Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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

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

---

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

Start a new discussion

BLP revdel on the Gamergate Talk page

Discussion

I am asking for a review for a revdel made on the Gamergate Talk page. The edit was made by MarkBernstein, who has since been topic-banned (not for this edit or anything directly related to this). It is verbatim, a passage from the Washington Post article, so cannot be deemed "unsourced or poorly sourced", which is the criteria for BLP removals without consensus. Ironically, the passage which was redacted is debunking/casting doubt on the allegations. I am not even allowed to refer to what it was about, since my edit was also revdeled. The link to the Washington Post article is here. The relevant passage starts with: There is, to be clear.

Various rationales have been advanced on the talk page (see discussion here), but none of them stand up to scrutiny. IMO, this is a wild overreaction. The normalization of this kind of overreaction and weaponization of BLP on the talkpage has poisoned discussion and led to lots of strife, both pro- and anti-GG, for more than a year. Anyone who has engaged in discussion on WP knows how aggravating it is to have your comments refactored or redacted, by people who you don't particularly like. It's time this behaviour was rolled back. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Why? Wikipedia is not an exercise in free speech or anything else unrelated to development of the encyclopedia. Is someone suggesting an article should include mention of the person named in the linked article? What is the purpose of posting the link other than because we can? Editors should stick to discussion of actionable proposals that might plausibly improve the article, not prolong the agony of gamergate. Johnuniq (talk) 12:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• I am quite unclear on what criteria are used to determine when to delete a revision on that talk page. Further, the practice of deleting verifiable information about claims which are relevant to (or already in) the article from the talk page is infantilizing. Protonk (talk) 13:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• WP:BLPTALK is quite clear that where potentially problematic BLP info is *being discussed for inclusion in the article* a link to the source that will be used as a reference should be included on the talk page. Pasting an except from the source is not required (or even recommended if it turns out it is an issue) likewise if the material is not actually going to be included in the article at all then there is no need to discuss it on the talk page. From looking (briefly) at the talkpage, it looks like this is a case of the latter rather than the former. Washington Times (a reliable source) excerpt pasted by Mark Bernstein, no actual discussion for anything to be included into the article, so its basically pasting BLP-sensitive material for no purpose. It probably should have been removed and rev-del' unless there actually is going to be a discussion about incorporating it into the article. Then a link to the material should remain. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I disagree that it is so clear. Here's what BLPTALK has to say "When seeking advice about whether to publish something about a living person, be careful not to post so much information on the talk page that the inquiry becomes moot." I cannot interpret that as an injunction against talking about it there, considering how much was on the talk page about the subject before. And given that amount of discussion, we shouldn't expect that the content would never appear on the page. If it were to appear, how would editors working on a contentious topic discuss the changes to the page, the author's meaning or the veracity of the claims without running afoul of that interpretation? Protonk (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Well its not an injunction not to talk about it. The point is that you talk about it *if you are attempting to work it into the article* - I cant see that anyone was. It was just Bernstein doing his usual soapboxing - which is why I support it being removed on that basis. If it was intended to be a proposal to incorporate it into the article, it should have been linked to and discussed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
      • We're talking about this edit, correct? Sure, it's turned up to 11 and what-not, but the underlying ask seems clear to me. As I say below, they contrast it with an extant source in an ongoing discussion about how/if the subject should be portrayed in the article. How is that not a reasonable interpretation? Protonk (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• The revdel was appropriate. The content included highly defamatory material about a living person. Just because some newspaper decides to publish unsubstantiated rubbish doesn't mean we can repeat it when not particularly relevant. Wikipedia era on the side of protecting the reputations of living people. Mark was trying to make a point, but in the process exposed this defamatory material. It would be sufficient to say Gamergqte tactics include opposition research and publication of unsubstantiated claims. It is not acceptable to repeat the unsubstantiated claims on Wikipedia. Our standards are higher than many newspapers. Jehochman ^Talk 13:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Horseapples. On what planet does that article contain defamatory material? I guess if we jumble the words in the article and re-arrange them to recreate the defamation the article was discussing that could work. Protonk (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Well technically the linked Washington Post article does repeat allegations about a living person *which if untrue* would be highly defamatory. However it would not be Wikipedia defaming the subject, it would be the people making the allegations. The Washington Post would probably get a free ride too given they are merely reporting said allegations. But I repeat, unless any of this is actually going to be incorporated into the article (which it could theoretically be, given the subject was fired from her job after allegedly a long period of harrassment by Gamergate) it shouldnt be on the talkpage at all. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
      • I edit conflicted w/ a reply above that might related here. There was and is talk page discussion about the subject, so inclusion of the material is not a remote consideration. And I'm not clear on your meaning about the Post. We make countless claims on this encyclopedia that if false would be defamatory. To justify this, we rely on sources like the post as a matter of course. I'm not saying quoting out the gate is the right route. BLPTALK (as you say) warns against it. But certainly redaction of the quotes is strongly preferable to deleting the material from history. Especially since if you read the comment from beginning to end it's clearly about including the material in the article and makes references to ongoing discussions about a different source they feel is inferior on the same subject. Protonk (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
        • Ah clearly I didnt read up far enough on the talkpage as I was stopping at Kingsindian's posts where he states that it wasnt about including it in the article. Since concensus already existed to remove the material from the article, revdel'ing what is clearly a BLP1E issue on the talkpage where no one is actually having a current discussion to include it still isnt that bad. (I get the feeling from the above talkpage discussion that the only person really for inclusion was Bernstein, and given his anti-GG viewpoint, unsurprising). Personally I would have just archived the lot which would be complaint with the BLP policy, but some people are more zealous about it. Re to Kingsindian below: If it isnt being currently discussed to go into the article, then it really shouldnt be on the talkpage. This isnt problematic in 99% of articles. It is potentially problematic with regards to living people. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

To some of the comments above. Nobody said anything about free speech, so that is a red herring. Also, the discussion is about discussion on the talkpage, not the article. I find the standard that "if it shouldn't be in the article, it shouldn't be on the talkpage" rather silly. Nobody uses such a standard: otherwise 99% of the talk page history would consist of revdels. And please don't make me laugh with the claim that Wikipedia's standards of defamation are higher than the Washington Post. Not to mention that there is nothing defamatory in the paragraph: it is literally the opposite of defamatory; it is debunking/casting doubt on the allegations.

The main point is that WP:BLP is not a micromanaging tool to get rid of stuff one doesn't like. The effect of such (arbitrary) redactions is to inflame matters and confuse people. The redaction was a tit-for-tat action against an earlier redaction. This kind of stuff has to end. Follow policy as written and roll back the new normal. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• I reverted your changes to the format. I doubt there's need for a poll like that in this discussion. Protonk (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Protonk: In fairly adequate experience in the Israel-Palestine area, I have found that in most discussions, most people don't change their mind. This format of "Discussion" and "Survey" is routine in RfCs I have participated in. I have reverted to the format. I meant to do this from the beginning, but forgot. There is no harm in it anyway. The closer would take it all into account. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I have left notices at WT:BLP and WP:VPP. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose revdel. See my reasoning above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsindian (talk • contribs)
• Oppose - any quote showing up in a reliable source, used in a discussion as evidence to your side in an argument, shouldn't be redacted. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose revdel if for no other reason doing so might cause, at some later point, the same thing to be discussed again. Having a record visible of exactly what was discussed, and, presumably, found not worthy for inclusion makes it less likely that similar discussion on the same topic will be actively initiated in the future. If the source were a more questionable or less reliable one, then, maybe, I could see some point in removing it, but I don't think that would necessarily be the case here. John Carter (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

  @John Carter: The first revdel removed a single word; the second a quote from an external source that was (and still is) linked in the discussion. I don't think those two removals make the discussion unclear—they simply avoid the allegations being repeated onwiki until a consensus is formed about whether it should be included in the article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure what question this is a survey of. Whether or not an edit is violating BLP policy is a judgment call by an administrator and shouldn't be a matter put to a vote. If an admin believes the specific content maligns an individual's reputation and has no place in an article, they remove it. If you have a specific complaint about this particular rev-del, I'd take the issue to admin responsible for the action. If you are interested in a meta or policy discussion about whether the interpretation of BLP these days is too broad, I'd go to the policy talk page or the Village Pump, not ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

  @Liz: For what it's worth, it has been brought to me. I stand by the the revdel, and will not be undoing it myself (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=715839454}). I too was a little surprised to see this at ANI—for some reason I thought revision deletion was discussed at WP:DRV—but I suppose this works too. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

  The WP:revdel policy says that "They are subject to review by other administrators (who can see redacted material), and to reversal upon clear, wider consensus." Do you have a suggestion of another way of establishing clear consensus to reverse a revdel other than discussion and polling? Sperril (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• I can't view the deleted revision but I looked at the Washington Post article and it seems fine to me. BLP1E is about whether to write an article about a person, not about revdelling a link on a talk page. For one thing, BLP1E deletions are usually done after a week-long community discussion at AfD with the article visible during the discussion, not unilaterally by admins at their whim before anyone sees what happened. It's hard for me to understand how this revdel is justified. I'm open to persuasion but I'd appreciate a more detailed explanation from the defenders. As someone who likes to look at page histories, I get that revdel is sometimes needed, and it doesn't bother me too much if occasional inappropriate revdels get through. But if they're being done too casually and not being restored when challenged, it contributes to a perceived tension between admins and users that sometimes gets remarked on here and that could potentially escalate various ways. It doesn't seem good. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 06:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC) Added: I'll have to look at some of the diffs given later. I won't be able to post again for the next few days. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 06:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: The increasingly widespread belief that BLP enjoins us from ever saying anything defamatory about a living subject is a fallacy: Wikipedia has many things to say about tens of thousands of living subjects that I expect they would desperately prefer be censored, if they weren't backed up with the ironclad sourcing that is what BLP actually requires. Jehochman's airy belief about we have higher standards than most newspapers is very well and good (if both unsubstantiated and unwarranted), but we're not talking about the National Enquirer or the local supermarket free weekly. We're talking one of the half-dozen newspapers that constitute the gold standard for journalism in the hemisphere. Ravenswing 07:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose -- unquestionably reliable source and relevant to the discussion. No possible harm, since the original source is very widely read, and trying to keep it off WP is in contrast of minor significance to the individual. Had this been a miscellaneous blog, wheere it would be us that is primarily publicizing the matter, I would have said otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 21:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

IP hopping troll back?

A troll who has been hopping on IP range 86.187.x.x (last discussed here) seems to have returned on 31.55.89.19 (talk · contribs). Can somebody investigate and see if a new/revised rangeblock is appropriate? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Yep, same chap. See also 31.55.127.56 (talk · contribs), 31.55.93.53 (talk · contribs) and he reverted Eik Corell, his other m.o., using 31.55.112.2 (talk · contribs) [1] last week. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

That's a big range, but there's only about 100 contributions from it since April 1, and a significant plurality of those are disruptive. I'll block 31.55.64.0/18 for one week. ACC is always available. Katie^talk 17:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I haven't come into contact with the 31. range, rather, it's still the 86.187 range for me, with the latest being 86.187.161.103 (talk · contribs). Eik Corell (talk) 02:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

They're both BT ranges, Eik. We realised that the 86.187 range meddles with airline articles as did the 31.55 range who also reverted one of your edits. I've blocked the latest IP as straightforward block evasion and will look into this a bit more later today. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I just remembered: One of the first IPs this year doing edits in the style of the 86.187 range was indeed an IP in the 31. range. Eik Corell (talk) 03:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that pretty much confirms that it's the same person. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

This editor also edits under 31.50, 31.54, and 31.49 I believe, as well as other closely numbered 86.15x IPs. Tends to focus on video games and television from what I can see, and deliberately ignores establish project guidelines and edit war with any editor that reverts, including walking through contribution histories and mass reverting. Talk page messages are undone with no reply. It's a constant back and forth. I haven't been gathering a full list but some of the more recent Mar/Apr ones have been 31.54.6.123, 86.155.134.8, 86.158.232.106, and 81.158.219.34 ... Those four just from Quantum Break. The unfortunate thing is the editor would be making solid contributions if they wouldn't fight against various project guidelines.... -- ferret (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• Latest IP, only one edit so far but it was to revert @Eik Corell again... 86.187.161.15 -- ferret (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
• Now on IP 86.187.162.253. -- ferret (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
• And now on IP 86.187.167.37. What can be done about a range block? @KrakatoaKatie and Malcolmxl5 -- ferret (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, ferret, I've blocked and semi-protected pages. I'll have another look at all this and the range block.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• And now 217.38.96.72 (talk · contribs). My, does this guy have nothing else to live for? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

And now 217.38.179.4 (talk · contribs). This is another BT range. Not much we can do with those at the moment except block the latest one. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The possibility of contacting their ISP remains. I have contacted them about this user twice. They did respond the first time, after an incredibly long time, but at that point, I was being asked to provide server logs, which I didn't and do not have access to, and the user had stopped their disruptive behavior, so I let it go. With the recent editing, I contacted the ISP again with any and all details I could, including AN/I reports, all IP's used from the beginning of 2016, all the way back to some of the IPs used by the user over 6 years ago to establish that this was a recurring problem. No response so far, but maybe you guys will have more luck if you swing around some big words and phrases when you contact them; Adminstrator on Wikipedia, entire ranges of their dynamic IP's being blocked from editing if they don't act, etc. Oh by the way, new IP. Eik Corell (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The most recent IP addresses are BT Wi-fi ranges so they may not even be a BT customer. If they are, it could be that without server logs the IP addresses are not enough to identify the user. Peter James (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

And 217.38.81.161 (talk · contribs) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Curiously, this one: 78.145.31.100 (talk · contribs), just came back to edit the same article it had edited a few days before. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

109.156.64.61 (talk · contribs) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

These look like two different editors - one undoing edits by Eik Corell on video game articles, the other editing airline articles. This one looks likely for the airport editor (although this time on BT Broadband) but the 78.145 (TalkTalk) IP may be unrelated. Peter James (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Latest with aircraft is 217.38.126.10 (talk · contribs). The guy now uses each IP in short bursts for a few pages, then moves on. Previously, the reverting of Eik and the fiddling with aircraft were done by the same IP while it was in use. Another IP editor with a momentarily coincidental editing pattern could easily be mistaken for them. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I thought so at first, too, but immediately after I reverted some of of the 217. IP edits, this happened. Circumstantial I know, but quite a coincidence. Eik Corell (talk)

I haven't found any IPs that connect them (although I've only looked at the 86.187 range) but haven't found both editing at the same time either so a connection looks likely. Peter James (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

There are several articles which this editor returns to war on again and again. Can I suggest that we semi-protect them for a while, until other measures can be refined? Happy to compile a list of the aero ones if asked. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Here we go again in the guise of 217.38.148.252‎ (talk · contribs). Pages re-abused this time include:

• Rossiya Airlines
• Thomas Cook Airlines
• Thomson Airways
• TUI Airlines Netherlands
• EgyptAir
• Air Transat
• Jet2.com
• List of airlines of Cyprus

So please, can we do some damage limitation and semi-protect while the negotiations drag on. This is a hot edit war not a UN negotiation. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hot war now

• Jet2.com [2][3]
• Rossiya Airlines [4]
• China Eastern Airlines [5]

Can somebody PLEASE semi-protect the worst afflicted pages! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Calm down. I'm working on it. I've blocked 217.38.0.0/16 for ten days (which is a big freakin' range but there's 150 edits in last month with lots of disruption), and now I'll look at this guy. Katie^talk 18:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay. I've blocked 86.187.160.0/21 for three months - I've blocked this range before, in February, and Future Perfect blocked it previously as well. I've blocked 86.163.94.157 on its own for now and I'm going to leave your articles unprotected because I want more data from the range. I can't rangeblock him with the other /21 because that's an ISP-level block. Katie^talk 18:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I guess being in the front line makes one nervous. Meanwhile I made a request for page protection, you may wish to close that - or should I simply withdraw it myself? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I made a note there. The bot won't archive it until an RFPP template is added so it will stay up until we act. Katie^talk 19:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Ban proposal for that UK referendum guy...

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

---

...aka Opinion polling for the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, given his long-term pattern of reckless disruption and harrassment towards editors like Favonian and the like. GeneralizationsAreBad is in favour of it, but what do you guys think? Blake Gripling (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• (Weak) support. It's somewhat of a formality—he's already de facto banned anyway (no admin familiar with his behaviour is going to unblock him). In theory de facto or community banned makes no difference, but in practice it's easier to have a formal ban discussion and the notice on the banned editor's userpage to point to, because recognition of a de facto ban hinges somewhat on familiarity with the case. Admittedly, in this case the SPI case page with its dozens-upon-dozens of socks serves much of the same role when it comes to having a place to point to (hence the "weak" part of my support), so the absence of the discussion-and-tag isn't a big deal in this case. Nonetheless, having them wouldn't hurt the 'pedia any. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Struck the "weak" part of my support, as he's by now becoming prolific enough that already de-facto banned or no, mile-long SPI-record or no, there's no doubt left at all that a formal ban is welcome. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Weak support for the reasons mentioned above. The socks can just be blocked as vandalism-only accounts, since the edits are either harassment or disruption and will be reverted anyhow. For a case like Nsmutte, a ban is more helpful, because their edits are not blatant vandalism. Still, I see no reason not to slap another notice onto the userpage. Note also that the stated master is definitely not the original master. (I have now switched to full support, considering it would help get them blocked on sight based on their usernames before they cause too much damage.) GAB^Hello! 02:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support although their names are constantly ridiculous enough that they just get blocked on site. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Well it certainly would make no sense to block them off-site. EEng 22:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

EEng#s I meant "blocked on sight" i.e. as soon as someone sees them on here, they block them anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, duh! EEng 01:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support don't see why not. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support as the user space vandalism is getting out of hand. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 09:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support The behavior is unacceptable. Causing damage at an unacceptable level. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 00:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support I think it makes sense to have this down as a formality...TJH2018 talk 17:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support As a formality. User is here to do nothing but disrupt the project. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Per RickinBaltimore. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support per OP. Linguist 111^talk 17:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support - It's clear that this user intends to be disruptive and blatantly so. A formal ban will make administrative actions easier as far as blocks and enforcement. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support I have little respect for persistently disruptive sockmasters. Let's dot the I's and cross the T's. Blackmane (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

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

User page and actions, User:SheriffIsInTown

User page clearly intended to offend, most notably the section "Weapons of Mass Production" with link to image of human penis, a clear reference to rape. This person states that they are a Pakistani national acting as law enforcement (police-car lights and user name, and user boxes) while carrying on a deletionist campaign on pages to do with Bangladesh. The combination appears to be a reference to Operation Searchlight, a campaign of murder carried out in the name of law enforcement by Pakistani military, with the aim of exterminating Bangladesh intellectuals and Bengali culture. This person surely doesn't belong in a project to build an encyclopedia. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

It's a nice hypothesis drawn by the complainant but let me explain to whoever is looking at his complaint. My user page is nothing more than a fun. I definitely did not mean "rape" by "Weapons of Mass Production", its the imagination drawn out by the complainant. I like to categorize the pages that i work on in different sections in police terminology and i did not find any better and fun terminology than this to describe the article Human penis on my user page. There is no deletionist campaign by me on Bangladesh pages. If any content was removed from Bangladesh pages then there must have been a policy reason to do that, for example "content not properly sourced" etc. Here is an example (Removed 5,555 bytes from "Bahawalnagar" for reason "Revert unsourced additions") where i removed content from Pakistan pages which was not sourced and there can be many more examples given like this. "The combination appears to be a reference to Operation Searchlight" is a hypothesis drawn by the complainant which is a BS to put it mildly. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

SheriffIsInTown is harassing me continuously from many days. He is supposed to cooperate with newcomers but rather he is involve in WP:BITE. He also tried to spam my talk page. Infact, he reported me at WP:AE in sheer bad faith presenting me there as an nationalist edit warrior (which I am clearly not) by distorting and mispresenting edit diffs. ([6]) He also tried to connect me with unknown IP's. Apparently he is leaving no chance to attack users who are opposing him on talk page. ([7], not just this, one should go and check revision history of the talk page and count the number of offensive personal attack he did to those users who are opposing him on talk page-rfc).

The above user is accusing others including me of being nationalist and just because *I don't share his POV*. A quick look at revision history of the page and other related pages will show that this user has a strong pro- Pakistan Army bias and battleground mentality (as also noted by other users on talk page). He is repeatedly removing mass contents from Bangladesh related pages (that he doesn't like). [8], [9] large scale POV pushing and edit warring on all Bangladesh related pages (1971 Bangladesh genocide, Bangladesh Liberation War, Mukti Bahini, Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War). He is doing this all from a long time now.

Administrators also please note that he is harassing other users including me by dropping a 3RR template on user's talk pages when they hardly make two reverts [10], [11] but he is edit warring on these pages for what, many months now (just check the revision history of Bangladesh related pages like this) as noted by other users [12] [13]. Note to forget he will go and remove mass contents from *Mukti Bahini and then edit war against multiple users, same is the case here [14]. Actually he violated 3RR straight up.

• 18:16 20 April 2016
• 18:20 20 April 2016
• 17:31 21 April 2016
• 17:50 21 April 2016

administrators please note the time and date these 4 reverts are very well within 24 hours (well much more if we count reverts made by this user on same page within 1½ day).

He was told by atleast two users in edit summaries that lead material that is sourced in text is considered sourced and some of them are actually sourced [15], [16] and that he should stop removing mass contents from lead [17]. He was warned on his talk page by User:Thomas and User:LjL for the same can be seen here [18].

Let me also explain RFC case from the starting.

First this user along with his fellow users will try to hijack and convert an NPOV article into a POV article, promoting fringe and preposterous theories (as noted by other users [19], [20], [21]) please see the revision history of the page to get a better understanding.

Then he will go and start a premature RFC (as noted by other users including User:My very best wishes, User:Volunteer Marek, [User:Kautilya3]] and many more) after he see that other uninvolved editors are opposing him at talk page.

Then he will do personal attacks directed towards uninvolved users who are opposing him on talk page ([22])

He has no fear of admins. He is strongly here to push a specific pro-Pakistan Army POV on Bangladesh-India-Pakistan related articles. This user has a clear battleground mentality. Note also previous misbehavior right here at WP:AE, as noted by Administrators Spartaz.... to quote;[23] SheriffIsInTown I have removed your section entirely. Making a nationality based slur on an AE page? Really? Perhaps you could leave a short note on my talk page explaining how your participation in this area adds any value whatsoever as I'm strongly minded to impose a TBan for that edit. Please don't post to this discussion again].ArghyaIndian (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I will reply to his WP:WALLOFTEXT later but right now I am just pointing out his broken links drama, he posted this comment before he posted his statements with broken links at AE and ANI. @ArghyaIndian What do you think all other editors are stupid here? Only you are the smartest! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks like we have two individuals with strong feelings on this issue, also, note this arbitration request made by SherrifIsInTown against ArghyaIndian. He makes a strong case, however, his participation on the Bangladesh Genocide page paints a very different picture of him than what he presents here. This may require admin assistance.

If I may suggest, both of you should edit articles away from Bangladesh Genocide or any individuals or groups associated with it and allow this dispute to cool down. If not both of you may wind up with some sort of restrictions or blocks, neither of you have particularity clean hands in this issue. KoshVorlon ..Doves cried 04/21/2016 15:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi @KoshVorlon:, your comment is much appreciated but i did not understand the piece "his participation on the Bangladesh Genocide page paints a very different picture of him than what he presents here". Can you please explain who were you referring to? If you were referring to me, can you please further explain what do you mean by that. As i can understand i followed the proper procedures on 1971 Bangladesh genocide , i participated in talk sessions when the matter could not be resolved otherwise, when talk could not bring a consensus, i started an RfC. I do not think there was anything bad about it. Yes, it might be a poor RfC as it had multiple disputed pieces of content in it, not to mention it was my first RfC. I have yet to see if i violated any policies. Otherwise this is just a frivolous ANI request based on imagination and hypothesis of one editor about my userpage and the other is just joining with him because of recent conflicts which i had with him. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you @KoshVorlon:. Some topic ban(s) and/or blocks would be a big help here, and the offensive user page also needs to be cleaned up or deleted entirely. The bickering and flaming using petty interpretations of wikipedia policies and "the matter could not be resolved otherwise" as weapons, has been tiresomely proceeding on several talk pages, and, as has been so well demonstrated above, seems unlikely to become subdued any time soon. Wikipedia:WikiProject Bangladesh needs a chance to repair the pages that have been damaged by this warfare, and the project risks losing those level-headed participants who have managed to stomach this mayhem so far. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not seeing anything offensive or mean spirited on their talk page. The implication of "rape" is simply not made, this is something you are seeing that is not there. I have not looked enough to comment on the other allegations, but I have to question your interpretation of the user page. HighInBC 17:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I too have just looked at the user page and can see nothing at all offensive about it. The link to human penis is to our WP page Human penis, not just any random image of a penis. If the OP is arguing this is offensive, then it is our article that is offensive. The reference to "Weapons of mass production" is clearly a bit of fun and totally unrelated to rape. DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Er, the suggestion on the user page is that the human penis and its use for "mass reproduction" is a tool available "law enforcement". Surely that is offensive to law enforcement officers everywhere. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

lol, no it's not what you mean, i suggest, you put your mind to something useful. There is plenty to do on Wikipedia. Remember, you were looking for some sources for Mukti Bahini. Did you add them yet or not? This was really a very bad way to take out that frustration! You went out on witch-hunting and look what you found out and you reported whatever you thought you found bad about me and then made up a fine story. I mean, i commend you for that. That is why WP:OR is not allowed on Wikipedia because people's minds can make up stories and add them to Wikipedia articles, then it's not encyclopedia. That's why i ask people to back their content with sources and people get upset like you did! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

But...bits of fun are my trigger. TimothyJosephWood 17:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Broken links and all that..... Ugh that should not be your concern. Your attempt of harassing and WP:BITE is pretty clear now. You should rather explain that why you mispresented edit diffs and reported me at AE when I have less then 10 edits in combined talk page and page of 1971 Bangladesh Genocide. You do not wanted to reply, that's ok but I will reply to all of your accusations. (administrators note that he is directly attacking me personally right here by using words like "drama", stupid"... so on). I only participated in talk page discussion, voted in RFC, and raised objections at talk. Many uninvolved and experienced users also agreed with my objections. Unfortunately I initially made mistakes while restoring the old stable NPOV lead (in accordance with talk page discussion [24] but I did asked for the help on talk page (you can ask other users like User:My very best wishes to confirm) and user SheriffIsInTown distorted/mis presented those edit diffs and dragged my name there at WP:AE in sheer bad faith (in his attempt of wp:bite.

As noted by other uninvolved users [25] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1971_Bangladesh_genocide&type=revision&diff=715887046&oldid=715882718 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1971_Bangladesh_genocide&type=revision&diff=716232027&oldid=716201835 (please see the page revision history to get a better understanding) there is an ongoing attempt by him to hijack an NPOV article and convert it into POV COATRACK article (All uninvolved and experienced editors pointed out this).

[26] [27] Mass removal of content (even after being warned by many users [28], [29], [30]), large scale POV pushing on all Bangladesh related articles (1971 Bangladesh genocide, Bangladesh Liberation War, Mukti Bahini, Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War). He is edit warring, pushing over the top POV, promoting fringe and preposterous theories on these articles from long time now (as noted by other users on talk pages). Irony here is that he was distribution 3RR templates on other users pages when they hardly make 2 reverts and he violated 3RR yesterday just to remove mass contents from Mukti Bahini page that he doesn't like. Here are diffs.

• 18:16 20 April 2016
• 18:20 20 April 2016
• 17:31 21 April 2016
• 17:50 21 April 2016 I have already explained in depth all this on AE noticeboard. As the rules mentioned right top at the AE noticeboard.If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. based on this, I highly recommend a topic ban for this user (as reasons and evidences provided in my statement at AE).ArghyaIndian (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Arghya claims to be a newcomer yet cites policies like WP:BITE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, know that meatpuppetry is reported under sockpuppetry and know how to produce diffs each of which i did not know until very recently. Arghya claims that he copied/pasted the content from WP Bangladesh to the RfC and IP was not him but you see the IP's comment from WP Bangladesh was removed by me at 09:00, 19 April 2016 and Arghya added the same comment at the RfC at 12:59, 19 April 2016 so he is kind of giving a very lame excuse of copy/paste. Please also note Arghya did not edit between 2 April 2016 and 19 April 2016 and his first edit after 17 days was the vote at RfC. That comment is a clear example of WP:DUCK. His accusation of me violating 3RR is not correct as he is counting consecutive edits. Also the Mujibnagar edit to which he is referring as large scale removal was the removal of unsourced content and all sections of that page were refimprove tagged since April 2009, these are like 7 years if someone wants to add the sources. The matter with Spartaz was resolved on his talk page so there is no point in referring it here again. I don't think there is anything else worth replying but i will do so if an admin directs me to do so. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I am sorry, but this report actually made my day. Thankyou —TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 16:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Boomerang against ArghyaIndian for obvious meatpuppetry

There is a clear evidence that ArghyaIndian acted on behalf of another user when he came to vote in Talk:1971 Bangladesh genocide#‎RfC: Addition of content about Biharis and different figures regarding people killed and women raped and made this comment on 19 April 2016. This was his first edit after a break of 17 days when he made his last edit on 2 April 2016. The reason why I believe that he is involved in meatpuppetry is this edit where he made the mistake of adding the instructions given by another user alongside the actual content, please note the piece in this edit which says "Edit-- Https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_genocide And from "During the nine-month to "END"remove and copy/paste this. Ok?". These are clear instructions given by another editor to this editor which means "Go edit this page and replace the text starting from this point to the end with the version being provided". Even his summary lines are being provided by another editor.

I am requesting that this editor be indeffed based on this evidence, all of his comments be stricken at Talk:1971 Bangladesh genocide.

Hopefully after providing this evidence, I do not need to respond to his WP:WALLOFTEXT in above section but an admin can let me know if I still need to do that.

Please do not close this thread after blocking ArghyaIndian indefinitely as we need to find the other partner in this meatpuppetry. Although, it is quite clear by the edit history of 1971 Bangladesh genocide who that was but I would not name that editor. If admins themselves can identify the other editor then please go ahead and indef the other partner too. That must be an experienced editor who wanted to avoid replacing content along nationalistic lines to avoid discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBIPA. That edit completely changed the meaning of article from one side to the other. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Synthesising and picking one editing mistake and presenting it here with different meanings won't help you. After reporting me twice, it's clear that you are not going to stop harassing me further.

Why don't you just report me again to its relevant noticeboard if you think that my account is being used by someone else or I'm receiving instructions from someone else? If you can report me for vague reasons and for false accusations, you can report me at its relevant noticeboard also. I will consider it odious personal attack if you cannot prove **whatever you have said right now** at its relevant noticeboard. I already replied to your further concerns at my statement at AE and on my talk page. You are going off topic to change the direction of all this started by you when you see that it may hit **you** only. And my edit restored the original lead, but you tried to hijack that article and change the meaning from one side to another (as other users pointed out). And why my comments should be stricken? I have all the rights to comment and you do not own WikipediaArghyaIndian (talk) 07:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I did not know that there was a relevant noticeboard. Which noticeboard you are talking about "newcomer"? Also how about you explain what the following text meant in that edit and who gave you those instructions: "Edit-- Https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_genocide And from "During the nine-month to "END"remove and copy/paste this. Ok?" Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 08:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

uhm. You are trying to play smart here. For a user who is here from two years, it is not possible that they don't know about different noticeboards. You think that you can instil fear in me by making accusations like this but you will only hurt from it. I see how long you try to dodge replying to me. right top at this page (section; Meatpuppet investigations) it says, Meatpuppet investigations are handled together with sockpuppet investigations. Any suspected meat puppets should be reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet­ investigations. So that is the relevant noticeboard. If you failed to prove, then your should either apology otherwise I will seek admins about your repeated attempts of [[WP:BITE|harrasing]­] me and mass removal of contents from Bangladesh related pages. You first tried to harass me by dropping 3RR and other sort of warning templates, and then reported me directly at WP:AE (when I have less then 6-7 edits on that page/talk page combined) and now here at ANI. You know very well that when you report someone at AE, then your own behaviour is examined as well and you may be sanctioned for it (and you are likely to).ArghyaIndian (talk) 12:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, as I said in my statement at AE and on my talk page, this was nothing but a editing mistake. I was trying to restore old lead but I accidently messed up my notepad and messenger stuffs. If you see the link "en.m." Yes that's mobile web link and that link I copy/pasted in my notepad (I make my edits from mobile only) and copy/pasted old version lead in notepad and pasted there but some that sort of stuffs also got pasted. I was about to do self revert but a patrolling user already reverted me. You see my next edit was absolutely correct (which you intentionally reverted [well you got reverted by VM, yourself because I was correct] under some vague reasons of consensus-- when those recent additions were not even discussed on talk).ArghyaIndian (talk) 12:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

No, i am not playing smart, i am honest about it when i say that i did not know that you report meatpuppets at the same place where you report sockpuppets and neither did i know about WP:BITE and WP:BATTLEGROUND until very recently. On the contrary, you know a lot for a newcomer. I agree it was a mistake for you to include the instructions in the content but that mistake gave away your meatpuppetry. I am not denying that you made a mistake. People only expose themselves by mistakes. Nobody purposefully exposes themselves. You have given your statement and i have given mine. I think we need to let admins judge whether that is a clear evidence of meatpuppetry or not. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Umm.... You are clearly lying here. As I said, you are trying to play smart but you are only going to hurt now. Please note that this user only copy and pasted their comment from AE to ANI again (to further harass me) which I have already replied on AE [31] (so I won't do copy/paste again like this user). I will however, reply to his further comments in which he said that they did not edit warred and whatever they did was correct.

1. This user is not replying but is blatantly lying. If one see the revision history of the Mukti Bahini page [32] then this user made around 6-7 reverts within 1½ day (4 reverts well within 24 hours) just to remove mass contents from lead (that was absolutely sourced in text) which is still there. Here are diffs of 3RR violation;

• 18:16, 20 April 2016
• 18:20, 20 April 2016
• 17:31, 21 April 2016
• 17:50, 21 April 2016 and I am not distorting/mispresenting diffs/evidences like you! Three uninvolved users asking him to stop and told him in their edit summaries that lead material that is sourced in text is considered sourced and some of them are actually sourced [33], [34], [35] and that he should stop removing mass contents from lead. He was warned on his talk page by User:Thomas and User:LjL for the same can be seen here [36].

1. A quick look at revision history of these Bangladesh related pages (1971 Bangladesh Genocide, Mukti Bahini, Bangladesh Liberation War, Rape During the Bangladesh Liberation War, etc) shows that this user is edit warring, pushing over the top POV, fringe theories from many months (as almost all the uninvolved user pointed out at article's talk page).

1. This user almost emptied Mujibnagar article by removing mass contents (that he doesn't like) and then edit war against uninvolved user here. Here is the edit diffs in which he emptied the Mujibnagar article [37]

As pointed out by an uninvolved user [38] this person went too far in claiming that some parts were "irrelevant" and in saying that some parts were unsourced when the sources were there as external links. Other uninvolved users also pointed out the same, to quote; One thing I saw was your quest to remove certain relevant and sourced information from multiple pages like here.

1. Also, no your matter with administrator Spartaz was not resolved on their talk page. Infact spartaz further warned you that not to comment on AE otherwise he is strongly minded to impose T-ban for your edits. He did not replied you further because he said that they are on Wikibreak [39], [40].

1. And you are even further lying when you say that you do not no those policies and etc stuff as you can be clearly seen here [41] saying as User:Volunteer Marek have been displaying battleground behavior (as I pointed out, you are here on Wikipedia from two years, so stop fooling others).

1. If no administrator take actions against this user, then it is clear that users like him have a free license to harass inexperienced users. Most importantly, this user is edit warring, pushing his nationalistic point of view (in an global source of knowledge-- Wikipedia) from half a decade atleast. I have said what I need to say here.ArghyaIndian (talk) 12:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

You are just posing here as such, otherwise as I pointed out, you are blatantly lying and distorting diffs. And just to further clarify this. Umm.... You think that someone is using my account or I'm receiving instructions from someone else? So why I did self-revert within a minute? I made one edit on 13:25, 21 April 2016 (I did a editing mistake), self reverted within a minute (13:36, 21 April 2016), made another edit (16:30, 21 April 2016) but again did a editing mistake by messing up my notepad stuffs as said earlier but a patrolling user reverted me within few seconds [16:31, 21 April 2016 Dcirovic (talk | contribs) . . (111,377 bytes) (+1,908) . . (Reverted edits by ArghyaIndian (talk) (HG) (3.1.20)) (Tag: Huggle)] otherwise I was doing self revert myself, my next edit was correct! I did these edits, self reverts, asking help on talk page in barely few minutes, myself and you are saying that no no I was receiving instructions/my account was hijack by someone. Lol! As I said, you are free to report me anywhere you want to clear your suspicion but I bet, you will be forced to apology to me for these personal attacks.ArghyaIndian (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Report a IP-user

Hello there. I want to report an IP-user 86.58.36.235 (talk) who recently removed some neccessary contents at Valon Ahmedi. I re-added contents without reverting his entire edits (some edits were useful) but he reverted my entire edit. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Eni.Sukthi.Durres - This IP has edited this page quite a bit. I am a bit confused by part of his/her edit summary here when the user states that "his position is wrong", but I'm not seeing any obvious or big red flags so far. Are there any specific diffs you can provide that can help me see your exact concerns here? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah: At first thank you for your collaboration. Ok I'll explain you where is the matter of his reverts and removals. Here is a cur. of my revision (I re-added his removals and I made also some corrections) and his latest edit. Step by step, at "Infobox football biography" it's almost ok expect "fullname" which contains just his name and last name (there is needed also his paternal/father name). At "Opening paragraph" he removed the text "and the Albania national under-21 football team" which is neccessary because the player has participated lately for the national side and UEFA prove it here, his name is on the bench, no. #16. At section "Celje" he has removed the last text which mention his participation with his club NK Celje in the 2015–16 UEFA Europa League - First qualifying round. Then at "International career/Albania under-19" he has removed the victory details of a international match in which he appeared. And last, he totally blanked the section of "Honours (with clubs)". This is the case, thank you again. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

What I would do is communicate your concerns to this person. I checked out the talk page and I didn't see anything (unless I missed something) - have you tried expressing your concerns there? Also, I did not see an ANI notice posted as well (this is required - see the direction on the top of this page). What I would do is communicate with the person about your concerns if you have not already done so. This is proper dispute resolution, and the best solution to this situation. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I warned him at this edit summary but anyway I'll communicate him the situation in his talk page, thank you. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Sir Joseph again

User:Sir Joseph, who was recently topic-banned[42] from Bernie Sanders over Jewish religion in infoboxes, (See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log/2016#American politics 2) is repeating his behavior at Talk:Stanley Milgram#"No evidence he was a practicing Jew as an adult". As before, I am asking for a citation that shows Stanley Milgram self-identifying as being a member the Jewish religion (Judaism) in his own words as required by WP:BLPCAT and WP:CAT/R. As before, he refuses to provide a citation and is implying that those who ask for such citations are somehow anti-Jewish.[43][44][45][46] As before, he is exhibiting "battleground demeanour and repeated indications that he intends to continue the same behavior because he was right all along."[47] --Guy Macon (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The Bernie Sanders article seems to have been under active sanctions. Milligram article does not seem to be. He needs to tone down his rhetoric certainly but I'm not really seeing anything wrong. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how "wrong" his behavior is, but it certainly is very poor approach to discussion. He refuses to get the point and drop the stick long after an issue has been settled, even after two editors have asked him to do so. Then there are his suggestions (very close to accusations) that editors are anti-Jewish ("The fact that you are taking away someone's Jewishness is troubling and disgusting") and other inappropriate personal comments directed at editors (referring to an editor as "owner", among others). If you look at this in the context of several previous blocks and his long history of the "battleground" attitude on articles related to Jews and Judaism, it adds up to an editor who will not listen to reason (or learn from blocks) on certain topics. It makes discussion on these topics very difficult for other editors. I don't know what should be done, but I think at the very least he needs to be monitored. Thanks for listening to my frustration in this situation. Sundayclose (talk) 01:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I don't see why behavior that is not okay at one article would be okay at another just because the two articles are about people in different arbitrary (pardon the pun) categories. ansh666 02:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Ansh666—I would say that the categories pertaining to Jews at the Bernie Sanders and Stanley Milgram articles are anything but "arbitrary". Can you please tell me what you find "arbitrary" about them? Bus stop (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Bus stop: - I wasn't talking about WP:categories but more broadly (and note also not the unintentional pun, arbitrary vs ArbCom); above it's noted that Sir Joseph was topic banned because Bernie Sanders falls under WP:ARBAP2 as (obviously) an American politician, whereas Stanley Milgram does not seem to be under the umbrella of any ARBCOM case. My point is that just because this is true does not excuse the behavior. ansh666 01:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The Bernie Sanders article, of course, got a lot more heat from a lot more editors due to the connection to the current US presidential campaign, but the behavior is exactly the same and the same Great Wrongs are being Righted by the same editor. On the Bernie Sanders page I myself erred in that, when faced with an editor who keeps repeating the same false claim, I fell into repeatedly responding, That was dumb on my part. On the Stanley Milgram page, having learned my lesson, I simply quoted the exact policies that govern whether or not we allow "Religion: Jewish" in an infobox and asked for citations showing that those criteria have been met. Sir Joseph's WP:IDHT behavioral problem lies in ignoring that request, referring to my call for citations as "taking away someone's Jewishness", and referring to my quoting the exact wording of WP:BLPCAT and WP:CAT/R as "making up a new policy [that only applies to] Jewish people". This is the exact same behavior that resulted in a topic ban last time. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe that Sundayclose's description of the discussion ("long after the issue has been settled... ) is not accurate. In fact, there was and is no consensus on the talk page of whether Milgram is Jewish or not. There were four active participants in the discussion - an anonymous IP who raised the issue, User:Sir Joseph, Sundayclose and Guy Macon. Two other participants - User:Debresser and myself - did not really express an opinion on the question of Milgram's Jewishness, but agreed for other reasons that the "Religion" parameter should not be included in the infobox. So there was no consensus and the issue could not be considered settled.

I don't want to get into the specific content dispute of the talk page, but I do want to point out that the distinction that Guy and Sunday make between "ethnic" Judaism and "religious" Judaism is by no means cut and dry; many Jews (like many people of other religions) have no religious feeling but participate in religious ceremonies, while others might be deeply religious but in fact participate in no outward practices. These are also matters which most people don't discuss, and, therefore, there are no published quotes which could prove the religious identification of the subject. It is therefore not at all surprising that Sir Joseph is offended by this distinction, and argues with great vigor - and some level of justification - against it.

All of which is to say that it is important that the decision (here) to remove the religion parameter from the infobox altogether be implemented as soon as possible. That would obviate these rancorous and superfluous discussions.

Sorry this post was so long. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I also have expressed no opinion on the question of Milgram's Jewishness. All I care about is whether the requirements of the policies i quoted are met. If you believe that there is "some level of justification" for violating those policies, you are free to go to the talk pages of the policies in question and attempt to gain a consensus to change them. But until that happens we are all required to follow Wikipedia's policies.

Concerning religion in infoboxes (religion in the body of the article has different rules) Wikipedia's rules are:

From WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements".

From WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion."

Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes that nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox.

Show me a citation showing Stanley Milgram self-identifying as being a member the Jewish religion (Judaism) in his own words as required by Wikipedia policy, and the issue is settled: religion stays in the infobox. Fail to show me that citation and the issue is also settled: religion stays out of the infobox. Nothing else matters. Either there is a citation or there isn't. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Guy, correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding of your argument is this: there is a distinction between "ethnic" Judaism and "religious" Judaism, a distinction that is clear to you, and that when a person says "I am a Jew", without qualifying whether he means "ethnic" or "religious", that statement cannot be considered verification of his religious belief.

What I am saying is that the distinction between "ethnic" and "religious" is not clear at all; that people who say "I am a Jew" are not making this distinction, and that your rejection of such a statement as verification of a person's religious identification is unjustified and, to some, offensive; nor is there anything in the policies you cite to support making this distinction in the case of Jews.

But here we are arguing about content. The real point is that your posts in this matter are no less passionate, and no less aggressive, than those of Sir Joseph. The issue raises intense feelings on both sides, and that is why removal of the parameter from the infobox altogether is so important. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not going to respond to the above content dispiute argument here, but I will post some citations to your talk page in case you wish to study this further. Do you have the citation showing self-identification through direct speech I have been asking for? If so, post it., If not, this issue is settled. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Guy Macon—when a person says "I am a Jew" or "I am proud to be a Jew" that is an affirmation in words that their religion is probably Jewish. Exceptions can perhaps be found but you've blown this way out of proportion. You initiated an RfC containing the language ("Jew/Jewish" is a special case. The word has several meanings, so the source cited needs to specify the Jewish religion, as opposed to someone who lives in Israel or has a Jewish mother.) I disagree that a source must "specify the Jewish religion". That is an unreasonable demand. You have seized upon one point to the exclusion of all other points. As intelligent editors we weigh the totality of sources. And we don't require of Jews that they make unlikely utterances. A person is unlikely to say "I am proud of my Jewish religion". People do not normally speak that way. Bus stop (talk) 03:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to go to Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons and post an RfC for replacing our WP:CAT/R and WP:BLPCAT policies with your new "totality of sources" policy. Until you get that change approved, you are required to follow Wikipedia's existing policies. Be advised that ANI is a really bad place to respond with your usual WP:IDHT refusal to acknowledge that Wikipedia has policies that you are required to follow. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I think this point, at least, is fairly clear; as a very small sample of the distinction, we have List of converts to Christianity from Judaism, all of whom are people who are ethnically Jewish but not adherents to the Jewish religion. I'm not sure how many of them would be offended by the suggestion that their Jewish ethnicity implies that they hold to the Jewish religion, but it's at least obviously inaccurate. So I think requiring clear sources identifying someone as religiously Jewish in BLPs makes sense. GoldenRing (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi GoldenRing—Stanley Milgram is not a convert to Christianity. Stanley Milgram has not renounced Judaism. No source even remotely suggests Milgram might not be Jewish. It is reliably sourced that he was born to a Jewish mother. This may not be important to membership in the Christian religion but it is important to membership in the Jewish religion. You are pointing to a group of people (converts to Christianity from Judaism) for whom there is very good reason not to to complete the parameter in the Infobox with Religion: Jewish. But what about Stanley Milgram? Bus stop (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@Bus stop: I don't know enough about Milgram to say either way. My point was just that there is most definitely a distinction between Jewish ethnicity and adherence to Judaism, since there are a fair number of people who consider themselves ethnically Jewish but adhere to other religions. So the two should not be conflated. It seems to me that most of the problem here is that both sides see a statement, "I am Jewish." One side considers that a definite statement of religious adherence unless the subject has specifically repudiated Judaism, while the other considers that it couldn't possibly be a statement of religious adherence unless the subject has specifically stated so. Neither is logically correct, of course. But, AFAICT, Wikipedia's policies mean that, where there is doubt, we don't put it in the article. GoldenRing (talk) 09:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• CommentAbove, ansh666, suggests what happens with one page should happen with another page where administrative action takes place. However this again is not the case Sanders Article is under discretionary sanctions while Milligram's is not. You Can read about them and their purpose at WP:ACDS. While the rhetoric Sir Joseph employs, I find distasteful, as Ravpapa points out, there's two sides to this dance, and both sides are shimmying at each other. I'm not really seeing that this has risen to the level of Admin intervention. This seems very much a content dispute that both passionate sides could escalate to require admin intervention. I'd recommend using dispute resolution to settle this which can read about at WP:DISPUTE. I'm looking and I notice that the conversation in question is rather long and clear consensus may have been established, not sure if WP:DISPUTE mentions this, but you can go over to WP:ANRFC and request a closure by an uninvolved Admin or an uninvolved experienced editor.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
• The issue regards what label should or should not be included in an infobox. If needed (and due) an article can spend ten paragraphs discussing what has been said about a person's ethnic or religious background. Guy Macon has described consensus regarding the simple one-word label in an infobox. Johnuniq (talk) 10:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I may have missed it in the article's talk page, but I'm only seeing that here. Sir Joseph, should either drop the stick or open an RFC at the appropriate location. Sir Joseph take note of WP:CONLIMITED.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

You missed it (easy to do - it's a long discussion). I posted our policies on this here. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Coming here from the talk page that points here. Reliable footnotes in that article make clear that Milgram -

1. Milgram and his parents were Jewish.
2. His Bar Mitzvah speech was on the subject of the plight of the European Jews and the impact that World War II events would have on Jewish people around the world. He said, upon becoming a man under Jewish law: "As I ... find happiness in joining the ranks of Israel, the knowledge of the tragic suffering of my fellow Jews ... makes this ... an occasion to reflect upon the heritage of my people--which now becomes mine. ... I shall try to understand my people and do my best to share the responsibilities which history has placed upon all of us."
3. He later wrote to a friend from childhood: "I should have been born into the German-speaking Jewish community of Prague in 1922 and died in a gas chamber some 20 years later. How I came to be born in the Bronx Hospital, I’ll never quite understand."
4. Milgram married his wife in a ceremony at the Brotherhood Synagogue.
5. Milgram's interest in the Holocaust had its basis in what his biographer, Professor Thomas Blass, referred to as Milgram's "lifelong identification with the Jewish people."
6. Author Kirsten Fermaglich wrote that Milgram as an adult had "a personal conflict as a Jewish man who perceived himself both as an outsider, a victim of the Nazi destruction, and as an insider, as scientist ...."
7. His wife Alexandra stated that Milgram's Jewish identity led to his focus on the Holocaust and his obedience-to-authority research.
8. He shared this as well with Herbert Winer, one of his obedience study subjects, who noted after speaking to Milgram about the experiment that "Milgram was very Jewish. I was Jewish. We talked about this. There was obviously a motive behind neutral research."

Almost all of this was already in the article when Guy started this thread saying there were not citations. That's crazy. Did Guy not read the article? Just look at it. What's Guy up to?

Also, Guy knows (because the article says it, and it was discussed on the talk page Guy points to) that this guy has been dead. For decades. But Guy comes after Sir Joseph speaking about a Biography of Living Persons standard (echoing another editor who carelessly somehow made the same dramatic mistake). Seriously? He's dead. That's a policy for living people. Not dead people. And you are coming after Sir Joseph on that basis? Something wrong here.

Sundayclose says that there was no evidence Milgram was Jewish as an adult. More than once. What? It's just the opposite!! Also-Where is the "as an adult" rule? Where is the "practicing" rule? And did Sunday even bother to read all the above, and the cites, about his lifelong identification with the Jewish people, having his wedding in a Jewish synagogue, speaking to his subject about his being Jewish, at the time he became a man in Judaism speaking (we have quotes) of "my fellow Jews" and "my people" etc? All with good footnotes.

Sir Joseph was totally right here. Guy and Sundayclose have somehow -- stunningly -- missed all the statements and citations to Milgram being Jewish, being Bar Mitzvahed (becoming a Jewish man), saying he was Jewish in his speech, getting married in a synagogue, having a "lifelong identification with the Jewish people" that was the basis for his interest that led to his fame, being a Jewish man, his wife noting that his being Jewish led to his research, and his subject saying Milgram talked to him and was "very Jewish" and talked about it. Seriously. Amazing that Guy and Sunday didn't read this and the sources. And started a witch hunt based on a BLP policy ... for an article on a man dead for three decades. 199.102.168.8 (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Anon 199, ANI is not the proper venue for a consensus discussion. This is not the place to make your arguments about Milgram's religion. That belongs on the Milgram talk page. Read the banner at the top of this page. ANI is for discussing grievances about editors' behaviors. Forum shopping is not the appropriate way to develop consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 02:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Sunday -- my grievance with your behavior here is that you accused another editor, while it was you who were in your behavior saying citations and backup do not exist when they in fact do exist. (You are the one who starts this conversation above writing by the way "I am asking for a citation that shows Stanley Milgram self-identifying as being a member the Jewish religion (Judaism) in his own words as required by WP:BLPCAT and WP:CAT/R.") And when it was your behavior in also saying over and over "BLP, BLP" about a guy dead 30 years. That's disruptive behavior. And ANI should focus on your behavior. And then add to it your behavior in after saying things that are not true, and focusing on live people rules for dead people, use that as the basis to for some reason (I dont know any of you before this) attack someone who called you out for your behavior. So great, let's focus on your behavior, and the absurdity of you with this as the basis for your complaining criticizing the guy who called you out. 199.102.168.8 (talk) 03:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Again anon 199, if you have a grievance with me or another editor besides Sir Joseph, this is not the appropriate section. Start a new section for complaints about other editors. You have been forum shopping on various noticeboards. This is not the place to do that. Sundayclose (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

---

I am purposely not responding to the arguments above about article content -- they belong on the article talk page, not here. The user behavior I am concerned about is simple: when I asked Sir Joseph to post a link to a citation showing Stanley Milgram self-identifying as being a member the Jewish religion (Judaism) using direct speech as required by Wikipedia policy he could not find one, yet insisted that we put religion in the infobox anyway. That's a behavior issue.

I find it to be an amazing coincidence that 199.102.168.8 (the IP belongs to the Brooklyn Law School), Sir Joseph and Bus Stop all hold the same fringe view -- a view that is so unusual that I don't think you could find a thousand people in the US that share it. That fringe view is that the word "Jew" always means Judaism and thus anyone who says "I am a Jew" is self-identifying as a member of Judaism. I do not think that there is any sockpuppetry going on, but rather I suspect that that all three belong to the same small religious group (perhaps something related to Chabad-Lubavitch?) and thus naturally have similar beliefs. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Guy Macon—I can only speak for myself. I do not maintain that "the word 'Jew' always means Judaism and thus anyone who says 'I am a Jew' is self-identifying as a member of Judaism". Bus stop (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I had promised myself not to post on this anymore, but I feel it behooves me to point out that Guy's understanding of Sir Joseph's, Bus Stop's and the IP's view is a complete misrepresentation of that view. They are not contending that the word "Jew" always means religious Judaism. What they are saying is that the ethnic and cultural aspects of Jewish identity are not separable from the religious aspects; that these two are intertwined in a complex melange that makes up the Jewish identity, Far from being a fringe view, this view is supported explicitly by almost all the quotes that Guy trots out every time someone challenges him. It is held, I would contend, by most people and certainly by most Jews. On the contrary, the view that the Jewish ethnic identity and the Jewish religious identity are two separate and discreet elements that can be be clearly distinguished, and that a person who says "I am a Jew" might be referring to one and not the other, is the fringe view.

I post this here not to make a point about content, but rather to point out that Guy's arguments in this discussion - his extensive reliance on a long list of Wikipedia policies, not one of which mentions the issue of Jewish identity - his long list of quotes about Judaism - not one of which supports his view that there is a clear distinction between ethnic and religious Jewish identity - and the aggressive tone of his posts, including his dismissive tone and his readiness to complain to this noticeboard - all this confirms my contention that his behavior in this discussion has been no less unseemly than that of his opponents. Ravpapa (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

There are other communities in which ethnic and religious identity are commonly or ordinarily intertwined (Greece? Bosnia? Tibet? Some Catholic countries?). However the info-box says 'Religion', it doesn't say 'Religious group born into' or 'Ethnicity' which often goes in 'early life' anyway. Some evidence is required from the individual themselves, otherwise, the parameter is left empty. There are many notable examples of people who happily identify culturally and ethnically as Jewish, but who are unequivocally agnostic or atheist. Such people would have no difficulty in saying "I am a Jew" in exactly the manner Ravpapa describes.

The issue is not what an individual may mean by saying "I am a Jew", even less by marrying in a synagogue, or such-like. The issue is that the WP 'Religion' box means the religious beliefs that the person has made a clear declaration of holding. If, for whatever reason, someone has not made such a clear declaration, what right do we have to presume to make it for them? Pincrete (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

It is a function of religion which causes the child of a Jewish mother to be a Jew. As editors we can and should take much more into consideration. Is the individual conflicted in his Jewishness? I don't think an Infobox should read Religion: Jewish if the subject of the biography rejects the religion that his birth bestowed on him. But when every source is consistent with him being Jewish, why would we doubt that he is Jewish? It is reliably sourced that Stanley Milgram's mother was Jewish. Additionally he was married in a Jewish wedding, he and his children were bar mitzvahed, and he was a member of a synagogue. I haven't seen all of these sources myself as I do not have access to the book containing them, but if these points are verifiable, I do not think Milgram is conflicted about being Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 02:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

It is a function of WP:guidelines that we require a person to have made a clear commitment to a religious belief, before that info is entered in the info-box. No one disputes that the Jewish community may think of him as 'one of them', that is their business and may be very noble. Whatever the individual's motives for keeping quiet, they are entitled to do so. Pincrete (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Pincrete—he says that he is Jewish. Why is that not sufficient? You say "Whatever the individual's motives for keeping quiet, they are entitled to do so." He has not kept quiet. Not in words and not in deeds. You say "we require a person to have made a clear commitment to a religious belief". How? This is not Christianity, under consideration. A Christian might for instance articulate that Jesus is the Messiah. But what would be the counterpart for a Jew? Should a Jew say "My mother was a Jew"? The man is a member of a synagogue. He says that he is Jewish. He is not "keeping quiet". Synagogue membership is a deed that should serve for Wikipedia purposes as a pretty good indication that the person under consideration is Jewish. Wikipedia should not aim to be a parochial institution. There are many different religions in the world. We should not take a one-size-fits-all approach to determining whether a person is a member of a given religion. When you say "we require a person to have made a clear commitment to a religious belief", what does that mean when under consideration is a person whose religion might be Jewish? What "belief" are you talking about? Judaism does not have a counterpart to the role of Jesus as Messiah in Christianity. Finally, every source is consistent with him being a Jew—bar mitzvah, of himself as well as his children, and marriage, in a specifically Jewish ceremony. Have you seen any source that calls into doubt his Jewishness? Bus stop (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I do not have a position on whether this person is a practicer/believer in Judaism. I do have a position that Bar Mitzvah, etc etc do not equate to religious belief. Above you say I do not maintain that "the word 'Jew' always means Judaism and thus anyone who says 'I am a Jew' is self-identifying as a member of Judaism, but now you argue 'he says he is Jewish. Why is that not sufficient?. There are many examples of people who clearly identify as Jewish, who are not followers of Judaism. People make all sorts of public commitments to their beliefs, and if they don't do so, that is their business, they regard it as private or irrelevant or simply have never spoken. We aren't putting 'NOT a believer in Judaism' are we? Pincrete (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Pincrete—what might he say—I believe I was born to a Jewish mother? Do you know of other instances in which we put Religion: Jewish in the Infobox based on an expressed belief? A Jew is a person born to a Jewish mother. Either that, or a Jew is a convert to Judaism. Stanley Milgram is reliably sourced as having been born to a Jewish mother. Does he own up to being a Jew? Or does he try to hide that he is a Jew? Well, he says he is Jewish, so he is not trying to hide it. What more would you expect him to say? He engages in Jewish institutions—Jewish wedding, bar mitzvah, synagogue membership. What would it take to convince you that Religion: Jewish was justified in the Infobox of the Stanley Milgram article? Don't tell me in abstract terms. Rather, please give me concrete examples. Bus stop (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this is the place to discuss this particular article. However I stand by my main point, 'religion' means a particular person's publicly stated beliefs. It doesn't mean assessing the balance of probability that they hold such beliefs. Pincrete (talk) 23:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

CommentGuy Macon's behavior is similar to the behavior he's here to complain about. And again, this all seems to be more a content issue than anything else. The Anon IP, Sir Joseph, and a few others think being married in a synagogue, etc, and etc show that Milligram is a religious Jew. Guy, does seem to hold these points in contention, but seems to want a specific source that has Milligram say that he is religiously jewish or an academic biography that says Milligram is religiously jewish. This infobox section for religion has to be justified with reliable sources. One side feels that some reliable sources already in the article show that he is religiously Jewish and the other side doesn't. Seems the reliable sources noticeboard WP:RSN was created for a purpose to help resolve content disputes like this.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

-Serialjoepsycho-, I don't disagree that RSN might be useful for the biog, but the guidelines are clear, being married in a synagogue, having a Jewish mother, showing interest and respect for Jewish culture, history, issues etc. does NOT make one an adherent of that religion. This issue recently came up in relation to the ex-leader of the UK labour party. It is much more common in UK politics than those of the US, for politicians to treat their religion as a private matter. Why should any individual not have the right to do that if they wish? Pincrete (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I have no position on the content dispute. A calm rational discussion at RSN, where multiple wikipedia editors univolved can way in, reviewing the sources and the application of the relevant policy seems a better way to resolve a content dispute than ANI. As far as, Why should any individual not have the right to do that if they wish? This is not a relevant question. We have sourcing guidelines, and whether an individual likes it or not, if it can be sourced and it is relevant to the article how would it matter what such an individual would want? I feel like politicians, Bill Clinton for example, would like to have there sex scandals removed.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

A person's right to remain silent about matters that they may consider private or irrelevant, isn't quite the same thing as someone's wish to hush-up matters that are already well and truly in the public sphere! Pincrete (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we have rules. The rules say that "someone's wish to hush-up matters [of religion] that are already well and truly in the public sphere" means that they do not have their religion listed in the infobox. For that they need to self-identify using direct speech. The rules also say that "someone's wish to hush-up matters [of religion] that are already well and truly in the public sphere" does not mean that they do not have their religion listed in the body of the article. If it passes WP:WEIGHT and WP:V it stays in the body of the article. Those are our rules. If anyone doesn't like them, they are free to attempt to get a consensus to change them. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Guy Macon, you are quoting me, as though replying to me. If you look at my posts, you will see I am arguing much the same as you. That unless a person has made a fairly clear public statement of their religious beliefs, it should NOT be recorded in the infobox. Particularly, we should not delve into the balance of probability that a person practices a religion, based on 'cultural' evidence. Further, if a person has chosen to remain silent, for whatever reason, so should we, unless there is some compelling reason to do otherwise even in the body of the article. Pincrete (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. I clearly misunderstood. (Note to self: next time, smoke crack after editing Wikipedia...) --Guy Macon (talk) 01:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Guy Macon, Pincrete—I believe that in few if any instances do we find a verbal articulation of a belief held when we have Religion: Jewish, or Religion: Judaism, or some variation of that in the Infobox. For instance we have for Jack Lew in the Infobox Religion: Orthodox Judaism. But we do not find any accompanying verbal articulation of any belief held. I don't think you will find an articulation of a belief held for any religious Jew. Can you give me any examples of instances in which we find the Religion field used in the Infobox for a religious Jew accompanied by a verbal articulation of a belief held? Bus stop (talk) 07:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I didn't see any, so I raised the question on the article talk page. See Talk:Jack Lew#Looking for citation for religion in infobox. If you run into any BLPs with other religions in the infobox that don't have citations to self-identification, please let me know. I don't want to inadvertently focus on one religion just because you are focusing on it while making an WP:OSE argument. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Guy Macon—do you know of any instances in which the biography of a religious Jew has the Infobox completed for Religion and additionally has a verbal statement of belief held? Bus stop (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

If policies are not being fully followed elsewhere, that isn't an argument for ignoring the policies. Pincrete (talk) 13:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Pincrete—a Jew is a person born to a Jewish mother. Would a religious Jew say "I believe I was born to a Jewish mother"? We may sometimes find attestations of belief, in converts to Judaism. That is as part of a conversion process or commentary on the novelty of a change to a new religion. But for the vast majority of Wikipedia biographies of religious Jews, we do not have statements of belief. This isn't something that needs to be "corrected". You are saying that "policies are not being fully followed elsewhere". This might be a good instance to invoke WP:IAR. The policies as written relate to Christians. A religion can be predicated upon the holding of a belief. This may be the case for Christianity but it is generally not the case for Judaism. Judaism does not tend to be predicated on belief as does Christianity. As to the question of whether the Religion field should be used in the Infobox of a religious Jew, there are many other factors that can and should be taken into consideration. The uncalled for and preternatural focus on statements of belief, if implemented at articles on religious Jews in which the Religion field is completed in the Infobox, would be harmful to the encyclopedia. It would result in omitting this information from the Infobox. As we know "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."[48] Bus stop (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Allow me to make a few comments, Guy Macon willing. 1) You see how the NAGF of GM with the title of this section. 2) He keeps quoting an RFC but that RFC is on atheists in infobox. He snuck in a section on Jews/Jewishness as if it was established policy but the people commenting "support" were supporting the part about atheists in infobox. 3) Milgram is long dead so BLP policies don't apply. 4) Even if it did, someone having a bar-mitzvah, marrying in a Jewish ceremony and being a member of a Jewish congregation doesn't take a genius to say that Milgram is Jewish. Macon has a thing for focusing on people who are Jewish and it is getting tiring. You also see his comments on the talk page. He clearly has an axe to grind and is not here to contribute. I suggest a TBAN from anyone and anything regarding Jews/Jewishness. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• The RfC at Template talk:Infobox/Archive 11#RfC: Religion in infoboxes is NOT about BLPs (That would be the RfC at Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 28#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion). Nor is it "RFC on atheists in infobox". It is specifically an RfC on "Proposal: In all infoboxes in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox."[49] with an included list of example religions and example nonreligions. Also there was extensive discussion in that RfC about how to deal with Judaism, with Bus Stop vigorously pushing the same POV he is pushing here, a POV that was soundly rejected by the community. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Guy Macon—a source does not have to "specify the Jewish religion". A source can merely refer to a person as a Jew. Yes, this alone may be inconclusive. We have to look at additional factors, if available in reliable sources. I'm referring to your statement in your RfC that "('Jew/Jewish' is a special case. The word has several meanings, so the source cited needs to specify the Jewish religion, as opposed to someone who lives in Israel or has a Jewish mother)."[50] Couldn't there be a religious Jew that one or more sources refer to as "Jewish" without the mention of the word "religion"? But if we look at other factors supported by sources we can reach a more informed decision as to whether or not the subject of the biography should have the Religion parameter in the Infobox. Your RfC was problematic because it bundled together so many different things that could possibly be considered for inclusion in the Religion field of the Infobox. It lists examples of "Religions": "Baha'i, Baptist, Buddhist, Caodaist, Catholic, Christian, Confucianist, Hindu, Jain, Judaism, Latter Day Saint/Mormon, Lutheran, Muslim/Islam, Orthodox, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Shamanist, Shiite, Shinto, Sikh, Sunni, Tao, Wicca." Then it lists examples of "Non-religions": "Agnostic, Antireligionist, Apatheist, Atheist, Communist, Ignosticist, Irreligion, Leninist, Marxist, NA, Non-practicing X, Nonbeliever, None, Nontheist, Raised as an X, Secularist, State atheism, Unknown." And then it adds: "("Jew/Jewish" is a special case. The word has several meanings, so the source cited needs to specify the Jewish religion, as opposed to someone who lives in Israel or has a Jewish mother.)" You have since relied upon the results of that RfC to argue that a Jew's religion can't be in the Infobox because the source failed to "specify the Jewish religion". We need not edit with blinders on, or at least as concerns this particular question. We should look to all available input from good quality sources to decide whether or not to include Religion in the the Infobox. If you wish community input on just the words "Jew" and "Jewish" you should present a question along those lines in an RfC devoted to just that question—not bundled together with a complex of mostly unrelated questions. Bus stop (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Call for close with no action required

Sir Joseph appears to have dropped the stick, so I would like to withdraw this report as no action required. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support but suggest an admin admonish Guy Macon for his behavior and ask him, short of a TBAN, to stay away from Jews/Jewishness related articles. I would also like an admin to look at the RFC he keeps linking to and issue a ruling that the RFC was on whether or not atheists should be listed in religion:infobox, and it had nothing to do with Jews. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment This is a link to the RfC mentioned by Sir Joseph, above. That RfC was mostly about whether "atheism" should appear in the Infobox under Religion. Most of the posts addressed that question. But strictly speaking, included with that question, was what I would term a minor referendum on the word Jew. That language says "('Jew/Jewish' is a special case. The word has several meanings, so the source cited needs to specify the Jewish religion, as opposed to someone who lives in Israel or has a Jewish mother.)" That RfC passed and since then Guy Macon relies on that, in addition to other policy language, to advance the idea that the word Jew often refers to "ethnicity". If such a question is to be put before the community in an RfC, it should be the only question in that RfC. That question should not be bundled with other, only distantly related questions. I don't find Guy Macon sympathetic to the minority status Judaism plays in relation to the majority status of Christianity. Standards apt for evaluating Christianity for placement in the Religion field of the Infobox are being applied to Jews. It should be obvious that a non-parochial encyclopedia evaluates each religion according to the standards most appropriate to that religion. There is no perfect solution to this question. But an editor cannot bullheadedly insist that policy be applied where it may not be applicable. I don't think that editors trying to apply themselves to problems, put on blinders and ignore every other factor while solely focussing on just a few slivers of semi-applicable policy. Bus stop (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• support and move it to some form of dispute resolution. And don't see any reason for guy to be admonished or topic banned.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Oncenawhile

User:Oncenawhile has been waging a campaign against the regional name Southern Levant for several years now, doing anything and everything to disrupt pages using the term and making personal attacks/being consistently WP:Battleground along the way.

In today's example, User:Oncenawhile deleted two valid sources added and replaced them with "Citation needed" tags. User:Oncenawhile erroneously claimed that the sources didn't include the term Southern Levant and that they were describing something else. This was incorrect, and it was clear that he hadn't read the sources, and yet, the edits were made anyway. User:Oncenawhile then began personal attacks on the talk page. "Your crusade to support the use of this term has begun to reach into the depths of dishonesty." And after I brought up the fact that there were multiple editors disagreeing with the edits, User:Oncenawhile replied "Don't try to sully other people with your own bad judgements." User:Oncenawhile's editing style on the talk page appears to be disruptive by design, rather than continuing a single thread, User:Oncenawhile makes a new section for every point, rendering the talk page cluttered and difficult to read/follow. After being shown that the term Southern Levant is in the source, User:Oncenawhile claimed that this was WP:Synth because the author wrote "southern Levant" rather than "Southern Levant". Now this stuff from today in and of itself wouldn't be cause for me to bring it to the noticeboard, but it's part of a several year long campaign this user has waged against the term across all of wikipedia.

Several months ago User:Oncenawhile removed the category Southern Levant from 25 articles, many of which were WP:ARBPIA within the span of a few minutes 1, 2 3 4 5 6789101112131415161718 19 20 21 22 23 24 25. In fact, this was done twice (mass deletions) within a span of several months. 1 2 3 21:20, 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 14 15 1617 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Throughout all of this, there are constant personal attacks, for example here where User:Oncenawhile passively aggressively calls me a polemicist (while insulting my intelligence) "I don't think Drsmoo is a polemicist, at least not consciously." and here where User:Oncenawhile accuses me of being Islamophobic for reverting his removal of "Antisemitism in the Arab World" from the sidebar of "Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries".

User:Oncenawhile has also taken to arbitrarily going through wikipedia and deleting references to the Southern Levant. For example, here User:Oncenawhile replaces all references to "southern levant" with "the region".

What I'm posting now is just from the past few months, he's been making disruptive edits towards the article/region for about five years now. Given that he described the term Southern Levant as "a neologism coined to serve a political purpose" and "a neologism which began to become popular following Israel's capture of the remaining 22% of Palestine" and given that he's been attempting to disrupt the article and articles that reference it for about five years, it seems unlikely that he will change on his own. Drsmoo (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

With respect to the edit earlier today which caused a reaction from the editor above, it has since been agreed at Talk:Southern Levant, that two of the three components of the edit were wholly valid (the first sentence still has no source, and the second has been amended to fit a source brought from later in the article), whilst the third component is still being discussed on talk as to whether it constitutes synth.

The category question has been discussed in great detail on the category talk page. The Southern Levant category still contains more content than the guidelines suggest it should - it still has more than Category:China...

The alleged personal attacks the editor points to appear to have been misunderstood. The not a polemicist comment, for example, was the opposite of an attack - it was my perhaps convoluted attempt to show that I assumed good faith. Trust appears to have broken down between us, so I recognize that I need to take even more care. I have tried to rebuild this trust on numerous occasions, but we continue to find our editing relationship to be difficult.

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Previous discussions (also begun by Drsmoo):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive727#Disruptive_editing_by_User:Oncenawhile

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive894#Disruptive_editing_by_User:Oncenawhile

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive909#Disruptive_editing_from_User:Oncenawhile_on_Southern_Levant_categories Fences&Windows 21:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Fences and windows. This has been a long-term issue. Regarding Oncenawhile's reply, it's simply inaccurate. Oncenawhile arbitrarily deleted two reliable sources and replaced them with "citation needed" tags. Oncenawhile's reasons for deleting the sources were incorrect, the editor claimed that they didn't reference the subject, but even a cursory glance reveals that they do. Oncenawhile then went to the talk page and immediately started four discussion threads, all on the same subject, while throwing strong personal attacks (calling me a dishonest, saying I have bad judgements, etc). It's the wikipedia equivalent of stomping all over a carpet with muddy shoes, seemingly designed solely to annoy (ie, claiming that the article which references the "southern Levant" is not applicable because Southern isn't capitalized, etc). This has been going on for five years now, and over this time, Oncenawhile has been the sole party making personal attacks. Oncenawhile has a clear obsession with this topic based on what appears to be a conspiratorial view, "a neologism coined to serve a political purpose", and the editor either harasses the article page to annoy other editors away from being involved, or arbitrarily rummages through wikipedia deleting links to the article. Recently, when a wide consensus approved changing Syro-Palestinian Archaeology to the academic standard Levantine Archaeology, Oncenawhile immediately declared the intention to start a new move discussion within a few months unless the page was changed to Oncenawhile's specifications (other editors responded negatively and the editor hasn't done anything yet but I'm sure it will start it up again at some point soon). This nonsense has been going on for five years. Drsmoo (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Uninvolved comment I don't see a case against Oncenawhile here. All the alleged "last months" diffs appear to be from 2015 or even 2014. I did not click on all, but none that I clicked of was from 2016. I also don't see any personal attacks. If there is a case to be made, I encourage Drsmoo to open a subthread below with only the problematic diffs and personal attacks from April 2016 and a short description. All I see here is a wall of words and diffs from long ago. Jeppiz (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Jeppiz, your post is incorrect. The first six diffs I posted were all from 2016. Your post seems to have no relation to mine in fact. Would you mind explaining how "Your crusade to support the use of this term has begun to reach into the depths of dishonesty." and "Don't try to sully other people with your own bad judgements." are not personal attacks? Or how deleting reliable sources is not disruptive? Drsmoo (talk) 14:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, I did say I did not click on the all the more than 50 diffs you provided, especially not after so many turned out to be irrelevant. That is why I encouraged you to post a better argument for your case, if you think there is one. WP:TEXTWALLs are always a bad idea, focus on the essential instead. Jeppiz (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

This seems like a content dispute more than anything needing admin action. Mass removal of Category:Southern Levant is cited as disruption, but that category is now heading for deletion: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 March 16#Category:Southern Levant, so that seems to be a moot point. The recent edits to assert that "southern Levant" is quite different from "Southern Levant" seem overly pedantic (as noted by another user on the talk page), but I don't see evidence of anything requiring a block or restriction. I don't read those comments linked to above as personal attacks, though some of the comments are less than the ideal for WP:CIVIL. I suggest using an RfC to try to resolve any outstanding issues that are at dispute. Fences&Windows 20:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Fences, it's more than just deleting articles from the category, Oncenawhile makes mass edit runs throughout wikipedia deleting links to Southern Levant articles or replacing them with links to other articles (these were never reflected in the edit summary) I detailed this in my first submission to disruptive editing but it was ignored. Disruptive behavior towards Southern Levant articles has continued for five years now. The "southern Levant/Southern Levant" edits are more than pedantic, just as creating four talk page sections within a few minutes, all essentially discussing the same thing is more than being overly specific, these all serve to disrupt the article and annoy/harass the editors working on it.

An additional point is that in the five years that Oncenawhile has been "editing" on the subject of the Southern Levant, Oncenawhile has never once added information or sources. The editor has only removed links, made pedantic tags while demanding that other editors address them, renamed pages away from the name Southern Levant and removed references to the Southern Levant from other articles. Basically, any other interested editors have to constantly be fixing the mess Oncenawhile leaves behind. In Southern Levant articles, Oncenawhile is pedantic and aggressive to the extreme, though never doing anything to fix the (non-existent) "issues". However Oncenawhile's own articles (which the editor constantly redirects Southern Levant links to) are plagued with the "issues" he only seems to see in the Southern Levant. The whole thing is harassment and disturbance. Drsmoo (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Four unsubstantiated ANI reports is harassment and disturbance. If you wish to push all the pedantic editors out of Wikipedia, there won't be many left, and Wikipedia will be much the worse for it. You call it pedantry, I call it accuracy. You see yourself as balanced and neutral and me with an agenda, I see myself as balanced and neutral and you with an agenda. The beauty of Wikipedia is bringing editors with different viewpoints together in a collaborative environment. Both of us have been consistent in our ability to hold mature and collaborative discussions. These continued attempts to build a distorted narrative of our discussions in the court of public opinion are unhelpful to our ultimate (and shared) goal of improving the articles and topics we are working on. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not accuracy when you edit and create articles with glaring problems that you then ignore, while making obsessive tags and threats on Southern Levant articles and never making any attempt to address them or contribute yourself. If you actually believed in accuracy you would contribute to the article rather than only adding tags, making threats, and stealthily removing/redirecting links away from the subject. In five years you have not made a single positive (sources, information, etc) contribution to any article with the name Southern Levant in its title. Similarly, if you were interested in collaborative editing, rather than making things uncomfortable for other editors, you wouldn't be making uncivil personal attacks on a regular basis. Drsmoo (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I count six personal attacks against me in your comment.

Separately, it's been more than three months since you moved Syro-Palestinian archaeology to Levantine archaeology. Concerns were raise from the beginning regarding the different scope (Talk:Levantine_archaeology#What_about_the_northern_Levant?) of the two names. Are you still intending to make good on your promises to fix this?

As to the Southern Levant article itself, it seems we now have an agreed position. All three of my concerns have now been addressed, and the article is much the better for it.

Oncenawhile (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

There is not a single personal attack in my comment. Your comment "Don't try to sully other people with your own bad judgements" is a personal attack, because it's a comment on the person/individual. Commenting on specific edits is not a personal attack. Regarding Levantine archaeology, I did not move anything, there was a wide community consensus to move the page which was reflected in the move discussion which then passed. You are the only editor to raise any concerns, surely you're capable of adding the information you deem to be missing, rather than making threats. Drsmoo (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

If you two can discuss the content and not each other, I think the other issues can be resolved. But throwing accusations of harassment and personal attacks at the drop of a hat isn't really going to convince any admins to solve this for you. You both need to cool it with the bickering and discuss things calmly and on the merits - or it'll end up with topic bans and blocks and drama and then someone else will have to fix it. Calm down. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

This is fair enough. Sometimes I think we're like an old married couple weighed down by history. I am an optimist at heart; I am convinced we can renew our vows and learn to love each other again. Despite everything, I respect Drsmoo and think he is an asset to Wikipedia. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

All we really need here is a good therapist. TimothyJosephWood 16:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm always interested in working collaboratively Drsmoo (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:COMPETENCE issue

• Kingo7672 (talk · contribs)

Competence issue--one bad random edit after another, mostly to bios and movie articles. Has racked up an impressive number of warnings in a short time, and the majority of their contributions have been reverted. I reported the user to AIV a few weeks back, and was advised to take it here. After waiting to see if there would be an improvement, I've opted to file this report. Requires either a permanent chaperone or a block. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Going by edits like this one, Kingo7672 might not be a native English speaker. Some of Kingo's other edits are truly perplexing. In this edit, Kingo labels artwork by an artist born in 1970 as coming from Superman's "first comic book", which dates back to 1938. And then there's this unsourced factoid in a BLP. I don't really know what's going on here, but it does seem like we have a problem. Maybe a mentor would work? Those seem to be popular around here lately. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

And since opening this report: [51], a copyright violation which was reverted, then re-added by an IP. I think it's someone messing around, adding unsourced crap, sometimes made-up stuff, often elaborate 'alt' descriptions to images, just because they can. Sorry for the italics, but my take is that mentoring would be a waste of time. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I want to note this response made by the user. My first thought is to believe that he's just new and offer help to him/her, unless there's evidence of blatant and purposeful disruption made in bad faith, something I'm not seeing. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Redacting this response, per Julietdeltalima's response below. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I do see such evidence in the frantic attempts by the two IPs to re-add the highly detailed copyvio movie synopsis at Grimsby (film) almost immediately after this ANI report was filed, which I would be stunned to learn was the activity of someone who was not this user. Couple that with the user's ongoing insistence, after multiple requests to desist, on repeating the very unusual mistaken typographic convention of putting a space BEFORE every comma. If the user was genuinely trying to participate in WP in good faith the user would presumably be making an effort to conform his/her actions to this simple, prosaic request. I suppose the alternative inference is that competence is not feasible for this user, which is equally problematic. Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Julietdeltalima - Thank you for responding to my thoughts. I got distracted while reading through this ANI and somehow missed the important details described above regarding the timestamp of the copyvio issues added to Grimsby (film). I agree that this now appears problematic and in bad-faith, given that the copyvio issue occured after he made the response on his talk page, and after this ANI was filed. I also agree that the IP appears to be the user being disruptive while logged off. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, I have warned the user about comma placement more than once. The user will temporarily place the commas correctly for only a brief period of time after each warning and then go right back to incorrectly placing them. Regardless, I do think that the editor is editing in good faith, even if the edits aren't particularly competent (all due respect to the user). If a language barrier is the problem, perhaps we can ask him about it and then point him to a Wikipedia in his native language. DarkKnight2149 22:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding IPs and socks, this anon is almost certainly the same user as Kingo7672. DarkKnight2149 22:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Not the first time I've inadvertently turned up a quacking sock farm. Thanks for the updates. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I've filed a SPI for those two edit-warring IPs here. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 00:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done Problem solved with indef and rangeblock. I've added notes at SPI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Dennis Brown, thank you. I agree with Darkknight2149's assessment above, that the edits and grammar of 5.29.105.49 (talk · contribs) appear very much like those of the blocked accounts. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • My apologies for not configuring this as an SPI report in the first instance earlier today; my attention was occupied by IRL issues. User:Oshwah, no self-beating-up, amigo! This is an instance where my involuntary name- and editing-pattern memories kicked in. I just couldn't get there quickly enough today. Julietdeltalima (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
• 5.29.105.49 is probably Kingo7672 (unintentionally logged out), but the 86.187 IPs are the same as Special:Contributions/86.187.161.103 and others in reverting edits by Eik Corell, and are unrelated to Kingo7672. Peter James (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Leprof 7272

Leprof 7272 (talk · contribs) has been told several times that he is showing page ownership or making personal style edits to this and other articles. A strong message that the editor needs to edit cooperatively. When he makes edits like this, reverting a correct change to formatting of references because he doesn't like it, he's stepping over the line. He also reverted correct date formats per MOS:DATETIES. Check the editor's talk page for additional complaints. While the editor is providing some constructive edits, his WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality is troublesome. Either a short block or a warning of some sort would be appropriate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• From what I can see, this looks to be early in a content dispute. It's also not a great idea to template a regular at the beginning of a content dispute. Perhaps a better place to have gone first is WP:DRN. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think it's just a content dispute. It's not. I like the changes he's made. I like the additional sources he's brought to the article. I don't like that he's showing page ownership. I don't like that he's reverting correct changes to the refs because they're not in a format he likes. I don't like that he's applying the wrong date format because it's not a date format he likes, or at least isn't one he thinks helps him edit. I don't like that is treating the article (and as you can see from the comments below, almost every article he tries to improve) as a battlefied. If that's a content dispute, you have no clue and should stop commenting here, or anywhere. The issue is clear, the editor I am reporting is WP:NOTHERE at least when it comes to disruptive behaviour and having little or no interest in working collaboratively. Aside from that, the editor is a good researcher and has improved the articles he's worked on. I would like the editor to reconcile those two ideals.

As for tagging the regulars, he was clearly showing page ownership and I explained that to him, but he kept it up. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• This user seems quite prone to tagbombing as well. The article Merlin Mann is a real piece of art after he marked the issues it had, and I also came across some rather obnoxious tagging on Fugu and Tetrodotoxin that he had done, and that I have since cleaned up. I asked him to clean up the Merlin Mann article some time ago on his talk page but he refused. The Scum of the Earth Church article earlier is also heavily tagged, not difficult to guess by whom. -- turdas^talk 12:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I also asked him to stop tagbombing after reverting this horrifying mess, and he's still doing it. There are many more complaints throughout his talk page history. KateWishing (talk) 13:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't really want to pile on here, but I've encountered this user's disruptive massive overtagging of articles as well (see history of Sodium dodecyl sulfate, for example). Common behavior involves tagging the top of the article for various issues, tagging each individual paragraph for the same issues, then tagging each sentence for the same issues - often putting multiple tags per sentence. The extent of the problem may be greater than what can be seen by looking just Leprof 7272's contributions because he often does the same thing while logged out as well (50.179.252.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), etc). ChemNerd (talk) 14:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• I have also has to same poor experiences with this editor as noted above. More examples of en-masse tag bombing can be currently found at; Chromosome conformation capture, Acetone peroxide & Villa Baviera. Leprof 7272 shows the same behaviour regardless of who they're interacting with, when challenged for more reasoning they then bombard your talk page (see here & here - they then get personal). XyZAn (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Leprof 7272 hasn't commented here yet and he really, really should. Because I'm inclined to block for disruption. The article he's working on now is almost unreadable. Katie^talk 18:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• This serial tag bombing behavior from Leprof 7272 is nothing new. As is clear from their edit history, It has spanned many years. I have attempted to reason with this editor concerning excessive use of attention banners (for example here) but without success. Boghog (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Leprof 7272 (talk · contribs) knows this is here. He has been informed by three editors. He has been active since all three notices were placed on his talk page and has not come here to explain. It is safe to say that the editor does not care to do so? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• The editor went through yet another day of editing without coming here to discuss. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

IPv6 2601 range block

2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk · contribs) and 2601:CA:8100:E100:C59B:55F:7501:CB4 (talk · contribs) have both requested unblocks. They appear to be caught up in Gilliam (talk · contribs)'s range-block of all 2601:* IPv6 addresses. I lack the specific understanding of IPv6 to know if blocking this many addresses was appropriate. I'm bringing it up here so others more familiar with the vandalism in question and with IPv6 range blocks can look into it and comment. @Gilliam: --Yamla (talk) 13:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

(Please note, I'm not specifically claiming the block is inappropriate, only that it's very large) --Yamla (talk) 13:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I left a note for Gilliam regarding the former IP, but in their absence I think someone with a better understanding of IPv6 than I have should narrow this down to what's functionally necessary. —SpacemanSpiff 13:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, that is very large! It covers, I think, 17,592,186,044,416 /64 subnets. Does anyone know what IPs Gilliam was targeting? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

It's crazy large. It's too large to checkuser. This needs to be fixed quickly. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick note: while it is a very large range, functionally often a large range of IPv6 addresses are used by a very limited group of people. It *potentally* affects that many addresses, the reality is often only a small amount are used at any time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

A quick look at Gilliam's edits show a total of three warning notices to 2601:* editors; one inserted the word "blueberries" into a non-fruit-related article; another inserted some gibberish a few times; another changed the word "whistleblower" to "self-promoter" in Linda Tripp. Hardly worth a massive rangeblock. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

From the past few days blocks I think it might be related to 2601:195:c002:6d60:dc9d:ee1a:d7e2:fce2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2601:5c2:8100:93ab:6099:574b:c04d:c203 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2605:6000:6405:4000:b1a3:6ef3:19a0:6fd (talk · contribs · WHOIS),fixed at 14:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC) and 2602:306:c444:e499:104e:580:dde8:59d4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). —SpacemanSpiff 14:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I assumed from the denied unblock request for the second IP listed above it was a significant history of abuse. That seems excessive. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• It looks like it also catches the 2601:188 editor commenting in a thread above who seems to be a regular good contributor [52]. Jbh^Talk 14:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
• The rangeblock has been vacated by Gilliam. —SpacemanSpiff 15:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

2601:: is assigned by ARIN to Comcast, and has 20110603 allocated addresses. So we're we were blocking over 20 million Comcast customers. [53] Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

As the IP who objected to this range block, I'm expecting that the vandalism coming out of multiple accounts had to have been awfully disruptive to merit this scope of disciplinary action. If not, there needs to be an explanation for measures this Draconian. I'm mad for the reasons I stated at my talk page, among them that it took so long to take appropriate action in protecting Rachel Roy on Sunday, while this, by comparison, looks like a case of killing a few mosquitoes with a warhead. It's the end of the day, and Gilliam hasn't offered me an explanation or an apology. I'm not angling for one here, but it would be nice for all of us to know what happened. If there's something I'm missing that admins understand, I'm open to learning. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Apparently the block was 2601::/20, so only about million, not 20 million. Still seems like a large range to block. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I kinda want an explanation for this huge block too, particularly considering the unblocking summary Gilliam left. If it was a calculation error, that's one thing; if he isn't familiar with IPv6 blocks, that's another thing; and if it was done intentionally in anger or frustration, that's a whole other thing. Katie^talk 14:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The block simply was intended to stop an IP-hopping vandal.– Gilliam (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Article talk page behavior at Talk:Ford Pinto

For a month now, since 26 March 2016, users NickCT and Springee and others have been using a long article talk page thread Talk:Ford Pinto#Pursue Topic Ban for HughD? to co-ordinate a campaign against a collaborator, and to discuss other articles. Multiple reminders of the appropriate uses of an article talk page WP:TPG and the availability of WP:ANI, including those of HughD and Serialjoepsycho, have been ignored. Respectfully request an administrative collapse of the thread, and an administrator reminder of article talk page guidelines WP:TPG and the availability of WP:ANI for editor behavior issues. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

It seems a pretty inappropriate place to have a discussion, but it was last edited 12 days ago, and nothing came of it in the end. I don't see any benefits from collapsing it at this point, as it seems to have run its course. Pinguinn (🐧) 18:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I now see something was moved from one section to another. While it concerns the article, that stuff really should go here on ANI, not the article talkpage. Perhaps we ought to discuss it here. Pinguinn (🐧) 18:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

For the record; as one of those who was "campaign[ing] against a collaborator", I'm already on the record as saying that section can be archived. It could be collapsed as well. Honestly I'm not sure who's opposing the archival/collapsing such that Hugh would feel the need to discuss the topic here. NickCT (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I think HughD was right to note that I put a notice to the talk page in the wrong place. I have since moved it. I have nothing against archiving the section. Springee (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

It seems a bit disingenuous to be publicly in favor of archiving the section here on ANI, when the last two sections on the page (not including the one in question) are primarily about HughD. It does seems like the talk has devolved somewhat into a forum on HughD (or a forum on Pintos generally, and HughD happens to be thoroughly involved). Neither are discussions directly related to improvement of the article, and should probably take place elsewhere. TimothyJosephWood 23:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment I don't know why I've been pinged here or why this was opened. I came to the article thru the RFC bot. I commented on those sections of the talk page and the ani after being summoned by the bot. Do I think that those that should have opened it should close it? Yes, but this is not a matter of wikipedia policy by own personal opinion. They don't not seem to understand that this type of behavior is escalating and the purpose for opening it they have suggested was to deescalate the issues. This here is also escalating. HughD, then close it. Per wp:talk it could have already been closed. Everyone stop using the talk page as a forum. Quit talking about each other. Please don't ping me to anything about the Pinto again.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The section in question has been closed and archived by Serialjoepsycho. I have closed two additional threads not appropriate to the talk page. We can probably close this and move on with our lives, provided everyone on the talk can stay on topic, and keep off topic conversations where they belong. TimothyJosephWood 16:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

OtisElevatorCo

• Otis Elevator Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• OtisElevatorCo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 192.249.47.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

OtisElevatorCo (talk · contribs) made some edits to Otis Elevator Company removing some sourced negative statements about the company: [54]

I undid this edit and warned the user on his talk page. Then 192.249.47.203 (talk · contribs) re-did the same edit:[55] That IP address is registered to Otis's parent United Technologies. I undid the edit and warned the IP user. The IP is probably a sock of the user and should be blocked or topic banned. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

A third single-purpose user Jcaddonizio (talk · contribs) has now appeared and re-did part of the edit. I fear whack-a-sock may be next. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Blocked the Jcaddonizio account. If it turns out that this is an attempt by the first account to rename under {{uw-softerblock}}, I have no objection to unblocking. Katie^talk 20:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Persistent genre warring by Thijn23

Editor has been receiving constant warnings for genre warring without appropriate sourcing (or sometimes any at all) since October, and as recently as six days ago (see user's talk), but has continued to do so especially in the past week, particularly on Taylor Swift-related articles: see contribs, almost all of the recent ones are dedicated to this behavior. The only discussion from this user has occurred at Talk:Red (Taylor Swift album). Everything else is done without discussion, often without sources, and seemingly without any intention of stopping. A block is needed to prevent further disruption. Chase (talk | contributions) 20:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Note: User just blanked a warning given in March from their talk, for some apparent reason. Perhaps to make it look like not as many recent warnings have been given. Chase (talk | contributions) 20:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• I deleted that because it was not accurate, I corrected the genre of Pills n Potions correct, added a note in the edit page and it is still up there today. However, those other warnings I discussed further with the people giving them. Whenever I make a change on an album page, it was based on the reliable sources listed in the critical reception. Example: Critics have noted country and pop to be the genre on the album Fearless. I changed the genre from Country pop - pop, to Country - pop, which is in line with the critical reception. Whenever I think a genre should be added, I start a discussion like I did at Red (Taylor Swift album) There is no reason to ban my account. I do not do anything against the rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thijn23 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• You did not start a discussion at Talk:Fearless (Taylor Swift album), where you changed the genres contrary to the citation that immediately followed them (which describes the album as a "country-pop [album]" and "one of the best mainstream pop albums of 2008"). You also didn't start a discussion at Talk:Speak Now for similar behavior. Chase (talk | contributions) 20:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• If you actually dive in to the history of both the Fearless and Speak Now page, you can actually see that I never changed the genre how it was, I changed it back to how it originally was. The genres on Speak Now were, Country pop - country - pop rock, which was in line with both the critical reception and the describitions of each indivual song based on reliable sources. When it was changed to Country - pop, I just changed it back. That's all. You make it seem as if I am making all types of changes to pages without a consensus but that is just simply not true. Thijn23 (talk | contributions) 23:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Despite this discussion and Thijn23's arguments to the contrary, they are continuing to genre-war at Fearless (Taylor Swift album) – changing the infobox genre, which is immediately cited, from country pop and pop music (supported by the prose of the citation) to country and pop (diff). This is not supported by any prose currently in the album's Wiki article. This shows a blatant disregard for discussion, consensus, or sourcing, and is proof as to why this user needs to be blocked to prevent further disruption. Chase (talk | contributions) 23:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I continued because I am absolutely not doing anything wrong. When a reliable source says an album draws a line between commercial country and Top 40 radio, and you put Country and pop as the genre of the album with providing a direct citation, that is not disruptive nor against the rules, that is, actually, doing exactly what to you seems the foundation of me needing to be blocked: editing the genre in an infbox based on a reliable source, with a direct citation supporting that change. The change is based on a reliable source that is listed in the critical reception of the page, so the fact that you are saying that it is not supported by any prose in the article, is inaccurate. In this case, the changes I have made probably have come off more disruptive to your own point of view than to the actual page and for that I would like you to stop. It is exactly why you are giving me an extra warning on my page saying it is 'not smart to continue genre warring' when in reality all I did was making a (minimal, by the way) change to the genre of an album, based on reliable sources. I will continue doing so when necessary, so you can either go on keeping track of my activities on Wikipedia or accept the fact that I will only change or add something based on reliable sources. Thijn23 (talk | contributions) 02:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

"Draws a line between genre x and genre y" supporting genre x is WP:SYNTH at best. Not to mention you're removing a sourced genre (country pop). Chase (talk | contributions) 04:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Vandal?

Special:Contributions/172.56.15.10

Seems to be changing dates, names, and a lot of other minor details interspersed with constructive edits. Are these edits verifiable? Cleanup may be needed. Pinguinn (🐧) 21:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Editor of dubious competence throwing insults

A user called Joseph Setorius has been making a lot of edits to the druid article, despite having a very shaky grasp of the subject. I have attempted to steer him right, and he responds with this. Can somebody maybe have a word with him? --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, none of his edits after 27 March 2010 show up on his user contribution page, not sure what's going on there. --Nicknack009 (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Not an admin, not going to involve myself in this otherwise, but that'd be because the account making those edits at Druid is Joseph setorius, with a lower-case s rather than the capital-S in the username you link above. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Hm. Joseph setorius, lower-case s, redirects to Joseph Setorius, capital s. I hadn't noticed that. A little fiddling and I find the user contribution page for the lower-case s username. --Nicknack009 (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

There was an account at lowercase-s that was moved to uppercase-S. Now there's a new account at lowercase-s. Uppercase-S hasn't edited since 2010, so I don't think name collision is an immediate issue. Nor is the redirect anything suspect—though I have removed it. —C.Fred (talk) 02:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, redirect removed form User talk:Joseph setorius, and notice left there. —C.Fred (talk) 02:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Removal of information

This user is removing and completely changing information in articles and causing disturbances in articles. Can someone please check out their edits. Nocturnal781 (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• You are required to notify the editor. There is not even a single vandalism warning. Can you point to an example? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• All edits are related to the Azerbaijan / Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. There are endless reverts and counter edits between Nocturnal781 and Freedom Wolfs. Mtpaley (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

User ChristensenMJ is summarily reverting an entire page merely to prevent clarity on uncomfortable issues for his church

I made many good faith edits to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_of_the_Mormons%3F

and ChristensenMJ showed up not to edit anything in good faith but to merely revert the entire page back to the status quo WHICH INCLUDES reverting the page to a state where no references were in the reference section (a problem I had fixed in good faith).

ChristensenMJ falsely claims that I made personal opinions in the changes, when I did no such thing, yet he did not challenge any specific change, and he himself injected personal opinion in wholly reverting the page and undoing all my good faith edits, in a way that clearly denoted that he ignored ALL of my good faith edits. I consider what ChristensenMJ did to be a form of vandalism and CENSORSHIP of those attempting to update pages in good faith fashion. ChristensenMJ is clearly a mormon apologist who doesn't want pages updated that would provide any clarity on behavior by the mormon church. Protecting his church from being clearly and accurately described violates the rules of wikipedia and I believe his privileges should be suspended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.2.56.195 (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2016‎

• Yeah, I just reverted you: your commentary needs secondary sourcing. See WP:RS. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I have responded to the user's personal attacks made in postings on my talk page there, but to briefly respond here, I certainly don't believe anything inappropriate was done in reverting what I clearly noted were good faith edits. There is no protectionism taking place. Just looking for well written, appropriately sourced, npov edits - which these didn't seem to be. The lack of those traits and the writing style/content that seemed to imply some sinister effort on the church's part were all that made me "uncomfortable" - to use the IP's words. ChristensenMJ (talk) 04:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Scolaire

User Scolaire has shown a pattern of uncivil behavior and disruptive editing which I think requires an administrative response. This issue was raised in a previous Administrators’ Noticeboard incident discussion, during which I was asked for evidence of Scolaire's behavior. However that discussion was closed before my evidence had been reviewed. In the intervening time I have prepared the evidence more carefully and added more evidence. I am posting that evidence now.

This will necessarily be a long post, because it contains evidence of a pattern of behavior rather than being a complaint about one specific act.

To summarize my findings: Scolaire seems to regard himself as having the power of a judge or inspector over the pages he edits. He acts as if he were authorized to remove at will contributions made by other users, and from that perspective he makes frequent disruptive cuts. There is a quibbling and arbitrary quality to the intention behind these cuts, even though they may be backed by technical justifications. Sometimes this disruptive behavior escalates to uncivil comments on talk pages, often in an imperious and demeaning tone, and accompanied by stubborn reverts to the opposing editor’s changes. The clear intention is to intimidate and wear down the opposing editor rather than to achieve consensus. In short he seems to want to assert that he is always right, and that anyone who disagrees with him, or does not defer to him, is automatically less authorized than him to make edits.

Scolaire’s deletions and disparaging remarks often provoke other editors into heated replies, which he then labels “personal attacks” or “harassment”. This is not just a form of grandstanding, it is in fact a veiled threat, since the terms "personal attack" and "harassment" constitute punishable offenses in the Wikipedia rules. This move also provides Scolaire with a justification for removing (or "redacting") comments critical of him from article talk pages and from User Talk pages. But in spite of this alleged sensitivity, Scolaire himself has very often intimidated users critical of his edits, especially if they were less experienced than himself, or less adept at citing the rules of Wikipedia.

I think this constitutes disruptive editing (or more precisely disruptive deletion and tendentious editing) accompanied by a kind of incivility that violates many Wikipedia guidelines - including “Don’t bite newcomers”, “Wikipedia is not a battleground”, “Wikipedia is not compulsory”, and “Be bold” (the latter because Scolaire is preventing other people from being bold), and probably others I am not aware of. To put it simply, he is acting against the spirit of open discussion and constructive consensus which is the hallmark of Wikipedia.

Listed below are some examples of Scolaire’s disruptive editing and incivility, along with links to the relevant pages. Examples involving myself have been saved for last, because I want to make the point that this aggressive behavior has also been aimed at many other editors besides me.

Article: Derry
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
2. The talk page for the article Derry featured a vituperative dispute as to whether to change the article's name to “Londonderry”. Among the participants was a user named Dubs boy. Scolaire and Dubs boy took the dispute onto their User Talk pages for some additional sparring, which both immediately deleted (e.g. this, this, and this. Eventually Scolaire posted a comment addressed to Dubs boy on the Derry talk page, saying that he didn’t want to pursue the discussion with him; and he then immediately posted a comment to Dubs boy's User Talk page saying: “Once again, when I say I’m going to take no further part I mean I’m going to take no further part. Please don’t continue baiting me on Talk:Derry. Also, please do not respond to this by posting to my talk page. I don’t want to say anything more, regardless of whether you think I have engaged or not. Please respect that.” Dubs boy replied on Scolaire’s talk page: “You can’t tell someone to not post on your talk page while posting on theirs. The sort of hypocrisy that I have come to expect from you. I have not baited you, you have simply fallen into your own net.” Scolaire then initiated a complaint on the Administrators’ Noticeboard, which he titled “Harassment on my Talk page”. On the Noticeboard, no administrators made any comment, but Dubs boy posted many messages in his own defense, including one which resonates with the themes I have been highlighting: “Scolaire has been extremely dismissive of my comments at Talk:Derry, and demeaning of my opinion, without presenting any physical opposition argument, this along with claiming I am a minority in a phoney 11-4 RFC vote, would make anyone struggle to believe that I am the bully and oppressor. I think action should be taken against this user and his disruptive approach to dealing with issues and other peoples opinions.” Later on, Dubs boy posted a note to his own User Talk page asking Scolaire what the outcome of the Administrators Noticeboard discussion had been. Scolaire admitted that the case had been dropped by the administrators “for lack of interest”. A third editor then commented: “These guys [i.e. Scolaire and others] seem quite determined to block all opposition to their agenda. I don’t know what that editor [Scolaire] means by ‘opened ani’ but it is so indirect and avoiding of the important issues, that it must surely be a threat to comply.” - This exchange provides insight into the psychology of Scolaire’s pattern of objectionable behavior. The behavior seems to stem from willfulness, condescention, and over-sensitivity to criticism. These factors funnel into an aggressive use of Wikipedia rules and procedures against less educated or less experienced users.

Article: The Troubles
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
1.1. On the page called The Troubles, Scolaire systematically removed and undid changes made by other editors, without trying to reconcile differences or improve the text. (Examples here, here, here, and here.) On the article talk page, user Gob Lofa posted a comment protesting against what he deemed to be the politically biased nature of Scolaire’s edits. Scolaire replied that Gob Lofa’s criticism was “nonsense” and that his edits had all been simple reverts of Gob Lofa’s edits. (But by that very statement, Scolaire was conceding he had not tried to improve the content.) Scolaire also accused Gob Lofa of bad faith, saying he had introduced “a convenient line break” to “hide other edits”. And Scolaire added: “Don’t complain when somebody does a blanket revert rather than try to sift out the good edits from the bad.” Gob Lofa invited Scolaire to insert “citation needed” templates where he felt more citations were needed. Scolaire replied: “Adding templates is not necessary. You know where citations are needed and for what. If you do not add them, your edit will be reverted.” The discussion continued in this way for several days, with Scolaire adopting a high-handed and suspicious tone (e.g.: "If it’s not policy-compliant, it can, should and will be reverted” – implying that he Scolaire is the highest authority), while Gob Lofa attempted to appease him, but also argued quite reasonably: “Disliking one part of an edit is no excuse for deleting all of it, that’s just laziness. It’s good that you’ve retreated from your earlier hyperbole but with more care these issues wouldn’t arise.” Scolaire came back with this: “Wrong edits should and will be reverted, and there is no onus on the person reverting to sift out what may be good parts of the wrong edits. Calling it ‘laziness’ is just being provocative. ... Any of your disputed edits that you cannot explain and source may not be restored. Anything that you can justify and get agreement on can. ... Now, this whole business of recycling the same bogus arguments and haranguing me about stuff that I didn’t even say is verging on trolling. I have made my position crystal clear. Unless you have something new to say and you say it in a civilised way, I’m not going to continue with this any longer. Goodbye and happy editing.” 1.2. Still on The Troubles, user Lordofsharks added a new section, after having proposed it on the talk page. The material was well-referenced, but Scolaire deleted it wholesale. Lordofsharks wrote in protest on the article talk page: “I do not believe that you should speak for other editors as you were the only one that brought up this specific issue. ... perhaps rather than simply deleting this information you could provide some specific problems with my submission rather than just stating that it has too much information.” Scolaire replied: “If you could present the ‘take-home message’ of your sandbox page in 100 words maximum, I believe it would be a useful addition to the article, but it is up to you to do the editing down. Trying to re-add massive blocks of text will only result in the edit being reverted again.” The tone of this last remark is typical of Scolaire's talk page comments. His ire in this case is perhaps explained by the fact that he had earlier offered editorial advice to Lordofsharks, which it seems Lordofsharks had not heeded. “I recommend you start small,” Scolaire had advised, “with things like copyediting, correcting small errors of fact and providing citations, and get the feel of it before working up to more major edits. By the way, don’t forget to sign your posts to talk pages by typing '~~~~' at the end. Good luck, and happy editing.” Lordofsharks ignored this patronizing advice, and suffered the consequences. But after his edit war with Scolaire, Gob Lofa and Cliomania came to the defense of Lordofsharks on the article talk page. Cliomania made the following comment: “Scolaire, could you not try editing the text contributed, rather than removing it wholesale? You might disagree with the length or weight of the entry, but suggesting that all of it is unworthy of inclusion seems to go against the spirit of Wikipedia. I believe all editors are encouraged not to bite the newbies. The alternative to reverting is to make constructive suggestions about what you think is really wrong with LordofSharks’s contribution.” Scolaire replied: “I haven’t said that it is “unworthy” of inclusion. ... I have suggested what might be done: that if Lordofsharks (or you) could present the ‘take-home message’ of his sandbox page in 100 words maximum, it would be a useful addition to the article. So now, can we stop the criticism of my behaviour and start talking about the content?” – This last exchange is a good illustration of Scolaire's intractability: another editor gently reprimanded him for having an overly harsh attitude, but Scolaire was not willing to accept the criticism or work with it. Instead he recast the criticism as an ad-hominem attack, and stuck to his intransigeant position. 1.3 In the controversy outlined in 1.2, Gob Lofa defended Lordofsharks against Scolaire. Scolaire then took to Gob Lofa's User Talk page to accuse him of “abuse”. The supposedly abusive comment which Scolaire objected was this, from the talk page for The Troubles: “I find your summary of that discussion wanting, Scolaire.” Gob Lofa then replied, still on his own talk page: “I don’t come on article talk pages to abuse you, neither at the talk page you provided a link to nor anywhere else. ... I pulled you up on misrepresenting the views of others there and now you’re misrepresenting my actions. Almost as if you were concerned with scoring points.” 1.4 About a year before the above controversy, but on the same article page, Scolaire removed a whole section of the article. He had proposed the removal on the talk page about ten days earlier, but the section in question had been part of the article for about a year and a half. About two months after Scolaire’s removal, user Jxm remarked on the same talk page: “I obviously wasn’t watching when Scolaire removed this section!” Jxm went on humbly: “I agree that it probably doesn’t merit its own section, as Scolaire notes. Instead, I suggest that we think about reinstating some revised form ... perhaps a few sentences in a footnote or a reference entry directing attention to some suitable sources as appropriate.” In essence Jxm was politely suggesting a compromise where Scolaire would add back some of the deleted text. Scolaire refused this compromise, claiming his existing edit "ought to suffice".

Article: Guy Fawkes Night
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
3. On the talk page for the article Guy Fawkes Night there was a debate about whether to merge the page with another one called “Bonfire Night”. This led to a heated exchange between Scolaire and an editor named Cassianto, during which Scolaire complained twice of Cassianto’s “ad hominem attacks” (here and here). When the exchange died down, user SchroCat then took the whole text of the exchange and put it into a collapsible box with the title “Complaining about ad hominem comments while insulting others and being petulant isn’t constructive or vaguely sensible.” The implication of this title was that Scolaire’s own comments had been provocative, and therefore to construe the heated replies to such comments as “ad hominem attacks” was hypocritical. Scolaire then insisted on changing the title of the box to “Unrelated discussion”, over several reverts, and gave as his edit summary: “removed personal attack”. SchroCat reverted with the edit summary: “If you want to delete all the vaguely personal comments on this page, do so, but stop editing my signed text. Should I delete all your comments?” SchroCat then posted a message to Scolaire’s User Talk page which said: “Editing other people’s comments ... on the basis that you are ‘removing personal attack’ is laughable, unless you want to strip out all such comments on the talk page. Try that and see how quickly a block will descend.” Scolaire replied: “That was not a comment. It was a hatnote. Hatnotes should be neutral and not contain personal attacks. I seriously considered taking you to AN/I but I can’t be arsed.” The disupte was nonetheless brought to ANI by another editor, and the involved parties were told to calm down or face a block.

Article: Constance Markievicz
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
4.1 On the page for Constance Markievicz, a user giving his name as “Joe kearns” added cited material in support of a point. Scolaire meticulously removed his edits, though giving innocuous-sounding edit summaries for his removals. Joe kearns reintroduced his edits and there ensued a revert war (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc.) Joe kearns protested on the talk page; Scolaire then replied that he had added a few lines back in to please him, but “the rest of your post is nonsense. ... The ‘controversy’ ... is non-existant outside of the posts on this page by you and your alter-egos 78.18.211.113 and 78.16.86.228. Just peppering the talk page with your assertions doesn’t make it so.” Joe kearns replied: “I don’t have any alter egos, Scolaire. It would appear that more than one person disagrees with you, that’s all: it happens.” Not long after this Joe kearns was vindicated, because the point he had been defending was proved true and incorporated into the page. 4.2. On a related page (Casimir Markievicz), Scolaire removed an item added to the page by the same Joe kearns. Joe kearns protested on the talk page. Scolaire replied: “That’s all bluster.” Kearns then wrote: “You are using Wikipedia to perpetuate a falsehood, for reasons I can only guess at. ... I made my edits in good faith and backed them up with solid citations, and I want you to reinstate them. ... Instead of addressing the facts of the matter, you’re preoccupied with laying down the law on Wikipedia citations (as you see it). If you were interested in finding out the truth and making this article reliable, you would look at the evidence and address the questions it raises instead of quibbling over whether a source is primary or secondary.”

My own controversy with Scolaire
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
5.1. Over a three day period from 29 March to 1 April 2016, I did a large amount of work on the page for Francis Sheehy-Skeffington, adding a lot of material, but basing my additions on the framework that was already present – so that my modification improved the accuracy, style and referencing of the existing material without challenging it substantively. On 4 April, a user named CanK9 commented on the talk page that among my additions one fact was wrongly cited, and he then supplied better references. On 8 April Scolaire replied to CanK9’s post, confirming that the references I had provided were inaccurate, but claiming as well that the references provided by CanK9 showed that the mis-cited fact was “not of great significance anyway,” and Scolaire therefore concluded: “I’m taking the sentence out.” Which he did. About an hour later he also went on to cut several other passages from the article in quick succession (see here, here and here – in each case without attempting to improve the wording. Another hour later Scolaire posted a note to the talk page stating that the material I had added made the article “totally lopsided,” and suggesting that a related page could be created into which the added material could be parked. Another editor replied disagreeing with the creation of a new page, and Scolaire then replied: “What do you suggest, then? Just cut out the added content?” The casual tone and aggressive implications of Scolaire’s comment upset me when I read the comment on 10 April, two days after it was posted. I responded in a rather heated fashion on the article’s talk page: “ ‘Just cut out the added content’ - thanks a lot, a-holes, I actually put several days work into that added content that you speak so lightly of cutting. And the added content is most certainly relevant, given that [etc.]. If you’re so concerned about balance with his suffragist work then why don’t you ADD content to that section, instead of achieving balance by CUTTING good content??” I admit that the foregoing was heated language, but I think that given the context this was not so bad. A dismissive suggestion to cut large blocks of text can be provocative and even offensive. The term “a-holes” in particular was later dug up and used against me, but I don’t think that term is particularly offensive in the context of online discussions today. Nevertheless, I now admit that the above language was a regrettable lapse and distracted from my main contention – namely that Scolaire’s proposal to aggressively delete a large amount of material from the page was a disruptive misuse of editorial privilege. 5.2. At 08:09 UTC on 11 April I posted a comment about Scolaire to the talk page of an article about Sir Francis Vane, a person linked to Francis Sheehy-Skeffington. The comment read: “User Scolaire deleted material from this page which is informative and valuable. I am undoing his deletion accordingly. The material links this page to Francis Sheehy-Skeffington’s page, and one of Vane’s chief claims to fame is his righteous role in the story of Sheehy-Skeffington’s murder.” To understand this note it is necessary to add that in the course of my work on Sheehy-Skeffington I made several changes to the Francis Vane page on 31 March 2016. Then on 8 April, Scolaire removed a hatnote from the page which had been there since before I had begun editing, and which Scolaire himself had left standing on several previous edits (e.g. here). The hatnote directed readers to the Sheehy-Skeffington page for details on a murder Francis Vane had helped to expose. At 08:15 I then posted to Scolaire’s talk page: “User Scolaire, your edits to various pages related to the 1916 Easter Rising show alarming signs of political bias. In particular, you are removing material critical of the British Empire. Please cease from doing this and restore wantonly removed material!” Scolaire replied at 08:28: “Tone it down, man! I’ve responded at Talk:Francis Vane.” But the response Scolaire was referring to (made at 08:27) had nothing to do with my message to him, and was only about the minutiae of the edit to that particular page. 5.3 At the time of the discussion summarized in 5.2, and because of the rather heated exchange with Scolaire on the previous day, I had already begun to look over Scolaire's recent "user contributions" (i.e. the pages he had been editing recently). I noticed that they were mostly pages related to the Irish War of Independence. Later I noticed that on the page Partition of Ireland Scolaire had removed an info-box which linked the page to the series History of Ireland. Scolaire gave as his reason for removing the box: “Doesn’t belong here”. The box was in a subsection of the article rather than in the lead, so I presumed Scolaire meant that it didn’t belong in the subsection. Looking through the history of the page I saw that this info-box had been on the page for eight years, but at some point it had migrated from the lead into the subsection. So at 08:33 on 11 April, I put the box back in its original place in the lead of the article. Scolaire undid my edit, claiming the article was “not part of the series”. I wrote a note to Scolaire on his User Talk page saying: “On the page Partition of Ireland you removed a series box linking to other articles on the History of Ireland. You say you removed it because it did not belong in a sub-heading. Fair enough, but why did you not then paste it into the main title section? Instead you removed it completely. This type of edit is not justifiable - it would have been better to simply leave it there in its imperfect place, than to remove it completely. When your edits of this kind also have a political bias it is hard not to reach the conclusion that you are censoring Wikipedia to conform to your tastes.” Scolaire replied: “I’ve been editing Wikipedia for over ten years. I don’t need you or anybody else telling me what constitutes proper actions. If an article is improved by removing something I remove it, and if somebody disagrees they can make a case on the talk page. The infobox didn’t belong anywhere on the Partition article. It is specifically for articles in the ‘History of Ireland’ series, and that article isn’t one of them.” – Note Scolaire’s one-sided logic here: he himself can delete at will; anyone wishing to add material must make a case on the talk page.

Scolaire's removal of critical comments
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
6. After the above controversy had escalated to the aforementioned complaint on the Administrators' Noticeboard, Scolaire deleted most traces of my ever having criticized him from active pages where other users could see them. He deleted talk page comments of mine that were critical of him here, here, here, here and here – generally under the excuse that they were “personal attacks”. And he even “redacted” a comment of mine and then “replied” to the manipulated comment! The messages Scolaire described as "personal attacks" were clearly not personal attacks according to the Wikipedia guideline. The offending messages did not contain threats of violence or legal action, or insulting epithets, or any kind of insult directed personally against Scolaire. They were not taunting, jeering, malevolent, or in bad faith. They were not ad-hominem attacks, but substantive criticisms of his editorial behavior. In short my messages were aimed exclusively at his acts as an editor, not at his personal dignity or safety. I have encountered several other places where Scolaire also removed criticism in a similar fashion: in June 2015, Scolaire and another editor engaged in several rounds of mutual removal of criticism on their respective talk pages (e.g. this, this, this and this). In August 2015, another editor who had experienced Scolaire's mindbending "redaction" of his own talk page comments replied to Scolaire: “Editing other people’s comments ... on the basis that you are ‘removing personal attack’ is laughable.” In October 2015, Scolaire removed another editor’s critical comment from his own talk page and transferred it onto the critic’s talk page.

Conclusion

Scolaire’s practice of arbitrary deletion, and his aggressive reaction to criticism, constitute an unhealthy combination of factors which is both coercive and intimidating to come up against. When this goes unchecked, it creates around it an atmosphere of tension, suspicion and ill-will. I therefore request that some form of non-deletable caution be issued to him, which other users could see in the event they became involved in similar types of conflict with him. Given Scolaire's propensity to erase criticism, something like this is required so that future users are empowered to question his authority.

- Wwallacee (talk) 06:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Wwallacee: This really needs to be condensed down. Anything more than a third of what you write here is likely to be ignored. Wall of text posts are not the way to ask for help. Blackmane (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty to hat all of the content for ease of reading. Blackmane (talk) 06:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• I have not interacted with Wwallacee since his block on 12 April for harrassing me (see previous ANI case here), and he has not interacted with me. The fact that he has spent those fifteen days preparing this "case" against me shows that he did not, after all, learn anything from his block. I'll say no more, except to note that the whole "case" relates to articles that Wwallacee had no involvement in, with the exception of three consecutive edits to Francis Sheehy-Skeffington and one to Francis Vane. Scolaire (talk) 07:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Blackmane, thanks for "hatting" the content. I have taken the liberty of editing the section titles slightly. I agree this post is lengthy, but I am attempting to show a larger pattern of behavior, beyond the incidents that concern me directly.

During the last ANI discussion, I was asked by the administrators to provide evidence. I did provide some evidence at the time, but the discussion was closed before a proper discussion of that evidence could take place. In the meantime, I have considered the evidence more carefully and have provided additional evidence for my complaint against Scolaire. -Wwallacee (talk) 07:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Just a simple question, do any of these diffs happen after your ban on April the 12th?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: The answer is no. The diffs concern Scolaire's behavior prior and up to the time of my controversy with him on 8-11 April. I have not done any research on Scolaire's behavior since the ANI complaint he filed against me on 11 April.

With reference to the block of my user account, I want to add that it was a temporary block for 48 hours. The administrator who imposed the block wrote on my User Talk page: "If you wish to persist in your case against Scolaire after the block expires, then do so with diffs and a calm, neutral explanation of why the edits are problematic." - Wwallacee (talk) 07:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

So he's preventing people from being bold by reverting them is your complaint or at least in part?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I've read thru almost all of the above and I went back to the talk pages of the article to review most of the conversations. What I'm seeing mostly is WP:BRD. What I'm seeing from you is really a complaint about WP:BRD. Be bold and make a change, if it reverts go to the talk a page and discuss it. This very much seems to be the case for Scolaire. This is not something that requires Admin action as it is the way it should be.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, he is preventing people from being bold. But that is just the beginning of it. Scolaire's pattern of reverting often involves large-scale deletion of material, and he usually does not attempt to compromise or improve the content. There is also intimidation on talk pages of anyone who questions this behavior, and then also removal of critical comments, justified by him with allegations of "personal attack" and "harassment". - Wwallacee (talk) 09:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Wwallacee, you posted to the talk pages of articles where you had no dispute with me, saying that my edits showed alarming signs of political bias, that my procedure was to remove and strip away potentially interesting content, and that my behaviour was wanton. None of that is about content. It is all personal, it is all adverse and it is all untrue. Hence, an unwarranted personal attack (which you repeated 21 times on pages where you had no involvement, hence harassment). Are you seriously saying I should have allowed that smear to remain on the talk page of every article I work on, just because you were mad at me for reverting you once? Scolaire (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Wwallacee, you need to go back and read WP:BOLD. you don't understand it at all. If you have a problem with people doing large reversions then make smaller incremental changes. The evidence you show, the discussions show that he actually is willing to compromise.. The main thing that I really question is if you are here to build an encyclopedia. JzG told you to come back in a calm neutral manner. Not really seeing the calm or neutral. He also suggested you simply drop the stick. The only thing I've seen with your wikilawyering is that you have an axe to grind with Scolaire. Wikipedia is not a battle ground.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

In reply to Scolaire's comment above: I don't think my own prior behavior, which has already been sanctioned, is fair grounds for discussion here. What is being discussed today is Scolaire's pattern of disruptive editing and incivility.

But for the record, let me give my own account of the messages Scolaire is referring to. On 11 April, I attempted to bring Scolaire’s disruptive editing to the attention of other editors by means of a naive and unorthodox tactic: posting warning messages to a number of article talk pages that I had identified as being Scolaire’s primary territory. These notes stated (with some variation in the specifics) that I thought Scolaire had been arbitrarily deleting material he disagreed with rather than make any attempt to improve it. I solicited other contributors to monitor this and restore wantonly deleted material. Here is an example. These messages were deleted by an administrator about 45 minutes after they were posted, and 30 minutes after Scolaire had opened an ANI complaint about them. I now regard this as an appropriate action, and I regret having posted the messages. A better forum for airing my complaint about Scolaire's behavior would have been the Administrators' Noticeboard, which is where it is now being aired. However, I don't agree that those messages constituted personal attacks according to Wikipedia guidelines: they did not contain threats of violence or legal action, or insulting epithets, or any kind of insult directed personally against Scolaire. Nor were my messages taunting, jeering, or malevolent in tone. Nor were they written in bad faith. In truth, my messages were essentially a kind of grass-roots attempt to raise awareness about Scolaire's editorial behavior without going to the Administrators' Noticeboard – however misguided that may have been (as I now freely admit).

That said, those messages are not relevant to the present discussion. What Scolaire was replying to just now was my allegation that he has deleted comments critical of him. He did this to a number of other messages of mine which are not among the offending messages just described. Examples: here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Scolaire removed (or "redacted") these comments on the grounds they were "personal attacks", which they clearly were not. Again, they did not contain threats of violence or legal action, or insulting epithets, or any kind of insult directed personally against Scolaire.

I am saying that this removal of criticism by Scolaire is a harmful pattern of behavior. Other examples can be found here, here, here, here, here and here.

-Wwallacee (talk) 10:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

From WP:NPA: "These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done" (emphasis in original). Any posts of yours that I deleted or edited were insulting and disparaging, and were not about content. Scolaire (talk) 10:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

In reply to Serialjoepsycho, I don't see how my comments here, or the evidence I am presenting, lack calmness or neutrality. I am just trying to present evidence that I was asked for by administrators during the previous ANI discussion (e.g. here). - Wwallacee (talk) 10:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

To get back to the question of whether the main issue here has to do with WP:Be bold... I want to be clear that Scolaire's disruptive editing goes way beyond this. For example, he stubbornly reverts other users when they want to restore material he has deleted (examples here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc.) He also engages in wholesale deletion of blocks of text (examples here and here - with talk page objection to his deletions here and here). He also has a pattern of interpreting other editors' critical comments as abuse, and thus shutting down productive discussion of his deletions (examples here, in reply to this; and here, in reply to this; and here and here, with response here). - Wwallacee (talk) 11:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

So he revets and they want to restore? how do you know they want to restore? Have the perhaps went to the talk page and made that known? This is all sounding alot like WP:BRD.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Serialjoe, there is an authoritarian quality to Scolaire's deletions and to his talk page comments - as if he does not admit the possibility of error, and so he doesn't think it necessary to compromise - ever. The pattern goes like this, in escalating order: (1) revert the opposing editor; (2) if the opposing editor objects, revert again as often as necessary without attempting to compromise; (3) if the opposing editor objects, intimidate and discredit the opposing editor on the talk page; (4) if the opposing editor objects, make insinuations of abuse; (5) if the opposing editor objects, report the opposing editor to ANI for harassment or personal attack.

In order to get a full sense of this you have to look at examples in context. For instance in example 1.1 above under the heading "Article: The Troubles", I've profiled a sequence of stubborn reverts, followed by a protest on the talk page, followed by a reply from Scolaire that is both dismissive ("nonsense") and attempts to discredit the critic, and this goes on for several cycles until Scolaire accuses his critic of "haranguing" and "trolling". Or look at example 4.1 under the heading "Constance Markievicz", for a similar story. And look at the example given under the heading "Article: Derry", for an example of Scolaire taking his critic to ANI over a critical comment which Scolaire characterized as "harassment". - Wwallacee (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

You have a narrative, but from my personal review of the diffs you provide, the early ones you provided that I reviewed I'm not actually seeing your narrative. MAybe someone else well look and see your narrative.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Althing edits to Icelandic PM page

• Whois shows that an edit was made from inside the Icelandic parliament (Althing). The edit was a clear vandalism of the page of the former PM who was involved in the panama papers. The edit attempted to remove information that portrayed the PM in a negative light. I think there should be more investigation into a possible IP ban from all addresses linking to the Althing to prevent future vandalism. Rhumidian (talk) 14:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

  Not sure about investigation, but the article was in bad need of pending changes, which I configured for three months.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

That wasn't vandalism. The source, which is abc news, and thus reliable, states that the i.p stated. I see no reason for the removal of that post, that said, I'll leave it out pending a consensus change. KoshVorlon ..Doves cried 04/21/2016 15:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I removed the IP Lookup info posted on the IP's page, as it could be construed as threatening and have a chilling effect on editing. I replaced it with a standard WP:COI template. Scr★pIron^IV 17:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The IP didn't state anything, they removed content. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 10:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

IMO despite the fairly small size of Iceland, any block of that IP should still be treated as a Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses#Sensitive due to public relations implications i.e. notify the WMF. Nil Einne (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

AonoTsukune95/DawgDeputy

• AonoTsukune95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DawgDeputy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There appears to be an ongoing dispute between these two editors regarding content in general. What got my attention was this edit made here [56] which promted me to warn the user about the edit. AonoTsukune95 has responded on my talkpage, but I am concerned about the tone struck in his/her replies with things like "I CAN 100% ENSURE YOU that I WILL AND NEVER DO TRASH EDIT", and "THIS CAN GO ON FOREVER IF he do not be more understanding and he call himself a senior editor/wiki editor. cannot even recognise good edits and shit edits". [57] This comes after I responded that he/she should wait for a reply from the editor they had the dispute with before losing their cool. Any input would be helpful, hopefully this wont be ongoing going forward. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the contributions there appears to be more of a longer running heated dispute than I had originally realized. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

You're spot on , AonoTskukune95's edit summaries show shouting, and general ill-mannered comments directed towards other editors . KoshVorlon ..Doves cried 04/21/2016 15:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I feel the issue is a lack of communication hindered by a possible language barrier. The bothersome thing is that Aono doesn't appear to own up to any wrongdoing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Sigh, another shouty angry anime/manga superfan. Throw a rock and bounce it off the heads of 5 before it drops. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The conduct of AonoTsukune95 is terrible and he should come attempt to explain himself. Plus he's edit warring on Strike the Blood, for which he just received my 3RR warning. Katie^talk 16:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

AonoTsukune95's talk page edits read like a trainwreck. This needs to stop now. --Tarage (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

firstly i do keep to my stand that i did nothing wrong. i am sick of terrible edits by others. i keep do the best i can and others keep make it worst. how can i be not sick?? trainwreck?? oh? sure..as you are to judge someone. i am here to say this only, i only get annoy when someone does this kind of edits. i do realise that perhaps my tone of clarification was rude and after thinking about it i should apologize. But i will never stand for any bad edits. call me what you want. it takes one to say another. But i am well aware of my weaknesses. If my work for wiki edits is that bad compare to tons of others trash edits i see then good job. this community is 'improving'. i may be an angry superfan or whatever like describe as above but i never do rubbish edits. very disappointed with this community and to those who judge me above all i can say 'job well done'. You are the best and i am the worst. No matter what i do for the wiki page and so i will never be appreciated and the credit goes to trash editors and people who judge a book by its cover. I have nothing to say anymore as i cannot believe how terrible here is. Well, i am not in a position to say anything either but generally i can say millions of trash page editors are out there that edit the way they like it and end up looking like a fool. and guess what when i do good edits? i never get a compliment. well yeah this is a page. but then 'someone' does a 'genius' edit to my edit and mess up the whole shit. JOB WELL DONE guys :) credit to all of you. well done. i am the wrongdoer here so i am not even shocked if any of you guys EVER get what i am trying to say.

to all those that commented on me above. well done. you are the great one. i do believe whatever i edit is of good or at least acceptable standard. if you guys have the time to judge me then do me a favor by taking a look into the millions'billons of rubbish edits made by others. ALL i did was get angry when my decent edits were remove and THOSE THAT MAKE 'fantastic' edits were remain . is it a joke or is it a conspiracy? well i do not know and i do not even wish to know

i end my explanation with a apology to dawg for my tone. since he is so 'understanding' on 'great' edits i wish him the best. continue on leaving out 'fantastic' edits made by others and removing mine. and that goes for others. you can say anything you want but i will stick to my stand. i will not tolerate rubbish edits. and whatever i edit i make it the best if possible. and i do have the right to undo whatever edit i made myself as the information was provided by me. if i did not provide it that info would not even exist. Provided by me and i cannot remove it?? WHAT A GOOD JOKE. that shows the community is how 'great'

i just remove all my edits i ever made for strike the blood regarding yukina. EVERYTHING i provided i removed it. now you can see the difference and what i provided. since i cannot EVEN HAVE THE RIGHT TO remove what i did so i have to take drastic action and remove all. so now it is almost back to where it originally was before i provided it more information. and as now i will remove all edits on that page. that informations was provided by me and i do believe i have the top right to remove it since i cannot reduce the information i provide then i decide to totally remove it.

suit you guys. i provided info for greater good and this happens. so ok i remove all on that page done by me. i will not touch others but only mine. so go and see what i provided and how 'good' it was before i added in. CANNOT BELIEVE THAT I DO NOT EBEN HAVE THE RIGHT TO reduce the info I PROVIDED. good joke. i cannot change my own information. i provided it and when i want to reduce the infos provided by me i get undo by others. what a joke. so i remove all. so now nothing on the page is mine. but if i do find out anyone who takes what i edited and put it as they themselve edited THEN i will undo it as i would not stand others taking my information for their own credit.

look this way..i do not have the right to reduce the info i provide WHEN THE FACT IS THE INFO COMES FROM ME. who is right?? you editors tell me. my info and i cannot reduce it? what is this ? job well done guys. well done all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AonoTsukune95 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Tantrum and toys being thrown out of the pram aside, the only thing that belongs to you is copyright of the material you add to the article. However, whenever you hit the save page button you have released your contribution per the CC BY-SA 3.0 License. You are certainly free to remove your contribution, however, other editors are similarly free to revert your removal as they are free to copy, distribute, adapt and transmit your work. The link in the history page is sufficient attribution, per your agreement when you hit the save button. Feel free to remove your contributions, but be warned that other editors can and perhaps will revert your removal if the material is, in their eyes, good enough for inclusion. If you edit war with editors over this, be similarly prepared to be blocked. Blackmane (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Just for the record, despite being warned by @KrakatoaKatie: [58] for edit warring Aono went and undid the same content with this edit here: [59]. Aono please read WP:LISTEN, other editors are saying your edits are not okay so you need to discuss not click "save" or throw out a tantrum. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours for edit warring. I hope the block lets him settle down and get over his ownership issues. Katie^talk 14:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I hope so as well, a read up on some of Wikipedia's guidelines might help. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

BLP issue - urgent repair work needed

There's a Jason Lai who's a British orchestral conductor - see this page, since renamed. There's a different Jason Lai, a San Francisco police officer apparently involved in a scandal. Please could an admin remove the scandal stuff f rom the conductor's article and restore it to its correct title? A garbled dab page has been created at the Jason Lai base name, which needs to be at "... (disambiguation)", if anywhere. There's a RM at Talk:Jason_Lai, but this BLP stuff seems urgent. Thanks. PamD 16:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Working on it. Katie^talk 16:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• puts hands behind back* For future reference as a quick fudge I was just going to move/rename the scandal page to 'Jason Lai (conductor)', add it to the disambiguation page and remove the wrong person info from Jason Lai, which technically wouldnt have required an admin and would have resolved the immediate BLP issue, but Epic got there at the same time. I suspect given the marginal notability of all of the people involved, a primary target is going to be difficult to determine given the current news. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• I have just now reverted the article to the last stable version. epicgenius (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The only issue now is that Talk:Jason Lai is currently showing the talkpage history for Talk:Jason Lai (conductor) due to the original renames. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

(ec x 2) I think Talk:Jason Lai should be histmerged to Talk:Jason Lai (conductor) as the last fix. Unless there's objection, I'll do that shortly. Katie^talk 16:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

And never mind. ;-) Katie^talk 16:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• I've created a redirect to correct a redlink from the disambiguation page. I don't think this is controversial, just noting it here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
• Can I also now suggest that the page now at Jason Lai be moved to Jason Lai (disambiguation), and Jason Lai (conductor) moved back to Jason Lai? Or would it be better to go through WP:RM for this? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I cant see any reason anyone would object, since the only other two people are either redlinked or redirect. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. Might be some cleanup to do but I think I got it all. Katie^talk 17:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks, all, for sorting this out. Perhaps I should have been able to work out a non-admin fix, but it seemed better to bring it to you lot (not least 'cos I was short of time and due to go out). Looks good now. PamD 17:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

  To fix it some pages had to be moved over redirects, which only admins can do. If someone tries to move it again, ask one of us right away and we'll revert and move protect it. :-) Katie^talk 19:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, but surely this is not allowed?

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

---

User:Doctor Papa Jones (who apparently also goes by User:Jonas Vinther) is allowing some unspecified number of random people to contribute from his account, according to his userpage (it's right at the top):

"I have some friends who occasionally make edits using my account."

This is not allowed -- in fact, it's so not allowed that I can't find the rule right off. It's kind of like "Users will be subject to gravity". Presumably an admin can find the rule, if that's even necessary.

There is this Meta page which states "To use [role accounts], consensus must be made". Roll accounts, though, would be for entities such as User:BritishMuseum (or more likely User:VBC_PR_Department etc.). I'm pretty sure that if roll accounts are allowed (which I'm pretty sure not, on the English Wikipedia), they're for properly constituted organizations and not for "me and my housemates and anybody else at the party" or whatever, with no prior OTRS permission required.

In fact, this is a copyright mess now, since the copyright remains with the contributor (it is released for use by others under CC BY-SA 3.0 by pressing the Enter button, but not waived entirely). It's impossible now to know who wrote what, and in theory all of contributions made by people using this account should be rolled back (I'm not advocating going that far though). This is even putting aside potential for the the whole "Well it was my housemate who called you an asshole, not me" sort of thing and so forth. It's just a mess.

(FWIW, I came this user's page after being directed to this ANI thread where it apparently has come that the user is a nazi sympathizer and a nasty piece of work generally, although the thread was dropped for whatever reason. This isn't directly related to my complaint, but it sure as heck does not incline me (nor should it incline anyone) to be of the mind "Well, yeah, but he's a nazi, so let's cut him a break")... Herostratus (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

THe policy you're looking for is WP:NOSHARE, and yeah that's an admission that their account is shared, which is clearly not allowed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Herostratus I guess you didn't look at his user talk page where I posted a message to him about this earlier today. Ideally, you should talk to the editor about issues to try to resolve them before bringing a complaint to ANI unless there is active damage being done to the project. This problem could be resolved by Doctor Papa Jones stating that this was a past practice and he no longer allows other users to edit from his account and remove that statement from his user page. I would like to hear from the editor before passing any judgment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Immediately starting an ANI discussion rather than simply going to my talk page is extremely dumb, to the point of embarrassing. In this particular case, Liz sets a good example, so thank you for that. And Herostratus, comments such as "a nazi sympathizer and a nasty piece of work generally" are obvious personal attacks. Refrain from making such untrue and rude remarks in the future or I will report you! You should instead use your time to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Anyway, I have ensured that only I will edit from my account in the future and also removed the statement from my userpage. Best, Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 21:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Discussion Continues

My closure has been called into question. So, by all means - discuss the topic further here. Sorry for stifling the discussion here. SQL^{Query me!} 23:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse close: The ideal situation would be that Jonas had a committed identity in place that he used to verify that he was the person who changed the password. Unless there's a pressing need to indef him and force him to start a new account, I don't think there's anything else that needs to be done. Except perhaps screaming "WHEEEE". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

  What if I still feel like a nazi when I scream "WHEEEEEEEEEEE"? SQL^{Query me!} 23:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

In all seriousness - The rules were explained to this guy. He appears to get it. Fan-flippin-tastic. He says he made a change to comply with our rules. Is this an ongoing threat to the encyclopedia? Can you explain to me how a block would improve the encyclopedia in this case - without using the word 'nazi'? SQL^{Query me!} 23:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I second that. Let's not make a big fuss out of an innocent misunderstanding. Best, Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 23:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

We are not a bureaucracy. Herostratus's complaints are both insulting and baseless. Referring to another editor as a nazi is a great way to get blocked. You said "this issue is not going to go away", well I think it is going to go away as it is really nothing to make a fuss about. HighInBC

Well yes but here's the deal. It turns out I was right, and WP:NOSHARE says (emphasis added):

"Sharing an account – or the password to an account – with others is not permitted, and evidence of doing so will result in the account being blocked.

Looks pretty straightforward to me.

And as a matter of fact it is regularly enforced. One editor -- an important and useful editor -- had to crawl through glass to save her career her just because another person was using her computer (not her account). She's not the only one.

There are very significant copyright considerations here -- orders of magnitude worse than copy-and-paste moves for instance -- and it's a WMF-level problem if the admin corps no longer cares about this.

But OK. Maybe the admin corps has decided it doesn't like this policy and isn't going to enforce it. Can't make 'em I guess. But it is very very significant and major policy change if you are going to stop enforcing WP:NOSHARE. We have to have an RfC, a CENT RfC I guess, and the copyright people are going to want to weigh in, and the WMF will probably need to have input. It the result of all this (as I would guess is likely) is "Well, no, we like WP:NOSHARE fine", I'm not sure what happens then.

Or you could, you know, enforce the policy, as you've supposed to do. I'm just saying.

As for the nazi thing... it's not related to the matter at hand, but I like to look at the whole situation: the person egregiously, incredibly stupidly, and for a long time, violated a core rule for which the required sanction is termination, and in addition he's a fascist (at the very least, and apparently a nazi sympathizer I gather), which we don't want and cant really have here (see Jimbo's take on the matter, if you care) so getting rid of him is win-win. I linked you the thread earlier (it's here. It was a ANI thread that was initiated by this person and should have boomeranged against him probably, but (losing badly; efforts such as ""But that's like me saying you should not edit such articles either because you're an anti-Nazi -- and that doesn't make any sense!" probably didn't help) he withdrew his complaint and was allowed to do so (a failure of diligence IMO) and so here we are.

Some excerpts:

• "editing has consistently had a Nazi fanboy tone" User:Nick-D (an admin FWIW)
• "self-identifies as fascist and pro-Nazi" (User:Maunus)
• "insists on his user page that mainstream history of the Nazis is wrong, and that only he knows the TRUTH about his hero Hitler." (User:Viriditas)
• "he quits Wikipedia, complaining that WP is 'anti-fascist and pro-democratic' and claims that '99% of all Hitler-related documentaries, in particular those made by the BBC and ABC, is pure anti-fascist propaganda crap'" User:Jeppiz
• (Addressed to this person): "I do hope you are aware that I quite openly self identify as Jewish around here. I think you should accept a period of mentoring in terms of the material and methodology you adopt in Nazi - related subject areas" ( User:Irondome)
• "I suggest that anyone checking his editing history, will observe his facist sympathies." (User:David J Johnson)

According to User:Nick-D, this (which just says it can't be displayed) shows that user self-identified as something -- a nazi or else a fascist, I gather, and complained about the Wikipedia being anti-fascist. Apparently some combination of deletion and page moves have made this material unavailable to view (the intent, obviously) but I would think an admin could restore that.

Apparently according to User:Drmies, speaking at at another thread, this user was issued a topic ban at some point... the thread ("User:Jonas Vinther ownership of content at the German SS") is here but I haven't read it, as this is getting above my pay grade -- I write articles. It's supposed t be you guys's job to handle people like this. Herostratus (talk) 05:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

You would do well to keep your issues separate. There is no call for a block for shared accounts because that has been addressed. HighInBC 08:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Given that Jonas was already close to exhausting the community's patience due to the previous stuff (in short, self-identifying as a fascist and adding large quantities of pro-Nazi material to articles concerning Nazi Germany, leading to a broad topic ban which was instituted last November, and a "not yet" conclusion to a simultaneous discussion of whether he should be blocked outright), a light touch response to blatantly violating a core Wikipedia policy here seems inappropriate. I also think that Liz may have erred in her reading of WP:NOSHARE: it states that shared accounts will be blocked on sight. More importantly, if Jonas has been sharing his account it has to be treated as compromised until proven otherwise - how do we know who reset the password and is currently operating it? WP:COMPROMISED seems clear on the subject. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Nick-D holds a deep personal dislike of me, and I of him, so any comments about my conduct on Wikipedia made by him carries absolutely no weight at all. He would be more than happy to see me blocked and I suspect it's the sole reason he participates in this discussion. And since we're playing a game of Godwin's law, you are a fascist and Nazi sympathizer too, Herostratus! Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 12:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

You have self-identified as a fascist on your user page, where you also stated that "This user supports far-right politics", and "Make no mistake, 99% of all Hitler-related documentaries, in particular those made by the BBC and ABC, is pure anti-fascist propaganda crap and should never be considered anything else." So herostratus is well within his rights to call you a fascist. Do you have, on the other hand, any evidence that Herostratus is "a fascist and Nazi sympathizer"? Otherwise it would be best if you immediately removed those statements. Fram (talk) 13:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Fram, you live in your own little fantasy world; there is no evidence whatsoever that I'm a Nazi sympathizer and I have never made any pro-Nazi edits to any articles, yet I've been sanctioned for such. Also, bare in mind he called me a "nasty piece of work generally" which is pure horseshit. Face fact! Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 15:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I dont see how one could expect more evidence for your being a Nazi sympathizer than the fact that you explicitly stated so on your user page. This is a fact. You may regret that now, but it is a fact you need to face with more integrity than you are doing now. I dont think you are "a nasty piece of work", but your lack of sound judgment and critical thinking in writing about Nazi related topics is obvious to any one who looks over your contributions.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

It sort of seems like the "shared account" thing was burying the headline here. If the user is being disruptive in other ways then the shared account is just a red herring. If there is a problem we should be blocking the user, not the account(people blocked for having shared accounts are often welcome to create another). HighInBC 16:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_articles#Claiming_FA_contributions for other concerns about this editor. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I have cleared up these so-called "other concerns" on the talk page. Case closed. And stay on topic. Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 17:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Re: premature archive, my bad. Somehow missed the subsection. Consider me self-trouted. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • No problem--thanks. Drmies (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Drmies, please confirm that the issue you referred to here is solved. I'd appreciate that. Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 20:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Sure, I think removing that star was the right thing to do. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Doctor Papa Jones and I have been in contact throughout his Wikipedia career due to our overlapping interest in our suite of articles on Nazi Germany. There's definitely a pattern of him not taking the time to learn about our policies and guidelines ahead of time, and he's been in trouble several times because of that. In addition to the stuff already mentioned (sharing his account and the topic ban on Nazi topics), there was the following things, some of which are historical and are not being repeated, and some of which are more recent:

• quick-passing articles during the GA Cup in 2014. He withdrew from the competition. The best link I could find was Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup/Archive 1
• Copyright violations at Leni Riefenstahl in summer 2015. Talk:Leni Riefenstahl/GA1. There may have been other instances of copy vio as well. I am pretty sure there were, but Riefenstahl definitely.
• Canvassing for votes for the RFA for GeneralizationsAreBad (March 2016). Diff of User talk:Doctor Papa Jones
• Most recently, he sent me an email on April 16 asking if I would like to work on User:Doctor Papa Jones/Nazi power, a planned article on material that is the subject of his topic ban. I never replied to his email, so he followed up on my talk page, User talk:Diannaa#YGM. I guess he was not aware of our policy against proxy editing, which this email was not quite but almost a violation of. So what we have here is an enthusiastic editor who is not taking the time to learn about our policies and guidelines, and is repeatedly crossing over the line. However, he is obeying policies and guidelines once they are brought to his attention. — Diannaa (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it is eminently clear that the discussion has digressed from the "shared account" question to general conduct issues. Not sure how much I can add to this besides asking for all involved to please remain calm and avoid any name-calling that will divert attention from the legitimate issues at hand. This has the potential to generate far more heat than light. My apologies for stating the obvious, it just needs to be said, especially since the last thread got very tense. GAB^Hello! 21:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, you're correct about that User:GeneralizationsAreBad. I'm entirely at fault for that. So, sorry. My reasoning was on the order of "Well, if you ever do want to bend this rule and make an exception, maybe this is not the person you want to do it for".

Anyway, at this point my main interest is just knowing what the rule is. I was blocked without warning or discussion for sharing much less than this person did (or anyway of having been thought to have shared, it was actually a misunderstanding), but that was some years ago, and if the de facto rule has changed, its changed, and fine. Just want to know. To that end I've opened an RfC, here: Wikipedia talk:Username policy#RfC: Is it time to relax a bit on WP:NOSHARE?. Herostratus (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked Doctor Papa Jones for 24 hours for his personal attacks against Herostratus higher up this page ("you are a fascist and Nazi sympathizer too"), after I had given him a chance to withdraw them (or provide evidence for them), which he didn't do. Attacking someone on his political or ethical beliefs is not the best thing to do here in general; but accusing someone of having such leanings or sympathies without any evidence for it is way out of line. Fram (talk) 07:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Ovidwally

User:Ovidwally seems to be a single-purpose account with no interest in Wikipedia other than adding images of his own artworks to articles, which he has so far done in Ovid, Metamorphoses, Actaeon, Ariadne, and Daphne. Personally, I don't think the images are significant or illuminating enough to provide any useful enhancement to the articles, but that's neither here nor there. He has, however, insisted on linking to his Web site in the captions, repeatedly reverting my removal of the link in the Metamorphoses article per WP:ELPOINTS #2, even though I left an explanation on his talk page. And now I see that he's begun adding a copyright notice in each caption in contravention of WP:CREDITS, as well as forcing the size of the images to enlarge them. I realize that this is a new editor who may not even know that he has a talk page, but given his COI, I despair of changing his behavior. I thought about giving him a short block to get his attention, but since I may be thought involved at this point, I decided to bring the matter to other admins' attention instead. Deor (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd rather engage him than just block him at this point. The copyright notice is problematic, although (assuming he is the artist) he released the images under CC 4.0 when he uploaded them to Commons. I think it's a well-intentioned participant who isn't yet fully aware of the rules. Of course, future behaviour will indicate where to go next...and I've added his user talk page to my watch list to see what happens. —C.Fred (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's another problem: I'm not sure whether he's aware of the implications of the CC license he's released the images under (each page of his Web site does feature a copyright notice). Since it's not absolutely certain that the account is the artist himself, I suppose we could make him file an OTRS ticket showing that he indeed has the right to release the images. Anyway, I'll be watching, too. Deor (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I echo the concerns of Deor. I saw the license on commons, but I don't think the artist realized what they were doing when they selected that license as their copyright notice on the article seems to imply. What's also concerning is the link to their homepage which appears to be a form of link spam.--v/r - TP 21:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Disregarding the license for a second, this is a big COI. He's essentially using those pages for self-promotion. There are hundreds, maybe even THOUSANDS of painting that could be put on those pages that are far more notable than his.142.105.159.60 (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

stalker/troll

Hey folks, I'd like to bring Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bolgitalianissimano to your attention. I have a long-term personal stalker (admittedly, the guy threatened me with "an eternal stalking, for an indefinite period of time, from me at your expense"). As you can see on the sockpuppet investigations page, the troll is typically operating with proxies. His favourite pastime is, as he told me personally on de.wikipedia (by vandalising my user page), bringing me to waste time for him.

Right now, he seems to think, that his glory days have come. Just recently, I added German IPA-transcriptions to a lot of German place names, making available the additions I made in the German wikipedia a year ago [60] -> [61]. He reverted them using various proxies (66.147.244.59 (talk · contribs),138.201.7.172 (talk · contribs), 2001:1A50:11:0:5F:8F:ACFB:340 (talk · contribs), 78.47.69.35 (talk · contribs), 5.9.87.205 (talk · contribs), 212.117.173.189 (talk · contribs), 109.237.138.24 (talk · contribs),134.119.244.251 (talk · contribs)) with the "explanation" overdetermined/asymmetric. Since I know the troll's behaviour (which consists in reverting edits as often as possible, using proxy IPs, in order to bypass sanctions against his IPs or accounts like User:Onegyrol08, User:Bolgitalianissimano), my recommandation is a semi-protection of all affected pages (just check my current contributions). Since I reverted all of the unjustified deletions right now, I'd like to turn some admins' attention to the case. Thanks in advance! --Mai-Sachme (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

 Remark: The proxy troll/stalker just announced to rollback all affected pages tomorrow: [62]. A semi-protection seems unavoidable. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

That seems like quite a persistent vandal but I don't think there would be much approval to protect every article you have worked on. If you have a more limited list of targeted articles, please make a request at WP:RPP. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Liz: Hm, not sure about how to procede here now... The vandal has already reverted me on not less than 77 (!) pages. You can see the affected articles in my user contributions between 20:56, 27 April 2016 (Adige) and 20:43, 27 April 2016 (Altrei). Since he has just announced to do exactly the same tomorrow (that is reverting 77 times), I'm not able to give you a more limited list.

I have a suggestion: You could at least semi-protect a randomised selection of the 77 articles and see, how the troll will react. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Could we make an edit filter to catch removal of IPA transcriptions? Katie^talk 23:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

One option is to do a quiet WP:CLEANSTART. Let Arbcom know and the IP troll should find it a bit harder to find you. Blackmane (talk) 01:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I am the accused part. After you read what I am going to write you will not have the same opinion you have now about this issue.

1. About Mai-Sachme and his friend Bartleby08 both from South Tyrol. Watch Mai-Sachme's Italian talk page ([63]) and the only things you will found are: editwars, page protected from him, warnings and notices, improper use of discussions, tendentious points of view, and all about South Tyrol, notified by veteran Italian sysops such as Melos and M7. Besides, as you can see this is not the first time Mai-Sachme chooses to report a user as problematic to have him blocked unmotivatedly: an admin cloesd a discussion he started for that, and later another admin reproved his not cooperational behaviour because it was bordering on the problematic. Bartleby, instead, was even blocked for a month for SOURCE FALSIFICATION ([64]), in this case too about South Tyrol. They are not the candid souls he is pretending they are.
2. About Bolgitalianissimano. It is clear that this blocked user had a quarrel with Mai-Sachme and Mai-Sachme is still rancorous. But first of all I am not him. Second, he was not blocked for issues related to Mai-Sachme or his own edits, even if I do not know the reason for the block. Third, the edits he did were not at all vandalisms, but contributions to the encyclopedia. Last but not least, I want to repeat that I_am_not_him. Maybe Mai-Sachme is really conveinced about it, maybe he is just pretending to be in order to discredit me even more.
3. About the links Mai-Sachme brought here. The links about Bolgitalianissimano do not concern me. This link: if you do not speak Italian you have to trust Mai-Sachme's words, but what I said is that HE (Mai-Sachme) said that my favourite pastime is bringing him to waste time for me, and that he behaved exactly as he accused me to behave. This link and similars: here you have an example of hypocrisy, because when his comrade Bartleby08 did exactly the same edits and exaclty for the same reason but removing Italian IPAs instead of German IPAs and not once but three times, he did not report him for vandalism and supported what he had done.
4. About a few links I am bringing here. In Bartleby08's discussion I wrote four times, each time speaking civilly: here to explain the situation about IPAs and thank him for (apparently) stopping removing Italian IPAs, here to tell him I would not disturb him any more, here to ask him to stop removing Italian IPAs again and accuse him not to do it for en.wikipedia's sake but for personal issues related to his geographical origins (as proven by the reason he was blocked for), here to sincerely congratulate because he chose to solve his dilemma about asymmetry by adding German IPAs where there were Italian IPAs instead of removing these.
5. About my reasons to revert Mai-Sachme's edits. Not to troll or persecute him, first. As I told him, I wish this story had ended when Bartleby08 stopped removing Italian IPAs or had never begun if he did not start doing it. I have done it, once, for the following reasons. He inserted the German pronunciations only, the same thing Bartleby08 complained about when it concerned the few Italian pronunciations added by Bolgitalianissimano, but in all cities of South Tyrol, one by one, as to remark a sort of German-speaking predominance. The IPAs Mai-Sachme inserted contradict the very Help:IPA for German they link to, for example about the use of symbols such as: ̯ ˑ . The IPAs have no source, for how things are we do not know if they are standard German or local pronunciations, but in both cases there are no sources, and de.wikipedia is not a source for en.wikipedia if I well remember. Lastly, he has clearly not done it because he woke up and decided to contribute to the project, it is more likely he did it after Bartleby08's complaint and to take a sort of revenge against me, or he would not have spent almost 2:30 hours from 21:30 to midnight to insert all those IPAs, the obsessive troll is not me.

I hope that after reading all these not said truths he by chance forgot to mention your opinion about the matter would have changed. I am waiting for your reply before editing anything again. 190.14.37.133 (talk) 07:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

 Remark: It appears, as if the proxy troll (newest batch of IPs: 88.70.42.136 (talk · contribs), 5.9.43.137 (talk · contribs), 185.26.122.41 (talk · contribs)) has decided to avoid further reverts for now. Given the pending sockpuppet investigation and since his attempts to gather support for his deletion strategy brought only negative replies, I think there is a good chance, he won't continue with his mass rollbacks. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

 Remark: It appears as if the Italian germanophile separatist troll who accuses other Italian countrymen of being trolls (as proven by several sysops in his Italian personal talk page, it is not me saying it) is becoming conscious of not having been able to obtain a victory against the one he identifies as his archenemy. And the one he identifies as his archenemy (me, even if he has got the wrong person) is going to tell him one more thing: there is no way a troll from South Tyrol reproved by Italian sysops for trolling in articles about South Tyrol is going to gain an even trivial kind of anti-Italian vengeance here where Italian admins have no power nor interest, because I can simply add Italian IPAs to each article where you added the German IPA only. And you will not be able to accuse me of trolling or vandalising or anything bad at all. The only way you could avoid this and give yourself a sop is finding a city of South Tyrol which has only a German but no Italian pronunciation. Unluckily, there is no city in Alto Adige without an Italian name, since... They are all Italian. And you are Italian. As the source falsifier Bartleby08. And feeling accomplished in your wish of indepencence from the Italian Republic by vandalising a free on-line encyclopedia in English is very sad. But this is only my personal opinion, you clearly see it differently. That is all. 190.14.37.133 (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Having said that, he continues to stalk and revert me elsewhere... please note his deletions of my remarks on User:LiliCharlie's and User:Martin sv 85's talk pages: [65], [66]. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

We Italians use this expression to refer to people like Mai-Sachme: "avere la faccia come il..." ("having one's face like one's..."). "WHO" is stalking "WHOM"? Mai-Sachme himself searched those messages in those talks, am I wrong? And after finding them he joined, or am I being wrong? So, again: "WHO" is stalking "WHOM"? This is the typical situation when Italians use that expression above. 190.14.37.133 (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

R2-45 (continued)

After about 10 days, the previous WP:ELNEVER question about R2-45 article was [archived here] -- without a an answer from an admin of sufficient volume to change the status quo. As soon as the question was archived, one of the local editors interpreted the (relative) admin silence as implicit permission to continue ignoring (here) Wikipedia policy WP:ELNEVER on linking to non-free content and recordings. The editor, as shown in the diffs, is Damotclese (talk · contribs). There are other serious issues in this article including WP:BPL, WP:REDFLAG that I will bring up as another issue. One issue at a time seems to be the best way to handle it. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 21:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm the only admin who ever commented in that thread so I hope you're not saying that my silence was interpreted as anything. Admins don't make content decisions. The issue you're describing in that thread never belonged on ANI in the first place. What it needs is a properly formatted RFC on the article talk page to form a consensus on whether a link is appropriate or not.--v/r - TP 21:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

TParis (talk · contribs) Really? I thought we were discussing whether this is violation of WP copyright policy -- not content. Please confirm. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 22:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion in the previous ANI seems to agree that a 3-minute clip of an hour long lecture is a reasonable length for a fair use claim. Scientology will claim copyright violations on just about anything that doesn't suit them. This is a matter on whether it's fair use or not and whether it fails WP:ELNEVER and WP:NFCC. Those are questions for an RFC, not ANI.--v/r - TP 00:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

There was no such argreement. An editor from the page made the argument you quote. You said you were not sure. Oshwah (talk · contribs) said, "If the document is copyrighted and the tonyortega.org source is violating that copyright, the source should be removed from the article per WP:ELNEVER." It was not a consensus. This is not a matter of Scientology's claims. This is Wikipedia policy. It either is, or it is not a violation of Wikipedia's ELNEVER policy. As the poster in this most recent discussion indicates, s/he will be adding links to other non-free material and lectures on Russian sites to circumvent US laws -- now that Wikipedia seems to be ambivalent about the ELNEVER policy. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 04:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• This is very odd, TParis. Your first comment said this was a content dispute and that you were the only participantant. Your second comment asserted it was a copyright consensus ruling. The contradiction does not engender confidence. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 15:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Your personal attack doesn't engender confidence. Good luck, boss. The way you attack people isn't going to get you far.--v/r - TP 18:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@TParis: This is a copyright violation issue for Wikipedia, not my project, and not anyone else' personal cause or project. Noting your contradiction in handling this issue is the same you would do for me. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 19:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

You sound a lot like the church. The page linked is appropriately using fair use. The question is whether we can link to an article using fair use of copyrighted works and whether such links much adhere to our NFCC.--v/r - TP 20:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and WP:ELNEVER: Those questions are still open, and we need a definitive determination. I read your statement above -- is this consistent with all other fair use on Wikipedia? Is linking to a 3-minute unauthorized Youtube trailer of a Hollywood production permitted? If the lecturer speaks at 150 words per minute,[67] is linking to a 450 word unauthorized transcript permitted? Can Wikipedia import 450 words of non-free content? If linking to 3 minutes is permitted, can we link to 5 minutes? 10 minutes? How about recordings on Russian pirate sites, as the editor linked above has announced s/he will do? Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 22:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

DUCK sockpuppet is repeatedly vandalizing

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

---

Thank you very much wiki (talk · contribs · blocks · count · rollback · admin · logs)

Is repeatedly vandalizing the SPA templates on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Prince, despite a warning [68] and a final warning [69]:

[70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77].

(Still continuing even after I filed this ANI, so that may not be the last of the spree.)

He has also vandalized/trolled the page in other ways: [78], [79].

He has also placed a spurious warning template on my talkpage [80], and when someone deleted that, a troll post: [81].

He appears to be a probable DUCK sockpuppet of the article creator, Whiskeymouth (talk · contribs · blocks · count · rollback · admin · logs), who previously did the same thing, twice [82], [83] before being warned: [84]. The apparent sock was apparently created to !vote "Keep" at the suspected sockmaster's two articles on the death of Prince.

Winkelvi also just mentioned to me: "I've actually thought they were all the same person/a sock of the article creator since the first one cropped up. Same attitude, behavior, same type of thoughts on the article(s), same manner of expressing those thoughts", so he can possibly provide further behavioral evidence of the sockpuppetry connection if needed.

-- Softlavender (talk) 06:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC); edited 11:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:SPI is that far away and not at this page.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. The vandalizing is the main problem and he was on a spree that continued even after he was warned twice and I filed this. The sockpuppetry is the subsidiary problem and the probable cause of his vandalizing. The two issues are entwined, and therefore this case is too complex to bring up at either AIV or SPI; although SPI may be a stop as well if the block is not indefinite and if the other possible socks (the two or so other newbie SPAs who also !voted to Keep that article) also need to be investigated further. Softlavender (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that something is off with the AfD, it is always a bit odd when a bunch of new accounts pop up with one sided votes. Sometimes this is nothing as our pages are linked through other websites, but more than once it has turned up at least one sock. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I do not see a single vandal edit among your diffs, as per WP:VAND. This can be trolling, insufficient familiarity with the policies, or even team-tagging, but I do not see vandalism. If you give me a diff demonstrating vandalism, I promise you to block them, but so far I do not see anything.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, whether one calls it trolling or vandalism, repeating the same behavior (removing or altering the templates necessary for an admin at closure) 6 more times after being warned, and then 4 more times after a final warning and now has done it yet again since he saw you said you wouldn't block him: [85] ... merits a block in my view. Especially since he then went on to troll and impersonate me on Knowledgekid87's talk page: [86]. And now posts another troll post on my talkpage: [87]. For all intents and purposes this is a troll-only account at this point. NOTHERE in the least Softlavender (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender should be banned

He is just a troublemaker and vandal. He wants to delete a useful article so attacks others. He insists on anonymously putting accusations after my AFD vote that are not true. If he disagrees, he should just write "disagree with your vote because....." The fact that he has lots of edits versus me should mean he has no excuse for bad behavior and should be banned on sight. I am sick of you. Thank you very much wiki (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

It is ironic that you would say that seeing that you were trying to say that you are Softlavender. [88] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Legacypac

This user has already been featured on this board on several occasions. In particular, they decided to start a crusade against what they perceive as overloading Reactions to the 2016 Brussels bombings with reactions of what they think are non-notable states. They nominated the article for deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the 2016 Brussels bombings. This AfD was closed as no consensus. Then they immediately re-nominated it for deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the 2016 Brussels bombings (2nd nomination), which was quite predictably closed as speedy keep with a trout to nominator. Today, they removed some of the reactions [89] (and were immediately reverted). I would not block them myself for consistently evading consensus, since I was involved with the article, but I think time for blocks has come. They were blocked earlier this month for overstepping 3RR in the same article.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support block or indef topic ban This editor has really stepped over the line. They have shown a constant refusal to WP:LISTEN to other editors and follow proper consensus-based editing norms. After being reverted, this editor immediately and arbitrarily removed two further entries from the list. They have no credible method for which countries to exclude, basing it solely on WP:GEOBIAS and WP:POV. The biggest problem here is behavioural. They disrupt Wikipedia to make a point and refuse to engage with and listen to other editors. This is despite being warned and blocked. AusLondonder (talk) 08:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
• 3RR on the afd, not the article itself. —Cryptic 08:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

  Indeed, I stand corrected on this point. (It does not matter for the rest of my argumentation).--Ymblanter (talk) 08:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment General sanctions apply to the article. Therefore "After being notified of the sanctions, any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to edit in accordance with the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator. Sanctions may include blocks for up to one year, page bans, and topic bans". I think these two edits (1), (2) amount to a de facto violation of the sanctions as they are reverting the same principle, just with slightly different text AusLondonder (talk) 08:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

There are a number of problems with this report and it should be ignored. This is a content dispute on a 1RR article and I've not breached 1RR at all on it. I've engaged on talk extensively. The many editors that voted to delete the whole thing are being ignored in the claimed consensus to keep every single word on the page. Maybe someone can explain how the reactions of Togo and East Timor to the Brussels bombings have any bearing or notability.... Legacypac (talk) 08:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• I agree the re-nom 11 days after the "no consensus" was probably not a good idea, even though there was indeed support for what LP wanted (trimming) in the first nom, and even though the first nom was open barely a week (possibly should have been relisted instead of closed then), and even though "no consensus" closes generally have no prejudice against a re-nom. But the removal of low-RS or mundane/predictable reactions is a content dispute and should be settled on the Talk page, not here. I don't think this merits ANI. This is a content dispute; please settle it with the appropriate talkpage discussion or WP:DR. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

  Not really. If you check the edit history of the article, Legacypac is edit-warring against the whole world. They started the second AfD when one of their removals were reverted. This is not about the content dispute, this is about disruptive editing. I personally have no particular preference on whether the reaction of Thogo is in the article or not.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Ymblanter your statement "Legacypac is edit-warring against the whole world" is quite misleading considering User:XavierItzm, User:SwisterTwister, User:Chrisw80, User:EvergreenFir, User:Whiskeymouth, User:Reywas92, User:Peter James, User:Rwxrwxrwx, User:MrX, User:The Almightey Drill, User talk:Aircorn, and User:Jolly Janner all voted to delete or redirect the page during first AfD and User:InedibleHulk voted delete in the second AfD, and there is a whole discussion at [[90]] about doing away with all such articles. You brought me to ANi because I took out reactions from Togo and East Timor so you must care a great deal. Please explain to everyone why these reactions are not an indiscriminate collection of information with no relevance to anything? Legacypac (talk) 08:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that biased canvassing. Now please ping all other !voters, including keep ones. AusLondonder (talk) 08:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Your battleground behavior with regards to this article is absolutely unacceptable. Irrespectively of how other users voted they did not go and remove things repeatedly, and they did note renominate an AfD fr the second time two days after the first one was closed. Do not blame others for your own unacceptable behavior.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I don't see any edit-warring. I see AusLondonder made one revert of one edit Legacypac made, and LP did not revert. I see WWGB, while agreeing with Legacypac that the article was a coatracky mess, reverted two separate edits of LP, and LP has not reverted. This is just a clear and very simple content dispute, and all LP has done is try to trim a coatracky article which is already of dubious notability. Rather than bring this to ANI, why not counsel him to start an RfC, or start one yourself? Softlavender (talk) 09:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Please look better, there are more removals and reverts in the history.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

And there was already an RfC, the fact they perfectly know about.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

(1) I did look at every edit LP made, and every revert of any of his removals, and posted the results above. (2) There has never been a single WP:RFC on the talk page of that article. You are making a lot of statements that don't bear out; you need to provide diffs to substantiate your claims (which you haven't done even in the OP). Softlavender (talk) 09:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

(1) If you did look at all LPs edits I am not sure why you missed this one because this was exactly the second attempt of LP to avoid consensus. When it failed, they opened the second Afd. (2) RfC was not a the talk page, it was elsewhere, and I am not going to search for it now. However, it was opened exactly in relation to that article. Thank you for your opinion, but you are not an administrator, and in this topic, I am interested in an administrative action, I think I was very clear on this.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Not a single person reverted or contested that edit. I don't see it as an ""attempt to avoid consensus" because at that point there was no consensus. There is no edit war. You stated that "Legacypac is edit-warring against the whole world" and have never given evidence of a single edit war. Moreover, in my opinion no admin is going to take action unless you prove your case and your claims with diffs, and you haven't. Softlavender (talk) 11:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The RFC was at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 127#Proposal to do away with including world leader responses to terrorist incidents. —Cryptic 10:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Great, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, there has never been a single RfC at Talk:Reactions to the 2016 Brussels bombings. And the closing of that RfC on Village Pump says consensus is "that most reactions are not worth including. Very few editors supported indiscriminately listing all reactions from world leaders, and those who did failed to reconcile their position with WP:INDISCRIMINATE." The entire matter at hand is a content dispute about one article, and an RfC is needed on that one article. Softlavender (talk) 11:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

When did a No Consensus AfD establish Consensus? Maybe Admin action is needed against the filer here. Legacypac (talk) 10:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I see no edit-warring from Legacypac either, just (1) an AFD relisting which was not out of order as the first was closed as "no consensus". Then failing that, (2) admirable efforts to excise the most irrelevant trivia from the page, in line with the mentioned RFC, together with constructive discussion on the talk page. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 10:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree. The entire article is an embarrassment, and was especially before Legacypac made his first trim: [91]. Softlavender (talk) 11:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Meaning basically you are biased and therefore tend not to notice an obvious pattern of misconduct. Fine.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

What indication is there that I am biased? Softlavender (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support block or indef topic ban I'm sick of seeing Lp here for his POV pushing. The world doesn't revolve around the feelings of Sunnis.142.105.159.60 (talk) 19:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Does any administrator care to comment on the behavior of the user?--Ymblanter (talk) 06:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Ymblanter breaching ISIL 1RR Sanctions

Given the false accusations above, can Ymblanter explain their own blatant edit warring in violation of the 1RR ISIL sanctions on this same article [92] and [93]. Legacypac (talk) 09:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

At the time, it was not under 1RR.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Technically speaking, the note was added by an IP [94] and can be easily contested. However, my edits were before that moment anyway, and after the second revert (when I realized my opponent is not familiar with WP:BRD) I opened a topic at the talk page, and we came to a kind of consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

All ISIL related pages are under 1RR automatically but you should know that. You actually made a third revert within 24 hours [95] so you went 3RR on a 1RR. Legacypac (talk) 09:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Nothing is automatic. Stop using ad hoc arguments and address your own behavior. The topic was about you.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

You started this, and you should know that your own behavior is open to analysis at ANi when you start a thread against someone else. BOOMARANG can hit you hard. SCW&ISIL DS apply the moment a page is created, not when someone gets around to adding a note about them. How the heck would you contest that a page about terrorism attacks by ISIL is not related to ISIL? Legacypac (talk) 09:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

It is not even a page about attacks, it is a page about reactions on these attacks, and it was not even clear whether it is ISIL in the beginning. Stop bullshitting and address your own behavior.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

For how many minutes was it unclear these were ISIL attacks? [96] It is your accusations and your own breach of ISIL DS that need to be addressed here. Legacypac (talk) 10:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Good, I am really tired. Let see who will be the first admin to block me for 1RR given the circumstances.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

A truly pathetic attempt to instigate a boomerang here. Dragging up (wholly mistakenly) this trivia in an attempt to besmirch. Have seen LP's POINTy agenda over many article Talk Pages and they are far from a stranger to these pages. No apparent willingness to collaborate or compromise with other viewpoints. Regrettably I think the time has come for some kind of stronger message. User:Ymblanter has shown great restraint here, but everyone's patience gets exhausted eventually. 92.234.211.200 (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Ayal HaNasi says I've violated the sanctity of the words of the High Priest of Israel, Minister of God

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

---

I don't really think Ayal HaNasi (talk · contribs) is here to build the encyclopedia. The top of my talk page now reads "You have violated the sanctity of the words of The High Priest Of Israel, Minister Of God. You are out of your league. You think you are meddling in human affairs. Restore that which you have profaned. You are not a Jew and wholly uneducated and unqualified to even speak on the issue let alone to censor and entire contribution. Correct your mistake. Be aware. God Bless You." See also their edits, promoting themselves and another named person with no sources other than "The entirety of world history is referrence enough. You are insulting and offending The High Priest Of Israel. Cease you censorship and persecution of me and my people. God will judge all." I could probably block and no one other than him would object, but I'd rather it be someone else for obvious reasons. Doug Weller talk 09:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I blocked them indef. We are an institution which certifies true Judaic prophets.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

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

English politician talk page urging editors with criticism to email him first??

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

---

See section 'Updates' at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Mann_%28British_politician%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by EverSince (talk • contribs) 11:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

While that is not at all how things work here, the post in question appears to have been added eight years ago by an anonymous editor at the House of Commons. If they have a problem with any additions or changes (potential or actual) to the article, they should monitor for them themselves instead of expecting us to contact them, and they can discuss them on the talk page like anyone else with a WP:COI. Not really seeing any actionable issues here. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have clarified my concern is the chilling effect on editors. I guess it's carefully worded not to be a legal threat but it's an official urging editors, in a way quite contrary to Wikipedia as you say, to check acceptability with Mann first. Eversync (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I guess I am reading the request a little differently. The post actually says "Criticism that follows the wiki guidelines is of course acceptable, but would urge that if constituents have criticisms they contact him first" They did not say do not post criticism here without contacting John Mann first, they said if the criticism follows our guidelines it is acceptable but would like to here he would like to here from his constituents prior to them posting the criticism in the article. But John Mann should know about any criticism of him that meets our guidelines because it to meet them the criticism has already hit been discussed in reliable sources. I d agree with you that there isn't anything to do with this here. -- GB fan 12:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Could you clarify this sentence please: "But John Mann should know about any criticism of him that meets our guidelines because it to meet them the criticism has already hit been discussed in reliable sources." Eversync (talk) 12:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe it's intended to mean "should already know" i.e., without Wikipedia having to inform him. TimothyJosephWood 12:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok so that supports the impression that Mann's official isn't asking for information in some neutral way, just to hear from people - but somewhat warning editors about adhering to guidelines (in terms of criticism) and urging them to check this with Mann's office first - but Mann's office is not an authority on Wikipedia guidelines. Eversync (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

No, the point is that the anon meant to inform that any constituents that Mann is representing who wants to add criticism to the article should seek to discuss with their representative rather than put it in to the article. Reason being the criticism is likely to be unsourced and potentially BLP violating. Furthermore, why are we discussing an edit from 2009? Blackmane (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Continued edit warring and disruptive editing on the subject of Scotland

Pablothepenguin (talk · contribs) is currently on a crusade against Scotland being listed as part of Great Britain on Coverage of Google Street View. This has gone on for 10 days now, despite a 48-hour block for edit warring. Since the block, he has:

• Started 3 different threads ([97], [98], [99]) on the subject on 2 different pages, despite clear unanimous opposition to his proposed change.
• Continued inserting the challenged edit under the false pretense of "repair" ([100]).
• Twice hatted a comment by User:RGloucester that he did not like, stating that it is "Unionist drivel" and "Unnecessary content" ([101], [102]).
• Edit warring to keep his hatnote ([103]).

He is now "demanding Scottish recognition" and apparently won't stop until he gets his way. Note that he has been calling out RGloucester over the issue of Scottish nationalism since november 2014, so this is not just a recent issue. Perhaps a topic ban is in order, or a longer block.--Atlan (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked for continued edit warring on Coverage of Google Street View. We can entertain a topic ban, but I would like for it to be proposed and discussed here; various options come to mind but I want to leave that to the community. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Reading the user's unblock request here: [104], I'm leaning to believe that a topic ban might be needed. This is a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality I feel, and it might be best to nip this in the bud. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
• I closed the last RfC. If anyone thinks it's a viable and relevant discussion and should remain open, please feel free to undo that close. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Great Britain is an island. Scotland is part of that island, until or if they decide to dig a canal all along their border with England. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Last time I checked, Scotland is politically within the United Kingdom & geographically a part of Great Britain. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

There is a weird understanding of geography going on here. Great Britain is not "an island", and neither is Great Britain a geographical definition. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Great Britain is the name given to the largest island in the United Kingdom, actually. (You may be thinking about the "British Isles".) — foxj 02:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I was intending to qualify my statement by adding "In the context of this discussion". For example, the Hebrides, or Isle of Skye, or Orkney, or the Isle of Man - they are all not part of an island called "Great Britain" - yet they presumably are all on, or partly on, or will be on at some time, Google Street view. All those islands are part of the British Isles,and large parts of Scotland are not part of Great Britain if you are using that name to refer to an island. If you are using Great Britain to refer to a political entity, as in "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" then those islands are part of Great Britain. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Someone needs a nap

I am thinking that range-blocking - at least for a while - might be called for. After User:TJH2018a was indef blocked for impersonating TJH2018 and harassing another user, I let them know that their block was pretty darn justified. In retrospect, WP:DFT should have guided me, but cie la vie. The curious little guy then threatened me on his page and then vandalized my page. From the type of vandalism, I am guessing it's a kid (bc who else would think that a WikiCommons picture of a flaccid penis is actually insulting). With that in mind, I'd like to propose a range block for the summer; maybe they will find something shiny and be occupied with that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

From that one edit, it appears it could be a sock of Nolantron as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

That seemed apparent to me. What led me to the idea of range-blocking was the apparent interest in disrupting the 'pedia, so I say keep them out for a while. Since it is most likely a kid, they are gearing up for Summer Break. Idle hands and all that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Jack Sebastian, did you ping me telepathically? Cause I do need a nap. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Please do something about this guy, he is ruining my quiet evening with his vandalism including... pictures...-- Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

And he did it again this time on my usertalk.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's a lot of penis. I blocked the IP, but I don't do range blocks (note that it wasn't a range of penises--it was just one, multiplied, in an act of narcissistic, penile overdetermination). I'm sorry it ruined your quiet evening; it also kind of ruined my happy thoughts about napping. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Did they teach you the phrase 'penile overdetermination' in med school? Katie^talk 17:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Seminary. Drmies (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Troll is still dicking around those two talk pages. I requested protection at RFPP but it's backlogged. Will one of you admins consider skipping the queue on this one? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I see what you did there. = Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Spoke too soon, Widr is on it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Might need to go to the talk page archives too as the vandal is hitting those as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Not my area of expertise, but can the file be deleted? It's not in use anywhere except for when this troll edits. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The file is on commons, so good luck with that .... We could completely disable the image here by uploading something else as a local copy, but it's already been added to the MediaWiki:Bad image list [105] so I don't think that's necessary. Nil Einne (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I was a little unfair, the most relevant pages are probably Commons:Commons:Nudity, Commons:COM:PORN and Commons:Template:Nopenis which does suggest recent low quality images will generally be delete. What counts as low quality I'm not sure but the image does have little info which would be a concern. Anyway that would need to be dealt with at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests. Nil Einne (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Well I've nominated it for deletion, so we shall see what happens. Of course the wider issue is that even if it is deleted, there are plenty more (we have the same issue with the bad image list, with the minor advantage that I think adding images to it is easier than deleting them on commons). Nil Einne (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Yeah, we all know there are not enough flaccid penisse in the world to satisfy Common's desire for them.--v/r - TP 19:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

True dat, TParis. Drmies (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I'm here. Basically, the only way to combat this thing is to put the images on the MediaWiki list, and put in for an SPI. I took the liberty of creating a User:TJH2018b and User:TJH2018c, so hopefully that will discourage him for a while. If you take a look at my talk page, you'll see that some guy was complaining about him. But that's the gist. Nothing else we can do besides that. TJH2018talk 21:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance; I'm sure the blocked user will eventually get tired of getting cock-blocked. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@@Jack Sebastian: He doesn't stop. It may seem like he's gone, but he'll be back. TJH2018talk 22:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Can we revisit the idea of rangeblocking? Even the IP troll dared us to make a rangeblock. Unfortunately, in my Orientation to Adminship they didn't cover rangeblocks so is there another admin who can look into this? These taunts and trolling have been going on for weeks now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks like 24.114.50.0/18 would cover it, but I'd need to confirm any crossfire or additional IPs it would miss. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 00:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Nope, too many good edits from that range it seems. *sigh* -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 00:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I think I got it: 24.114.100.0/21; 24.114.60/19; 24.114.45/20 I omitted the range around 24.114.99.0 since I saw recent good edits from around there. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 00:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

This situation has been going on for quite some time now. I (and basically anyone who has come to my assistance) have received personal attacks, vandalism, said unsavoury pictures, ETC, since as early as February 2016, and it's about to be May. There are brief periods of time where it seems like the user has stopped, but he quickly returns. Every time one of his IPs or accounts is blocked, the user finds a new one almost immediately.

The user shows no signs of any endgame. Quite the opposite, in fact. The user's vandalism is getting worse. He is now impersonating other users ([106]). This probably will go on for as long as it's allowed. At this point, I think more extreme measures need to be taken. DarkKnight2149 00:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Clarification please: DrChrissy and human anatomy edits

Clarification requested please, with this DrChrissy was Tbanned from "human medical articles and WP:MEDRS related discussions (in accordance with the previous close, and to reduce the possibility of conflict with the same group of users)." The entry at WP:RESTRICT says "DrChrissy is also topic banned from human health and medicine, and WP:MEDRS related discussions, broadly construed." DrChrissy has made edits to articles clearly focused on human anatomy, like [107][108]. This led to this conversation on DrChrissy's User Talk, where it became apparent that there's a bit of open ambiguity as to whether editing human anatomy topic falls under "human medicine... broadly construed". Could we get some clarification please? I am not looking for any further sanctions here, just clarity, as this is apparently good-faith disagreement. Zad68 2:18 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Human anatomy is not in and of itself health related. For example, as an artist I study and work with human anatomy all of the time and my work has nothing to do with health. There may be aspects of articles on human anatomy that relate to health or medicine, and human health obviously references the human being and his or her anatomy. but in and of itself no, not a health related area or areas.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC))

The particular disagreement we were having was whether human anatomy is part of "human medicine". To me it clearly is, it's a foundational element of medicine, and clearly would be included in the Tban when "broadly construed." To DrChrissy it isn't... thanks for your input. Zad68 18:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The subject matter of the article is anatomy - to describe a normal human penis. There are other penis-related articles which are medically oriented such as Micropenis, Penile cancer and Penile fracture which I have not, and would not, edit. Zad68 directed me to Medicine#Basic sciences to support their argument. Please note that along with Anatomy, this list also includes sciences such as Histology, Biophysics and Cytology. As with anatomy, these all have large areas of study completely unrelated to health and medicine. Please remember that our Medicine article states "Medicine... is the science and practice of the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease." and our Anatomy article states “Anatomy is the branch of biology concerned with the study of the structure of organisms and their parts”. Whilst they are not mutually exclusive, they are very clearly, different. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Yep it's exactly this that we're looking for clarity on. Zad68 18:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The clarity is that one uses the word "disease" whereas the other does not. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the important line on the topic ban here is "human health" (especially when "broadly construed"). Even though there are some non-health related aspects to the human anatomy, as suggested above, I think the two areas are so interconnected that the ban would apply. Brianga (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Brianga, do you think the ban applies to Beard, Hair, Earlobe, Moustache...? DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I must say, this does look like a continued exercise in boundary-testing. Aren't there enough topics to edit which don't overlap with human health, broadly construed? And why did you even think to edit Quackery? Alexbrn (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

You critically forget to mention that I immediately self-reverted. Let's play nicely here. DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

You didn't "immediately self-revert"; you struck your comments after being reminded of your TBAN. More boundary testing? Alexbrn (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Just what point are you trying to make here? You are not even commenting on the subject of this thread. You are clearly trying to poison the well by bringing mistakes I made on another page to this one. Please desist. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The point is that it seems there is a wider pattern whereby you keep pushing your luck and wasting everybody's time in the process. Hasn't this come up at AE (and AN/I) before? Alexbrn (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

It is you that is wasting everybody's time with these spurious accusations. This thread is about whether Human penis is an anatomy article or a medical article. Please stick to the subject. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

It's a false dichotomy to say "anatomy article or medical article", as if they were separate topics. The question is whether human anatomy should be considered to fall under "human health and medicine ... broadly construed". Zad68 20:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

It is your opinion that it is a false dichotomy. You are entitled to your opinion, but so am I. Medicine is about a process - largely, treating disease. The article Human penis is about a lump of flesh that hangs off the front of men. It is not about disease. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

No its not Zad. I would disagree strongly. I use human anatomy in both art and dance, but none of what I am doing has to do with health. Human health is a possible subset of human anatomy, as is the knowledge of human anatomy to draw the human figure, and understanding of the anatomy to analyze a skill for example, a jump or turn. To deal with this issue we must clarify both the master topic area and the subsets and then determine which if not all or some fall under "health related". If this is truly a clarification then personal attacks only derail the discussion and delay clarification. This is a larger issue than one editor's ban and probably deserves greater community input. No one's opinion on this can be definitive, and we should have an understanding that all editor's can refer to .(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC))

That isn't the question here, is it? I would say, "maybe" - for hair, it would apply if you are editing about lice, but not a crewcut. But I'm loathe to give an advisory opinion and think we should stick to the issues at hand. Brianga (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

But this is the issue at hand. Zad68 is asking whether I should edit the Human penis page at all, not about the particular edits I made. Contrary to what you think, I can edit about lice at that page, but not on matters relating to human health. I would argue that I should not edit crewcut because that is a fashion and relates to human mental health. This is why topic bans are so stupid. DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

This is just my personal opinion based on university classes in biology but I don't think anatomy (and the general area of human biology) necessarily involves health or medicine. I took courses in anatomy and physiology and they had nothing to do with medical treatment or health issues. I think you have to look at the content of the edits, not merely the article title. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this Liz - I totally agree. For many months now, I have edited animal behaviour and animal welfare articles such as Dog meat where there are (totally unfounded) claims of medical benefits. I have steered wide of making any edits to such material. I am not testing the Ban, I am trying very hard to adhere to this, even though it is sometimes to the detriment of articles. I am perfectly happy to discuss my edits at Human penis as to whether they are medical or not, but I would like to suggest this waits until we get consensus on the OP's clarification request. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I understand the concern about boundary testing, particularly after the recent edit to Talk:Quackery, but personally I really don't see edits to articles on human anatomy with no health or medical aspects covered by the topic ban. I'm surprising myself a little here, because in the past I've been critical of DrChrissy's boundary testing, but I don't think that's what's happening here. And I think it's well on this side of the boundary anyway. I guess it's easier to make health or medical-related edits to anatomical articles, and I imagine admins (including me) won't be terribly forgiving if "accidental" health or medical-related edits are made on this type of article. So DrChirssy should exercise extreme caution. And, DrChirssy, the idea of topic bans is not stupid, it's just an understandable problem in execution; if you make them narrowly defined, then someone will always find loophole upon loophole. If you make them broadly defined, then almost by definiton the boundary is poorly defined. Better would be not editing in a way that required inherently imperfect topic bans to be imposed in the first place. But in this particular case, I don't see a topic ban violation. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I guess I'm a little late to the cockfight here, but I agree entirely with Liz and Floquenbeam. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

As do I. Katie^talk 01:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

That raises an interesting question, which I don't know the answer to. Is the "topic" by article, or by edit? In other words, can one edit any article so long as it doesn't implicate the topic at issue; or must one avoid each and every article that involves the topic? Somewhere in the middle? Brianga (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Potential legal threats at Lennart Poettering

Do this, this and this, which all come from the same IP range, seem to collectively count as legal threats, aside from being clearly WP:DISRUPTIVE unjustified massive blanking? LjL (talk) 19:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• I don't see it, and considering that this is a BLP we should look at the claims carefully. Drmies (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
• The first two qualify, the third is merely a personal attack. Suggest semi-protecting the article to fend off the IP's, and not restoring the material until it can be thoroughly reviewed (as Drmeis said). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Ha, I just semi-protected it for a good long while--there's plenty of disruption in the history. Thanks Bugs. The disputed section, I trimmed it a bit, but it's decently sourced and hardly libelous or harassy. In other words, the IP needs to stop complaining. I do invite other editors to have another look at that section. Drmies (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Jolly good. I have to say, those "controversies" are something only a dedicated computer geek would likely care about. And I don't see anything that looks libelous. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Apparent behavioral problems/personal attacks involving anon IP on math pages

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

---

This is to report seemingly unprofessional editing and abusive treatment of editor by a anonymous IP [109] . The violations of the rules of outing editors and the incoherent language are apparent here [110]. Visibly the person is not a mathematician (as per his own admission) and is asking editor to produce credentials. His editing and reverting is apparent here [111]. An administrator as well as other people involved in mathematical pages should take a look.Limit-theorem (talk) 20:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

You can see the IP 174.3.155.181 doing the same personal attacks on other editors.Limit-theorem (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• [We're all anonymous here, except for Jimbo Wales.] Drmies (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I've {{redacted}} a lot of their personally insulting comments and given them a warning for making personal attacks. Let me know if I missed anything. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 20:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

excuse me? i provided two links to my proficiency in mathematics, both of which demonstrate my ability. in contrast, you have not provided any information about your accomplishments. further, you've got a history of avoiding people when they confront you about your edits, as i demonstrated on the appropriate page. if you think that you can get away with alleging someone has no mathematical experience, when their body of work suggests otherwise, while refusing to show any of yours, you're delusional. further, i told you quite clearly that the concept of measure involves a measurable function, which requires introduction of, at the VERY LEAST, an "x axis" so that the areas can be calculated *relative* to it. the notion of measure was originally introduced as a systematised approach for integrating primitive functions.

Collapsed under Talk Page Guidelines. Using user's ethnicity as a basis for argument

so far, you've done what is commonly associated with hindu people. that is, you deflect, refuse to answer or provide justification for your basis. the fact you tried to use a financial mathematics textbook for a pure mathematics concept is only one part of your problematic edits. comparing my edit history to yours (i can even show other IPs), it is not even close who is more useful to this website. you edit minor grammar and proceed to act like you're a ramunujan (who is overrated).

mods, admins, may i ask how you allow people to hurl false claims in order to protect their integrity? look at what htis guy is saying. he's saying i'm not a mathematician and yet my body of work clearly shows i have *DEMONSTRATED* my ability to use nuanced concepts from probability theory. i have also done work in measure theory, so i have no idea where he gets off making this allegations.

lastly, i got a warning from someone because of this guy, but i think he's trying to scare me into accepting his incorrect edit. wikipedia needs to start prioritising correctness over feelings, because right now this guy got demoralised and humiliated. he thought he was a "math guy". i asked for credentials and i'll provide mine (again) so i can ask for his (again): http://web.archive.org/web/20150923213902/http://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~gagans/ http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.8392

do you guys honestly think it's acceptable for this guy, who has provided no substantive edits, nor any information about his own accomplishments, to hurl allegations? say what you want about my "conduct", i have added way more than he has on this IP alone. nonetheless, i got the warning and i'll stick to the content (as i have here) 174.3.155.181 (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I warned you because you were discussing that a user's ethnicity governs their ability to edit, which goes against WP:NPA (a guideline on personal attacks (there should be no such attacks)). This has nothing to do with the content of your edits. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 20:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I guess an administrator should not need more evidence than this.Limit-theorem (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can see the IP's edits in the articles are correct, though edit summaries are sometimes inflammatory. The talk page edits including the one above are not really acceptable. I have a PhD in physics and math.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• I've blocked the IP for a month for spewing bigoted attacks after being warned not to. Discussion on who is right and who is wrong can be moved to the talk page; it's all Greek to me, so Ymblanter's participation there would be welcome. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

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

US Government Logo....isn't actually public domain?

I found this notice from the USDA Forest Service on eBay (for another thing on Wikipedia that was unrelated) that states that the USDA Forrest Service Logo isn't in the public domain which is different as stated on the commons. Now i'm not 100% sure where this should be brought up on Wikipedia, so I want a more experienced editor/admin here to look at this and see if this is of concern a/or requires further research. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

See http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-10851394 for a previous iteration of what appears to be the same issue. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

This is probably better taken up at Commons, though I'm not familiar enough with it to know where the proper noticeboards are. Commons:Village pump/Copyright probably. clpo13_(talk) 04:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Unsure how to deal with an undoing IP

Special:Diff/717652753. Looking at the page history, I undid revisions by 63.92.230.201 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) on March 31. This user came back to day to restore the text. I can't say I have any negative feelings about the text, but I think it's not surprising at all that an Apple store will block certain site to maintain security, as do most stores in malls, right? Hence, it fails WP:GNG for me. I'm not 100% sure how to handle this, but I'm inclined to just leave this alone. — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 23:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks just to be unsourced trivia to me; plus, we don't need those external links. WP:ELNO covers quite a few reasons they shouldn't be there. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 23:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Good advice, that external link certainly doesn't belong here. Big banner begging for money on the front page, this may be spamming, but regardless, the site isn't a reliable source to link to, it is self-published. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Conflict between myself and WilliamJE

Hi, AN/I. I've been in conflict with another user, and I'm rather afraid that I've seriously lost my temper. Anyone examining my recent edit history will find quite a number of breaches of WP:CIVIL, and I'll accept any knocks I've got coming for that. My only defence is that in ten years on-wiki this is the first time I've done it. I have a very long history of editing in conflict-rich areas without losing my rag, but this has finally done it. As well as examining my own behaviour, I'd also be grateful if AN/I could determine whether (as I maintain) WilliamJE is on a MOS-related crusade that is causing needless conflict, and give him advice on the number of reverts it's appropriate to make in a 24-hour period.—S Marshall T/C 23:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

S Marshall, in 10 years you've never had an outburst, and then that happened. Is there something else happening in your life right now that may be causing stress? Because, I just don't see how that issue escalated so quickly for you. WilliamJE's first removal of content was a bold edit, not a revert. The material he removed has existed for years. Calling it a revert would be calling every edit that changes or removes content a revert. If that were the case, only edits that add material could be defined as not-reverts. It seems to me, that WilliamJE is at 3 reverts. And your threat to wait 3 days and then make your change does look a lot like gaming the system. I just don't see any way in this that you come out looking well. I hope my outside opinion helps.--v/r - TP 23:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I have been looking at the Compulsory purchase in England and Wales article and I am a little mystified as to why S Marshall has self reported. I can see several prophanities (which I dislike but they are certainly not actionable). Am I missing something here. S Marshall, can I rather bizarrely remind you that postings here are supposed to be supported by diffs. Where have you violated WP:Civility? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrChrissy (talk • contribs) 23:42, 28 April 2016‎ DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• S Marshall has, on infrequent occasion, fallen through cantankery into outburst at another who has irked him. It is not terribly out of character, but a particular characteristic of a usually thoughtful and kind person who swims in difficult places. He has not lost his temper, but instead caught himself. If William can ride above this, and carry on, and all parties try to maintain civility, then all is well.

On WilliamJE, since this is a backhand request to investigate him... True, anyone connected with the MOS should be viewed with suspicion. I also note that I dislike his recent signature, I think it is a clever reference to something, but too clever for me. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

User Izac Cobain Johns.

This user, (Izac Cobain Johns. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to keep changing genres on various articles without giving sources for it. Has been warned multiple times in the past about this behavior and yet keeps doing it. Feinoha ^Talk 00:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the two-week vacation from editing I just gave him will help. Katie^talk 01:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Bartoli family hoax and disruptive editing

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

---

This post is in regard to the falsifications in Bartoli family, Volterra & al. and the collateral disruptive editing and denial of misconduct.

Overview

• Knowing1900 (talk · contribs) creates the article Bartoli family and the verbatim identical, now deleted House of Bartoli, as well as Draft:Bartoli Family.
• Performing basic WP:V checks on Bartoli family I discover it is unverifiable and I send it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bartoli family per WP:DNCH.
• Eagleash and I investigated the edits made by Knowing1900 and 78.145.17.94 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): all their edits in other articles introduce unverifiable contents in an attempt to support the hoax in Bartoli family.
• Five images uploaded to Commons are quite obviously meant to have been used in the hoax, cf. my comments at User talk:Knowing1900#Discussions on Commons.
• Account Coralsnan (talk · contribs) has since been created. They have edited in Bartoli family only.

1. Main disruption

• Bartoli family states that "the younger [son] Fabio Bartoli resides in London, England"
• Geolocate on 78.145.17.94 points to London.
• Based on that observation and WP:IDART it may be presumed that 78.145.17.94 is Knowing1900 logged out.
• Similarly based on IDART it may be presumed that Coralsnan (talk · contribs) is a sock account.
• For the record: as editing includes cross-wiki vandalism on it.wiki that I have reverted, I have asked Steward and it.wiki Admin Vituzzu to look at the accounts and see if global locks are warranted.
• I ask for community opinion on whether or not local blocks for disruption are warranted in this case.

2. Collateral disruption

• Aoidh (talk · contribs) made an edit to Volterra in this diff. Instead of reverting to "last good revision", he selectively removed valid information such the mention of Volterra Cathedral in a bulleted list citing WP:V and WP:BURDEN as his reason. He also removed large parts of the fabricated material added by Knowing1900 and IP78.145.17.94. He failed to identify § French Invasion (Previous revision of Volterra q.v.) as vandalism despite the section being (a) void of sources, and (b) included terms such as Royal Assebly of Volterra [sic] and Gian Tullio Bartoli that returns zero Google hits. Apart from in Bartoli family.
• I went on a mopping-up round and reverted to "last revision prior to Knowing1900/78.145.17.94 edits" in Bartoli, Volterra Cathedral, and Volterra.
• Aoidh as his first subsequent edit Twinkle-reverted me in this diff citing Per WP:BURDEN, these need sources if they are going to be added to the article. With this revert Aoidh restores for the first time the unsourced section § French Invasion with the vandal's fabrications.
• Italian user Chiorbone da Frittole (talk · contribs) undoes Aoidh's edit in this diff.
• Aoidh again as his first subsequent edit reverts in this diff again citing See WP:BURDEN and WP:V. Provide sources for this material. With this revert Aoidh restores for the second time the unsourced section § French Invasion with the vandal's fabrications.
• Chiorbone da Frittole gets rid of the unsourced material by undoing Aoidh again in Diff of Volterra asking in her edit summary discuss on the talk page, you're deleting well-known facts as well.
• Aoidh instead of observing WP:BRD and enter into dialogue Twinkle-reverts in this diff again citing WP:BURDEN as his reason. With this revert Aoidh restores for the third time the unsourced section § French Invasion with the vandal's fabrications.
• He then immediately after gives Chiorbone da Frittole a standardised level three warning, {{uw-unsourced3}}, using Twinkle in this diff Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Volterra.
• Chiorbone da Frittole again gets rid of the unsourced material by undoing Aoidh in Diff of Volterra
• Aoidh follows up in his next edit on User talk:Chiorbone da Frittole giving her a manual warning saying Just so there's no confusion, if you hit "undo" again without providing a source, you will be reported at WP:AN3 and likely blocked from editing.
• Chiorbone da Frittole follows up in Diff of User talk:Aoidh saying Before deleting so many graphs, discuss it on the talk page. Or I will request for administrator attention. Stop threatening me, you have not motivated in the tak page your editings. Thanks.
• First then did Aoidh seize edit-warring in the article, and he and she have since had a dialogue on the article talk page, Volterra^talk. I'm not now going into details about Aoidh's misinterpretations of policies and accusations there.

Follow-ip:

• I followed up on User talk:Aoidh in this diff, and Aoidh replied in this diff with claiming that I haven't been trying to restore unsourced material that others have been trying to remove. As can be seen above he has restored unsourced material thrice.
• I then sourced Volterra with ~60 {{Cite book}} in Diff of Volterra to demo how walk-in-the-park'ish it is to source a subject like this instead of deleting contents.
• Aoidh revisited the article and Twinkle-slammed a {{refimprove}} onto it in this diff – only to revert himself moments later.
• My further follow-ups on his talk page have been futile: here he claims that it is I not he who restores unsourced material in Diff of Volterra. This displays that he remains unaware of the section § French Invasion being a fabrication.
• Aoidh has since repeated his denial in this diff saying that at no point did I add or restore any such passage to the article by any means. suggesting I was "very confused".
• Since Aoidh in this diff said bordering on WP:NPA at this point with accusations that lack evidence, do you want to try that again, and include diffs that back up your claim that I have restored "unsourced material that both she and I have tried to remove"? ...
• On his request I then followed up in this diff listing the diffs he asked for and demonstrating how easily it is to WP:SOFIXIT rather than deleting evoking WP:BURDEN. And offering my help with sourcing in the future.
• Aoidh's has not responded, but has reacted by deleting my post stating You've shown that you do not understand how diffs work which explains your lack of understanding. Do not comment here again until you gain of understanding of what it is you're doing wrong. I remain unaware of what I have done wrong, and invite Aoidh to respond here.
• Aoidh has then deleted the whole thread on his talk page in this diff stating I think I've tolerated this nonsense long enough. Baseless accusations made from a critical lack of understanding.

I see multiple challenges in a course of events like this. First and foremost the repeated denial of any mistakes. Many of us make mistakes; someone corrects us; we take the critique at heart; we move on. But not here.

Would other editors have a look at this? I also invite feedback on how I've handled the situation. Could I have done it more gracefully? --Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

This is quite a long read. Generally I suggest folks trim it down, but I think you've made this as succient as possible. User:Aoidh's edit summary here is ironic and their other edit summaries citing WP:BURDEN are even more ironic. I think Aoidh is displaying a level of incompetence. Someone is having trouble understanding diffs, and it's Aoidh. I suggest that Aoidh take a break from waving the heavy stick of TW at other editors for awhile and find an article to edit. This diff where they self-revert looks promising, but their denials and threats despite the diffs clearly showing that they continually restored "Bartoli family lost its control over Volterra and the ..." etc, and their denials are seriously concerning.--v/r - TP 00:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I love Twinkle and hitting one button to make pages change is awesome. However, as Aoidh is going to learn, it's not always the optimal solution. Doubling-down on a mistake is even worse. To re-address the main culprit, Knowing1900 needs to be blocked if not banned on en-wp for hoaxing. The socks can be blocked per WP:DUCK. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I see the diff now, this. I don't know if it's the new computer I got or what, but this was not what I meant to do, and when I asked what diff they were talking about, this diff was the one given, as seen here. My mouse has been clicking multiple times on a single click, while also not clicking when I try to, that's the only explanation I can think of but I am positive that I went through the article and checked my diffs, and I am only now seeing content being restored (which was not intended). I apologize for the confusion on my end, but I assure you @TParis: it is not an incompetence issue, rather a user error that will not reoccur. When asked for evidence of what was being claimed, this was the only diff given, until this 28,486) byte edit that seemingly copypasted the entire article onto my talk page. Between the (admitted) issue where I unintentionally loaded content, Sam's lack of any diff that verified what he was saying, instead giving a diff that did not support what he was saying and my own (admitted) issue finding the diff in question, I could not find what Sam was talking about. This confusion was exacerbated by Sam simply providing a diff that didn't show what they were saying and not providing anything to verify what they were saying, until yesterday when they placed it into a wall of text larger than many articles. However, this could have been avoided by me paying closer attention to the edits I made, so this is ultimately on me. I apologize for the confusion. - Aoidh (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

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

SwisterTwister's reviewing issues

I wasn't going to be the one who opens a report but, with another new notice recently posted to their talk page, this needs to be resolved. The issue is being discussed here. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, FWIW Mlpearc that last notice was because when two users click "Review" at one article. Even fellow NPPer Wgolf knows what I'm talking about. SwisterTwister talk 04:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Even then, your reviewing methods leave much to improve upon. Dschslava (talk) 04:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to explain, I'm the top reviewer at NPP, I have long experiences at AfD so I know what can be kept or not. I review articles often, clicking "Reviewed" and watch them. I have several pages at my watchlist and I look at them everyday if they have not been deleted yet. People may think I'm too quick but I also know that if something is not notable, chances are it should be deleted and everyone at NPP deletes it within minutes. I'm not the only one. SwisterTwister talk 04:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

It appears that you are under the impression that reviewing articles which are then placed on your watchlist allow for greater efficiency. No—most new page patrollers ignore reviewed articles—they trust that people like you have actually reviewed it and marked it appropriately-for deletion if need be. Dschslava (talk) 04:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

If you want to sit on an article, by all means, but you shouldn't mark it as "patrolled" when all you've done is add it to your future to-do list. That's not what "patrolling" means. Moreover, with literally hundreds of patrols per day—several per minute at times—your claim that you go through them all later is simply beyond belief. You are short-circuiting a crucial part of the encyclopedia's quality control, and on an unprecedented scale.

When I patrol, I typically spend at least two minutes per article: I evaluate for notability, verify facts, resolve any simple formatting issues, categorize (adding Category:Living people to BLPs is important), tag for any major problems (being careful only to tag the most prominent issues), and then add tags for any relevant WikiProjects on the talk page. If there's a CSD-worthy issue that can't be resolved with further editing from the initial contributor—blatant advertising, trolling, or silliness—I cut that process short; if I'm unsure about sending it straight to CSD or AfD, I'll tag it with {{notability}} and leave it unpatrolled for another set of eyes to examine. (Also, when I add a CSD or notability tag, I watchlist the article in case the tag is improperly removed.) This is what NPP directs us to do and what the NPP norm requires. Ticking the patrolled box is an assertion that yes, you have addressed all these simple issues.  Rebbing  04:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree his reviewing methods could stand some improvement (couldn't we all stand some improvement in one fashion or another?), but I'm not sure this has quite risen to the level of AN:I yet. Specifically, it seems people the concern here is that he is marking pages as patrolled without actually tagging them in some sense. He says he is giving the article an opportunity for improvement before actually tagging. I agree that he should probably not mark it patrolled if he's not ready to tag it or let it go on it's merry way. However, I should point out that there are some conflicting messages about disposition of new articles. Some say, tag immediately, others say wait before tagging (for potential improvements). I, myself, have been chastised for being too quick to tag a new article. Sure, obvious copyvio/spam/vandalism is obvious and should be disposed of quickly regardless, but it's not always that cut and dry. Perhaps if SwisterTwister agrees to just not mark as patrolled without actually leaving a visible review of the article in some sense (unless one simply isn't needed)? He can watchlist if he likes and follow up later if he wants (obviously). Chrisw80 (talk) 06:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

That's actually the approach recommended by NPP: "Do not be too hasty to nominate contributions by new editors for deletion if the content is marginal. If you are uncertain, leave the page unpatrolled, and another volunteer can review it later." That's all we're asking for—that SwisterTwister not mark pages without doing the work. He's rejected this reasonable request despite being asked explicitly by several editors, not to mention the steady stream of "unreviewed" notifications he receives, so it appears to me that further discussion away from ANI is unlikely to be productive.  Rebbing  06:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Rebbing Please give me an example of an "unreview" of my patrolling as the only one I see is Dschlaka above. Any others are routine usual collisions of multiple users reviewing at the exact same time. I hope you're not mixing others messaging with this as they are not related. I've said this and I'll say it again, I click it as reviewed because I've basically seen and reviewed it and will continue to notice it, thus reviewed. Any other disagreements are the choices of others. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

User_talk:SwisterTwister is a very high volume new page patroller and even if the complaints against them on the talk page were upheld (which seems unlikely) I'm still pretty sure their accuracy is better than mine when I do new page patrol. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Propose restriction

From reading the discussions at SwisterTwister's talk, this is recurrent, problematic behaviour that will not stop without an editing restriction. They refuse to listen to other editors about patrolling, and their current approach is too prolific and misses too many issues. Claiming that them watching all the pages substitutes for proper patrolling misses the point of patrolling. A similar fingers in ears approach was displayed in response to User:Cunard's correct objections to them both !voting and relisting at AfD.

I propose that SwisterTwister be formally restricted to work from the end of the new page patrol queue and not the beginning and that they must resolve issues or tag them as appropriate at the time of patrolling. If the problems persist after that restriction is in place, they should be banned from NPP/reviewing. Fences&Windows 07:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually FWIW, I always start at the oldest but, when I have reviewed all of those or if is not busy, I start reviewing the newest, of which I have tagged and deleted vandalism, G11, etc. As I also said, Cunard was upset because I relisted a few simply to save the troubles and also voted to help the consensus, something of which should never be discouraged. It's fights like these that make people question why they continue here at WP. SwisterTwister talk 08:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, people may be concerned that my reviews "may never be seen afain" but that's not so, simply look at my nominations at AfD. I myself have to vote at all AfDs to simply get a clear consensus, therefore I know I can be trusted to look again at these pages. "Restricting" and limiting only damages the eyes looking articles. SwisterTwister talk 08:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

If at least one reasonable (not a troll) person signs this as "Support", I will certainly reconsider my time here at WP/and if it's worth these fights, as this is not the WP I'm interested to view. It's ridiculous that people even consider " banning " me without taking into consideration the amount of beneficial reviewing I've made. SwisterTwister talk 08:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for RevDel

I don't know whether it was directed toward another editor or the subject of a BLP, but evidently calling somebody a "(Redacted)" and a member of "(Redacted)" is not considered sufficiently libelous to spur Oversight into action. Hopefully an administrator will step in and do what Oversight refuses to do. (Redacted) Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Done.--v/r - TP 06:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Just out of interest, @Malik Shabazz: did you actually contact oversighters and did they actually refuse to redact those comments? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)