Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive965

Good afternoon, I'd like to show some light on what I deem very tendentious editing on behalf of User:Gaditano23 in this discussion page about the 2017 Catalonia attacks and in the article itself. He (his user name is masculine) has erased a perfectly objective and referenced paragraph. He had posed no objection to it two weeks earlier, but I know he did focus his attention on it, because he had to be corrected (by me) on a major mistake he made then (visible in the discussion, see his paragraph signed 08:33, 5 September 2017).

What I want to impress upon anyone reading this, is that this user is using potentially confrontational language and heavy political editorializing: he labels other users' sentences "silly", calls a Guardian article "idiotic" and like I said, erases a whole paragraph for what I deem to be subjective political reasons. In contrast, my discussion with User:Pincrete is perfectly civilized as can be seen in the talk page. Please read the version dated before 15 September, 16:20 because I don't know what will happen to the talk page

Tensions around the Catalan referendum are VERY high, this was already predicted, by me among others in said discussion days ago, but we all need to make an effort to be objective. And I don't believe in my heart of hearts that Mr. Gaditano23 is here to build an encyclopedia. But I'd like to be proven wrong. I already have a couple referenced paragraphs prepared about this ([1]) and more recent news uncovered by these investigative journalists, but first, with all due respect, the Gaditano23 question needs to be dealt with. What I'm not going to do is start an edit war with someone who is simply distraught at recent news. I'm here to build Wikipedia. Thank you. CodeInconnu (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

CodeInconnu We have not even engaged in a discussion, let alone an edit war!! This is not how you use ANIs. Also you should warn me on my talk page! Another editor had to warn me about this. Not cool.Gaditano23 (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Well I did warn you on your talk page seconds after writing the above User_talk:Gaditano23#For_your_information... Not the best way to start this discussion Gaditano! CodeInconnu (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Gaditano has not done anything even REMOTELY sanctionable and this should be closed ASAP. Some non-Spanish/Catalan eyes (apart fom mine) would help as I think the 'Reactions' section of the article is in danger of going off-topic into matters of very marginal interest to non-local readers. I'm sure there are sources that praise the Catalan authorities and others that castigate them, I am not persuaded that there is any clear pattern yet as to which is going to prevail and whether it is going to influence the referendum AT ALL and how (if at all) that should be included in the 'attack article. Pincrete (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Pincrete, I mentioned you because you also appeared in that discussion but none of the relevant bits of THIS discussion involves you. Please let the administrators take care of this and refrain from chiming in and trying to divert their attention from the germane matters. Gaditano has used insulting language to refer to users' sentences and newspaper articles and it is clear to me and anyone reading his interventions that he was editorializing and using the talk page like a forum. Be thankful that I'm civil and I don't try to add that paragraph again to the main page until this is resolved, and please stay out of this. CodeInconnu (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• I see a content dispute, no conduct issues. @CodeInconnu:, except for very special cases one cannot dictate who may contribute to discussions here. Tiderolls 18:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
• @Tide rolls:, calling paragraphs "silly" or references "idiotic" is as much of a conduct issue as it is content. Otherwise shall I start engaging in the same behaviour, see how that sits with Gaditano? CodeInconnu (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Your assessment is incorrect. Calling editors silly or idiotic is a conduct issue. One would hope for an explanation for how the edits are silly or idiotic; that would certainly help the discussion. Tiderolls 18:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

So are you telling me that I can start labeling editors' contributions and references silly or idiotic compulsively like there's no tomorrow, and not be admonished by anyone? Is that your intelligent contribution to this debate?

Concerning your last sentence, totally agreed. Said explanation hasn't come yet (other than a haphazard reference to a potential "battefield", but Gaditano is more than welcome to offer his intelligent reasons before I add that paragraph again. So far no intelligent reasons have been offered. He may be nervous with the international scrutiny on Spain and all, but we're her to be impartial... CodeInconnu (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

There's no debate; there has been no conduct displayed that requires admin attention. Tiderolls 18:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

CodeInconnu, I am involved both because you named me and because I am actively 'watching' the page. I believe you are abusing the ANI process in that you have not really engaged on talk but come here hoping to get admin support, it won't happen. I largely agree with Gaditano and think the whole 'Reactions' section is going increasingly off-topic, so you are in the minority. You are welcome to do an RfC and I have tried above to invite other editors' eyes. You are new here, and have made very few edits outside this topic area, I believe. Pincrete (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Pincrete, I don't think you've thought it carefully before writing this.

I didn't want to focus on you but now that you're begging for my attention, let me remind you that your entire discussion in that talk page was full of assumptions, weasel wording, opinions passed as facts and an intolerant adamancy that led me to believe that you either have a dog in this fight, or are not here to build an encyclopedia (neither is Gaditano). You're making assumptions here as well, e.g. presuming I'm here to curry favor (Tide Rolls says it's OK to label actions but not people, so I guess it's OK to label your assumption idiotic). Most importantly, you keep droning on about not mentioning the referendum but the one edit you left untouched was precisely the one referring to the referendum. Hence your edits have been not only disruptive, but also contradictory. And silly, idiotic, etc.

The fact I haven't made many edits outside of this topic could only be any of your business if I, or anyone else, owed you an explanation. Hang on, I don't. So there.

And finally, being new to a place is sometimes healthier than being old to/for it and losing perspective. When a person, generally speaking, mistakes a public domain for their own private fiefdom, it usually is a reflection of deeper issues that should be addressed face to face with people trained to deal with them. I'm not looking at anyone in particular. CodeInconnu (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

So now three editors today have agreed that this material is off-topic and removed it. All of them are wrong according to you! Possibly more should be removed about the Sp/Cat tensions. Pincrete (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

That's been put on hold until the current political situation takes some shape. Just find some help and stop using wiki as an ad-hoc therapy please. There's better entertainment you can find at the care home. CodeInconnu (talk) 07:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikicontrols seems to have made a legal threat. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeffed. Their other conduct (edit-warring, personal attacks) was bad, too. GAB^gab 15:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I've offered a comment correcting a couple of fundamental misunderstandings. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, folks. I'm not certain that this is the correct place to report this and feel free to direct me elsewhere. But there's something very strange going on at WP:MOSQUOTE. Looks like the page got hijacked in some fashion. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Looks like the CSS files could have been messed with, if so, this would be a hack, not just vandalistic editing, I suggest not clicking on the links in the messed up page in case they contain malware. Thanks for reporting this. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Whatever it is, it's been fixed now. On a related point, is there a good way to tell which template text comes from? GoldenRing (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean? Tornado chaser (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I highly recommend this link which can be made on any Special:Contributions page. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

So if I understand this correctly, someone changed the template "vanchor" into a brightly colored attack page which was then displayed on any page that used the template? Tornado chaser (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

So it seems. What I meant was that it would be useful to have a way to see what the wikitext would be if every template were substituted - with HTML comments showing which bits were from which templates. GoldenRing (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I am slowly but surely working on an off-site tool that would do that. Feel free to occasionally pester me to get back to work on it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Recently, 2602:306:33C5:1860:409:8219:47AC:C06D (talk · contribs), 2602:306:33C5:1860:F9D3:C1E1:ECA8:83F (talk · contribs), 2602:306:33C5:1860:D877:518F:F573:110D (talk · contribs), 2602:306:33C5:1860:4CEC:BD47:3AFB:629A (talk · contribs), and similar IPs beginning with 2602:306:33C5:1860 have been "spamming" gratutious mentions of a children's anthology called Sing a Song of Popcorn in a bunch of articles (as well as overlinking). It's pretty clear that all are the same person, and in some cases they have vioated 3RR. I know nothing about IP6s and little about range blocks, and I can't even figure out how to give a warning that would be seen. Would it be possible to block the person without undue collateral damage? Deor (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

FYI recent edits by this range can be seen at Special:Contributions/2602:306:33C5:1860::/64. They seem mostly unhelpful, and they have been rangeblocked in the past [[2]]. A /64 rangeblock would seem appropriate, as anything else will likely be useless. See mw:Help:Range blocks/IPv6 for more information on this. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 23:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

He's been using 2602:306:33C5:1860::/64 all year.

Hoax pointed out by Binksternet after a final warning given by Apokryltaros on a previous day. There are other talk pages with warnings.

Binksternet warned him on a different range, 2602:306:33C5:2C90::/64 last year many times. Another example. Also, this looks interesting.

Binksternet, VCV comes to mind but you may recognize this as someone else?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Was checking a couple of things before blocking but Malcolmxl5 already indeffed for a week and that sounds like a good start.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeffed for a week?? Tornado chaser (talk) 00:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes! "...and I am unanimous in that..."
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for one week is what I imagine Berean Hunter meant to say. It's a step up from the 31 hour block in July but if the disruptive editing resumes, longer blocks may be warranted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I've dealt with (i.e., reverting all of its edits and warned) this vandal hoaxer before. I strongly agree with the recommendation of a range-block to stymie its efforts. At the very least, if an IP's edit history contains any mention of "yakety yak," REVERT EVERYTHING, REVERT EVERYTHING.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Would it be useful to design an edit filter to look for "yakety yak"? Tornado chaser (talk) 01:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Don't talk back. EEng 01:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The IP6 range under discussion certainly looks like a lot of it is the Voice Cast Vandal's handiwork. A week-long block is too short, in my opinion. In any case, the incorrigible person will find another inlet to continue the disruption here. Binksternet (talk) 03:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for looking. I also agree that a longer duration on the block is warranted. Judging by the anon contribs, it looks to be used fairly exclusively by him and no one else. Based on the length of time that he was at the last range and how long he has been at this one, I would expect his ISP to reassign him in early to mid January.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Special:Diff/801015007 | PlyrStar93 (talk · contribs)
• Special:Diff/801012652 | Theinstantmatrix (talk · contribs)
• Special:Diff/801012620 | Yexstorm2001 (talk · contribs)
• Special:Diff/801013714 | Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DonaldTonald

Note: There's already an WP:ANV report for this user, so I'll just link the personal attacks, alongside his edit on the sockpuppet investigation page.

Suspected sockpuppet user DonaldTonald3 (talk · contribs) kept making threatening edits on these user's talk pages, including mine, after we've reverted his edits constituting vandalism. As of right now, he's continues to vandalize articles and making threats on our talk pages (especially PlyrStar93) whenever we revert his edits as vandalism. Please block this user, and if applicable, hide his threatening edits he made on our talk pages. Thanks. theinstantmatrix (talk) 04:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

IMO a regular AIV case should get this sorted pretty well, it's just a little bit backlogged for the moment. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. 🖉←} 04:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

and user has been indef'ed. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. 🖉←} 04:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• 81.102.46.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For the past week, 81.102.46.190 has been modifying dates in a couple few lists of historical monarchs, and on one king's page. The dates being inserted have no basis in the historical record, and no attempt is being made to provide verifiability. They have never explained any change, either in the edit summaries or on the relevant Talk pages. This behavior includes changes to multiple different dates and changes to the same dates multiple times. Equally troubling, the majority of these changes are disguised with edit summaries that read simply "Fixed typo". Rather than giving individual diffs, see history: [11] in which every single edit to date by this editor has been a date change (or a tweak to their own date change), most labelled 'Fixed typo', a few as 'Added content', which while not informative at least isn't deceptive. I warned them yesterday about the deceptive edit summaries [12], and later also provided a pointer to WP:BRD [13], but today found almost a dozen more 'Fixed typo' date change edits, including on a new page not previously affected, so I gave them a level three disruption warning [14], and within hours they made five more "Fixed typo" date changes, including to another new page. I would not characterize this as vandalism, because some of them are reasonable dates, just not supportable (or at least supported) ones, so I AGF here, but this can't continue and they show no signs of modifying their behavior. Page protection may help with the most-affected page, but as they keep going after additional pages, that may become a game of whack-a-mole, but they do appear to be using a stable IP. They have been notified [15]. Agricolae (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Ohyeahbaby and User:Wikiguyy22 made edits to the article Barry Goldberg (volleyball coach) and American University that I reverted as vandalism, e.g. [16] and [17]. Subsequently, Ohyeahbaby edited the article Loxodes with the text "If you ever mess with Barry again...I will find you and SHUT YOU DOWN." [18] This edit was reverted by ClueBot NG. The article Loxodes is listed on my user page as an article that I have contributed to, which is why I believe that it was an attempt to intimidate me personally. American University and Barry Goldberg are otherwise the only articles which Ohyeahbaby has edited. I would appreciate if you could look into this matter. Thank you. Kbseah (talk) 05:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Kbseah: that's probably Jaredgk2008 (talk · contribs). I don't think he's anything more than a nuisance, but you could follow the instructions at WP:EMERGENCY if you want to play it safe. I blocked both accounts. If you see him again, just ping me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Kbseah (talk) 12:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Over the past couple of weeks, there have been a couple of articles about cricketers that have been taken to AfD; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Cranston and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. Whitehead (MCC cricketer). During these, Bobo192 (hereafter referred to as Bobo, as displayed in signature) has repeatedly made assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks. First, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Cranston:

• Against Premeditated Chaos Bobo repeatedly called this user a "vandal". [19] [20]
• Kept commenting over and over with the same things and accusing others of acting like children, for merely opposing his point of view. [21]
• Then, across both AfDs harrassing Reyk, saying that their "opinion is invalidated" [22], that they were having a "childish temper tantrum" [23] and accusing Reyk of "baiting" people [24].
• At the second of these discussions, Bobo also interacted with BlackJack, making demeaning comments about the AfDs and the people taking part in them; "How long has this lasted without having been argued with on this petty a level?", "an article is therefore deleted based on undefined "rules of thumb" and the lack of "basic details" - when the article so painfully obviously passes WP:CRIN criteria", "Note how something as idiotically woolly and contradictory as WP:GNG didn't exist back then as an apparently legitimate delete vote criterion".

For the sake of clarity, I !voted against Bobo in one discussion, and with him in the other. I feel that in these AfDs, Bobo struggles to debate without resorting to personal attacks and demeaning comments. Harrias ^talk 18:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

As regards Whitehead, the nominator has admitted that he misunderstood the notability guideline and has removed his key reason (i.e., non-compliance) for raising the AfD. Bobo was certainly right to defend the guideline in that case because the subject is undeniably notable. Although I do not think Cranston should be deleted, I admit it is much more borderline. In my opinion, Bobo has been provoked by the attitude of Reyk whom I personally think crosses the WP:NOTHERE line – he was reported to ANI earlier this year, by Lugnuts for that very reason. Jack | ^{talk page} 19:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment- I agree that Bobo is not taking the existence of opposing views well at all. There's no doubt that he's been badgering participants in those AfD's and trying to bait me in particular into an outburst. I'm not sure why he's singled me out and, though I've made an effort to remain completely civil in the face of this provocation, I do not appreciate being called a liar and a hypocrite. As for an administrative remedy, I would suggest limiting this user to one !vote on individual cricket-related AfDs, and no replies, for a couple of months. It may be that his behaviour will improve once he's accepted that other opinions can legitimately exist. I suggest it's even time to examine WikiProject Cricket as a whole; it's easily the most toxic place on Wikipedia (at least since the ARS faded into obscurity), with a lot of OWNership issues and the same ultra-defensive rhetoric we've seen here. I can think of at least two editors of that WikiProject with the same behavioural issues. Reyk _YO! 19:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so you have a grudge against WP:CRIC which has been evident in comments made by you in at least three AfDs. Your opposition to WP:CRIN, our notability guideline which is part of WP:NSPORTS is worryingly unreasonable, given its wide acceptance by the vast majority of editors and administrators. This is why you are perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be NOTHERE – our impression is that you are trying to disrupt our project. Comments like "easily the most toxic place on Wikipedia" are bang out of order and I challenge you to provide a list of all the ownership issues you allege. Furthermore, who are the "at least two" CRIC members? Jack | ^{talk page} 19:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Respectfully asking the same question. Who are the "at least two" members with "behavioural issues"? I refuse to descend into namecalling but at the end of the day, if you make a claim and you can't back it up, then the claim is invalid. If you are unable to provide their names here and now, especially in a conversation where I am attempting to remain as rational as possible under questioning, then I suggest you remove this accusation. Bobo. 10:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The only person I can remember ever claiming I'm WP:NOTHERE to edit the encyclopedia is you. You've also previously called me a meatpuppet of User:StAnselm, round about the time you were vilifying his religion because he disagreed with you. And, of course, anyone looking at my edit history can see at a glance that the claim of being WP:NOTHERE is false. Reyk _YO! 19:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Vilifying his religion? That's a new one. Even I'm not aware that I did that... evidence please. Bobo. 20:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Here ya go: User_talk:StAnselm/2015b#Apology_demanded. Reyk _YO! 20:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

My mistake. I thought you were referring to me. Sorry. Bobo. 20:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

This is nothing to do with "opposing views". This is to do with randomly choosing a cricketer with a single first-class appearance, saying "I don't like", and immediately tagging an article which, somehow, has survived on the site for nine years, with an AfD notice. There are thousands of other WP:CRIC articles that any other user could tag for exactly the same reason. Every single similar AfD discussion since the writing of WP:CRIN has been an utter waste of time. Bobo. 20:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Where to start... ayyy caramba. From the top.

• Yes. As I stated on that page, the entry for Church of Jesus Christ Elvis looks like the kind of CSD G1 nonsense created by bored schoolchildren when their teacher's back is turned. I still don't believe this to be false, and I still cannot believe this is anything other than BJAODN vandalism. I considered the fact that this user even pointed out that they posted it on that very AfD discussion to be... to use a polite term, clumsy.
• My "treated like children" comment actually referred to my wish to ask genuine questions relating to notability criteria and people's continued unwillingness and/or inability to answer, having initially criticized my own judgment.
• Generally speaking, if someone has an opinion they stick to it. I was asking for genuine responses to genuine questions and didn't receive a single one. I endeavoured a courtesy ping to the person who asked the question to be the best way to get them to see the answer. Perhaps the need to ping didn't exist. I purely wanted to make sure that the page came up again when I visited. This was more for my own purposes so that I could follow my own comments on an AfD.
• If someone is against the idea of "a single game", then what is the alternate solution? "I find that this is a problem" is not a valid complaint. "I find that this is a problem and here is a solution I propose given my knowledge on the subject", is. The reason for my ping was more for my own benefit. If this was unnecessary, then I am genuinely sorry.
• If you say, "Please stop badgering!" then this feels like an affront to the user in question. And, by claiming themselves that I "may" [only have] "be[en] badgering", is a very embarrassing climbdown, having set out to make me feel two inches tall. Which was the original intent, I guess, so, job done. If the user in question had simply said, "Would you please consider rephrasing your comment?", I may have done so without a second thought.
• You and I both know that people have been sending articles similar to that of Tom Cranston to AfD without knowing the first thing about cricket, or the generally accepted notability guideline which has existed since I have been a Wikipedian, a single FC appearance is satisfactory. I always thought that as long as these criteria were met, then any complaints of the style, "but I disagree with the article because..." when it clearly meets WP guidelines, are not only unnecessary, but time-wasting.
• GNG was never cited as a deletion reasoning back when the S. Perera article was initially deleted. In that debate or any other. I still don't understand how an incredibly woolly-phrased guideline holds any sway when it is patently obvious that the article passes SNG requirements. Doesn't that make all the "Delete 'cuz GNG" comments look a tad suspicious? Bobo. 19:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer):

• "On the evidence we have access to online, the player does not meet GNG, as there is no significant coverage, what we have is purely statistical." (me)
• "Yes, I know at the end of the day WP:GNG trumps them all..." (you, Bobo)
• "This does not pass WP:NSPORT which clearly says "In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline."" (StAnselm)

• As you can see, GNG clearly was cited as deletion reasoning (even by yourself, a proponent of keeping the article) in the S. Perera AfD. But to be honest, that is beside the point anyway. Harrias ^talk 20:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• This is and will be the first and only ever time I will quote WP:GNG within a deletion discussion. I should have said, "I know that according to other people GNG trumps them all." Frankly I was unaware GNG even existed as an apparently valid reason for deletion until a week before this discussion, when people started quoting it willy-nilly... So, poor phrasing from me, I apologize. Bobo. 20:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The irony here is that I barely even contribute to AfD discussions regarding cricketers because I'm fairly sure that all parties involved are aware of the fact that we have very easy to understand criteria for article inclusion. Bobo. 20:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

---

I wish to make a collective apology to all in this conversation. My frustrations are being escalated by the fact that I am going through a crappy time healthwise, and the fact that I am not taking current personal life events very well. I never do. I have personal problems which cause me to escalate every single stupid little thing to a ridiculously large level. I make absolutely zero excuse for these - the fact that these two issues have coincided is, to me and, I'm sure to everyone reading this, simply an unfortunate coincidence, and, I'm sure you can understand from my point of view, a matter of infinite frustration.

I can do nothing more than promise that, as soon as these stupid petty issues have passed, I will be back to normal, strong and ready to go, ready to collaborate, fully, on a project which every single one of us has taken to so passionately over the last several years. Without meaning to deny anyone else equal credit, all of you know that I consider Jack to be a very close friend, who has helped me with so many things over the years, on and off Wiki.

I am sorry. I never meant for it to get this far. I never intended for my frustrations to manifest themselves in such an angry way. And if you choose to take this apology as plastic, then please do. But know that in spite of all this, I still feel we can collaborate strongly together on a project until we have reached every single one of our goals. Bobo. 21:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I would feel better about your apology if you would withdraw your accusations that I am a vandal with some kind of history of vandalizing Wikipedia, which I clearly am not. I fully agree that the article was stupid, but 2003 was a different, and much more stupid time. The article was still live at the time of my 2004 RfA, and no one at that time (or any other) ever accused me of vandalism for posting it, despite it being proudly listed on my then-live brag page for all to see. I mentioned it in an attempt at humor/sympathy and you used it to attack me, just as you have been attacking everyone in that AfD left right and center. Apologizing means nothing if your aggressive behavior remains the same. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

To be honest I was completely willing to forget that. It was only the fact that you actually pointed it out on the AfD that I had any idea it even existed... and as I say, I was completely willing to forget. I still am. Maybe this was the kind of thing that happened when we only had, what, 200,000 articles on the site? That was how many it was when I joined. Let's not forget WP:BJAODN was still rife (not that I'm connecting the two, just pointing out something which has been long forgotten in the mists of past). Times change, article notability criteria changes. Except, not for cricket articles! And it never has. Heck, I myself even created some Test cricketers, a subset of articles which we all finished rather quickly.

My point in this comment is merely to remind myself of the way things were when I first joined 13 years ago. Very different times. But I still believe I was doing nothing wrong in creating and defending these articles. The fact that I did so in such an angry way is honestly uncharacteristic. Bobo. 22:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're misremembering on purpose, but I brought it up on my talk page and only on my talk page. You are the one who accused me of having a history of vandalizing Wikipedia as a response. You are the one who then brought it up at AfD in an attempt to smear me. You are the one who was unwilling to forget it. You are the one who still has not struck the accusation on the AfD nor admitted that it was wrong here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Smear you? That's a teensy bit of an exaggeration. The fact that you willingly put your foot in it, quite another matter entirely. Bobo. 23:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah, okay. So your "apology" above was just as worthless as you said it was and you don't actually care about being civil to other users. Good to know. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Nothing to do with my apology "being worthless". The fact is that in my 13 years on Wikipedia, sport inclusion criteria has moved on to a stage where we now have rules that are so easy to follow that a child can understand, and yet people going against those rules because the rules make them sad. Bobo. 07:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Not that I have the slightest impression that you're interested in actually reading anything anyone here has posted, but are you at all aware of the RfC on the NSPORTS issue from this June which closed with the conclusive statement that there is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline. Arguments must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS in the context of an Articles for Deletion discussion? You keep going on and on about everyone else refusing to follow consensus-based policy because we're either dumber than children or the rules make us sad or whatever ludicrous nonsense you decide to toss out next but as I've been saying all along, consensus disagrees with you. NSPORTS < GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:CRIN has always been the same and not a single person has ever rationally challenged it. Bobo. 09:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• I wish I could drop this but it would be hypocritical of me not to say this. Added a question above regarding the "at least two members with behavioural issues". Given that this entire thread is based on my individual frustrations, to call out "at least two" individuals to this extent and refuse to name them is cowardly. I'm sure Jack would appreciate this justification too. Let's face it, if I had made the same accusations, people would probably regard it as me getting on the offensive and making a personal attack.

Reyk, I am sad that I've had to ask this question because I really thought we had reached a point from which we could move on. It should be clear to you and PMC that I consider Jack to be one of my closest Wikipedia friends, a man who knows more about cricket than anyone else I know, and, as you have both seen, a person who is courteous to the level that he is willing to defend me much more readily than I am prepared to defend myself. Bobo. 10:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• comment- check out the last thread on WT:CRIC for a good example of why the wikiproject is toxic. Gossiping and badmouthing me by the three primary people making it a toxic place. Reyk _YO! 16:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The only thing that's toxic, are editors with little or no understanding of a subject area wasting everyone's time with frivolous deletion nominations. Maybe they could spend their time increasing their own knowledge-base, instead of assuming things are non-notable with their ignorance of the topic. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Not exactly, Lugnuts. The problem is with the users who agree with them, causing articles like S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) to be deleted - after six years as a Wikipedia article - and for two years' worth of shenanigans to follow. Everybody who knows the slightest thing about cricket knows that S. Perera is entitled to an article. Doesn't it seem weird that it took six years for someone - anyone - to say "no like, get rid"?

Anyone who knows anything about anything knows that an article will not last on Wikipedia for six years unless its subject warrants an article... we're talking basic common sense now... Bobo. 18:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - fixed the link for you Reyk otherwise people will be directed to a nonexistent page. Bobo. 16:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Please do not accuse the project of containing "at least two editors of that WikiProject with the same behavioural issues", if you are unwilling or unable to mention who these people are. We have been going around in circles for nearly 24 hours and haven't really gotten anywhere.

Please answer this question at the appropriate place, the statement beginning "Respectfully asking the same question." Otherwise the conversation will be fragmented. Bobo. 16:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Proposal for closing admin. I think User:Reyk has revealed himself for what he is and should be shown the door. He is in breach of WP:NOTHERE because he seeks to disrupt constructive effort on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. His approach is confrontational and his deletion rationales are designed to twist and mislead. There is an undeniable example of this in the Whitehead AfD. His reason for deletion is "biographical article about a non-notable sports person, based on bare statistical database entries and sources so meagre that the person's full name is not even known. I think it goes without saying that WP:CRIN is way too lax in its standards if it encourages the creation of a horde of contentless microstubs like this one". The article has been expanded since then but this is the version he calls a "microstub" about a "non-notable sports person". As anyone can see, the article was a stub with an infobox and a four-line paragraph which states that Whitehead was a patron as well as a player and that he played in fourteen first-class matches, so hardly "non-notable". The bibliography shows that there are several sources, though admittedly unused before the AfD was raised. As Lugnuts said above, Reyk displays complete ignorance when making his illogical and groundless assumptions. In addition to WP:NOTHERE, I would suggest there is a WP:CIR issue too. Finally, badmouthing an entire project because he does not like us disagreeing with him is a serious breach of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. WP:CRIC isn't perfect but it is constructive, positive and welcoming. It is no different to any other project, no better than and certainly no worse than. Anyone who condemns an entire project as "toxic" should be expelled. Jack | ^{talk page} 21:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I can do nothing but continue to make an honest apology. My frustration is purely down to current circumstance and I can only promise that given time, I will no longer cause the problems I have been causing. It's simply a shame that these two issues have come up at the same time that my frustrations have exacerbated themselves.

I don't think "expulsion" is the answer, Jack. There's a wonderful phrase on Wikipedia. "Drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass". I believe that anyone who mangles with inclusion criteria by openly admitting to be a deletionist and pushing their own agenda is in fear of ruining the project. There is zero logic for deletionism other than "Me no likey. Get rid. lol." Project criteria for cricket are identical to project criteria for every other competitive team sport on Wikipedia. Soccer, American football, baseball, ice hockey, basketball. Why should one article suffer for the sake of a project? There is no logical connection between believing in NPOV and believing in deletionism as a philosophy. Okay, in the deep dark mists of Wikipedia I added ECC cricketers. Austria, Belgium... I forget who else off hand.

The sad fact is that there is no logical solution to the S. Perera problem. If we are purely relying on secondary sources, the large part of me assumes that we have to treat S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) and Suresh Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) as two different cricketers. And I still believe that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) provides no valid consensus when you consider the source of the deletion votes.

1. Suspicious Delete 1: Me no likey. Get rid. lol. (IP address)
2. Suspicious Delete 2: Account for which we have zero reliable information of whether the user exists and whether the nonexistent account was ever renamed because it doesn't show up as a valid rename in the logs.

Personally I think this says it all. If two of the delete votes are "IP" and "as IP" (neither of which would hold sway in a normal AfD argument), then this invalidates the AfD conversation altogether, regardless of the addresses' opinions. Couple this with the fact that by listifying the cricketers by first-class team without providing links to articles about each player is a blatant violation of NPOV. Bobo. 23:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

What do we do about the fact that no matter what happens from now on, there will always be at least one Kurunegala YCC player missing? Well, there are 106 redlinks still on my players list page, let alone those who have appeared for the team since. By my reckoning, there are 29 players who have played for Kurunegala YCC who have a single first-class appearance, and 162 in total. I can update the master list if you like... sometime later, my brain is fried. Bobo. 00:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I would gladly ask that question to the other participants in this conversation as well as Jack. What shall we do about this blatant violation of NPOV, such that we are allowing some cricketers with a single first-class appearance and not others..? Bobo. 00:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Summary of AfD delete votes at Tom Cranston:

1. Gave him a go. Definitely notable. But get rid anyway. Even though he meets criteria, this is inconsequential.
2. This cricketer definitely passes NSPORTS. But get rid anyway.
3. Meets criteria, but "insignificant contribution".
4. A single game and a listing in a statistical database are insufficient to show notability. (No. This is precisely the point of WP:CRIN...) Bobo. 00:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Every single person reading this conversation can be certain of one thing. Regardless of your Wikipedia "philosophy", this and S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) will most likely end up being re-evaluated at some point in the future... Bobo. 00:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
• Jack, as honest and long-term contributors to WP:CRIC, what's our next step? Bobo. 00:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• With respect, that is completely and utterly false and a complete failure to characterize anybody's !vote on that page accurately. The AfD in question is linked for your perusal here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Cranston. A far more accurate depiction of the delete !votes on that page would be that they summarily agree that the article might (barely) pass WP:CRIN or WP:NSPORTS - for examples; may scrape WP:CRIN on basis of the one match (User:Pharaoh of the Wizards) and [t]he reliable sources provided prove that the subject passes, narrowly, the requirements of WP:NSPORTS (User:Hack), but, all decidely also agree that the article does not meet WP:GNG and that the subject is non-notable - for examples; He comprehensively fails WP:GNG (User:Pharaoh of the Wizards) and fails WP:GNG, no evidence article subject has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources (User:Hack). So no, nobody is saying that he is [d]efinitely notable [b]ut get rid anyway. What utter tripe. On a less sharp note; it is highly inadviseable to try and summarize opposing viewpoints when you have a decidely obvious point of view. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Bingo. This is simply a case of some people not being able to accept the existence of contrary points of view and lashing out because of it. I think it goes without saying that the above "proposal" to ban me is ridiculous, and a perfect example of the poor behaviour on the part of WP:CRIC that I've been trying to draw attention to. I'm not sure if it is intended as a genuine request to have me blocked, or merely an attempt to provoke me. If the former, User:BlackJack should start a separate subsection to make that request. If the latter, well, I'm not going to get upset if someone wants to make my point for me. Reyk _YO! 04:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• There's a difference between contrary points of view and having had guidelines we've stuck to for nearly ten years which have done us absolutely zero harm up until now. So in other words, we will have a complete list of every single first-class cricketer... other than one which people disagreed with? How does that work? This isn't about "contrary points of view". This is about going against very easy to understand criteria which we have held to for many years.

The fact that all three of us are agreed that the article passes WP:CRIN is proof of the fact that it's not WP:CRIC members who are the ones trying to make a point. Bobo. 07:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Asking the same question down here for Reyk as I asked above. To cower away from an accusation like the fact that "at least two" WP:CRIC members have behavioural issues and to not have the cojones to tell us who they are is cowardice. Please justify this, otherwise we will slap a "citation needed" tag on it. Bobo. 07:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• I have already answered this question above. Please stop making personal attacks. If you haven't figured out yet that I won't be baited... Sorry, but I must now concentrate on BlackJack's ban request and preposterous false accusations against me. Reyk _YO! 07:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Reading the admin's closing rationale here is greatly amusing.

"Rules of thumb are precisely that and do not replace detailed examination of the article against wider inclusion criteria." (What "wider inclusion criteria"? Some kind of non-policy arguments relating to undefined personal opinions?)

"Since we do not have basic details like date of birth than it seems reasonable to give less weight to arguments for inherant notability than those arguing delete based on wider policy."

The article was deleted because we didn't know the subject's date of birth. Crazy. Bobo. 08:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

---

Okay. This whole conversation has become a directionless mess. Summarizing my main questions so that I don't lose the points if people are willing to make them.

• If I were to add articles on the 29 Kurunegala YCC redlinks with a single first-class appearance, am I to assume they will all be deleted by people who, against years of collaboration by WP:CRIC, have suddenly decided that a single FC appearance isn't good enough?
• What is the solution to this problem if we are deciding that random cricketers with one first-class appearance will from now on be tagged willy-nilly?
• Where does WP:CRIC need to go as a project if we are forbidden from adding specific articles about specific cricketers, chosen at random, such that our main purpose of building an encyclopedia is invalidated? Bobo. 10:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

---

Let's get back to the main point of this discussion without being distracted by the voluminous reams of red herrings above. The issue here is the behaviour of User:Bobo192 and, to a lesser extent, User:BlackJack and User:Lugnuts who have subjected me to a prolonged barrage of personal abuse for no other reason than that I disagree with WP:CRIC's standards for notability and inclusion. So far these three between them have called me a liar, an idiot, a hypocrite, a coward, disruptive, incompetent, and childish. I have been falsely accused of personal attacks, falsely accused of not being here to edit the encyclopedia, and threatened with blocks and bans. And this is after I after I attempted to withdraw from the argument, which WP:CRIC was apparently unwilling to permit. Let's not get drawn off track by the distraction of Bobo's (currently) irrelevant remarks about individual long-closed AfDs. The real questions that need to be considered are:

• Does the community accept Bobo, Lugnuts, and BlackJack as the sole arbiters of inclusion for cricket-related articles?
• Does the community accept a protracted campaign of personal abuse and harassment against me for disagreeing with those inclusion standards?

I don't accept either. Reyk _YO! 10:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi. You claim that there is just one topic at hand, and then you switch it to a completely different topic. Oops.

Question 1: I, Jack, and Lugnuts all voted "keep" on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. Whitehead (MCC cricketer). But we are not the only contributors to the AfD conversation. So no, we are not the "sole arbiters", but the fact that we agree with each other is up to each one of us and to our own personal opinions based on long-established guidelines.

Question 2: In this AfD, you are in the minority. Your being in the minority and disagreeing with us is not the catalyst for a campaign of supposed "personal abuse and harassment". You are not against WP:CRIN for any sort of policy guidelines, just because of the fact that you "don't like" Microsoft Excel files converted to articles. Bobo. 10:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Now Reyk is throwing around his own red herring. There are no "sole arbiter", we use the long-established notability consensus. So you should make yourself familar with it to avoid further embarrassment to yourself and stop wasting everyone's time. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The fact that articles like S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) get deleted in spite of clearly passing guidelines is proof enough that it's not simply WP:CRIC members who are aware of long-established notability guidelines who contribute to cricket AfD discussions. I still maintain that I believe S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer)'s AfD discussion provided no consensus, especially as two of the delete !votes were provided by users who, a, would not usually be permitted to respond to AfDs, and b, belong to an untraceable account. Bobo. 11:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

If Bobo wishes to appeal the result of an AfD, the correct venue is WP:DRV. This discussion is about the repeated assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks on me by Bobo and others. I repeat: is it legitimate to subject me to a long-term barrage of abuse just because I disagree with WP:CRIC's interpretation of notability requirements? Let's have some input from someone other than Bobo. Reyk _YO! 14:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

No need to defend a broken project. If there was no such thing as "inclusionist"/"exclusionist" philosophy this wouldn't be a problem. The only problem would be when we had a bunch of new articles to add. As I say, I could write an article for any of the other 29 Kurunegala YCC players with a single first-class appearance. The hypocrisy of exclusionism is that, in spite of long-held guidelines, they would claim, "not enough"... when the article clearly passed guidelines. I'll find another team and work out stats to show that Kurunegala YCC isn't alone. Bobo. 16:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Lankan Cricket Club, 114 players, seven with a single first-class appearance, all redlinks.

• Nadun Anuradha
• Pasindu Bimsara
• Deshadi Perera
• Dimuthu Ellawala
• Charith Rajapakshe
• Indunil Kumara
• Tharaka Sampath Bobo. 16:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Can I please get an answer beyond reams and reams of off-topic commentary from Bobo? I feel as though my legitimate complaints are just being flooded out with this garbage. I repeat: is it legitimate to subject me to a relentless barrage of personal abuse simply because I disagree with WP:CRIC on inclusion and notability standards? Reyk _YO! 17:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

My comment was in no way irrelevant and for you to label it that way and collapse my comment is disgusting. The two questions you asked above, I answered. Straight on. Nine minutes after you asked them. Seven hours ago. Your entire rationale is that you disagree with guidelines for notability and inclusion, something that, for right or wrong, WP:CRIC have defended to the hilt. Just so that you remember, at the beginning of this section, you began to question my behaviour, claimed you were keeping on topic, and then veered off-topic claiming that three WP:CRIC members were the "sole arbiters" of inclusion. Bobo. 17:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

No, it was completely irrelevant. The purpose of the conversation is that you and your friends think it's acceptable to call people names for disagreeing with you and that you've singled me out for special abuse. It's a behavioural issue, and the behaviour of WP:CRIC has been atrocious:

• calling me childish
• and again
• calling me a liar
• calling me a coward
• calling me an idiot
• calling me NOTHERE, incompetent, dishonest, and threatening to get me blocked or banned.

Can we get someone other than Bobo to weigh in here? All that guy is going to do is continue to flood the conversation with irrelevant complaints about long-closed AfDs and lists of Sri Lankan cricketers to discourage anyone else from commenting. I still say I've done nothing to deserve this ongoing harassment. Reyk _YO! 17:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

"Irrelevant comments"? You know those two questions you asked? I answered them. Within nine minutes. Bobo. 18:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• As far as I can see the only person who is in danger of being sanctioned here is User:BlackJack. Jack, if you continue to spray PAs like NOTHERE and CIR (not to mention "idiot" and "ignorant") about against a long-term editor who as far as I can see has done nothing but disagree with a number of issues regarding notability, you will be blocked, that is certain. If I see you do it once more, I will perform that block myself. As regards the notability issue, that is not something that is going to be argued here. Unfortunately we do have a lot of issues with local notability guidelines which don't always mesh perfectly with the global ones, but throwing abuse at anyone who disagrees with your project is not the way to do it. Black Kite (talk) 22:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

  I hope you don't think I'm pushing the situation aside by saying that how this conversation is going is no longer the real problem. The real problem now is that WP:CRIC has taken a massive hit by this. Not least because no matter how many articles we create we will never be able to complete our true goal of having every cricketer bluelinked as no matter what happens to the Sri Lankan cricketers, S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer), which we are all treating as a different cricketer to Suresh Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) will never be created without someone slapping it with CSD G4. Someone other than me (conflict of interest and all) needs to take it to WP:RFU and point out that the player meets WP:CRIN. Bobo. 22:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

---

I think we all agree that this conversation has wandered from its original purpose into other subjects and topics - some of which is my fault and some not. As per a user talk page comment I plan to make to the closing admin, I am thinking of suggesting that I send S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) to deletion review based on the fact that the AfD discussion was controversial (based on guidelines) and consensus difficult to determine, and that the article passes generally accepted criteria. For which, of course, I sympathize.

What is the protocol here? Do I need to wait for a response from the closing admin before I go to DRV? Bobo. 03:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and made the suggestion here. Bobo. 03:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

---

UPDATE: I have sent this article to deletion review as Spartaz's suggestion. Bobo. 10:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

---

So finally we have an answer. According to the deletion review, the problem is with "inadequate sourcing". Which is an interesting one. Given that for a great deal of cricket-related Wikipedia articles, the "sourcing" is completely identical, does that mean every article is "inadequately sourced"? Bobo. 13:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I have followed links to this discussion from the deletion review which I !voted on. Now I am not a major cricket editor, but I follow enough articles and have been here long enough to have a general understanding of the project. It sucks when articles you have been working on have been deleted and there is generally a bit of leeway given as emotions do rise, but this has reached an untenable point. Any outsider who looks at this is going to take a dim view of WP:CRICKET, which would be unfair as there are many good editors involved in it. At the end of the day there is no bright line on notability and different editors hold different views on what makes something notable enough to include here. If you can't except that without resorting to the level of badgering and hostility displayed above and at the linked deletion discussions then you are not going to have an enjoyable time here. AIRcorn (talk) 07:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

This is so untrue it makes me wonder what the point is of any cricketing editor continuing to work on our project. One major cricketing appearance. Nothing could be more clear. Exactly the same guideline as every single other professional competitive sport. A guideline we've been following diligently for so long that I'm sure it's not just me who is questioning what the point is of defending guidelines any more. No guideline could be clearer. Bobo. 09:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

A guideline??? Really??? Where is my article? I've made one major cricketing appearance. -Roxy the dog. bark 09:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

---

• I respectfully suggest that we have moved so directionlessly on from questions about my conduct to that of cricket inclusion criteria that it is now the cricket project which is under more serious threat than me. There is no further point in me attempting to justify my wish to follow some of the most painfully explicit guidelines on the encyclopedia, and frankly I believe the same is true of my friends. And there is no further point in attempting to defend a project which, as is clear from recent debates, both open, dormant, closed, and thrashed like a dead horse, no longer serves its incredibly simple purpose of providing articles for every single first-class cricketer. And that couldn't be less to do with my personal conduct. Bobo. 09:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I feel as if I'm in a time warp. Years ago, some editors tried their damnedest to get "In popular culture" sections banned from en.Wiki, but they failed to do so. There has never been a community consensus to remove IPC sections wholesale, but apparently User:BrightR never got the memo, and his behavior on Nude swimming has become disruptive. Two editors (myself and User:ClemRutter) have disagreed with his removal of that article's IPC section, but BrightR continues to remove it. I've invited him on numerous occasions to discuss any specific issue he may have with specific entries, [25] but he refuses to do so, simply removing the entire section numerous times. Although this is, of course, a content dispute, the issue is being brought here because BrightR's behavior has gone well past the point of WP:Disruption and has become Tendentious.

I ask for no sanctions here, simply the BrightR be told that he must discuss the issues of the entries, and that there is no consensus for the wholesale removal of IPC sections without local consensus to do so, which he does not have. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Relevant RfCs and quotes from policy that Beyond My Ken is ignoring (all presented on the talk page of the article in question):

• RfC : in-popular-culture "self-sourcing" example - Beyond My Ken participated in this RfC and was pointed to it several times. The RfC provides almost-unanimous consensus that in-popular-culture examples cannot be sourced to themselves, and require sources that explain why they're "encyclopedic".
• WP:Local consensus - Beyond My Ken repeatedly assets local consensus (or the lack of it) in order to avoid broader consensus and Wikipedia policies, as the case here.
• Both WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS (sections of WP:V) put the onus to provide citations for restoring challenged material, not on removing it. The removed material was poorly sourced, and until it is properly sourced, Wikipedia policy and RfC consensus support its removal.
• Most recently Beyond My Ken complained that I removed the image gallery. This is a separate issue, but generally galleries should be carefully-selected and are subject to consensus, but again this is a minor issue that Beyond My Ken tacked on just now.

In general it appears that Beyond My Ken is attempting to bully his way out of Wikipedia policies and RfC consensus. Bright☀ 18:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Another little bullying trick that is specifically mentioned in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR that Beyond My Ken just used is "reverting to status quo" ("stable version") in order to avoid policy-backed or consensus-backed edits. Bright☀ 18:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

It's obvious that local consensus cannot override policy, and I've never claimed that it could. What I've claimed (pace the RfC, which was not, and can not be, binding, since it was never made part of the policy, therefore being completely advisory in nature) is that WP:V clearly says that unsourced material can (but not must be) deleted, but this IPC material is sourced by primary sources (not ideal, but acceptable nonetheless) and therefore is not in any practical sense "unsourced", since it can easily be verified by rference to the media material being cited, and therefore cannot be deleted in the manner that BrightR assumes it can.

In any case, however, AN/I is not the place for BrightR and I to repeat the same arguments we've had on the talk page. AN/I is not for the settling of content disputes, and that's not why I brought it here. The relevant question for admins and the community to consider is BrightR's behavior in continuing to remove material over the objections of two editors, without consideration that it might possibly be the case that their position is incorrect.

I have consistently said that I'm more than happy to engage BrightR's concerns about specific problems with specific items, and in that way remove any doubtful or trivial items from the list. I do this all the time, and I agree the IPC lists can grow like topsy if they're not carefully pruned on occasion. I think this is a perfectly reasonable position, but it's one that BrightR refuses to accept. I feel that we can work together, if only he would agree to actually work together and stop removing the section in toto. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• completely advisory in nature - the RfC represents consensus. Broad community consensus, by many community participants, with an almost unanimous consensus that in-popular-culture examples cannot be sourced to themselves or to passing mentions in secondary sources.
• remove material over the objections of two editors - again, local consensus does not override broader community consensus and policy.
• stop removing the section in toto - one item that was properly sourced remained. The rest are not properly sourced, and per consensus were removed. Your insistence on local consensus to override borader community consensus is the problem. Consensus is completely advisory in nature when it suits you... It's not. The issue here is your refusal to follow policy and consensus, which you have done again and again. Bright☀ 19:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• BMK: Most of that section is unsourced. Per WP:V (policy, not just local consensus), "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Please do not restore material such as this without satisfying that burden. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • (1) I'm sorry, but that is inaccurate. A primary source is still a source. It's not a preferred source, but it's still a source.
  • (2) That's a comment pertinent to the content dispute, which you're more than welcome to join at Talk:Nude swimming. AN/I is not for determining content disputes, so it's not relevant here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Your behavior in restoring material that has no footnotes at all, after their inclusion was disputed, is relevant here. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm wondering why the paragraph that starts "I feel as if I'm in a time warp" was written. Has BrightR expressed opposition to IPC sections? 2602:306:BC31:4AA0:480B:1D12:4102:2962 (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment - EEng FTW with the Toto pic! Looks like something that should be mentioned in Ear#In_popular_culture. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment 7 reverts is quite a lot, BMK. Fully support removal of these unreferenced sections per WP:V, and editors warring to replace them should be sanctioned. WP:ONUS is worth a look here. --John (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Question I am often confronted with unsourced IPC sections with statements like "Toto was played by Pepe the Prawn in The Muppets' Wizard of Oz". You are not permitted to source them to the IMDb. The argument is that the film itself is a primary source for the statement, so it does not require an inline citation. My personal position is that unless the appearance is significant enough to warrant mention elsewhere, it is not worth mentioning in an IPC section. But what is the official position? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree with my colleagues immediately above. It's at least once a month that I see added to a serious biography on some obscure political figure a breathless in popular culture that he's mentioned in a video game. I won't go so far as to say that In Popular Culture sections are the worst plague we have at Wikipedia. But they at least get Honorable Mention.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I also generally require reliable secondary sourcing for such entries on the articles I've worked on (example: tesseract) not so much to verify that the concept makes an appearance, but to verify that it was central enough to whatever popcult thing it appeared in to be worthy of note. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

That's why we have WP:TRIVIA. IPC sections are magnets for truthful but random bits of information. If a secondary source has noted it, then inclusion is reasonable. --MASEM (t) 00:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I prefer to think of IPC sections as snapshots of the culture, which are of value to our readers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Such snapshots are of value only when reliable independent secondary sources take note of them, saying something like "gorgeous painting A and B movie B made significant contributions to the understanding of nude swimming in popular culture", Beyond My Ken. Otherwise, they are just poorly referenced and non encyclopedic "cruft", if you will excuse the term. Speaking personally, I find this type of content really irritating. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

How many pictures does it take to illustrate nude swimming?

Are there adults here willing to trim the number of images used in this article? Fifteen images to illustrate the concept of nude swimming seems excessive. We wouldn't put up with this many images in most articles of this length, so why is it ok here? Why is it that anything to do with nudity seems to be controlled by adolescent boys? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

And as a further note, out of those fifteen pictures, there doesn't seem to be a single image showing an older person. There is one image out of fifteen which shows a person of color. Why have so many images of the same thing: young, white people swimming nude? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I have a different question: apart from posting on AN/I, how should an editor draw attention to a page like this? Neither WP:GA nor WP:AfD is the least bit appropriate for discussion. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I have went ahead and trimmed it down further. We did not need thirteen pictures on a relatively small article. I left the most notable piece of art, which was also a featured article. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 22:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and restored the images. If you wish to remove any particular image at that article, you need to reach consensus for that at Talk:Nude swimming. Thank you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Barring a second discussion starting about this, FreeKnowledgeCreator, is there something that fifteen images you re-added provide that the four images I left didn't provide about nude swimming? Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature, most of them appeared decorative, and distracting to the content of the article. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 00:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The images cannot be "distracting to the content of the article" when they are specifically about the article's topic. Perhaps some of those images could be removed, but as noted, it is up to you to discuss which images should be removed at Talk:Nude swimming and to gain consensus for removal of those images. Please start a discussion on the article's talk page. Further discussion here serves no purpose. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

FreeKnowledgeCreator: I'm not going to make any further comments or start any other discussion about this. It doesn't sound like you either hear me, or want to directly reply. So I'll leave this discussion following this post. However, "The images cannot be "distracting to the content of the article" when they are specifically about the article's topic." is inherently wrong. Staying on a similar topic, if I placed ten more images of random men and women masturbating on the Masturbation article, it is in the scope of the topic, but it's distracting and excessive. Neither this example or the nude swimming article provide enough content or context, especially for the images provided. It is true of any topic though, so just give it a go and attempt it on any other article. Most of the article images are of nude swimming art and there is minimal content, at best. One is a terrible image of a "world record" nude swimming event and it's relevant section is a couple lines. If we're in the business of taking mediocre articles and making them good or featured, then actually following the manual of style of articles that already meet that criteria would be a good start. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 01:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I think we should have a special Wikimania nude swimming gathering, but nobody would turn up because laptops aren't waterproof. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Ghana, dip anyone? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

says who? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

If you have one, take pictures. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Nude backstroke, nude freestyle, nude butterfly, and nude breaststroke. Count Iblis (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I find it distressing that we have no pictures of people engaging in nude underwater intercourse, which is an excellent nude swimming activity. Pandeist (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Only a few people can hold their breath for long enough. Count Iblis (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

People need to lay off and remember Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored. WP:LAME much?--Certified Gangsta (talk) 02:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, an article on nude swimming might have an image of someone swimming nude. That's what WP:NOTCENSORED means. It doesn't mean that we should have fifteen images of people swimming nude. Reasonable people can see the difference between editorial commonsense and censorship. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 04:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

No offense but you don't get to unilaterally decide what is "reasonable" and what is not. Just so you know, your self-appointed status as the voice of "reasonable people" and "common sense" won't win you any brownie points. The community here will decide.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

You think I'm making a point about the sorry state of editorial oversight here in order to win Brownie points? That's cute. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Why do we even have a page on nude swimming. Is there a page on swimming in a bathing suit? Legacypac (talk) 01:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Swimming in a bathing suit is swimming. That's like asking why we have women's studies but not men's studies in college (hint: we do and it's called history) or why we have minority student unions but no white student unions (hint: we do and it's called fraternities) or MRA people drawing false equivalence between "men's rights" and "women's rights". The article belongs.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 03:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Humorless, much? EEng 04:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7915369.stm Count Iblis (talk) 05:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The Towel, and the Throwing Thereof

Well, clearly I ain't gonna prevail here, not when the anti-IPC editors come out in force, supplemented by those Wikipedians who avoid WP:COMMONSENSE whenever possible. It's a shame that Nude swimming will be degraded as an article, a real disservice to our readers, but such things can't be helped, I guess.

I withdraw the complaint, and BrightR can do whatever he likes with Nude swimming, at least as far as I'm concerned: I've taken the article off my watchlist, and I don't intend to edit it again.

I'll crawl back into my hovel, and begin the repeated ritual incantation of the twelfth canto of my "A personal prescription for surviving Wikipedia". Cheers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Folks, please do me a favor, I'm trying quite hard to not comment here, because it would inevitably descend into bludgeoning, since I understand your points quite well (really, I assure you that I'm not in any way intellectually disabled), but disagree with them almost entirely. I'm sure you all know that it's much harder to stay away from a place when you're repeatedly being pinged there. So, unless you're an admin who's admonishing or sanctioning me (and not simply expressing a personal editorial opinion) please avoid pinging me to this discussion. I really have nothing much more to say than I already have, and I feel certain that you don't want to hear that again anyway. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I acknowledge to the community at large that edit warring was a piss poor choice on my part to deal with the dispute with BrightR. I can plead frustration, but that's obviously never an acceptable excuse. I do realize that I'm lucky not to have been blocked, and thank those admins who may have considered it, but showed tolerance to both myself and BrightR.

My biggest regret about this whole sordid affair is that my lack of good judgment in this one incident will most likely be the only impediment to my becoming an admin in the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Obviously, this isn't your ORCP, but I thought I'd note I don't consider this one discussion to be a dealbreaker for your future request(s) for adminship - no one should be expected to match consensus all the time. Airbornemihir (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Airbornemihir: Thanks very much for those kinds words, but it was sort of a joke -- I'm sorry I didn't make that more obvious in the writing. I've been pretty clear over the years that I don't want to be an admin, and, practically speaking, I think I've collected enough people with doubts about me that I don't think I would be successful if I tried. I've even said that I wouldn't !vote for me if I ran, given my record!! In any case, I'm happy contributing to the encyclopedia, despite its occasional frustrations, so simply continuing to do that is fine with me. Thanks again, your gesture was appreciated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Another question

Why are we in the business of hosting image of naked, identifiable, living children? One such image is still up on that page after the cull. The problems are so many that I don't know where to start. How would you feel if someone in your workplace pointed out that there was a photograph of you naked and ten years old on the sixth most visited site on the internet? A child is inherently incapable of giving consent in such an image in every jurisdiction I know of. GoldenRing (talk) 06:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I presume you mean File:Kids skinny dipping in India.jpg. Four of the five subjects are simply unidentifiable because of the directions of their head or because of the water. And even so that the fifth is facing the camera, it's safe to say a fair amount of adults do not look like they did when they were children. Anywho, the Commons is hosting the image, they have had a deletion discussion on this before in 2010, you can head there for more information or to discuss it yourself. Here is a relevant guideline to India-specific consent, because of where this photo was taken. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 07:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

GoldenRing, I'm sure you aren't the first person to ask that question. As Moe Epsilon points out the answer is "because we can". That seems to be good enough for Commons. The problem may be that, just like on the Nude swimming article, there is no one sensible keeping an eye on things. That's why you get images like File:Naturist girl.png (archive) and File:Naturist young girl.png (archive). Both of those were uploaded seven months ago. I don't even know if we can host those, but should we? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

It seems to be of the only one who is facing the camera, you can see see about as much of the body as the infamous Virgin Killer album cover as featured in the Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia dispute. And both show less than the infamous Nevermind album cover. In neither of these cases are the people children anymore, but that wouldn't have stopped us. Actually we've even had an article on Spencer Elden since May 2005 [26] which if the DOB on the current article is correct, means since he was 14 years old. Nil Einne (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Moe Epsilon: yes, yes that is the image I was referring to. Even the guideline you cite says, publishing a photo in a manner that might be "embarrassing, mentally traumatic" or causing "a sense of insecurity about [depicted persons] activities" is illegal under the CoI article 21.. I think this image ought to fall foul of that guideline, for the reasons I gave above.

Whatever your opinion of the album covers mentioned, I think there is a clear difference between posing for the front cover of an album and having your picture taken by a stranger while swimming. My concern here is not so much people looking at pictures of naked boys, it is more in the spirit of our BLP policy of erring on the side of doing no harm to living people. The people in the photograph are presumably still living. At least one is identifiable; you might not have much luck trying to identify him from scratch, but people who know him will recognise him (and will then probably figure out who the others are easily enough). The photograph would be embarrassing to most people, I think. I certainly don't much fancy my childhood photos being posted online, much less ones of me naked. The deletion discussion at commons is pretty horrific; the idea that a child has consented to naked photographs because he appears to be smiling at the camera is wrong on so many levels that, again, I don't really know where to start. GoldenRing (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how a baby less than a year old has posed for anything. Clearly someone that young has no concept of consent or even photography whatsoever and can't understand the concept of posing. In other words, if your argument in that the subject although a child may have some slightly more understanding of the implications of the decision when it was a professional work done for an album cover than if it it was some random taking photos, this falls flat when we consider babies since clearly they don't understand more of what's going on whatever the work. Instead you're saying that the parents can make the decision which means you then get a lot of complications, especially in cases where the images were e.g. at a nudist beach or other such places. Nil Einne (talk) 07:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The wider issue of course is something you touched on. "The photograph would be embarrassing to most people, I think. I certainly don't much fancy my childhood photos being posted online, much less ones of me naked." Since it was an "I think", no real evidence was provided for the former especially if we are talking about the Western world (particularly parts of Europe). Personally I definitely don't want photos of me naked around although more so as an adult than as a child, but it's definitely far from a universal attitude for people to be embarassed by photos of them doing natural ordinary things like swimming as a child even if naked.

Which gets into your second point. Unless your advocating we remove all photos of children without explicitly consent then you're making a personal judgement about what sort of childhood photos are likely to be embarassing to someone.

I would hardly be surprised if some people are more embarassed by photos here Commons:Category:Street children, Commons:Category:Begging children for example. And I also wouldn't be surprised if for some 18 year olds they may be more embarassed by a photo of their mother or father kissing them as a child (the reverse but I suspect it'll be rare the person is identifiable without further information in that case) than one of them swimming. And I'm sure we have photos of children incidentally caught nose picking, we do have File:Oldwoman cry baby nakba.jpg for example. (Actually I found one which isn't incidental and probably should be deleted that even has the child's name.) I'm sure I could find other examples which someone may find more embarassing but I'm lazy to especially since if anything were to happen this conversation will need to take place somewhere else.

And that's only children. I'm assuming the argument is that a child is less able to understand the implications, such as the possibility of there being a permanent photographic record of it, of doing whatever they may find embarassing in the future in a public place. Still it's clearly not only children who may wish we aren't hosting images which feature them. For example some people may later regret appearing at a white supremecist rally or singing "no means yes, yes means anal" (okay we don't actually have anything from that AFAIK but I'm pretty sure that's primarily because of copyright reasons) or whatever else. Stuff which may have occured when they were young but considered adults, and in some cases possibly drunk. (Actually we do have a Commons:Category:Drunken people and some images I saw there or in subcats looked identifable.) Yet in at least some of these cases, I'm not sure we'd remove the images even if someone appearing in them asks, and even if they aren't iconic. (Well I'd like it like to think we'd always remove images of run of the mill drunk people if they ask, but I'm not sure if we'd do so for photos of a white supremacist rally. Likewise if one of the kids in any of the photos actually asks, I'm assuming we will delete it unless we have very good reason not to.)

Note that I'm explicitly not saying we shouldn't make such judgements, actually I'm pretty sure we and commons already does to a limited extent. I'm simply saying that if you did want to go about this, you'd need to carefully consider under what circumstances we make a value-judgement that a photo is potentially embarassing so should be deleted. That includes issues like what exactly is consent (including who provides it) and whether we only consider such issues for children, and how to handle cases where what's embarassing may be more incidental (e.g. picking the nose in a group photo). Also is this only about these images appearing in articles, because if it's the wider issue of hosting these images, that discussion would need to take place at commons unless you either plan to block these images from appearing on en.wikipedia, or try again to get the WMF so shut down common.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm still thinking through this a bit, but I was a bit surprised to even have to think through it.

I think the difference between an album cover and the photograph in question is that the album cover has been published in its own right and Wikipedia is using an image of a thing to describe that thing; if someone queries the use of a naked child on an album cover in a Wikipedia article, we can reasonably say that we have an article on that album and want to illustrate it; it's not like we could choose a different picture of the album cover which didn't have the naked child on it. The use of the image on an album cover also creates the reasonable assumption that someone consented to the image. It probably wasn't the child, but someone with responsibility for the child was almost certainly involved in the production of the image (and someone in such a position is usually able to give consent on a child's behalf to many things, though maybe we're nearing the edge of those limits here). The case of a just-starting-out freelance photographer who took a photograph of someone he happened to see somewhere and posted it on flickr under a license he later regretted is clearly different. Neither you nor I would ever have encountered that picture in the total obscurity of some Frenchman's flickr stream; the only prominence that image has, it has because it is used on Wikipedia.

I don't buy struck; see below a lot of your argument above; if I could paraphrase briefly, it seems to amount tothe portion of what you say that amounts to, "Some people will find anything embarrassing, while others aren't embarrassed by anything, so we should just throw our hands up and have no standards whatsoever." (I realise this is not what you're actually advocating.) Of course some people won't be embarrassed by nude child pictures of themselves, and of course some people will demand that any reference to them be removed; neither of these should determine our actions. The principle we work by is that of conservatively doing no harm to living people and only publishing things about them that are verifiable in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Why should that standard be different just because it's a picture of them, not words about them?

You briefly discuss the issue of children/adults in similar situations and actually I have many of the same concerns about other images used in that article; they are all of presumably-living people, many of them clearly identifiable to people who know them, and some of them in situations where they may well have a reasonable expectation of privacy. File:FYN 04.jpg, for instance, is an upload on commons by a user who ought to be blocked there for violating the username policy; they claim to represent Florida Young Naturists without, as far as I can tell, any evidence of it. Even if they do officially represent that organisation, I'd really like to see some sort of evidence that they have permission to post naked photos of members to heavily-trafficked websites. File:2014 WNBR Brighton beach.jpg is just about reasonable; these people are adults who've just participated in a naked run and if they didn't realise someone might take a photograph of them in the process then they should have. That kind of reasoning doesn't, as far as I can tell, hold for the other images discussed above. GoldenRing (talk) 10:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd planned to leave this discussion, but I need to reply since you made highly offensive comments about me. I never said anything remotely like "Some people will find anything embarrassing, while others aren't embarrassed by anything, so we should just throw our hands up and have no standards whatsoever". I explicitly noted that I am not saying so ("Note that I'm explicitly not saying we shouldn't make such judgements") precisely to avoid this but you ignored my comment and instead made offensive comments about me. Please do not make such highly offensive misleading statements about me ever again. I'm definitely done with this discussion now. Good luck ever getting anything changed when you make such highly offensive misleading claims about what people are saying. Just because people think stuff is complicated, and there are a lot of issues to consider and so we need to think long and hard about how, when and what we do rather so that we don't make sweeping judgements without strong evidence or only deal withone minor portion of a wider issue, doesn't mean they are saying that it should be ignored. It's barely tolerable to suggest they are saying so if the person didn't make it clear they are not say that. When I did make it clear? No fucking way. If you are unable of unwilling to look into the wider issues, that's you choice. If you think you can get stuff changed without looking into the wider issues, that's also you choice. But don't fault someone for bringing up some of the many wider issues. If you do want to consider the wider issues, I have no idea why you'd make such offensive comments about me just because I brought up a few of the wider issues. Nil Einne (talk) 11:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I am distraught to have caused someone such offence. This is genuinely something I'm trying to think through and I was trying to interact with some ideas you'd brought up; I clearly worded that very sloppily and didn't come across well. I apologise unreservedly. GoldenRing (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken wars against consensus - 1RR proposal

There is currently an edit war going on at Talk:Breitbart News regarding comments that several editors (including myself) believe are inappropriate. This probably merits more than a 3RR report. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I have ceased the so-called "edit war" you speak of (and even removed my last installation of my edit you speak of). At no point have I been informed of what guideline I violated (and I'm still waiting for a message from one of the editors to tell me which one). I await to be enlightened....Hirenny (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:TPG. Article talk pages are not a soapbox for expressions of disagreement or disgruntlement with Wikipedia or its policies. They are a place to discuss improvements to their respective articles. Your post made no suggestions for improvements and no constructive suggestions; yelling loudly that you won't donate to the project unless the content of an article is changed to your satisfaction is not proper behavior for a Wikipedia editor. We don't respond to financial threats, because none of us are getting paid anything from those donations. Your angry talk about money has literally zero impact on any of us. If you believe changes need to be made to the article, you need to politely outline specific, actionable issues and provide reliable sources which support the changes you think should be made. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

FYI, I did make constructive suggestions elsewhere on the talk page. I also raised legitimate concerns about POV in the article. I'm not the only one. It's also clear that I'm not the only one who has had my concerns erased from the talk page. Read what I actually wrote: I did not "yell loudly" that I won't donate to the project. I reprinted the conversation I had with someone at Wikipedia that I cannot in good conscience donate to a project that allows such an egregious bias in the editing of articles. If I need to reword this to get my point across, then fine. But the point of "talk" is to share views and objections about the content and editing of the article, which I did. But, it appears some views on the talk page are not acceptable to the editorial paradigm. You kind of prove the original point I made. Too bad that you feel you need to wield the bigger sword you have to make your point, and silence mine from the arena. If that is your goal (I would hope it isn't, since it goes against the very tenors of Wikipedia that you so vigorously claim to uphold), well, felicitaciones. Hirenny (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Whether or not you've been useful elsewhere, your edit warring of a long, whiny diatribe against WP because the content of that page doesn't conform to your own beliefs has been nothing but disruptive. And do not email me again. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Since you characterize my concerns as a "whiney diatribe," let me remind you of these stated guidelines: "Be polite, and welcoming to new users; Assume good faith; Avoid personal attacks; For disputes, seek dispute resolution." Let me also state that at no point did I state my personal beliefs on Breitbart News, only that IMHO (which I am entitle to as you are to yours) that there is a flagrant violation of POV in the article. And I'm not the only one to say it. So, if your statement about me is consistent with these principles about being polite, assuming good faith, etc., please explain to me how it is, so I can better learn to follow your preeminent example as a Wikipedian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hirenny (talk • contribs) 00:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I never called you a whiny ideologue, so if you object to your comments being characterized as "whiny diatribe" then the best thing for you to do is to stop posting whiny diatribes at talk pages. And certainly don't edit war over keeping them on the page. And if you are a new user, then you have stolen, been given, or purchased your username, which is a policy violation that typically results in an indef block. So are you a new user? Or are you the user who registered your account in 2005? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

"at no point did I state my personal beliefs on Breitbart News, only that IMHO" - ummm, assuming that "IMHO" means what it usually does, you're not exactly making sense here. Volunteer Marek  09:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

You must be taking the piss because you just complained about supposed bias in regards to Breitbart News. I don't have the time to entertain the reality you believe yourself to be in, and I suggest others save theirs as well. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The bias on Breitbart's website is a separate issue from bias on the Wikipedia page Breitbart News. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: I did make a point (this is a reply to your edit summary that didn't match your edit). It's been explained that the wiki is a not a forum for their perceived Conservative plight, and any acrimonious response is very appropriate. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 01:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Explain in actionable terms what you believe to be wrong with the article, in terms that enable good-faith editorial discussion about the complaint. "The article omits Source X which disagrees with the sources currently in the article and thus its viewpoint is not fairly included." "The wording of the third paragraph presents an opinion as a fact without attribution." Something like that, and have reliable sources and references to policy handy to support your arguments. If you're not familiar with our policies, read WP:5P. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Here, here. Finally someone speaking some sense into the matter. Too bad that those who have used some of these kinds of terms on the issue of POV in the Breitbart article have been dismissed and smeared as I have been, and am being in this thread. Upholding the importance of the WP:5P, you will now surely be writing notes to the others commenting here, reminding them of point #4. And #2... Hirenny (talk) 06:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

You have not been "smeared". Volunteer Marek  09:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Hirenny, I think everyone appreciates your self-revert to remove the offending comment. Now, if you are truly here to build an encyclopedia, you'll drop the stick, stop going on about editor behavior that the consensus here finds acceptable, and go back to Talk:Breitbart News with something constructive and substantive to say. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

We've got an IP — 74.243.223.134 — continuing to alter sourced content, via unsourced additions, deletions of sourced material, additions of fringe material, etc., and ignoring all attempts at communication from a number of other editors.

Diffs: [27], [28], [29].

You can easily find more by looking at the user's page if anyone needs them — none of the editing so far has been constructive as far as I can see: [30].

Multiple warnings can be found at: [31]. Alephb (talk) 04:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

So I haven't been paying much attention, but an article that was a clear POV fork, Table-lookup synthesis, that was created several years ago by User:Clusternote was finally merged to Wavetable synthesis (it probably should have simply been deleted). Now Clusternote is changing the lede of Wavetable synthesis to say, in the very lede sentence, that the term is a misnomer. It's totally without merit. I have reverted his changes and he has reverted it back claiming that I am the vandal. This is going to need help because Clusternote is a very tendentious editor. His English is also quite poor, long ago I was able to locate him in Japan.

We're going to need some help here. 173.48.64.110 (talk) 05:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Already looks like a sock puppet has shown up. 173.48.64.110 (talk) 05:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. You need to discuss it on the article's talk page. The sock puppetry accusation seems to be based on a single revert made by someone who was apparently doing recent changes patrol. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

BLP vandalism on Filipe Oliveira (footballer, born 1995) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) IP address changing with every edit. PP, please? Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 05:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The page has been protected by Ymblanter. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The user has kept on making accusations of bias (and other PA'sd long after being asked to stop), as well as other issues.

Accusation of censorhip [32] [33]and of being an agent of a government [34] and prejudice [35]

I asked him to stop

[36]

His response was

[37] and [38]

In addition (just a few more on other pages)

[39]

[40]

[41]

Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

There is more but I was letting it go a he clearly is not a native English speaker. The problem is this is over multiple pages and even though he now accepts the point is still accusing me of bias.Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

And has now said that my posting of the alert for this ani is disruptive [42] followed up with this [43]Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I want these comments to taken into account:

• "Pahlevun was probably a Muslim :v" [44]
• "We have a proverb says : It's not possible to ride a camel in a bow manner (hiddenly). Having a famous fun superstition(a famous doorway of a mosque) and hidden it?" [45] (Rough translation from Persian language, suggesting that I was doing a "stupid secret job" in case you wonder what's the meaning).
• "I think Pahlevun is censoring... [46]
• "But Pahlevun censors the... [47]
• "I want to add a note, this user Pahlevun has a Persian name... Is it necessary for me to talk about censorship more? Is Wiki an Encyclopedia? Or a political war place? May be wonderful for the staffs in the Jimmy Wales office [48]
• "you can ask why Pahlevun said... I can see prejudices clearly in this talk :v" [49]
• "someone attempts to censor contents... also you can take a whois to find who is behind it. Have some nice dollars :v" [50]
• "Also this is a... fallacy by Pahlevun... Are Pahlevun supporting Islamic Republic? Is Wikipedia for political war?" [51]
• "The problem is when Pahlevun says... this is censorship I told repeatedly"[52]
• "I don't push my IMAGINATIONS to anyone (versus Muslims)... if someone wants to believe there is a Jinn out there or not it is a personal decision based on how much we want to be rational or not." [53]

–Pahlevun (talk) 11:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Having had a notification seven days ago that someone tried to log into my account from a new device I am now being harrassed by a new editor Special:Contributions/South_Derry_Republican who is also clearly operating from the bare IP Special:Contributions/190.52.205.69 as well. They have also now engaged in edit-warring on my talk page [78] despite being reverted by myself and @Arjayay: and notified in my reverts of point three of the infobox at the top of my talk page which states: If I remove your comments, please don't restore them. The same for a discussion. Please respect and abide by Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments. If I removed them I clearly don't want to engage in or continue the discussion. Restoring them repeatedly constitutes vandalism

There are two possibilities: a random editor of obvious strong Irish republican viewpoint takes offense to me as my views contrast to theirs; or secondly and most likely it is an existing user on Wikipedia. In this case I can assume it to be the user @Eireabu:, whose username as well as some of their comments to me in the past suggests they are also someone of Irish republican views. They are the only editor I can assume has a big enough grudge against me, in this case over the Red Hand of Ulster article where I completely shattered their viewpoint and arguments by sheer weight of historical and academic evidence as can be seen by a look at the references and bibliography of this edit of mine. Indeed after @Canterbury Tail: blocked the article for a month to prevent a full edit-war I posted quite a lot of reasonings and justifications for my edits and on the many issues in the article. I even copied the article into my sandbox and posted regular updates of work in progress for Eireabu to look at and comment on, and how I took their concerns into account, however they responded once and it was quite clear they had not bothered to look at any of the stuff I presented or said and was intent on carrying on as before. They had no clear intention of collaborating.

I also believe the harrassing [79] end comment to me backs up it is Eireabu: You say: The 'Gaelic' Ulster flag is actually the flag of the Hiberno-Norman Earldom of Ulster, ruled by the de Burgh family? Me say: False. It is the first recorded use, not the origin. The key bones of contention Eireabu seems to have had with my initial edits to the Red Hand article was over the first documented usage of the Red Hand symbol and the source used for it (slates source as POV as well as adding in their own SYN and OR, source as a unreliable "pamphlet" without any supporting evidence.) They also felt the edit "relegated" the Gaelic history of the Red Hand and implied it wasn't a Gaelic symbol. Whilst the IPs comment is factually flawed (the flags origin—not the Red Hand symbol on it—is de Burgh), it strongly looks like a continuation of Eireabu's viewpoint on the matter.

Whether Eireabu is indeed South Derry Republican and the IP is up for debate however both SDR and the IP are harrassing user accounts that should be blocked as they only seem to exist to harrass me. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely not!! Nor do I condone such behaviour!! I've better things to do than to get myself involved in such stupid things and I sincerely hope the person detracts from it, I don't have any connections to Derry! Paranoia over myself is a little rash and unfair and an apology is in order. Eireabu (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

There are grounds for suspicion and I do not apologise for voicing them and I stated that it is up for debate not certifiable fact. You may very well be innocent but these things have only happened since our few interactions over the past couple of months and I can think of no other editor I've interacted with who has a reason to be peeved at me so it is reasonable and quite right to raise the possibility. But as stated it is not fact, just suspicion and suspicion especially raised by the coincidence pointed out above. Anyways the only action I've directly asked for is against SDR and the IP.

Also anyone can make up a username stating anything whether it is true or not, indeed as I enforce the WP:IMOS agreement on the county name it could easily be an intentional choice by someone to have a dig as you cannot enforce IMOS on a username. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Well as I have said on my user page, I hope they stop and I am with you in action against whomever it is. You have made an accusation, for which is wrong, I've better things to be doing than such nonsense!Eireabu (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

And as I have done at your user page, I thank you for your condemnation. Yet if there is reasonable suspicion it and the reason why must be mentioned whether it is misplaced or not I hope you understand. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I Don't necessarily understand in fairness, it's a big world out there with multiple people with viewpoints, similiar or not. I haven't even noticed the user till you raised it, linking my own username in the process above. Even the quoted point you made above from this user regarding the Ulster flag wasn't something I agree with!! It was always my assumption the flag was largely De Burgo in design and origin, with an O'Neill crest at the centre. Anyway no point crying over spilled milk and alas we must move on! Here's to contentious free contributions and editing here on in. You might have gathered I'm slow with any sort of contributions and quite the amateur, that will never change unfortunately ;) Eireabu (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Mabuska, it wouldn't have hurt to have explained to South Derry Republican on their page, before you took them to ANI, that they're not supposed to restore removed comments. New users — which we're supposed to start by assuming they are — don't know that, and most likely don't read edit summaries. Also, this is not the place to voice your suspicions of Eireabu. The way to do that is firstly to ask them, and secondly, if you think you have good evidence, to open an SPI. I agree it's hard to believe South Derry Republican is a bona fide new user — see them using the <blockquote> template a couple of hours after the account was created[80], though not using it very well — but it doesn't by any means have to be Eireabu. I've warned South Derry Republican about harassing you on your page, and about editing logged out. Bishonen | talk 16:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC).

Considering they hit the revert button with their last edit it is pretty clear they seen my prior edit summary so it is either a lack of competence or lack of willingness to a) read it or b) follow it. Seeing as I clearly stated it was up for debate as to whether it was Eireabu or not, it should be apparent why I didn't file a SPI, and I would be highly surprised if an editor would admit to using a sock to harrass another editor if asked considering the ramifications. Regardless a warning will have to do, thank you. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Carmaker1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've noticed Carmaker1 engages in disruptive editing and hasn't been blocked, this is likely because most auto pages have information added primarily by single purpose editors who are easily pushed around. He is changing around the years on the Honda J engine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) then when I restored them to the original he refers to this as vandalism. He has repeatedly accused me of being a sock of 212.36.194.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) another editor who attempted to engage Carmaker1 in civil discussion but was instead insulted and had his edit reverted. Honda J engine talk page. His edit history features numerous insults and threats of admin intervention. For a recent instance [81], DanaWright (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edited the page on a single occasion but is threatened anyways.

Now he resorts to canvassing for support. He finds the other active auto editor (OSX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to have retired from editing) who changes and reverts year alterations and adds underground messages to inform other editors not to bother changing them since otherwise he'll revert them.[82]. Since most of the auto pages are edited in tiny pieces by single purpose editors this is easily accomplished. By tag teaming the article, Carmaker1 (before it was with OSX) expects to change the page the suit his demands. Even more odd since the Honda J engine is built in Alabama for the North American market and rarely found in exported vehicles. Vortex833 (talk) 12:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I should point out that the dispute between Vortex833 and Carmaker1 started as a difference between using model years (for the American market) and calendar years (for the rest of the world). Unfortunately, Carmaker1 went in with all guns blazing, insulted Vortex833 and didn't explain his position properly, hence making Vortex833 into a mortal enemy. I'm trying to bring both sides to some form of understanding at Talk:Honda J engine.  Stepho  talk  13:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Stepho-wrs - Thank you. That is an accurate account, in my opinion. There was a request filed at the dispute resolution noticeboard, but I had to close it for various reasons, including inadequate prior discussion and personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Not sure calendar years for the rest of the world even exists? Could be original research and endless reverted edits, noticed they refer to the new Camry as 2018 Camry over in Australia as well. [83], [84], [85], [86], [87]

This looks like a content related dispute, and so long as no edit warring occurs, I can leave the article be and encourage you two to resolve your disputes peacefully and citing policy to support your arguments. The concerns I do wish to ask about is the incivility. Vortex833 - Can you provide me with specific diffs that point out the incivility you're talking about here? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Here Carmaker1 uses derogatory terminology to insult another editor calling him a dunce. The other editor after being insulted didn't respond. [88] Vortex833 (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Stepho's comment on the talk page seems to be helpful, and based on your response you seem to understand and agree with the reasonable notion that presenting "American model years" (which don't necessarily correspond with actual years) without an annotation of some sort, can be confusing for readers. Therefore you're essentially conceding that your edits were in the wrong. I see no reason to action a user under these circumstances. Swarm ♠ 05:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I understood this board was for informing admins of patterns of disruptive edits and was not used to resolve content disputes?Vortex833 (talk) 10:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I accepted adding an MY designation for clarification purposes though I don't see it as necessary or useful. On the page no other editors have changed or shown any sort of confusion in all this time, it's just an invented problem.Vortex833 (talk) 11:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Without an MY designation the Honda J engine would be highly confusing to its visitors, that's why the years have been added in the existing manner up until Carmaker1 and only Carmaker1 decided to invent an issue to solve and change all the years.Vortex833 (talk) 11:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm beginning to realize this "dispute" amounts to pushing original research on automotive pages with an agenda. If sourced material isn't referring to these "calendar dates" then neither should the auto pages. Googling Honda J30A [89] returns dates in the original format not the one Carmaker1 is pushing. Did the same for Honda J35 [90] and it's the same. Vortex833 (talk) 11:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

That is equivalent to saying that if the source material was written in Japanese then the article must be written in Japanese. CarMaker1 was quite rightly attempting to harmonise the J engine article with the other international engine articles, which the vast majority are in calendar years (although I recognise that whether the article is an American article or an international article is still under discussion). However, he didn't make it clear that he was changing to calendar years (just as the original didn't make it clear it was using model years) and he then responded to reverts in an uncivil manor. His goal was good, but his methods were rough. Be careful to separate the two.  Stepho  talk  22:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Sock blocked; nothing else to do here. (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 Talk • Edits • Help! 16:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
BG9M0THH8H3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) There is no need to provide diffs, all of this editor's contributions have already been reverted by other editors, except those at Ex nihilo (should probably also be reverted per WP:DENY, SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wittgenstein123) and those where I was reverted at Yahweh and its talk page. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 10:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC) I've blocked the account indefinitely for soapboxing/abuse. Re, the SPI, it looks like a clear WP:DUCK to me as well. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  11:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC) Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 12:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

ANI is not for content disputes. The IPs need to use the talk page to sort out their issues. Plus, article has been semi-protected. (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 Talk • Edits • Help! 00:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User using IPs 185.26.183.24 and 185.26.183.63 continually changes the standings in 2017–18 Ukrainian Second League Group A by adding a team which has been annulled and omitted from the reference provided by the official source. The user has not returned any reason nor discourse in the talk section of the article. Official source provided does not have the team in the standings. There is ample documentation in the article about the plight of this team. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC) This is a content dispute rather than something that needs admin intervention. That being said, you are correct that the official source has completely annulled the results. Page protected for 2 weeks. Fenix down (talk) 10:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Petr Kellner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am reporting starting problem at Petr Kellner. In a nutshell vandal using misleading username and various IP addresses is inserting hoaxes to biography of living person. We have same problem at cswiki (see article history) spanning for months resulting in longtime article protection and indef user block. Same problem is just starting here.--Jklamo (talk) 16:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Jklamo, the user has been blocked for a username violation. I guess it would be worth keeping an eye open should he edit using another account or as an IP. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Mhhossein

Hi there, this is a censorship attempt by Mhhossein in the talk page.

• Special:Diff/801105236 (Talk:2017 Tehran attacks)
• Also when I pinged a Wiki Fa admin to be a 3rd opinion in the talk page (as someone is familiar with Farsi language) Special:Diff/801101452 Mhhossein accused me to be friend with the admin User:Sharaky.
• Simultaneously with 3RR in the article history
• When I reminded the user to avoid such edits Special:Diff/801109515/801117300 this user started to accuse me to WP:PA and threatening to WP:ANI in my talk page frequently to WP:RUNAWAY itself means PA.

--IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 07:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Why would someone have to familiar with Farsi language to express a third opinion on an article in English Wikipedia. Also, your having pinged them here invalidates the entire point of WP:3O, which is to get an opinion by a neutral uninvolved third party, not a person chosen by one of the two parties in the dispute. If your Farsi admin has expressed a view, it has literally no values as a 3O "tiebreaker".

Furthermore, with an account name like "IranianNationalist", you should expect other editors to be suspicion that your editing does not adhere to WP:NPOV, since you have expressed your bias right up front. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Because the sources are in Farsi language such as VOA PNN or BBC Persian --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 08:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Your first diff shows Mhhossein linking to an article version to replace the duplication of that text on the talk page. I see nothing wrong with that. In your second diff you accuse Mhhosein of censorship, when nothing was censored, a link was substituted for text, and of being uncivil when he questioned why you pinged an editor with 11 edits on en.wiki for an opinion. I'd have done the same, as it seems to me to be an obvious case of WP:CANVASSING, in spirit if not otherwise. Then, it was not Mhhosein who accused you of a WP:PA with your repeated claims of censorship, but another editor altogether, User:Pahlevun. Mhhosein then came to your talk page to warn you that the article was under 1RR, and you again claimed that censorship was taking place, and (I guess) was a justification for breaking 1RR. Mhhosein then warned you that if you kept accusing them of censorship, he would file a report here, which he has a right to do, and which you have now done (so how can you chastise him for warning you that he might do it?) - and you didn't notify him that you opened this, as you are required to do.

I have no idea what you mean regarding WP:RUNAWAY.

In all, nothing in this complaint seems justified, unless a BOOMERANG is worthwhile. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Also I have question, when the controversial article is about a Persian subject, why do you ask me to avoid pinging a user familiar with Persian language? (Or I say better why do you accuse me to ping a partial user?! the user is a WikiFa admin(at least must be more impartial if you don't know him)) --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 08:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

You clearly don't get that if you're in a dispute with another editor, your calling in someone you know can;t be considered to be an impartial third opinion. Don't ping me again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

"your calling in someone you know can;t be considered to be an impartial third opinion" Had I claimed such a thing? But it is weird when you think the "someone have to familiar with Farsi language" all have to be far away of neutrality!!! --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 08:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

You're misconstruing the meaning of BMK's comment. The issue is not that you pinged a .fa wiki editor, it's that you pinged an editor at all. Doesn't matter whether they are a .en, .fr or .fa editor, what matters is that the 3O was handpicked by you. That is not how 3O's work. A 3O is where you ask for a completely uninvolved editor with whom you have no relations to chime in with their thoughts to try and resolve the dispute. By their very nature you don't ask a specific person for a 3O. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude, can you please and provide some evidences to approve the accusation of any relation between me and Sharaky?
@Sharaky:, Hi there, plz come here and defend yourself :D
@Mr rnddude, Ask yourself when I pinged different WikiFa admins such as Darafsh and Huji in different subjects Why do you (or any other one) claim any relation between me and Sharaky? I even had no vote in any RfC for admin or any other privilege grant... How can I have any relation with any Wiki admins? I'm a slow contributer having less contributions from 2014 (only 94 new Fa articles many of them are tiny articles) --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 13:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

IranianNationalist did not notify Mhhosein of this complaint. I have done so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Sigh... your ping was your relation to the admin. You have already admitted to pinging the admin in your OP. I am making no claim about what kind of relations you have with any .fa admin. Either your English reading comprehension is too limited, or, you're not reading. I'll try this again with as blunt an instrument as possible. When you attempt a 3O, you go to WP:3O and leave a dated, but unsigned, comment there. That way you improve the chances of getting a completely neutral third opinion. When you ping an editor to the discussion, you make the 3O moot as it is presumed you chose that specific person for a reason. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Also I add : I in different subjects I had pinged different Wiki fa admins such as Darafsh and another admin (I have forgot hist name) for the Farsi-relative articles also experienced non-admin users such as Wikimostafa. But they were busy or not willing to participate in English or they had my gift from other discussions in WikiFa (to avoid conflict of interest. it is rational). @Beyond My Ken So I recommend you have a good view about people talking Persian. Thank you :) --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 09:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, since you don't seem to be understanding what Beyond My Ken is saying, let's try it a different way. Specifically pinging another editor to a discussion, where you are in dispute with another editor, and you expect that the editor you pinged will side with your argument, is a blatant violation of WP:CANVASS. If you had some content discussion in other articles, but were not in a dispute with another editor, and had pinged another editor for wider discussion then that would not be a problem. Comparing the two situations is a red herring. It is irrelevant s to what languages are being spoken. The same could be applied to disruption caused by editors with a heavily Eastern European/East Asian/Balkan/African/South East Asian/Conservative/Liberal/Theist/Atheist/etc, etc bias. It is not restricted to any single language nor nationality. Blackmane (talk) 23:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism, User:Pahlevun

Having 3RR in the Great Mosque of Kufa and multiple discussions and many other reliable sources added to the article the user Pahlevun doesn't accept (Special:Diff/801055508/801262639) even other user edits such as User:Slatersteven's previous edit here: Special:Diff/801054968/801055508
Also 3RR

• Special:Diff/800487503
• Special:Diff/800642767
• Special:Diff/800732626
• Special:Diff/801262533

And relative consensus discussions :

• Special:Permalink/801346343#Primary_sources_at_Great_Mosque_of_Kufa

Also as a Note : When the article must be merged it was nominated for deletion by this user (I add : all sources about the subject are official or high ranked clerical sources) :

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon gate

--IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 08:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

IranianNationalist did not notify Pahlevun abouut this complaint. I have done so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

A related subject: IranianNationalist's signature says "IsNotNationalist, thus contradicting the implicit statement made by the account name itself. Is this a legitimate use of a nickname in a sig? It seems deceptive to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken (no pinging) : Are you trying WP:RUNAWAY ? --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 08:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken However your criticism of my signature is a WP:RUNAWAY and we should avoid making the discussion busy, but I have to reply to your criticism. I changed my signature to avoid probable prejudices about being a zealot patriot or nationalist like Hitler... DO YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT? --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 08:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

My edit on Great Mosque of Kufa was made after lengthy discussion (on multiple pages) about your arguing the toss that it was called the dragon gate. In fact you accused me of bias for supporting Pahlevun's claim that your sources were questionable.Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

See [109].Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I can't see how three reverts in 72 hours could be a 3RR violation. This is not the first time IranianNationalist falsely files for 3RR violation against me (See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive350#User:Pahlevun reported by User:IranianNationalist (Result: nothing)). Moreover, There is now a consensus shaped at RSN to not include the content I removed in those diffs (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Primary sources at Great Mosque of Kufa). Pahlevun (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

You can be deemed to be edit warring even if you do not breach 3RR in a given 24 hour period if (in the eyes of admins) your edits are trying to game the system (such as making 3 edits in 24 hours and then a fourth an hour later).Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

So how did Notirainainnatioinalist do

[110] (same day as Pahlevun's first revert)

[111]

[112]

Note they both reverted times on the 13th

So if Pahlevun was edit warring so was Iranian nationalist, based upon Iranian nationalist's criteria.Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

About pinging

@Beyond My Ken, you mentioned many different accusations about me, I don't know answer what one :) I didn't ping the users to let the admins check a more brief of what is happening... and to avoid having a war in ANI before an admin check (however thank you for making a long discussion) --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 09:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@IranianNationalist:--Beyond My Ken is a highly experienced editor and citing policies like WP:RUNAWAY to counter well-established users in a ad-hominem manner without any minimal basis can be considered as intentional disruption and indulging in such activities along with casting personal attacks is not tolerated.Also, please be adviced that ANI is often witness to boomerang actions.Thank you!Winged Blades ^Godric 13:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Not involved in this in any way, just happened to notice that neither of these pings worked, so courtesy ping for Beyond My Ken. Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• Can we close this now with? it is clear both users are POV warriors who are just disrupting the project.Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that I was a "POV warrior" nor "disrupting the project". Pahlevun (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Second.And collapsed a part.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

After looking at this entire situation somewhat more closely in the light of day, I agree that both editors are at fault here. And to clarify my "no pings" statement, I wasn't intending to "runaway" from the discussion, I simply didn't want to be called back to it repeatedly at IranianNationaist's whim. In general, I'm perfectly capable of returning to an ongoing discussion on my own, and do not need to have my pants leg constantly tugged to do so. (The ping by Amaury above, though, was reasonable, and I thank them for it.) There was a halcyon era when Wikipedia didn't have pinging at all, and things worked just fine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Boomerang for IranianNationalist

• support the boomerang suggested by Beyond My Ken ([113]) and mentioned by Winged Blades of Godric ([114]). --Mhhossein ^talk 17:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support; these ranting walls of text have taken long enough. Just so you know, the edit warring continues, despite the rough consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Primary sources at Great Mosque of Kufa. On a secondary note, IranianNationalist keeps using that word, WP:RUNAWAY. I don't think it means what he thinks it means... --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I have to say congratulations to some specific users (cooperating here in different discussions in different wiki pages we have similar users having similar opinions and the common thing was me :D should I pride to be such a lovely user for this specific users?) they are continuously in the same front to protect Pahlevun and Mhhossein anyway (You can see them in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon gate and all relative discussions up to now including the relative discussion on the Reliable sources noticeboard). You can see them in any location I had an Edit for example Slatersteven in the https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sina_Dehghan&action=history and it is not a Wikipedia:Hound but previously there were some similar discussions in WikiFa people (users) calling them as a system of campaigning. Yeah continue to support each other (but it is wonderful when we have some permanent users in different discussions supporting each other). AND THE MAIN SUBJECT WOULD BE FORGOTTEN about some reliable official sources have been censored --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 19:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

A very nice combination of WP:Casting aspersions, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:POV. You really should be blocked for this comment alone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

So "they" go to every page you edit?Slatersteven (talk) 07:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Bishonen warned PAKHIGHWAY about assuming bad faith and alleging nationalist agendas etc. A little over an hour later, PAKHIGHWAY did it again. This has been going on for months now, eg: in August and July. Their targets seem to be random and, while I imagine Bish is aware of the latest example, I suspect PAKHIGHWAY might claim them to be involved, so perhaps it would be better if someone else who has had absolutely no previous conversation with PAKHIGHWAY does whatever needs doing, which in my opinion is a block. - Sitush (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Involved? I'm not involved, , Sitush, and it makes no difference what they might or might not claim in that regard. Warning somebody in my quality as admin is the last thing that would make me involved. I don't think their replies to my post are the best place to plant my foot, though. IMO it's not quite time for a block yet. Bishonen | talk 19:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC).

• I know re: uninvolved, Bish, but I also know how little PAKHIGHWAY cares about such policies and how quickly they make erroneous connections between contributors. - Sitush (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
• BTW, I ought to have notified you of my original post here. Sorry, I forgot on this occasion. - Sitush (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked 24 hours. --John (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• And now they're coming up with the same nationalist tripe and unfounded allegations of some sort of conspiracy by Indians etc in their unblock request. - Sitush (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• And they dtill don't get it! They've even accused me of being Indian, which is laughable. - Sitush (talk) 08:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• I've extended the block to indefinite based on their talk page comments. --John (talk) 11:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, i added sources (Encyclopedia.com and Imamreza.com) in the article about ibn al-Haytham stating he was a Persian or Arab scholar and user Thomas W removed them saying i made disruptive edits whereas i previously discussed that issue on the talk page days before making the change... I would like to know if at least one of these source is reliable :

http://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/abu-ali-al-hasan-ibn-al-hasan-ibn-al-haytham

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=mk_CBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=ibn+al+haytham+persian+polymath&source=bl&ots=OyjAaWfKmC&sig=ZQASTu8Sq3m_tQ6oVrT85ruYinM&hl=fr&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=ibn%20al%20haytham%20persian%20polymath&f=false

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.225.246.222 (talk) 09:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• See User talk:89.225.246.222. The editor was warned by me (a level-2) for disruptive editing for repeatedly pushing a theory about Ibn al-Haytham being Persian, using decidedly non-RS sources (while there are plenty of RS sources supporting he was an Arab), in spite of being reverted by other editors, and there not existing a consensus in favour of their changes on the talk page of the article. Editing that has been going on for a very long time, see page history of article (probably by more than one individual though, so I'm not blaiming it all on this particular one...), but is a content dispute that does not belong here. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Encyclopedia.com — I don't know. They mention a book published by major reference publisher Cengage Learning, Science and Its Times: Understanding the Social Significance of Scientific Discovery, so I was wondering if they copied that article's sketch of al-Haytham, but a quick Google search of this book is not promising: some of the phrases from the encyclopedia.com article appear there, but others don't, and the ones that do appear are scattered all over the place, so I'm inclined to believe that this is not a Cengage Gale composition. Since we don't know where this came from, we can't consider it reliable. The other one is a book from Springer Science+Business Media, another major academic publisher, so it should be considered reliable, and its author, Harry Varvoglis, is a professor of physics at one of Greece's top universities, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Nyttend (talk) 11:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Nyttend: The book is a new source they've found, not a source they've provided in their edits, the only sources they have provided before filing this report were encyclopedia.com and imamreza.net. And even if the new book, which I haven't seen before, is a reliable source they'll need a consensus supporting them on the talk page of the article, before changing what the article says, since multiple other editors have opposed the changes, and have done so many times... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I have been accused of bludgeoning by David Eppstein on this page and as per advice raise a notice here. There is a dispute on this page. Recently an article about the subject of the page appeared in a prestigious academic journal to considerable publicity in 'quality' newspapers. Traffic to the page increased greatly. Some long term editors wish to exclude all mention of this article. This appears to be quite against the broad guidelines of wikipedia which says that all mainstream points of view must be represented. Various other editors have stated that the article should be mentioned. I requested comment some days ago but none has been forthcoming. 9and50swans (talk) 06:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify for anyone following along: Plimpton 322 is the article being discussed, not a username. (I have no other interest in this discussion beyond pointing that out).Alephb (talk) 07:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

For clarity I changed the title of this section 9and50swans (talk) 09:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• I have reviewed the article's talk page, and this thread simply constitutes yet more bludgeoning by the OP, who possibly deserves a b... a boo... a boom... I won't say it. EEng 12:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

A boom lowered on him? --(signed) Inquiring Editor

Maybe a booby prize? --Prize Patrol

Give him the boot? --Just for Kicks

Boom Bang-a-Bang? --Lulu

• as per advice raise a notice here - Where is this advice? I would be interested to see it, but just from what I see here it looks like bad advice. False accusations of bludgeoning are not actionable and may be shrugged off or resolved by respectful and civil discussion with the accuser. And this page is not for resolution of content disputes; see WP:DR. It's for actionable bad editor behavior. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm guessing someone somewhere said the classic, "If you want to keep complaining, take it to ANI." Maybe we should have a rule against that, 'cause threads like this one are what it leads to. EEng 19:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, and we can bring people to ANI for violating that rule. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Of course not. We'll have a series of meta-ANIs (ANI², ANI³, etc.). See also User:EEng#A_rolling_stone_gathers_no_MOS. EEng 20:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_bludgeon_the_process#Dealing_with_being_accused_of_bludgeoning_the_process

If you think a policy is being transgressed, ask an uninvolved administrator for their opinion.

Without quoting chapter and verse Wikipedia is supposed to report all strands of mainstream opinion, and it is clearly not happening here. Mention of a recent article in a respected academic journal is being suppressed. I am rather surprised that this can happen on wikipedia. If there is no easy remedy I suggest that this brings wikipedia into some disrepute. Whatever the outcome on this I am grateful for the education in how wikipedia works, which I will pass on to others 9and50swans (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

You really are, as you've been told before, bludgeoning. As far as I can tell you're not gaining an education in how Wikipedia works;; rather, the only thing you seem to be learning is that you're not getting what you want. EEng 20:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

In case the many article talk threads, RFC, and ANI thread here weren't enough, 9and50swans has now started yet another: see WP:NPOVN#Plimpton 322. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Just to note to suggest we keep this open a bit longer as the OP mentioned he'd be traveling a few days, and I anticipate further trouble. EEng 17:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Mhhossein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just opened an SPI against two of the three editors who opposed him at Talk:Ali Khamenei. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz. He also planned to open an SPI, against the third editor, me, as explained at Oshwah's talkpage. The WP:ARBPIA is rife with conflict and disruption. I consider this to be, a new form of disruption. I request a speedy close of the SPI and a warning to the initiator about this type of behaviour. The Ali Khamenei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) also needs more eyes and a check for POV, but I am not at ANI to pursue editorial comments about that article. Thank you. Dr. K. 17:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

As background - this began by a series of edits by Mhhossein to Ali Khamenei (some may be viewed as perhaps POVish, some were definitely positive), some of which were challeged and during which Mhhossein performed a 1RR vio ([115] + [116] 1st, [117] 2nd) which he did self-revert upon being warned this was the case [118]. He then removes an-indepth Newsweek piece as "It's just an opinion" which was challenged by several editors, following up with a WP:NEWSORG claim [119] and then claiming Human interest story [120], discounting other opinions [121], followed by an attempt to SPI Dr.K. (which failed on technical grounds due to page protection), and then moved on to SPI me (Icewhiz). And this for an in-depth article on the subject in Newsweek. I might not be available on-wiki for the next few days (travelling on vacation, back next Sunday, probably will check in sparsely).Icewhiz (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

SPI clerk note: I've declined to "speedy close" the case linked above as I see behaviour worth investigating, which I'm now doing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: An admin please close this nonsense and strange report!!! @Dr.K.: Later on, please be careful before accusing others at ANI. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: not so fast, nothing I've said here or at the now-closed case should be taken as an endorsement of your action. I saw something entirely unrelated that was worth checking, in my own opinion. More shortly. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

So what? it was verified that DarkKing Rayleigh was probably a sock of Delotrooladoo and was blocked. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: So what? it was verified that DarkKing Rayleigh was probably a sock of Delotrooladoo and was blocked. I beg your pardon? And what does that have to do with Icewhiz, an innocent bystander whom you unjustly accused of socking? Is there no recognition, on your part, of the glaring mistakes you made putting this innocent editor through this ordeal? This is disruptive, because it demonstrates that you do not understand the disruption you have caused and you may repeat it in the future. At a minimum, you owe Icewhiz an apology. You owe one to me as well, but I won't hold my breath that you will apologise to me. Dr. K. 00:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Ok. I see you avoid replying to my request that you apologise to Icewhiz for your error in reporting a good-faith innocent editor to SPI. So, here is the effect of your error: Your creation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz was deleted because: G6: SPI filed in error under an innocent name. So I will ask you for the last time: Will you admit you were in error in filing this SPI using Icewhiz's name and apologise to Icewhiz? Dr. K. 15:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Related discussions

• I just wish to note that there are now three discussions on AN/I involving the editing of IranianNationalist, Pahlevun and Mhhossein:
  • Complaint by Slatersteven about IranianNationalist
  • Complaints by IranianNationalist about Mhhossein and Pahlevun
  • This complaint by Dr.K. about Mhhossein

This is probably a good indication that this suite of three editors needs to have their contributions more closely examined in relation to WP:NPOV and WP:ARBPIA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I was just thinking the same thing, the same edds on related (by religion) topics.Slatersteven (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken: Just a moment, which of my edits was wrong? Can you elaborate on this? I can't understand why Dr.K. is so worried about a sockpeppetry being investigated, this is while there's no name of him in the reprot. Both of the cases opened regarding me are nonsense. --Mhhossein ^talk 02:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

If I had a specific accusation to make, I would have made it, but what I wrote was "this suite of three editors needs to have their contributions more closely examined". No Wikipedian should object to having their edits looked at if there's an indication there might be problems. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I can't understand why Dr.K. is so worried about a sockpeppetry being investigated, this is while there's no name of him in the reprot. Please do not misrepresent my words. In fact, I am not worried at all. To prove this point, I quote what you said to Oshwah: I was trying to report Dr.K. at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Thank you again. --Mhhossein talk 06:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC). Wonderful. This is your chance. We are at ANI. Can you explain to everyone here, better still, can you submit your evidence that led you to want to open an SPI against me? Checkusers, SPI clerks, sockhunter admins are all watching for the big reveal with their fingers at the WP:DUCK-block button. I can't wait. Thanks much. Dr. K. 03:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Mhhossein - I echo Dr.K.'s request: I would like to see the exact evidence you had supporting your sock puppetry accusations, please. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I never accused Dr.K.. I've already made enough explanations on why I thought sock-puppetry was happening (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz). You see by the admins' comments that I was much right about the report, at least regarding DarkKing Rayleigh. Naturally, Dr.K. falling on the dubious account's side came into mind at the very first step. But later, when I contacted Oshwah, I was leaning toward others and Oshwah knows it well. However, I really wonder why Dr.K. hastily acted against my Sockpuppet investigations which had nothing to do with him in practice. Also, @Oshwah: Had you seen this page before coming to this discussion? I don't think any policy or guideline prohibits me from thinking on the the possibility that a user can be a puppet. FYI, the case of INeverCry who was an admin in Commons (I doubt if he was an admin here, too) and later found to be a Master playing another account whom was admin, too. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken: You're right and I have never had any objections. Tnx. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Mhhossein - Accusing me of having any connection with DarkKing Rayleigh was done without a shred of evidence (which you failed to produce in the report, and here). You did this after a content dispute - in which I would say your actions were questionable (calling a serious article in Newsweek a Human Interest Story?!) - and per your own postings to Oshwah's page - you intended to report Dr.K. on the exact same (lack of) grounds - and moved on to me only following technical difficulties (the SPI page was blocked). I'll note that the timing just after MehrdadFR's block (with whom you've been in contact, and who was making similar off base accusations at AE regarding people who disagreed with him, including me) was also odd. Accusing someone of a serious offense, and sockpuppetry is a serious offense, without any evidence (and in this case - an interaction report limited to some 4-6 pages, and totally different editing patterns (he's editing when I'm asleep!)) - could definitely be construed as quite personal in the sense of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Whether you were correct or not of any misconduct regarding DarkKing Rayleigh (of which I have no concrete opinion - since I do not know much of this new account - though your original report seems to be shaky) - is completely irrelevant to an accusation linking him to me, or accusing me of acting as a sock puppeteer. Regarding policy - this would seem to be fishing as per WP:SPCU. I don't have much to fear from a checkuser (other than what I see as an attack, and entry of my account name in a log) - though from what I read (and see in some account pages) such checks can also find random connections (e.g. multiple editors editing from the same office /library / lab (which may contain hundreds of people or more) - which could be difficult to disentangle (as opposed to a situation in a house with few people).Icewhiz (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Mhhossein: I never accused Dr.K. Remember: This is ANI, not Comedy Central or a forum for alternative facts. Now I have two quotes to help you refresh your memory:

This is your first question to Oshwah: A question Dear Oshwah, how are you? I'm here per your kind offer of help. I was trying to open a Sockpuppet investigations subpage for a user but the page was protected while I tried it for anther user and it allowed me. What's wrong? Tnx. --Mhhossein talk 04:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC).

This is the followup comment to Oshwah: I was trying to report Dr.K. at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Thank you again. --Mhhossein talk 06:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC).

So, I ask you again. Please supply the evidence that led you to want to open an SPI against me to the point that you had to enquire about it with an admin.

However, I really wonder why Dr.K. hastily acted against my Sockpuppet investigations which had nothing to do with him in practice. Wonder no more. Acting to prevent SPI abuse against Icewhiz, an established and good-faith editor, from someone with a demonstrable lack of skills for opening SPIs, and who seriously intended to open a fact-free SPI against me, was the least I could do to minimise disruption for a colleague, the project and myself. As for your motives, you only know for sure, but if I had a guess, I would think that you were desperate to win the content dispute at Talk:Ali Khamenei. Dr. K. 15:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Mhhossein: having reviewed the report in probably a great deal more detail than the others who have commented here, I agree that the situation makes it look like you filed this report frivolously to try to "win" a content dispute by making trouble for your opponents, but there is also the possibility that you don't understand what sockpuppetry is. As an example: sockpuppetry is one user making several accounts to make it look like there is additional support for their side of a dispute. Sockpuppetry is not when several users in good standing who are regular and long-term contributors to a topic area disagree with something you're trying to do. I don't think that your report was entirely in bad faith: a suspicious account did participate in the discussion, but I didn't see any good reason to suspect that that account was being operated by either of the two users you reported (or attempted to). Sockpuppetry is something we look on very poorly, and accusing someone of sockpuppetry without good evidence is often considered a personal attack, and I'll repeat the advisory that this topic area is under discretionary sanctions. If you find yourself in a similar situation again where you have a disagreement you can't resolve on a talk page, a good next step is dispute resolution. Please do not file any more sockpuppetry investigation requests unless you have very good evidence; if you feel the need to file, feel free to ask myself or one of the other SPI clerks to review your case in advance. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
• @Icewhiz: - I've removed as much of a trace of the SPI being filed under your name as I can without obfuscating the actual report; I think it's very clear from what's left that you were accused in error. The entry in the Checkuser log can't be removed, but it is only visible to users with CU access (not a lot of people) and is considered protected private information. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

As it happens, none of us saw any good reason to run a CU on Icewhiz, so his CU log is currently empty. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: It's very interesting to see the you are accusing me of disruption (without hearing my narration of the content dispute) while it was verified that DarkKing Rayleigh was probably a sock of Delotrooladoo and was blocked. It's even more interesting that you, as an SPI clerk, don't know of "good standing who are regular and long-term contributors to [the project]" which found to be committing sock-puppetry. Now my suggestions for you, next time, before doing such basic level preaches see the user's contributions, articles and awards. By the way, please see WP:AGF. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Dr.K.:Just stop victim playing and making personal attacks, you have nothing to do with this discussion. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

You made two baseless sockpuppeting accusations, and the third that actually existed was identified and deal with by Ivanvector himself. I think you've exhausted your good faith allowance for the time being. It doesn't matter if an editor in good standing had sockpuppeted, you don't go around casting aspersions as to the conduct of other editors with zero connecting evidence, save for that they all appeared on the same page, on the basis of somebody else did it too. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: stop denying that you requested a sockpuppetry investigation of Dr.K. on Oshwah's talk page. You did, we can all see it. My suggestion above that maybe you don't understand exactly what sockpuppetry is was me assuming good faith. Your response that you reported these two users because some other completely unrelated user operated sockpuppets in the past is explicitly a bad-faith argument: you are casting WP:ASPERSIONS based on no relevant evidence at all, and it's an equally specious argument to call these users sockpuppets because you were improperly accused in another entirely unrelated case. I haven't commented on the content dispute and don't intend to, it is entirely irrelevant to the sockpuppetry investigation, which is concluded. You may interpret this as a warning: further commentary in defense of this sockpuppetry investigation and/or regarding the motivations of users in this thread is very likely to be taken as a personal attack. I'll reply to your question on my talk page shortly. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: It's of not importance whether you believe in what I say. See my comments at Oshwah's talk page. At first I though DR.K. could be a part of the puppetry, later, after Oshwah asked for concrete evidences and looked deeper into the edits, I realized that the two others are much more involved. Regarding "You may interpret...", do as you wish, my sentences are what I said. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: ...later, after Oshwah asked for concrete evidences and looked deeper into the edits, I realized that the two others are much more involved. No problem. I will settle for whatever little involvement in sockpuppetry that you think I had. Can you specify that little bit of socking you think I did? Dr. K. 03:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: No reply here either. Once more, you said that ...the two others are much more involved. That implies that I was "involved" but to a "much lesser degree". Can you describe my small involvement? On the other hand, if you think I had no involvement at all, what prevents you from acknowledging that and apologising to me? Basic intellectual honesty requires that you provide an answer to this simple question Mhhossein. Dr. K. 15:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Mr rnddude: This is one of the reasons I brought this user at ANI. Mhhossein's inability to admit any fault even for the most obvious of his/her transgressions, while at the same time personally attacking the editors he disagrees with, has manifested itself multiple times at Talk:Ali Khamenei, but without repercussions to himself. However, at ANI, his disruption is under scrutiny by the wider community. That gives me a certain sense of comfort. His refusal to get the point of his disruption clearly manifests itself by his personal comments directed against Ivanvector. By the way, I find Ivanvector's analysis of Mhhossein's actions, consummately professional and even-handed, and I thank him for that. I will not reply to Mhhossein's diatribe directed at me, just above, since it is as transparently fact-free as his botched SPIs. Dr. K. 17:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Mhhossein has resorted to trolling on the talkpage of the blocked sock

• Mhhossein gives trolling reply to my ANI notice on the page of the blocked sock: Thanks for informing him, however he's unfortunately blocked because of "the disruption caused by Mhhossein". --Mhhossein talk 04:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC) I had given the ANI notice to the sock, before there was an SPI about his/her socking. Dr. K. 06:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• Now, Mhhossein has resorted to edit-warring adding back the trolling. Dr. K. 06:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• Also misused rollback reverting my edit. Dr. K. 06:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• Reverted again. Dr. K. 06:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

As I said, "This is my right to have this [message]. This message is meant as a sort of response against your accusations". --Mhhossein ^talk 06:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

You go WP:GRAVEDANCING on the talkpage of a blocked sock leaving a trolling message and you expect me to reply to it? Dr. K. 06:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Your repetitive accusing me with WP:trolling is deemed as personal attack. Wikipedia is not a battle field. You are wasting the time of every one involved in this topic. Btw, the message was to you, not to the blocked user. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

ANI is the place to discuss your disruption. You try to avoid this noticeboard and you attempt trolling messages at the talkpage of a blocked sock. Let's wait for the admins to handle your disruption. Dr. K. 07:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Look, I really don't want to spoil a clean block log over this, but I'm getting tired of seeing new messages here.

@Mhhossein: above, I asked you (warned you, actually) not to comment on this sockpuppetry issue anymore or cast aspersions about editors here. I realize that my wording "in this thread" may be open to interpretation. However, going to the talk page of the blocked sockpuppet to reply to Dr.K.'s administrative note (a note which is required by policy when posting here) with a complaint about this thread is clearly trolling where it's not grave-dancing.

@Dr.K.: I want to assume good faith and you are entitled to ask for an explanation, but 1) Mhhossein had already given one (not a great one, admittedly) and 2) your continued questioning of him here and on their talk page flies directly in the face of my warning to Mhhossein not to comment on the sockpuppetry issue any further. You're not trying to bait them, are you?

To both of you: I'd like to ask you both to drop this back-and-forth and get back to editing articles. There is only going to be something here worth further administrative action if this continues, and I don't see there being anything to gain from such an outcome. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: I replied, as you saw, to his comments as I saw them. Obviously, I did not connect my enquiries to him to your warning about not commenting further on the SPI, because I considered an apology to Icewhiz or to myself to be a constructive step that would indicate this editor's understanding of the error he committed. If your interpretation of the warning to him, includes prohibition of acknowledging any errors he made in the comments on this thread, perhaps you should have made this more clear, because it was not clear to me at all. In that sense, raising a baiting possibility on my part is unfair, because I did not interpret your warning so strictly. In fact, I skimmed through it, and did not read it in depth. Further, if this discussion has become a blocking minefield for good-faith attempts at further resolution, I would suggest you close it. I also find your comment about "getting back to editing articles", to be very unfair and it also indicates that you are not clear about what motivates content creators; such prompts at ANI simply don't cut it as motivation. But I will leave it at that. Dr. K. 21:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHillbillyholiday&type=revision&diff=801754061&oldid=801750293 (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

At this point I'd be fine switching my block to an indef. This is ridiculous to be blunt. And the threat of socking is adding to it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't read that as a threat to sock, but as a complaint that he's being accused of socking on flimsy evidence. We typically allow blocked users to vent on their talkpage to a limited extent provided it doesn't descend into disruption. If he starts making nasty attacks rather than just general venting, or if he's actually caught socking rather than just talking about it, then by all means extend it to indef, but expecting people to be perfectly polite when (as they see it) Wikipedia has punished them for trying to comply with policy would be unrealistic. ‑ Iridescent 17:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

What do you think this sentence means? Well, Rick, I am going to cock a snoot at both "restriction" and "block" per the following policies: Ignore all rules and WP:Anyone can edit. AlexEng^(TALK) 18:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

"I don't agree with my block and I'm going to complain about it". Admins aren't the Wikipedia Thought Police; we sanction editors on the grounds of what they do, not on the grounds of what they might hypothetically do. If he's actually socking (which is perfectly possible) then you should have no problem finding some evidence of it. ‑ Iridescent 18:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

While I agree in regards to the "socking" thing that we'll handle it if it actually happens, HBH has said several times that they intend to ignore the restriction, and in less than a month has proceeded to do just that three times now, even after a warning and then a week's block. I think that in itself merits consideration as to whether they ought to return to editing without agreeing to abide by the restriction. Otherwise, in a little over a month, I suspect we'll be right back here again. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

(ec) I was getting ready to say that Seraphimblade. It's a blatant WP:IDHT on his part with regards to the restriction placed on his editing. I gave a month to hopefully encourage him to stop, drop the stick over this and move on, but he's not doing it. If there is sufficient enough demand to do so, an indef would be warranted. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Iridescent: I'm not asking for a sanction. I'm disputing the dubious claim that he has not broadcasted his intent to violate the block and the editing restriction. If/when he socks, I'll approach SPI asking for a sanction. AlexEng^(TALK) 21:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you look at the main reverter at Manny Pacquaio by the way - HH is far from the worst offender. By the way, I have disagreed with HH in the past, but the case at hand I think is not quite as clear-cut as some might think. Collect (talk) 19:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Collect: You do realize that HBH is under an editing restriction, right? It doesn't get any more clear-cut than that. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

And that does not obviate the issue on the BLP where one editor seems intent on violating WP:BLP and WP:CONSENSUS which I regard as something which should be of interest. If you do not wish to even note BLP issues, that is fine. Most Wikipedia editors seem oblivious. Cheers. And some folks might consider the use of an IP sock as strongly verging on vandalism, but I guess IP edits which just happen to be exact duplicates of another person's edits are not to be questioned. Collect (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Collect: That's actually exactly what it does. You didn't read it, otherwise you would have seen the part where his restriction takes precedence over any BLP violation unless it is obvious vandalism. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and pure coincidence that the IP geo-locates to the Philippines. I didn't realise it was ok to support accusations of illegal activity with YouTube clips of ESPN's "Teddy Atlas show", or from sources such as "KDramaStars", the personal blog of Gideon Lasco MD, or FightHype TV. But, hey, maybe they're all perfectly acceptable. Also now sure why "Mayweather vs. Pacquiao lawsuit" and "Post Mayweather fight injury" are subsections beneath "Steroid allegations". But then I don't live in the Philippines, Or have any financial interest in boxing. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Collect, I looked at the BLPN section, at the archived ANI section, and on the talk page, and try as I might I can't find any argument to support you and remove that content again. Unfortunately then, since we don't even remotely have a consensus on the BLP-violating quality of the material, and the sourcing being not ridiculously wrong or stupid, we are stuck with the content still in there, because--and I don't like this at all--in this edit some IP editor (whose other work is borderline incompetent/disruptive) restored it without explanation. Perhaps another admin, more roguish than me, thinks that disruptive enough to revert, but Samsara protected it eight minutes later, which is time enough for us to consider that protection a sort of a stamp of approval. If you had more supporters in either of those three discussions than the now-blocked editor and a sock I might have acted. Sorry. [ec with Martinevans123 who also comments on the IP...] Drmies (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

  • In reply to that - we've had an unresolved bug in mediawiki for a while, whereby after a temporarily elevated protection expires, the previous protection is not automatically reinstated, even if of duration beyond the later protection's expiry. So previously active longer protections must be manually restored. The protection carried out on Manny Pacquiao is such a procedural restoration of a previous protection state and should not be seen in relation to any recent conflict at the article - the original indef semi protection stems from 2010. (The technical limitation is also explained here, in a section which - full disclosure - I wrote. The overall document was co-written with two other admins.) Thank you. Samsara 12:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Martin, the BLPN discussion is still open. Had you made a case there, in a bit more detail, well... Drmies (talk) 20:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Had I made one... ? So my contribution here is just a waste of everyone's time? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Maybe your time--not mine. Had you made that contribution elsewhere, in a bit more detail (since I don't know exactly what you're pointing at), this might have gone differently earlier already. Here, we're discussing Hillbillyholiday. I'm glad you're picking up the torch for them and if you plant it on the talk page, well... Drmies (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
        • I'm only here because HBH's Talk page is on my watch list and I couldn't see any kind of explanation here as to why he may have been so keen to keep removing that article section. I have no interest in that article, or that particular subject matter. I was just suggesting that that section looked a bit borderline or suspect. If all we're doing is counting reverts, then obviously that's irrelevant. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
          • Martinevans123, you have said more in that one sentence above than I can find on the talk page. OK, maybe that's an exaggeration, but come on--have a close look at it, comment and point out the flaws, evaluate the sources: you are good at this and apparently you're neutral. I'd appreciate it. I didn't see the obvious BLP vio in the quick look that I took, or I might have done something. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Note that all those proposing nugatory material on Pacquaio seem to be Philippine. I consider such material as

In spite of multiple knockdowns and near stoppages, since the allegations Pacquiao has yet to score a knockout inside the ring ,

Pacquiao's trainer Freddie Roach has had suspicion of Pacquiao's former strength and conditioning coach Alex Ariza. Roach stated that Ariza had been giving Pacquiao "special drinks" without his permission. Roach also stated "One of the reasons I don't work with him [Ariza] anymore is he's a little shady. He used to give Manny a drink before workouts, and I asked him what was in the drink and he would never tell me. I told him I need to know what was in the drinks because you're giving it to my fighter.",

Well respected boxing aficionado Teddy Atlas has been of the belief that Pacquiao has been on steroids in the past based on what he [Atlas] sees with his eyes. saying the power is the last thing to go in a fighter, and Manny doesn't have his anymore. and the like.

I suspect that third person accusations of steroid use are generally considered a BLP issue, but your mileage may vary.

currently Pacquiao is facing a lawsuit of 5 million dollars by two fans for failing to disclose the shoulder injury in the lead up to his bout with Floyd Mayweather, Jr.

strikes me as something for which a consensus for inclusion should be required.

Pacquiao's promoter Bob Arum stated that Pacquiao suffered the injury back in 2008 causing even more confusion as Pacquiao just stated that he suffered the injury during the fight now that he is facing lawsuits also appears problematic.

The fact is that those insisting on this material have steadfastly refused to start any RfC on it, and instead have a bunch of Filipino IPs doing reverts. I rather think this is sufficient grounds for likely checking out the main proponents of this material in the BLP, in fact. Consider those statements, and ask whether they are of a nature which requires strong sourcing compliant in all respects with WP:BLP and WP:CONSENSUS and whether an editor who refuses to even start an RfC is acting in good faith. Merci. Collect (talk) 00:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree 100%. Many thanks, User:Collect. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Regarding this incident after I blanked the userpage of a sockmaster who has been apparently inactive for seven years. My understanding was that such accounts were de facto community banned and such actions were allowed. Or am I mistaken? ☆ Bri (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Does the user page violate any Wikipedia policy? I'm asking because I saw no violation. I'd say it's wise not to mess with the user pages of others without some pressing reason (BLP vio, COPYVIO, etc.) Tiderolls 14:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Now I'm super confused because since I posted, an admin has done the same kind of blanking for the same reason on an unrelated userpage here. So apparently it is allowed? ☆ Bri (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

It isn't always disallowed. But whether it should be done or not is a matter of circumstance. The page you blanked hadn't been edited in over two years; if it has sat for that long without harming anyone, then there's no reason to blank it now. Such actions might not be forbidden, but they shouldn't be done without reason. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm with Writ Keeper on this. The question shoul never be if you could; it is always if you should. Don't think about what you're allowed to do. Think about what you need to do, and if it serves any purpose. A two-year old unused talk page is doing no harm. --Jayron32 15:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• I know this might be an odd thing to say but IMHO if the user contributed before they socked etc then it should be kept, If they're a prolific sock who never really contributed at all here then the page should be blanked but as Writ Keeper says it's all circumstance really. –Davey2010^Talk 15:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

It's always seemed to be the general practice to replace the content with the SPI banner, so that's what I do. If we want a ruling on this, probably Bearian knows best. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant Berean Hunter. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

That's always seemed to me to be the general practice for sock blocks too, though it's often avoided (per WP:DENY) for trolls who seem to be trying to maximize their recognised sock count. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) To me it depends on the contents of the page. I don't normally blank a sockmaster's page unless it contains material I would blank anyway, but I do add a {{sockmaster}} notice to the very top with some details. Sockmasters aren't automatically banned, only repeat offenders end up in a de facto ban situation because nobody would unblock them, and rarely the community actively bans a very disruptive user. Sockpuppets, on the other hand: I consider them to be violating policy from the moment they create their accounts, and so I regularly blank their userpages and replace with a {{sockpuppet}} notice. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• I'm in the 'leave things alone unless there's a problem' camp. But taking issue with your original statement, the account is not blocked (and I may be missing something) - you appear to be suggesting that an account that is inactive for seven years becomes community banned. I don't think so. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• I undid the blanking. Partly because I'd prefer it not blanked, but largely because the blanking was completely unexplained. If you're going to do this or similar, the least you can do is add an edit comment explaining why you're doing it William M. Connolley (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• @William M. Connolley: it's part of the Administrator instructions at WP:SOCKTAG.
  • Tag the sockmaster's user page:
  • If confirmed by CheckUser, on the sockmaster's user page, replace all content with {{sockpuppeteer|blocked|checked=yes|spipage=CASENAME}}
  • If not confirmed by CheckUser, on the sockmaster's user page, replace all content with {{sockpuppeteer|blocked|spipage=CASENAME}} if the user has been indefinitely blocked. Do not make any change if the user has only been blocked for a limited amount of time.
• Doug Weller talk 17:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

That's well and good but Bri is not an administrator so... --Tarage (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Errrm, where's the bit that says "do not explain yourself in the edit comments?" If there isn't such a thing, I don't understand how your comment answers my point William M. Connolley (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes I should have made a clear edit summary. Actually I thought this editor's story was well enough known that it would be understood w/o comment. But I'm wary of a determination that non-admins can't do documented cleanup that was written for admins. We have few enough to go around as it is without reserving routine clerking to them. Also WP:NOBIGDEAL and all that. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• I'm with Writ Keeper, Davey, and Jayron. Childofmidnight, for all his flaws later on, has given us an immense amount of content, some of it very good (the stuff he wrote with me and Kelapstick, haha--he never learned how to do citation templates). I feel he deserves a user page. The other user, not so much. Doug, I didn't know about that SOCKTAG rule--I do know that frequently we actually don't tag them, to deny recognition, for instance, or to avoid the (related) Streisand effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs) 18:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • True, but I don't think that's written down. We could still blank but not tag I presume. Doug Weller talk 20:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
    • So glad I am no longer an admin. Busy and stressed IRL. Bearian (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'd appreciate some help here. I've been the subject of a spurious report for edit warring [127], and am being pressured (harassed) by Anastan (talk · contribs) to restore content that was copyright violation. Thanks for any assistance re: article and user issues. I am, among other things, curious as to how the doctor's website was apparently so quickly converted to free-use, as well as the possibility of COI; I'd also like to confirm from an objective editor whether notability is satisfied. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I have send an email to website contact that it would be good to unlock the website for usage, as someone already started it. I have done this numerous times already, as that expand our possibilities to use here. Good faith editors think this is good, unlike other editors who this that editors can have COI with Greek doctor diabetologist. :) Website now have "Licensed under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL." tag, so no reason to remove section per copyright. Simple as that. I asked IP to restore deleted content, as website is free to use on wikipedia. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 20:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Of course good faith was questioned; copyright violation content was repeatedly restored, and an unmerited report was opened against me at the edit warring noticeboard. Since these developments, free use has been obtained. That said, it's still not advisable to copy biographical content directly from the subject's website. I'm requesting both scrutiny of Anastan's handling of this, as well as the content and tone of the article going forward. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

If you are really interested in content of this, you would restore section and sources you have removed. But per your comment, it looks like you are not interested in this subject anymore, so, doesn't matter really. All best. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 21:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Could we get a sysop to nuke the problem editor here and probably clean up the page history... most of the first page is now just BLP violations and then reversion of them. Home Lander (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I've done a load of RDing and blocked one account, Maile66 (talk · contribs) already took care of the other. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  22:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• FranzLidz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Franz Lidz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In this edit, this one, and this edit, a person claiming to be the subject of a BLP said, "The Talk page fantasizing and the finger-pointing templates that blanket both pages of my entry are inappropriate, unprofessional, malicious and, in the opinion of PS&E counsel, potentially libelous. And because the pages are on public display, they impugn my professional reputation". This seems like a legal threat to me. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, that's a legal threat, but I think he has a point regarding his BLP. I'll take a look. (see WP:DOLT) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Thank you. It seems the issues are comments by users on the talk page rather than in the BLP, but your review would be appreciated. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

This is Franz Lidz. As I just wrote on the Talk page to my entry, I am emphatically not making a legal threat. I am merely underscoring the recklessness of the edits on the Talk page. I am also requesting that the entry and its Talk page be blanked, per the procedure spelled out elsewhere on this website.50.201.240.110 (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

As one of the editors whose comments on the talk page has been blanked, I want to make it clear that I was not accusing Mr. Lidz of any collusion with the paid editing ring, and I think anyone who actually reads my comments in the context which they were posted can see that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I was involved in that discussion as well, and it is abundantly clear that nobody was accusing Lidz of anything. The existence of the sockfarm which edited Franz Lidz and added references to his work in many articles is indisputable, but noone at any time has said or implied that Lidz was a party to it - the accusations of responsibility have all been towards his publisher(s) or PR people connected to the publishers. No one was being reckless, there is clear evidence of the sockfarm's actions, including an admission from one of the participating editors, therefore Lidz (if that is Lidz - until he confirms with OTRS we have no way of being sure) is incorrect in claiming "recklessness". Also, the blanking of the comments is a travesty unwarranted, and should be undone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

BTW, why are any of these actions (blanking of talk page comments, AFDing based on subject's desire for deletion) being taken before there's even been an identification to OTRS? Or am I mistaken and his identity has been confirmed? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with BMK; unless there's been an OTRS confirmation of identity, I think we're jumping the gun on the AfD. I also agree that the discussion that got blanked didn't impugn Lidz personally or professionally, though it suggested (based on what I understand to be pretty clear behavioral evidence) that somebody was engaged in conduct that appeared promotional on our page about Lidz. And, contrary to what the IP above says about legal threats, it was a legal threat. I'm not sure it's to the level of a NLT block, but it's definitely disruptive, and I have no doubt it was made to chill participation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Regarding confirmation of identity, it's a private matter that's being handled offline. As for the blanked section, I agree there was no bright-line misconduct in the section, but BLP concerns shouldn't be brushed aside, and on the balance I felt that courtesy blanking the section was a harmless way to address the editor's concern. If anyone really wants to read what was there it's available in the history. And as for the statement being a legal threat: if it was, it was retracted, so the issue is moot. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Ivanvector: I would never suggest brushing aside a legitimate BLP concern, but I think it was pretty clear that this was being badly misread by the person claiming to be Lidz, most probably based on the "journalism professor"'s characterization of the discussion to them. Regarding the identification of the account and IP as Lidz, if it turns out that they cannot identify themselves to the satisfaction of OTRS, I would suggest that the discussion be un-blanked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd feel much more comfortable with the trusted, trained volunteers who staff OTRS handling identity verification than it being a "private matter" and "handled offline". This is one of the reasons OTRS was created, so we weren't handling potentially private information on an ad hoc basis. Honestly, I'm surprised to hear this suggestion that BLP concerns are being brushed aside: they're certainly not. As to the retraction of the threat: that may be satisfactory from a NLT perspective, but it does not remove the harm done by the editor claiming to be Lidz in making a legal threat deliberately to stifle legitimate discussion about unidentified individuals' promotional activity on his Wikipedia biography. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

In fact I did mean to go through OTRS or send instructions to the editor, except I couldn't figure out from the OTRS pages what to tell them to do. Instead I emailed Arbcom, which I suppose isn't much removed from screaming into the void, but that is what I meant by "being handled offline"; I wasn't intending to provide further details. Arbcom hasn't responded; if someone more familiar with OTRS would like to take over that aspect of this whole thing, please do. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Not a legal threat - per Wikipedia:No legal threats#Defamation A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat. See also: WP:LIBEL. Recommended course of action is an email to: [email protected]. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

  The "discussion" of libel – which was decidedly more than a simple discussion, as lawyers have already been consulted:

  The Talk page fantasizing and the finger-pointing templates that blanket both pages of my entry are inappropriate, unprofessional, malicious and, in the opinion of PS&E counsel, potentially libelous. And because the pages are on public display, they impugn my professional reputation ... Wikipedia's bylaws state that it is acceptable to blank an article for libel or privacy reasons as an emergency measure, as described in the policy on biographies of living persons. [128]

  – is only one issue. Steps are being taken on the basis of the account User:FranzLidz being the actual real life Franz Lidz, so identification is also required, since there's a non-zero possibility that the "journalism professor" who got so strangely upset about the Franz Lidz article being edited and the user "FranzLidz" are the same person. I'm pinging @Mailer Diablo: and @Sphilbrick:, two editors whose names I am familiar with who are listed as OTRS members to see if they have anything to add to this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Still not a legal threat. A legal threat (linked at WP:NLT) is a statement by a party that it intends to take legal action on another party, generally accompanied by a demand that the other party take an action demanded by the first party or refrain from taking or continuing actions objected to by the demanding party. That is "(If you do not do X,) I intend to take legal action"; not "I asked my lawyer and they think it's potentially libelous". I realise that this seems like splitting hairs, but it's an important distinction. And, while speculation on the identities of editors is profoundly uninteresting, I am pleased that Sphilbrick is looking into it. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Just because it's not a legal threat that rises to the level of a NLT block does not render it non-disruptive. Going on a website and making it clear you have legal counsel investigating matters published on that website has a distinct chilling effect—no matter how preposterous an actual lawsuit might be, as it would be in this case. And, frankly, this is why people make these statements: to silence speech they dislike and to coerce speech of which they approve. The object of the threat made on the talk page was precisely this. We're not talking about someone unsophisticated here, either. This sort of conduct honestly should draw a block. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Exactly right, and although WP:NLT doesn't say so explicitly (but should) it de facto recognizes "chilling effect" as one oif the primary reasons for disallowing legal threats when it says that "Repeats of legal threats on the user's talk page have limited scope for disruption or chilling effect", implying that legal threats elsewhere have a broader scope for disruption and chilling effect. (The policy needs some disambiguation.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I am looking in to it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Identify confirmation I can confirm that OTRS is in receipt of an email from Franz Lidz and I have confirmed his identity.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Just FYI, it won't surprise anyone that OTRS agents are not permitted to reveal the contents of email sent to OTRS, but it is also true that we cannot even confirm the existence of such an email in many cases. When someone sends a permission statement into permissions, I believe it is okay to acknowledge the existence of the email (although not the contents beyond confirmation that an acceptable license has or has not been provided). I will make the argument that someone writing in to confirm their identity to info EN implicitly expects that this fact can be reported elsewhere, but until I get confirmation from other OTRS admin's that this should be an exception to the normal rule for emails to info EN, we require explicit permission from the subject before even acknowledging the existence of an email. That has happened in this case. --S Philbrick(Talk) 00:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Just to explore this a bit, if identity is confirmed, but permission to make it public is withheld, do we still entertain changes in articles, etc. at the request of the confirmed editor? It would seem that we shouldn't, as only the OTRS team member would be aware, or the admin they notify to make article deletion, and the community would not be able to participate in those discussions, not knowing that the identity has been confirmed. It would seem to me that part of the "cost" of having one's objections seriously considered is to have the account identity publicly confirmed, since one can simply use a "throw-away" account to do so, at not breach of privacy to the subject. Not an issue here, obviously, but it would be good to know for the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I have filed an SPI in order to determine if User:FranzLidz used the three IP addresses (same person) to comment on Talk:Franz Lidz before they created the FranzLidz account. The SPI was filed before I saw Sphilbrick's confirmation above, but does not rest on the question of whether FranzLidz' is or is not Franz Lidz. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

In what I feel is the best interest of Wikipedia, I am withdrawing the SPI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Could we have some admin eyes on this please. An editor has repeatedly tried to add some forecast results to the infobox despite there being multiple forecasts around (see the German language article). I have reverted a couple of times but an about to go to sleep and see it's been readded again despite a request to stop on the talkpage. Cheers, Number 57 23:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, this is pretty much my first time posting at ANI. Basically, A35821361 seems to be only here to criticise the Baha'i Faith and to attack it. His response to being blocked for edit warring was to blame the "members of the Baha'i Faith" for it. He also complained about how "While 36 hours is a brief time to be banned, this complaint is a pattern of intimidation by members of the Bahá'í Faith on those who wish to shed light on historically accuracy, which is not always the narrative sanctioned by the Bahá'í Administrative Order" -- quote from the diff I've linked to, [136], I humbly submit this editor is clearly NOTHERE. I'm sorry for how poor my post looks...just not the best at this.79.66.4.79 (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, your diff doesn't work, and I can't figure out what you intended. Please create a diff the way it says here. Also, it might be useful to mention which article he was edit warring on. Bishonen | talk 20:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC).

Fixed the diff, and A35821361 was edit-warring on the Baha'i Faith page. 79.66.4.79 (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

A diff from May is not indicative of a current problem. However, poking into User:A35821361's contrib history, I'm not sure WP:NOTHERE is the right issue, but it does look like A35821361 is hostile to Baha'i, and is prone to edit-warring. I don't want to step into this mess, but think some admin or another should. They should probably also notify the user. Argyriou (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I would like to thank Argyriou (talk) for mentioning my username here, otherwise I would have no inkling that this discussion was underway. In any case, it is true that I frequently contribute to topics related to the Bahá'í Faith. As my contributions are sourced from objective, third-party references they are not always in concordance with the officially-sanctioned narrative of the Bahá'í Administrative Order. This has often led to the reversion of these contributions and allegations that they are somehow "hostile," when in fact they are unbiased. If you read the continuation of the quote which 79.66.4.79 (talk) has linked to above, it continues, "In fact, this intimidation has led several prominent academics to leave or be ex-communicated by the Bahá'í Administrative Order (see Juan Cole, Abbas Amanat, Denis MacEoin, and Ehsan Yarshater)." It saddens me that these tactics are now attempted in Wikipedia. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Not a wikipedia contributor, but just thought i'd chime in to say that some of your first contributions included an entirely uncited claim that Baha'u'llah sold slaves to pay off debts with zero sources, neutral or hostile, given. Getting better at finding citations to support an editorial agenda does not make that editorial agenda cease to exist. None of those academics was actually excommunicated or claimed to have been excommunicated, the closest thing would be Juan Cole claiming to have been threatened with excommunication (with the only source for that claim being Cole himself).UrielvIII (talk) 06:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

"Not a Wikipedia editor", indeed, considering that was your first edit. How did you find your way here? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I lurk pages I'm interested in, (feel I don't have the writing/citing ability to contribute up to wiki standards though), user in question is a fairly active contributor in a lot of them so I've been lurking his contribution log as well (apologies if that's against wikipedia policy. Feel free to delete if it is).UrielvIII (talk) 06:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

A35 certainly seems to be here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I have a theory as to why he so antagonistic to Baha'i, but that would be casting aspersions. Suggest a topic ban. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 01:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The IP you're using began editing today, but you've been around: you know about WP:casting aspersions, for instance. If you have an account your normally edit with, you should have filed this complaint with that account. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Withdrawn. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I previously brought this up at the noticeboard here and got no response. I later tried more specific complaints about biographies of living persons here and here, also with no response. I think A35821361 was successful at scaring away any admins from looking past the surface by simply declaring himself to be unbiased. Anyone looking through edits and talk pages would recognize deception, but that takes time. The edit warring on biographies of living persons is still ongoing. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I would welcome anyone to look at my edit and contribution history to Wikipedia, and compare it to the edit and contribution history of other editors on the same articles. Aside from being sourced from objective, third party sources, my edits and contributions are entirely compliant with the guidelines of Wikipedia. On the other hand, one should consider what the objectives of some of the other editors are. For example, Cuñado ☼ - Talk has falsely accused me of sockpuppetry and called me a "deceitful attacker" on my talk page. More recently, there has been systematic reversions and deletions to the biographies of members of the Universal House of Justice, the supreme governing institution of the Bahá'í Faith whose decisions are deemed infallible by believers. The reason given for these reversions and deletions are that the members of the Universal House of Justice lack notability, when in fact in addition to their religious service to the Bahá'í Administrative Order many these individuals have led successful careers as academics, authors, artists, actors, and the heads of award-winning NGOs. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC).

This is comical. If there is an admin listening I'd be happy to lay out in detail why A35821361's last comment is deception (maybe delusion?) in line with how he has behaved for the last 9 months. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thornton Chase may be of interest. Smkolins (talk) 12:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, the article for Thornton Chase and the discussion for the AfD is demonstrative. Thornton Chase was an insurance salesman and is only covered in subjects relating to his position as the first convert to the Bahá’í Faith in the United States to have remained a Bahá’í. He does not pass any other notability guideline. None of the coverage is independent, as it all comes from Bahá’í sources, and priod to the AfD proposal almost entirely from one book written by a Bahá’í. This contrasts sharply with the articles of the members of Universal House of Justice members that have been systematically deleted, which were sourced from multiple different sources regarding various accomplishments of the individuals covered in their respective articles. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC).

Simply false. The biographies were stuffed with references that don't mention the person. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

A cursory look at Thornton Chase's article shows citations from a large number of independent newspapers. A skim of the contents of the article also shows that it covers his notable service in the Civil War. (although from the talk page these may have been added recently). By contrast the article for one House of Justice member, Stephen Birkland, contains citations exclusively from either Baha'i sources or Juan Cole, a former Baha'i who leveled accusations of misconduct against Birkland (the article that is not by a Baha'i or Cole only mentions Birkland by citing Cole's statements). Neither of those sources are neutral third parties. In any case the article only contains three paragraphs and could easily be merged into a larger article which is why I assume it would have been deleted (although I can't say that for certain) UrielvIII (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

To be fair the Chase article has been developed a ton since it was nominated. But A35821361's skills as a researcher and knowledge are far from mundane. I didn't have to look hard at all for many obvious third party sources. And that's aside from simply looking at the footnotes of Dr. Stockman's research. A35821361 didn't bother while he/she is perfectly willing to spend a great deal of time researching very obscure people for possible personal relationships to other things and beyond. In short he'd rather delete the article on Chase and work on some of these others even if many people agree that Chase is notable and the others several people have found unfounded. Smkolins (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

That's his prerogative to work on whatever he wants. There is nothing wrong with nominating for deletion. BTW, great job improving the article. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I've always tried to research up rather than dismiss down. It's odd to me that he creates the Robert Stockman article and then dismisses a key subject of Stockman's research for decades. Smkolins (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

For added context, it appears the user in question has posted to the following website accusing people of censoring him: https://bahaicensorship.wordpress.com/2016/09/28/bahai-faith-and-slavery-an-example-of-how-bahais-control-information-on-wikipedia/

The most obvious differences between the version of the article in the link and the current "censored" version on wikipedia are that the entirely unreferenced and unsupported claims that Baha'u'llah sold a slave to pay off debts and that attempts were made to have the book 'Black Pearls' suppressed have been removed.

My own thoughts from some browsing the talk pages of some of the more contentious Baha'i articles are that terms like 'official narrative' and 'excommunication' have been used which paints a picture of a point of view being oppressed and marginalized. However repeatedly editing pages to add content deleted/edited by others, dropping out of discussions on said edits/deletions rather than arguing ones point of view until an agreement is reached and adding inflammatory uncited information an is not a reasonable way to participate in a collaborative project.

To my knowledge Baha'is don't actually hold any positions of authority over wikipedia, with everyone being on more or less equal footing, making accusations of censorship and prosletyzing on a third party website seem counterproductive if the goal is to contribute to an unbiased tone on wikipedia. UrielvIII (talk) 07:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

This is the first time I have heard of this web page. The content therein I had shared on Reddit, relating to a discussion on Bahá’í censorship and information control. The owner of the web site you linked to must have cut-and-paste the content from Reddit into his website. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Which website it was published to is largely irrelevant. You have complained that you have been called a 'deceitful attacker' and your edits interpreted as hostile on wikipedia, while leveling similar accusations against people you're in disagreement with on an entirely different website rather than raising the issue in the context of an article or with wikipedia adminsUrielvIII (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, upon reading the nothere rules, your articles claims of a cadre devoted to eliminating facts to proselytize is an accusation of a "Long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia", something against wikipedias rules. If this 'cadre' does not actually exist (which in my opinion it does not) then editing with the intention of combating their 'official narrative' would in itself constitute a "Long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia".UrielvIII (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

My contributions to Wikipedia speak for themselves. Where appropriate, I have engaged other editors in discussions on talk pages in relevant topics and articles, and if you have read them, you will note that topics such as Bahá’í review, censorship, information control, and the posthumous editing of literature^[1] have on occasion been discussed when relevant. What is ironic is that the endeavor of building a comprehensive encyclopedia is undermined not by my efforts but by those of individuals who engage in such practices as ensuring third-party referenced information is eliminated to bring articles in-line with the officially-sanctioned narrative of the Bahá’í Administrative Order and by their wholesale deletion of the articles related to the individual members of the Universal House of Justice under the pretenses (in my opinion wholly false) that these individuals do not meet notability standards. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Just because you keep saying that you're crusading against an "officially sanctioned narrative" with unbiased edits doesn't make it true. Accusing people of deleting under false pretenses is casting aspersions. UrielvIII (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

For added context here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD_Faith_and_slavery&oldid=737879646 is one of your first contributions which was edited, it includes these sentences with no citations:

"Bahá'u'lláh officially condemned slavery in 1874, by which time he had actually sold a slave to pay debts.", "a book that, despite efforts at censorship by the Bahá'í Administrative Order, was published by the independent Bahá'í publishing company Kalimát Press.". Your inclusion of these false and baseless claims with no sources shows that at the very least you haven't always been committed to defending third-party sourcing, although your commitment to 'exposing' the "officially sanctioned narrative" has remained constant, sources or no. UrielvIII (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Also for context, this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gustavo_Correa talkpage on one of the UHJ articles includes a discussion from a month ago of your sourcing, where you're accused of misrepresenting what your cited sources contain. You have not tried to contest the accusation. UrielvIII (talk) 00:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

And for even more context, this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:A35821361#Good_morning discussion on your talk page pretty much sums up every other discussion you've had regarding your Members of the UHJ pages, you only imply that the fact you are correct is self evident, offer very little reasoning for why that is the case and then drop out of the discussion when counterpoints are raised. That behaviour is not conducive to cooperatively making an encyclopedia.

Your lack of willingness to co-operate with certain editors may be tied to your accusations in your article (linked above) of a secret cadre existing to proselytize on wikipedia, so we're back to that point you didn't address. If you are actively seeking to combat a group is that not a "Long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia"? Conspiracy theories about the Bahá’í Administrative Order pushing a narrative don't prove that you are unbiased, if anything, the fact you bring them up to justify your edits makes you seem very biased. UrielvIII (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Among the examples of problems that may be of interest in this thread is:

• lacking responding to the points raised in edit comments about material attributed to living people. See my edits for example at [137]. It was my understanding that rather than leave the contentious material in the article and tag it with a citation discussion that material on living people should be deleted and discussed to reach consensus. The discussion went precisely nowhere. And this is related to a network of articles that push something A358 really wants out there, judging from the level of engagement, against the input of multiple editors and been going on for a long time.
• There has also been some mis-attibution of sources in the case of the Kiser Barnes article and was part of the discussion of why that article was deleted. See [138]. A358 did not participate but the matter was acted on.

The issues related to the Kiser Barnes article that was deleted have been discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive960#Biographies of members of the Universal House of Justice as well as User talk:A35821361#Biographies and in the related material discussed on the talk pages of several of the other members of the Universal House of Justice including Farzam Arbab, Gustavo Correa, and Paul Lample. I apologies if it appeared to you that I was disinterested in the issues that led to the deletion of the Kiser Barnes article. Far from it. I would wish that article had not been deleted, as had the articles for Glenford Eckleton Mitchell, Douglas Martin (Bahá'í), and David Ruhe. I further wish the bulk of material had not been injudiciously removed from the articles for Farzam Arbab, Gustavo Correa, and Paul Lample. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Once again here and in the linked discussions you haven't addressed any of the counterpoints explaining why the article should have been removed, instead just saying and that the removal is unjust. No proof, just flowery language. UrielvIII (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

To get specific, on the linked discussion on your user talk page your edits are stated to have violated policy, your response is to state that you have addressed it on the talk pages of those articles. An example of such a discussion is present on the Gustavo Correa talk page, which I have mentioned in another post: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gustavo_Correa. Your 'addressing' of the points consists of saying your sources are third party, saying they mention the subject or their work with no reasoning or actual discussion of why that is the case, and then not responding when you are accused of misrepresenting what your sources contain.

When the point of the bulk your 'third-party' sources not mentioning the person is raised in the discussion your user talk page you respond by entirely changing the subject, completely ignoring the accusation, and accusing Cunado of hypocrisy for starting the pages ten years ago and then stating he wants them deleted now. You have not, as of yet, addressed Cunado's explanation of his change in position, or the original point of your third-party sources being irrelevant to the subject of the articles. UrielvIII (talk) 04:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

As another example of your unwillingness to support your position in discussions of wikipedia policy is discussion of your most recent edits on the 'Criticism of the Baha'i Faith': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Criticism_of_the_Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD_Faith Here it is stated that there is no notable criticism of the Faiths position on abortion, your response is to restate your own criticisms of the Faiths stance of abortions. I believe that your edits of this page, and discussion on the talk page show your attitude is that of someone attempting to use wikipedia as a soapbox.

My reasoning for this belief is that you essentially added your own personal interpretation of Baha'i scripture to a page, a direct quote: "but there are a few statements by its founders that raise some controversy by contradicting some current scientific understanding." (notably there is no citation of where this criticism comes from, presumably as it is your opinion), and your response to the question of whether this criticism was notable enough for inclusion on the talkpage was to double down on explaining why your interpretation is valid. While this is the most egregious example of your commitment to pushing an agenda (even here you have basically acknowledged you have an agenda of opposing the "Officially sanctioned narrative", justifying it as correcting a bias (with no reasoning) rather than denying you have an agenda), I believe this attitude is present in the majority of your edits, which (while I'm no expert) I think is against wikipedia guidelines UrielvIII (talk) 04:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps people specialized in editing articles on living people should weigh in rather us having to deal with accusations like "those of individuals who engage in such practices as ensuring third-party referenced information is eliminated to bring articles in-line with the officially-sanctioned narrative of the Bahá’í Administrative Order and by their wholesale deletion of the articles related to the individual members of the Universal House of Justice under the pretenses (in my opinion wholly false) that these individuals do not meet notability standards." Smkolins (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC) I beleive the point of this thread is whether WP:NOTHERE applies to User:A35821361. I'd entertain discussion of that. User:A35821361 - care to chime in on those points? Smkolins (talk) 13:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asima_Chatterjee

Lots of vandalism since this became a google doodle. I think IP editors should be blocked until the day is over at least. Autumn Wind (talk) 09:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

36 hours of semi has been applied. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• kickass2.nz: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• isohunt.tv: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• torrentproject2.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• isohunt2.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

There is an ongoing problem at these articles: IsoHunt, KickassTorrents and Torrent Project‎. Someone keeps on changing the URLs despite being asked not to do it and the articles being semi-protected recently. It's particularly annoying because it is being done by new user accounts which seem to be a WP:SPA for doing this. Help requested here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Investigation opened: please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marylucygril. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The pages have also been semiprotected. If there is further disruption related to this, please advise at the SPI. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Still looking but I can tell you that at least one account is cross wiki spamming right now as seen here. We need this link added to the meta blacklist. Beetstra are you around?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: I'm around. Can you give me all domains? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Are these the 4 domains in above tracking templates? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes that's them, Dirk. I'll list the links within the SPI reports in the future per your comments there. Stewards have locked the accounts due to cross-wiki abuse.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: Added to meta. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

178.165.104.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (sample edits, all made after returning from their latest block: [139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145])

For more than a year now (since 27 August, 2016) the above IP, a static broadband connection geolocating to the Ukraine, has been on a relentless campaign to "Ukrainise" all articles even remotely connected to the Ukraine and people they see as being or having been Ukrainians, by changing names, and/or transliteration thereof, etc away from what is commonly used in English language literature and media, to the names and/or transliteration currently preferred in the Ukraine, such as Kiev -> Kyiv, Kievan Rus' -> Kyivan Rus Vladimir the Great -> Volodymyr the Great, making anachronistic changes of place of birth, such as changing the country of birth for historic individuals from Russian Empire to the Ukraine, a country that didn't exist until long after the times of those individuals, etc. And getting blocked four times for it over the past year (with the latest one being a three-month block on 27 April), hasn't stopped them, as shown by them being back at it again just a few days after returning from their latest block on 27 July, making the exact same attempts to Ukrainise articles again on 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 20 and 31 August, and again on 12, 14, 18, 21, 22 and 23 September, showing no signs of ever stopping. All edits ever made by this IP are of the same kind, showing that it's a single individual doing it, meaning that there would be no collateral damage, so could we please have another block? For at least six months... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 08:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• For a bit of a background to this see Talk:Kiev/naming, a collection of Requested move discussions spanning almost ten years, every one of which has ended in favour of keeping Kiev, and not changing to Kyiv. An outcome that a number of Ukrainian nationalists refuse to accept, in spite of being told repeatedly that we go by what WP:COMMONNAME says, so this isn't a simple content dispute but deliberate disruption, and an attempt to push the changes through by brute force. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

•  Done Blocked for six months as requested to prevent further disruption. I note that although the IP address is owned by Maxnet Telecom, it appears to be allocated to Kharkivs'ka city council. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Libraheights97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has an extensive history of disruptive editing on this encyclopedia. Since joining in August 2017, their continued edits at The Pinkprint have continued to be reverted, as it is not supported by reliable source. User was previously blocked for 72-hours for disruptive editing, however, any additional report is deemed "stale" or "unactionable," despite it being the same repeated pattern of editing. Also, at the Days of Our Lives page, the user continues to update information without changing the access date on the provided source; this alone proves that without updating the access date, the information could be questioned, as the information is provided after the provided access date. Despite multiple warnings (from myself and other editors), the user refuses to acknowledge this, and continues on this pattern of editing. Clearly, they are not here to edit constructively here at Wikipedia, and action should be taken. livelikemusic talk! 13:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• Indeffed. Communication is required and this editor has never responded to concerns.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

For over two months now, I (along with some other editors) have been reverting vandalism/disruptive edits from multiple IP addresses (although probably the same person). I report it, they get blocked; but usually are back within a few days making the same type of nonsense vandalism across the same type of articles. The IPs in question are (I may have missed a few):

• 50.124.235.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 50.124.238.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 50.105.96.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 50.105.99.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 50.105.115.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

All IPs have been warned multiple times and have been (temporarily) blocked at some point within the last two months. The question is, what else can be done? Can something more substantive or preventive be done to stop this persistent nonsense vandalism? According to here, all IPs geolocate to Muskegon County and specifically, per the coordinates at the source, the Mercy Health Hackley Campus in Michigan. Can a rangeblock be issued or what? Thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• 50.105.0.0/16 and 50.124.0.0/16 both anon-blocked for three months. This is this LTA and he has used both ranges extensively. See Special:Contributions/50.124.0.0/16 and Special:Contributions/50.105.0.0/16. This is an excellent candidate for an edit filter.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• Megerflit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nick Bougas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The user in question is holding himself out as Nick Bougas. After revamping the article to his preferred version, he takes objection to any maintenance tags being placed on the article—especially anything pointing out that his edits may have affected the neutrality of the page. Further, his edit summaries, while they don't quite rise to the level of personal attacks, are far from civil. His level of ownership behaviour is such that he now is appealing to have the page deleted rather than have maintenance tags placed on it.

He's already been blocked for edit warring, and his first edits when back from the block were to start removing the tags. Clearly this is a situation for some administrator involvement. Can somebody else step in and talk to him? —C.Fred (talk) 05:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment--Anyone for a soft-block (impersonation) at a minimum? Anyways, I've reverted his latest edits.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 10:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

C.Fred suggests that somebody talk to him, but having looked at his editing history I think it has gone beyond that stage. I have blocked the account indefinitely. If he is willing to totally change his ways he can make an unblock request, and if he isn't then he is never going to make constructive contributions to the project. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Texan44 has a dded a large chunk of economic data etc to the lead of Dallas, greatly expanding what was there previously, data that I removed since it's data for the entire Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex (which has its own article), not just for the city of Dallas which Dallas is about, but is being repeatedly added back again by Texan44, in spite of me telling them on their talk page, and in edit summaries, that is was removed for being outside the scope of the article it was added to, and pointing them to the correct article. I'm at three reverts now and can't revert them again, but I would appreciate if someone else could take a look at it, and make them understand, one way or the other. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

The information contained in the article has been present in that article for years. It is nothing new. It has not been added on a whim. It has existed previously for quite some time. I have merely updated that previously existing text, with verifiable and appropriate citations and links, to reflect the latest data. The text is nothing new being added but merely represents appropriate updates to long standing text and long standing existing data. The whole paragraph is prefaced with the fact that Dallas is the central economy and much of that data is only available in the format it is provided in (i.e. GDP data is not by city it is by MSA or metropolitan data). All of the data represented is that type of data. It is not an edit war except that this person has suddenly decided to make this into one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texan44 (talk • contribs)

You expanded it, which is how I noticed it, and as I told you on your talk page, it doesn't matter if it has been there for years or not, it should go anyway, since it's outside the scope of the article. Dallas is about the city of Dallas only, not about the entire metroplex. Period. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Since this looks like a content dispute, the best thing to do is to discuss the matter at Talk:Dallas. I've recommened this to Texas44 when they contacted me at my talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Adding economic data for the entire metropolitan area to the lead and body of the article about the city of Dallas, which may be the largest city in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex but is still just a part of it (with roughly one third of the population of the metroplex if my memory serves me right...Correction: the population of Dallas is less than one fifth of the total population of the metroplex...), misleads readers, and makes them believe that the economy of Dallas is larger than it is, and is as misleading as very prominently featuring economic data for all of Greater Los Angeles in the lead of the article about the city of Los Angeles. Just to mention one example. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

But there is no intent to mislead, so no administrative action is needed regarding the article. This is a matter for Talk:Dallas. If there's a 3RR violation after proper warning, you can take that to WP:AN3. —C.Fred (talk) 21:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying they're intentionally trying to mislead anyone, but the end result is the same whether it's intentional or not. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

User @Flamestech: is being disruptive in my opinion. They've messed with the infobox stats on the Second Italo-Ethiopian War ([149])([150]) (an area of the article that is subject to change via talkpage consensus; in spite of a suggestion that they go to the talk page they have refused to do and reverted my reversion with no explanation), have thrice reverted ([151])([152])([153])(a violation of the three revert rule in particularly concerning fashion) my attempts to post a deletion notice on an article they created, and attempted to cover up said deletion process by removing ([154]) the notice I left on their talk page. Their edits to the Second Italo-Ethiopian War are reminiscent of User:Krajoyn, a blocked editor known for their non-communicative edit-warring style who used many socks to try and force such edits upon the page. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• And they continue to change the Second Italo-Ethiopian War article ([155])([156])([157])([158]) without any explanation or discussion. This needs immediate attentions because there's nothing I can do without violating the 3-revert rule. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I have blocked Flamestech for 24 hours for making four reverts on the Second Italo-Ethiopian War article within a 24 hour period per WP:3RR (0052, 0112, 0311, 0312 h on 23 Sep). Indy, if you haven't already done so, please post a comment on the article's talk page about why you disagree with Flamestech's edits. That way, one Flamestech's block has expired, they can join in the conversation and consensus can be established. If you are concerned about Flamestech being a sock, I suggest filing an WP:SPI. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
    • This person continues to make vandalism and to offend me with personal attacks (see here and here) with many sockpuppets that are already all blocked on italian Wikipedia for same vandalism (see here). --Holapaco77 (talk) 13:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
      • I have reverted the personal attack and given the IP a warning. If they continue, please let me know. As I stated above, I feel that this needs to be taken to SPI with a full case outlined there linking the alleged sock puppets. That said, I'm happy to defer to the judgement of other admins if they disagree with this suggestion and feel it warrants different action. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I am reporting User:Ashwani8888 and unfortunately I think a block may be necessary.

This user has frequently made personal insults, especially to User:Luke Stark 96, who requested my support in this matter.

For example, see a number of recent instances on User_talk:Ashwani8888, as well as using the word b****** in this (non-recent) edit here.

As two of the most frequent contributors to List of most viewed YouTube videos, User:Luke Stark 96 and I have also found the majority of the edits by this user on this page to be factually inaccurate.

I warned this user I would report him if further insults occurred, and since then this user has made two further personal attacks. I have left a message on this user's talk page about this report. Tcamfield (talk) 22:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) In addition to the PAs, I am concerned about the intent to edit war stated here [159]. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• "Bastard" is not the same as "bitch", but still. Sure these are personal attacks and I can warn them for it. More importantly, can I see some evidence of those supposed invented numbers? That would be a more useful thing, I think. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The connotation & severity of "bastard" is culturally dependent. It is particularly severe an insult in South Asian cultures; far less so in other parts of the Anglosphere. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Even if culturally dependant, and the edit Tornado chaser highlighted is over the line and demonstrates a battleground, retaliatory mentality. But I agree with Drmies that a warning is appropriate with the understanding that continuation would likely result in a block. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• In culinary circles bastard is a particularly powerful epithet. EEng 06:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The user has since edited my first paragraph (on this page!) with his own message. I will leave it unaltered so you can see. Tcamfield (talk) 07:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• And I'll remove it. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

While this insult got the thread going, discussing its strength won't get anyone anywhere. The alleged factual inaccuracy of the user's edits is a pressing problem in an encyclopedia, and it's a pretty serious accusation. I have yet to see proof of it. If it turns out that the edits were not in fact inaccurate, then we may well be dealing with a seriously disgruntled editor who might actually have a case. So, Tcamfield, please provide some evidence. It needs no arguing that your opponent is acting like a jerk here. User:Ashwani8888, this idiotic edit alone might get you blocked. Drmies (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

This is not something which I feel is outrageous vandalism which is why I only mentioned it in passing, but it is factually inaccurate and these sort of things mean that most of the user's edits have had to be reverted. This user edits List of most viewed YouTube videos and most of their edits involve moving "Shape of You" (currently 7th on the list) as it climbs up the list. (You are meant to update all the videos at once for consistency, but that's beside the point as many editors make this mistake and its forgiveable.) Unfortunately this user is too hasty on the edits. It is hard to show because the number of views is a moving target which can only be shown to be correct or incorrect at the time, but an example is here which was edited by this user 36 hours ago to show Shape of You as above Shake It Off. Shape of You only overtook Shake It Off about 12-16 hours ago. To see this now you have to find the two videos on YouTube and note the lead of about 2.8 million views at time of writing, then go on a website like | kworb and note that Shape of You is gaining c.5.5-6m views per day, while Shake It Off is down the list gaining just c.1m views per day. A bit of maths puts the overtake at about 12-16 hours ago. I can also confirm that the overtake was about 14 hours ago as I saw that the view counts were very close at the time.

It's a slightly laughable point compared to some bad cases of vandalism (and I certainly wouldn't call for a block for just this!) but as the page gets thousands of visits a day, it does have to be reverted which is how the whole threatening of edit wars and bad language etc kicked off. I am now of the opinion that User:Ashwani8888 deserves one more chance as they have shown some willingness to behave amenably with their latest comment on their talk page. Tcamfield (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• I'm a little concerned about the WP:OR mentioned in the above comment. That being said, the reported editor really needs to knock it off, and the actual relative "strength" of the insult they used is completely immaterial. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll say that's not how we source the data in the article. In this instance, it's just the only way of showing what happened a number of hours after the fact. It does say in WP:OR: "(This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.)"Tcamfield (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

He's doing the same thing on page List of most liked YouTube videos, for example here and here. Shape of You hasn't got 12.39 million likes, now the song has 12.35 million likes--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 09:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Since it came up, I just want to say that unchecking "Edit revert" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo is the best thing I every did. Used to be every time I saw that red notification box, my blood pressure would go up. Editing's much more relaxing now. EEng 22:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• I know exactly what you mean. I had to turn it off when it started driving my blood pressure up (figuratively -- I hope), but then eventually had to turn it back on again for reasons I honestly can't recall (read: "senior moment"). Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

THis article Jen Royle disclosing a person's birth date and other personal details based on her Linkedin / Twitter account. Where do we stand on this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB GMG^talk 17:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Have nominated for delete

The other question is where do we stand on WP:OUTING? Is adding details about a person based on their personal linkedin, FB, and twitter account outing?

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm... not sure outing applies unless you're talking about an editor. As a general rule, the information is okay if it is otherwise public information on a moderately public figure, like something a reporter posted on their public social media. This information is sometimes removed by request as a courtesy, but if they've put it out there themselves, it's only a courtesy, and not an outright privacy issue. GMG^talk 18:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I guess I would add that the key to selfpub there is that it needs to be mundane personal details, the kind for which self published material would be a (and perhaps the only in many cases) reliable source. GMG^talk 18:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would say no. They published it (presumably) on the selfpub site, thus it's not private info. We shouldn't be repeating it (WP:RS) but it's not outing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

We shouldn't be repeating it That's not quite right. If the material is sufficiently mundane so as to fall under SELFPUB, then the self published source can be treated as a primary source, in accordance with guidance at WP:PRIMARY. GMG^talk 18:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information we say "Posting... "personal information" is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia... This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors." From what I understand we only allow personal information based on high quality sources not a subjects's personal accounts. If someone was to create an article about a Wikipedian based on their FB, Twitter, and Linkedin details that would definitely be outing and I guess the question is do we want to apply this standard to none editors? If we do not want to apply this standard to none editors than we need to remove "This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors." from the outing policy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• An article on a Wikipedian based on (nothing but) LinkedIn etc. will be speedily deleted--either as A7 or as a BLP/outing violation. PS Doc, it's time wrote you up... Drmies (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • User:Drmies not sure to what you refer? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Well, your cigar lounge seems to be taking off and might pass the GNG... Drmies (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
      • It was an interesting link, a cigar lounge that tries to look upscale, but has staff, or at least web site developers, that can't spell "Andalusian" right, and believe that Davidoff is located in Geneva, NY, probably never even having heard of Switzerland. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
        • Ah certainly. Yes and if I add to my twitter account that I own it than that will make it legit right :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Is there some reason the AfD is not sufficient and we need an AN/I as well? This has the appearance of heavy-handedness.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The harassment policy does not apply to subjects of biographies. It cannot, because as written it prohibits any personal info of anyone unless they post it on Wikipedia first. Which would mean most personal life sections and basic biographical info. This has been pointed out to the people who have been arguing over it for ages, suffice to say ignore that part of the policy if the person is the subject of an article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks User:Only in death I have tagged that line in the OUTING policy as dubious and will ignore going forwards. Will trim personal links based on them simply not being reliable instead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

DJ: Just to be clear, as noted above, social media is considered reliable for mundane personal details as a primary source when they meet WP:SELFPUB and are treated in accordance with WP:PRIMARY. I don't mean to belabor the point, but if you get a mind to start removing anything that cites social media for a birthday or an alma mater you're gonna have a bad time. GMG^talk 21:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay thanks. I would argue that the article was "primarily on such sources" however. Stuff like "She is single" supposedly based on a tweet still makes me a little uncomfortable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

primarily on such sources Yes, but that's expressly forbidden by WP:PRIMARY, thus the PRIMARY compliance caveat. GMG^talk 21:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it's worth pointing out that the statement "both editors and non-editors" in WP: Outing is a wikilink to WP: HNE, which in turn says "Content and sourcing that comply with the biographies of living persons policy do not violate this policy;" --Kyohyi (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

And that policy says "dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object". I do not feel a single tweet counts as widely published or a reasonable assumption that the subject does not object. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

If the Tweet is from the subject, then I disagree. I think that "widely" only applies to "published by reliable sources", and not to "by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object." If a person tweets their birthday, they've put it out onto the Internets with tacit permission to republish, and so it should be acceptable to use on Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Doc James: if a person uses their verified Twitter account to tweet their birthday, is it acceptable for Wikipedia to use it? Some of your comments above imply that you do not agree, but it is not clear why. To me at any rate. MPS1992 (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes. It is acceptable, and routinely done. GMG^talk 20:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

At List of Star Wars films and television series, 68.199.145.237 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been persistently changing the status of two films from not canon to canon without sourced backing: Edit 1, Edit 2, Edit 3, Edit 4, Edit 5, Edit 6, Edit 7, Edit 8. Myself and another user have reverted them each time, and we left three warnings on their talk page. At this point, it's disruptive, and I am unsure if they will stop of their own accord. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit 9, Edit 10 after an additional warning after the ANI notice. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Ought to be blocked. Sometimes, blocking is the only way to get through such individuals. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

The IP has made the change an additional eighteen times since GoodDay's comment here. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it's up to 20 times now. IP has ignored both a soft and a hard EW warning. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

IP has been blocked by Malcolmxl5 and article restored to status quo ante. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

2x(edit conflict) Yep, blocked for 31 hours. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Rajasekharan Parameswaran has been uploading oil paintings claimed to be by the user, permissions need to be sent to OTRS, also according to talk page, they have been trying multiple times to create article about self. Did however send an email to VRTS ticket # 2016102610000483 to identify self, ticket validity seems highly suspect. Bringing here as some Administrative action seems warranted. - FlightTime (open channel) 04:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jcc: As you probably realized, the indenitty of the user is not the issue, being the apparent copyright holder of all these paintings, explicit permission must be given via OTRS and must be released under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation license or Wikimedia can not use or host the images. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Yep- my mistake. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Since we have evidence that this user is the copyright holder, there is no copyright issue here. This user has as much right to release the painting as I do a picture that I took with my camera. See how we've handled this with Jerry Avenaim and commons:User:Jerry Avenaim~commonswiki with File:Phil 1.jpg, File:William Shatner.jpg, and other files in Commons:Category:Photographs by Jerry Avenaim. Nyttend (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Nyttend: None of their uploads were tagged as OTRS received, just that their identity had been confirmed on their user pages and that ticket (IMO) proves nothing, but so be it. I can revert all my edits to the files if needed, but this seems to be real shotty OTRS work in my opinion. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Have you seen the contents of the ticket? [This isn't a rhetorical "stupid, of course the ticket confirms it"; I've not seen it either] Unless you're disagreeing with an OTRS agent's conclusion that the ticket confirms identity, there's no issue here. Once we know that you're the copyright holder, there's no reason to dispute anything copyright-related; Rajasekharan Parameswaran has the right to upload Rajasekharan Parameswaran's creations, just as User:Nyttend has the right to upload [my real name]'s photographs, and if we've confirmed that User:Rajasekharan Parameswaran is Rajasekharan Parameswaran, the user's uploads shouldn't be questioned on copyright grounds. Nyttend (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I just chalk it up to having my nose somewhere it shouldn't have been. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

197.48.107.245 has made repeated vandalism edits to Nokia, currently at 4th warning, and additionally made a personal attack against Prolog, see this version of the user's talk page. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 22:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, an IPv4 address that is located in Egypt. They seem to have stopped what they were doing at 21:11, which is now four hours ago. If they resume, report them to WP:AIV. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

This user's user page has been deleted three times. He continues to re-create it in the same form. He's been clearly told what's what on his talk page: Noyster (talk), 09:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Deleted, indeffed; this user is clearly not here to improve Wikipedia. MER-C 09:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Editor Zocklandy insists on adding this table to a number of articles here and a few others in the Portuguese WP (where an admin has reverted it and is keeping an eye on his edits). Despite Zocklandy messages on his/ her talk page] and multiple reverts in the Portuguese WP and here in the English, the editor does not even bother to acknowledge/ respond or discuss. The problem with the edit is that

• It contradicts all that is generally known of the composition of the Brazilian population, claiming that the French are the primary contributor of DNA factors in the Norte region (52%); Italy the primary one in the Nordeste region (61%). It takes a few minutes to confirm that the French are nowhere near a significant group anywhere in Brazil, the Italians are indeed so, but in the south. Those figures are not stated but are somehow extracted from the information in the source that the user is citing. Does this in itself constitute WP:OR?
• It is at odds with the genereal tone of the artcile, which is of a generalist nature. Tables such as "European and Midle eastern lineages contributions to Y-haplogroup in Brazilian population" and "European and Midle eastern lineages contributions to R1b1a-M269 sub-haplogroups in Brazilian population" and the text in this section simply are way above the tone of the article.

I request input from fresh eyes on this one. The user is being duly notified. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 09:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what it's all about. Possibly a Nothere. Maybe some sort of sampler/edit bot. I don't know. Impedehim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). (Impede him?). Admins can see Wikipedia:Impedehim, deleted as a test page by RHawthorn. I deleted User:Impedehim (WVS). The tagged for deletion under U5 User:Impedehim looks like a Signpost article. Wikipedia:Dahomean Articles has the same content, apparently a fake Signpost article. As is Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/Lacaidonian. There are more examples, but you get the drift. If someone else could take a look. I dropped them a note saying I was coming here. Will add the permalink.Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim:--I have moved Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/Lacaidonian to his user-space.That's outright disruptive.Since,I don't have the PMover right on this acc., please delete the corresponding redirect.Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 18:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• Block him.Clueless and incompetent.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 18:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• I have given the editor a final warning, and I really do mean it to be final. If I see one more stupid edit I will be very likely to block the account. Please feel welcome to alert me if you see any more nonsense before I do. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I wonder if we're the subject of a machine-writing experiment here? The deleted text has that disjointed feel to it. GoldenRing (talk) 09:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Two users, Memenow (talk · contribs) and Memenow2 (talk · contribs) have created userpages with links pointing to Google drive files. I don't know what's behind the links, and am concerned what could be. Home Lander (talk) 00:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Users reported to WP:AIV and pages tagged for speedy deletion. Jon Kolbert (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

I'd really prefer to be taking this to a different noticeboard to chat it out, but my compatriot has both indicated they are no longer interested in discussion and is also aggressively reverting. This relates to the article Kevin Deutsch (my preferred revision), a journalist and author who has been accused of being highly sloppy about sourcing and over-anonymizing events to the point of having no relation with the original event (at best), or of repeat fabrication and fraud (at worst).

User:Ballastpointed is aggressively editing Kevin Deutsch to fit his spin (sample diffs: 1, 2, 3, all within the space of ~24 hours). Ballastpointed is a single purpose account whose sole goal on Wikipedia seems to be to communicate what an awesome guy Deutsch is. He's denied being Deutsch himself or a friend/associate (diff), but he has claimed to be a super-expert on Deutsch (diff). At first, Ballastpointed was productively responding on the talk page to pings and somewhat ratcheting his claims downward - allowing hostile material to stand but rephrasing it, and many of these edits have been left in place (e.g. including this article which discusses the New York Daily News investigation into Deutsch's work). However, he's since gone back to just plain reverting to a version that is, in my opinion, not neutral (doesn't reflect the majority of the sources) and overly relies upon self-published sources (extensively citing Deutsch's website and Deutsch's personal explanations for the accusations against him in-line with other sources; example diff), and has thrown in WP:PEACOCK terms as well ("award-winning" in the lede, etc.).

I have done my part in talking it out on the talk page (see Talk:Kevin Deutsch), and offered to bring in a third opinion or discuss on a noticeboard (diff). Since Ballastpointed has responded to pings before, he saw this. He has not replied. If he isn't going to participate, there's no point in bringing this to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. (I have also attempted to offer productive avenues for Ballastpointed to apply his preferred slant - if he could find some source, any source, that is not self-published but supports Deutsch's view of things. He has not really provided one, however; the closest is attempting to interpret the NY Daily News article as an exoneration of Deutsch, which it isn't.)

Note that this is a WP:BLP, so Ballastpointed is certainly correct that there should be a very high standard set for negative material. Unfortuantely for Deutsch, there is reams of negative material in reliable sources, and very little supportive material. His "15 year career in journalism" is not actually particularly notable and would likely be deleted as a stand-alone article (any more than any other of the many freelance journalists out there), and while Deutsch's own personal explanations and excuses for the sourcing confirmation problems deserve to be mentioned, they do not deserve to be taken as anything more than a denial - certainly in no way as "evidence" that somehow the investigations into him were faulty. Additionally, Ballastpointed has attempted to highlight the many small and noncontroversial articles that Deutsch wrote that weren't challenged, and imply this is somehow an exoneration of Deutsch. But these articles are simply not very notable nor interesting to talk about - as the Washington Post wrote, "Most mainstream news organizations would fire a journalist for a single instance of inventing a source or a quote, let alone dozens and dozens of them."

I ask that Ballastpointed be informed that he needs to comply with Wikipedia policies such as WP:SPS, WP:NPOV and WP:RS, or else have the page protected. If he wants to submit edit requests (a la COI accounts), that would be acceptable. If he doesn't respond at all and keeps edit warring, then he should be blocked. SnowFire (talk) 02:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Sir,

You’ve repeatedly deleted my contributions to the page, adding innacuriate/non/factual synopses, ignoring due weight requirements, and inserting language that violates Wiki’s living persons policy. You are a newcomer to the page, and began your work here by reversing my contributions. Since then, I have attempted to correct the erroneous paraphrasing you’ve inserted, and to restore information you removed that was favorable to Mr. Deutsch. Your attempts to construe every line of coverage in the worst possible light deserves to be challenged, and it will continue to be, by myself and others. Perhaps most egregiously, you removed a NY Observer article written by Mr. Deutsch, which contains an extensive, closely reasoned defense/rebuttal. Additionally,

you removed key parts of his response to the Times’ findings and the favorable “no red flags” language in the Daily News finding. In short, you’ve removed everything exculpatory it favorable to Mr. Deutsch, and I submit that you, sir, are in fact the one with a conflict of interest and obvious agenda here.

Wherever there is an allegation, there should be a defense of that allegation if that defense has been published, which it has been. This is how the living person’s policy and due weight work. These are unsubstantiated allegations. The coverage has focused on the same series of allegations. Those allegations take up a majority of this article. I can’t imagine what Moreno you’re hoping to achieve here, short of libel.

Adding quotes about racism from David Simon—who last year used the n-word on Twitter and got a lot of heat for it—is indicative of how far you’re willing to go to libel this writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballastpointed (talk • contribs) 02:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) If you are going to accuse anyone of libel, you should be familier with WP:NLT, I am not saying you are trying to make a legal threat, just reminding you how things can be interpreted. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Ballastpointed returned to the prior edit war pretty much immediately upon acknowledging this discussion, as well as having previously been warned and asked to build a consensus first. For that reason, I gave him a week block so as to slow down the edit war. If he expresses that he intends to stay on the talk pages going forward, and avoid editing against consensus, anyone may unblock. --Jayron32 03:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we also have a sock/meatpuppet issue. User:AlexVegaEsquire, who is also a single-purpose account whose only activity on Wikipedia has been to edit the Kevin Deutsch article (and create the original, fawning version of it), has suddenly appeared again after the block and has the exact same opinions as Ballastpointed (diff). Note that I'm not the first person; others, over a months-long period, have been attempting to have the article reflect the slant seen in the news media, but AlexVegaEsquire was the one editing it back earlier (as can be seen from notices on his talk page and his edit history). We may need the same treatment for this account as Ballastpointed: defend your points on the talk page in a style consistent with Wikipedia. SnowFire (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the previous editor and think Wikipedia admin should resolve the issue of whether or not SnowFire's removals should be restored, specifically the subject's denial of the allegations in the lead. Third party resolution needed. I am all for keeping this article current and reflective of slant but some moderation is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexVegaEsquire (talk • contribs)

Well, the edit war has resumed. I've made my one revert, but AlexVegaEsquire has put it back twice.

Note that it isn't just a dispute with me; AlexVegaEsquire has quarreled with other Wikipedia editors as well (example diff removing sourced (negative) material on fairly specious grounds), e.g. User:Baltimore free and User:Wikihunter6. (Which, granted, also seem to be newish SPA-ish accounts, but... willing to give some benefit of the doubt).

AlexVegaEsquire, for the content discussion about how relevant the subject's denials & explanations are, please edit Talk:Kevin Deutsch. Let's reserve this space for editor conduct. SnowFire (talk) 15:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• "His "15 year career in journalism" is not actually particularly notable and would likely be deleted as a stand-alone article..." — Well, let's test that theory, shall we? Carrite (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Now nominated for deletion HERE. Feel free to opine, one and all. Carrite (talk) 12:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Since 17 September 2017, 24.190.40.112 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Repeated disruptive edits every days (see user contribs log), including ununderstandable create inappropriate short articles from redirects[172][173], section branking, references removed[174], BLP violations, added unsourced content[175][176], adding strange grammar sentences (missing "[" or space, etc.)[177][178][179], and a disregard for Wikipedia guidelines. As warning from many other users [180][181][182][183] and editing blocked for 36 hours on 19 September is not worked, I think that it is necessary for editing block of six months or more. Inception2010 (talk) 03:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• As of 24 September 2017, This IP user still continues to do pointless edits (see user contribs log). I am disapointted that the editing block has not been done yet, dispite this IP user are Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. Inception2010 (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Inception2010: It should be reported at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. --Marbe166 (talk) 10:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Marbe166: I know, but If I reported this IP user at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, then users says "It should be reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents". I have experienced such a situation, so I reported this page. Inception2010 (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Chrag Lay Fong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Chrag Lay Fong user contributions show that they have removed Arabic/Xiao'erjing script from approximately 200 articles pertaining to Islam in China, mainly articles about Hui people who use this script. They have never provided a rational for doing so, and they never provided any edit summaries. Could an administrator mass-revert these edits or should there be a lengthy discussion first? - Takeaway (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I am not qualified to judge whether the edits in question were helpful or not, but because it was mass editing, without an apparent consensus, without explanation (not even an edit summary) and from a brand new editor, I have rolledback the edits that were accessible to rollback, and advised the editor to come to this discussion and explain why they made the edits, as wellas to ask where is the best place to go to get a consensus to make mass edits of that type. Any established editor who feels the edits were legitimate and should not have been rolled back may reinstate them without the need to check with me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

While it would have been preferred to use a mass rollback tool that allows you to provide an edit summary, I agree that this should have been done. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I provided a rationale on the user's talk page. I don't generally use many automated or semi-automated tools. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

These notices were given on 25 September. Since User:Chrag Lay Fong continued to remove Arabic script from more articles on 26 September, I have blocked them for 48 hours. They have never left a talk comment or an edit summary. The affected articles that I've checked all have some connection to Islamic people or culture so the presence of Arabic script has some logic. I have no objection if anyone wants to do a further rollback. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

There appears to be some edit warring, spamming, and COI concerns at Glamping. I think an admin should get involved because there is an WP:OUTING attempt in an edit summary that should probably be hidden. Deli nk (talk) 11:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit summary deleted, both SPA blocked for adding spam links. Alex Shih^Talk 13:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

What spam link did Outdoorsy (talk · contribs) add? -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 13:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Finlay McWalter: I may have blocked in haste, and I would gladly correct my mistake if this was an error. The concern was the insistence on having this link included 3 times while protesting here in edit summary that removing this link means removing those of competitors. This is not taking the posting of personal information (which is being continued at the current unblock request) into consideration. Alex Shih^Talk 13:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Outdoorsy did not add that link, it was added on 30 September 2016 by Mewasevasr (talk · contribs) [185] diff]. Are you claiming Mewasevasr is Outdoorsy? If OUTING is an issue, can you please show me the specific diff where Outdoorsy was advised of this policy? -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 13:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Outdoorsy may not have been the original editor to add the link, but the behavior in restoring the link and otherwise strike me as pretty questionable. Also, I don't get why it's relevant to know whether Outdoorsy was notified of the outing policy. Ignorance of such a core policy doesn't excuse its violation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

No, but it is in the Terms of Use: wmf:Terms of Use/en#4. Refraining from Certain_Activities under "Violating the Privacy of Others", which is presumably read before creating an account. Alex Shih^Talk 14:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

And that's something you could certainly point to when warning him to desist. But we don't block every new user who breaks our interpretation of those rules, immediately and without warning or explaination, the very first time they break them. That's why we have warning messages. But right now Outdoorsy is blocked for "adding spam links" he didn't add, and for breaking the outing rule in a way that a perfectly reasonable and good faith person might well do. Right now no-one has advised him of that rule, of this discussion, or has addressed his unblock request. He erred, certainly, in identifying a user's affiliation publicly; you erred in reading a (complex, sure) diff list; and Deli nk erred in not informing him of this discussion. I don't see any evidence, after some time of asking, that this is in any way someone other than a good-faith user reverting spam, and on that basis I think he's been treated rather shabbily. With a warning about WP:OUTING, he should be unblocked. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 14:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

They certainly added the spam link - they may not have been the first user to add it to that article, but they restored a commercial link that had zero informational value, repeatedly, while proclaiming that it was "unfair" that it had been removed. (It is worth mentioning that links to that domain were added by a couple of different accounts to several different articles last September, in what was apparently an undetected spamming effort.) If the account is unblocked, the user needs to be given a strict warning against adding inappropriate links, as well. --bonadea contributions talk 14:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It was just refspam of a business. Outdoorsy added a ref to an already referenced statement which merely linked the landing page of a glamping business. Generally speaking, it's rare that it's appropriate for a business landing page to be used as a reference, particularly where that landing page would violate the external link guidelines, as it would in this case (specifically WP:ELNO#EL14). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

On Talk:Malta Convoys, my comments on an edit were called "incivil" by User:Keith-264, with whom (AFAI recall) I've had no previous contact. Following a content dispute, he demanded "discussion" of the contested edit, but refused to actually enter into any discussion, & when I rv'd (following his rv of the contested edit), he described it as vandalism. (I believe that also puts him in violation of 3RR...which, I confess, I may also be.) I don't appreciate abuse. I don't appreciate false accusations. I don't appreciate being held to a standard nobody else is actually being held to. I expect this complaint will produce just another excuse to air my past bad behavior, however, & provide yet another opportunity for people hostile to me to call for an indefinite block. At this point, I might welcome it. It beats harassment by User:Keith-264, & stalking by User:Andy Dingley, all hollow. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Trek has taken umbrage despite a considerable effort by several editors to accommodate his point of view over the last week. He has reverted good work by defining it as not relevant to the article, refused to heed contrary opinion by two editors and arbitrarily reverted it again tonight, yet again according to a personal view of the motives of others. A quick look at the talk page shows that I have made a considerable effort to seek consensus and am not the editor in a minority of one. Calling me a harasser is a bit rich.Keith-264 (talk) 22:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• WP:BOOMERANG. Trekphiler, I don't know what your childish whining is about today, but either post some diffs or leave me out of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Both User:Trekphiler and User:Keith-264 have violated 3RR. Interactions between these two editors at Talk:Malta convoys have been strained for going on a week now. In this time, I have attempted to moderate discussion and provide a third opinion to try to keep things running smoothly and to find a consensus but this has become increasingly difficult. My most recent offer to continue stands but any prospect of success appears to be increasingly unlikely unless there is a significant change. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 01:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Civility war?. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

My error. There have been three reverts by each in less than 24 hrs (if I got the maths right), not "more than 3", so this is not a violation of 3RR. My apologies to all for my error. It is; however, nonetheless, a situation that requires admin intervention. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

"considerable effort"? I've seen you whining about my attitude & calling me a vandal, but not a lot of discussion of the substantive issue--& agreeing discussion with me is "a waste of time".

"leave me out of it" Right after you stop inserting yourself into discussions that have nothing to do with you.

It seems to me Keith-264 has been hostile to my edits on the Malta Convoys page from the start & has been trying to provoke me into saying something genuinely incivil. I believe that's called "baiting", & I understood there was a penalty for that. Presumably it only applies if I do it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not the one making wholesale reverts without consensus, jumping to conclusions about motive or ignoring third party mediation.Keith-264 (talk) 23:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

No, you're claiming vandalism, incivility, & ownership, despite edits like this. Who's got a problem with ownership? And who, evidently, wants me to just shut up & go away? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Trekphiler, you brought this to ANI. As is well recognised, ANI isn't a place for content disputes. Now if you have a concrete ANI-relevant reason for a problem with some other editor(s)' behaviour, then say clearly what that is. Otherwise withdraw this ANI filing, because a fatuous ANI filing against others is not an acceptable use of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

This has become disruptive at the subject talk page/article. There has (IMO) been a clear case of WP:GAMING, which I have reverted for this reason. Beyond this, I make no comment regarding culpability. However, if all of the allegations being made here are problematic to sort through, then, I believe it would be appropriate to at least take interim action to minimise further disruption. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

On the matter of an allegation of WP:GAMING, I rely on the edit summary for that particular edit in the first instance. On the nature of disruption beyond that, I have been silent - as to both what and by whom (singular or plural). Similarly, on the matter of interim action, I have also been silent on the nature of such action and against whom (singular or plural) such action should be directed. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

"take interim action to minimise further disruption" I was right. You do just want to shut me up. Accusing me of vandalism for making an edit one editor disapproves of is okay, but any edit I make, even one that is allegedly acceptable to him, is "gaming the system"? So much for fair treatment. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

One other thing crosses my mind. Isn't an accusation of vandalism, when it's not a fairly clear example (& not just a dispute over content) a violation of AGF? (Oh, wait, I forgot--no, since I didn't do it...) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

And after saying on the talk page he wouldn't oppose adding calibers, this, more evidence of WP:OWN issues. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

When you add repeated nonsense like this, "{{convert|15|in|mm|abbr=on}}-gunned battlecruiser" it's no surprise you're getting reverted. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I did think it was reductio ad absurdum. When I reverted Treks second mass delete, I chose [[Help:Reverting|Reverting]] [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]] or test edit because it seemed the most accurate description, given all that had passed since his first one. Pity trek didn't ask why instead of jumping to conclusions. It seems to me that Trek is defining the nature and purpose of the article in such narrow terms that he felt justified in cutting the lot rather than questioning it edit by edit. Since I don't agree with his definition of the article we are fundamentally at odds. That's why I've downed tools; I don't want a third day's work going down the Swannee. Keith-264 (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Could someone please block this user indef per WP:NOTTHERE? It was created to participate at Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation to support an IP and create an illusion of consensus. They talk to each other and say that I must "chill out" and that the "discussion is settled", ignoting policy-based arguments. The only edit of this user outside of the talk page is in the article where the IP also edited. This is really becoming annoying, especially since I can not directly block them for disruption. The text of the article, which is in a highly contentious area, reflects a long-standing consensus which the IP is apparently unhappy with. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done Alex Shih^Talk 12:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Not too sure what's going on here, but Tonmoypaul.71 (talk · contribs) has been moving pages in long chains. It appears he is trying to move Datta High School to Dutt High School, but has created a whole mess in the process. Could someone clean it up? (note - before a few days ago, the article refered to the school as Datta, then some IP's changed it to Dutt - may be the same person) – Train2104 (t • c) 00:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

The external links, when run through Google Translate, give "Datta High School" and not "Dutt High School". Google Maps shows a location for "Datta High School" but none for "Dutt High School", although it does show a "Dutta Girls High School". Current, the article is at "Dutt High School", but this appears to be incorrect. Someone who is proficient in the language should look this over. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

It should be "Datta" in English, but it would appear that it is known as "Dutt" in English. In languages that use Latin script <u> usually represents "ooh"-like sounds. Due to the fact that English orthography basically preserves the way English was pronounced 700 years ago or so, it also represents "aah"-like sounds, like the <u> in the previous name of Kolkata. It also appears that we may well have a young person writing about their own school, as often happens, so be gentle. Remember What the Thunder Said. (Admittedly I wrote about the main administration block at one of my (four) alma maters, and made it the top google hit for "Sydney's ugliest building" for some time.)--Shirt58 (talk) 02:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Tonmoypaul.71 has moved the page and Talk page yet again - this time to Dutt High School. (please note stop as part of title) - suggest article needs to be move protected to stop even more multiple moves - but after so many moves, by multiple editors, when does the music stop? - Arjayay (talk) 19:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I considered move protection, but it seems like overkill when there's only one person who's being disruptive. Tonmoypaul.71 blocked 31 hours and warned that further disruption won't be tolerated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I am involved in a dispute at 2017 Presidents Cup. I started a thread on Talk:2017 Presidents Cup to discuss it with the other user (User:Smitty Smitty), and with this edit informed him of the discussion. Another user (User:Nigej) commented on the talk page, agreeing with me. Smitty Smitty reverted my edit. Nigej then reverted his edit, pointing to the talk page; Smitty Smitty reverted again. He has not once provided any reasoning for his edits. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 20:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I made the edits because the schedule is set. They just don't like the fact the golfers have yet to be decided for that day. They have provided no reason the edits shouldn't be made, they just don't like the fact I made the edits first.

We have provided what we feel is sufficient reasoning, and you have continued to be disruptive. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 20:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Smitty Smitty blocked 24 hours for edit warring, but, Phinumu, you're edit warring, too. It's good that you're trying to discuss this on the talk page, but you can't just indefinitely revert someone simply because they won't discuss their edits. Some people would say that you should be blocked for fairness, too, but I think your attempts to discuss the matter mitigate your edit warring enough for a warning. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I was aware of that possibility. I should've started the talk page discussion sooner, but I knew that I'd have backing from other users that are heavily involved in that article and similar articles. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 20:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

204.126.11.220 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to be indef-blocked user Jack Gaines (talk · contribs) editing anonymously, as the IP is constantly changing genres on country music song articles, usually to "bro country", often with no source at all, dubious sourcing that is either patently unreliable or synthesis, or an edit summary of "look at the lyrics".

Sample edits by IP here: [192] [193] [194] can easily be compared to similar edits by Jack Gaines [195] [196]

Can I please get some eyes on this IP address, if not a block? Likewise, if you see "Bro country" in any infoboxes, nuke it on sight. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

 Looks like a duck to me. Blocked for 3 days. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: Presently 43 instances of "Bro country" in articles - put insource:"Bro+country" into https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=50&offset=0&ns0=1 - most look genuine, but easy enough to keep an eye on. --RexxS (talk) 02:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@RexxS: So far, the only inbounds are from the {{Country music}} template, and from linking valid instances of the term being used in context (e.g., quoting the phrase when a reviewer uses it). So long as it stays out of the genre field in the infobox. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

TIL that Bro country is actually a thing. Wow. Anyway, if there's usable sourcing that a song is in that genre, it sounds fine to say so in the article and (depending) in the infobox. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 05:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I can seem to look objectively at this issue, so I'm posting this here to essentially wash my hands of it. (Essentially, having put it up for two separate speedy deletions, I am assuming the topic isn't notable. With sources in other languages and a topic well outside of anything I know anything about, I'm wimping out and passing the buck.)

The user in question is a SPA apparently creating the same article multiple times under several variations of the title: [[Samad mir}}, Samad Mir, Kulyaat-e-Samad Mir and, for all I know, others. The articles seem to have been deleted for a variety of reasons: copyright violations, no assertion of notability, inadequate sources, etc. The version up for speedy right now is/was a copypaste from a blog.[197] While it has been somewhat rewritten (better English, some reduction of peacockery), at least some of the sources are clearly blogs. (I haven't checked the others.) I'm thinking a block is in order for the editor.

The other article, Danish Shakeel is clearly the user name. As it is gone, I don't know if it's autobiographical or somehow related to the other article. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

There's also some socking here: User talk:Danishshakeel17051999, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iamdanishshakeel/Archive, etc. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Add User:Shakeel513, another SPA, to that list. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm assuming there is a connection to Moti Lal Saqi, the only article linking to Samad Mir, and the SPA who created it, User:Naveenraina. That article is also a copyvio, up for speedy. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The deleted article at Danish Shakeel certainly appears to be an autobiographical vanity page, and was deleted twice by the same admin. The URL from which it was taken is currently offline, and that's a common pattern when vanity pages are deleted as copyvios, as a Wikipedia article is more prized by many than a personal website. Andrewa (talk) 10:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Over the past couple of years, FleetCommand, has made it difficult for me to make contributions to Wikipedia. It has come to a point where he now wishes me dead!

Here is the one that really has gotten to me: 1 In this case they:

• called me "our most stupid editor"
• wrote "every time I read his name, it is bad news"
• said I "pulled stupid stunts"
• and stated "When he dies, I will certainly celebrate"

Other examples:

• 2 3 failed to state what I did wrong, reverted redirect, and did not address the ambiguous issue. Yes, the dab page wasn't perfect, but TV (software could refer to apps on TVs
• In this diff 4 he failed to assume good faith, and stated "Oh, great. WikIan contributing more crap" and "his person doesn't know why we do things when we do them." as if WP:ABF and WP:OWN were rules to live by. All I did 5 was add an image. I did it through the Visual Editor, so I did not know that it caused a mobile issue.
• Next was the issue with Microsoft's branding 6 Initially he attacked me for finding sources for Outlook on the web was the name of two services, in fact MS changed their mind, but he blatantly reverted my edits multiple times without backing up his sources
• Previously this year he stated 7 I was "wrong in every dispute so far"

I was hoping s/he would accept that I make mistakes, but all is in good faith. I've been editing for awhile, but this person seems to think I'm a kindergartener editing Wikipedia for the first time. This has gone way too far. WikIan -(talk) 02:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Irrespective of the content dispute or editing competence, stating that When he dies, I will certainly celebrate is completely unacceptable. Blackmane (talk) 02:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Agree with Blackmane, with the caveat that that particular part of the comment could be an extremely off-colour joke (that should nevertheless be blanked and possibly rev-delled). @FleetCommand: Did you mean that in sincerity? You should, at the very least, strike it -- almost any admin would readily block you for a remark like that, regardless of whether you were right about WikIan's content edits. As to whether you were right about their edits -- they appear to have a clean block log, so if you have tried to bring their "disruption" to the attention of the community before this point you should probably provide some evidence. If it's just your opinion, then you should shut up about it because accusations like that are not acceptable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• The Wikipedia community necessarily requires a collegial operating environment. This means that we should not be calling other editors stupid or hoping for their deaths, whether or not it was said in jest or in a moment of anger. Such comments should not even be made towards confirmed trolls or the truly disruptive. FleetCommand's comment is not an acceptable use of Wikipedia as a matter of policy. It should be removed per WP:NPA, among other policies. I do not believe a block is necessary based solely on that comment, but there may be other misconduct that I have not seen which indicate that a block is necessary to prevent further disruption to the editing environment. At the very least, FleetCommand should consider himself sternly warned that further such comments can and will result in a block. Pure NPA blocks (as opposed to ones for vandalism, NOTHERE, etc.) are rather rare in this day and age, but I can see one being issued in short order. As to whether further sanctions should lie, in my view this should be based on whether there is a pattern of disruption. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • As an aside, I have notified FleetCommand of this thread. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment by the talk page holder, Codename Lisa: Hello, earthlings! I am away for one day, and you start a war on my talk page! Tch, tch! You naughty, naughty people. Has someone here been a baaaaaaaaaad boy? Joke aside, there is a lot of bad blood between FleetCommand and WikIan. Back in 2016, WikIan tried to merge Outlook.com and Outlook on the web articles into a new Outlook Mail article and had a clash with yours truly, Jeh, ViperSnake151, and FleetCommand. Ever since, I have had a feeling that WikiIan has been deliberately trying to do edits that provoke the auditor.

On this certain occasion, WikIan has made 61 edits involving renaming articles whose titles ended with "(software)", a direct violation of ArbCom ruling highlighted in MOS:STABILITY, a deviation from our naming scheme, a violation of WP:DAB on at least three accounts. After being in Wikipedia for 7 years, does he not know that disambiguation pages end with (disambiguaiton), not (software)? JE98 found it suspicious and tried to notify me. In reponse, WikIan said something that looks highly inaccurate to me, perhaps even dishonest. He more or less denied having done anything dramatic. The provocation theme comes to my mind. At worst, he is engaged in deliberate disruption of Wikipedia and harassment. At best, he is engaged in unintentional disruption rising from lack of competence.

Then again, feel free to dismiss all this as conspiracy theory. I think the solution is still the same: WikIan must accept that he has room for improvements (acres of it, actually) and he is late doing it by seven years. He can't just push everyone's button and come here crying that people whose buttons were pushed didn't treat him well. At one point, someone will come to the conclusion that it is him who must stop button-pushing.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you User:Codename Lisa. So, FleetCommand's comment was completely out of line and should be stricken as a personal attack and they should be cautioned about civility and told to read over NPA again, and we should either sanction or sternly warn WikIan for their own misbehaviour? I am sorry, but I have very little patience for people who deliberately goad and provoke other editors, and then immediately play the victim once the other editors are pushed over the brink. @WikIan: is Codename Lisa's outline of the events leading up to the edit you link accurate? Specifically, can you disprove her feeling that WikiIan has been deliberately trying to do edits that provoke the [other e]ditor? Under normal circumstances, per WP:AGF, I would not place the burden of defending yourself on you (it's FC and CL's responsibility to substantiate their own accusations), but technically in this case you came here asking for sanctions against someone who posted a comment that looks provoked, so you really can't expect the rest of us to simply assume your side of the story is completeky accurate. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) By the way: The fact that the OP has opened three ANEW reports, one on FC which resulted in a two-way warning, and never been reported himself makes me somewhat inclined to believe Codename Lisa that this is a bellicose user trying to trick other users into getting into trouble. Two-way edit-warring that one party chooses to forum-shop to ANEW should send up red flags, and the fact that the edit linked by the OP shows an intent to report them on ANI makes me very much think this thread was opened in an attempt to get FC before FC got them. I'm sorry if I'm misreading something, but the more I look into this the more I think a BOOMERANG should be coming. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Hijiri88: It is not just that. Please see this:

"2 3 failed to state what I did wrong". Well, that's outright dishonest. The following sentence seems not only a good-faith attempt to explain but also an accurate and conscise one:

Partial title matches and items without link are not allowed. If you don't want to read WP:DAB and MOS:DAB, at least read WP:DDD.

WikIan is insulted directly; I understand that. But that does not justify lying to us.

"but TV (software) could refer to apps on TVs". No! It could not. Everyone knows that parenthetical suffixes are for disambiguation only. Furthermore... (Sigh!) Oh, my! There is so much to explain. Yes, WikIan, please study WP:DAB and MOS:DAB, or at least WP:DDD.

—Codename Lisa (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah, I saw those too. I think WikIan wants us to interpret all of the previous, at-worst-slightly-uncivil, remarks in light of the later When he dies, I will certainly celebrate, when in reality WikIan has not seven diffs of FC harassing them but one diff of FC overreacting to WikIan harassing them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Whatever your view of the underlying content, "Oh, great. WikIan contributing more crap" is an extremely uncollegial way to approach editing and the first diff cited above is completely unacceptable. Per NPA, It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or one who has been blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned, as it is to attack any other user. @FleetCommand: I really hope you're going to refactor/strike those comments when you come back online. GoldenRing (talk) 09:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• @GoldenRing: Indeed. Unacceptable is the word. I've already removed the whole "unacceptable" thread, so there is nothing for FC to do.

As for my view of the matter, we have two unacceptable things, neither of which justify the other. Both should be addressed for the good of Wikipedia. We must make it a point that we tolerate neither. I think it would be best for both editors to shake hands, one promising no future insults and the other promising a sincere attempt to improve self and learn from our veterans. —Codename Lisa (talk) 09:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Well said. GoldenRing (talk) 09:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Agree. I think FC should apologize, but there's no tradition of forcing people to apologize for off-colour remarks that have already been blanked, unless they actively try to restore them. There is the problem, though, of WikIan's behaviour; I think if this thread gets closed as Offending comment has been blanked. Nothing more to be done. (read: implying the disruption was one-sided) that will just embolden them and encourage more disruption. That said, unless more evidence is forthcoming I'd say a strong warning, specifically a promise of a block next time they make another of the offending edits, might be enough. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• I am thinking a little beyond that. My role in this is what I must not neglect. (There was a reason all this happened in my talk page.) For now, I have disengaged from all Apple-related software articles and have removed them from my watchlist, except for two cases where my involvement was a matter of the elephant in the room. (I participated in one before noticing this dicussion. I also granted a template edit request; monitoring the aftermath in Apple Wallet is simply my responsibility.) Still, 14 less items in my watchlist should help WikIan see less of me and de-escalate matter. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• First, I don't edit Wikipedia for a living. Yes, I make mistakes, but I do think my positive contributions have outweighed those. @FleetCommand: is the only user to specifically target my edits and either revert them or challenge them on a regular basis. CL and others have reverted edits (this is natural due to WP:BRD cycle), but not in a way that personally insults me or aggressively challenges all edits because they may do drastic changes. There is no guideline against drastic changes if they improve Wikipedia.

• Furthermore, I am not super involved as CL or FC are in Wikipedia's guideline or ArbCom rulings. Furthermore, I have taken CL's advice on many of my edits. I checked the backlinks to make sure the page moves didn't break anything. This is when I ran into a problem with the double redirects, which logically seemed to be solved with dab pages.
• I have had a feeling that WikiIan has been deliberately trying to do edits that provoke the auditor Yea, why would I do this? I was wrong (though not at the time) for the Outlook.com/OOTW debacle. I'll admit that was due to Microsoft not knowing themselves. And who, might I add, have the time to specifically target a single person unless they edit a lot? If I was targeting FC, I'd be all up in his watchlist and ONLY editing whatever he edits with vandalism.
• If you want to know my thought process this time around, I (as usual) was looking for Article Title Consistency according to WP:CRITERIA and also don't you guys realize we are violating WP:NPOV by favoring Apple with the "software" redirect?
• The fact that the OP has opened three ANEW reports I'm sorry... but now I'm a fault for reporting people? I'm pretty sure others have opened up reports for me too. Check the logs. For both WikIan and my old username. Whatever I bring to the Administrators attention is within Wikipedia guidelines. There is no fault in doing so. Also, isn't this an admin noticeboard? I'd like an admin to handle this actively as well.

• @Codename Lisa:, why do you think I haven't read WP:DDD? Shall we read it together?

1. Target link at start? Check. All of my links were at the start (except one, TV (software)). Whoops, but that doesn't that aside, TV (software) is obviously what someone would look for if they are researching apps for their TV. (read: ambiguous)
2. Keep descriptions short. Check.
3. Sections. Don't need.
4. Primary topic: well, TV (software) is incredibly ambiguous. Talk:TV_(Apple), see that discussion. I mean come on, seriously, this is just ambiguous. Yes, it was a change, but many of the other Apple articles used (Apple) parenthetical disambiguation. that user had to ruin it according to the talk page. Yeah? So what? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean you WP:OWN Wikipedia. As also stated "Too many apps/services" is subjective Emir of Wikipedia, not me. CL and FC, your prejudice against me also opposes other editors.
5. Wiktionary and incoming links weren't needed, and I didn't think it needed cleanup. There were not multiple blue links, (there was one piped link), I didn't add an entry w/o a blue link or w/ a red link. I didn't include EVERY article containing the title.
6. I also didn't include any dictionary definition or external links.

• No! It could not. How so?
• implying the disruption was one-sided If you wish me off of Wikipedia I will leave. I don't want to go, but if you are turning this against me, I will. I haven't caused disruption, except to those editors who are just used to the way things haven't changed, even though they directly violate WP:NPOV, and then turn around and yell I'm violating WP:DDD

Good day to you all, WikIan -(talk) 18:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• @WikIan: You wrote: "Yea, why would I do this? I was wrong" Very well. Let's say I believe you, as Hanlon's razor says. But understand this:

1. It does not matter how you assess your level of activity; given your level of participation in Wikipedia, length of service, and the troubles in which you have been (mentioned above by yourself, I and Hijiri88), your knowledge and understanding of our rules, guidelines and practices is insufficient. Improve it. Pretexts save you once, not twice.
2. Your recent changes in the Apple software area was wrong. Make it you mission to find out why.

Feel free to ignore all I said or protest. Time is a cruel mistress. She will see to it that you will learn the hard way in due course.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 05:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Again, I'm not trying to "play dumb" here. If I were, I'd say that I didn't know WP:DDD existed. My interpretation of what I did (for the reasons above), though not perfect, is that it contributed in a positive way to those articles. Tell me, is Health (Apple) more ambiguous than Health (software)? If not, I'd like to know if that's what you are referring to in the case of Your recent changes in the Apple software area was wrong.

Again, looking at WP:DDD, which I did in the above list, I don't see what I did wrong, except not put a blue link at the start of the entry. JE98 said (paraphrasing here) "there were too many entries to list in the DAB page", which led me to believe I made a mistake. However, according to the guideline, you don't have to list every entry with that title. WikIan -(talk) 06:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Lesson one: Stay on topic. The topic of this thread is "harassment", you, and "FleetCommand". To begin your learning, drop me a note on my talk page. —Codename Lisa (talk) 12:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Regarding the underlying (article title) content dispute, there are open move discussions at TV (Apple) and Wallet (software). power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• I just had to remove an attack on FC by WI in this thread. FC's previous comment was completely unacceptable as well. Both of you cut out the personal attacks or you'll be blocked for a month (this is my go-to solution to feuds, and it has had some minor success in the past). --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Wait ... I agree with Floq that blanking that was a good idea, but ... well, look at it. The image has apparently been taken down, but did WikIan just admit to "recruiting" people (his real-world friends?) to harass FleetCommand off-wiki? That's way more serious than saying on-wiki "I wish he were dead". WikIan claimed on his talk page that he did not support or condone the posting of that stuff that he linked (whatever it was), but the fact that it disappeared at apparently the same time as Floq told him off indicates that either he was the one who posted it or he was in contact with them. It might be my own history with off-wiki harassment (which literally included posting images of me on a website similar to tinypics and linking them on-wiki) biasing me, but this certainly feels like the worst thing that has come up in this discussion so far. WikIan, Floq let you off very easy by not blocking you; most admins would not be as kind. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Off-wiki harassment is a serious matter, because it can easily misfire at the wrong person. During the time that FA was pressuring me to bring FleetCommand out of retirement, I discovered that the user accounts of "FleetCommand" registered on @hotmail.com, @gmail.com, Wikia (it is "Fleet Command" with a space), SourceForge, GamesFAQ, GameSpot and a couple of other place (I've forgotten) do not belong to our FleetCommand. These people even have the same avatar because that certain avatar is originally distributed by Relic Entertainment. If the harasser is lucky, the person harassed is a high-ranking official of the United States Fleet Forces Command and he just laughs – unlike in the films, where he calls CIA black ops.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 11:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh wow. Okay. I think FleetCommand's statements make a bit more sense, even if they're still contrary to policy. I don't quite understand what WikIan posted, but the pivot away from the properly objectionable matter (the comment) to more grey policy questions gives me the impression of someone who grabbed hold of something in order to bring a tangentially related dispute to this forum. I'm not to the point where I think a boomerang is appropriate, but I'm definitely becoming less impressed with WikIan's participation in this thread as it drags on. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88:, you seriously need to stop implying things. You're almost becoming like FC, assuming I did things for bad intentions. The image was a screenshot (privately linked) to a screenshot of what could be considered vandalism, so I removed it because it was in bad taste. As for what he assumed I did wrong, may I remind you all WP:BURO. If I believe my content contributes to Wikipedia, then I have the right to do so. What happens next is up to consensus, not one user targeting another. And to quote the topic of this thread is "harassment", specifically my case against FC's rude comments and request for multiple administrators consensus. Not Hijiri88's. Floq let you off very easy by not blocking you, if I posted vandalism or doxxing content to a publically accessible, non-removable website, this comment would make sense. But again... I did not do that. I simply screenshotted what I saw here on Wikipedia.

someone who grabbed hold of something in order to bring a tangentially related dispute to this forum Perhaps, I provided evidence of FC's aggressiveness to other users. It was in bad taste (screenshot of resulting vandalism), that's why its gone.WikIan -(talk) 22:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

So... you admit that it was you who posted the image (whatever it was)? Have you engaged in any other off-wiki discussion of FleetCommand? Because you should know that, if this is a recurring problem as User:Codename Lisa implies, while it doesn't excuse "When he dies, I will certainly celebrate", it does mean that if FleetCommand gets a block or any other editing restriction out of this, your own will likely be harsher. I agree with User:Mendaliv that it still is not necessarily at that point. You could strike everything you've written here, apologize to FleetCommand, request that this thread be closed, and get back to building an encyclopedia. Or you could let the discussion drag out and see what happens. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: There you go again, implying I had contact outside of Wikipedia... I have not, that was a screenshot of something HERE on Wikipedia, and I don't even know who FC is. What you're saying is that I was doxxing him, and as I already said I didn't. Stop implying bad faith again. The recurring problem is that FC is targeting my edits and insulting me directly. If this community chooses to ban people who report offensive language to the people who can handle it, why should I want to be a part of this community? If this community chooses to follow its own guidelines, and punish inappropriate behavior, and disregard any prior bias, I will proudly remain an editor here. I'm not sure why your own will likely be harsher would ever become a reality. I have never EVER posted anything that is outside the scope of Wikipedia anywhere else. WikIan -(talk) 22:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

You posted an image of some kind on an off-wiki forum, then linked it on-wiki, explicitly claiming that it had been posted by someone else (And, no, I did not create those entries/accounts. A bunch of people know about the borderline hounding) and that you condemned them for it (I support absolutely no harassment or vandalism of any kind. You were then forced to admit that you were the one who uploaded the image (whatever it was) onto tinypics when I pointed out that the image had disappeared as soon as Floq called you out for it. Forgive me if I am missing some key component of this that makes posting an image to tinypic.com -- with the apparent intention of attacking, demeaning, intimidating or otherwise harassing a member of the Wikipedia community -- not exactly what happened here, but you don't appear to be able or willing to deny that. You are instead focusing on attacking me with strawman arguments: I don't know what the content of the image was, nor have I "implied" that I do know, and I don't even know what "doxxing" is, so how I could have accused you of it is beyond me. If something about what I actually said (rather than what you think I "implied") was in some way inaccurate, please explain. Remember, I was entirely on your side here until Codename Lisa told her side of the story, so I'm definitely willing to change my mind if some aspect of my assessment of the situation is wrong. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Please see Floquenbeam's comments below. If you are inclined to believe CL, I want you to know all that facts. While I respect s/he as a dutiful editor, as stated they br[ought] FleetCommand out of retirement and have interactions in an IM chat off-wiki not to mention CL and FC come in paris. CL is not in question here, as I have never been directly insulted multiple times by this person. WikIan -(talk) 04:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• I am so tired of people at ANI assuming they know what they hell they are talking about when they don't. I actually dealt with it yesterday, so don't need people suggesting things that should be done to address their imagined problems, but to prevent the inevitable question on my talk page: WikIan took a screenshot of on-wiki personal attacks on FleetCommand by other people over the course of several years, posted the screenshot to an image hosting service, and said he thought it was funny and evidence of how FleetCommand angers people. No off-wiki harassment, no recruiting others. Now, that was a real dick move. But not, IMHO, as bad as saying you'd be happy to see another editor dead (and, to be fair, it was done in partial retaliation for saying that). The image was removed by WikIan from the hosting service, I issued a warning, and we're done. As I said before, if this doesn't stop I suggest 1 month blocks for either editor at the next hint of personal attacks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, I never assumed anything. I asked a question and WikIan's repeated dodging of said question and hurling nonsense accusations back at me was beginning to incline me to believe the worst. And collecting screenshots of people attacking him from over a multi-year period and posting them to an image-hosting site is still harassment, and it is technically off-site. The only real difference between that and what happened to me is that there was apparently no on-wiki outing involved (and I never said or even implied that there was). Everything I said still stands even now that I am no longer "assuming [I] know what the hell [I am] talking about when [I] don't", and WikIan's evasiveness (or, rather, deflectiveness) is just as disruptive whether the assumption I wasn't acutally making was right or wrong. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

On second thought, screw it. I have better things to do with my editing privileges than get blocked for expressing an opinion in a dispute I'm not even party to, and I've seen such things happen too much lately. Put more poetically, that's not the hill I want to die on. I guess I'm in for another month-long self-imposed ANI PBAN. If this dispute does continue any longer than it already has (and I agree with Floq that this should have already ended), the closer can feel free to either ignore everything I have said or read it and take it for what it's worth, but I would appreciate not being pinged anymore. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• More evidence back in 2015 FC called my edits "hostile", when in fact through consensus, the infobox stands closer to what originally was there, than the changes that FC made and reverted my "hostile" revert. WikIan -(talk) 05:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Diffs from two years ago are not generally actionable, and if you want to convince us that he was wrong to call your edits hostile, behaving in the very hostile fashion you have in this thread is not going to help. Calling a fish a fish is not a personal attack, and it's not harassment (unlike going back over someone's edits from years ago desperately looking for "dirt" on them). And even though this is not about your content disputes from two years ago -- yes, you were wrong to blankly revert an edit to reinsert bad changes as well as good, and claiming that consensus later decided that some or even most of your revert was good completely misses the point. You should learn the law of holes: if every piece of "evidence" you post makes your own actions look worse (in this case, you apparently don't understand that consensus retroactively deciding to reinstate a lot of your edit doesn't conflict with FC's saying that while a lot of your edit may be good, it reinstated bad material as well), then you should stop posting said evidence. And only about half of your edit related to the infobox anyway. On top of that, you reverted FC's edits with an edit summary that solely cited BRD, as though BRD was a blanket rationale for reverting any edit you don't like without explaining what you thought was so "bold" about the edits, when ironically you have been freely making large unilateral edits to that page consistently. And the talk page discussion has been pretty inactive ever since November 2015 when this "incident" occurred, so it seems very much like "consensus" means you waiting for FC to get tired of reverting you, then coming back and unilaterally reinstating your edits. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

See above. The "not being pinged anymore" is in reference to WikIan's repeated/uninvited pinging of me further up the thread, in case it isn't clear. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Participation here is not compulsory. Please consider whether engaging further has any benefit before clicking save. Johnuniq (talk) 23:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Hijiri88 seriously needs to stop contributing to AI. Once again he has waded in to something which doesn't concern him, failed to understand the issue properly, issued poor advice and spammed the page with screeds of waffle which he inevitably ends up having to strike, and has only escalated things. Why is he consistently allowed to do this? 62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Avaya1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was a subject of Arbitration Enforcement in the past with result: "Avaya1 now subject to 0RR on articles related to Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted.", so initially I posted my complaint at WP:AE#Avaya1. Admin decided that the edits at issue are not in the WP:ARBPIA topic area and took no action, so I'm moving it here, with updates.

On 14 September 2017, a consensus was reached on Talk:Israel to remove an image from Israel article, with three in support, one neutral and no oppose.

1. 15 September 2017, I removed the image, citing talk page.
2. 18 September 2017, Avaya1 reverted me.
3. 18 September 2017, I reverted Avaya1.
4. 26 September 2017, Avaya1 reverted me.
5. 26 September 2017, I reverted Avaya1.

First, Avaya1 cited a year-old consensus regarding the issue ignoring the new consensus. Then, on the talk page he stated that I am forcing the change and no one else supporting it, although clearly it's another user who initiated the request. Now he's telling lies there, that I implemented the change before the new consensus was reached.

Also, I added photo of IDF soldiers instead of photo of a beach, that Avaya1 added earlier this year to the military section of Israel:

1. 14 September 2017, I added appropriate photo with explanation.
2. 18 September 2017, Avaya1 removed it with summary "rmv aggressive img" (although this is perfectly non-controversial photo showing soldiers in the military section of the article) ...
3. 18 September 2017, ... and added back photo of a beach.
4. 18 September 2017, I reverted Avaya1.
5. 26 September 2017, Avaya1 reverted me citing "No consensus to include this img", although there's no consensus to include his image, either.
6. 26 September 2017, and then he added another photo without explaining.
7. 26 September 2017, which I reverted.

Overall, for a user, who's on Wikipedia for over 10 years with 20,000+ edits, Avaya1's behavior is very unprofessional and disruptive. He's often ignoring other editors, leaving no edit summaries, and making technically clumsy edits like a newbie. I went through some of his latest contributions:

In Kurds, he blatantly ignores other editor, like he did in Israel:

1. 18 September 2017, Avaya1 made series of edits
2. 20 September 2017, other user partly revert him, with summary: "restoring more recent cited figures to box"
3. 20 September 2017, Avaya1 perform full revert, with summary: "removed for some reason"

In Valerie Plame, he made 75 (!) edits in one day, most are without summaries. Look how insignificant the result is, and keep in mind that there's almost no changes by other users in-between:

1. 22 September 2017

--Triggerhippie4 (talk) 08:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment Triggerhippie4 has copy and pasted his arbitration request which yesterday was closed down as not actionable. I will copy and paste my comment on the matter from yesterday's arbitration request.

“

Triggerhippie4 ignored the only kind of consensus in the talkpage about the image, and removed the image. He has deleted the image and without yet gaining a new consensus at the time of his edits. The image was re-inserted according to and after we had got explicit consensus that is on the talkpage, which is within the 0RR restriction. The 0RR restriction states that there needs to be consensus for the revert- and there was. I'm not sure how Triggerhippie4's write-up about unrelated articles and edits on Valerie Plame or Kurds is relevant to the dispute, it appears more like border-line wikistalking. I used edit summaries for any notable edits on the Plame article, and likewise for the Kurds article. The image of Oz is included in the Israel article - again, only because it was according to the only consensus in the discussion page we yet have about it and because there is no new consensus yet. Also I am not sure how Oz (or the Kurds or Plame) is directly relevant to Israel-Palestine conflict. Avaya1 (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

”

The full discussion was viewable here. Avaya1 (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

On the off chance that somebody is actually interested in looking into this—and nobody could blame you for wanting to turn away—I recommend that she or he review the edit history of Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where these two editors have been engaged in a slow-moving edit war since March 2016. Remarkably, it has nothing to do with the Arab–Israeli conflict, just two editors who have different visions of how to "improve" an article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

No, Malik Shabazz, it's about Avaya1's conduct. Did you actually look into this yourself? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 05:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The article has been on my watchlist for more than eight years, so I'm very much aware of the cat-and-mouse games the two of you have been playing for the past 18 months. I recommend you read WP:BOOMERANG. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Explain with examples, please. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 12:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Earlier today I got a notification that my edit to remove deprecated image syntax was reverted by 8Dodo8. Upon looking further into who 8Dodo8 was - I discovered an unfortunate pattern of 8Dodo8 using the tool to give themselves an advantage in a content dispute on FC Steaua București. There seems to be a disagreement on what to use for the name of the football club between User:GrizzlyBear2002 and 8Dodo8 - both editors have been edit warring at the page.

Regardless of who's "right", using rollback on multiple occasions doesn't help settle the content dispute; let alone when coupled with an all-caps edit summary early on in the dispute.

In separate occurences, 8Dodo8 has used rollback to revert constructive edits that they disagree with.

Given the several occasions where the 8Dodo8 has misused the tool, I do not think the user is fit to retain access to rollback. Jon Kolbert (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree. User has already been informed of the purpose of it at Special:PermaLink/775775488#User:8Dodo8. I also don't see them using it for anti-vandalism efforts. Misuse of rollback is probably my biggest pet peeve, so I fully support removal for both the lack of need and misuse of the tool. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

1. I reverted your edit because all the big football clubs use the 190px or something like that for their club badges.

2. I used the rollback tool many times on the FC Steaua page because GrizzlyBear and multiple users are constantly vandalasing the page. The name of the club is Fotbal Club FCSB as seen in the source I provided, but Grizzly kept changing it. I also used it because many vandals change the content on the page, as there isa division betwen its supporters. I actually requested for the page to be indefinetely protected so we could avoid this issue.

If you guys animously consider that I used the tool in a right way, I will understand and you can remove it from my account.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 11:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this is misuse of the rollback tool. Both of these are content disputes. WP:NOT VANDALISM. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  11:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Well I incorrectly considered the second issue as vandalism and I also thought the tool can be used for other thinkgs other than vandalism. I should have read the policies more carefully.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 13:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• 8Dodo8, are you aware of the policy now, and can you tell us if you'll abide by it? If you have any questions, feel free to ask. If you think you can use the tool and use it properly you might could keep it. Drmies (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I am aware of the policy now and I always wanted to abide by it, it's my mistake that I didn't pay attention. I will only use it when there is a clear sign of vandalism, not good faith edits or anything like that. You decide if I deserve to keep it.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 13:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• And yet more Romanian football silliness. EEng 15:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I would like to report that editor IbrahimWeed moved the article 1991 uprisings in Iraq to 1991 Iraqi coup d'état attempt without discussion, just a month after finding no support for his previous move attempt on the article's talk page, nor providing any sources for the move. Also, in the previous discussion, the editor expressed a desire to move the article based on his personal opinion of the conflict and ignoring what sources were most commonly naming it. He also has a history of making undiscussed and unsourced move attempts based on his personal opinion, like with Iraqi Civil War (2014–present), where he was reverted two times and found overwhelming opposition on the talk page to his actions. He has also moved Hawija offensive (2017) to Battle of Hawija (2017–present), again without discussion and despite sources mostly referring to the operation as an offensive and not a battle. Both moves should be reverted and the editor should be made aware that he should rather engage in discussions on the talk pages instead of making unilateral moves, as well as providing sources for any future moves. I have also made @DrStrauss: aware of his actions. DrStrauss reverted him one of the two times before when he made his unilateral/POV moves that were against consensus. DrStrauss also closed his previous move request for 1991 uprisings in Iraq with the result being not moved. @El C: also previously reverted him and warned him of his actions, but apparently to no effect. I have notified the editor in question of this discussion as well, however, I should also note during previous discussion attempts he showed no desire to engage. EkoGraf (talk) 06:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Being bold is fine but being unconstructive is not. I believe WP:CIR is the appropriate thumbrule and his refusal to engage won't get him further. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 17:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

IkbenFrank (talk · contribs) seems to be one of those editors who doesn't seem to talk much. His talk page is full of unanswered complaints and he never uses edit summaries. I've had a go at getting through but it's fallen on deaf ears. I wonder if anyone else can succeed? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Nope, have tried before, even left a final warning before I went into semi retirement but he just never listens or learns. Think it’s time we blocked him to be honest, most of his edits are non constructive as it is. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 13:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

+1 - He has no interest in communicating or discussing and no amount of warnings will change that, Personally I'd support a 2 week block and if it carries on then the block would get longer and even indef if need be. –Davey2010^Talk 13:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the above. This isn't just a communication problem but also WP:COMPETENCE, apparently. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  17:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Could Ritchie333 please explain what Ikbenfrank is meant to have done wrong? The guy's quiet but is he actually disruptive? I should mention I was canvassed by Ritchie because I reverted one of IkbenFrank's edits three years ago. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to know the answer as well. Yes he's not using edit summaries, but I'm not noticing anything in his edits that's disruptive. And there's nothing recent on his talk page to indicate there's a problem. If there is then no one has engaged with him. Canterbury Tail talk 18:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, I can see complaints about unconstructive editing on Gloucestershire and Cheltenham, original research Rail Safety and Standards Board and Southern Railway strike (2016-2017), alleged hoaxes on Glastonbury, plus this earlier ANI thread. Individually, there's not a lot, but put it together and it all seems to boil down to him not discussing things during content disputes. Anyway, at least here provides him the ability to tell his side of the story. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I guess I'd not be neutral on this. And I'm not perfect and have made several errors dealing with user, including raising the aforementioned ANI thread. A typical problem issue might be revision 801553383 on Paddington (This is Paddington the area of London - the station has its own article) for example. Now within the context of the Paddington area article it may be (just) relevant to mention Paddington is the London railway terminus for Fishguard the and ferry to Rosslare (though there are no longer direct trains). However the actual edit made is over the top with regards to detail in my opinion; and the article will likely need to cleaned up sometime. Some edits by user are useful but the over-emphasis on e.g. railways can mean articles are in my opinion disproportionality railway orientated. Newtownforbes would be an example of a useful contribution. It feels like the user pops up every 2 to 4 weeks, does some minor edits that will be passable and does others that seem how far his pet interests can be pushed into articles; then lies low (I may be unfair in saying this). As a number of people revert his edits without warnings or have given up putting stuff on his talk page it tends to not have many current issues, or perhaps just one. There is a real risk he is relying on wikipedians assuming good faith and doing monthly edits to avoid recent warnings. As some may/should have noticed he has communicated with me on my talk page with regard to a previous issue following my reversion of a number of edits ... I don't really have an answer. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC). Please be aware that after becoming aware of Newtownforbes and mentioning it above I decided to work a little on the article .. initially because of tweaking some of IkbenFrank's content and restoring/reworking content deleted by Ritchie333 and subsequently to work on the Castleforbes demesne section. While somewhat serving as an example of how article improvement works I was not expecting to work on the Newtownforbes when I first mentioned it here and would not have given it as an example if I was expecting that, this being a slight distraction in this ANI section.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC) I've also just done a fairly bold edit on the Paddington article for reasons far deeper than IkbenFrank's contribution.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Extremely unfair you creep! — Preceding unsigned comment added by IkbenFrank (talk • contribs)

Not helpful IkbenFrank. Do you have anything constructive to add to this conversation instead of calling people names? Wikipedia is a community and if people raise questions about some of your edits you need to respond to them otherwise admins etc will only get one side of the story. Canterbury Tail talk 11:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Thankyou for responding IkbenFrank (talk · contribs). I assume you are referring to my possible explanation of your pattern of timelines of contributions. I accept it is perfectly possible that you may simply allocate say one or two days a month to Wikipedia contributions. I think what people are finding is that you are making large proportion of (non-trivial) edits that are needing to be reverted or reworked. I think other contributors to this section would wish you to make more positive comments. For example I suggest a good start is to ensure you sign your talk page contributions with 4 tildes and as Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) has suggested ensure you use edit summaries - You can set an auto-reminder for those by : Perferences, Editting tab, Then checking: Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Responding positively in this way this will likely stand you in better stead with others. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Blocked user AmyWeatherspoon63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be using her account at AmyWeatherspoon63 (doppelganger) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to create draft articles. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

It's because I love creating articles about fictional amusement parks and attractions. That's why I created Draft:Yellowstone Sky Seeker. Not to mention I'm Mothra's biggest fan. ----AmyWeatherspoon63's doppelganger (Talk to my main account) 01:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, good. You might have thought she was violating policy but no, she loves creating articles about fictional amusement parks and attractions. That's why she created Draft:Yellowstone Sky Seeker. Not to mention she's Mothra's biggest fan. And she's also obviously not a grody old man roleplaying as a braindead teenage girl. Nothing to see here, move along. 107.195.20.170 (talk) 01:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Let's give her a fictional Wikipedia to play with. Count Iblis (talk) 02:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• We don't allow the creation of alt accounts to evade a block. Sock blocked.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Please also block MothraFanGirl1763 (talk · contribs), who has also popped up. --MuZemike 22:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Unhatted. I'm not done and will find out who this is. Will report back shortly.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 10:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• I believe that I have found him and have filed the SPI case.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I've just CSD G3 a series of Draft pages, rolled back a bunch of edits to mainspace and reported additional socks as vandals . Check my edits before this post if interested. Legacypac (talk) 17:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Involved articles: IBM PC DOS, TRS-80 character set, VGA connector, VGA-compatible text mode

Relevant diffs: [208], [209] (reversion of removal of redundant link and reversion of italicization of computer/video game title, respectively)

It seems as though I've fallen into a case of rules lawyering and "policy" enforcement from User:Deacon Vorbis. He has decided that he must (at all costs) revert my edits to articles that he personally dislikes (per WP:NOTBROKE)), even if it fixes punctuation or redundant linking. This really is quite passive-aggressive on his part; I've tried discussing the matter politely with him but he seems to think that whatever his thoughts on policy are are the final word and no other action by other editors are valid. As a long-time editor and administrator, this doesn't really sit well with me having my proper (not merely good faith) edits reverted by an editor with less than two years of editing experience. I'm not going to play games here and get sucked into WP:3RR and other childish editing games.

He also seems incapable of any non-"black-and-white" thinking on objective matters (such as Wikipedia guidelines (which are not rules or laws) governing this project. I suspect I stumbled into editing articles in his "pet" area (math and technology) and that he feels the need to invoke "Protecting the valor of Wikipedia at all costs", which is a wreckless sort of mindset; we're all supposed to be working together toward the common goal of making information avaiable to people on the internet worldwide, not working against each other.

Involved party (Deacon Vorbis) needs to re-evaluate his view of Wikipedia policy and not act rashly before reverting experienced non-vandal editors. Bumm13 (talk) 03:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

If there's a dispute, and a guideline says to do things one way, why not just follow the guideline? I don't understand why you're making a big deal of this. Instead of escalating this to ANI, you should have said, "Oh, so I don't have to waste my time changing links that aren't broken? That's good news. Thank you for pointing that out. Cheers." In fact, it's not too late for you to say that now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you understand: it's not okay to revert edits involving removing redundant links and italicization of video game titles (per the diffs posted above). Also, this has effectively prevented me from editing any articles until this issue is resolved. That isn't acceptable and is borderline harassment. Bumm13 (talk) 03:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indeed, I was a bit overzealous on a couple of those reverts; I should only have reverted the parts I was objecting to. Let's gloss over whether my actions were "passive-aggressive" or whether or not I've actu[[User:Deacon Vorbisally "decided that I must (at all costs) revert your edits". I'll try to be brief here; I can go into more detail if anyone wants. I said it might be actually be helpful to escalate, but that first you should explain why your edits were okay. My view is that the gist of WP:NOTBROKEN is pretty much just, "If a link works, then don't screw with it without a good reason". But you didn't explain; you just tried to throw around the fact that you've been here longer (I guess?) and then went ahead and escalated here.

Guidelines make it helpful so that us poor, misguided, inexperienced editors can actually have some frame of reference when we see someone making changes like this. If you find it necessary to go against the guidelines on such a regular basis, then you can always modify the guidelines so it's clear for those without the vast accrued wisdom to see why it's okay.

Seeing as how this was barely discussed, I think it would be best for this matter to just be closed and let it try to sort itself out. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 03:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The matter can't be closed if you don't at least undo the part of your reversions to IBM PC DOS and TRS-80 character set involving my removal of redundant links and italicization of a video game title link, as those are legitimate edits regardless of our views on WP:NOTBROKEN and avoiding redirects. Bumm13 (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh for fuck's goodness sake. If you really want to make me do it, then fine; it's done. But if you're going to continue editing in violation of WP:NOTBROKEN, then you should really update the guideline. The rest of us aren't psychic, especially when you won't explain why you're doing it. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 04:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Leaving aside the merits of the edits for a moment, let's look at: "As a long-time editor and administrator, this doesn't really sit well with me having my proper (not merely good faith) edits reverted by an editor with less than two years of editing experience." Hmmm. That "doesn't really sit well" with me at all. Some folks could view that kind of statement as an attempt to "throw your weight around". I'm sure that's not the intention, but you might bear it in mind, nevertheless. I agree with NRP that there was no need to escalate this to this noticeboard. -- Begoon 04:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Nothing in the OP's approach to this whole issue sits at all well. I know standards for granting adminship were pretty lax in 2005, but I didn't realise that they were that lax. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Talk:IBM PC DOS has not been edited since February 2017, and the last substantive comment made at that page was in July 2012. Johnuniq (talk) 04:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• In the light of the behaviour shown in this whole dispute, including the ongoing failure to explain why the WP:NOTBROKE guideline shouldn't be followed in these cases, should Bumm13 continue to be an administrator? That editor has obviously displayed an inappropriate temperament for that role per WP:ADMINACCT and WP:CIR. This behaviour is akin to that of a D-list celebrity who says "do you know who I am?" when refused a table at a fully booked restaurant. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you should prejudge me any more than another other editor here (including myself not prejudging others). At least take a look at my previous edits over the years and my ability to (mostly) avoid on-site controversy. After a day of reflection, I know I didn't handle the situation as well as I could have, but I don't think that this episode should define my ability to be a competent admin. I also find it somewhat curious that you bring these character issues up given you don't have an actual username; it's okay to be to edit anonymously as an IP but it seems odd that you seem so interested in on-site policies without bothering to even register a username. Just a small thing, though. Bumm13 (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I had no idea that User:Bumm13 was an admin. This filing was preceded by a filing at the dispute resolution noticeboard that appeared to have been filed by a clueless newbie who did not precede the filing by discussion on an article talk page. It appears to have been filed by a clueless admin. I suggest that this report be closed as the filing of a clueless admin who doesn't know how to be an experienced editor, and I thought admins were supposed to be experienced editors. Is there a remedial course for admins who don't know how Wikipedia works? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Wow, he really is an admin. That's disturbing. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

(e/c) Pretty much a c/paste of that DR filing, now you point it out. I'm concerned though, Robert, that Bumm13 might "find it somewhat curious" that you and I bring issues up here, or that it might not "sit well" with them. I'm trying to understand the 'caste system' they appear from their comments in this thread to apply to such judgments. We are neither of us IP editors, having both "bothered to" register usernames, so that seems to be a pass; we have both edited for well over 2 years, so that looks ok; but neither of us are admins, so that could be a stumbling block, I'm not sure. -- Begoon 04:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

My reply was to User:86.17.222.157, not you or User:Robert McClenon. Bumm13 (talk) 04:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know. (Mine and SBHB's were to Robert - which was apparent until you "top-posted" above them with the wrong indent.) Not sure why that's relevant to what I said, though? -- Begoon 04:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Robert, I would be delighted for you to "show me how Wikipedia works"; clearly I'm completely unable to understand very simple concepts (like responding to you at this page). Not really sure what your "remedial" comment was trying to accomplish, but it sure doesn't seem like WP:AGF or anything of the sort. So I don't know all the ins and outs of how specific noticeboards work here on Wikipedia? Dealing with user or content disputes isn't where I choose to spend my time when editing. I posted here after finding out that, sure enough, WP:DRN was the wrong place for dispute resolution with another editor. Let's stick to the purpose of this noticeboard (dispute resolution) and consider toning down the snarky comments. Bumm13 (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Bumm13 - The first rule about posting to noticeboards is to read any instructions at the top of the noticeboard. That isn't really a difficult rule.

The instructions at the top of DRN say: "The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN." You posted almost the same complaint about the editing of links as you posted here at DRN, with no discussion on article talk pages. It is true that my comment about remedial education was snarky, but it was deserved, because experienced editors, whether admins or not, are expected at least to know to read the instructions. Maybe that doesn't matter to you, but it does matter to the DRN volunteers, and you wasted our time by filing a complaint without the preceding discussion. I assumed, in closing it, that you were a clueless newbie who didn't yet know to read the instructions, but who had (after a little reading) found a place to complain. You are not a clueless newbie. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Bumm13, the problem isn't just your competence, but also your attitude, which you displayed again in that post, that arguments can be won by pulling rank rather than by explaining your actions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

And I'm not the one doing any prejudging here, but have only based anything that I have said on your actions. You are the one who is prejudging people on the basis of their non-admin status, their shorter history of editing than yours and my unregistered status. Why the fuck (I have a shorter fuse than User:Deacon Vorbis so won't redact that word) didn't you follow User:NinjaRobotPirate's advice above that "it's not too late for you to say that now". It now is (or at least should be on the basis of your intransigence) too late. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Since a few hours ago, an IP user has been constantly undoing recent changes, either made by a user/IP or a bot. Meanwhile, this user issues bogus user warnings claiming the reverted user's edits were unconstructive. Admins have been working hard blocking them, but once an IP gets blocked, the user simply switches to a new one. Examples include these IP's contributions:

• 153.163.97.60
• 98.200.10.137
• 60.112.23.195
• 118.96.201.85
• 46.150.88.31
• 114.17.235.146
• 184.22.210.191

There are a lot more I won't be listing, as they can mostly be found at WP:AIV's edit history at least since here. It's been over 3 hours and still ongoing, so posting this to request attention from admins, as well as anyone willing to revert similar edits made by new IP's. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 03:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Jastorga - 4th warning. Thanks. (WP:AIV is protected) 174.17.207.124 (talk) 04:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for WP:SOAPBOX violations. Probably not here to constructively contribute, but the worst that happens is that we end up back here tomorrow. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. The event in question will be over by tomorrow. 174.17.207.124 (talk) 04:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Can we block a particular vandal who keeps disrupting articles related to Yonggary (character)? Multiple IPs are being used, all from Sandy, Texas. Armegon has been particularly plagued by this vandal. A rangeblocks should do it, on 2602:306:839B:77F0:x, plus a single block of 104.57.183.127, who was previously blocked for three days in June.[210]

An example series of edits may be seen here, where the vandal writes his own unreferenced analysis of the filmmakers' motives ("Made to cash in on Pacific Rim and The Upcoming Godzilla remake") along with a copy/paste of some plot text taken word-for-word from online sources published a month earlier. Another example of the vandal's original analysis was placed here, comparing multiple films, unreferenced, written poorly. Binksternet (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

2602:306:839b:77f0::/64 is the range. I also collapsed the lists above to make this section more legible. – Nihlus (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Binksternet summarized it perfectly. There's nothing else I can say except that I (and others) have been playing whack the mole with this person for the past few months with no end in sight. This person's edits are unconstructive. Just today, I even left a warning on this person's talk page and an hour or so later, proceeded to restore his previous unconstructive edits that I reverted before warning him on his talk page. Enough is enough. Action must be taken against this person. His edits are not benefitting the affected articles. One 3-day block didn't teach him a lesson, perhaps a permanent block will do the trick. Armegon (talk) 02:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• I blocked 2602:306:839b:77f0::/64 and 104.57.183.127 for a week. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)