times[163][164][165][166][167] claiming, in part, that WP:RS says that non-peer reviewed sources are less reliable than peer reviewed sources and thus can not be used to challenge a peer reviewed source.[[168]] Likely due to the walls of text this discussion yielded no support for his views. To get outside help in solving the WP:RS question regarding scholarly vs non-scholarly contradicting sources I started a RSN discussion.Reliable Sources Noticeboard Given the contentious exchanges in the topic only editor replied prior to today (only after I started replying to this ANI did I see today's replies to the RSN discussion). Given the lack of replies I went looking for older archive discussions and found the thread Scoobydunk is referring to. It was clear from reading that discussion that the consensus was that peer reviewed sources should not automatically trump non-peer reviewed sources. I asked an editor from that thread to weigh in on the topic. I did not ask the editor to decide if the sources I was using were reliable nor did I ask the editor to decide if the edits I was making to the article were correct. It is quite possible the editor would totally disagree. However, as someone who was involved in the discussion and as one of the editors who helped craft the WP:RS guideline it seemed reasonable to ask for the opinion. I do not feel I asked in a non-neutral way since I was asking for the opinion on a policy, not article edits. Furthermore, asking ONE involved editor hardly seems like canvasing. Springee (talk) 05:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Springee, I was starting to be on your side until I saw you responding to DreamGuy with a half a mile of text, and now you're doing the same thing here. Good god you are wordy. Drmies (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And we see that once again history repeats itself. A "slim", "Virgin" is at the centre of drama. Apparently Springee has abducted the aforementioned virgin to render him favours, which does not suit dunk's view as he wants the Slim Virgin all for himself. One a more Boring and wiki policified note, this does not appear to be a Canvass as the forum being used is not one which relies on voting. This is a basic request for views on source credibility and asking an expert to voice her(yes I presume all virgins that are slim should be "her") views. So, in a nutshell, Mush Drama about nothing. Regards , a slightly high FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Drmies, sorry about the long reply. I too often feel the need to include all the details. Springee (talk) 06:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Canvassing is not limited to "voting" and clearly applies to debates and noticeboard discussions. Also, if Springee wants to make his own ANI topic to address his concerns, he's more than welcome to. However, this topic is specifically to address WP:VOTESTACK concerns. The policy explicitly says "In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (such as a "no consensus" result on an AFD or CFD), it is similarly inappropriate to send an undue number of notifications specifically to those who expressed a particular viewpoint on the previous debate. For example, it would be votestacking to selectively notify a disproportionate number of "Keep" voters or a disproportionate number of "Delete" voters." Not to mention the part about Campaigning. Springee didn't just ask for clarification, he repeatedly asked for involvement on the RSN which is directly defined as canvassing. He explicitly explains how he found this discussion, identified a user that had the same opinion as him, and requested that user weigh in on the discussion, while no asking editors with opposing views to weigh in. That's verbatim WP:VOTESTACK which also says nothing about "voting". Scoobydunk (talk) 07:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when is notifying one expert vote stacking? Springee (talk) 07:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "it is similarly inappropriate to send an undue number of notifications specifically to those who expressed a particular viewpoint on the previous debate." as per WP:VOTESTACK. It's literally right there in the policy.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What is an undue number? Springee (talk) 07:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    More than zero. BMK (talk) 07:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe it's an uneven number. But let's not forget about this part too "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion." here we don't have to worry about defining "undue" because this explicitly explains what you did in encouraging SlimVirgin to participate in the discussion. You knew their position on the matter, only selected that single editors, and encouraged them to join the RSN. Scoobydunk (talk) 07:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    She (I assume she) was an editor who helped write the RS policy and thus was well placed to tell us what the indented meaning was. Contrary to how you portrayed things, there was a general consensus in the archived discussion that RS does not automatically place scholarly sources over other reliable sources. The debate was how that should be communicated, not that it was the intent. Springee (talk) 07:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notice: I got pinged here so whatever. I think that was canvassing but Slimvirgin commented mentioning that and did not actually seem to offer an opinion. I think the Scoobydunk's templating is fine, nothing more is needed as long as Springee stops doing anything more in that vein. Second, there are four outside other opinions at RSN now so I don't think there's nothing more needed as the discussion is properly focused on weight which is the actual issue. Third, god the length and bickering is nuts here. I think it's almost time to consider dual topic bans or something just for the sake of the rest of us. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Question I have been accused of asking only a single admin in an archive thread. Scoobydunk claims there was not consensus on the particular question I was asking. So whom else in that archived thread should I have asked to avoid the perception of imbalance? Springee (talk) 13:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC) Comment Scoobydunk previously accused me of canvasing when I asked another editor to lend a voice to the Southern Strategy article. When looking for an 3rd party POV I was deliberate in picking an editor whom I respected but almost always disagreed with.[169] As can be seen in the article talk section and the notice board discussions Fyddlestix has largely not agreed with me and my proposed edits including the ones related to this discussion. For the trouble of going out of my way to pick an editor whom I assumed would not be inclined to agree with me I was accused of canvasing.[170] Springee (talk) 15:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I get that Springee is frustrated. Let's channel that frustration in other ways. The impulse to seek other opinions and break an impasse between two editors is a good one, so instead of complaining about inappropriate canvassing, let's try to channel that into an RFC or a post at Wikipedia:Third opinion or some other means of appropriate dispute resolution. Here, this discussion is just becoming an extention of the initial dispute. Gamaliel (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I only listed canvassing concerns for the current RSN, however they've been going on for about a month in various degrees of our discussions. If Springee is going to reference his outreach to Fyddlestix, then the rest of his outreaches should be noted. So, Springee considers Fyddlestix a typically opposing view when it comes to matters of dispute, however Fyddlestix had no previous involvement on the Southern Strategy article before Springee contacted him. Springee left Fyddlestix, the opposing view, a neutrally worded message. At the same time, Springee contacted Rjensen [171] who had been recently engaged on the Southern Strategy, and left him a clearly biased message laying out his argument in full and seeking assistance. I gave Springee a warning for this biased approach in recruiting editors, as Springee notes above. Since then, Springee has also contacted Scott Illni [172][173] who's previously edited the article similarly to Springee, like including information claiming Reagan didn't use the Southern Strategy[174]. Springee has also contacted Guy Macon[175] to seek assistance, and Guy Macon has taken similar stances with Springee regarding multiple political issues in the past. Then, of course, there's SlimVirgin. So Springee attempted to involve 1 editor with an opposing view, while contacting 4 editors with supporting views over the course of the last month. I only focused on SlimVirgin and the current RSN because I don't like raising issue when the content can be subjective, and with SlimVirgin it is an objectively verbatim violation of WP:VOTESTACK. However, if Springee considers his outreach to Fyddlesix to be an example of recruiting an opposing view, then his similar outreaches to 3 supporting views should be noted.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Not these two again! It's User:Scoobydunk and User:Springee continuing to forum shop and quarrel about Southern Strategy. This has been going on for a month at multiple noticeboards. They have both been notified of discretionary sanctions for American politics. Can some uninvolved administrator please topic-ban them from discussion of and reports about Southern strategy? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Robert McClenon, You previously accused me of forum shopping in a NPOVN discussion that was started by Scoobydunk. I do not understand how that would have been forum shopping. Asking a specific RSN question is also not forum shopping (and no one claimed it was). This ANI was started by Scoobydunk so again, please don't accuse me of forum shopping related to this discussion. Springee (talk) 03:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    user:Robert McClenon this is one thing I agree with Springee, and your accusations of forum shopping do not exhibit good faith. Every issue posted at the relevant noticeboard has been separate and justified. This hasn't been over a single issue, but regarding multiple aspects of individual pieces of information, sources, and behavior that a single noticeboard does not encompass. The issues have ranged from Majority opinion over the Top-Down approach, to NPOV concerns, to reliable source issues, and now behavioral. There is no one noticeboard that can address all of these and they all regarding different edits. I also think it's inappropriate to suggest a dual topic ban when editors follow the dispute resolution guidelines outlined by Wikipedia.Scoobydunk (talk) 05:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for closure based on self enforced break I'm announcing here that I am going to stay off the Southern Strategy article for at least the rest of the year. As I've said before, between multiple undos of my edits by Scoobydunk and the generally heated (as noted by others) discussion pages I think it has become too challenging to work productively on the topic. I hope this will simply put this mess behind us and hopefully other editors can work with some of the sources I've brought to the table. Springee (talk) 03:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think a self imposed break is a solution. The last time Springee suggested a self-imposed 30-day Iban for wikihounding another editor[176], he immediately went back to following that editor to different articles and reverting his work after the 30 days expired[177][178][179]. Those are just 3 of the article reverts of HughD, but there are over a dozen reverts that all occurred on the same day his iban expired on October 15.Scoobydunk (talk) 05:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Scoobydunk, if your object is to get both of us topic banned I suspect this is a good way to do it. I think we have two admins who would be quite happy to see that happen. If that is your wish so be it but I would rather not be topic banned. Springee (talk) 06:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • So Springee followed the self-imposed break then. I don't see a problem. If Springee self imposes a break until the end of the year and doesn't edit the article until the end of the year, is that enough for you Scoobydunk? Else what do you want, four weeks? A full ban? You're free to bring this up again if this starts on January 1st but I'm assuming that people will move on to disputing the next item then. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    user:Ricky81682 I'm not sure what all an I-ban entails but he maintained contact with HughD either directly or indirectly throughout[180][181][182]. He just didn't directly revert his edits. What is the difference between a self-imposed break and one forced by an admin? I think if I understand this, it will help me answer your questions about what I'm looking for.Scoobydunk (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A self-imposed ban means nothing but an admin can shut this discussion down as moot and we can move on. An admin one is admin imposed and either requires an admin deciding to do it or enough support here to do it. Again, what would you propose be done? As I stated above, mutual topic bans may be required if it's helpful to the encyclopedia. If you two simply cannot co-exist together, and I can't figure out who's more at fault, I'd prefer not having this page nor AE filled up with bickering by telling you both to find another one of the 4.9 million pages here that aren't this one. If Springee stays away for the next few weeks, then you have free reign there but if you're back here on January 1st complaining that Springee is back, then we've resolved nothing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My complaints are strictly limited to policy violations and have never been because "someone is back". I don't see how a mutual ban is any sort of solution when Springee is the only one who's canvassed. I'll settle for self imposed break, but I hope next time Springee resorts to wikihounding, canvassing, tendentious editing or whatever, an admin actually does something about it. Scoobydunk (talk) 00:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm saying if there's a limited self-imposed ban, I would be surprised if upon editing there again, the same issues didn't pop up again and thus all we've done is had three weeks of quiet and delayed the inevitable. I'm not offering any opinion as to your complaints, as noted above, you were correct in that it seems somewhat inappropriate so the templating is correct but I don't see it as problematic enough to warrant a block. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Scoobydunk's comments and demand for punishment come across as WP:BATTLEGROUND to me. Perhaps we should both voluntarily leave the article for the rest of the month. My requests for outside help, improper though they now appear to be, were the result of Scoobydunks efforts to absolutely block all my editing efforts in the 1970-1990 subsection (we were the only editors at the time) and a desire to avoid an edit war. An ANI less than a month back found we were both less than civil [183]. 1RR for me, Scoobydunk got a warning due to a technicality [184]. Taking advantage of my 1RR limitation, all 5 of my edits from Nov 14th to Nov 28th were systematically reverted, [185][186][187][188][189]. The first was new material to the article. The subsequent 5 were good faith effort to address the limited feedback Scoobydunk offered for the undos. These reversals of good faith edits go against WP:DONTREVERT and look like WP:OWN. I'm taking the time off from the article because I'm tired of the above and tired of the implications of bad faith after spending several hours in a research library finding hard copy sources. If Scoobydunk wants sanctions then I suggest we review the above reverts in context of the recent uncivil editing ANI. But, perhaps the better option is we both take some time off from the article (I am) or we just drop it. Springee (talk) 04:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You're the only one responsible for your behavior Springee. Springee also misrepresents the events. Following his 1RR sanction, Springee immediately took to reverting information in the article again. [190] Yes, he did add some new material, but he also removed and edited pre-existing material which partially lead to his 1RR sanction in the first place. Slakr was the admin overseeing our previous edit war ANI and he has been kept informed of just about all of the editing since he gave Springee a 1RR sanction. This includes all of the diffs Springee just listed above. Slakr ultimately decided to temporarily lock the article and asked us to use dispute resolution.[191] We have been following Slakr's advice since then, but since the DRN's weren't going in favor of Springee, he decided to start canvassing and that's why we're here today. Since Slakr suggested we use dispute resolution, there hasn't been any edit warring and we've been following his suggestions, however it's hard to achieve a valid consensus when one editors resorts to canvassing to influence the outcome.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Your claim of immediately 'started reverting again' makes the presumption that the article was 'correct' before the reverts. The ANI finds (which found against both of us) did not make any ruling on the quality of the material, only the uncivil behavior of the editors. The article lock also didn't claim to support the current state of the article. Slakr told you he saw nothing wrong with the continued edits.[192] Your comment about DRN's is misleading. 3 of your 5 reverts occurred before you filed a COATRACK NPOVN claim. After it was clear that claim got no support I tried to edit 2 more times. You immediately reverted both edits. My RSN filing on the 29th, was made after your 5th reversion of my material. Perhaps your intent is to get us both blocked in order to maintain status quo in the article. Either way, I think Ricky has made it clear that if you think sanctions are appropriate, propose them. Else, let it drop. Springee (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I already said I was fine with your self proposed break, then you started to bring up information that has already been addressed by Slakr. So it's clear that you're the one that needs to "drop it". Also, for every revert of mine that you're complaining about, it followed a revert of your own. That's to say, you resorted to reverting first instead of waiting for a consensus of a dispute resolution. Also, I didn't mislead about anything and I actually started a DRN before Slakr locked the article and suggested using dispute resolution, which is all I spoke to. Yes, I've been using dispute resolution to solve these issues, but you've resorted to reverting the article to suit your narrative and then resorted to canvassing to affect the outcome of the dispute resolution. Again, I'm fine with the self imposed break.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd suggest (but not mandate) that no canvassing of anyone in the future be done. It's clear some people will take it as a slight no matter who is contacted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Actual canvassing is bad. Asking for help is not. Because I have been involved in WP:DRN for a long time, many people who have been is DRN cases that I mediated ask me for help or advice regarding content disputes. Nothing wrong with that unless they have reason to believe that I will favor their position. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - It doesn't really matter whether there has been canvassing. It doesn't really matter whether there has been improper forum shopping. It isn't important to come up with a proper wikilawyered identification of what is wrong. It is clear that these two editors do not like each other and are disrupting multiple Wikipedia forums with their dispute, and it is clear that something needs to be done. Rather than an interaction ban, which wouldn't work well and might result in more arguments, I suggest that an uninvolved administrator topic-ban both editors from Southern strategy, broadly defined. They have both already been alerted to American politics discretionary sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    According to the very same sanctions Robert McClenon just referenced: "Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion – involving the wider community, if necessary. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process and to carefully consider other editors' views, rather than simply edit-warring back-and-forth between competing versions." This is precisely what Springee and I have done. We've followed the principles and have sought dispute resolution instead of edit warring. So to recommend a topic ban when both editors are following the very same principles they've been informed of seems unmerited and counterproductive.Scoobydunk (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Suvrat Raj(sonu kumar)

    SPI opened, socks blocked --NeilN talk to me 05:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This user appears to be the indef blocked user User:SUVRAT RAJ.

    Almost all of his edits have been attempts at self-promotion - most recently, creating redirects from namespace to his user page, and also adding categories to it. PamD 09:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Alexiulian25

    {{atop|Blocked 60 hours for NPA by Katie --NeilN talk to me 05:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Indef'd by [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee}}. Blackmane (talk) 01:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)}} Please can somebody take a look at Alexiulian25 (talk · contribs)'s recent edits/behavior - the background can be found here (talk page of the effected WikiProject, where I have tried to resolve the matter), but this is basically a low-level content dispute. I have been removing content citing WP:OR, Alexiulian25 has been reverting. I didn't want to come to ANI, but his edits are increasingly concerning, he is exhibiting severe BATTLEGROUND and OWNERSHIP issues, and he has now resorted to personal attacks e.g. "retard" which was followed by starting a section on my talk page called "Giantsnowman is a idot" [sic]. GiantSnowman 14:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) I'm not riding to the defense of the user here, Alexiulian25 has been rude and uncivil - however, they've calmed down a little and are starting to listen and make changes to their behavior. I'm willing to continue to discuss this with them on my talk page, and have asked them to apologise to you Giantsnowman. This user has, in the past, been a very constructive member of Wikipedia, however I understand if they continue that a block would be the result -- samtar whisper 14:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I am sorry Snowman. I was really angry ! You did delete a lot on Wikipedia without giving me a warning to add references ! You should inform people before you delete --Alexiulian25 (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:BOLD does not require that - and you have been told by others about your editing problems. However I appreciate your apology. GiantSnowman 20:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor continues to edit war and is reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Alexiulian25 reported by User:Qed237 (Result: ) Qed237 (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Almost two dozen articles, apparently robocreated

    User Carolineneil (talk · contribs) created nearly two dozen articles in the span of as many minutes this past weekend. One of them, Different Instruments for Different Equations, has recently been nominated for deletion. I agreed with that assessment, it was a case of textbook writing and the creation of a chapter name, and treating that self-chosen name as if it were a distinct "topic". I then checked regarding the article's creation, and found nearly two articles, all pretty much in the same style were mass created by the same editor. At most one of them, Roy model, seems to be an actual topic, and thus salvageable. (As written though, perhaps WP:NUKE would be appropriate.) There are also two more created after the initial spree, and again, perhaps one of them, Maximum score estimator is an actual topic, but again, nuking might be best.

    WP:DP does not seem to have a mass deletion option. It seems pointless to have the same discussion once per article. Recommendations?

    Also, someone with biochemical expertise might want to peruse the several successful AFC's on the Talk page. The subjects do not look like "topics" to me, but they are far enough from my expertise that I refrain from pushing it. Choor monster (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Mass deletion delete the pages in whole, not the specific discussion topic. Tropicalkitty (talk) 03:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a biochemist here either. Most of these seem to me to be indistinguishable from sections of a multi-chapter review paper - highly specific, and very textbook-style. The editor should try to a) fit that material into existing articles (there's an easy match for the role of 'parent article' for each of those), and b) turn the text into an encyclopedia article, not a didactic monograph.-- Elmidae 18:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, one of his successful AFCs, Glucose oxidation reaction was speedily deleted yesterday as content duplication, User:DGG/CSD log#December 2015, while another Biosynthetic mechanism was turned into a redirect. As an outsider to biochemistry, I'll venture that it would seem "Glucose oxidation reaction" ought to be a redirect to Glycolysis, the existing content duplication, which I'll mention the editor in question has now added material to. And again, speaking as an outsider, I have the impression that "biosynthetic mechanism" is not a topic as such, and so that entry should have been speedy deleted. Choor monster (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes Glucose oxidation should have been redirected as you say, & I will do it. I redirected biosynthetic mechanism to this nearest phrase; I would interpret the potential meanings as either reaction mechanisms of biosynthetic reactions, or biochemical pathways of metabolism; the draft article seemed rather confused between them. I don't think the redirect useless just in case someone types it in. It is in cases like this with a confused article an open question whether to delete and then redirect, or just redirect. DGG ( talk ) 08:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Checking Google, I find that "biosynthetic mechanism" is in fact a term of art in biochemistry. So you are correct, and I was flat out wrong. Whether or not it is a "topic" as such, it is a genuine search term. Choor monster (talk) 13:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As Elmidae guessed, many of the titles match sections in this textbook (ToC linked there); perhaps others match sections of other books. The content doesn't seem to be identical to the book, though. Kanguole 17:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just happened to come across this. I'm an academic (not a biochemist) and have read that textbook repeatedly. The articles he's writing seem to be rewrites of condensed notes drawing from multiple reference texts, with some attention paid to organizing them into reasonable topics, not a mere copying of that textbook. I should also note that this textbook in question is more similar to an advanced reference text in econometrics rather than a typical textbook, meaning that its treatment of the topics are fairly encyclopedic, and the methods covered have generally gone through some notability criteria.
    Having gone through the dozen of article he's created, while several articles have textbook-style titles, my opinion is that they could be close to encyclopedic quality if renamed and reorganized, and certainly not all of them should be deleted. These are legitimate and notable statistical methods that have been widely used and adopted in multiple disciplines. There is currently a huge gap in Wikipedia on some of these topics, since so few of our users are statisticians. I would recommend not discouraging the effort from this user.
    I also went through his edit history. Those articles were not robo-created; he actually worked on them in a sandbox. 50.153.133.158 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a reason we have WP:NUKE. I identified one of them above, Roy model, as possibly being a genuine topic, but what we have is not in any sense an encyclopedic article regarding Roy model, and I feel the same about the others I looked at. But keep in mind there are more than one meanings to "encyclopedic", "notable" and so on. Compare with something elementary, like "reduction to lowest terms", which is covered extensively in textbooks, but we do not have a separate article on it, and probably never will. Choor monster (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin assistance needed at Knanaya

    For some time, Knanaya has been repeatedly affected by at least two editors trying to enforce their views, both using myriad sockpuppets and IPs. Periodically, an "anti-Knanaya" editor has repeatedly added disparaging material about the group, misusing sources to do so (see discussions here, here, and here). Alternately, a "pro-Knanaya" editor (or connected group of editors) edit-wars over the article to excise material they disapprove, even (or especially) well cited material by academics who studied the community (see discussions here, here, and here). They've edited under the names Stansley, Psthomas, and various IPs:[193][194][195]. In August, the article had to be semi-protected through November,[196] and now that it has expired the edit warring has resumed.
    I'm also submitting a WP:RFPP, but it's a shame to have to semi-protect the page for so long considering that the disruption seems to come primarily from two people or groups. Perhaps someone could look into the feasibility of a range-block for this problem?--Cúchullain t/c 18:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    [197],this revision has kept the excised material intact with previous references. This gives more clarity to the subject. Further more if the collected excised material is checked Admin's can see various Origin stories apart from Neill. The only official version that should be taken is the material mentioned in Knanaya community website(http://kottayamad.org/knanaya-history/). That credibility is more than enough for publication (This is the approved version by bishops, priests, synods and community members). If looked more into the excised material Swiderski himself reports as per Cuchullain version that he is unsure about the Southist-Northist divisional history. All these points to the self-conflicting and invalidation of Swiderski's material. Disregarding this facts and further backing up this fictional elements seems to be more detrimental. These material is published in the 1980's and under a foreign private university, so the standards of this are also questionable. But probably out of respect that Cuchullain is a Master Editor, there are requests to keep the Southist-Northist theory, but under a separate title or a new page. None of these sensible suggestions seems to be tasteful for Cuchullain. I hope the use of these semi-protection requests aren't a means to an end; the edit history shows as such. Let the excised material remain excised or to the other person's request under a different page or title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.0.76.25 (talk) 09:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's interesting that you don't address the sockpuppetry and edit warring matter at all. For others, please see this, where 61.3.42.219 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) edited a comment by 59.88.210.249 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in the same post they claimed to be a different person.[198]--Cúchullain t/c 15:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If the edited version is a mere grammatical correction which gives more clarity and the same are on the same page of request and if the both parties seems to be o.k about it, where does your sock-puppetry claim stands. Is it a deflection from the mentioned concerns. If not so you have failed to ascertain how a person from Delhi and Maharashtra can be the same - Then that will be the million dollar answer. Other Admins may look at this: http://www.distancesfrom.com/ (From Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India to Pawti, Maharashtra 431703, India) - 1274 Km; I only just saw the talk page rampant now. But standing within all respects to Cuchullain, I have to say from edit history checks, this is not his/hers first claim on the article. There might be people who say that keep the excess material in it and all. I would say just remove it. This is too much and the issue is very clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.2.171.193 (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    People using proxy servers to disguise themselves happens pretty regularly on Wikipedia, and people from different areas can easily coordinate together as meat puppets. The issue here is that we have multiple IPs pushing the same edits on the same subejects at the same times, and revert warring over it. That's not going to fly.--Cúchullain t/c 16:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Cuchullain, I don't think wikipedia allows edit through proxy servers. I use CyberGhost 5 to overcome certain area-restrictions. You may use it and try an experimental edit - Wikipedia wont allow it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.2.171.193 (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The article has been semi-protected for 6 months due to the sockpuppetry problem. Short of someone implementing range blocks it's probably the only solution that will work.--Cúchullain t/c 17:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Request to cease drive-by POV tagging

    Jbottero did it again, blocked for two weeks. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    @Jbottero: is apparently going to keep adding {{POV}} to the article Kshama Sawant [199][200][201][202] without any indication as to what the POV problem is. How are we supposed to correct the problem if nobody will tell us what it is? As the template doc explains: "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor." Jbottero has been warned four times about this, with reference to the POV tag instructions. This could easily be resolved by Jbottero simply going to Talk:Kshama Sawant and telling us what the problem is. If they are not willing to do that, the editor should be banned from Kshama Sawant. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If he's been warned for this four times, and is continuing to do this afterwards, I'd say that a block per disruptive editing is completely justified here. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 21:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not familiar with the topic but I looked at the article and talk page and did a quick web search about the subject. I don't see serious POV problems though maybe a few missing points could be added, e.g. from here. Jboterro did comment on the talk page on 21 October 2014,[203] apparently supporting adding material about Sawant's personal life that others opposed on IINFO and BLP grounds (I don't think Jboterro's comment in that diff is consistent with Wikipedia's current approach to privacy of article subjects). Since that discussion was more than a year ago, I'd say consensus has been reached on the issue, so the repeated tagging is unjustified absent a new talk page discussion with specific concerns. Simplest might be to just post on the article talk page saying this. If that is done and the drive-by tagging continues, it's reasonable to block for slow-moving edit warring. Right now I don't see enough ongoing disruption to warrant an immediate block. I'd support an admin leaving a warning message on Jbottero's talk page. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I put a "final warning" notice on Jbottero's talk page. People are not obligated to psychically guess what POV concerns other editors have. The talk page hasn't been edited since May so Dennis is right in that there's no way for him to be able to respond about it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    SheriffIsInTown is vandalizing pages and pov pushing

    (non-admin closure) Requested close by filer. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 00:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:SheriffIsInTown should be blocked not only because he is disruptive and an extreme pov pusher but because, after being warned, [204] continues to remove vital sourced information from Afghan President Mohammad Ashraf Ghani's article. [205], [206] He claims that Ghani, who was born in Afghanistan and lived in America as a U.S. citizen, is a Pakistani. [207] SheriffIsInTown is simply insulting the Afghan President and spreading Pakistani propaganda. There is no record or any source that even mentions the Afghan President residing in Pakistan, he only visited that country like how Obama and other world leaders do. That doesn't make them Pakistanis.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This is completely wrong accusation, the information which I removed is unsourced, I asked Krzyhorse22 to add the sources to pertinent information but instead of doing that he is reporting me here. This matter could have been easily resolved if he would have added the sources. Moreover, I never claimed that Ashraf Ghani is Pakistani. Krzyhorse22 removed "Category:Afghan expatriates in Pakistan" from the page which I restored providing a url in the summary line which says he holds Pakistani identity card. Many Afghans lived in Pakistan when they fleed the war in their country and it is possible that he lived there as well but that does not make him Pakistani and never did I say that. Instead of following the policies Krzyhorse22 is unnecessarily harassing me. He can add back the removed information if he can add pertinent sources to corresponding content. Sheriff (report) 03:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He removes large amount of properly sourced and vital content from Afghan President's article and says "[t]his is completely wrong accusation[.]" All the sources clearly explain that Ghani lived in Lebanon and the United States but SheriffIsInTown doesn't accept this, instead he believes Ghani lived in Pakistan. Paki identity card is ONLY issued to Pakistanis. Therefore, we're dealing with a disruptive pov pusher who is spreading propaganda and destroying articles of notable individuals, and falsely accuses others of harassing him.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 04:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, you know the word "Paki" is derogatory and you snuck that one in to push your own POV. I don't see any "vandalism", but rather two competing points of view that could and SHOULD be taken to the talk pages. I for one am sick of people using these boards as a way to circumvent discussions and take out petty squabbles. That's my take, and I'll now leave it to the admins.Trinacrialucente (talk) 06:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you talking about? Look and pay close attention at the above diff again, he completely removed sections with properly sourced content from the article of a world leader. That is vandalism. Paki used for a person may be derogatory but I used it for a piece of document. This proves you're uneducated, and you're defending a vandal. Don't feel bad but if you have nothing useful or inteligent to say, don't say anything. Let admins deal with this issue.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 10:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This has escalated to the point where Krzyhorse22 needs to either strike his last comments or be sanctioned. MySweetSatan (talk) 10:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You just created this account,[208] likely a sock.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 12:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I went back to check why he is claiming that I removed sourced information and found out that in his subsequent edits he did add one source (Brittanica) which somehow I did not notice when I reverted him. I added all that information back for which there was a source. I did not check whether the source actually supports the content in the page or whether Brittanica can be considered a reliable source.

    His comments above show his hatred for Pakistanis in general and then he claims that I am a Pakistani POV pusher but actually he has shown by his comments that he is an Afghani POV pusher if someone needs to be blocked is him and not me.

    He kept insisting addition of "Mohammad" to Afghan president's name citing a WP:PRIMARY source while 23 reliable sources in the article mentioned his name as Ashraf Ghani without "Muhammad" his WP:COMMONNAME but he kept his attitude of WP:I DON'T LIKE IT and recreated the redirect when it was speedily deleted upon my request to facilitate the move from Mohammad Ashraf Ghani to Ashraf Ghani. Then another example of WP:I DON'T LIKE IT was when he moved Hamid Karzai International Airport to Kabul International Airport while article itself mentioned that the name was changed in October 2014, the move was reverted by me. It seems like all of this upsetted him enough to look for an opportunity to report and punish me. What he does not understamd is that as Wikipedia editors, our edits can get challenged by other editors because they are here to contribute as well and difference of opinion exists. Then, he also wikihounded me to Muhammad Ali Jinnah and reverted one of my edits there which was reverted by FreeatlastChitchat supporting my edit.

    There are also issues of WP:OWNERSHIP, to me it seems like that he thinks he owns all Afghanistan related articles and think that no other editor especially a Pakistani editor has a right to edit them or challenge his edits on those articles.

    All of my edits are based on valid reasoning and policy enforcement but some of them may seem like Pakistani POV edits to another editor but they are actually not and I have valid policy based reasoning for those edits. Sheriff (report) 14:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    First of, SheriffIsInTown seems to know very well all the policies of Wikipedia but yet he vandalizes the article of the current Afghan President, i.e., removes properly sourced entire sections, especially the President's birth information and early education. I think he's doing this to provoke me into an edit war, which I often avoid. Second, the Afghan President in his own website says his full name is Mohammad Ashraf Ghani,[209] it is you who keeps removing the "Mohammad" by showing the I don't care attitude. The third point is that you keep adding "Category:Afghan expatriates in Pakistan" to Ashraf Ghani's article, where is your proof that he lived in Pakistan? About the airport, I was the first editor in 2014 to rename Kabul International Airport to Hamid Karzai International Airport. My recent rename was my misunderstanding but why is that a big deal to you? Why are you excessively focusing on my every edit? You completely removed the alternative name "Kabul International Airport", which has been the name for 70+ years. You should learn to understand that the whole world is watching these pages, so when you vandalize an article many will come to fix your vandalism.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 01:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Block both Completely uninvolved in this conflict, but checking the diffs shows that both the reporter and reportee have violated several policies and may not be here for the right reasons. I'd suggest two short blocks to give both a chance to cool down. Jeppiz (talk) 15:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Jeppiz, please cite the policies which were violated by me and when? Sheriff (report) 15:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Jeppiz, I think you're being prejudice here, you should be blocked for falsely accusing me and for jumping to conclusion without knowing the facts.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 02:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've removed several copyright violations from Ashraf Ghani, finding the originals in his official biography. Several more sentences seem barely paraphrased, but I have to run - could someone check? Likewise, I've not checked where in all the abovementioned warring this material was introduced. NebY (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    My comment shows hatred for vandals, not for Pakistanis. The name MySweetSatan (talk · contribs) was indef blocked for trolling. [210] It was created yesterday, defending SheriffIsInTown and wanted me to get wrongly blocked. The name was uniquely made like SheriffIsInTown, an indication that it may be a sock, especially seeing User:FreeatlastChitchat doing this. Notice the similarities in the names, behavior and area they edit in. --Krzyhorse22 (talk) 01:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    What you are talking about is not WP:VANDALISM rather it was WP:GOODFAITH as I realized later on that you added a source to some of the information which was completely unsourced when I first removed it. Please read the policies and stop falsely accusing people, it's not going to get you anywhere. Sheriff (report) 03:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)s[reply]
    You may deny it all you want but what you did clearly amounts to vandalism. You should have carefully reviewed my edits. You still cannot provide any reliable source about Ghani living in Pakistan. Why are you keep saying that he lived in Pakistan when the fact is he was living in the United States?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 04:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I see this as more of a content dispute than anything, leading it to edit war if I am correct. Based on what I see, this is just nothing but a pitiful back-and-forth case or he said he said. I am seeing rather an issue with both editors now making accusations of socking, NPA, harassment, and God knows what else. This needs to stop NOW. This is getting no one anywhere and rather makes case look weak for both editors. Now, my 2 cent. From what I see based on the diffs, I see sourced content being removed without reason. However, I see that SherrifIsInTown "sourced" one of their additions. I am contemplating closing this thread for content dispute. I see no efforts from either editors on the talk page discussing these changes. It was just a plain case of going straight to ANI without further consensus on the core issue. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Callmemirela, with editors such as SherifIsInTown its useless to discuss anything because he's one of those who has that I don't care attitude. I did try to discuss the issue with him on his talk, he showed that I don't care attitude. That's why I came here so others can step in. He's an edit-warrior pov pushing, removing from articles anything he doesn't like. The proper thing to do is to insert 'citation needed' tags but he completely removes well recognized information. Every source about Ashraf Ghani has all that information that SherifIsInTown has removed. MySweetSatan clearly acted as a sock, can you explain why I may be wrong?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 04:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no evidence that you tried to discuss it at User talk:SheriffIsInTown, just two canned edits, the first only two days ago.[211] In any case, that would have been the wrong place. You need to discuss it on the article talk page where other editors may engage in the discussion. I've started two discussions there, raising concerns about various matters including copyright violation, conflict of interest and sourcing. NebY (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I was about to say that. Thanks for beating me to it. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This thread may be closed now. Thank you.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 05:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Viriditas is being combative and uncivil

    Reporter supports closing. --NeilN talk to me 05:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Viriditas was combative after his unilateral name change was reverted on 2015 San Bernardino shooting. He said: "Disagree all you want. Within the last day, all RS have taken to calling it "attacks", and the shooting narrative has since been dropped. I've changed the article title accordingly." followed by "Let's recap for those who can't keep up: consensus to move to a new article title is established. Since there is only one option for a neutral title supported by naming convention and reliable sources ("2015 San Bernardino attacks"), I moved the article accordingly. It was then absurdly reverted for no reason. What exactly do we have to discuss when there is only one logical option for moving an article to a title supported by both our naming conventions and all of the current RS that have been published? Are you unaware that RS are now calling this an attack and not a shooting? What exactly is it that you feel the need to discuss? Do you need personal attention of some kind?" followed by "There is no such rule or requirement, and since consensus for a move has been established above and there is only one logical target for a new title based on naming conventions and RS, a request for move is unnecessary. Do you oppose a move to a title currently reflected by our best sources? Why? Sources are no longer calling it a shooting, they have been calling it an attack for the last 12 hours. Please get on board." In a seperate thread he stated to me: "It is too soon and in poor taste to use the victims as the butt of your unfunny tu quoque attempts at humor. If you persist in what appears to me to be disruption, I will file a request for arbitration enforcement.", which I pervieved as a threat to attempt to censor me from participating in the editing of 2015 San Bernardino shooting and Talk:2015 San Bernardino shooting pages. I attempted to resolve the conflict via Viriditas' talk page by suggesting that we avoid each other for the time being, but he continued to be combative. He made another comment: "Step right up and claim the "inept" description for your argument: the terrorists attacked the workplace and then attacked the police. Are you done?". ParkH.Davis (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Viriditas has removed my ANI notification from his talk page. Should I re-add, or leave well enough alone? ParkH.Davis (talk) 03:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Leave it; removal is considered acknowledgement. NE Ent 03:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He as also added a further comment: "How can Park's comment up above not be considered a blatant example of trolling? We are way, way past the point of not talking about the faith of the terrorists, yet he still persists.". ParkH.Davis (talk) 03:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    SPI requested. The majority of the comments ParkH. Davis identifies with were made by IPs.[212] It's a bit odd that he appears to claim by inference that I was responding to him. Nevertheless, all of the comments were taken out of context, as the link I have provided shows. Viriditas (talk) 03:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Park is fresh off a 24hr edit warring block [213] for his 6RR whitewashing religion of islaic terrorists, but seems to have learned little from it for he continues to be disruptive. This is retaliation against one of the filers. Legacypac (talk) 03:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention that he also levied a serious personal attack on me during his block when he accused me of "spread[ing] ... anti-muslim propaganda."[214]. I suppose that explains why I spent time encouraging a user to expand content on muslim attitudes towards terrorism in the article, opinions that explicitly condemns Islamophobia and presents the Muslim POV on the attacks.[215] Viriditas (talk) 03:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I long ago lost my mind-reading ability, so I can't speak to the OP's motive for opening this. But I have no reason to retaliate against Viriditas for anything, and I agree that they have been a very disruptive force at this article. I was close to opening this myself, but couldn't summon the energy to assemble the airtight case required to have even the slightest hope of any temporary relief at all. It's there on the talk page for anyone who wants to check it out. If someone wants to demand out-of-context diffs, forget I posted this. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sadly, you cannot provide a single, unambiguous diff showing any semblance of disruption from my account in this article. Not one. However, I want to thank you for sticking to your registered account for this report instead of using your IP as you have been doing for a while now. Now all we have to do is find out who has been disrupting the talk page with the newest set of IPs. Viriditas (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Good ole time-tested, bad-faith ANI defensive strategy. If you can't defend your own behavior, throw up smoke by pointing fingers at others. If there is anyone who can't see through this, this should clear things up. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Where's the diff of my alleged disruption you promised? Viriditas (talk) 04:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Where's the diff of me promising that? I already explained, quite clearly I thought, why I'm not producing diffs. If that means the disruption continues, so be it. I'll just move on and let others deal with you and the consequences to that article. I'm done responding to you, but I'll respond to a ping from anyone else. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Viriditas made this comment at User talk:Legacypac#Merge request: "Some joker named "Mandruss" has now appointed himself the official defender of all things ParkH. Davis, after I called him out for making fun of dead people. Just where do these weird people come from and why does there seem to be so many of them? I recently moved the article to "2015 San Bernardino attacks" due to consensus for a move on the talk page, and I was instantly reverted by another joker named "WWGB" who bizarrely told me to find consensus! Meanwhile, every RS has changed the narrative in the last 12 hours from shootings to attacks, but these jokers don't seem to be able to read, let alone understand basic English." Viriditas is continuing to be uncivil towards me and other editors. ParkH.Davis (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    And? Are you still alleging that I am spreading anti-Muslim propaganda for noting the religion of the terrorists? Are you still making fun of the victims of the terrorist attacks on the talk page by claiming we should talk about their favorite colors? Are you still trolling the talk page, claiming that the religion of the terrorists is irrelevant to their actions? Should I not refer to you as a "joker"? What then? Who in their right mind thinks it is acceptable to make light of the recent victims of a terrorist attack and to repeatedly remove any mention of "Muslim" from the article? Something is wrong here, but it isn't me. Viriditas (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - this is silly and needs to be closed. Minor4th 05:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I am fine with this being closed. It seems as if things have cooled down. I will, for the foreseeable future, continue to avoid interaction with Viriditas. ParkH.Davis (talk) 06:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support close per Park's agreement. The main content dispute from last night's thread is now resolved since the San Bernardino incident is now being reported as a likely terror attack by many sources. There is an open RM discussion on the talk page, though the proposed target is "San Bernardino shooting" rather than "2015 San Bernardino attack". I'd ask Viriditas to be more careful about synthesizing conclusions. I don't support keeping sourced relevant info out of the article, but there are a lot of gaps in the available documentation and we shouldn't be the ones to fill them in. We should include whatever info and sourced interpretation we have available, and leave further interpreting up to the readers. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 06:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support close and temporary 1RR limit for both editors until they fully cool down. MySweetSatan (talk) 08:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    MySweetSatan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Robby.is.on (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Your point being? MySweetSatan (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Champak bora

    The user apparently created a sock of Ritu sarma913 with repeatedly creating Non notable pages. In addition, the sock removing the A7 template despite being tagged. So called up the admin noticeboard to lookup to these sockmasters D'SuperHero (talk) 07:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment this IP address removed the speedy deletion tag and i'm completely sure this IP is of the sock of CB. Please admins ping. D'SuperHero (talk) 08:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition the sockmaster did wrote his biography whereas Wikipedia strongly discourages of autobio writing D'SuperHero (talk) 08:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Large sock cluster

    The problem is evident looking at the edit history of Silver nanoparticle. There are multiple accounts named "Nano(something)" (e.g. Nanomsg) making large-scale edits to a number of articles, also including Colloidal gold, Gold Nanoparticles (Chemotherapy) and Photothermal therapy. Some of the edits are okay; other contain dubious health information. Either way having a bunch of what look like computer-generated accounts acting in consort is problematic. Alexbrn (talk) 10:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have filed an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nanoadm. Twenty accounts so far. Liz Read! Talk! 12:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like a college class project. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 12:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, class project at University of Pittsburgh. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 12:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Suggest forwarding this on to the WMF. Jusdafax 13:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's just ask Eryk (Wiki Ed) and Ian (Wiki Ed) and see if they know anything about this. Liz Read! Talk! 18:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if it's related, but I remember back in March there was at least one - and maybe two - unregistered classes editing gold nanoparticle articles. I remember we contacted one prof (not at Pitt), but I do feel like there were other edits that looked like classes whose origins we couldn't track down. Ryan (Wiki Ed)/Rhododendrites was the one who solved the mystery then. He may remember more. I'll keep digging, see if I made any other notes. Guettarda/Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ian (Wiki Ed): I remember it well, but that was at a school on the west coast, not UPitt (being vague because it seems like referencing a very specific class at a specific university without their prior knowledge is fuzzy WP:OUTING territory). I spoke to the professor on the phone in March and we exchanged several emails. He was very interested to work with us (Wiki Ed) next time around, but as I'm not managing the classroom program now I'd have to check with Helaine (Wiki Ed) regarding whether or not she's been in touch with him this term. I've forwarded the March email thread and a summary to her so she can follow up. That doesn't help in the immediate, of course... --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking a bit more, I'm skeptical it's the same class. The website for the previous class has not been updated and there are indeed multiple IPs working on these articles which geolocate to UPitt. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the SPI was declined and closed by Mike V so that's a dead issue. Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's a diff which covers most of the changes made by the "Nano*" accounts to Silver nanoparticle: [216] It's not clear what the intent is. (Incidentally, Wikipedia needs a smarter diff engine; less changed there than the volume of changes would indicate.) It does not appear to be a promotion for "colloidal silver", a popular scam-type medication. (The Mayo Clinic says that doesn't work and may be dangerous.[217]). Not seeing any COI issues. The edits look reasonably legitimate, and have cites, but the cites are not easy to check without access to a medical library. Nobody ever put an AN/I notice on User Talk:Nanomsg or User Talk:Nanoadm, so I just did, along with a note asking them to please tell us what's going on and to read WP:ASSIGN. If they engage, this will get straightened out quickly. If we're lucky, we get some new editors with medical and chemistry expertise. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 09:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I dropped them all notes. Hopefully one of them will pass the message on to their instructor, and she or he will get in touch with Helaine. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Notifying the IP's talk page of this discussion. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 13:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 13:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Let it go. It's on an experienced administrators' page and "sailing close to" is very different than sailing on to (especially if you're sailing on the downwind side of something.) NE Ent 13:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, NE Ent - it's good to run into you again :D -- Yeah, I was questioning if making this ANI thread was the right thing to do or not. If it's skating pretty close to the edge, but isn't falling over, I'll humbly accept my ten lashings for the unnecessary thread and call it good - especially given the fact that it was left on an admin's talk page. I must be a lot more tired than I think I am. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 14:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for legal threats. We don't "let it go" when it comes to legal threats. It is a legal threat even wrapped in words like "sailing very close to". It was clearly meant to intimidate. You were 100% correct to report this here, thank you. HighInBC 15:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It definitely qualifies, and targeting an admin is not the smartest thing to do. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In the legal threat, the editor identifed that they have a COI with some sources on articles relating to aviation. Can anyone identify the possible individual or is this just more smoke? —Farix (t | c) 17:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    After some digging, the block appeared to happen over a spat of vandalism at Badger and Clan Gunn from the same IP range. —Farix (t | c) 18:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying "I reserve the absolute right to be able to edit where my own research is incorrently inserted on your pages" pretty clearly indicates they don't understand how Wikipedia works, aside from everything else. At first I wondered if he was a certain past banned editor who was an aviation author, as there was a certain gut feeling from his style, but said fellow doesn't seem to have had the Ta 152 amongst his remit, so... - The Bushranger One ping only 10:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    HighInBC - Thank you. :-) ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 03:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible BLP issue on high traffic page

    Socking resulted in page protection as well --NeilN talk to me 05:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    On the recently high profile Chan Zuckerberg Initiative page, an anonymous IP who then registered for an account (Special:Contributions/Peco_Wikau, and likely Special:Contributions/Kiri_Chafr in addition) is inserting several paragraphs of what appears to be borderline original research compiled through several sources, including op-eds and personal blogs. Another editor yesterday removed the contentious content in two edits 1. 2. The editor in question then proceeded to re-insert the content. I noticed the problem today and have now removed the content several times by citing it as a BLP violation and the 3RR exemption; it has been repeatedly inserted by the editor.

    While several issues with these edits (including the sourcing and verifiability) can be addressed on the talk page later, at this moment I am strongly concerned with the possible BLP violation in the content involved, namely the use of the label tax avoidance to describe Zuckerberg's initiative. The article on tax avoidance describes the action as "widely viewed as unethical" as carried out by an individual; furthermore, my belief after reviewing this issue is that the description would be widely seen as incorrect as a legal term to describe the issue concerned, and thus potentially libelous. Since this directly relates to a notable recent action by a living person, I believe WP:BLP applies here, and I am requesting for administrator review immediately. Preferably, the page could be protected while we discuss the possible BLP violation with the new editor, who I believe has good intentions. Thanks. 50.153.133.158 (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like coatracking of a political argument. Unless he's doing something illegal (which I don't think anyone is claiming), that critique applies to Congress, not Zuckerberg. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with that assessment. I would have argued for a rewrite of that material in any case, but at this moment I'm most strongly concerned about the BLP issue, which I think is severe enough to merit administrator intervention. I've attempted to convince him to hold off on reverting the material back until I can discuss the BLP issue with him, but so far no luck. 50.153.133.158 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted his changes once, and now he's edit warring to keep them in. I'll revert him one more time, then another admin needs to get involved. Katietalk 16:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked 48 hours for edit warring. --NeilN talk to me 16:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Can an admin go in and revert the potential BLP material for the final time, which is still on that page? I don't want to revert again as the editor might perceive this as an edit war and go crazy after the block expires. 50.153.133.158 (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just reverted the material. It's blatant coatracking for sure. GABHello! 16:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Conduct of user Eightball

    Blocked for 24 hours. No comment on the validity of the underlying content issue, but there are ways of making your point that don't involve abusing others. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I would like to point to the conduct of user Eightball in the following discussion: [218]. I do have quite a thick skin, but calling two editors "liars" and "incompetent" because they point to statements given in sources is unacceptable to me. Thank you for your attention. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Tvx1 has thankfully pointed out to me that this was not the only attack by Eightball on another user in the past 24 hours, see here. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have left a clear warning, I noticed it was right after another fresh warning for personal attacks. Any more nastiness and I think a short block would be called for. HighInBC 18:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Also I left the required notification that there is a discussion about them here. HighInBC 18:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh sorry, this is my first time here, I was not aware that I should have left something, I thought pinging them would be sufficient. Thank you! Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, the behavior they displayed today form part of a wider pattern. They consistently revert to aggression when others disagree with them. Here, here and here (Some diffs of Eightball's comments in that discussion.) are some links to the discussions from the last twelve months in which Eightball took part. Tvx1 18:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And it continues: [219] Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Disagree" is an odd word for "be objectively correct and continually baffled as to why you people bend over backwards to maintain an incorrect and outdated wiki," but OK... Eightball (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You can disagree without resorting to statements like this. Personal attacks are never warranted. clpo13(talk) 19:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I try my hardest to assume good faith but these people are doing their best to break that assumption. I have long passed my breaking point here. I'd love to hear them just once admit that they can't logically support any of their positions. It's so, so obvious, but they just won't back down, and it's infuriating. Eightball (talk) 21:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    HighInBC, Another personal attack was posted, despite this report and the subsequent warning. Tvx1 22:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Unblock of User:Supdiop

    2 weeks ago, the user was told what they need to do, and this was not posting at ANI using a sock.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I am requesting for the community discussion for the unblock of Supdiop. I have 8000 edits on wikipedia. I created many articles and reverted thousands of vandalism edits. I sincerely apologize for the actions. I want to continue my wikipedia career by creating articles, reverting vandalism and reviewing articles. Please give me a chance. I learned the lesson for my actions and I won't let it happen again. Please consider my request. - 188.42.233.34 (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure this is the correct venue for this request, since Supdiop wasn't blocked by the community. Appeals should be sent through Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System. clpo13(talk) 19:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    Yes, I tried by appealing from UTRS, but they denied it. That's why I am asking for the community discussion for the unblock. Please don't close it. - 188.42.253.70 (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    CENSORSHIP OF FACTS

    PizzazzPicasso indefinitely blocked by others, for personal attacks and the attempted outing of another editor. The merit of including he .gov link they refer in the shootings article is a content dispute better resolved on that article's talkpage.-- Euryalus (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I was unfairly blocked from editing - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_San_Bernardino_shooting I added a reference from (https://www.fbi.gov/news/news_blog/fbi-will-investigate-san-bernardino-shootings-as-terrorist-act) to Islamic terrorism and was unjustly blocked from posting the truth? I will make sure this goes viral since I'm being censored from posting facts with a .gov reference supporting it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PizzazzPicasso (talk • contribs) 20:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It won't go viral. Sorry. 208.54.45.207 (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)PizzazzPicasso - Your block log is clean.... what account or IP were you using when the block occurred? ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 21:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You were told you would be blocked if you made another personal attack on an editor, not based on your content contribution. This dispute is about your conduct, not your source. Liz Read! Talk! 20:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The user has not yet been blocked, and I doubt they understand what it means.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not posting it here, but PizzazzPicasso just posted personal information to Titusfox's talk page. I'm pushing for a block just on this evidence alone. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 21:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies for linking to that outing attempt. That was just idiotic on my part. The attempt merits an indef, combined with persistent personal attacks and cries of "censorship." GABHello! 21:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Agreed. PizzazzPicasso's block should be extended to indefinite. Not cool at all. He can take his abuse somewhere else. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 21:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Where did that FB link got to? TF { Contribs } 21:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    titusfox - I'm getting in touch with the Oversight team to have it suppressed. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 21:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll go Clean Up Checkingfax's Page. TF { Contribs } 21:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Gives Titusfox a hug. Sorry man, being outed is not a good feeling. It's been rev del'd and will most certainly be suppressed. There's nothing you need to worry about :-) ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 21:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Already clean: I happened by and saw the personal attack, so I removed it. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 21:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you remove the Sinebot Summary as it also has the topic title? TF { Contribs } 21:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesnotcontain any sensitive info, this is why I did not remove the summary. Anyway, I contacted the oversight, they will do whatever is needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I note that I've temporarily blocked the account. Should they return and repeat this behaviour, they will probably be blocked again, if not before. Content discussions belong on the article's talk page. I'll remind everyone to think about what they're repeating when they edit. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    PizzazzPicasso has continued to post that outing link so I have revoked his talk page access. It's a very limited block, I believe it is just 31 hours so it might have to be lengthened tomorrow if abuse continues. Liz Read! Talk! 21:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Did anyone see what was outed on that link? TF { Contribs } 21:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I Really would like to know, as I don't have 100% free internet access. TF { Contribs } 21:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Titusfox: It was a link to a social media network. --NeilN talk to me 21:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I know it linked to Facebook as stated earlier, but what was on the page? I can't check due to my computer being locked down by a glitch on the Windows 10 Preview (I'm still using it!). TF { Contribs } 21:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This information won't be posted on-wiki. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Mike V has indefinitely blocked PizzazzPicasso as an oversight action. Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:PizzazzPicasso Harassing me and another editor

    Other thread is directly above. GABHello! 21:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Can Someone deal with this please? TF { Contribs } 20:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Admin attacking User:Oiyarbepsy for protecting new users

    Nothing here requires admin tools. IP, there are no attacks or insults in the section you link, simply other editors civilly disagreeing with your view on userspace drafts. Ricky81682, agree we could possibly benefit from a definition of "editor who appears to have stopped editing" but reckon that is better discussed where you raised it at WT:User pages, as it's a community and not a janitorial decision. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Oiyarbepsy keeps on getting attacked and insulted for trying to protect hate and terrifying nastiness against new users. Look at the attempts to protect user drafts at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G6_for_default_Article_Wizard_text and the complete ignorance shown by other editors as to why it's is utterly hateful towards yell, insult and destroy the good work of editors here. We need more eyes and votes to protect people from ripping to shred the hard work of alll editors and not subject them to admin bullying. How does unilaterally without notice deleting thousands of articles off the encyclopedia help anyone? 166.176.59.231 (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not seeing any attacks or insults. Ricky81682 is suggesting deleting pages like this, that is, pages with no content other than an AfC template. That's hardly destroying the "hard work" of editors. If Oiyarbepsy disagrees with the proposal, that's their right, just as it's Ricky's right to question them on their reasoning. clpo13(talk) 23:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I also notified both Oiyarbepsy and Ricky81682 about this discussion as required. clpo13(talk) 23:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Oiyarbepsy did agree that deleting those kinds of pages should be considered hateful for what it's worth. I think I'm the one being attacked but whatever. I'm asking for a proposal to add to CSD. If it's rejected, then we're back to today's status quo which is probably me just flooding MFD every single day. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleting unnecessary stuff helps everyone because the growth of online [220] data is that it's literally incomprehensible and unreadable by any individual. Wikipedia has value not only of because what it has, but because of what it doesn't. See apoptosis for the biological equivalent. NE Ent 23:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is another example of the deletionist lunacy that has driven editors off this project for years. We should be encouraging new editors not terrorizing them by having all their stuff deleted from beneath them. They was a legitimate alternative provided, move all these pages into separate categories so we would have "Blank drafts from November 2009, blank drafts from December 2009, etc. 166.171.120.75 (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And editors can support either proposal. Getting upset and running to AN/I isn't productive. clpo13(talk) 23:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    it is when you want admins to stop the rampant mass genocide of tens of thousands of articles from users. The collective hundreds of thousands of hours of work creating this project could all be thrown away in an instant. Everyone here would agree that they would accept the full 46,000 old drafts out there rather than one possible, plausible article be deleted. How do you know that the singular 'blank' draft some editor started in 2009 couldn't have them return after a decade of inactivity and create our newest featured article? The risk is just too great . 166.176.59.146 (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    While I do appreciate a well done troll, you're totally overplaying "indignant," -- perhaps you'd like to move on now? NE Ent 00:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)Your the IP editor on a campaign to harass Ricky81682 about his clean up efforts. Using terms like "mass genocide" does tend to make editors not take your remarks very seriously. By the way Ricky81682 is mainly tagging articles. Others are deleting them. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought that IP address looked familiar. I suppose it's just a coincidence that Ricky81682 is heavily involved in the topic this editor is banned from. clpo13(talk) 00:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm like super-deletionist man here. AFD is for article that have made it, I'm killing them before they start so it's going to anger quite a few people, I'm aware of it. I still think this character is related to the Koch mess not the WOP anger I caused. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • As an aside, I'd appreciate it is someone offered an opinion as to how long should a user be inactive to be considered inactive for their drafts. I've been opposed on all sorts of grounds because the editor "appears to have stopped editing" language is too vague. I mean, there's an argument at MFD over a nine year old single edit userspace copy of the "good version" of Super Mario 64 being opposed as premature so I really hope it isn't literally we have to wait a decade. -- Ricky81682 (talk)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Just want to make a comment after the close that this is part of the 166.x.x.x range that has been hounding Ricky81682 for the last few months. Blackmane (talk) 10:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Tucks Post Card Edits

    CLOSED
    WestCoastMusketeer is advised to be more discriminating in adding images by not duplicating existing images, or replacing them if the new image is a better representation. Gnangarra is advised to take more pains to be certain that what looks like spamming really is spamming, and also to communicate better when an editor inquires of him, as administrators are required to do, per WP:ADMINACCT. NE Ent 01:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Involved parties

    Statement by WestCoastMusketeer

    My edits including some photos of Old Tucks Post cards (dated 1911/12), have been deleted. The links are to WikiCommons Files. The party in question (Gnangarra) has accused me of 'using Wikipedia as a "soapbox"' and has threatened me to 'please stop the mass spamming of links to the site selling postcards or your account will be blocked'. The only link provided is that of Wiki Commons.

    In my opinion, the pictures posted provide a historical outlook of the places being discussed in the Wikipedia Articles. The post cards are dated around 1911 and presents an historical picture of these places looked like 100 years back.

    I also strongly protest against the language used by the party in question (Gnangarra). Further the party has accused me of 'spamming articles with what appears to be an intentional advertising of the company selling post cards', which is totally untrue.

    The files in question are

    The original source of these files are TucksDB.org which posts photos with a cc by-sa licence. Nowhere does this website promotes any sales of Post cards. I have uploaded 571 files to Wiki Commons, of which 10-20 would be Tucks Cards, so the accusation of me restoring to spamming by linking Wikipedia articles to commercial websites selling post cards is untrue. All my links are to Wiki Commons Files, which have been accepted by the Commons Admins.


    Articles affected

    (WestCoastMusketeer (talk) 05:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC))[reply]

    I had raised this to the Arbitration Forum as I was unaware of this forum. It was declined as it was suggested to approach this forum first (WestCoastMusketeer (talk) 06:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC))[reply]
    Technically, you should have waited for ArbCom to decline your case before taking it here. You also should have mentioned the ArbCom action in your posting here, in the interests of full disclosure. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    When an editor is told by two arbitrators to go file at ANI [221],[222], it's not forum shopping to go file at ANI. And since all arbcom is saying is "no," there's really nothing to see there. NE Ent 12:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with NE Ent. The user was clearly being told to take the dispute elsewhere first. The only thing they might have done differently is to formally withdraw the Arbitration Request, but, then again, WP:BURO. BMK (talk) 15:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • responded on Arbcom follow the link http://tuckdb.org/postcards/87850 Artist: A.H. FULLWOOD Estimate: $10.00 USD but on commons it states TuckDB as the author and the image as being cc-by when in fact they are PD. WestCoastMusketeer is the uploader to Commons. We have false attribution claiming the selling site is the author, incorrect licensing and a user adding images to multiple articles they havent previously contributed to meets all the normal spam WP:DUCK tests and warranted a warning over the users actions. Of course the user could have contacted my and tried to resolve my concerns but instead abused me on my talk page and then started an ARBCOM case, coming here is just a continuation of that despite it not even being closed there yet... Oh and the person failed to notify me of any these discusisons. Gnangarra 07:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • and as a admin on Commons I should have already deleted those images and warned WestCoastMusketeer for violating copyright but that will now have to be the work of someone else as I have a conflict of interest despite the issues these image have. Gnangarra 07:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are these items, which I understand sate from 1910/11, still in copyright in Australia? They'd certainly be out of copyright in the US. The fact that the source for the images is a commercial website is rather irrelevant if they're in the public domain. BMK (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • There's nothing wrong with these images, at least as far as I can see. Commons:Template:PD-Australia says that artistic works (other than photographs) with known authors are in the public domain if they were created by someone who died before 1955. These being creations of someone who died in 1930, there's no Australian copyright problem, and they're quite obviously PD-US. Old postcards are definitely in scope, so unless you can find better editions of the same cards (e.g. these were badly scanned, and someone else did a better scanning job) or can identify other non-copyright problems, they shouldn't be deleted. Nyttend (talk) 01:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Can Gnangarra provide evidence of me 'abusing' him on his Talk Page? About failure to notify, I am new to his process, and hence unaware of how to notify. In my opinion the focus of this discussion should be whether the photos added have been relevant or not. I had uploaded the files with the CC info provided from the website, its up to Wiki Commons admins to check and delete if inappropriate. Tucks cards have been discussed in Wiki Commons forums and have been acceptable in some cases. These files have been on Wiki Commons for a few months, and I assume they should be acceptable to link in Wikipedia

    Now about TucksDB.org, if you see the link that has provided by Gnangarra 'follow the link http://tuckdb.org/postcards/87850 Artist: A.H. FULLWOOD Estimate: $10.00 USD'. If you read the content at this link, the page just provides an estimate of the value of the card as an antique piece. Nowhere does it provide any links to buy the card and offers selling the cards for $10.

    (WestCoastMusketeer (talk) 10:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC))[reply]

    • Comment This appears to be simply a misunderstanding that got out of hand. Gnangarra, first of all, this is not a copyright violation, just a mislabelling. The images depicted are by A.H. Fullwood and credited on the Tuckerdb.org site; all were published by Raphael Tuck & Sons and all before 1923. All that needs changing on Commons is fixing the license and stating the artist and/or publisher in the description. They do not need to be deleted at all. Secondly, you obviously did not check the site carefully. It does not sell postcards (the estimated values are based on printed catalogues) and is simply a database. See here and here. Finally, WestCoastMusketeer has uploaded dozens and dozens of images to Commons from many sources, including his own photographs. A quick check of his contributions there would have revealed that it is extremely unlikely for this to be him spamming the Tucker Database. Gangarra, you should have checked more carefully before reverting and sending WestCoastMusketeer a templated warning for spamming. WestCoastMusketeer, you should have responded more fully to Gangarra with an explanation rather than escalating this immediately, and you should take much more care with your descriptions and licensing at Commons. However, by no stretch of the imagination, does this comment qualify as "abuse". WestCoastMusketeer was simply protesting the " false allegations of 'mass spamming'", which is exactly what the warning template was, given the circumstances. Voceditenore (talk) 11:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    PS I have now updated the descriptions and licensing at Commons for all the images listed above. Voceditenore (talk) 12:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for everyone who has taken part in this discussion. Could there are be some inputs on whether adding the photos on the pages mentioned have enhanced the quality of the Wikipedia Articles, or they irrelevant. I am of the opinion, the photos show how these mostly urban landscapes looked like 100 years back, and hence are relevant. If deemed relevant could these photos be reinstated. (WestCoastMusketeer (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC))[reply]

    • Comment

    WestCoastMusketeer has wandered through arbcom, and here, and shows very little understanding of what wikipedia is about, as well as accusing Gnangarra of things which show even less understanding of what admins are required to do when confronted by what he (Gnangarra) thought was going on.

    Furthermore WestCoastMusketeer was more interested in adding items to pages which already had photos almost identical to the cards. There is little benefit to the articles that I checked, and I do not believe they are of any particular interest.

    The lack of communication by WestCoastMusketeer is of some concern, to go wandering through inappropriate venues for something as simple as an admins genuine concern about cards that do not benefit anything in particular is a mis-reading of process, and should not be condoned or encouraged. JarrahTree 14:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Actually, the "wanderings" seem to me to be simply the actions of someone who is a relative newbie - hence going to ArbCom first for a relatively low-level dispute, being unaware of AN/I and so on. I'm not sure what you would have wanted someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia's internal processes to do. In fact, if a newbie shows signs of knowing all the ins and outs of this place, it generally raises some suspicion that they might not be a new editor at all.
      Regarding duplication or near-duplication of images in a particular article, that's a content issue which can be decided on the talk page of each article in question. If you think two images are near duplicates, keep the one that is the best representation (not necessarily the one that was in the article to begin with) and delete the other. If other editors object, discuss it on the talk page and try to reach a consensus. Pretty basic stuff. BMK (talk) 15:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to clarify, in order to resolve this issue I had initially contacted Gnangarra on his/her talk page. Only to be dismissed saying I was linking Wikipedia Pages to 'back to a site selling them as postcards', without checking the links. Voceditenore has investigated and confirmed the site TucksDB.org is not a commercial website. Further, this interaction also led to Gnangarra accuse me if having 'abused' him on his Talk page. I asked him/her to provide evidence of my alleged abuse, and have still not received any. I had been accused by Gnangarra of 'mass spamming' and in the interest of natural justice, I have the right to defend myself against these accusations, and that is exactly why I raised this issue. Many of my edits have been reverted, modified before, I understand all articles follow due process of scrutiny. That's fine. But to accuse some of 'mass spamming' without verifying the facts is wrong.

    About approaching different forums. I am a merely interested in editing and contributing articles, and unaware of these process. All I did was to do a search on Google for Wikipedia Dispute resolution and it led me to the other forum, where the arbitrators were kind enough to point me to this forum.

    Further Gnangarra in his Talk Page has commented that 'Oh and I note that not one regular editor of Western Australian topics have reverted the removal of those images'. While taking opinion of a certain group of experts could have some advantages. However, in my opinion relying only of a certain group's opinions is dangerous, and could lead to regionalism creeping in, affecting neutrality of the articles. Also, I thought Wikipedia articles are judged on global standards, and not only based on opinions of certain group.

    About the photos I added being similar to other photos, I could not find much similarity. Anyways, I will take this up with individual talk pages on these articles, as suggested by BMK (WestCoastMusketeer (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC))[reply]

    I thought the postcard added to the William Street, Perth article, and maybe (if added to the gallery instead of standalone) to Government House, Perth. I wasn't convinced about the others in the list above. Scott Davis Talk 22:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, those opinions should be expressed on the talk pages on those articles, not here.
    If no one is going to present any more behavioral evidence against either of the parties -- one for spamming, and the other for inappropriately labeling an editor's contributions as spam -- then perhaps this discussion might be closed with advice to WestCoastMusketeer to be more discriminating in adding images by not duplicating existing images, or replacing them if the new image is a better representation; and advice to Gnangarra to take more pains to be certain that what looks like spamming really is spamming, and also to communicate better when an editor inquires of him, as administrators are required to do. BMK (talk) 01:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:‎Timber72

    Blocked 24 hours by NeilN. (non-admin closure) clpo13(talk) 18:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Needs to be blocked now [223] (see also their recent contributions).--Ymblanter (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    See Ymblanter section below. --NeilN talk to me 16:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:‎Ymblanter

    Reporter suffered a WP:BOOMERANG to the noggin. Blocked 24 hours by NeilN for edit warring. (non-admin closure) clpo13(talk) 18:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC) Wrapping this up before it branches out any further. Blackmane (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Needs to be blocked now [224] (see also their recent contributions). They are escalating a conflict based on differences of interpretation of Wikipedia policy, and uses threats and intimidation in the process (including reporting here.) Timber72 (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    LOL--Ymblanter (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously? No. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Timber72 blocked for edit warring and disruption. --NeilN talk to me 16:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Timmmmmmmmmmbbbbbbbeeeerr! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He appears to be part of a right-wing splinter group. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. We should nip this in the bud. EEng (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like it's withered on the vine now. EEng (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Civility board

    (non-admin closure) 166-range troll blocked. BMK (talk) 01:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    There needs to be a board to discuss being incivil. Look at the needlessly aggressive conduct that was Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Andrevan/SM64 to attack an admin without discussion over article drafts. What happened to not being a jerk here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.47.135 (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You need to drop the stick regarding these deletions. clpo13(talk) 19:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The stick has been taken away from them. I expect we'll see the usual block evasion so watch out for socks. --NeilN talk to me 19:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Another block needed

    Legacypac (talk) 01:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Need another block: Special:Contributions/166.170.46.61. EEng (talk) 01:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Thanks. --NeilN talk to me 01:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Acejet could be a sock of old blocked user Siddiqui

    This case needs only behavioral analysis.


      • Sorry, I'm not buying it. You've had Drspaz since early June 2011. You're supposed to mark your accounts as being owned by you. But even besides that, you're clearly using the accounts for less than legitimate purposes. For example, at 5:40 Drspaz makes this edit. Five minutes later you make this one. Am I really supposed to believe that in those five minutes you were suddenly on a public connection? — User:HelloAnnyong 02:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)-----copy pasted-----

    SPI where it all began

    The Avengers 01:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators can see the details and if this is correct, then they must be re-tagged as Siddiqui socks.The Avengers 14:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated deletion of Copyvio notice

    A week ago, I deleted some copyvios on the Nazi architecture page. Most of them included a source reference at the end, but no indication that it was a direct quotation, nor where it began and ended. It turns out that they were much longer than the "brief quotations" allowed by WP:COPYVIO. Some investigation showed that these passages (and many more) had been added by two users 10 years ago; also that the initial version of the article was a large block of unsourced text. Even today, most of the text of the article seems to come from these three suspicious sources. I documented this in Talk:Nazi architecture and tagged the article with db-copyvio. User:MER-C changed this to Copyviocore and listed the article on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2015 November 29.

    Since then, User:IQ125 has removed the template three times:

    (a) you have restored some of the known copy vios; b) this is not correct procedure.. you need to discuss; c) it doesn't matter how many editors have contributed if most of the text is derivative of copy vios

    Nazi architecture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) I'd appreciate it if an administrator would clarify to him our policies on Copyvio and on removing Copyvio templates. --Macrakis (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have restored the copyvio template and warned the user. I will be watching this as it unfolds. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Claudia Kishi

    Checkuser Claudia Kishi

    It will show you it is

    User:Ariel_Flyer

    User:Mallory_Pike

    99.192.9.116

    It is all linked to User:Kagome_85 who is perma banned.

    This user has multiple accounts which is against the Wikipedia rules

    As I said checkuser

    156.57.88.131 (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You're looking for WP:SPI. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Punitive Block

    Discussion moved to AN. NE Ent 09:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Khodr_Addam COI

    No admin action required. (non-admin closure) Kleuske (talk) 12:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello, I chose to do this anonymously because i know the person in question personally and I wouldn't like this to turn in to something personal. Dr. Addam is a dentist without proper botany training who is self published. Now he is inserting links to his work on wikipedia. I am not aware how wikipedia tolerates this kind of edits and if the works he is citing would be acceptable if he wasn't inserting them himself. Regards. -212.28.245.164 (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Whether or not Addam has a formal education in botany is irrelevant; what matters is whether the material he's adding is verifiable. It looks like the references he is adding are to a predatory, pay-to-publish journal. (It's on Beall's list, at any rate.) Almost certainly not a reliable source; the references should be removed irrespective of any COI. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) I see ample evidence of a user who does not know how to add cites, who hasn't been welcomed (blank talk page) and who wasn't notified of this discussion. I've done that for you. All the evidence suggests a noob and, frankly, I don't think WP:ANI is an appropriate venue to welcome newbies. If you know him personally, why not simply have a private chat to explain your concerns? Kleuske (talk) 11:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. With friends like that, who needs enemies? EEng (talk) 11:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Make that back stabbing enemies, "with friends like these, who needs backstabbing enemies".FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 12:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair... The complainant did not claim they are friends... Kleuske (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @EEng: your comment is out of place. I never said Dr. Addam was a friend of mine and I don't want to walk him through editing here because he wouldn't accept my guidance. I know his ego and I wish you @EEng: and @FreeatlastChitchat: good luck with that endeavor and Fuck you very much -212.28.245.164 (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Choor monster WP:NPA/WP:AGF

    Choor monster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been persistently violating WP:NPA/WP:AGF, characterizing good faith disagreements as "trolling" or "lying": [225], [226], [227], [228], [229]. I've asked him to stop: [230], [231], [232]. (Diff after last warning). Other editors have stepped in to revert grossly uncivil edits to the talk page: [233], [234]. Sławomir
    Biały     11:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Riemann hypothesis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Background 1: In late July of this year a certain editor (I'll call him D, I note he is not getting himself involved, so I see no point in archiving his role here) introduced unsuitable material into the article. It was about a certain mathematician had uploaded his 2015, version number umpteen-whatever, of his claimed proof of RH. We are not NEWS, this is not a FORUM, etc. It's self-published, primary, and until the mathematical community takes note of it and says something about it in an RS, does not belong here. Since the only reference provided was the SPS itself, I reverted. D put it back, I reverted, and at some point D put it back with a claimed source, which led to this thread Talk:Riemann hypothesis#Sarnak official Clay Math statement on RH. The source in question is known as Sarnak 2005 (but originally it was discussed with the wrong year, which I later fixed). D then cited four sources, and I pointed out what they all talked about was nothing beyond 2004, and using them to justify a WP statement about a 2015 preprint is ridiculous. D then settled for a less sweeping statement, one that was in accordance with RS. At this point, Slawek joined in, stating he thinks it's notable, and I patiently explained that his personal evaluation of an SPS primary is not relevant. Slawek more or less asked for a rehash of everything, for no reason I could discern.
    • Background 2: Somebody made the news all over with an implausible claim to have proven RH, leading to this thread Talk:Riemann hypothesis#In the news: Dr. Opeyemi Enoch of Nigeria. In the course of multiple editors explaining why no, this is not going in the article, someone suggested somebody buy a copy of the alleged proof (apparently the only way to get a copy) and extract the good bits for the article. This was shot down, and in part of the various explanations why this won't happen, D mentioned that it was for sale and thus not an RS. I pointed out that WP:PAYWALL says this is irrelevant, and after a round or two of not getting it, D let it go, at which point Slawek jumped in, rather incompetently. He even quoted the portion of PAYWALL that says this is not a problem, I pointed out this is not an issue, and Slawek got wilder and wilder, doubling down on defending his obvious mistake, and making ridiculous exaggerations and implications regarding what I was saying, for example, mocking me for apparently claiming "existence" was not required of an RS. Pure obnoxious trash talk on his part, serious case of WP:IDHT, and I called him on it: troll.
    • Background 3: Slawek also referred inaccurately to the June exchange described above, and I corrected that. At this point he went off the deep end, inventing an entirely fictional version of what happened, that I had removed RS-based material, to wit, Sarnak 2005. He even linked to a diff, documenting that I had not done what he claimed, but he couldn't bother to acknowledge this. I pointed out this was not true, that the link did not support his statement, and again, he doubled down on defending his obvious mistake. At this point I called him on it: liar. The sheer chuztpah of his willfully not trying to be accurate is amazing. His final response begins with him stating his "understanding" of what happened, and then just spins out his fictional version. An "understanding" is how one summarizes what some editor who is no longer here did five years ago and why that caused trouble and it's just simply too much work to track down in some far flung place for so little gain. It is something one backs off from when someone who was actually there and remembers what happened tells you otherwise. And in this case, when the history is right there in front of you, in a known location, with the participants all present, there is absolutely no excuse for engaging in such a fuzzy enterprise.
    • See WP:IUC (part of WP:CIVIL policy), paragraph 2, item d). In its entirety, it identifies "lying" as uncivil behavior. See also paragraph 1, item c), which objects to "ill-considered accusations of impropriety". There is nothing GF about someone who repeatedly says black is white when the exact words are available, quoted at him, by him, and blithely ignored. I see serious WP:CIR issues.
    • I'll note my accusations are well-considered. Of all the links Slawek provided, none of them include the bit where I allegedly deleted Sarnak 2005 and an RS-backed addition. Choor monster (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Choor monster", yes the record is really there for all to see. You removed reference to de Branges' 2005 preprint. I pointed this out. Now you've accused me of lying, trolling, and (now) incompetence for pointing out this removal (diffs above, but you've conveniently repeated most of it in this wall of text).
    But I don't really think the fine points of our disagreement are relevant here. As regards content, I would say it is really an honest misunderstanding. This is not a misunderstanding that you have made any attempt to make right, since you have failed to assume good faith. Instead you chose to characterize another editor as an incompetent lying troll, along with a host of other personal adjectives. This is behavior that you continue to defend here, trying to justify it through wikilawyering.
    I think the fact that Choor monster not only doesn't acknowledge that his behavior here is a gross violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, but actually defends this violation (and apparently doesn't believe in WP:AGF at all) suggests that some administrative remedy is appropriate. I don't see any evidence that this disruption is likely to abate (see recent history of Talk:Riemann hypothesis). Sławomir
    Biały     20:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Your diff above is to my removal of the 2015 de Branges preprint SPS reference, as you could have bothered to notice, and as I have been telling you repeatedly. As it is, you have now changed your tune, before you accused me repeatedly of removing the Sarnak 2005 RS reference. You are having a good deal of difficulty keeping your story straight. You're just wasting my time, and anyone bothering to read this. Choor monster (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The emphasis here is not on content, but on your behavior. If you feel that I was referring to Sarnak's 2005 preprint instead of content that you did remove, perhaps a better way to get clarification would be to ask for clarification in a civil way rather than call the other editor a troll, a liar, and now (apparently) incompetent. Misunderstandings do happen. Your first apparent reply to this misunderstanding is "You really are a shameless troll", and your next reply contains the sentence "That you continue to point-blank ignore and deny the utter obvious, and then lie about it, whether it's explicitly stated policy/guideline regarding pay sources (above) or the utter impossibility of a 2005 source saying anything meaningful about a 2015 preprint, is the hallmark of trolling." Your next reply contained an accusation of lying (and more trolling): "You are also lying when you say I claimed it could not be improved... Maybe you can acknowledge this point already? Instead of trolling?" (I'm really astonished at this characterization, since you had said earlier "...it was impossible for me to improve it." But this is clearly another misunderstanding.) Every single one of your comments in that thread was an obvious personal attack. I don't think that puts you in a position to complain that the other editor didn't resolve your misunderstanding of what they were saying. In any case, I'm sure you would have made bullying comments no matter what I said. Sławomir
    Biały     22:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My first comment to your accusation that I removed the Sarnak 2005 reference was to point out that I did not do so, pure and simple. There was nothing to clarify, it was simply false. The correct response would be to withdraw your accusation, and apologize. Instead, you responded by repeating your accusation, along with a diff that clearly showed I did not do that. There is absolutely no excuse for that kind of deceitful behavior on your part. It was bad enough you repeated your nonsense, but then you pretended you actually had a link? That is what got the "shameless troll" comment. Instead of waking up, you just kept barreling along with your false accusations that I removed the Sarnak 2005 RS. And, yes, you lied again when you said I said something that I never said. It's simple, OK? Choor monster (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I said that you removed reference to the "evolving preprint", and I attempted to clarify this ("That is, you removed not just the link to the latest revision, but the sentence mentioning the claimed proof.") The diff I gave clearly shows this. Anyway, the details are irrelevant. I'm claiming we have a misunderstanding, which happens. You could have calmly corrected me or asked for clarification. Instead, you immediately accused me of trolling and lying, and you continue the personal attacks despite warnings. Even here, you continue to accuse me of deliberate deception (no idea who I would be trying to deceive—newsflash: no one cares!) What's clear is that the personal attacks must stop. If you need to be blocked before that happens, so be it. Sławomir
    Biały     23:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Reported to me by an IP: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrwallace05 new users

    Originally reported to me on my talk page, I thought I'd post this here:

    "New users, NickiMinaj4life and 86.133.178.209 are obviously abusing accounts of Mrwallace05. 123.136.111.59 (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)"[reply]

    However, they haven't provided any evidence for this in terms of diffs, so it can't yet be added to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrwallace05.

    -- The Anome (talk) 11:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk page move mess

    User:Arundalmia has twice moved his user talk page to Arun Dalmia in main space. It contains useful history dating back a month concerning prior warnings etc, but is now flagged for speedy deletion A7 in its present location. Simply moving it over the redirect isn't an option, as new warnings have been added there. Can the article's edit history be merged back into his talk page, perhaps moving its current contents to a user subpage? I've temporarily removed the A7 speedy tag while this mess gets sorted out. Thanks, Norvoid (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks User:NeilN for fixing this. Norvoid (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome. History merge performed (correctly, I hope) and user indef blocked with an explanatory note as this is an ongoing problem. --NeilN talk to me 14:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Cross-wiki vandalism

    Since we now seem to have stopped him from making dubious edits to enwiki using the edit filter, it looks like User:Léogâne Paix has been on a cross-wiki editing spree, editing fr:Léogâne, ht:Leyogàn (komin), it:Léogâne and pl:Léogâne to add a dubious flag and even more dubious information in infoboxes. I don't speak all these languages, or know their internal procedures -- how on earth does one go about dealing with this sort of cross-wiki vandalism? Is there some sort of global edit filter, or global blocklist? -- The Anome (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    For global blocks, talk to the stewards. Jonathunder (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just done so. See meta:Steward requests/Global. User:Léogâne Paix's mixture of editing via a mixture of IPs and multiple usernames across multiple wikis makes them a difficult case, though. The only thing that's really been really effective has been the edit filter. -- The Anome (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:McBurgertown

    User blocked. GABHello! 01:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I'm requesting that an admin block McBurgertown because he is a vandalism only account. I haven't taken this to WP:AIAV due to the lack of sufficient warnings. Tony Abigail (talk) 14:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) @Tony Abigail: I've reported to WP:AIV as a blatant vandalism-only account -- samtar whisper 14:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    McBurgertown has been blocked indefinitely. Tony Abigail (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Page British School Muscat error

    The page move has been completed. Nothing more to do here. EdJohnston (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Has it been confused because you moved the version with a short dash (which was a redirect) to British School Muscat rather than the long dash version which had the content? MilborneOne (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The database error seems to have fixed itself. Anyway, I have completed the move. The page at British School Muscat should now contain the result asked for at WP:RMTR (permalink). Let me know if I missed anything. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User attacking other editors; ongoing non-encyclopedic content

    Please take a look at the behavior of User:Jack DeMattos. He is a professional writer who's been on WP since June 1, 2015. I've tried to make him feel welcome and given him lots of room to match his flowery, editorial, magazine style writing to WP encyclopedic style, but he's not making much progress. Now he's begun to arbitrarily delete from articles all images another user has uploaded added and leave personal attacks in his edit summaries, like this: "Removed obviously bogus photo supposed to be Charles E. Bassett. This is yet another unfortunate example submitted by a serial purveyor of photo photos of Wild West figures. This person is single handedly turning Wipipedia into 'Wackypedia." His comment is really ironic, because his contributions are pretty much in the same category. Instances of comments like this in his edit summaries include this one, another, one more, and another.

    He's leaving his flowery footprints and non-sourced content all over the Old West articles. In the past week this has included Pat Garrett; Bill Tilghman; Bat Masterson; and Billy the Kid.

    Oon Friday 4 December he made big changes to Bill Tilghman and removed hatnotes about the article quality that he had not fixed, but added to; over the weekend he was hitting Billy the Kid; the latter article is quite a mess now. His references can't be authenticated by anyone because he doesn't leave proper citations. In some instances his refs aren't refs, but footnotes full of ancillary info not pertinent to the article, like references numbered 1, 3-8, 21, 22, 24-28, 30, and 31 in Bill Tilghman. Everyplace he goes, another editor needs to follow behind and clean up his contributions, if only someone had the time. You can see all his contributions here.

    Other editors have taken his behavior to the Admin noticeboard twice before (here and here), and he's promised to do better, but he really doesn't appear to be listening. The help he's been offered, his actions in return, and the warnings given, etc, are summarized in several posts on his Talk page. I don't feel like he's giving any heed to the praise, direction, encouragement OR warnings I've left on his talk page.

    I'm running out of patience and his contributions are becoming more of detriment than a help. I think it may be time for a short block to get his attention. Your input is most warmly welcomed. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 22:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Good grief. Billy the Kid is nearly unreadable, and the Tilghman article is almost as bad. Thinking about reverting his changes completely. Not a big fan of MOS blocks, but if he's not getting the message, maybe it's time. This is damaging the encyclopedia. Katietalk 01:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Jack DeMattos has deleted photos that I and others have contributed to wiki without even asking if there is provenance or substantial evidence. He seems to believe that he is the only one that can contribute to the pages about the people he writes about. Some of the comments he made regarding photos from an important Old West collection: "Deleted bogus photo. Once again this has been submitted by a person with a track record with offering phony photos to Wikipedia articles.this is not, nor ever will be, one of them." Being a published historian does not automatically make one experienced at identifying historical people. True West, Jack Demattos and several other top published writers recently made a fool of themselves [at least that is what the majority believes] when they gave their negative opinions on the latest possible Billy the Kid photograph before the program about it aired on National Geographic. The show revealed fantastic evidence that gave the photo a very high percentage of being Billy and his friends. Since then, the owners and the filmmaker have established provenance for the photo and will be airing their findings soon in another program. The producer/owner of the film company has shown excited interest in the photos from this same collection that Jack has declared as bogus. Jack DeMattos should not be allowed to decide what is or isn't correct for the public's number one information resource. OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Request block for edit warring troll

    User blocked. GABHello! 01:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    ‎Merry christmas and happy new year (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is edit warring to repeatedly reinsert trolling material (9 times at this point) at the Science Reference Desk (page history). Troll has been given a final warning. Please block. EdChem (talk) 01:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    There's already an AIV report sitting there. GABHello! 01:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=694257606"