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

Politically partisan disruption of Proportional representation

• BalCoder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Proportional representation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

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

• Mixed-member proportional representation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Semi-proportional representation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Plurality voting system (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Voting system (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Closed list (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Open list (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Electoral systems (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

WP:DISRUPTSIGNS:

Tendentious

Ontario's edits are determinedly anti-PR and pro-FPTP, and sources are bent to this end. Not only concerning MMP, but also party list PR (e.g.that open and closed systems do not use districts, a nonsense - he uses the word "zone" rather than "district" as an evasion), and, since Nov.5, he has removed sourced statements about STV in the article lead that were the result of a consensus (here) presumably what the comment "removed/moved redundant or superfluous sentences" refers to.

His Talk posts are wilfully misleading. His most recent post is typical, a whole paragraph about an uncontentious classification of electoral systems; the actual problem, that MMP is nonetheless proportional, is not mentioned. He adds: "I have, in good faith, retained all of your minor edits...": as far as I can see he has retained one, a positive (for him) change in emphasis at the beginning of the section "Link between constituent and representative", but removed all other changes, for e.g.that some researchers question the importance of this link, and the sources for that. Another example is this post to user Reallavergne: none of his claims in it is correct.

He repeatedly protests that his edits are mostly minor edits (he doesnt' t grasp WP:MINOR), spelling & grammar (there was one spelling error, I think), layout errors (presumably the mangling of the article's structure) or formatting that doesn't change the meaning (the table in "PR systems in the broader family of voting systems", probably a WP:COPYVIO), implying I am unreasonably reverting trivial changes. But this is deception: his changes are not at all trivial, and his revised structure (sections "Party list PR" and "Mixed electoral systems") is chaotic. User:Reallavergne, invited by Ontario to comment, and who has suffered at my hands in the past (e.g.here,here) and so is no fan of mine, agrees that my mass reverts were "largely justified".

Qualifications are frequently used to mislead: e.g. fully proportional, pure PR, delineated districts. Another deception is his trying to imply that it is I making unacceptable edits to his text and not the other way round. He accordingly changed the talk section title, this in his first (!) talk post in WP (it was later changed by User:Drcrazy102). But until Nov.26 - when after eleven days without an edit I assumed Ontario had withdrawn - I had not added any text at all since Ontario began editing on August 16. I am just protecting what was there before.

Verifiability

He cannot produce sources when challenged (e.g.here), but boasts about the "plethora" of sources he has introduced, bamboozling with quantity, knowing they won't be looked at. They seldom support his arguments. For e.g.his lead, para 3, "MMP is a middle ground between" is supported by none of the nine (!) sources; the same for "This has led to some disagreement...". In the section "PR systems in the broader family of voting systems", only one source (from which it was copied) supports the table, the other nine (!) don't; neither do they all support the classification. On Sep.27 I complained that a RS did not support his text: he has removed the RS but not the text, which is not correcter for now being unsourced. His ref.30 (Geometric Voting) ostensibly supports MMP producing semi-proportional results, but it in fact says this happens only if the system is "deliberately" designed that way (see my Oct.3 post). His references in DRN #2 to p.22 of the Forder book are fiction. I haven't checked them all. I have repeatedly pointed him to WP:VERIFY and he retorts it is I who should provide sources to justify my revertions!

Does not engage in consensus building

Not once has he straightforwardly answered a question of mine. From the start his tone has been confrontational. For example, after I proposed BRD he replied: "Know this, if you continue to simply reinsert the same flawed text..." - this tone in only his second ever post to a talk page. And I'm not inserting anything. When, at his request, I posed three central questions (on Sep.21), he avoided answering them by answering different questions. He has several times been told by others to discuss point by point, but has yet to do so. This statement to admin User:Abecedare is therefore an outrageous untruth.

Ignores community input

There hasn't been much community input, but there is the failure to partake in the WP:DRN incidents; ignoring this earlier proposition from User:Drcrazy102 to mediate. And when User:Reallavergne (Ontario's invitee) confirmed that "MMP should be considered proportional", Ontario simply "overlooked" this inconvenient truth.

Exhaust the patience of productive editors

This seems to be Ontario's tactic, keep the tsunami of text coming until I give up. What the text says is secondary, so long as a semblance of reasonableness is preserved to mislead the uninvolved; he knows no-one else is going to read it all.

Failure to 'get the point'

One example: I wrote on Aug.26 that MMP is mixed, but on Nov.3 he was still maintaining I "flip-flop" on the very existence of "mixed" systems. But the point is uncontroversial and irrelevant, a distraction to avoid confronting the real point, that MMP is proportional, which would bring down his house of cards. Another: he seized on a recent anonymous IP edit as a new battleground, insisting it was from me. I denied that it was. Nonetheless, in the following posts he continued to claim it was from me, an entirely synthetic dispute, another red herring. There are more.

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

Comments: This is a content dispute

I've been watching this content dispute unfold. It really needs to start from scratch, back to the beginning, dumping all baggage. Though interested, I'm largely ignorant re different voting systems and how they impact elections in Ontario or Canada. As an outsider, I don't see a solution in this fog, but I can see a shadow of hope in the direction of discussing edits and putting aside editors' behaviour. There's a lot of animosity here (on all sides) that needs to be digested and disposed of.

To BalCoder & Ontario Teacher BFA BEd: I direct the comments above to you personally. If you respond as if I directed these comments to you personally, you will have missed my point about discussing edits, not editors, even though you have been attacked. A solution will need editors to make heroic efforts to completely ignore comments on their motives, competency, and adherence to rules.

BalCoder, you might step back and see this from an outsider's perspective. Statements such as "I am the only person protecting the PR article", and "a WP:ANI incident […] which attracted no admin response" are red flags to me that an editor has invested their interest too personally, and may not be able to retreat to a consensual position.

Yes, there has been a frustrating failure to resolve this with talk pages, dispute resolution and appeals to administrator intervention. Perhaps a lot of that has to do with the intricate nature of the topic, and the nuances that are in contention. I bet I'm among many readers that would have loved to have helped out, but were not knowledgeable enough. This one is going to take a painstaking slog through edits one at a time. Apart from ejecting egos, my other recommendation is making edits in small steps, and allowing agreement to settle before proceeding. The article has been unsettled for three months now. I see no harm in proceeding carefully for another three months. My two cents. Willondon (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• TL;DR. Dude. 166.176.59.110 (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Is this really just a content dispute?

I would not be so quick as to call this just a content dispute. As BalCoder points out, I have had my own quarrels with his ready use of mass reversions when a more constructive approach might have been called for. That said, I think he and I did succeed in improving the Proportional Representation entry somewhat together. It was just way more tedious and time-consuming than I could afford, and I had to move on to other things, abandoning with regret some of the work that Balcoder had block-reverted. Later, I saw Balcoder adopting the same approach with someone else, but I got involved in helping to come to a constructive solution and found that this worked out well.

Whatever difficulties Balcoder and I may have had, there is much to be said for his willingness to go the extra mile to protect the integrity of a polically-sensitive Wikipedia entry like this one. One can forgive a lot of sins when one witnesses such a high level of dedication.

From a content perspective, I can vouch for the fact that some of the changes proposed by Ontario appear to be politically motivated and make no sense to me from a strictly content perspective. The example that Balcoder gives of Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) treating MMP like it was not a proportional system stands out very strongly in this respect. Ontario's views on this are nonsense, and I spent a considerable amount of Talk time explaining that, apparently to no effect. Balcoder cites a number of other quite convincing cases where political motivation appears to be involved in Ontario's Wikipedia edits.

I suggested earlier that Balcoder's mass reversion probably makes sense in this case. I stand by that suggestion. More difficult is the question of whether Ontario should be blocked as politically motivated. I believe this option should be more carefully considered, looking at the examples that Balcoder has cited, than I can afford to do right now, but I would not be too quick to dismiss it as an option. In fact, if our concern is to protect the integrity of the site, I would say that this is the risk-management option to choose. That's my two cents worth. Wish I could afford to do more than that!Reallavergne (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - This is only a "content dispute" in that many disputes arise as content disputes and are then complicated by conduct issues. Both another DRN volunteer and I tried to mediate this dispute, and we both had to fail it because User:Ontario Teacher BFA BEd didn't participate constructively. In the case of my thread, they agreed to mediation and then didn't reply for five days, after a statement having been made that every editor must participate at least every 48 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, I have to Support a topic ban, because content remedies have not worked. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello User:Robert McClenon,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

References

---

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

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

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

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

User:OhanaUnited: It is remarkable how people jump to unwarrented conclusions. To say I am attempting to paint an overall picture that "all new users are bad" is purest fantasy. I called Ontario a "new user" because right from the off her edits were politically partisan. Her very first edit (which I linked to above under "Political bias") is to "Tom Mulcair", a Canadian political leader, and consists of the one word "Abortion". (As a Canadian environmentalist you are particularly well placed to judge how political the second edit linked to there is; vandalism? I don't think so). I am painting the accurate picture that Ontario is here for politically partisan reasons. Nothing more, nothing less. And that you can say "Talk page was working fine..." beggars belief. No-one who has contributed to the TP discussion would subscribe to that. They are saying take it topic by topic, which is what I have been saying since I proposed BRD on Aug.24, but Ontario has yet to start that discussion. And it's my fault?

I am offended by the ad hominem attacks. To be clear, I included the subtitle abortion on the Tom Mulcair's WP page as the section of text (which I neither wrote, nor edited) was on the topic of abortion. The previous subtitle was Women's rights. In order to preserve Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy, this subtitle had to be changed. Wikipedia has a clear policy on article titles, and subtitles. This minor edit was not politically motivated.

In terms of the talk page I have consistently been willing to discuss issues one at a time. I have gone as far as to seek other editors to act as mediators, and in particular those who have made previous contributions to the article. Currently, User:Bgwhite, an admin, is acting as a mediator.

MPP is a 'Mixed Electoral System'. According to 'Mixed Electoral Systems: Contamination and Its Consequences' by Federico Ferrara, "An electoral system is "mixed" if more than one formula is employed to distribute legislative seats." User:Reallavergne has accurately pointed out that Mixed Member Majoritarian (MMM), also known as parallel voting does not issue PR seats in a compensatory manor, and is therefore always semi-proportional. However, MMP can also be semi-proportional if insufficient/no compensatory seats are awarded to compensate for the Overhang seats, if the FPTP seats greatly outnumber the List-PR seats, complicated coalition rules distort the seat count, and/or if minimum thresholds deny smaller parties List-PR seats. Although the extremely rare exception of MMP in New Zealand yielded proportional results, MMP in Romania, Hungary, and Italy has been semi-proportional. In the Ontario electoral reform referendum, 2007, the proposed Legislature would have 129 seats consisting of 90 local members (a staggering 70% of the Legislature) and 39 list members (only 30% of the Legislature). This is another example of semi-proportional MMP. Regardless of the results of specific elections, MMP is considered a 'Mixed System' as it combines both PR and FPTP methods to distribute legislative seats.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

This is like an earlier comment above from User:Willondon, that some statements of mine raise "red flags", although they are guileless statements of objective fact. If I say I am "the only person protecting the PR article" it is because if I didn't revert Ontario's work the proportional representation article would rejoin the mass of decayed political articles (like the Mixed-member proportional representation article which Ontario changed with a crudely erroneous copy/paste on Sep 7 and which has yet to be corrected/reverted). --BalCoder (talk) 11:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no rule that stops new users from editing political pages. Established editors could also be POV-pushers, which means you absolutely don't need to mention whether someone is new or not (nobody would say you're a 4-year veteran involving in the dispute). To me, that alone is biting a newcomer and sets the tone for the rest of the discussion. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

References

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

Suggested diff by Drcrazy102 (talk)

User attacking other editors; ongoing non-encyclopedic content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is the third time this same issue has been brought here. This user does not seem to be getting it. They have gotten a lot of advice but don't seem to be taking it. That sort of text is more suited to a cheap western paperback story than an encyclopedia. HighInBC 06:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Which editor are you referring to, the OP or the subject of the complaint? BMK (talk) 07:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

He means the subject of the complaint. DeMattos has been here several times for the same issues. Anyway, I did some emergency copy edits to Bill Tilghman and added two sources. I guess it's a little better now, though one of the sources I added should probably be replaced by a better one, as it's a primary source written by Tilghman's widow. It'll do for now, though. I don't want to follow this guy around and perform copy edits on all the articles he edits, but it seems like there should be some way to retain his expertise. I don't know. If he won't change, I guess maybe something does need to be done. I'd prefer some kind of mentorship or something, but I hear those often end disastrously. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

DeMattos is still turning the Billy the Kid page into an expanded outline instead of an encyclopedia article, and he's obviously ignoring this discussion. Katie^talk 22:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

He replied to me about the ANI notice on his talk page. I asked him to bring his comments here. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 03:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Let's try one more time to get Jack DeMattos to comment here. He really, really should. Katie^talk 23:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, since Jack Demattos is back editing and still didn't respond here, I'm going to take a crack at getting some prose back into one of these articles. They read like lists without bullets and numbering. Let's see how he reacts. Katie^talk 20:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, he won't mind the cleanup, that's what I and others have been doing piece-meal for the past six months. I don't believe that will encourage Jack Demattos to try harder to adapt his writing to WP style. Part of the problem is that after I clean up an article he's edited, he returns to it and adds more content of the same style. I don't have time to endlessly police his writing. NinjaRobotPirate suggested a mentorship. That's effectively what I've been trying to do for the past six months, as you can see on Jack's talk page.

If Jack doesn't improve his writing, I fear he's going to leave his boot prints all over WP, and the effect will be long-lasting. There are precious few editors still active at the American Old West wikiproject. I would like to see some stronger enforcement of MOS. Pinging others who have posted on his talk page: WikiDan61, Dennis Brown, Intothatdarkness — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 21:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that you'd been trying that. Everyone familiar with DeMattos knows he's received copious amounts of advice and help. It's frustrating to see that he's still writing stuff like "Tilghman was never shy about blowing his own horn. Not content to write his memoirs, Tilghman filmed them in a movie that he directed,and starred in playing himself." I don't understand why he's ignoring all the advice given to him. If this were a living person, it'd be a BLP violation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

There's also voice-over prose such as "At the age of seventy, Bill Tilghman was called on to perform his last service as a peace officer. In 1924, the man who had ridden in posses with Wyatt Earp, Bat Masterson and Heck Thomas, now drove into the oil-rich boom town of Cromwell, Oklahoma in a Model T Ford."[1] which would be quite amusing if this wasn't an encyclopedia. NebY (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Harassment on Talk:Historiography of the British Empire

For two weeks I have been harassed daily by User:Snowded and his close ally User:Wiki-Ed. I've had enough: the allegations are all false but they come tumbling out: 1) Nov 24: "There is little or nothing to do with Historiography in this article. Instead we de facto have a partial and pos version of the main British Empire article. It needs radical pruning to get back to the subject or possibly deletion". Nov 24: Snowded alleged WP:OR and WP:OWN. Nov 24: Snowded wrote: "The material here does not match the title, it is a partial POV perspective on the British Empire. As such it is a coat rack article for material which would not survive scrutiny at British Empire." Nov 25: Wiki-Ed writes: "Snowded is correct, this is a coatrack article: it should be discussing the historiography of the British Empire; instead it seems to be an interpretation of the British Empire, thinly disguised as a (very partial) review of certain sources." etc etc, they never stop. I have repeatedly rejected and demonstrated their claims are false. They seem to believe I have a secret POV agenda, Which I deny. I've written a lot of books and articles and scholarly venues, but I've not published anything about the British Empire and have no secret agenda. I repeatedly demand proof or evidence, or even which section is at fault. They repeatedly refuse to answer--Dec 8: Rjensen: "Which paragraph demonstrates unacceptable POV?" Snowded: "Better to start with the overall structure, then look at individual paragraphs." This is sustained harassment by two editors who have never edited Historiography of the British Empire, which has been active since Oct 2008, and which overlaps very little with the article they try to protect British Empire. Other editors on the page have largely supported me, not these two. I request User:Snowded and his close ally User:Wiki-Ed by kept away from Talk:Historiography of the British Empire. Rjensen (talk) 08:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Several editors have expressed concern that Riensen is building an alternative article to the British Empire one under the guise of historiography. Hence the issue of the need to deal first with the whole structure not paragraph by paragraph within his structure. The comments he has made about the inadequacies of the British Empire article support the view that this may be a coatrack. When this started I asked Riensen for his authority for the structure and he quoted two sources, one of which is suitable. However he would not share the detailed contents so I have bought the book and said clearly on the talk page that I will check that against the structure and come back with a proposal for change later this week. That has resulted in a torrent of personal abuse and a refusal to simply wait and see. No one is harassing Rjensen, no changes have yet been made to the article. He daily (well hourly and more stridently as the day does on) launches at attacks on the talk page to which I have tried to respond politely. I for one am trying to engage him on the talk page but that is very difficult given his clearly expressed contempt for editors who do not share his academic qualifications. In respect of the quote where he says that he has " repeatedly rejected and demonstrated their claims are false" I invite third party review. He states that the claims areas false and asserts that he has included multiple views but he has yet to address the main objection namely that an article on historiography should be about that, not a collection of statements from historians organised into (his words) an eclectic structure. When there are concrete proposals for change on the talk page then he can respond and I expect we will have an RFC and possibly dispute resolution before this is over. For the moment the only possible community action is to ask Rjensen to stop his multiple personal attacks. This is not even a content dispute yet and the fact he has brought it here illustrates the problem :-) ----Snowded ^TALK 08:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Snowded has never made a substantive edit on this article (and very few on British Empire article). I believe he has not been familiar with the historiography of the British Empire or even the word itself. Instead he tags the article and says that as soon as he reads a book he will propose sweeping changes. In my opinion he is primarily motivated to protect the other article British Empire. It is not under threat, for there is little overlap and it reaches a very different audience. The historiography article was created in October 2008 & has caused no serious controversy until 2 weeks ago, when Snowded tagged it as POV WP:COATRACK and WP:POVFORK. He says the problem is "structure" but has been unable to explain what he means. He says he will explain himself later but keeps the tags to delegitimize the article. On 12:53, 5 December 2015‎ Qexigator tried to remove them with the edit summary: "the tags have been sufficiently discussed to show that they are not correct, please do not needlessly or casually encourage disruption." Rjensen (talk) 08:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Oexigator's removal of the tags was reverted twice by another experienced user namely User:Wee Curry Monster with the comment "discussions are ongoing and valid concerns remain - edit warring over tags you should know better)" The reason for the tags has been clearly explained, what will come later this week is a assessment of Rjensen's source and a proposal for a way forward. Not sure why he can't wait ----Snowded ^TALK 09:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a clear case of harassment. In view of the discussion complained of by Rjensen, I repeat here: "Let me remind anyone who has not read the whole of the discussion, or who has forgotten, an earlier comment (of mine) there that the discussion has been more about a particular revisionist point of view than improving the article, on the part of a commenter who asserted ...any humanities degree allows an intelligent commentary on the difference between a history and an article about theories/practices of history. But that depends on the quality or character of the teacher and of the graduand, and no academic degree ensures a balanced understanding of editing in general, editing a Wikipdia article, or editing an article such as this one. So far, I have seen (in the discusion) an unwarranted degree of aggression and inability to attempt to understand the validity of another editor's explanation for the content of the article as we now have it. The comment (by the harassing party): You are going to have to learn to work with editors who are not professional historians and show a little more respect if we are going to get anywhere would reflect very badly on its author if it were not simply risible. Qexigator (talk) 09:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't really see how anything you said above shows that this is a case of WP:HARASSMENT. LjL (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I agree I see no case for harassment. It sounds like criticism. Snowded also provided no diffs showing Riensen made any personal attacks. This should be worked out on the talk page. I agree this article is seriously problematic: This article should not be concerning history itself but historiography; see Historiography of the United States. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen has made personal attacks, but it's more about the tone. However, since you asked, here are some examples: Snowded is 'ignorant' [2]; Snowded has 'pretty slim' writing experience [3]; Snowded's view is 'nonsense' [4]; Snowded is making 'false and incoherent statements' (plus some disparaging comments on expertise and motive) [5]. Snowded has received the majority of the attacks over the last week, but I've also been branded 'ignorant' [6] (different article but same topic) and lack a 'deep knowledge' [7]. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

PS. Thank you for the link to the article on US historiography - that's a nice example of the approach we should be aiming for with the article in question. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. It needs to be strictly on the historiography or it's likely to be deleted as POV fork. Rjensen should probably be warned over the comments - calling people "ignorant" etc is neither helpful nor allowed. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is yet a case of harassment, but User:Snowded could focus more on the specific issues with the page and less on User:Rjensen's motivations - Snowded starting the talk page debate with claims that this is a coatrack, asserting that the whole page should be deleted, and quoting OR and OWN were not the most constructive approach. The page is, from a quick skim, about what it says it is (historians' takes on the British Empire), and changes to the content will require consulting sources and discussing how to best use them (do ask WikiProject History for help). Rjensen should avoid using words like "ignorant", but he has also faced personal comments. Fences&Windows 23:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The article is too much about history and historical criticism of the British Empire; neither of that is historiography. See other historiography articles like Historiography of the United States, Historiography of the French Revolution and Historiography of the Cold War. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy to agree that the discussion may not have started off in the best way and to take my share of responsibility for that. But I have been trying since to move it forward - you will see a section talking about the need for some changes to the main article. But overall yes I think it is a coatrack article in the main I spent about three hours yesterday (as promised last week) going through Winks' Historiography of the British Empire to work through a possible structure and will post on that later in the week (although the other articles referenced may short circuit that a bit). Remember I didn't bring the matter here, Rjensen has done his best in the last week to tell me that I am "ignorant" etc. and I have made it clear that if that continues then it might be necessary to bring an ANI case. That seems to have been the trigger to a pre-emptive strike in trying to remove myself and Wiki-Ed from the article. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I have Historiography of the British Empire on my watchlist and have become increasingly concerned that is being turned into a WP:COATRACK article reflecting the views of its principle author. The article is sourced but its an example of WP:SYN where the principle author selects principle sources that reflect their own POV, rather than trying to give a balanced view of the range of opinion in published literature. If I may observe that the principle authors seems to be approaching this as an academic paper rather than an article for an online encyclopedia. As such its becoming a candidate for deletion as a POV fork. In addition, RJensen is alternating between arguing from authority and personal abuse (diffs above). The intervention from Qexigator has also been unhelpful, first of all [8] accusing editors of picking a quarrel, removing tags when there was clearly an ongoing discussion [9],[10] and backing up a false claim here of harassment. I fear that unless the uncivil behaviours are nipped in the bud this will likely end at arbcom. WCM_email 23:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I too, having it on my watchlist, have read the course of the discussion differently, and see the above comment, and others like it, as one-sided veering to travesty. The incivility, as I see it, is largely aimed against the complaining party. Let us see some balance in responses. Qexigator (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen responds: On the structure of the article I have said this repeatedly: the topics selected are those chosen by the RS, especially the three books on the historiography of the British Empire: two by Winks and one by Stockwell. As for the comparison with the article on the historiography of the United States. I wrote most of that article. There are multiple schools of thought on American history, and that article is structured by those schools. We do not have multiple schools of thought on the British Empire so it is impossible to use a schools structure and no RS has attempted to do so. Instead historians tackle separate topics, arranged by chronology, by regions, and by such themes as religion, gender, slavery, etc. The Historiography of the British Empire is therefore organized by chronology, geography, and themes. To quote from the preface to Winks Historiography vol 5 P xiv: "The organization of this volume is chronological, thematic, and regional. The opening chapters survey the historiography of the Empire from its origins through the period of the American revolution.... Thematic chapters in this part of the volume include those dealing with exploration and empire, science and medicine, gender, slavery and the slave trade, and missions and empire....The regional chapters include separate accounts of the historiography of the West Indies, (etc)." For context please see Winks at Winks (1999). The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume V: Historiography. p. 14. The "Historiography of the British Empire" article therefore is based on a standard structure used by the RS. As for my rhetoric, I never called anyone "ignorant". I stated: "Snowded now admits he never looked at the RS on historiography--all his comments are based on ignorance of the RS on historiography." As for "false": I made that allegation in rejecting his specific claims about my intentions. As for the coat rack allegation: this article is entirely about the historians of the British Empire and their ideas and debates. That is what historiography is all about. The events and dates and historic developments of the British Empire are "history": and are in the article on the British Empire. That history material is not duplicated here. There's very little overlap in text or in the footnotes. In my opinion, Snowded has repeatedly challenged my good faith by asserting that I have a secret POV. When challenged he is unable to identify that POV or find any POV statements anywhere in the article. Snowded has announced that his intention is to radically reduce or eliminate this article. see Nov 30 He has announced his strong POV ahead of time and has locked himself into a position where he cannot edit in good faith. Rjensen (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

"three books on the historiography of the British Empire: two by Winks and one by Stockwell" - Really? An article built mostly on the opinions of a mere two authors is going to be a candidate for deletion on Synthesis grounds even if it is not a coatrack. There are hundreds of thousands of books that in some way deal with the history of the British Empire - are there really only three sources that deal with how those hundreds of thousands have addressed the subject? The placing of the Phillip Buckner opinion in the lede (and seeing it expressed as if it were a fact rather than an opinion) hints to me that this article has been written with a pov. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Winks edited two books of chapters that were were written by 61 different scholars; Stockwell added another 12 different scholars. The article is based on about 200 footnotes from these and other established scholars. Bruckner is explicitly not talking about his own opinions but the consensus of scholars. Rjensen (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

It is Buckner's OPINION that this is the consensus of scholars. We have three sentences in the lede containing extreme opinions derived from a single source, and with those opinions presented as if they were facts. This is not good. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia always goes with the RS--Bruckner's statement is based on extensive research not on his private opinion. Rjensen (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

If it were his PRIVATE opinion, there would be no source for it! It is his PUBLIC opinion: it is published in a publically available source. But it is still an OPINION, and it is a blatant case of undue weight to place one person's opinion, derived from a single source, and containing that sort of blanket claim, in a lede. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Very happy to admit I had not read Winks before this encounter (although I am enjoying it so thanks). I do however know the difference between historiography and history. I asked Rjensen for his primary source for the structure of the article and having been told, went out and bought it. Per multiple comments on the talk page and here I then promised to come back this week having done that with specific proposals. I did think that would be well received but it wasn't. Otherwise I'm also happy to confirm that everything I have read says that a lot of this material does not belong in an article on historiography; but if you check the talk page I have suggested (and will be more concrete in that suggestion later) that a lot of the material may belong in other articles that can be referenced. All of that seems to have been misinterpreted and I do think there is a ownership problem here. ----Snowded ^TALK 11:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

User:STSC and WP:NOTHERE

STSC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is basically a pusher of the POV of the viewpoint of the government of the People's Republic of China. Almost every edit done by this user is misleading, with misleading edit summaries (such as using the edit summary "ce" while censoring negative information about the PRC government or other related topics, subtle changes to the text that affects the meanings, removal of sourced content, etc. As an example, what is this?) Really, almost every single edit by this user is problematic; search the archives for previous discussion about this user. This has been a long-term issue; editors have been frustrated with this user's refusal to discuss or cooperate, or even left because of this user. Often when other editors revert POV-pushing edits by STSC, STSC reports these users to WP:AN3. STSC has been warned frequently in the past, and has a history of blocks and topic bans. I think that an indef block may be appropriate in this situation. Pinging Citobun, Signedzzz, and Ohconfucius, who are more familiar with this editor than I am. sst✈^(discuss) 12:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• I strongly agree with the above assessment. I'm away from the computer and my phone is nearly out of battery so I’ll keep it short for now and elaborate with diffs tomorrow. STSC is a long-term, relatively low-key political agenda editor whose activity here (for years) nearly exclusively serves to parrot the viewpoint of the Chinese government. My interest on Wikipedia mainly centres around Hong Kong and this is the context in which I have encountered STSC but I know he is active in every modern controversial Chinese subject - Falun Gong, military history, etc. He censors and edits disruptively which he conceals using deceptive edit summaries like the innocuous “c/e”. If challenged or reverted he begins revert warring to enforce his edit and bullies other users by frivolously spamming their talk pages with warning templates. When asked to defend a particular edit his reasoning generally doesn't hold water but he will revert and revert until other editors are worn out. I try hard now to avoid interacting with him/her.

The only reason STSC hasn't been banned to date is that he is relatively low-key and does his work over a long period of time. But this type of agenda editing is most damaging to the encyclopedia as it is not blatant and hence not so easy to fight. Citobun (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I guess we've been very luck here up to now in not having to deal with the Wumao. Life will never be the same again as our vigilance will have to be elevated. As I'm burnt out from conflicts over FLG orthodoxy, I'll leave the Falun Gong articles up to others. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 19:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's a few other examples of misconduct - a very small sample, relative to his PROLIFIC agenda editing on Hong Kong-related articles, not to speak of all his other China-related editing.

• September 2015: misleading edit summary
• August 2015: misleading edit summary
• May 2015: misleading edit summary
• May 2015: STSC makes major changes to the Hong Kong article with the edit summary "ce". The edits censor the reason behind the 2014 Hong Kong protests (i.e. universal suffrage), delete information on police abuses, delete reference to the largely peaceful nature of the protest. I reverted these edits once and STSC places a warning template on my talk page to intimidate me. I give up.
• May 2015: Misleading edit summary - removes reference to Hong Kong as having a "high degree of autonomy", again deleting reference to Hong Kong's autonomy, egregiously misleading edit summary
• March 2015: rm reference to police abuses despite being referenced to Time magazine
• February 2015: misleading edit summary
• January 2015: misleading edit summary
• November 2014: Censorship of well-sourced and widely reported material about the credibility of a pro-government group's survey, reverts again with edit summary referring to WP:CRYSTALBALL (does not apply), places personal attack warning template on my talk page while I have never made any personal attacks, again, I beefed up the sources, more censorship, I open a lengthy talk page discussion, he blanks 3000 bytes of referenced material, I gave up.
• December 2014: misleading edit summary, incomplete edit summary - placing badge of People's Liberation Army in place of the Cenotaph, low-key agenda editing, misleading edit summary, rm photo of protesters, rm reference to large numbers of protesters citing the CBC, a reliable source; totally rm reference to protests in Central and Wan Chai that shut down highways and roads and were publicised in numerous reliable sources
• November 2014: censor photo of protests, ditto, more photo censorship, ridiculous photo censorship with no distinction between impartial coverage of the protests, and actual NPOV behavior, more attempted censorship of this particular banner
• October 2014: spamming articles with fringe theories about how the U.S. government supposedly instigated the 2014 Hong Kong pro-democracy protests (1, 2, 3), censorship - Beijing's nomination committee IS what the protests were about, misleading edit summary, censorship of information cited to reliable source, misleading edit summary/censorship, misleading edit summary, misleading edit summary, misleading edit summary, unexplained deletion of protest sites, he repeatedly changed "water cannons" to "water sprays", misleading edit summary, misleading edit summary/unexplained deletions
• September 2014: delete reference to Hong Kong as a former British colony
• September 2014: changing the Hong Kong infobox to show Putonghua (Mandarin) as the "national language" of Hong Kong, with Cantonese as a "regional language". For those unfamiliar with China/Hong Kong, Putonghua is the language promoted by the national government in Beijing. Cantonese is the language spoken by 95% of Hong Kong people
• September 2014: "fixing style/layout errors" - but in fact making major changes to the infobox, i.e. changing "Treaty of Nanking" to "British occupation"
• June 2014: misleading edit summary

I dunno, I could go on. I have spent an hour compiling this but I could go on all night. This is not at all a comprehensive view of his advocacy here, and I strongly request an admin take a serious look at his editing history. It speaks for itself. As you can see, when it comes to Hong Kong STSC's edits entirely centre around a number of themes: downplaying the reasons behind the 2014 pro-democracy protests; downplaying Hong Kong's heritage as a British colony; excessively promoting Chinese sovereignty over Hong Kong; downplaying Hong Kong's autonomy under one country, two systems; promoting the People's Liberation Army Hong Kong Garrison; promoting Japanese war atrocities in Hong Kong; bullying others by accusing them of personal attacks when they question his editing; bullying others through frivolous and improper use of talk page warning templates; making misleading edit summaries on a serial basis despite being warned for this repeatedly.

STSC is highly adept at working within the bounds of Wikipedia conventions, never pushing the envelope too far, but ultimately shows no respect for the concepts of impartiality and balance and is not here to build an encyclopedia. I am tired of seeing him undermine the impartiality of Hong Kong and China-related articles – his edit history speaks for itself. I am tired of him enforcing his political activism and political censorship through blunt force reverting and frivolous, bullying use of warning templates in mine and other's talk pages. It is really exhausting and I considered quitting Wikipedia back when he was censoring photos I had taken of the protests specifically for Wikipedia. Paging another potentially interested editor TheBlueCanoe. Citobun (talk) 12:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't have much to add, other than to say that I agree with the assessments offered above. STSC is careful not to step too far out of bounds (i.e. constantly involved in edit wars, but no obvious 3RR violations), but the cumulative effect of the edits is clearly disruptive, and intended to advance some kind of quasi-nationalist agenda. I've also noted the user's tendency to try to provoke and needle his opponents, leave frivolous warning templates on others' pages, and use innocuous/misleading edit summaries to conceal clear POV edits([11][12][13][14][15]). Since one of the affected topic areas (Falun Gong) falls under discretionary sanctions, I've considered bringing this up in arbitration enforcement, but given the broader scope of problematic editing maybe this is the better forum to deal with it.TheBlueCanoe 18:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment - I've noticed that all commenters save the OP were notified of this complaint via ping, and I believe pinging like-minded editors in disputes could be construed as WP:CANVASSING. -Zanhe (talk) 03:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know the stance of the editors I pinged; I only pinged editors who I see were involved with STSC in the past. Zanhe, I am rather surprised that you don't find STSC's edits disruptive. sst✈^(discuss) 10:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I never said STSC's edits were or were not disruptive. I haven't had enough interaction with him to make a judgment (but I do recognize Ohconfucius and you as respectable, constructive editors). All I was trying to say is that it's better to present the evidence here and let uninvolved administrators judge its merit, instead of selectively notifying previously involved people. -Zanhe (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

No action, seriously? sst✈^(discuss) 14:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Tanbircdq and Israeli politician articles

I would like to bring to wider attention of other admins the edits of Tanbircdq (talk · contribs), whose actions I have come across at Yisrael Katz (politician born 1955). Tanbircdq has a quite clear agenda, adding quotes to articles on Israeli politicians in which they say bad things about the Palestinians. On many of these articles he has added the information several times after being reverted by a number of users; these include:

• Eli Yishai (x4)
• Avi Dichter (x4)
• Michael Ben-Ari (x4)
• Yisrael Katz (x3)
• Omri Sharon (x3)
• Meir Sheetrit (x2)
• Ayelet Shaked (x2)
• Ya'akov Yosef (x1)
• Naftali Bennett (x1)

Also of slight concern is the behaviour of Makeandtoss (talk · contribs), who has magically appeared at several of these articles to restore the content after Tanbircdq's edits have been removed (e.g. here, here, here, here, here, here). I don't know this has happened, but it doesn't look good. I have pointed them towards WP:BALASPS, but this does not seem to have stopped the behaviour. Unfortunately what is happening does not fall under the current Arbcom sanctions for this topic area, but I think it needs some intervention. Cheers, Number 57 22:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't remember how I came across these articles, all I know that I reverted the removal of sourced content. I didn't see WP:BALASPS valid enough to remove the quotes. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I have given a very clear and detailed explanation on the talk page which I will not repeat again here. Number 57 has reverted the edit without adequately responding to the points raised on the talk page and taken the matter to ANI in order to get administrative action taken against me in what would appear to be an underhand way of censorship. In addition, Number 57 himself violated 1RR on the page with his edits here and here without initiating discussion of the matter on the talk page.

What Number 57 has conveniently omitted to mention is that most of the "number of users" who have removed the content from those articles included sock puppet accounts, throwaway IP hoppers who are now prohibited from editing those articles because of ARBPIA3 decision after the high level of disruptive editing that was present.

I would also like to point out Number 57's uncivilised personal attack of "Go away with your agenda please. Get consensus on talk if you insist on this nonsense." in the summary of his revert here.

Nevertheless, I am interested to know what Wikipedia policy I am supposed to have actually violated here. Is the accusation of "editing articles with an agenda" an ad hominem term for someone adding sourced content when another thinks WP:IDONTLIKEIT? It would seem that Number 57 himself has an WP:OWN agenda to remove content that shows someone he favours in a "bad light" which (by using his words from the talk page) I believe "has no place on Wikipedia". Tanbircdq (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

On what basis do you think I favour these politicians? As a Meretz supporter, I think most of them are repugnant; the difference is that I understand the concept of NPOV and that Wikipedia is not a place to badmouth your political opponents.

Is anyone going to intervene here? Number 57 19:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I was not referring to all these politicians, just Yisrael Katz, and this was based on your comments on the talk page.

Yes, I agree (not that I have any political opponents) which is why I object to your uncivilised personal attack.

Yes, can someone please intervene about this WP:WIKIHOUNDING? This editor has clearly been stalking me for the past two months which I find very unpleasant and I would like it to stop. Tanbircdq (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, the claim that this is hounding or that I have been stalking you for two months a barefaced lie. The first I saw of you was on the Katz article (and that is the only place I have reverted you). I got those diffs by going back through your editing history (it wasn't hard to find them). Number 57 21:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Aren't all these articles under the editing restrictions/block of the Israel-Palestinian conflict arb case? If so, any party violating that ought to be handled in accord by an uninvolved admin. Anyone around? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  • As I said at the start, unfortunately the various Arb cases don't cover this kind of problem (which is why they've never solved the problems in the topic area)... Number 57 23:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

My comment on this is that everyone in this area has a POV, that is unavoidable. Suppose, it was true that the agenda of Tanbircdq was to add bad stuff about Israeli politicians. They still have to make an argument on the talk page about whether the additions lead to a more balanced article, whether the stuff is WP:DUE etc., and others have to respond to that. Unless they are disruptively editing, edit-warring, trying to force their version without consensus etc. there is nothing to do here. I would remind people that the WP:ONUS for including content lies on the person adding the content, so Tanbircdq needs to demonstrate consensus, if they are reverted. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Possible legal threat

Since i consider myself involved with this user, would some kind soul review talk page section with a view to determining if this is a legal threat or other violation of policy? I have not raised the matter with them directly as there has been recent friction and I don't think any query from me would be well received Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Is this some sort of punitive fishing expedition for nominating your closure for a DRV? I am sorry if I hurt your feelings, but no need to lash out at me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

You accused another editor of libel in a section header and I'm asking for an independant opinion on that. I don't see any harm in that myself. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I did not accused another editor of libel, I documented their libel. Using a correct legal definition is not the same as making a legal threat. The only thing they have in commons is the word legal. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I did not accused [sic] another editor of libel, I documented their libel.

Ah, welcome to the latest episode of Question Begging Time. --Calton | Talk 10:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I see no clear or inferred legal threat -- samtar ^whisper 22:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm guessing the question here is because of the use of the word "libel" in a section header. However, I read it as a characterization of something, rather than as an implied threat to engage in legal action regarding the so-called "libel". If that's what we are talking about, then that is not an NLT violation. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Good point, I'd second that reasoning -- samtar ^whisper 22:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

It is the correct term for a lie in print form. If he said it to me in person, it would have been slander. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

No it isn't. The correct NON-LEGAL term for a lie in print is "lie". You're invoking a legal term, with its implications of legal consequences due to damage. So either you don't know what you're talking about or you're trying to sail as close to the wind as you can. --Calton | Talk 10:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I was the target of the comment, and I did not take it as a legal threat in the sense meant by WP:NLT. BMK (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The claim that Beyond My Ken had made was that this "is the third time he's shown up at an article he's never edited before in order to revert one of my edits." The fact is that Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) had edited every one of those articles before BMK did, per the revision statistics for G. W. Pabst (which RAN edited more than four years before BMK), Louis Comfort Tiffany (four-plus years before BMK) and List of mayors of New York City (a year-plus before BMK). I think it's clear that what RAN means is that BMK had been making a false statement in writing that was damaging to RAN's reputation, not that RAN had intended to take BMK to court and file a tort claim of libel. Alansohn (talk) 02:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

OMG! You mean I was wrong!! How nice of you to come to AN/I (and RAN's talk page) and let me know.

Of course, you did neglect to mention that RAN's last edit to Louis Comfort Tiffany before he reverted me was in April 2008 [16], two years before my first edit in July 2010 [17], so I wouldn't really have noticed him editing the article because he didn't while I was active on it. But, of course, he apparently decided he just had to come back and revert my edit after a 7 year absence; I guess there was nothing that happened on the article in 7 years that stirred his attention.

And what about List of mayors of New York City? Yes, indeed, RAN has all of 4 edits on that article, 3 in 2008, and the revert of my edit that, again, brought him out of hibernation after 7 years. [18]. Since I made the first of my edits to that article in March 2010 [19] -- again, two years after his last edit -- there was no reason that I would know that he had edited it before me because he didn't edit it when I was.

Alansohn, are you seeing a pattern here? Yes, you are correct that RAN had edited those articles before me, and I was incorrect in saying he hadn't, but the essence of what I said is true: RAN decided to revert my edits after 7 years of inactivity on those articles, so I was quite justified in describing his behavior as verging on harassment. I don't say that it is harassment yet, but it will be if he keeps on appearing to specifically revert edits of mine on articles which he may have edited in the distant past, but which he has been totally inactive on during the time I have been working on them. BMK (talk) 04:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Even if BMK didn't see it as a legal threat, RAN should not be throwing the word "libel" around. "Untrue" should be sufficient. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

As BMK made multiple false statements, the characterization is entirely accurate. BMK's story now is that he was indeed making false statements alleging that RAN had never edited the articles previously, but that he was justified in making these baseless accusations because there is some imaginary "essence of what I said is true" according to him. Thanks to Wikipedia's editing history feature, it's clear that RAN edited the articles because they were on his watchlist, he had edited them years before BMK and now the problem is that the edits were too long ago so that BMK now feels that he WP:OWNs these articles so naturally anyone else editing them is guilty of harassment. Bugs, when other editors make repeated false accusations about you and your edits, feel free to limit yourself to "untrue". Alansohn (talk) 04:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't use legalistic terms like "libel" if someone states an untruth about me. And to take libel to court and win, one would have to prove harm. He alleges he was falsely accused of making edits at some point in time. How much would the jury award in a case like that? A shiny new 25 cent piece? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Use whatever term you want. "Lie". "Misrepresentation". "Prevarication". "Fib". Pick whatever term best matches the circumstances of BMK's out-and-out falsehood. Whatever works best for you. Just don't use "truth". Alansohn (talk) 05:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

CLAIM of falsehood. See begging the question.

Of course, a better thing for RAN to do would be to simply grow the hell up instead of throwing around pseudo-legal terms he doesn't understand. --Calton | Talk 10:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

How about "honest mistake"? That at least has the benefit of being accurate. Reyk _YO! 10:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I would have bought the "honest mistake" bit if it wasn't User:Beyond My Ken who was the one making the blatantly false claims. BMK is a regular here at ANI, and is fully aware of how to review edit histories for each article he claimed RAN had never edited; He's no noob. BMK's consistent inability to work with others and to edit war over the most trivial of issues -- size of a college seal, inclusion of a full name in an article lead, personal attacks like fuck "pleonasm", it's a perfectly underestandable sentence, etc. -- demonstrates the source of the problem. If only BMK had bothered to research his threats or to back off and apologize when his claims were proven false, we wouldn't be here. It's this pattern of belligerent and abusive behavior by BMK that brings us here. Alansohn (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm getting the impression that Alansohn doesn't like me, since he shows up any time my name comes up on the noticeboards to lay out his latest litany of my liabilities to the project, and to insist that the harshest possible sanctions be placed on me. It's probably just a coincidence that this started soon after I expressed the opinion here that Alansohn was the primary problem in the dispute between himself and Magnolia677. I'd be the last person to claim that I'm the perfect Wikipedian, but I'm not sure what his obsession about me has to do with whether what RAN said was a legal threat or not. BMK (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

To answer Alansohn's specific and relevant allegation, I did not look up the history of those pages when I posted this comment on my talk page, I was going only on my experience of editing those articles without having run into RAN - as I outlined above. I did the detailed research only when I posted my comment above, following Alansohn's statement that I was lying, since I wanted to know how we could have two completely different takes on what had occurred. As seen above, the answer is that -- at least on two of the three articles -- we never overlapped, which is why I thought he had never edited them. That was, as I said, my error. As others have said, it was not a deliberate choice on my part to post something that was not accurate. BMK (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, I'm sure that you acknowledge that there is a big difference between 1) someone following you and undoing your edits from article to article that they have never edited before and 2) someone who is editing articles that they have edited before that are on their watchlist which they edited well before you ever touched the articles. What you stated as fact -- "Today is the third time he's shown up at an article he's never edited before in order to revert one of my edits." -- makes a rather specific allegation that is factually false and has been proven so. You don't own any of these articles and your recollections are no substitute for backing up your assumptions with facts. Furthermore, you acknowledge that you did recall an editing overlap with RAN on at least one of these articles. No one expects you to be a "perfect Wikipedian" -- I'm certainly not and your history makes my opinion clear regarding your track record -- but at a minimum you need to exercise far greater care in making these kinds of inherently inflammatory personal attacks. I'm glad that I was able to identify the relevant policy and address the edit war at G. W. Pabst, as I had done not long ago at Triborough Bridge, but I hope that no outside intervention will be needed to resolve any of your edit wars in the future. A clear commitment on your part to avoid such edit warring and attacks will help alleviate community concerns here. Alansohn (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

No, Alansohn, there is no real difference between someone who has never edited an article before and then shows up to revert the edits of another user (who just happened to have recently reported his violations of an ArbCom sanction), and someone who has never found any reason to edit an article in 7 years, but nevertheless reappears to revert the edits of another user (who just happened to have recently reported his violations of an ArbCom sanction), none at all. It's a distinction without a difference. BMK (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

BMK, do you really believe that "there is no real difference between someone who has never edited an article before and then shows up to revert the edits of another user"? Are you arguing that you WP:OWN every article you edit, and that any editor who edits any of your articles that's on their watchlist because they have edited in the past is necessarily harassing you? How recent do the other editor's edits have to be in order for them to be allowed to edit your articles? You've been involved with dozens upon dozens of edit wars and every one of those editors now has to avoid your edits of your articles? Please explain how your policy works. Alansohn (talk) 00:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Alansohn, I cannot hold it in any longer, you have pierced my deepest and darkest Wikipedia secret. I must confess here and now, in front of the assembled multitudes of AN/I, that in my heart of hearts, I do believe that I am the sole owner of all the 30K+ articles that I have edited in my 10 1/2 years here, and that no one should be allowed to edit any of them except with my expressed approval ... in advance. Obviously, I am a very, very naughty person indeed, and should be sent to bed without my dessert. BMK (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and Alansohn, please do not ping me again, I'm following this thread and do not need you to call me to read it. I can come and read your tiresome comments all on my own, just like a big boy. BMK (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

It is incredible that Alansohn would accuse anyone else of OWNership for doing exactly he does. Talk about hypocrisy, coming from the number 1 owner on Wikipedia! Jacona (talk) 03:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

JaconaFrere, following an editor around maliciously from article to article, as you have consistently done with articles I edit across Wikipedia, is an example of WP:HOUNDING; I've provided you with a list on multiple occasions, as you've requested. If that were the case here, I might well agree with Beyond My Ken. What bothers BMK here is that other editors are editing articles on their watchlist, ones that he claims ownership over. There's the difference. Alansohn (talk) 03:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

That's the very basis of your ownership. You claim I follow you from article to article because I occasionally edit New Jersey articles, not because there is any factual basis. Many of these have been on my watchlist, just as you say these other editors articles are. You are exactly the malefactor you claim BMK to be. Jacona (talk) 10:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, why stop at 30K? I've decided to claim ownership over all of the 5,027,940 articles on Wikipedia. Alansohn, you pinged me again. I believe I asked you not to do that. BMK (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Kind hypocritical for the Emperor of New Jersey to accuse others of having ownership issues... Reyk _YO! 07:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Not a legal threat as there is no threat to take legal action. It hardly passes the 'intended to chill discussion' line either. However it *is* a personal attack to accuse another editor of libelling you. Libel has a strict definition which is not covered by BMK's actions. (Merely writing something that later turns out to be not 100% accurate is not libel as RAN knows perfectly well.) Given that BMK's above post quite clearly demonstrates a pattern of behaviour by RAN that is hardly good-faith editing and bordering on harrassment, I suggest an interaction ban with BMK. (I would suggest a 1-way ban, but they rarely work, and BMK has previously said he wants to not interact with RAN so this shouldnt be an issue for him) Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

This is not a legal threat. Just as if an editor were to say "That admin is assaulting users with his mop", does not mean the editor is threatening to have the admin charged with assault. The section header "BMK libel" says to me that the content will focus on supposed lies posted by BMK about the editor. Not a threat. - ^theWOLFchild 18:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed: Interaction ban between RAN and BMK

Support. As proposer. No comments on each other, no reverting each other on articles (with the usual BLP/vandalism exceptions) and so on. Given the diffs provided by BMK, RAN is clearly not editing with the best motives. Not to mention the blatant symantic wikilawyering which is a habit with RAN (anyone familiar with his history regarding pushing the boundaries of his existing sanctions should be aware this is a common road for him.) As 1-way bans dont work and BMK has indicated previously he does not want to interact further with RAN, this is the quickest and most efficient solution to the issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support- RAN needs to leave BMK the hell alone. More generally, he needs to altogether stop pursuing people he's disagreed with. Reyk _YO! 11:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support- shame it needs to come to this, but I think this would allow both editors to cool down, and focus on building an encyclopedia -- samtar ^whisper 16:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support, as 2-way, and with no opinion on my part as to who is more or less at fault. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose The editors seem to have overlapping interests in the same sort of articles but seem to have some difficulty knowing whether the other party shares this interest. They are therefore likely to keep bumping into each and so must just learn to get along. Neither of them brought this matter here and it seems clear that talk of legal threats is an over-reaction . Further escalation would tend to make matters worse rather than better. Andrew D. (talk) 20:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support - BMK needs to leave RAN the hell alone. Carrite (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - As one of the two subjects of the proposed interaction ban, I've been thinking about it since I first saw the proposal this morning. My first thought was that it was a good idea, that it would get RAN out of my life, which I really want. My second thought was that it really should be a one-way ban, but I changed my mind on that: a two-way ban would be an effective tool to help myself from commenting on RAN, so I accept that if there is to be an I-Ban, it should be mutual. I do, however, have some concerns.
  Almost anyone who is familiar with RAN's history, or especially with the ArbCom cast brought against him [20] and the various AE discussions it spawned, knows that RAN is a classic boundary-pusher. If RAN is told, for instance, not to create articles, he turns a redirect into an article and claims that this is not creating an article, so he has to be told again, specifically, not to do that. This kind of thing has happened over and over again with him, and his just keeps probing. So, how do you stop a boundary-pusher from pushing the boundaries of an I-Ban?
  As it stands now, the general way one deals with an I-Ban infraction, or multiple I-Ban infractions, is to bring the case to AN/I. AN/I is, as we all know, often not the best place to get a straight-forward evaluation of a problem, what with the dramah-mongering, the cliques, the long-held grudges, and the Alansohns of the world popping up to muddy the waters. Therefore, I suggest that someone, an individual, preferably an admin, be appointed to be sort of the "special master" for the I-Ban. This would be someone either RAN or I could go to with a complaint, who would investigate, and then come back with "Yes, you're right, I've done X about it" or "No, you're being oversensitive, that's not a violation of the ban." It would be nice if the special master's decision was final, so problems could be solved and not fester.
  So, those are my concerns. I'm generally in favor of the idea of a mutual interaction ban, but I would appreciate it if some thought could go into the problem I've outlined. BMK (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support One Way I-Ban - RAN should leave BMK alone. LavaBaron (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support two-way IBAN. BMK wants to leave RAN alone and RAN needs to leave BMK alone. Sounds like a 2-way IBAN. --DHeyward (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Attempt to subvert the AfD process

Legacypac (talk · contribs) has been, in my opinion, gaming the system by subverting the AfD process by adding redirects to articles after his AfD's were unsuccessful.

I tried to discuss this on his talk page, but I did not feel his responses were adequate. I also asked if--in good faith--he would revert all the redirects he had added, and he will not.

It started when Legacypac attempted to bulk-delete the articles of a number of beauty pageant contestants here. The result, closed by User:DGG, was "keep all for the time being; renominate separately".

Following that, Legacypac followed a similar pattern to have several of the articles removed.

For example, he nominated Ashleigh Lollie for deletion here. The result was "no consensus". So, he instead redirected the article here.

He nominated Claira Hollingsworth for speedy deletion here. It was declined, so he instead added a redirect here.

At Courtney Byrd, Legacypac added a speedy delete here, and it was declined. He then nominated this article for deletion here, but then, according to his edit summary, "no nomination page created for more than two hours", so he removed his AfD, and instead added a redirect here.

This pattern continued for most of the other articles which were included in original bulk-delete AfD. Again, I have tried to discuss what appears to be a blatant attempt to subvert the AfD process, but Legacypac felt his actions were in compliance with policy. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no insight into the issue raised by Magnolia677 specifically, however, in a related matter - after Legacypac nominated Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq coalition for deletion, and the AfD failed, he immediately executed a BOLD merge of the entire article to a different article, sans discussion [21]. As the topic was under Discretionary Sanctions few people wanted to unmerge it, appeals to Legacypac to unmerge it himself were rebuffed [22], an attempt to unmerge it by Mhhossein was immediately reverted by Legacypac [23], and an admin ultimately had to be brought in to execute the unmerge [24]. As the article was in the DYK queue at the time, this created a tremendous amount of hassle. LavaBaron (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

There is a strong argument that these college co-eds fail WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:15MOF and there is lots of precedent for deletion. There is a strong argument that the User:DGG close of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Madison_Guthrie covering 42 titles was against consensus. I count 16 editors seeking Delete or Redirect for all (or nearly all) the articles on the list vs 2 or maybe 3 who wanted to keep (generally without a policy based reason). Subsequently some of the 42 were sent individually to AfD as test cases. So far 6 were completely deleted Natasha_Martinez, Lizzy_Olsen, Brooke_Fletcher, Brittany_McGowan Elizabeth_Cardillo, Haley_Denise_Laundrie. Others like Ylianna Guerra have be turned into redirects to the appropriate contest page. We still have quite a few like Taylor Even which reads in its entirety "Taylor Even was crowned Miss Iowa USA 2015. She represented Iowa at Miss USA 2015 but Unplaced." that have not been sent to AfD or redirected. Obviously stuff like this is exactly what WP:NOPAGE addresses.

To bad the editor who started this thread as not addressed the issue of WP:NOPAGE, raised in the redirections and on my talk page, but I suppose they have no answer. Instead that editor reversed my redirects without a policy based rational, so I've sent the articles to AfD where I expect they will be deleted like their sister articles. Legacypac (talk) 02:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

As for LavaBaron's completely off topic complaint about something that happened months ago, Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq coalition is an awful misleading POV title covering a hard to understand segment of a larger topic Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War. Thanks for the reminder to work on cleaning up that mess. Legacypac (talk) 03:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

(1) I closed the first AfD because the nomination was against the meaning of WP:Deletion policy. Had I not done so, any close at all would probably have been overturned at Deletion Review, with the instruction to list separately. I advised renominating individually a few at a time; Instead, the individual nominations were nonetheless placed all together in one batch at a single time. I commented at that time "renominating in very large groups the way these are being done is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of letting people have time to look for individual sources."

(2)I commented at the separate nominations that "personally, though, I think sufficient sources are likely to be found only when there is a substantial subsequent career" . I personally do not like these articles., which I thing generally contrary to the spirit of an encycopedia. I think we should have a guideline not to have them. But we don't, and the way to decide is therefore to decide individual cases by AfD. As LegacyPak correctly notes, there were various results from these discussions.

(3)A non-consensus close could reasonably be followed by a discussion about redirection or merging. Doing it without consensus is trying to substitute a different close. We can have a different close--but it requires some sort of discussion, either DRV or another AfD or a discussion on merging or redirecting. Doing so without discussion in a case like this seems to be effectually replacing the community opinion by one's own. (that I happen to share that opinion is irrelevant here.). I think the appropriate way to deal with that would be to revert,the redirection, and then discuss it. This does not require coming here, or any admin action. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

TThanks DGG. It turns out we do have a policy WP:NOPAGE that was never considered before and avoids the question of notability. It's being used successfully to redirect super old people articles now. If someone disagrees with redirect they (as the OP has done) revert and discuss how NOPAGE does not apply. Coming here is not the answer. Legacypac (talk) 05:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

As the editor who originally introduced the NOPAGE concept to the cleanup of the longevity walled garden, let me say this. I considered that, in principle, merges based on NOPAGE can be done boldly. But where there's a reasonable chance of controversy, such a merge should only follow a talk-page discussion. (And in the case of longevity, I felt, with the concurrence of others, that the additional transparency of AfD would be even better -- healthier for the community -- given the high emotions associated for so long with that topic.) Either way, a bold merge soon after an AfD that ended Keep is like a "bold" merge soon after a merge discussion that ended No merge -- it's not bold, it contrary to recent consensus. A new discussion -- wherever -- is needed. EEng (talk) 05:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

You expressed your opinion that it was an "awful POV misleading title" in the AfD you made and the community decided that was not the case. Your singular opinion does not override the community consensus, particularly for an article under Discretionary Sanctions. And immediately slapping a third and fourth Merge proposal on that article in response to this observation in ANI, as you have just done, along with the intervention "thanks for the reminder," comes across as a little bit of a middle-finger in response to this observation. LavaBaron (talk) 08:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: If an AfD is closed as keep (or even no consensus), it must not be redirected or merged. Either of those actions would be in violation of the close. If those actions have been done, the actions should be immediately reverted now. And Legacypac needs to agree he understands he cannot do that in the future. The only cause post-AfD to redirect an article is if the close was redirect. The only cause post-AfD to merge an article is if the close was merge. Alternatively, after a failed AfD the article in question can undergo the specific detailed process (all of the very precise steps) of WP:MERGEPROP. If Legacypac does not understand and agree to these policies, he needs to undergo a topic ban on creating AfDs (and possibly also on redirecting or merging). Softlavender (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC); edited 05:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I don't think that that's entirely true. Just because there is a decision to keep the content of an article doesn't mean that the content has to be kept in that article. Also, if something is closed as no consensus, that usually doesn't preclude further discussion about the article's merits. pbp 13:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct. And if a discussion took place after the No Consensus result at AFD, and the consensus there was to redirect or merge? No one would blink. The concern here, I think, is that Legacypac didn't start such a discussion, but relied on BOLD in a situation where it was inappropriate. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Purplebackpack89, to repeat, for an article to be merged after a keep or no consensus AfD close, one would have to follow all of the very precise steps at WP:MERGEPROP. There couldn't be merely a very informal quick ad-hoc discussion and agreement to merge; any such informally discussed (or undiscussed) merge would have to be immediately reverted as violating the AfD close. Softlavender (talk) 00:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Comment: I just want to say Legacypac is a valuable contributor at AfD and has done a tremendous job cleaning up the Neverending Neelix Nightmare® – He's probably spent 100 hours on this in the last month going through all the ridiculous redirects and walled garden articles. I cannot rain enough barnstars on his wall. I hope this is taken into account and a topic ban is not pursued. I'm sure he just needs more clarity on what to do with no-consensus outcomes since there seems to be some gray area per DGG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Redirecting a title citing NOPAGE that has never been to AfD is fine (I've done that a few times). Since this complaint started on my talk page I've been sending similar articles to AfD instead and I fully expect an ANi thread complaining that I'm clogging up AfDs with articles that should have been BOLDly redirected citing NOPAGE. Now, if anyone has an issue with a SPECIFIC page I've redirected, please reverse the redirect so I can AfD it next. That already happened on the two listed above that were part of a group AfD. The third article mentioned was just a technical decline Prod, which should not shelter the article from being turned into a redirect months later. Legacypac (talk) 07:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Dealing with material where there is a possibly unreasonable concentration of interest is difficult--WP is very susceptible to people doing this, and I doubt we will ever find a good balance between disposing of problems quickly & definitively and doing so with full fair consideration of each possibility/ When I deal with such analogous groups of material, I usually do not get everything right--it can be very hard to predict what consensus is going to be. Legacypac is doing at least as well as I do in similar situations. All that can be asked of someone is that they reconsider what they are doing if it is questioned, and I try to be objective enough to do so, and I think he is also. DGG ( talk ) 07:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Legacypac: I'm not weighing in on the substance of this thread at this time. However, flagging for future reference that the term "co-eds" referring to female college students is outmoded and may be perceived as demeaning and therefore should not be used. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick look at all of these articles is concerning to me. There is excessive personal detail including educational information, dates of birth, parents names etc. These are not well known people, and even if the information can be found, we shouldn't be further disseminating it as per WP:NPF. Without a lot of this filler information the articles would be very bare indeed (which to me indicates the lack of notability). All of these articles need reviewing, both for notability and content. Polequant (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Legacypac's behavior of late is indeed questionable. He started this MFD[25] where two of his reasons were blatantly wrong. One- that there was no member in the WikiProject when in the same nomination he acknowledged a member. Second- That there were no edits to the page since its last nomination (Less than a year ago also by Legacypac. I'll let others judge whether this second nomination by the same editor was proper or not.) when there obviously was. Lastly he BLP Prod WP:Lexy Schenk when her article did have reference from a WP:RS in it. As seen here[26]...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Subverting AfD by using AfD

• I heartily endorse a topic ban for Legacypac (talk · contribs) on all beauty pageant-related material, he clearly either does not understand the subject matter, or has an open hostility and bias on this issue; either way he is not able to contribute effectively in this area, and is creating a lot of unnecessary work for others. Please see here for more on this, specifically, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Wallace, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Anderson, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Cook (Miss Oregon), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caroline McGowan, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nichole Mead. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

LOL I added an appropriate subsection heading for Ejgreen77 who has NEVER voted against deleting or redirecting a pageant winner page, including voting keep on many pages that were deleted, which strongly suggests bias. I, on the other hand can tell the difference between a BIO about someone that has done something other then win one contest and a bio about a school teacher, future stay at home mom, or univ. student that got in a looks contest to win some scholarships. See Caroline McGowan for example where they just voted to keep an article that links http://dorkychickinlipstick.com/ and calls the subject an actress that has no acting credits to speak of. And to keep Allison Cook (Miss Oregon) "Cook entered her first pageant after learning they could help pay for her college education."Cook entered her first pageant after learning they could help pay for her college education.[2] She sought alternatives after concussion injuries forced her to leave the Oregon Tech basketball and volleyball teams. On April 28, 2012, Cook won the Miss City of Sunshine 2012 title and more than $6,500 in scholarship prizes" and she studies radiology. And to keep Ali Wallace which is a formula cut and paste of the others replacing name, school, major, parent, hair and eye color. Pretty girl who enjoyed 15 minutes of fame and went back to obscurity. Heck recently people were seriously trying to delete a bio I started Candy Carson and she has actually done some notable things and was portrayed next to Cuba Gooding, Jr. in a movie, plus married to Ben Carson. Legacypac (talk) 12:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

In all fairness there are a few editors who mass nominate beauty pageant/pageant winners for deletion. It's not just Legacypac. There needs to be a notability guideline established by experts in this area. Personally I feel anyone who wins the mainstream national title of any country, whether it's Miss USA, Miss Canada or Miss Armenia, should be notable. State winners aka Miss Oregon are not so clear and we need some kind of guideline. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

BTW, check out this link that Legacypac included in his AfD nomination. Let me put it this way, If I were to include such a link in an AfD nomination, I would fully expect to get a topic ban, if not an out-and-out block. Ejgreen77 (talk) 13:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: The problem is that it's very difficult to establish any kind of notability guideline, simply because third-party media coverage of pageants varies wildly from country-to-country (with the US having, by far, the most). Miss South Carolina undoubtedly gets 100 times as much media coverage as Miss Swaziland does, yet there will be some that will say keep one and not the other, because one is a national pageant and one is a sub-national pageant. Other people will argue the other way, saying that one meets WP:GNG and the other doesn't. In general, I think that GNG probably needs to be the objective standard that everything on Wikipedia is held up to. Ejgreen77 (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with that link. John Oliver has a hugely popular show and there's nothing inappropriate in the video - there is valid criticism of pageants and their objectification of women's appearances. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

But, it's the kind of editorial content that is totally inappropriate and off-topic in an AfD nomination. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't use AfD - get dragged to ANi. Use AfD get dragged to ANi. Can't beat the fans of a dying, widely criticized industry.

My criteria is if they win beyond winning a state title or go on to any sort of notable career the article can stay. If the only info beyond trival stuff is that they won a contest, redirect to the contest page. Legacypac (talk) 12:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: Heaven forbid, somebody who actually wants to get rid of poorly-sourced, non-notable articles. pbp 13:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  • But he's nominating articles like Nichole Mead and Rebecca Anderson with dozens of reliable sources, ones that clearly cross the verifiability and notability thresholds, and ignoring WP:NTEMP in his rationales. - Dravecky (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• A topic ban on "beauty pageant-related material" would completely miss the point: the problem is not specifically to do with "beauty pageant-related material": it is to do with trying to undermine the outcomes of discussions and consultations whenever those outcomes are contrary to what Legacypac would like. Legacypac needs to realise that if he or she starts a deletion discussion, he or she must then accept the outcome of that discussion: it is not OK to say, in effect, "Let's have a discussion on whether this should be deleted, so that if the answer is 'yes' then I will accept that decision, and it will be deleted, while if the answer is 'no' then I can ignore that decision, and find another way of effectively deleting it."
• Legacypac, if you continue to do what you have been doing, you are likely to be blocked. I also suggest you may find it helpful to read WP:FORUMSHOP, which is not exactly about what you have been doing, but it is essentially the same. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - ridiculous. AfD is a group process and it can be worked out. Further clarification is needed in some gray areas. Legacypac is not being purposely disruptive and understands the compromise needed. IMO AfD is probably the least rewarding yet one of the most vital areas on Wikipedia, and the editors who nevertheless spend time there trying to weed out non-notable articles need support, not constant criticism. A topic ban for Legacypac would harm the project - and I say that as someone who recommended keep on the Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq coalition article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: "Legacypac is not being purposely disruptive and understands the compromise needed." I'm curious what exactly you see that lead you to state this. Personally, I see nothing to suggest this (in fact, very much the opposite). FYI, this is not Legacypac's first go-round at this, there was a similar mass-AfD dust-up in February 2015, so Legacypac knows perfectly well that at least 50% of these AfD's he's opened are going to close as "keep." Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

And, as far as his motivations go, please see his comment immediately above about a "dying, widely criticized industry." Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Which is why there is so little RS coverage today. As a child I remember most Queens getting local and regional press. Now they have do/say something extraordinary [27] to get even a name check. It is usually a big struggle to find sources outside official pageant sites (and that is kept up only for a year), local person wins award, Facebook and blogs. It is different if they get on a big TV show or something, then we treat them like any other actor. Legacypac (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe that's true in Canada, but in the US, state-level pageants are a big deal, and get plenty of RS coverage in third-party news sources here. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Then a Google search like this for the state closest to me right now [28] should find more then 253 results (all news results for all time for both the annual event and all girls that ever went to the "Miss Washington USA" pageant, not just winners). It is barely noise level. Legacypac (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Most of these state winners, IMHO, don't meet GNG. I've fought to keep articles on pageants and national pageant winners from around the world (which is why I know Legacypac is not the only who noms them for AfD). But I really don't think most state winners make the cut. Just being Miss New Hampshire is not really enough IMO unless there is significant coverage in some other area. Nominating state winners is good cleanup IMHO. And again, there needs to be a guideline. Pageants are competitions after all and equivalent sport guidelines exist on notability, so why not make one for pageants? —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: Please see my comment immediately above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support and Expand On review of the individual cases, and not just the method of editing but the tone used by Legacypac in interacting with other editors who come to him expressing concern or question, there seems to be a dangerous sense of ownership and unwillingness to work in a collaborative spirit. Really, had I chosen to make it an issue at the time, he could have been blocked under discretionary sanctions for the stunt he pulled above vis a vis the Syria article; I only didn't because I try to avoid the mess that is those topics and only came across it via DYK. LavaBaron (talk) 13:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

After I proposed AfD [29] (which closed with advise to discuss merge at talk and good support for a merge in the AfD) I propose merge to talk on Oct 28. Only LavaBaron responded Oppose with no clear policy reason. I completed a merge on Nov 1 (based on insufficient opposition at talk and recent support in AfD, but was reverted. Then on Nov 5 another editor proposed Delete at AfD [30] but that closed no consensus with people suggesting merge again. Now I started a more formal merge discussion and you take offense? That is not forum shopping its following process. Legacypac (talk) 14:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban but suggest the editor avoid making personal comments about others - such comments are uniformly disregarded by closers at AfD, and tend to make some feel that the poster is more invested in deleting stuff he/she does not like than in finding out what the consensus of the general community evinced on the AfD page is. Collect (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - No topic ban. He does need to watch how he interacts with others and remember to discuss content, not users. If he demonstrates incivility or personal attacks, he can definitely be blocked on those grounds. However, he is following the proper process and using AFD for what it's designed to discuss. The lack of understanding of a subject matter is a learning opportunity, and certainly not a reason in itself to propose a ban. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Oshwah: But, over the past year he has sent literally dozens of pageant-related bio articles to AfD, and only a small handful of them have either ended up as "delete" or "merge/redirect" closes, with the vast majority of them closing as either "keep" or "no consensus." And yet, he continues to send more. At what point is the process simply being abused? Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Ejgreen77 - I completely acknowledge your response; I agree that the AFD process can be prone to abuse by anyone who wants to push an agenda or disrupt the process with excessive nominations of articles (especially if the articles clearly do not meet the criterion for nominating it for deletion). I'm trying to find some edits, any edits, that demonstrate that this person has an unambiguous viewpoint or agenda against this topic subject. So far, I'm not finding any. I want to assume good faith here - I think that the user should be warned about his nominations of articles, and that continued nomination of articles that clearly should not be deleted can result in blocking, as doing so is disruptive. After blocks have proven ineffective, I'd be much more open to a conversation about banning. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

My reason for bringing this to ANI was not because this editor was nominating these articles for deletion. It was because--after being unsuccessful at getting these articles deleted through AfD--he then added a redirect. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

i recall there is a way to check the % of deletes on nominations and %of time that an editor's vote meets consensus. I think I saw it in RFA. It would be bad to have a 100% delete on noms - that would suggest you are only sending snow deletes to AfD/RfD and not using the appropriate alternitives. I work hard at cleanup and I've sent literally Thousands of articles and redirects into successful deletion or redirection. I'm sure that stats will bear that out. I went through all the Oregon pagent template and only nomed the ones with no claim to fame outside one event, You can see even in the last 36 hours I made changes, maintenance tagged, proposed merges etc to many pageant articles I did not AfD. On the flip side I bet Ejgreen77 has Never voted to delete or redirect Any pageant article, and I've seen them comment on plenty. Therefore the editor pushing for a topic ban on me should be Boomeranged for they are the one with the demonstratable bias. This editor should serious show a single past delete vote in this topic or face a topic ban themselves for making false statements against me here.

Given that I have a long-standing personal policy against voting "delete" in any AfD debates, pageant related or otherwise, it's not terribly surprising. Not that I haven't seen plenty of articles that I thought should have been deleted, but in those cases, I simply abstain from voting. But, if you're looking for examples, I already gave one further down the page of a pageant article that I think is questionable. And, right off the top of my head, here's a pageant-related article that's right up your alley. It was sent to AfD and somehow closed as "keep," I thought it probably should have been deleted. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose the XFD classic damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't problem. If a bunch of similar items have similar problems and you nominate just one, the community yells about why are you targeting that one; you nominate them all and the community demands each be nominated and judged individually. So here, an editor does the latter and the discussion basically invites individual nominations, which the editor does, and now someone wants to ban the editor. Really??? Moreover, we have editors who seem to want a litmus test as suggested above on how close ones RFA !votes match consensus, as if whether an editor's view matching consensus in one place has bearing on the value of that editor's view anywhere. That sort of marginalization is particularly distasteful given the current political discourse in the US and ought to be rejected. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment @Oshwah: and any other users who think that Legacypac is acting in good faith here, check out some of the whoppers that were told (multiple times!) in this nomination. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Are pageant winners notable?

Moved content discussion to here. No comment on previous sections. --MASEM (t) 02:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Thinking of what other annual contests exist, I searched the biggest Rodeo in Canada List_of_Calgary_Stampede_Rodeo_Champions. There is just one article on one winner - a two sentence stub J.B. Mauney. No dozens of articles on each event with succession boxes and who their parents are, what they studied, where they went to school blah blah blah. I can't think of any contests, outside politics) that we give SO much coverage too, and we avoid most of the trivia in the politician articles. The trivia goes into the pageant articles because, without it, you have nothing that does not fit on a list. If we applied the same standards to pageant winners as we apply to other topic areas, this debate would not even be happening. Legacypac (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• 1.) WP:OTHERSTUFF 2.) Lack of editor interest in one particular area should not preclude other editors from developing articles in a completely unrelated field. 3.) At the end of the day, it's all about WP:GNG; if you think that individual rodeo cowboys have sufficient third-party coverage to warrant articles, by all means, go ahead and create them. Ejgreen77 (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Largely not, no. In most cases there is no coverage of them outside the context of the pageant. Pageantcruft is a plague on Wikipedia and has been for a long time. Guy (Help!) 17:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• All pageant winners? No, of course not, but the state-level winners for the two major national pageants (Miss America and Miss USA)? Based on the extensive ongoing coverage by reliable sources, clearly yes. (Other contests that receive as much or more attention on Wikipedia include reality television competitions, sports at all levels, literary prizes, academic prizes, literary prizes, the Oscars, the Emmys, the Tonys, and so on.) - Dravecky (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Like the 111 Google News hits for "Miss Oregon USA" or the 58 hits in books (covering all winners over the years and the contest itself and not all RS of course)? Is that "extensive ongoing coverage by reliable sources"? All that coverage barely justifies the Miss Oregon USA article. Legacypac (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Not to try to trivialize this too much, but from what I've seen of pageant winners, WP:BLP1E readily applies, in that the only event they are connected to is winning the pageant, meaning that most winners are not notable (although we can certainly use lists and tables to document then) Obviously, if they have done more before and/or after that is of note, then normal notability rules apply (as such with Caitlin Upton. And this is not to suggest that anyone winning an aware is not notable per BLP1E, but it is due to the nature of what pageants are: the participants are not being ranked on past merit but the there-and-now, as opposed to other awards like Nobels, Oscars, etc. where it is based on past merit that usually can be documented to a great degree, so BLP1E would not apply. --MASEM (t) 21:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. the majority of them have no actual claim to notability and are never heard of again. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:NTEMP covers the fact that once notability is achieved, it does not need to be sustained. And, as far as the whole BLP1E thing goes, please see this excellent comment, which I wholeheartedly agree with. Ironically, one of the articles currently sitting at AfD, Rachel Berry (Miss Oregon) concerns a contestant who won a state-level title, then was forced to resign it less than three weeks later. On that particular article I do believe there are legitimate BLP1E concerns, due to the extremely short nature of her time as a titleholder. Thus there are no news stories of her making public appearances as Miss Oregon, no "preparing for Miss America" articles, and no subsequent appearance at the national pageant. So, on that particular article there are some legitimate BLP1E concerns, IMHO. But, your average state titleholder who won her state title, made numerous public appearances throughout the year, and represented her state on the nationally televised national pageant? No, no BLP1E concerns, there. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The question is begged if notability was met to begin with in terms of NTEMP. And BLP1E still applies to a pageant winner that would have media appearances after the fact but otherwise nothing notable. Classic example: JetBlue flight attendant incident is not about the person involved as that is basically how BLP1E is applied. Similarly for pageants, it is rarely the winner but the event itself as a whole. --MASEM (t) 05:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think ANI is the best place to debate notability. But as I said before, national winners are notable IMO as they receive significant coverage for the year and go on to compete in Miss World or whatever. Significant coverage is significant coverage - there is no requirement that anyone actually accomplish anything. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

"Significant coverage is significant coverage - there is no requirement that anyone actually accomplish anything." I agree completely, but like I said earlier, most of these US state-level winners will get 100 times as much third-party media coverage as, say, most of the people who competed in Miss Earth 2015. Heck, in some of these cases (Miss Congo (RDC), Miss Moldova, Miss Swaziland, Miss Kyrgyzstan, etc.) I'm not really all that certain that the national pageant itself is particularly notable - never mind the individual winners. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

You'd actually be surprised - in some of these smaller countries, a larger percentage of the population knows about "Miss (Country)." It's a lot bigger deal for anyone to be competing and representing their country abroad, and they get a lot of attention not only when they win their pageant but when they go to Miss Universe and other pageants. I on the other hand have no idea who Miss America is this year, but that's because American culture is overloaded with celebrities who are world famous. Angola naturally is different. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course BLP1E applies. And as I commented above, the level of personal detail on these pages is grossly excessive. (And in the one AfD I commented on, the highest profile source doesn't even mention the person in question, and went on about the person's educational history and other trivia that is completely unencyclopedic. And the article was written by an admin. They should really know better.) Polequant (talk) 12:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

And here we have that same admin reinserting dates of birth, parents occupations etc. Seriously? Polequant (talk) 12:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Can we please move this conversation to Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)? —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Started at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Pageant_winners_and_notability. --MASEM (t) 21:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks Masem! Can you close out this discussion? —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

---

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

New user creating tons of unnecessary redirects

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

---

It's More Fun to Compute (talk · contribs).

This user created his account yesterday, but has already made over 100 new redirects, most of which is completely unnecessary. I do not know what to do, so I am bringing it here before it gets out of hand.

To Michael Jordan, he created the following redirects:

This goes on with other articles, too. Nymf (talk) 06:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Possible Neelix sock? Just get this account to give up his Adminship cause we already established creating useless redirects is not a reason for a BLOCK. Legacypac (talk) 07:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Look, I don't know who that person is. However, I must ask why there is a template for redirect from misspelling template if there is no intention to use it where appropriate? - It's More Fun to Compute (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Warn user to stop and then Block (indefinitely) and WP:DENY if they don't. This is just the latest form of trolling. Nip it in the bud. Softlavender (talk) 07:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the Camelcase isn't necessary, but could you please explain what is wrong with Micheal Jeffrey Jordan? - It's More Fun to Compute (talk) 07:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Unfortunately you've come along at a pretty bad time in relation to odd redirects - misspellings can be handled by the Mediawiki software, as when you search for a misspelt article, it will suggest the correct one. Adding redirects for every possible misspelling, while cheap, is a bit disruptive and ultimately pointless. I'd recommend stopping, and focus a bit more on content :) -- samtar ^whisper 07:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Redirect spam, even extreme cases [31], is not blockable we learned. Legacypac (talk) 07:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Legacypac:, this is not an appropriate place to bring up how Neelix was dealt with. You know very well that who is and is not blockable depends on circumstance. You coming here citing precedence like we are a court of law will only confuse the new user. If you want to discuss this my talk page is open. Fun to computer please ignore the above comment, it is wholly unrelated to the topic at hand. HighInBC 15:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

We all know new users don't start by rapid creating dozens of stupid redirects, so confusion by "new user" Fun to computer is unlikely. Inconsistently however is confusing to lots of editors :) Legacypac (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Does this mean that I cannot create any new redirects? I'm don't want to be blocked. - It's More Fun to Compute (talk) 07:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you don't, at the current time. As you might gather, there has recently been a bit of tiff (trying for British understatement here) about mass redirects for inane spellings, and tempers are short. The kwetching from certain editors above notwithstanding, you may even get blocked if you overdo it right now. Go improve content rather than duplicate a job the software does perfectly well already! :) -- Elmidae 08:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• He's a sock of TyrusThomas4lyf (talk · contribs), and a case has already been opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TyrusThomas4lyf. Whenever an admin gets around to it, just block him and G5 his redirects. Not much else needs to be discussed here... -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  • If we are nuking the redirects by "It's More Fun to Compute", can we nuke the ones by the other recently blocked sock A window cleaner me (talk · contribs) at the same time? There's about 150 categories/redirects on that user as well. Nymf (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The new user & the IP 108.71.133.201 are the same individual, aswell. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'll let the SPI run its course regarding the socking claim (seems likely to me), but I've blocked User:It's More Fun to Compute indefinitely, because while this thread is going on, they are continuing to create stupid redirects. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Even forgetting the socking, creating redirects for every possible misspelling one can think of seems like overkill. I've created a few redirects where I can never remember the proper spelling. But this is excessive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• CU confirmed the named account at SPI; I mass-deleted all his contributions and rolled back a few dozen of his other edits before I ran out of time to do WP stuff today. DMacks (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Apropos of all this, is there a policy page or guideline we can point people to to remind them that it's more than unnecessary to go around creating redirects just to (as Elmidae nicely put it) "duplicate a job the software does perfectly well already"? —Steve Summit (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:RPURPOSE lists all the reasons to create redirects, so that might be what you're looking for... -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Frankly, I see no harm in the preponderance of those redirects being created, and would not have deleted them. pbp 23:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Since mass-creation of redirects is the latest form of trolling and/or inappropriate behavior, and since in the past month we've so far had at least five or six editors called up on ANI for creating thousands or tens of thousands of redirects, I propose that mass-creation of redirects be added to WP:DE as disruptive editing and a blockable offense. That way, we have a policy onhand that we can point to and enforce rather than having to have this same ANI discussion over and over and over and over again (not to mention all the hundreds of man-hours it takes to undo the damage each time). I don't think this trend is going to go away, so we need to nip it in the bud and codify a policy/guideline about it. And by that I do not mean WP:RPURPOSE; I mean a specific stricture against mass-redirect creation. Softlavender (talk) 13:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: Mass redirect creation may be unhelpful, but;

The most productive thing to do with a redirect, as long as it's name isn't actually harmful, is to ignore it, saving time during which you can foil some actual trolls.

What is the "damage", apart from people voluntarily sorting through redirects? If they were left, it would make no difference.

Please do not post false accusations in response to this, anybody. I did mass create redirects, which was unhelpful, but I am not a troll, vandal, spammer or any of the other slurs used towards me on October 31. Thank you. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

This is the fifth bulk redirect case in the last month. I agree that this should be considered disruptive editing. Redirects for misspellings are just junk. That's what modern search engines are for. John Nagle (talk) 01:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Where is the "damage" this causes? The "disk space" argument is also a lie, as the entire of enwiki can be fitted onto a single memory stick, as I have heard myself from a WMF employee. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 11:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Rubbish computer, you were one of the five users brought up at ANI for mass-redirects in the past six weeks. You had created 16,516 redirects. So your opinion on this matter is moot at best, self-serving and defensive or even troll-inciting at worst. Kindly have the decency to recuse yourself from this and other mass-redirect discussions. Softlavender (talk) 10:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• Agree - add it to the list of disruptive behaviors and ban for it (or just have the user hand in his mop). Bad redirects make search harder. They spread misspellings into the wild of the internet because Wikipedia is seen as authoritative. It takes a lot of time to clean up and as we see with Neelix redirects, some are astonishingly misleading. Legacypac (talk) 11:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Legacypac, How does a redirect from a misspelling, which leads to the article, make searching harder? I don't mean to be repetitive, I just don't understand what all this is about. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 11:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Neutralhomer barracking at a RFC

Following discussion with an Admin relating to the notability policy of a AfD, it was agreed that I should open a RFC to gain consensus. After some thought I decided to open a discussion at WikiProject Radio Stations which seemed the most relevant venue for discussion. As directed at WP:RFC I attempted to formulate a question about the issue which was neutral and invited discussion from editors with different views. User:Neutralhomer has been increasingly abusive in this discussion to me, including insisting that I have to reply to him rather than go to bed (which is nonsense, there is no time limit on a discussion), [that I am acting in bad faith], am timewasting, [be disregarded as I have only been editing for less than a year] and writing [messages on my talkpage] about "stirring hornets nests".

The fact is that I am interested in a discussion about the notability issue of community radio stations. That is not, in my opinion, a time wasting activity - because this issue matters to me. I understand that User:Neutralhomer feels strongly that WP:NMEDIA applies only to radio stations in the USA, but as shown by extensive comments by other editors, I am not alone in thinking that a broadcast license by a national regulator should be a sign of notability. I should certainly not be castigated for attempting to follow WP:RFC and I should not have to put up with this kind of bullying. JMWt (talk) 10:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I and others have tried to get JMWt to understand that "community radio stations" do not exist in the US, they are only in Canada, the UK and Australia. So, NMEDIA rules don't cover them. When NMEDIA was created and later updated, it was created to be vague enough to be used all over, but primarily in the US and Canada. Reason being, the people who work on radio station pages are typically from the US and Canada. We didn't have any knowledge of British communications rules when NMEDIA was written.

I suggested to JMWt that he create UK-based rules (under NMEDIAUK) so that there isn't any overlap. But JMWt couldn't accept that. He also couldn't accept that US, Canadian and UK radio stations are completely different.

This has gone on and on for hours and the RfC isn't going anywhere. I requested it be closed and the discussion moved to JMWt's talk page. That seemed to irritate JMWt even more than he already was.

There is a clear case of WP:NOTGETTINGIT going on with JMWt. No matter how I explain the rules, no matter how anyone else explains them, he just doesn't get it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I am entitled to open a discussion about the notability of community radio stations worldwide even if (you think) I am wrong about WP:NMEDIA. WP:NOTGETTINGIT does not imply that I have to agree with your conclusions and that a RFC is concluded within 24 hours when you say it is. JMWt (talk) 10:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• (ec x 2) It really does look as though people are trying to explain a very simple concept to JMWt, but JMWt is just not comprehending. People, Neutralhomer in particular, are so sick having to explain the same thing over and over and over and over and over that he's become frustrated. This is now being held against him. As someone who has previously had this happen to him, I sympathise more with Neutralhomer than with Mr Fingers-in-ears-LALALALALALA. Reyk _YO! 10:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

It is pretty clear that I'm talking about the bullying not the disagreement about WP:NMEDIA. JMWt (talk) 10:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

If saying "you swatted the hornet's nest, you don't get to run off to bed" or "you've been here less than a year and it is showing bad" is bullying, then I apologize. That doesn't change the fact that you still don't understand that NMEDIA doesn't cover "Community Radio Stations" because NMEDIA was written, however vaugely, for US and Canadian radio stations. Again, because we didn't have knowledge of UK rules and regs.

I, again, invite you to work with the community and create rules for UK stations as NMEDIAUK, ones that will cover the "Community Radio Stations" found in the UK. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

"I'm sorry you feel you were bullied" apology not accepted. I've been very clear from the start that I'm talking about how to assess the notability of all small community radio stations on wikipedia. Once again, I deplore your attitude when I am clearly trying to clear up a source of disagreement over notability. JMWt (talk) 10:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

What you still aren't getting is while you are trying to "assess the notability" of community radio stations, you are doing so with rules that don't cover them. You are trying to lump all radio stations into those notability "assessment". I deplore having to repeat myself and I have done so now several times. Several times you just haven't gotten it. I'm hoping you do soon. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Clearly we disagree. That is not for this discussion, but your attitude. Which has still not changed markedly. JMWt (talk) 11:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Dude, my attitude has nothing to do with your understanding of the matter. Numerous people have written large swaths of information and you either barely acknowledge it or completely ignore it and keep right on going. It's kinda hard to have a discussion of any kind when the other person isn't getting it. Reyk, help me out here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Neutralhomer Communiuty radio actually does exist in the United States , please | see this organization . KoshVorlon 12:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

KoshVorlon: These are almost solely Public Radio formatted stations. Some, like WDVX and WMMT, are Americana and Roots music. But others like WEAA and WTJU are public radio stations airing varying degrees of NPR-type programming.

What I was meaning is the FCC does not have a category for "Community Radio Stations" like OFCOM in the UK does. The closest thing we have is low-power FM (or LPFM). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll just leave this here: Local Community Radio Act. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

That brought about changes in LPFMs, but did not create them. LPFMs in the US have been around since 2001. LPFM was started with the "Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act of 2000". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I know. The point is that community radio is clearly a thing in the US and acknowledged as such on the legislative level. That the official category of license does not have the word "community" doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But this seems like a tangent and gets at the actual substance of the dispute, which does not require ANI. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Believe me, if there was a "community radio" category in the US, I think it would be alot easier. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@JMWt: frankly your attitude sucks, and you should read WP:BOOMERANG. Now climb down off your high horse and listen to people who have been here a long time and are trying to explain things to you with, I must say, commendable patience. Guy (Help!) 17:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

"Your attitude sucks" and "climb off your high horse" is how we help people resolve behavioural disputes now, is it? It seems to me people should let the RFC proceed and stop patronising JMWt. Fences&Windows 00:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

As an admin, JzG is exempt from the civility policy, arbitration hearings, and any other normal process that non-admin peons face on a daily basis. Please check the sooper sekrit policy on IRC for details. You have been warned. Viriditas (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Just telling it like it is. JMWt has chosen to come here with a vexatious complaint and in doing so has drawn attention to the fact that JMWt, not those about who he complains, is the primary problem. JMWt refuses to accept explanation or consensus, and comes tot he admin board to complain about those who are patiently explaining the problem. This happens all the time, and the essay WP:BOOMERANG explains typical consequences. Guy (Help!) 13:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@JzG: - see, I'm not as wet-behind-the-ears as you seem to think I am. I happen to know a) WP:WHATISCONSENSUS, b) WP:CCC, c) that WP:BIAS is a known thing, d) that there are standards of WP:CIV, e) that nobody "WP:OWN"s essays, never mind prior consensus or policies. But most of all, I am entitled to operate without WP:HA, particularly where I am engaged in WP's own procedure for trying to reach WP:CON on something which is obviously a contentious issue across many AfD. You can say WP:IDONTLIKEIT all you like. As an WP:ADMIN your comments are clearly uncalled for, and you should know better than to attack the person rather than the issue - which I notice you have not bothered to engage with in the forum where it is clearly correct to discuss it. Any further personal attacks from you will be escalated. Furthermore if you can't see the above complaint as a problem outwith of the discussion at hand, then you shouldn't be an WP:ADMIN never mind adding comments to this page. JMWt (talk) 11:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I am missing it. What is wrong with having a RfC? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Doc James: there is nothing wrong with having an RfC. The problem here is that a single user does not like the views I hold, the fact that I've started an RfC, the fact that I've put the discussion on that particular WikiProject talkpage, the suggestion by me that the notability of radio stations in other countries around the world should be judged on the same basis as those (he says) are only to be covered by WP:NMEDIA, the fact that I've only been editing for 12 months, the fact that I dare suggest that there is no consensus here, or the fact that other people might actually think that WP:NMEDIA can and should apply to radio stations outwith of his jurisdiction. Which all would be absolutely fine if he was able to communicate these points in a way that is not a personal attack. And then, when challenged, makes it out that the bullying I've illustrated in my complaint above is just my impression of what was said. It wasn't. By any objective standard, that was bullying. JMWt (talk) 13:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The issue's not the RfC. The issue is one editor who can't or won't comprehend what people are saying no matter how simple, is acting overly offended at everything, won't accept any kind of conciliatory gesture, and is doing a lot of screechy litigious posturing. Reyk _YO! 13:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

No, sorry, I am entitled to disagree with someone else's understanding of a consensus (expressed in an essay, not a policy) no matter how much they want to insist that their way is the only way to look at it - and I note that others in the discussion have strongly disagreed with the WP:NMEDIA understanding being expressed here as consensus and as WP:NOTGETTINGIT. No, there is a real disagreement and there is a discussion about how to resolve that disagreement in policy. I am entitled to be involved in a RfC which is civil and engages on the question rather than in personal abuse. If you don't get that, maybe you shouldn't be writing on this page either. JMWt (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

NH tries to apologise for expressing frustration and you scream "apology not accepted" in boldface. I stand by my description of you as unforgiving, litigious, and quarrelsome. You're not here to participate in consensus building- you'd at least try to understand other peoples' views if you were- you're just here to yell at everyone and get your way by threatening to "escalate" your feigned outrage to some other venue. This is not a good attitude to have around here. Reyk _YO! 14:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I was a non-apology couched in terms that were made to make it sound like I was imagining abuse and then using this as a forum to repeat endlessly the same point he was making before. I don't want a faux apology, sorry. Now as to your other points, they're obviously garbage given that there are various editors who do not agree with the understanding of WP:NMEDIA that was so forcefully used as an accusation that I was WP:NOTGETTINGIT, even to the extent of resorting to personal abuse - and also given that I've never posted on this board about anything before. I don't care if you think it is vexacious, I don't care if you have a description of me or whatever else you bring up that is totally unrelated. I want someone to recognise this as what it was: abuse. JMWt (talk) 14:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The reason nobody is "recognising this as abuse" is that it isn't abuse. It's just the usual frustration at having to repeatedly explain something to someone who isn't listening. Abuse would be if someone said "You are an asshat" or something along those lines. It's clear at this point that you will not succeed in convincing anyone that you are a victim of misbehaviour, or get anyone to take any sort of action against NeutralHomer. It is time to stop beating this dead horse. Reyk _YO! 14:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Fortunately you are not the one making the decision, then, because you've already shown that you are unable to do so fairly. JMWt (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I had walked away from this thread (and the RfC) due to a migraine from repeating myself ad naseum, but I feel the need to come back and address the above.

JMWt, don't try to guess what I was thinking when I apologized. It was a real apology, not a "non-apology". I don't appreciate having someone try and read my mind and guess what I was thinking.

If I was being abusive, believe me, there would be a crapload of admins jumpin' all over me. As Reyk kindly put it, you are "quarrelsome" and "not here to participate in consensus building". Plus, as JzG said you aren't "listen[ing] to people who have been here a long time and are trying to explain things to you". Several users, myself included, have had, as JzG put it, "commendable patience", toward you in having to explain things over and over and over and over.

So, what you may think is "abuse" is actually pure-and-simple frustration. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

OK fine, so make an apology here without reservation and admit that it is possible to have different opinions on the validity of WP:NMEDIA without constantly pushing that I'm WP:NOTGETTINGIT - which is about consensus. I totally understand your position on WP:NMEDIA, I don't need you to keep repeating it. JMWt (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I apologized once, you didn't accept it, I'm not doing it again because you ordered me to. As for NMEDIA, and I can't believe I have to repeat this again, your understand and lumping together of two seperate countries, two seperate platforms, doesn't make sense. Ask for consensus on something that has consensus, doesn't make sense. You are trying to find consensus in British radio in rules that are admittedly (and admitted by others at WPRS) of having a North American bias (again because we didn't have anyone to write them from the UK). So, no, you don't understand my position, and unfortunately, yes, I do have to keep repeating it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Right, that's your understanding and other views are available. That's the whole point of the RFC. If you bothered to look at the discussion, you'd see that all of your points on this have been comprehensively answered. And not by me. As you are unable to comprehend that someone could possibly have a different view to you, and further that you need to keep repeating your view as accepted fact, then I can't do anything but believe your apology was fake. You don't want to apologise, you just want to continue with the same behaviour. JMWt (talk) 14:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

You only get one apology, that's how the real world works. You don't shoot down one and then demand another. Doesn't work that way. As for the "comprehensively answered" points, no they haven't. It's just your perfered view. You're projecting your problems back onto me and I don't have time for it. I have articles to create and update, the real reason we are here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Why would you think I give a toss what you think of me? If you come to ANI it's on you to convince people that your complaint is merited. Instead, multiple editors have given you advice that it's ridiculous and that you should drop it. You have elected not to pay any attention, which I am coming to understand is your primary defining characteristic. Fine. You want to yell that you're the innocent victim, and that you'll go on yelling until people see it your way, you can go right ahead. But don't be surprised if, like me, people find themselves sympathising more with NH when you stamp your feet and tremble with rage. Reyk _YO! 14:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Why are you here and what are you actually adding to this discussion? Someone insisting that a RFC should be closed within 24 because someone else doesn't agree with their opinion, and resorting to something they admit is abusive, is something you want to encourage is it? JMWt (talk) 14:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I have considered your repeated assertions that I shouldn't post at ANI. It is my determination that they are erroneous. They are therefore disregarded. I will, however, stop posting in this thread because you are wasting my time. Reyk _YO! 14:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Good. JMWt (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I never admitted to being abusive. I said "If I was being abusive". Don't put words in my mouth again. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways: either you were being abusive and are now apologising for it, or you weren't and aren't. JMWt (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The above is a classic sign of WP:NOTGETTINGIT. I apologized, you swatted it down, you don't get another one because you demand it. Not the way the real world works. You also don't misquote someone when what I said it right up there. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Let the RfC run. People need to stop personalizing things. You all do not need to agree. An independent admin will close it eventually following it running for at least a week. You do not get to close down RfC just because you disagree with the question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban or WP:MRMPS (probation enforcement) for Charlotte135

Every now and then, we get men's rights editors or those with similar views POV-pushing gender symmetry content or a gender symmetry angle onto the domestic violence articles. This is why the Domestic violence article is under Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. There have also been cases where such editors impersonated women to more easily push their viewpoint. Gender symmetry is the controversial viewpoint that women commit as much domestic violence as men, or more domestic violence than men. Charlotte135 (talk · contribs), a relatively new account, showed up to the Domestic violence article making a series of dubious and problematic edits, and has since mainly only been focused on the domestic violence areas of Wikipedia. Charlotte135 has denied being a men's right's editor, but Charlotte135 has nonetheless edited the Domestic violence article and the Intimate partner violence article in ways that push the gender symmetry viewpoint, usually with a faulty understanding of the WP:Neutral policy, even when pointed to the WP:Due weight and WP:Valid aspects of that policy. When others try to explain the problems to Charlotte135, Charlotte135 makes it seem like those people are being non-neutral and/or have an agenda, and often doesn't seem to be actually hearing what they are stating. For example, Charlotte135 has mischaracterized me and my intentions so badly that I find it difficult to discuss anything with Charlotte135, and have resorted to leaving notes for a response instead of replying directly; in fact, I will ignore any claims by Charlotte135 in this thread because of that very aspect. Charlotte135's editing and arguments have drained me and a number of others, and the matter only seems to be getting worse. I don't see what there is left for me to do in this case but propose a topic ban or MRMPS restriction with regard to Charlotte135 editing domestic violence articles. At one point, I thought about asking SlimVirgin to help, but she has enough on her plate to deal with. Below is a collapsed point-by-point retelling of what has occurred:

The issues at hand

Charlotte135 showed up at "01:43, 21 October 2015" with this, this and this edit. I reverted because the edits were WP:Valid violations (trying to make it seem like men and women are affected to the same degree by domestic violence). Charlotte135 came to my talk to complain; see User talk:Flyer22 Reborn/Archive 20#Domestic Violence is not a gender issue!. Charlotte135 showed up in the "Claim about male self overestimating" section of the Domestic violence article, supporting a misrepresentation of sources and a gender symmetry viewpoint (a source used for the material was reporting on a men's rights group piece). Johnuniq made a rebuttal, stating, "A fluffy media report about claims made 'by the men's rights campaign group Parity' does not satisfy WP:RS for edits which seek to overturn conventional (and sourced) understanding of a topic." Kaldari stepped in to help with some of the dispute. With this edit, Charlotte135 removed "though women are more likely to be injured 'largely because men are stronger on average than women'", despite this being well-supported in literature on domestic violence. I noted this in a discussion with Charlotte135, and stated that it was my belief that Charlotte135 removed the material on a WP:IDON'TLIKEIT basis. Charlotte135 argued the matter, with a misguided understanding of what being neutral means on Wikipedia. In the "Domestic violence affects both genders and children" section, there is much of the same from Charlotte135. Johnuniq stated, "Editors should agree to play the game and be civil (as has occurred), but let's not beat around the bush: your account has under forty edits and is just over two weeks old, and your edits in this topic focus on men's rights activism—see WP:MRMPS. Such activism has not taken over this article in the past and is unlikely to be successful in the future." Charlotte135 denied being a men's rights editor, and later took issue with the "domestic violence disproportionately affects women" material in the lead, suggesting that this needs to be balanced with material on men. The lead already had, and still has, material on men being victims of domestic violence, but not material on being as victimized (or close to as victimized) as women; this is because the literature generally does not state that. Charlotte135 and I reverted each other over this bit, which stated, "A 2010 review article entitled 'Are Men the More Belligerent Sex?' in Scientific American indicated that rates of domestic violence are roughly equal between men and women." I reverted Charlotte135 because the text made it seem like it was Scientific American reviewing the literature, when it was actually commenting on a researcher's analysis, an analysis based on the highly criticized conflict tactics scale. I also reverted because the content was WP:Undue weight (not generally supported by the domestic violence literature), and did not use good WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing. Charlotte135 continued to argue for the text. This resulted in a WP:RfC, which closed with WP:Consensus being against the addition...per WP:REDFLAG. As seen with this section and the discussion immediately following it (just scroll down), Charlotte135 added to the lead "On the other hand, a meta-analyses conducted by Archer (2000) concluded that women were slightly more likely than men to use one or more act of physical aggression and to use such acts more frequently, after examining 82 studies that found gender symmetry." I reverted per the material not being WP:Lead material and per it being WP:Undue weight. After much discussion, that material was left out of the lead. But by this point, I couldn't be bothered to directly respond to Charlotte135, since Charlotte135 repeatedly misrepresents me and my intentions and doesn't seem to ever truly listen. In the "Info/study removed" section, Charlotte135's gender symmetry POV-pushing editing continued, with Gandydancer taking objection this time. Kaldari stepped in again to help. In the "For NPOV sake" discussion, Charlotte135 was again arguing that the "Globally, however, a wife or female partner is more commonly the victim of such abuse." sentence in the lead needed to be balanced with gender symmetry material. Gandydancer took the time to try to explain to Charlotte135 why Charlotte135's proposed text was problematic, but it didn't seem like Charlotte135 was truly listening. In fact, Charlotte135 kept repeating, even after Fyddlestix stepped in to explain. It got to the point that Gandydancer stated, "I've reached the end of my comments here as well. I have no desire to RE:HASH this over and over again. Using the reviews that she offers, it seems that Charlotte wants to cherry pick the statement that the percentage of male/female violence is equal and just leave it at that, but not include, for example, that male physical violence is more likely to include punching and choking while females slap and scratch and that female physical violence is often used as a defense against male violence, which is also included in the reviews. I assume that Charlotte will now throw hooks out to try and drag me back into this discussion, as she has proven that she does so well, but I'm done here." In the "Multicultural differences / age differences in the research" discussion and the one immediately following it (just scroll down), Charlotte135 went after the "Globally, however, a wife or female partner is more commonly the victim of such abuse." sentence again, this time arguing from an adolescent perspective, citing a U.S.-centric source that stated, "Among adolescents, where many preventative and educative interventions, in Western countries are currently aimed, research consistently shows that females perpetrate more acts of violence in intimate relationships than males." I noted, "To state that the vast majority of available sources say that female adolescents perpetrate more acts of violence in intimate relationships than male adolescents is not entirely inaccurate, since a lot of scholarly sources state that this demographic, which is mostly made up of white adolescents in the United States (because of the limited way this topic has been studied), perpetrate equal rates of IPV, and note the severe limitations of this research." I ended up having to fix the text that Charlotte135 added because it was added in a biased and misleading way, and editors agreed that I fixed the problematic addition. In the "WP:Alternative name policy and separating terminology on an arbitrary basis" discussion, I took issue with the way that Charlotte135 presented the alternative names in the lead, since the literature generally does not separate the terms in that way. To me, Charlotte135 distinguishing domestic violence from intimate partner violence, when the literature generally cites them as the same thing, seemed to be Charlotte135 attempting to combat the "Globally, however, a wife or female partner is more commonly the victim of such violence." sentence again. In this section at the Intimate partner violence talk page, Charlotte135 took issue with Michael P. Johnson's typology. Note that Johnson is one of the scholars who disputes gender symmetry, and he is therefore a target of men's rights editors. I noted in the discussion, "Michael P. Johnson's typology on intimate partner violence is the most cited typology on intimate partner violence; scholars consistently support that typology, to the point that it is not simply Johnson's typology anymore. It is not simply a theory; it is a typology that has been repeatedly validated by research." I noted that his typology is given the weight it is given because, as this reliable source states, "Two typologies in particular have received considerable attention across various disciplines: Holzworth-Munroe and Stuart's (1994) male batterer typology and Johnson's (2008) intimate partner violence typology." Charlotte135 took to calling me a big fan of Johnson's, with the implication that I am POV-pushing and with the assertion that I am desperate to keep the Johnson material in the article. Charlotte135 then made this edit, which I reverted, at the Domestic violence article, stating, "flyer22reborn it is just johnson mostly. your edit changes context entirely", when it's actually the case that there are different researchers reporting similarly to Johnson in that section. After that, Charlotte135 made this edit with the derogatory edit summary "Why are you Flyer22reborn trying to edit war and parade your hero Michael Johnson's controversial POV and his personal theories." CFCF came along and reverted Charlotte135 here and here. Charlotte135 then added this "citation needed" tag, stating, "citation needed for a big call," even though the "others" who have identified those types of violence are shown in the references in that section. Lastly, after I declared that I was done with the Domestic violence and Intimate partner violence articles, partly to test Charlotte135, Charlotte135 made this edit to the Intimate partner violence article, which removed "this is generally perpetrated by men against women," even though that bit is supported by sources in the article. Like I noted to Charlotte135, "That the most extreme forms of intimate partner violence are perpetrated by men against women is well-supported in the literature." This is also true in the case of adolescent males and females.

Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Support topic ban or some restriction

• Support limited time topic ban of some sort (3 months?). I reviewed Charlotte135's contributions to Talk:Domestic violence and in addition to finding tendentious POV pushing and TLDR (from both sides), I came away with a strong impression that Charlotte135 is not a new editor. Though a "Duck block" would be an easy fix, I don't think it would be a "long term" solution, as the user would just show up under another username. Besides, I don't think they've yet done anything that merits an indef block. Charlotte135 claims they are not a SPA, so a short topic ban from domestic violence should not be a big deal. ~Awilley (talk) 05:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. This editor is engaging in disruptive, WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior and is clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia. Overwhelming percentage of edits are to a single article, and most of that is tl;dr POV-pushing at talk. Montanabw^(talk) 09:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support Topic ban. SPA working in a POV fashion in a contentious topic area is enough for me to support a topic ban and reexamine that after SPA has demonstrated adequate neutrality for six months in unrelated areas.--MONGO 20:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, at least temporarily, due to POV. I think that a six-month ban on Domestic violence is long enough. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose topic ban or some restriction

• What? No. Also this weird use of MRA as a slur is dumb. Shall I try to topic ban people editing from a Feminist POV? Arkon (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
• See my comments below. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban for now. This is a content dispute, and both parties have engaged in suboptimal POV editing. Minor4th 17:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose- Per Minor4th. I see a content dispute, kicked off by Charlotte adding a sourced statement to an article, but there has not been a convincing case made that anyone is disrupting anything. Reyk _YO! 12:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
• Definitely Oppose- This is a content dispute involving one old and one new editor. It didn't need to be brought here.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment - I'm currently reviewing everything stated here, as well as Charlotte135's contribution history. Looking at Charlotte135's contribs page, I will state that this is definitely a single purpose account focused primarily on domestic abuse and gender topics. Most, if not nearly all of this user's edits are made in articles that fall under this subject matter. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment, it seems clear that "single purpose" is an appropriate label for the account, not that that is automatically a bad thing. A lot of the edits seem designed to push a specific agenda that seems to largely align to MRA, but I want to hear a response from Charlotte135 before making a firm decision either way. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC).
• CommentI have edited well over 35 different topics ranging from menstruation through to the ebola virus. Admittedly most of these relate to women and women's health although that is a very, very wide net and is far from a single purpose account. However I have noticed most editors seem to edit within a specific scope, much more specific in many cases than I have. Mine has been pretty broad. Some editors only edit articles about horses for instance. Every single edit I have made to every single article page has added some value to the article, however minor. How the heck are my 35 plus articles edits in any way indicative of a specific agenda? My agenda is to help build a better Wikipedia. Could Lankiveil please provide some diffs for the other 30 or 40 articles I have edited and provide any evidence at all as to how any of these edits could be seen as biased in any way? Furthermore I am a woman and a scientist Flyer22reborn, I can assure you of that last time I checked. I am not aligned in any way, whatsoever, to any men's rights groups, ever, nor have I any interest whatsoever, in any such nonsense. And what the heck is MRA!! I completely reject any such assertion and is an obvious attempt to discredit me by associating me with such groups. I have a lot more to say on this too. But first things first and I'll wait for Lankiveil response. Thank you.Charlotte135 (talk) 08:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Charlotte135, I really think that you should focus on the information that Flyer22 Reborn has presented right now and respond to it. This is the initial information that we are looking at, and I think that your response is drifting away from the issues that are actually presented here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

My comments above are completely on topic. My editing is clearly spanned over 35 different articles so I am confused as to how that possibly constitutes being a SPA?? I have never ever edited mens rights type articles, or violence against men articles, or violence against women articles, or any similar articles. Check my contributtions. I am a woman Flyer22reborn and not pretending to be a woman. How offensive. And I am a scientist Flyer22reborn, I can assure you of that last time I checked. I am not aligned in any way, whatsoever, to any men's rights groups, ever, nor have I any interest whatsoever, in any such nonsense. And what the heck is MRA!! I completely reject any such assertion and is an obvious attempt to discredit me by associating me with such groups. Utter nonsense. This report is baseless. However all articles, without exception, do need to report what the body of scientific knowledge states, and where possible and ideally in medically related content, we need to rely on high quality metaanalyses published in international scientific journals and that comply with MEDRS. And for the 100000th friggin time now Flyer22reborn, and any others worried about this, I once again stress this clear point. I completely agree with this statement in the DV article "Globally, however, a wife or female partner is more commonly the victim of such violence." This appears to be the only threat that Flyer22reborn is concerned with and the reason they posted this here. What more can I say. But yes, please anyone be my guest in looking at the 35 or more articles I have edited and the positive contribution that has made to Wikipedia based on policy. How is that not relevant? What is this?Charlotte135 (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

On the point of not understanding due weight, no evidence has been presented to support that statement? I believe I have a pretty good grasp of that policy by now, thank you very much. And before Flyer22reborn posted this here, I had again offered an an opportunity to mediate and to reach a resolution to their concerns. In that way, someone entirely neutral and does not hold such passionate and strong POV on this topic of domestic violence could guide the editing based solely and wholly on policy and what reliable sources say, not emotion. They could then decide if edits were applying due weight. Here is that offer for peaceful resolution that was aggressively rejected, once again, by Flyer22reborn. So that was a good option instead of posting here and accusing me of all sorts of baseless crud, frankly.Charlotte135 (talk) 13:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Looking over your edit summary, on most of those articles you have edited, you have made 1 or 2 edits while you have edited Domestic violence 75 times so that is where your focus has been.

What Oshwah is asking you to do is rather than offering reassurances that you are editing positively, could you address some of the examples provided by Flyer22Reborn? Most decisions on ANI are determined by the weight of the evidence presented and, right now, Flyer22Reborn has presented a very detailed and compelling group of edits with explanations...you need to provide a better defense than saying that saying the report is baseless. While you're not on trial here, you should try to rebut Flyer22Reborn's convincing argument with more than simply saying you reject her assertions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Liz is correct; we need to focus on the information submitted here, and I want to listen to your response regarding it. The goal of an ANI discussion is to review the information presented and make a logical and objective decision based off of that information. But we need to keep the discussion towards what's relevant in order to be able to do so. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm just struggling to see what policy I have breached. On your point of how many times I edited domestic violence, I can only look at others for examples. One example is Flyer22reborn, who has edited the domestic violence article and mensrights articles over 500 times, probably more. However all of their other article editing over the past few months at least, has been one or two edits using Wikipedia:STiki? My edits to the DV and other articles are good and have added value. I have complied with policies, have restrained myself from edit warring, put up with Flyer22reborn's constant abuse. I contribute neutrally to all articles, as I do in my own scientific career, and have no agenda, and nothing Flyer22reborn presented above, and none of my editing, proves otherwise. So again, and with my other comments above, I ask, what have I done wrong or different to other constructive editors?Charlotte135 (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I have never edited any of the men's rights articles Flyer22reborn and others have been edit warring over. And my edits on the domestic violence article are constructive. All articles Flyer22reborn edits to any significant degree are gender equality type articles. Not me. So why am I being accused of doing so?Charlotte135 (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I was involved in a tiny part of this whole mess (see below).

Some general remarks about POV
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Let's make a couple of points clear. Firstly, even if Charlotte135 was a men's right editor, it would not make any difference. Editors are allowed to have a POV. Secondly, suppose every single edit they make advances a POV, that in itself says nothing at all. To see this, suppose a particular article is slightly to the "top" of some "ideal" NPOV state. If some editor's edits have the effect of moving it slightly down, it will move to the "ideal" state, which is a good thing, even if every single edit they did was in one direction.

Firstly, one needs to concentrate on disruption. I see a lot of diffs in Flyer22's report, but I fail to see what exactly is disruptive about them. There has been a lack of WP:DR pursued by both people. I notice that when Flyer22 opened an RfC, that particular dispute was settled, and Charlotte135 did not challenge it. Similarly, when Kaldari stepped into a dispute and supported Flyer22's position, Charlotte135 did not challenge it. Secondly, I was very briefly involved in an WP:RSN discussion of a source. I will not attempt to summarize it here, but what Charlotte135 is saying, over and over again on the talkpage is that there are some sources which talk about the balance of some forms of domestic violence. Those sources should be presented in the article: not as the dominant viewpoint, but a significant viewpoint. That is certainly a defensible position (whether it is right or wrong cannot be decided here). Thirdly, both Flyer22 and Charlotte135 should stop with WP:TLDR. Fourthly, both editors have cast aspersions on one another, but Flyer22 has done by far the bulk of them, repeatedly ascribing political motives to Charlotte135's edits. Even if they were true, that is irrelevant. To sum up, I do not see enough disruption here. I would oppose any topic ban for Charlotte135, but would suggest they use WP:DR much more than as usual. Open an RfC, make WP:drafts and ask people to comment, use WP:3O, use WP:DRN etc. I see that Charlotte135 has offered mediation, perhaps that could be pursued. I do however see that Charlotte135 has made a LOT of edits to the talkpage; they seem to have become somewhat obsessed with the subject. One option could be to take a break from the article for a few days. Wikipedia is very big. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Account less than two months old and minor wikignoming edits to a few other articles aside, most of this editor's work has been tl;dr discussions at a single article, disruptive in nature and tone. These comments are disruptive to improvement of the article. Flyer22reborn is being baited and targeted by yet another POV-pushing editor who is trying to insert a "men's rights" POV into articles on domestic violence and it in't appropriate to do so. Montanabw^(talk) 09:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Kingsindian, the statement "but Flyer22 has done by far the bulk of them, repeatedly ascribing political motives to Charlotte135's edits." is incorrect, as are other things you state on these topics. You seem to enable and/or defend Charlotte135 and editors who push the viewpoint Charlotte135 is clearly pushing, so I was expecting you to show up here. If I'm wrong about your motives, I apologize. But to me, if you really cared nothing about the domestic violence topics, as you seemed to indicate at WP:RSN and the WP:MEDRS talk page, you would not still be concerning yourself with these matters. I will not be responding to you further in this section. I also expected Arkon to show up here, given his history. Despite his notion of topic banning feminist editors, feminism and men's rights are nowhere close to being on the same acceptance level, for reasons made explicitly clear in the Men's rights movement article and by various WP:Reliable sources commenting on the men's rights movement. Article probation exists with regard men's rights editors and their POV-pushing for reasons that have been well-documented at this site. So, yes, it very much matters whether or not an editor is a men's rights editor when they are editing gender topics here at Wikipedia. As noted at the Men's rights movement article, marital rape is one of the men's rights concerns. And marital rape is another topic Charlotte13 is interested in. Whether or not Charlotte13 is a men's rights editor, Charlotte13's editing has a men's rights lean to it, and others have stated as much; I clearly am not the only one who has stated so.

And for the record, Charlotte135's statements that "One example is Flyer22reborn, who has edited the domestic violence article and mensrights articles over 500 times, probably more." and "All articles Flyer22reborn edits to any significant degree are gender equality type articles." are false (as anyone significantly familiar with my editing history knows; sexology and medical topics are more so my area of editing), and is the type of false commentary I was speaking of when it comes to Charlotte135 commenting on me. Charlotte135 comments falsely on various things, not just me, and has a severe case of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. Almost any time I make an edit Charlotte135 disagrees with, Charlotte135 is quick to make some sort of claim about me being desperate to keep some POV in the article and acts like I am violating some editing principle, as is also clear by the discussion at Talk:Intimate partner violence. After I noted there the literature with regard to the typologies on intimate partner violence (which is not the same thing as general types of intimate partner violence), Charlotte135 jumped right to stating, "You are also obviously a very big personal fan of Michael Johnson who has very controversial POV he has." And all of that is exactly why I stated I would be ignoring claims made by Charlotte135 in this section. I cannot work with Charlotte135, and I'd be surprised if any others can. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I have only had difficulty here on Wikipedia with you Flyer22reborn. I have respected other editors, as they have not personally attacked me and my motives right from the beginning. No-one appreciates that. Not withstanding that, I have made two different attempts to have dispute resolution as recommended by a couple of editors and administrators. I too thought it would help resolve the issue you had and stop the circular discussion we were having and your personal attacks. You bluntly refused, and were very rude about it in fact. I am a woman by the way and don't appreciate it. I even posted the Archer metaanalyses at the reliable sources noticeboard as another editor suggested.

Again, I took this editors suggestion and posted it here at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 198 and this was how I opened that posting. Rhoark actually stated: "This is the most slam-dunk obviously reliable source I've seen anyone bother to bring to the noticeboard. Psychological Bulletin is quite venerable, and the article shows 156 citations on PubMed.[49] A random spot check of the text of those articles shows it is being used at face value, not criticized. Rhoark (talk) 02:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)" But again, you came storming in, like you have done here, and shot Rhoark's objective assessment down in flames. It just seems like you believe you are always right, and know everything about everything. No matter what. Point is, I certainly can work with other editors on the article and, even with you, if you would just stop attacking me, but I do again suggest we seek mediation now to iron out our differences?Charlotte135 (talk) 10:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: Unfortunately, you seem unable to discuss this topic without scattering WP:ASPERSIONS like confetti, based on no evidence at all. Apparently I "enabled" men's rights activists for giving my good faith input at WP:RSN and WP:MEDRS. I guess no good deed goes unpunished. You might want to think about the possibility that you have become jaded after encountering too many sockpuppets and POV pushers in this area. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

You're losing it again. Perhaps it's time for a Flyer Reborn Reborn? Arkon (talk) 20:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring any other claims made about me in this Discussion, especially those by editors who have a history of pushing a certain POV at gender topics, a POV at odds with the general literature on those topics and therefore at odds with the WP:Due weight policy, I will repeat what I stated moments ago at Talk:Intimate partner violence: "Thank you [...]. That is what I was stating; it had absolutely nothing to do with being 'a very big personal fan of Michael Johnson.' There is nothing wrong with including the term intimate terrorism in the lead. There is nothing wrong with including 'this is generally perpetrated by men against women' with regard to the most controlling forms of intimate partner violence in the lead. I can't work with an editor who repeatedly acts like I am pushing some horrid POV by simply adhering to the WP:Due weight policy or some other Wikipedia policy or guideline. It irritates me to no end when an editor thinks that I or someone else is POV-pushing by simply following the WP:Neutral policy accurately. We have far too many editors at this site who do not understand that policy, which has been noted more than once at that policy's talk page; too many get tripped up on the word neutral when Wikipedia's definition of neutral is not at all the same as the definition of neutral in common discourse. I cannot work with an editor whose understanding of the literature is lacking and who does not seem to listen when told what the literature states, but instead goes on and on about some POV I or someone else is supposedly pushing, sometimes including poor sources to counter what I or that other person is stating. Working with an editor who is not as informed is fine, but not when that editor does not listen and repeatedly harps on an imaginary bias. If the literature is biased, we still go by the literature, as noted at WP:BIASED SOURCES." The issue with Charlotte135 is not simply a content dispute, and no one should have to put with the type of editing Charlotte135 engages in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Given Flyer's continuous focus on due weight, and noting the excellent points that Kingsindian made above, I thought I should paste exactly what I actually said on the topic of NPOV, and leave it at that. here it is Please note that I said: they should not be given the same weight as opposing viewpoints which represent what the majority of sources say. Here is the full comment I made in black and white.

"We are left with this review https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18624096?dopt=Abstract, this review http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10989615 and this review https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18936281?dopt=Abstract. All secondary. All from reputable journals. They clearly represent a significant viewpoint that needs to be represented in this article. IMO they should not be given the same weight as opposing viewpoints which represent what the majority of sources say. However they are far from fringe! In the second paragraph can we say something like most sources say that a wife or female partner is more commonly the victim of such abuse. However some other sources (insert the three accepted reviews above) say....." and leave it at that as other editors have suggested? Sound reasonable?Charlotte135 (talk) 14:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)"

How the heck is that POV pushing Flyer22reborn?Charlotte135 (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@Charlotte135: Let me give you a small tip. The purpose of this board is for the community to investigate the behaviour of the parties. Therefore, as Liz mentioned above, you should address the community, not Flyer22. Focus on rebutting the points Flyer22 made in the opening statement. I see your last statement is addressing one of the points Flyer22 made, which is good. But please don't bicker with Flyer22 here, nobody is interested in that. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22reborn's attacks on every editor that disagrees with them, or points something out, makes it hard not to respond. But, fair enough, point taken from my end, and thank you for pointing that out in a decent manner.Charlotte135 (talk) 03:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - The issue at hand here isn't Flyer22reborn's edits, but Charlotte135's. The charge is that Charlotte135 is a contentious editor, and I think that Flyer22reborn and others have made a good case for it. Plus, I haven't seen any substantial defense by Charlotte135, just denials and attacks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Last comment here, as I really don't believe I have been disruptive and no one has presented any evidence, only accusations from Flyer22reborn. If you look at my actual edits on the domestic violence article they are good and I stand by them. Most have nothing to do with gender and I really do wonder why there is so much focus on gender to the detriment of all other aspects involved in domestic violence internationally. The edits I made recently to the intimate partner violence. Here they all are. [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] added WHO definition And I simply replaced the sentence Flyer22reborn is talking about with the WHO definition and the standard types of intimate partner violence. I left the gender based stuff, that women experience more IPV, that Flyer22reborn's is concerned with, in the body of the article, untouched. Finally if someone like Kaldari wanted to revert any of these edits and briefly discuss why, I would respect that and certainly wouldn't edit war over it. I'm not sure what more I can sayCharlotte135 (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

What is the evidence? Anyone? Any evidence at all? How am I disruptive, based on my editing? Diffs? Any evidence at all? Isn't this just a content dispute? How have i evidenced being labelled a SPA? Evidence? Any diffs? Evidence please? Surely presenting some evidence would be straight forward?Charlotte135 (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Content removal / BLP violations by IslamicrevialistmMujahid

This editor has been serially removed sourced content from several Islam-related articles, often about people, sometimes replacing it with different (contradicting?) content, and other times with nothing in particular. This was consistently left unexplained by any edit summary or talk page rationale.

Examples: Ibn Arabi Sunni Islam Ghazan Fatima Meer Omar Nasiri Essop Pahad Ahmed Kathrada (these last four are re-classifications of people as "former" Muslims based on their political stances, nevermind the "Religion: Communism" change in the last one).

Another editor started a discussion with them and then we talked at length about proper sourcing, but today I already found more edits of the identical type: Muwahhid Muslim Abubakar Gumi (this last removed a valid category and added a non-existent one instead). There is also this edit on Saudis, on which I have no clear opinion.

They clearly aren't "getting it". LjL (talk) 14:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I was the original complainant, and I suppose that not all their edits were BLP-concerns, as at least one person 'former'ed is dead. But it drew my attention as the articles mentioned one as a hajji and the another as having "boycotted Salman Rushdie" as a blasphemer. Numerous changes of 'Sunni' to 'Sufi', 'Wahabi' to 'Salafist', 'Salafist' (and others) to 'Kharijite', apparently a progression to more pejorative terms (certainly that last one), and all the while deleting refs and adding/changing to unrefd assertions.

They've hit 340 articles in 556 edits. Creating such worthy categories as Category:Canadian former Shia Muslims and Category:Gabonese former Christians (latter one twice). Very fine categorising and characterisation of people into mortal sinners with various terms. In checking 50+ recent edits I was amazed at the count of other editors having to revert/repair most of those edits. Some were not reverted only, I believe, because the average editor is not qualified to accurately argue what makes someone a 'foo-ist' vs. a 'baz-ist'.

They were immediately and repeatedly approached since beginning to edit (June 2014) to: use RS, not mass add categories without refs, stop section blanking, use edit summaries, marking BLP changes as minor, etc. All these behaviours however continue.

They justify their actions by 'fatwas' supporting their position. Additionally claiming non-Islamic texts/refs must be discounted. Without of course ever mentioning any refs/texts/graffiti. Completely unverifiable edits.

This is someone editing solely guided by a personal agenda, supported by selected sectarian opinions and never-specified texts/tracts. Unquestionable and unreferenceable truths make for bad editors. This is one of them. Shenme (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

BTW: I said at least one person was dead, so maybe WP:BLP doesn't apply to her article? But if a dead person is falsely claimed not to have been a Muslim, does that not directly impinge upon her son Rashid's reputation? Does the BLP concern extend to children/relatives? Shenme (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

User Sir Joseph

I ask the admin to review the recent edit warring and misbehavior of Sir Joseph. He has displayed an extreme bias and major POV in recent edits. He has also engaged in edit warring on Hanukkah page and Menachem M. Schneerson, constantly removing properly sourced information with claims of original research. Further Sir Joseph has removed any record of my warning to him from his talk page. From taking a look at Sir Joseph's talk page, I noticed this is not the first time. TM (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I ask you to close this ASAP. As you can see from the MMM page, I commented in the RFC that the claim that the Rebbe had a hand in founding the US Department of Education needs evidence. No such evidence was provided. On the Hanuka page, this user is pushing a Chabad POV. If you query ARBCOM, this was done in the past, CHABAD is known for being POV warriors, whether intentionally or not, but saying a holiday celebrated for thousands of years is due to one Rabbi is certainly POV and should certainly not be in the lead, and should certainly not be pushed with a POV book.Finally, I can revert my talk page, after all, it's my talk page. I would ask the admins to ask this user to read up on Wikipolicy and to read up on what constitutes bias and POV. This is a waste of everyone's time. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, if you guys don't mind, would you please warn him for vandalizing my talk page? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Sir Joseph did not just comment as he says here, but rather, deleted properly sourced information both on Menachem M. Schneerson and Hanukkah. There were two sources on Menachem M. Schneerson supporting the information that Sir Joseph deleted. I suggested he take a look at them before deleting. I suggested he take a look at them before deleting. I have not yet put that information back since, unlike Sir Joseph, I do not want to engage in edit warring. Instead, I encourage the admin to review the talk page discussion there carefully. On Hanukkah as well, Sir Joseph has engaged in edit warring and deleted properly sourced information. In addition, the admin may want to have a look at User talk:Prepstarr25 who has inserted himself into Sir Joseph's edit warring and who it now seems Sir Joseph - after his subsequent comment on his talk page - is teaming up with. Fact are facts, even when we don't like them. TM (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

As I told you yesterday, tell me which page in the book does it say that the Rebbe had a hand in the founding of the US DOE. You can't come in with the preposterous claim and then when I ask for evidence just say it's in the book. It's not. You are a POV pusher. I suggest you view the Chabad Arbcom case. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

As I told you, book title, authors and pages numbers are all sourced. Have a look. Don't just delete. Also, your recent Hanukkah edit warring has proved once again that you will delete any information, even when properly sourced, that you don't like. TM (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Not once did you mention a page number in the MMM article. I am still waiting. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Usually, facts brought here are backed up by specific diffs. Care to show them? From what I can see, for example, there is either no clear-cut edit warring on Hanukkah, or if two reverts count, then you reverted three times. LjL (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

He also warned me for reverting my own talk page, accused me of being a sockpuppet or being involved with a sockpuppet, this is the general behavior of someone not realizing that you can't push your way to your POV. If the Rebbe helped found the US DOE, there should be evidence of that. Show it and I'll gladly accept it.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Lets not confuse the facts. There was properly sourced information on Menachem M. Schneerson. Sir Joseph removed it and stated its false backing up his claims with original research and totally disregarding two published sources. He continuously claims, falsely, that no page numbers are provided. As I have said before, take a look at the sources on the page and see for yourself. Now with regard to Hanukkah. There was information in the lede supported by several published sources, including books, news-articles and academic papers. Sir Joseph has just deleted it for no reason. If Sir Joseph has an issue, it should be raised on the talk pages, and credible counter sources should be provided. According to Wikipedia guidelines, one cannot just delete credibly sourced information, just because one does not like it. Initially after Sir Joseph deleted it, I added additional sources to strengthen the claim. But Sir Joseph deleted these as well. In this case Sir Joseph has exposed himself as not liking chabad and therefore deleting relevant information even though it has been properly sources in full accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines. I can not replace the information at this point since I do not want to engage in edit wars, but I do ask the Admin to please look carefully at the history, the talk pages and all the sources provided (both re the role of MMS in DOE and the publicity of Hanukkah) and make the fair and balanced derision. TM (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

So? Which page number? You keep saying it's in the book, so which page number says the Rebbe had a hand in the founding of the US Department of Education? A claim like that would not be hard to find. If it were my book, it would be on the jacket, the TOC, the header, it would be on the ad copy. Please let me know what page number. Don't just say that you saw it and put it, you need to bring proof for this ludicrous claim.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

As for the Chanukka article, you added sources after I reverted. In addition, even those new sources, are not sources that belong in a lead of an article. If you want to include something like that, it belongs in the body not in the lead, otherwise it is extreme POV pushing. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, Sir Joseph, to me the claim you removed ("honoring his role in establishing the Department of Education as an independent cabinet-level department") seems to be backed by the given source, i.e.:

Sue Fishkoff (22 April 2009). The Rebbe's Army: Inside the World of Chabad-Lubavitch. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. p. 192. ISBN 978-0-307-56614-0. by the late 1970s he was pushinig the Rebbe's first Washington campaign-the creation of a department of education, separate from the existing Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

Firstly, that source just says he campaigned for that, not that he had a hand in the founding of the DOE, as is claimed. Secondly, the book is not a RS. It is biased to the Chabad POV. He is claiming, not that the Rebbe was campaigning or wanting a DOE but that he had a hand in the founding of the DOE, that would result in lots more than a mention in a Chabad biography. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Continue reading the book and you will see that it speaks of Congress honor to him for his role in it's establishment. But seriously, now that you have been proven that it is published your claiming that the book is bias?? TM (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Bias does not mean bad, but a book like that can't be used to push a pro-Chabad POV since it's a pro-Chabad bias book. Like I said a million times, if you are asserting that the rebbe had a hand in the founding of the DOE, that would be in a dozen newspapers and Congressional Records. You said the book says the book says Congress honors him, so that would be in the Congressional Record. The Congressional Record would be a WP:RS. And again, you keep mentioning, keep reading, but you don't mention pages, you need to specify where your proof is. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

You can not engage in original research to disprove what is written in two separate books. Fishkoff page 191-2. Telushkin page 161. Yo are now also making a sweeping claim Fishkoff is a pro-Chabad bias book. What next? TM (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, The Rebbe's Army is a pro-Chabad book, and I did a keyword search and found no mention of the rebbe helping to found the US DOE. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Just to sum up: first you claim it didn't happen, then you claim it's not documented, then you claim its not in the book, then you claim the page does not exists, then you claim that the book is not a valid source. Between this and your edits on the Hanukkah page, you have exposed yourself as having an agenda. I ask the admin to review this carefully. TM (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Look, this board doesn't really care about the content dispute, and you have WP:RSN to discuss the reliability of the sources. However, you claimed that the page number relevant to the claim was not given, but I think I showed it was given. So let's stay focused. I haven't even seen a single diff in this discussion being given as evidence for anything yet (except below, where a different dispute was apparently merged together with this one). LjL (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

So can we 1) close this and 2) comment on the below users conduct? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I did not yet look at Sir Joseph's (SJ's) edits on Hanukkah and Menachem M. Schneerson or any other articles (except Israel), thus I cannot comment on his behavior there.

SJ appears to have recently edit warred on Israel. SJ, together with user: WarKosign, appears to have edit-warred against four different editors. Nishidani added content to improve the adherence to WP:V and WP:RS. SJ almost instantly reverted Nishidani, restoring content that violates V & RS. Zero000 reverted SJ's edit. WarKosign reverted back to the version violating V & RS. Johnmcintyre1959 reverted WarKosign, and WarKosign reverted back again. I reverted WarKosign's edit, and SJ reverted back again to the version violating V & RS.

I explained all of the above to SJ on his user talk page. Furthermore, I also explained to SJ on his user talk page that 'stability' of content is a relatively weak requirement and is not a valid reason to retain content that violates the infinitely stronger requirement to adhere to core WP content policies. I also wrote that 'stability' is not a valid reason to edit war (nothing is) - and in fact SJ's (and WarKosign's) repeated reverts are exactly what caused the content of Israel to be unstable.

SJ's best response would have been to take full responsibility for his behavior, acknowledge he has edit-warred, reassure the community he will not edit war again, and reassure fellow editors he understands 'stability' is not a valid reason to violate core policies. Instead, SJ appears to have wikilawyered, which is one of the worst ways he could have possibly responded, because it implies that SJ seems to be highly likely to repeat his disruptive behavior. IjonTichy (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

If, as you say you have no idea what you're doing here, why are you commenting? Can you stop stalking me? Reverting something is not edit warring. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

SJ's last comment is further evidence he refuses to take the ample opportunities provided to him here, and on his talk page, to reassure the community he intends to play by WP's rules. Instead he used these opportunities to continue to display his BATTLEGROUND approach. -- IjonTichy (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Says the person who posted a comment on WP:AN that has nothing to do with the WP:AN. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@IjonTichyIjonTichy: One revert on 30 November, and one on 2 December... you call that edit warring? LjL (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, edit warring can take place even without violating the 1RR restriction. On WP it is very important to follow the letter of the PAG, but it is even more important to abide by their spirit. IjonTichy (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I can comment only on one case, Israel. There Sir Joseph followed WP:BRD and reverted an edit that he disagreed with, restoring a long-standing stable version. Several editors including IjonTichyIjonTichy attempted forcing the new version. Eventually edit warring stopped and we began discussing on the talk page. IjonTichyIjonTichy did not contribute to the discussion, while Sir Joseph did. It seems that a new consensus has been reached, and it agrees with edit in question, but it was still wrong for IjonTichyIjonTichy to push it against existing consensus instead of discussing. In this it's clear that IjonTichyIjonTichy's behavior was more disruptive than Sir Joseph's. “WarKosign” 19:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure it can, but two reverts in the span of 3 days, with talk page discussion, is quite obviously not edit warring. LjL (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

It's obviously edit warring, because it is not only two reverts, it's SJ and WarKosign together reverting four editors on the same content (content that obviously violated V and RS). And by the way it's not 3 days, it's only two days (about 3 hours longer than 2 days). IjonTichy (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Then under the same token, the other four editors are edit warring too (especially those who did not take part in any talk page discussion). Perhaps the page should be full-protected. LjL (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• This looks a whole lot more like a content dispute than anything else. Take it to the appropriate noticeboard. Ani is not for content disputes. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Not only a content dispute. Both Sir Joseph and WarKosign clearly edit warred with Nishidani,   Johnmcintyre1959,   Zero0000 and myself, to force a version of Israel that violated V and RS. Moreover, they refuse to take responsibility for their disruptive behavior, and they continue to refuse to acknowledge that 'stability,' which they used as their edit summaries, is a weak requirement that does not justify violating the massively more important core requirements of V and RS. (In fact WarKosign just used the lame 'stability' excuse again above.) Additionally, they seem to conveniently believe that their participating in a talk page discussion gives them permission to edit war with editors who also participate in the discussion as well as to edit war with editors who have not participated in the article talk page discussion. So both Sir Joseph and WarKosign also appear to be clueless.

Instead of reassuring the community they will abide by the PAG in the future, Sir Joseph and WarKosign are engaging in ad-hominem attacks (both of them have now accused me of disruptive behavior after I made only a single edit to the article to revert their repeated violation of V & RS), they display battleground behavior and are Wikilawyering. Instead of sending a signal to the community that they will stop disrupting the project, it appears they are sending a strong signal that it is highly likely they will continue to behave disruptively. IjonTichy (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The evidence or lack there of shows a content dispute. Two diffs that show Sir Joseph reverting don't really show anything and they don't hold up your narrative.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I do not understand your vendetta or stalking against me, it is seriously troubling. Please stop. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

SJ and WarKosign appear to be playing the role of innocent victims who have done nothing wrong, despite the ample evidence presented above (including SJ's and WK's own endless wikilawyering). They carelessly, thoughtlessly throw around words like 'consensus,' and empty accusations like 'stalking' and 'vendetta' without appearing to really understand what these words mean on WP and when and where these are, or are not, appropriate to use on WP. (For example WarKosign appears to be saying above that if his views are clearly in the minority then obviously the consensus is in his favor and this gives him the right to edit war.) SJ and WK are either grossly underestimating the intelligence of the community, and/or SJ and WK truly believe they are entirely blameless.

It increasingly seems like a bad idea for the community to allow SJ and WK to continue to edit in a highly complex, difficult, highly contentious area such as the Palestine-Israel-Arab (PIA) area, as the likelihood of their continuing to disrupt the project is very high. For example, editors may like to take a look at SJ's massive wasting of the community's time in his stubborn pursuit of his petty, ridiculous vendetta against Nableezy. -- IjonTichy (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you paranoid? I haven't edited the Israel article in over a week, which is when you put a notice on my talk page, so you're the one stalking me. I don't think I've seen WarKosign since that one time, that I used the TALK PAGE. You are seriously bordering on the criminally stalking and I am asking you to stop. And I am asking an admin to please look into this and take action against this user, this stalking is unacceptable. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Menachem Mendel Schneerson and Hanukkah protected 3 days. Issues related to Palestine-Israel arbitration should use arbitration enforcement instead. --slakr^\ talk / 02:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:AE deals with content about ARBCOM, not general content and stalking issues, as far as I'm concerned. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

My bad; reverted the {{resolved}}, in case more discussion is needed for the issue of harassment. --slakr^\ talk / 02:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Sir Joseph continues to play the role of a victim. He continues to wikilawyer, including but not limited to his ridiculous, nonsensical, vacuous accusation of 'stalking.' He has called for the community to waste their time to look into his various fatuous, empty accusations against TzviMichelsohn, Nableezy, and myself, to distract the community from Sir Joseph's disruptive editing, wikilawyering, and ad-hominem attacks. Again and again, SJ seems to grossly underestimate the intelligence of the community. Or perhaps SJ truly believes he is being victimized by anyone who points out his crimes and misdemeanors on WP, a behavior which is probably even more worrisome than if SJ was only playing the victim. Either way, SJ has not yet given a single assurance to the community he intends to stop disrupting the project, so it is extremely likely that this noticeboard, as well as other noticeboards, will have to deal again with his disruptive behavior in the not-too-distant future. IjonTichy (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

You've provided two diffs that show two reversions on their part. Before we try get assurances from someone that a problem is resolved it's best that we can verify a problem actually exists. Crimes and misdemeanors? That sounds like a little bit of wikilawyering to me. Alot of what I just read did. You've got a narrative and maybe we can get James Earl Jones to voice it in Wikipedia the movie. If this is however not creative fiction, (in the voice of Clara Peller) Where's the diffs?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Serious misunderstanding of WP:BLP and proposed topic ban

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

---

User:Dravecky (an admin evidently) demonstrates a shockingly bad understanding of what reliable sources are and how to put together an appropriate BLP, Some examples where they are the primary author to illustrate:

• Rebecca Anderson where personal details include all her minor city level pageants and "Anderson is a native of Oregon City, Oregon, and a 2009 graduate of Oregon City High School.[2] While at OCHS, she participated in the drama program for four years and was a member of the school's dance team for two years.[3] Her father is Ted Anderson, a wholesale nursery operator and licensed tax consultant.[4][5] As of 2015, mother Shari Anderson is the elected County Treasurer of Clackamas County, Oregon, an office she has held since 1999.[4][6] Anderson has one younger sister, Malea, who is also an occasional pageant competitor.[2]

• Although I cite privacy policy on otherwise low profile individuals [40] and identity thrift identity theft [41] s/he quickly reinserts [42] personal data in contravention of WP:DOB. User:Polequant takes it out [43] and s/he restores it all again [44]
• Same pattern here [45] restoring trimmed intricate detail 3RR without even allowing part of other editor's edits. Calls following WP:NPF and WP:DOB "editing in bad faith." He deliberately reverted a bot [46] dating two tags, but did not provide sources.
• Is called out for BLP issues by another editor here [47]
• Wrote statements that someone did not qualify/attend a pageant sourced to lists of girls who did. How is NOT competing in an event notable? When challenged [48] they refactor my comments and blow it off., mocking me as the Time Person of the Year 2006. [49].
• As creator and primary contributor uses 39 sources, including ones that make no mention of the subject to shore up an Bio. It looks impressive and well sourced until you dig into the sources Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nichole Mead Really bad ones include [50], a facebook post [51] and a linked in profile [52] plus a number of sources that do not even name check the subject.
• Describes these low quality sources and minutia detail as [53] "These cut-and-paste nominations are overreaching, dismissive of the humans involved, and strangely personal to the nominator for some reason. That the article is thoroughly-cited, carefully assembled from many reliable sources, is how biographies of living persons should be built. - Dravecky (talk) 19:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)"
• Makes claims about good sourcing and GNG that prove unconvincing to other editors because the vote goes strongly to delete, and many of the articles are later individually AfD'd and deleted. Many are stub article. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Madison_Guthrie
• Is committed to keeping anything pageant related without doing any checking. Between 10:20 [54] and :20:47 [55] slams out 15 keep votes in 27 minutes which is not enough time to barely navigate between the AfDs without looking at the articles, quality of the sources, or anything.
• Maintains a lot of Miss America stuff in User:Dravecky/sandbox suggesting bias
• Seeks to have me topic banned for sending to AfD what it turns out are his creations. Calls the junk sources "dozens of reliable sources"

In summary, this editor has an inappropriate understanding of proper sourcing and what information is properly included in a BLP. This is a long term problem, brushed off whenever anyone questions their edits on BLPs. Therefore a topic ban seems like a reasonable solution to protect the project. Legacypac (talk) 09:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

What's "identity thrift"? EEng (talk) 10:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Identity theft which is a big risk when parent's names (especially maiden name), birthday, sibling names, middle name, school info etc all become available to the world for no good reason. Legacypac (talk) 10:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• To address one specific point you raise, "not competing in an event" can certainly be notable in certain circumstances; if she would ordinarily have been expected to compete in a particular pageant but failed to turn up, that could easily be worthy of mention. As one specific example, the most noteworthy thing about the 1984 Olympics was how many nations refused to enter. ‑ Iridescent 11:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Skipping a pageant by not entering, or failing to qualify for a the state pageant is the issue - see Nichole_Mead#Early_pageants end of first and second paragraphs for two examples that are pure OR (check sourcing). Not like 1984 Olympics which was a diplomatic thing involving many countries. Legacypac (talk) 11:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Legacypac, I love the work you do around here, but it looks like this is being handled at the appropriate Afd's and talk pages. I don't anticipate any consensus for immediate action arising from these disputes. While I enjoy admin bashing as a competitive sport as much as the next editor, there doesn't seem to be much substance to this dispute other than a clash of styles. Therefore, I would recommend closure at this time. Viriditas (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Dodgyness

Is something underhanded going on here? What begins life as a good, legitimate redirect is hijacked and moved elsewhere promotional SPA, Zestmind (talk · contribs). Current subject is Barbara Khozam, previously named Barbara Nyland. There is no sign of any connection to the name Barbara Rhodes. It's that unconnected name that was hijacked. Is this a bad faithed attempt to avoid new page patrol as is being seen lately? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@Duffbeerforme: If it is then it will fail: when a redirect is converted into an article, it is added to the New Pages feed as an unpatrolled page, in the same way as a new page. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 20:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Revision of Campbell Newman Entry

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

---

This concerns the wikipedia page / biography of Campbell Newman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_Newman

I have attempted to include relevant sourced and contextual information in this wikipedia page, which has been reverted three times without explanation. The last editor which reverted the entry I've attempted to make threatened me with an editing ban, but did not offer any explanation of why the information was not relevant.

Please review this entry, the revision history, and the talk page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Campbell_Newman&diff=694762692&oldid=694744810

The information I am attempting to include is as follows :

On October 24th, 2014, according to reports, Newman threatened to have police shoot live bullets at protesters at the upcoming G20 summit in Brisbane. At the time, Newman said "It’s like when you have guests at your house. If your kids start misbehaving then you discipline them, . . . Only this time it will be with a high-powered sniper bullet to the brain, instead of a rubber hose to the back of the legs." http://www.betootaadvocate.com/uncategorized/premier-newman-orders-g20-cops-to-shoot-on-sight/

This information is sourced and relevant to the section on Newman's term of office, as he was not re-elected in the following election (probably due to a drop in popularity for acts similar to this).

I find it odd that an editor would deliberately censor this information which seems to me highly relevant when one looks at the other kinds of information in that section of the wikipedia entry on Newman.

Please respond or mediate or intervene in this dispute. I will not undo this censorship, but it seems to me that censorship of relevant information is exactly what wikipedia editors should not do.

-end — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.74.253.202 (talk) 12:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

This is exactly the point where all involved editors should move to the article's talk page and discuss their reasons for inclusion or reverting. I note that no attempt has been made to discuss the issue at all, not even by using informative edit summaries. State your case on the talk page and develop consensus. FWIW, to me this seems worth including; at the very least the reverting editors need to state some reason.-- Elmidae 12:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The source cited is The Betoota Advocate, a satirical newspaper. I've blocked this obvious troll. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 12:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Disruption at Ivo Andrić

At the article Ivo Andrić and Talk:Ivo Andrić, 72.66.12.17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) along with 65.220.39.97 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 178.221.37.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (apparently the same user) performs a sustained campaign of disruption, concerning the writer's ethnicity (what else?). First they opened a malformed RFC (at Talk:Ivo Andrić#Name, Family asking for editors to comment that Andrić was not born in a Croat family, appealing to sources that they never cite. They continue to troll the article's talk page, my talk page, and 23 editor's talk page.

72.66.12.17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been warned about WP:ARBMAC by Joy back in November. On Serbian Wikipedia, sr:Korisnik:72.66.12.17 aka sr:Korisnik:Djura aka sr:Korisnik:Milos zankov was indefblocked for the same kind of POV-pushing and disruption . I don't have doubts it is the same person. They were brought into connection with Asdisis, banned long-term vandal at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asdisis/Archive, with a similar modus operandi, but the link was not proven without doubt (and it is hardly relevant, because they are disruptive in themselves). No such user (talk) 13:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, look, there's only warring of some sort in the user contributions. And Curzio Malaparte, and Miroslav Filipović and Tesla and List of Croats... Is this yet another in an endless line of sockpuppets of User:Velebit?

Any uninvolved admin has my full blessing to engage in blocking, because the assumption of good faith is well spent. If I were to do the block, I would undoubtedly run the risk of WP:INVOLVED allegations. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

But, history comes to the rescue. User:Milos zankov is an already indefinitely blocked sock puppet of User:Michelle Ridomi.

If nobody offers new exculpatory evidence RSN, I will extend the block to this IP based on an assumption that the admins at the Serbian Wikipedia were correct in correlating all these accounts already. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@Joy: Another sock of sr:Korisnik:Djura is sr:Корисник:Purger~srwiki. On English wiki, Purger (talk · contribs) is tagged as sock of Velebit (talk · contribs). I'm only vaguely familiar with Velebit's MO. Now, it's all circumstantial, but I'm positive that 72.66.12.17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is Djura, judging on same "it's only in printed references" stunt at sr:Разговор:Анте Старчевић/Архива 2#Све из почетка. The two IPs in my report geolocate to Washington DC metro area -- does that ring any bell? I'm now pretty convinced it's Velebit, judging on the common Purger link. No such user (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije: have you encountered this one before? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• Please, stop this farce! I see the pattern of this administrator -Joy [shallot] (talk) who created the scapegoat called Velebit in order to propagate Croatian POV in Wikipedia. Pay attention to a few notes from

• • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Velebit/Archive#Comments_by_other_users_14

• • There is no evidence of sock puppetry, try dispute resolution. A request for comment may be the most suitable option as the main problem identified is civility and not avoidance of scrutiny. Peter E. James (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• • I'm not sure what action you would like us to take here. The account appears to have been abandoned. The first two IPs have not been used in some time. The other IPs don't appear to overlap in editing dates. So, while this may in fact be the same person, they simply appear to be editing while logged out, which is permitted. TNXMan 15:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• • I am at a complete loss for this one: The IPs are obviously not connected (and one hasn't edited since April), the Aries no Mur account hasn't edited since 2013 (and it's completely unclear why anyone would think it is connected to the IPs), and this particular SPI file seems to be a dumping ground without any serious evidence that the mass of accounts connected to Velebit are indeed connected. Also, please refrain from tagging IP pages; in 2014, IP addresses are so rarely dedicated (they tend to be reassigned regularly) so the next person who gets assigned that IP address is going to be treated like a sockpuppet instead of a potential new editor. Declining CU because there's really nothing to check. Risker (talk) 03:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • My comment: It is a high time to stop this farce of administering the scapegoat Velebit - a dumping ground without any serious evidence that the mass of accounts connected to Velebit are indeed connected. Moreover the 'history expert' Joy [shallot] (talk) is a college dropout. The No such user (talk) is just a Joy [shallot] (talk) proxy a team mate which can be easily figured out by the blocks coming from the same admin.--65.220.39.97 (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Wow. Personal attacks much? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
• To start with, I semi-protected the article for a week. Concerning Croatian origin, any body wants to take the Tito-era edition of Andric and see what would be written in the preface? It would be a reliable source.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  • There is a RfC open. Go there if you want to discuss issues with this article.--65.220.39.97 (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

More vandalisms at St. Joseph's College (Hong Kong)

User:Rinirisma has vandalised articles in WP:Hong Kong again. Unfortunately, I have no rollback rights.

Affected Article: St. Joseph's College (Hong Kong)

With the frequent vandalisms on St. Joseph's College (Hong Kong) , I recommend semi-protecting the page.

There is a high chance that User Talk:Rinirisma is a sockmaster of IP User 221.126.237.2.

Thank you.

Alvin 13:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC) Alvin the Almighty

I've blocked the account and reverted the vandalism, both on this article and Diocesan Boys' School. The IP is currently blocked. I'll not semi-protect an article in such a state, though another admin might. I have watchlisted it. See Help:Reverting for instructions on how to cope without rollback. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Fringe Material, canvassing & admin abuse of process

On 20 October Insider introduced the claim that the ARA Libertad (Q-2) is featured on Russian Currency [56]. The source [57] (Translation: [58]) does not back up this claim.

Кстати, именно пользователи Рунета разрыли и еще одну нестыковку на “полотне” достоинством в 500 целковых. По их версии, стоящий на приколе около Архангельского морского вокзала парусник никогда и близко не приближался к России. И уж тем более к Архангельску. Посчитав количество мачт и местоположение рубки, парусник идентифицировали как аргентинский корабль “Либертад”. В изображении иностранного корабля на российской банкноте начали выискивать едва ли не намек на экономические “сношения” двух стран.

— Не нужно искать тайного смысла там, где его нет, — говорит Игорь Крылков. — На фотографии, с которой я срисовывал порт, стоял современный пароход. Но в последний момент в Центробанке сказали, что с общей идеей банкноты пароход не стыкуется. Я срочно нашел фотографию с тем парусником и перерисовал. Откуда мне было знать, что в Архангельск он не заходил?

В желании найти тайный знак или как минимум ляп на “картинах” Крылкова народ доходил до смешного. Так, изображенной на 50-рублевой банкноте “даме” приписали портретное сходство с зампредом ЦБ Татьяной Парамоновой.

By the way, the Russian Internet users break and another inconsistency in the "canvas" in denominations of 500 rubles. According to them, standing on a moored near Arkhangelsk Sea Commercial Port sailboat never comes close to Russia. And even more so to Arkhangelsk. Considering the number of masts and location of the cabin, was identified as an Argentine sailing ship "Libertad". In the image of a foreign ship on the Russian bill began to seek out almost a hint of economic "relations" between the two countries.

- No need to look for hidden meaning where there is none, - says Igor Krylkov. - The photograph, which I was drawing the port was a modern ship. But at the last moment in the Central Bank said that the general idea of ​​the steamer does not fit the bill. I immediately found a photo with the sailboat and redraw. How could I know that in Arkhangelsk, he did not come?

The desire to find a secret sign or at least gaffe on "pictures" Krylkova people reached ridiculous. For example, shown in 50-ruble banknote "lady" was credited with a portrait likeness with deputy chairman Tatiana Paramonova.

The source doesn't state it is this ship merely that this claim is based on Internet rumours of secret signs and gaffes that the original author dismisses as ridiculous. Noting this to be unreliably sourced and WP:FRINGE material I removed it. Insider has insisted it is included, partially quoting the source out of context. I have attempted to engage on the talk page but the discussion seems to be going round in circles, with semantic arguments eg [59] that we must use exactly what the source says. I also took this to WP:RSN (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 200#Ship on a banknote), the discussion there went nowhere instead he resorted to trying to analyse photographs to prove the point.

After tagging the material for WP:FRINGE and waiting a week for better sourcing I removed it today. Insider has immediately reverted [60] and canvassed on the talk page for other users (apparently admins) to come to his aid [61]. In a breach of WP:TPG the comments are in Russian.

Alex Bakharev, Ezhiki, Ymblanter, прошу вас как администраторов английской Википедии, и знающих русский язык, как родной, прокомментировать эту тему. Чьё понимание текста интервью корректное? А то 7 дней, никаких комментариев со стороны оппонента, только продолжение удаления текста.

Alex Bakharev, Ezhiki, Ymblanter, I beg you as administrators of the English Wikipedia, and speak Russian as a mother, to comment on the subject. Whose understanding of the text of the interview correct? And then 7 days, no comments from the opponent, only to continue the removal of text.

He hasn't even tried to engage properly in talk. In response to another user agreeing with me and removing the material Insider continues to claim the author confirmed the story and it isn't just Internet rumour [62].

Ymblanter has responded to that call, reverting [63],[64] and threatening to block me on my talk page [65]. His allegation that I had reverted 3 times today is untrue, I reverted once and had given no indication that I intended to do so again. Point of fact, I didn't, I immediately went to the talk page. That intervention appears to me to be an abuse of admin privilege. He is now threatening users who disagree on the talk page [66]. Fringe material such as Internet rumour and conjecture is not suitable content for wikipedia, its sad that an admin would intervene to force its incorporation into this article. WCM_email 17:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, WCM was edit-warring in Arkhangelsk, had to shut up at the talk page since consensus was clearly against him, and now tokk their problems to another article. The editing history is just their, everybody can check whether they have any understanding of Wikipedia policies concerning edit warring. Note that Insider and I are native Russian speakers.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

And obvioously I was not going to block WCM myself, just to take them to 3RRN, where they would blocked by another admin.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Note also that they did not notify me about this thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I have to say that this discussion troubles me. In particular "I will first get you blocked, and then see whether I need to revert" goes deeply against the spirit of Wikipedia. It's neither cordial nor likely to improve the encyclopaedia, but rather high-handed, and arguably baiting ("come on, try me! I'll get you blocked! See if I don't"). The whole debate seems to deeply out of proportion to the obscure question to begin with - even if the ship is on the bank note (rather unlikely) and if this were reliably sourced (as far as I can tell, it's not), it would still be debatable if this is relevant for the article - it might or might not be useful, but it's a marginal improvement, if any. This should certainly not lead to threats and warnings. Let me also point out that neither of you seem to be able to count reverts. Curry, you have two reverts - per "A 'revert' means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors". The first removal counts. Ymblanter, Curry has two reverts (btw, exactly as many as you now have), but WP:3RR forbids "more than three reverts". "More than three" is four or more, although, of course, multiple reverts are rarely a good idea. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, reverting and keeping it to exactly 3RR to avoid blocking is usually considered to be disruptive. Concerning the discussion on my talk page, this was certainly not the best of my edits today, I overreacted when the user instead of stopping reverting and discussing the issue beyond the "fringe theory" mantra decided to explain to me that they can revert as long as they want.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Totally agree with Stephan. Ymblanter's behavior has been highly inappropriate. I was borderline about the abusiveness until reading Ymblanter's comment here. Why? Because the baiting and aggressive behavior that Stephan points out is actually being continued in this AN/I report: aggressive ("had to shut up"), threatening ("where they would blocked by another admin"), and even outright childish ("they did not notify me about this thread"). This is unacceptable.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 18:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• There is nothing childish about wanting to be notified of this thread. It is both a reasonable expectation and a requirement. HighInBC 18:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I thought what was unacceptable was not notifying people of discussions about them here. It says so right at the top of this page. LjL (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Even if a nominator does not notify a person about an AN/I discussion, there is always another user who either points it out to the nominator or performs the notification themselves. It's childish to attempt to use the lack of notification as evidence of misbehavior. It's all the more childish that an administrator complains about not being notified of a discussion in the administrator's noticeboard. Moreover, instead of apologizing or (at least) disengaging, the admin makes a comment about "disappearing" from English WP ([67]), twice ([68]). Is there not a maturity check in the admin process?--MarshalN20 ^Talk 18:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I do not think anything else is required of me in this thread, but I was expecting someone to react on the appropriateness of the maturity comment. Nobody did. Fine.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'm shocked by what is going. That is not WP:FRINGE. Please, read the source. The designer of that banknote Igor Krylkov does not refute, but confirms in the interview that the sailboat Libertad depicted on the banknote. User WCM starting edit war a few days ago. View the article history. Repeatedly attempted to add to the article the STS Sedov, referring to non-authoritative sources (including wiki-sites). He simply doesn't understand the Russian language, and uses Google Translate to translate. I have long tried to convince him, but it was useless. Then he began to ignore the debate and continued to edit the article. I asked to comment on talk page 3 Russian-speaking administrators. Also you ask to comment of the interview of any Russian-speaking user (preferably native Russian speaker). P.S. Sorry, my english is not good. --Insider (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Ymblanter's claim I did not notify him of this thread, [69] I notified him well in advance of my intention to resort to ANI. Close on 10 hrs in advance and I had the courtesy to ping him to let him know I filed it. WCM_email 02:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• Uninvolved ANI drama watcherTo be frank Ymblanter may have been a teeny tiny bit high handed here, but then again I personally think you should give admins a wide, wide berth seeing all the hassle they have to go through on a daily basis, therefore, Ymblanter should not be blamed. However continuing with the same degree of frankness I can say that the edit war is so, so childish. If you are not a native speaker, just let the native speakers do their bit. If machine translation was as good as it seems we wont need a Russian wikipedia, just click russian on any article and the machine translates it for you. Seeing that such shenanigans are not going on we should just let the experts do their stuff, you don't see me barging into turkish wiki with a bunch of machine translated material in my hand demanding that they accept the "new facts" that I have "uncovered". Good drama anyway, proves that ANI is on par with any soap opera on the Tv. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

This is the English wikipedia so your analogy is utterly irrelevant. I'm not trying to create content either. The fact is the source doesn't back up the claim made, Insider has canvassed to get his mates to strong arm his edit into the article. Ymblanter has abused his admin privileges to intimidate other editors. This is fringe material at best and it's ridiculous the lengths they ate going to force this into the article. And for your information another Russian speaker confirmed that the source doesn't support claim made. WCM_email 11:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

First, I never abused my admin privileges, since I never take any admin action in relation to this article, nor ever promised to take any. It is unfortunate you are repeating all this bullshit all over again. Concerning the Russian text, I read it, and the claim is backed up there. Since I am a Russian speaker and you are not, I do not see how your opinion on the text you can not possibly understand can be of any value.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Anybody around interested in warning WSM that personal attacks are unwelcome on Wikipedia [70]?--Ymblanter (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you are being to thin-skinned in this conflict. Try to de-escalate, not escalate. I've left a corresponding message here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, I got more shit thrown on me in these two days than in the rest of the year together.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous, arguing from authority that because I'm not a native Russian speaker I can't comment. Well [71], Ezhiki has already commented that the source doesn't back this claim and they are a native Russian speaker. You also claimed that at Talk:Arkhangelsk#500 Ruble Note I was forced to shut up at the talk page, bullshit, I had a perfectly amicable discussion and from the outset was prepared to compromise. I also did not edit war on that article, nor have I edit warred at this article or even come close to 3 reverts. I never gave you any indication that I had any intention to revert again and indicated I would use the talk page [72]. Yet you're still bandying around accustions of edit warring, which is of itself an unwarranted personal attack. This [73] is a direct threat to block me on the basis of a blatantly false accusation of 3 reverts. So here we have an admin abusing their admin priveliges to force dubious material into an article, asserting that no one else is permitted to comment, threatening to block on the basis of a false allegation and continuing to fling mud at an editor with gay abandon to cover up the fact they were acting in a completely inappropriate manner. Stop the personal attacks via false allegations and stop misrepresenting what the source says. WCM_email 13:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

To add, stopping these false accusations would be a very good start to de-escalate the conflict. WCM_email 13:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

In the diff you mentioned Ezhiki said that the MK diff is insufficient to support the claim, not that the MK article says it is wrong. This is exactly the same thing I myself written on the Libertad talk page before the shitstorm started. This is a weak claim (since it is only one article, and it only sites the artist, and the artist himself kind of confirms but does not expand much), but nevertheless it is a valid claim, and the discussion on the talk page should be about whether this statement supported by this valid claim should be in the article and if it should then what wording should be used, not about that I am a liar, that I abuse my admin privileges or that the claim is made up.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Besides, I still fail to see how edit-warring in an article can be an entirely appropriate reaction. This is not, and indeed we have a policy on edit-warring.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Will you stop making false accusations of edit warring, they're unwarranted and completely inappropriate. Again your threat to block [74] was an abuse of admin privelige. And we've gone from the "source validates the claim, respect my authority" to the source "kind of confirms"; "kind of" is not good enough. Removal of unsourced or inadequately sourced material is directed by WP:V "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." I have repeatedly asked for a reliable source and waited patiently for one to be provided, ignoring a series of personal attacks from yourself and Insider. Yet all along your response has been to claim the source is adequate, demanding we respect your superior language skills, yet plainly by your own admission now the source isn't up to it as I've said all along. WCM_email 13:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid I need to stop at this point. You are obviously unable or unwilling to understand what I write.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Just to be sure that we are all on the same page (especially the two of you ;-): I've seen two quite different claims. (a): The ship on the banknote is ARA Libertad (Q-2) (a statement about the banknote(s)). and (b): There are internet rumours according to which the ship on the banknote is ARA Libertad (Q-2) (a claim about the existence of these rumours). Can you make clear which source you think does or does not support which of the two different claims? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

There is only one source I know of, this is the MK article. It says that (a) there were interet rumours it is Libertad; (b) the artist confirmed that it is indeed Libertad, since he was just has taken a nice ship from a photo, not knowing the ship has never been to Arkhangelsk. To be precise, the artist does not say "Libertad" in the two sentences which are quoted, he says "this ship", but the context of the article makes it clear it is Libertad (or at least unless the quote is misplaced). Furthermore, this is a reliable source, however, (i) there is only one source saying it is Libertad, one other RS (the Central Bank of Russia) just calling it "ship", and a number of sources, none of which is reliable, saying this is Sedov; (ii) MK is a tabloid, and does not have the same credibility as academic sources; (iii) it is up to discussion whether this info, even though backed by a RS, needs to be in the article at all, and if it is, where and how it should be presented. I do not have strong opinions on (iii); in Arkhangelsk, the implemented solution (not calling the ship Sedov and not calling it Libertad) is perfectly fine with me.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Again this is misrepresenting the source, the artist doesn't confirm it is the Libertad. Based on the vague reply by the artist they are inferring he does but he does not explicitly. He then goes on to rubbish the idea of secret signs or gaffes. The source doesn't support the claim to an acceptable standard for wikipedia. Ymblanter admits as much above with his kind of remarks above. The only thing the source is good for is asserting there are Internet rumours and we don't as a rule include fringe material of this nature in articles. WCM_email 16:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to reply to this, but whatever I do now would cause another shitstorm. I would rather shut up and see what others have to say.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster, yes, the artist does basically confirm it is the Libertad. It was put on the 500 ruble note in the 1990s in artwork that featured the port of Arkhangelsk. MK says the ship has been identified as the Libertad and people wonder if its appearance on there stems from some economic goodwill between the two countries. The artist said there is no hidden meaning to be read, and what really happened was that he was originally using a steamer in his draft but the Central Bank disliked that idea, so he substituted a sailing ship instead. He says he drew the ship based on a photograph and says he had no idea it was a vessel that had never been to Arkhangelsk. Considering this must be the biggest gaffe of his career, he seems to be the most reliable source possible on how this all happened. If it had not been the Libertad, the artist would have responded much differently, for example, saying it was not the Libertad after all or was based on the Sedov or some other ship. He most certainly would not have referred to it as a "ship that had never been to Arkhangelsk" if there was any doubt that it could have been. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• This is a ridiculously long discussion about something that is not clear and on which Wikipedia must not make a conclusion. I'm surprised that Ymblanter claiming to be a native speaker can't help us here. That said, while my Russian, once fairly fluent, these days is a little rusty , I read Я срочно нашел фотографию с тем парусником и перерисовал the same as the Google translation: I immediately found a photo with the sailboat and redraw, and therein lies the ambiguity: Крылкова does not state that 'the' photo is one of the Libertad. Our Wikpedia must report what might be according to sources, the 3r (if there was one) is stale already so let's now pour some oil on these waters and let the ship sail away in peace. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  • The important detail is in the following line where he says, "How could I have known it (the ship in the photo) hadn't been to Arkhangelsk?" This is clear in context that he is discussing the Libertad, which has never been to Arkhangelsk. Any other ship could potentially have been to Arkhangelsk. The Libertad on the other hand has been ruled out as having ever been there. This is WP:IAR common sense here. At best it's "citation needed" but this certainly does NOT fall under WP:FRINGE. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: I added additional sources. This info has been published by currency museums in Moscow and the Crimea, and by a Saint Petersburg collectibles journal that has been around 20 years[75]. This is just not WP:FRINGE. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Wikimandia for adding additional sources, I first looked for additional sources myself unsuccessfully before I tagged the material. I'm afraid that I agree with Kudpung that the MK source is neither reliable enough or explicit to make the conclusion originally made. WCM_email 11:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Ban overturned

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

---

I was banned from creating articles for a period of one year. My articles were stated to have poor grammar and the sort. I would like to have this ban overturned for a period of 2 weeks so I can place a number of articles into mainspace. I was told that I could appeal to BASC, the problem with this is that it says that this is inactive. I could wait out the year but I don't see the point in that I will simply retire afterwards. I want to finish what I started and move on. The quicker the better. Thanks. CrazyAces489 (talk) 08:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

References

@CrazyAces489 create the articles in your sandbox and ping the banning admin to the said article whe you are done. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat Many are done, not all. A free period might work well for me. CrazyAces489 (talk) 08:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I put them in subpages like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CrazyAces489/Erica_Mena CrazyAces489 (talk) 08:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

JzG specifically said that you're allowed to go through AfC. Why don't you do that? Then, once you've shown that you can responsibly create articles, ask here for the ban to be lifted. If you've already done this, then maybe you could link to the accepted articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

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

IP socks removing important content from the lede

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

---

This IP, whos socking around through numerous other static IP's on the same page,[76][77][78] is removing important summarized sourced content (thats stated in the body) from the lede. He has received a warning, but ignored it. He has used WP:BATTLEGROUND commentary through edit summaries as well. Kindly requesting for semi-protection of the page or any other action, please. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Judging from the edit histories, this is an IP hopper, and editing is indeed disruptive (at least those edits I looked at). In this situation, I believe the best way to proceed is to use WP:RFPP for the affected articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt action Ymblanter. Will do that in the future. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 12:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

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

85.210.182.11 "spamming" user talk pages

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

---

This editor was blocked for (egregious) edit warring. They have refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of the block (see also this tweak to their unblock request).

Shortly after being unblocked, they proceeded to complain on four user talk page about their block: MaxSem's KrakatoaKatie's Eteethan's and mine. I think some of these even fall afoul of WP:NPA, and in any case, I don't find it appropriate to go and annoy every user who somehow took part in the edit warring report against them (note that a few people are involved parly because they blanked the report against them twice).

LjL (talk) 14:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I blocked them for one week for harassment--Ymblanter (talk) 14:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Bourkeparrot

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

---

Bourkeparrot (talk · contribs) was warned regarding his edits to Andrew Wakefield. He removed the warnings and left this lovely note, if someone wants to take a look and deal with him. APK whisper in my ear 14:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Clear tendentious editing. GAB^Hello! 15:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Copyright violations despite warnings

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

---

WaterIsland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has during the past couple of months been uploading logos of Greek banks. They have been marking them as own work, CC-BY-SA even though that clearly cannot be the case. Some may be simple enough to be public domain but I have tagged most of them conservatively with fair-use tags. On their talk page (section: Copyright) I left two messages: first an explanation, then after more of the same behaviour a warning. Now after that they have uploaded bank logos again, still claiming own work (see their upload log and file page histories).. They are clearly either incompetent to understand the problem, haven't bothered to change their actions or have trouble understanding English. In any case, they can't be trusted not to upload copyvios. Incidentally, other editors have repeatedly warned them for sourcing problems, even going up to level 4 warnings. In my opinion a block is in order. BethNaught (talk) 15:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

No user talk page edits (out of 833) so far as well. MER-C 21:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

And for that matter, no article talk page edits except for page moves. BethNaught (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I have gone ahead with a block for the copyright violations. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Diannaa. BethNaught (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

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

86.165.204.68

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

---

The IP user 86.165.204.68 is harnessing more than 10 users and many IP address talk pages even after the warning. Contribution can be seen here [79] Ayub407^talk 17:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for one week. Spencer^T♦C 17:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Disruptive, edit warring editor

Damianmx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Has little more than 100 edits on Wikipedia, virtually sole purpose (apart from a few edits) being to edit war,[80]-[81]-[82]-[83]-[84]-[85]-[86], ignoring the voice of the majority,[87] removing content wherever he can,[88]-[89]- and making further disruptive edits conform his agenda. Just as of some seconds ago, additionally, I reverted a blatantly disruptive edit by an IP, after which User Damianmx instantly hopped in and reverted my edit loaded with a WP:BATTLEGROUND summary, accusing me of "pov-pushing" even though the article clearly states its part of the definition, and the IP his edit was clearly disruptive.

The user is clearly not here to built this encyclopedia conform the expected standards. Though me and User:Jaqeli have warned him on numerous occassions to cease his activities, and left him a warning on his page as well,[90] he simply does not listen and continues to edit war and make disruptive edits.

I also don't believe he's a new user either, for someone with little more than 100 edits having such a stance and behavioural editorial pattern, which includes the copy-pasting of material from peoples' user pages/contributions list (content from prior to his registration here, which is a mere 5 days ago), in order to fuel his arguments. The only useful action appropriate here, as he ignores litteraly everything and continues to be a disruptive nuisance to the community and Wikipedia's content, is moderator intervention.

Edit; Literally, as of some seconds ago he reverted another user again who reverted his disruptive edits, conform his WP:BATTLEGROUND/WP:WAR standards. [91] - LouisAragon (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually I just noticed, he violated WP:3RR as well. [92]-[93]-[94]-[95]. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Non-admin comment:I have notified the editor whom you are reporting about. Please note that it is necessary to notify the editor whom you are reporting. Thanks Ayub407^talk 17:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

It is evident from Louis's edit history and multiple talk-page entries that his work on wikipedia is narrowly focused on promoting Iran/Persia by arbitrarily inserting items related to this topic into various articles. Recent examples of this manic behavior: [96] [97] [98] Louis' Iran/Persia promotion is often done at the expense of article readability and creation of multiple run-on sentences that are bloated with WP:UNDUE Persia information. Here's a prime example of a Persia-bloated run-on sentence favored by Louis:

To ensure its survival as a Christian kingdom being threatened for centuries by their Safavid, Afsharid, and Qajar Iranian suzerains, the eastern-Georgian kingdom of Kartli-Kakheti, being the most dominant Georgian power at that time, led by Heraclius II found itself able to abjure any dependence on Persia or any other power by signing the Treaty of Georgievsk in 1783...

None of the Persia-focused narrative was discussed either by Louis or user Jaqeli prior to when they were originally inserted. These items are promotional in nature and unwarranted in articles of limited scope, particularly as there are separate history pages specifically dedicated to these topics. When I provided my reasoning regarding above edits with Louis and user Jaqeli, they failed to furnish reasonable explanations for the current text and limited their responses to condescending remarks about me being an unestablished user. This is not surprising considering that Louis has a history of personal attacks, about which he has been warned. Having two like-minded users (Louis and Jaqeli) bullying one editor (Me) does not establish a consensus, particularly as they are unwilling to provide clear reasoning beyond "I just don't like it", "You're a POV-pusher", "You're an inexperienced user and you should just stop"--Damianmx (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Its interesting why a user who's blatantly and visibly edit warring, ignoring the voice of the majority/the discussion on a talk page, as well as disruptively editing (as well as violating 3RR; see above) is distorting visible facts here once again. Its not in your profit, believe me. Me and Jaqeli extensively and appropriately explained on the talk page of the Georgians article for why that content should remain. Everyone can read it back. You however ignored all that, and simply continued your habit of edit-warring, which resulted even in a blatant 3RR violation as of today. For a "new user" who registed not more than 5 days ago to have that much violating/unjustified editorial experience and habits on his/her curriculum, as well as a very intriguing knowledge about numerous WP's, it only justifies our doubts (supported by the extensive evidence) that you're clearly not here with an honest and legit reason to edit. For that much being a disruption to Wikipedia's integrity, community, and content. This user claims to be "new here", but already copy-pastes content from other people's talk page from events that took place prior to his registration on Wiki, in a futile attempt to boost his dishonest arguments. Very, very intriguing. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, regarding the diffs Damianmx gave in order to distort reality (even though I'm absolutely not obliged giving responses to that, as its from a happening prior to his registration on Wiki and already dealt with), and an attempt to switch the channel from his eminemt violations (incl. 3RR, etc etc.);

- I dropped 8 top sources written by numerous historians right after this edit. (Of course he wont link that diff here.)

- This edit was a reversion of pretty clear disruption which had included the blanketing of content that was not included in his/her edit summary, the removal of core categories, nor did it include any counter-sourcing.

- And regarding the last attempt; All of Eastern Armenia (which includes Yerevan) was under the Persian sway until 1722,(Armenian historian George Bournoutian, Eastern Armenia in the last decades of Persian rule, 1807-1828, Undena Publications, 1982, ISBN 978-0890031230, page 8]). The guy in question in the article, was born in 1710, in Yerevan,(The Heritage of Armenian Literature: From the eighteenth century to modern times. Vol. 3, Wayne State University Press, 2005, ISBN 978-0814332214 page 49) which is thus during the Persian rule, and thus, the category, (Category:Persian Armenians) was completely justified. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the report! This user has been variously informed and warned on his damaging performances, but there have been no betterments. He has also violated the three-revert rule today.
–Rye-96 (talk) 23:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Rye-96, it is very sweet of you to vouch for Louis but, unfortunately, as a fellow Iran/Persia promoter, who has been subject to multiple controversies and edit wars, you are not in a position to pass judgement on the quality my performance or to provide unbiased opinion in this matter. Did Louis call on you to write this comment? If so, it would not be surprising, considering that he was encouraging other users to come to this board, all the while he did not even bother to inform me, as he is required. That says something doesn't it? --Damianmx (talk) 08:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

That "other user" (Jaqeli) whom you erraneously label, is unfortunately involved in your mess as well. I simply left him a note to comment here as he surely has something to say too, given that he's also strongly dissatisfied with your disruptive/edit warring editorial pattern on the Georgian-related pages, and given that he is simply directly involved in this. Furthermore, he's mentioned here in the discussion, so it was a must. User Ayub was simply ahead of me and dropped the notification on your page just a few minutes ahead, and I thanked him for that. It was minutes prior to me leaving a notification on involved user Jaqeli's page furthermore.[99]-[100]. Baseless and failed allegation of canvassing and personal attacks here, now against User:Rye-96 as well. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@Damianmx: What do you mean "Iran/Persia promoter"? That's a strange phraseology, dear. What is it about Iran that you believe I've been trying to promote? All my efforts have been about improvement for the articles relevant to my knowledge and study, and removal of the nationalism and religionism which has been unfortunately not rare in West Asian and Caucasian topics.
I think you are exaggerating by using the word multiple, but I do agree that I've had my own wrong experiences where I have always faced the outcomes and I've been guided.
Although I didn't come here to side with anyone, I don't see any problem with cooperating with the Wikipedia community to solve a problem. We're all here to improve the contents provided in the encyclopedia; that's what it is all about.
–Rye-96 (talk) 11:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

81.109.239.66

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

---

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

The article "The Open Championship" begins as follows:

<!--Please do not change the following sentence without discussing the proposed change on the talk page first!-->'''The Open Championship''', or simply '''The Open''' (often referred to as the '''British Open'''),

Despite the warning, this IP (and occasionally others) have persisted in adding the word "incorrectly" to make it read as follows: (often incorrectly referred to as the '''British Open''').

On November 24, I requested semi-protection for this article. Samsara semi-protected it for 2 weeks ([101]). The semi-protection template was removed this morning, and the same anon has already twice re-added the word. As the contribs links shows, this IP has done almost nothing else. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 22:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done - page reprotected. Next time please take such an issue to WP:RFPP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

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

vandalism I can't seem to fix

Would someone take a look at Atlanta_United_FC right now? I can't find the right version to revert to and it's terrible. Katie^talk 23:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Warning, it's a big shock pic! - Something weird is going on there... even if I try to open pretty old revisions, the shock pic is still there. Maybe it's embedded in something that's transcluded from the article? LjL (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, should have warned people about that but I was in a hurry. I don't get it but we better figure it out. Katie^talk 23:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

From your description I assume it is the same pic that I saw at Felix Magath. --Jaellee (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Katie. It was in the templates, and should be fixed now. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

@Bongwarrior: which template? -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 23:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

It was probably {{portalbar}}, which is used both in this article and in the one mentioned below. clpo13_(talk) 00:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

That and {{WSJtopic}} - both are redirects. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Wait, don't close this yet. I think I saw a shock pic at The Bronx High School of Science while I was editing it thirty minutes ago. That article doesn't use either of these templates, though. Well, the weird image is gone now but still... the image contained nothing that anyone under 18 should see. epicgenius (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

There was a political screed on Pioneer 11 earlier as well - this appears to have been related to the template vandalism issue as far as I can tell. These MAY take a little while to job-queue their way out. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Note for posterity here. For this kind of template vandalism, "related changes" (linked under the sidebar) is immensely useful. — Earwig ^talk 03:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

User Mangokeylime reported that there was a shock image on State Terrorism at Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Likely the same one. How do we fix it? Crboyer (talk) 05:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• Note for the record: A user reached out because we were still getting complaints about this via OTRS since the cache was still visible for a lot of logged out users. We are running a cache clearing script (created for a similar attack a while back) as I type to try and fix that issue. Jalexander--WMF 07:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

There is also an image at Tenerife-North_Airport and I don't know what to do with this and am a complete noob. Tricorder42 (talk) 07:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Purged, that was a cache as well (from one of the earlier attacks today). There are a bunch of different tools that will help purge (the most common are the utc clock in the upper right hand corner of the screen which you can click on to purge or a little tab with a * that you can click on) but in general anyone can purge manually by adding ?action=purge to the end of the url (or if there is already a query string &action=purge). Jalexander--WMF 07:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm really curious what this shock image, I looked at the templates and couldn't find recent vandalism. Has it been oversighted?—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 18:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: It's oversighted, and I think it was an image of someone's privates. Did anyone else see the same thing? epicgenius (talk) 01:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Possible civility issues on the part of WP:SPI-related editors

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

---

I want to draw attention to the discussion about this template for deletion. To me, whether the template is kept or deleted is far from a big deal, but I'm very astonished by the reactions by some "keepers" (apparently, administrators involved with WP:SPI).

Please see in particular this and this diffs.

Nominations for deletion are a Wikipedia process, and I find it very inappropriate, especially on the part of an administrator, that nominating a template for deletion out of a legitimate (if relatively trivial) concern would be seen as "messing with" templates, and surely telling a nominator to "mind your own business" falls quite short of WP:CIVIL.

Do people who are into administrative activities like WP:SPI get a free pass on Wikipedia, or what?!

LjL (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Considering how frequently that template is used at WP:SPI, the nominator really should have brought it up at WT:SPI first. There's also no good reason to delete, according to WP:TFD#REASONS. The comments by others are bordering on incivil, but ultimately little different than what would be seen at an AfD where the nominator clearly didn't read WP:BEFORE. clpo13_(talk) 23:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not just imagining there may be civility issues here at least. Given the somewhat high-profile nature of the editors who made these comments, I cannot but wonder why they couldn't have simply pointed out the things you just did rather than attacking the nominator in such a way. I find it worrying when it transpires that someone may think they can just "boss around" others. LjL (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't really follow. You're offended by comments like "mind your business"? I mean, I can understand not liking hearing it, but I'd hardly start an ANI case on it... Sergecross73 msg me 00:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

My being offended has nothing to do with anything. WP:CIVIL, however, does, and I brought it here because 1) it's not just any editor saying this on a random talk page, but a somewhat higher-profile individual, and 2) when I complained about it directly on the talk page, I was met with a reiteration of the "mind your own business" line by an editor in a similar position. There would have been no need to escalate otherwise, but I do believe there is a need to hold editors in special positions under community scrutiny, and here was as appropriate a place as I could think of. LjL (talk) 00:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

If "mind your business" is falling short of being civil then what is "Mind your attitude"? If it were uncivil then this would be your boomerang. My response followed yours so I could safely surmise that you wouldn't have found that to be uncivil. I'm sure that you don't mean to come across as a hypocrite, right? The nom has been a part of or mentioned in 23 sock cases; you have filed one. The template is a part of the checkuser/SPI team toolset and unless you are part of that team then nomming it for deletion or !voting to remove comes across as something that Randy would do.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

"Mind your attitude" simply means what it says on the tin: check that your attitude is appropriate. "Mind your own business", on the other hand, tells a Wikipedian that some part of the project is somehow off-limit to them. I'm curious, is your idea about deletion nominations that, for instance, I can only nominate a given article for deletion if I've worked on that article before? LjL (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

But what do you want to get out of this? An official "be nice" sanction? I don't see this going anywhere other than a few hours/days of bickering, followed by someone closing the discussion with something to the capacity of "This isn't going anywhere. Let's all try to be nice to one another." I mean, if that's what you're driving for, great, but you could have done about that much by yourself. Sergecross73 msg me 00:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm not asking for anyone to be blocked, that's for sure! An administrator pointing out that those comments were not really too civil (since we do have a policy about being that), and it would have been easy to express concerns about the nomination while being civil, would be a desirable outcome in my book. You may call it "not going anywhere", but I don't think it's the same thing as me telling them the same in private and being told again to mind my own business in turn. LjL (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• Of course my initial reaction was blunt, bordering on rude. There's no need for me to try to hide or minimize that fact. I was simply responding in kind -- I do find it quite rude to nominate a template for deletion when said template is used actively as part of a coordinated effort by volunteers to try to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia, when the nominator has made no efforts whatsoever to discuss or enquire about said template (that I can see)... I mean, everybody would've been more than happy to provide any answers or explanations required, and we would've even been thankful that other people care about SPI at all!! If you can't stand to see a bit of blunt straight-talk, well my friend, you're in for one hell of a ride -- you'll find far worse than my snark around these parts. ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

That's true, there's much worse, but it doesn't always come from the pulpit. From my point of view, the reason provided for nominating the template is, how can I put it... "sane". It might not match chapter 3 number 5 of the criteria for deletion guidelines, but in and of itself, I don't find it surprising that someone would say in perfectly good faith "this word doesn't exist, we should replace it with one that does" - and the fact of doing that by proposing deletion is not necessarily a big deal, because just like people can ask to "merge" in WP:AFDs, people can just opine that the wording should be changed in the WP:TFD. In any case, it's not so much about the specific event, but about the message it may send to other onlookers that "your nominations are not welcome in our circle". LjL (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

But doesn't starting an AN/I thread, especially while the discussion is still active, have a chilling effect upon speech?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

You mean speech at the WP:TFD? I'm pretty sure everyone involved (and those who aren't) can continue taking part in it without any fear at least as long as they're civil as they're always expected to be. LjL (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to comment on this because I too have been worried for sometime that SPI is run in such a way that there is no community oversight, and whenever anything is suggested by someone outside the SPI crew it's generally dismissed out of hand (or worse) – though to me this is much less about "civility" than about broader concerns. Now, on the matter at hand, I've always thought "Posslikely" was more silly than clever, but it's not something I feel particularly strongly about. But, as I said, I'm commenting here because I feel the issue is broader than just this instance. SPI generally feels like a "black box" which issues results outside of any community purview. I find it worse than ArbCom in that way. I have a feeling that one of these days this situation is going to come back and bite us because of how it's been handled (apparently, for a while...). My $0.02 (for whatever their worth). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Vandalism of the Wiki-Page for To Sir With Love (film)

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

---

This is to inform Wikipedia Administration that one of its pages has been severely vandalized.

The page in question is To_Sir,_with_Love

This particular page is supposed to be about the 1967 motion picture starring Sidney Poitier, Judy Geeson and Lulu. Instead, it currently show some kind of apparent political message, along with overtly pornographic images.

In searching through the past edit history, I have found that the most recent legitimate revision occurred on July 13, 2015.

I did not attempt to restore the page myself for fear that the perpetrator might vandalize and/or hijack my own personal Wikipedia account.

I will leave it up to Wikipedia's admins to correct the page, and perhaps also give it some measure of protection

Thank you -- Fgf2007 (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

This is presumably the template vandalism discussed in the sections above. I've done a null edit on the To Sir With Love article to flush the cache, so (at least for signed-in users) it should be fixed. Anon visitors may still see the vandalism for a bit. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 23:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanx-A-Lot -- Your fix worked Fgf2007 (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

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

More socking from Supdiop

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

---

I just blocked yet another sock of Supdiop: 183.83.231.107. Apparently, he has been socking ever since he was blocked (see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Supdiop and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Supdiop and is always asking for last chances (see the lower sections of his talk page, since I can't list them all here). As recently as 6 December, he promised in a private conversation with User:Anna Frodesiak not to sock again. I will let the community decide what to do about this. Biblioworm 00:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• Supdiop has exhausted the patience of the community a long time ago with his childish and/or trolling behaviour , multiple fake RfAs, and spamming the email of no end of admins. The only solution here is to ignore all future communications and get a CU to do a range block. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban. We've been getting trolled all along and DENY needs to be applied wholesale from now on.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• Site ban and deny recognition. He is unwilling to stop wasting the community's time. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• Strongly Support site ban with no appeal. It's clear to everyone who has been observing his and his multitude of socks' behavior that Supdiop has been on a trolling mission, possibly from the time he started editing on Wikipedia. Site ban, CU, rangeblock what can be blocked, and quickly block and WP:DENY any and all further trollery. Softlavender (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC); edited (talk) 02:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

"with no appeal" WP:NOTPENAL, appealing should still be allowed because who knows that Supdiop could change. Slim-to-none chance of happening, I know, but a continued pattern of abuse is not a reason to disallow appealing as that would be more punitive than prevenative. I still support this site ban, and I'm not saying your vote is wrong, just that you're taking it a little too far. --TL22 (talk) 02:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@ToonLucas22: Actually, WP:NOTPENAL is an essay, not policy. Otherwise, I agree with you. Standard offer exists for a reason. Admittedly, WP:SO is also an essay. I dream of horses (My edits) @ 04:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC) (Added commentary at 04:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC))

• Support site ban Enough. Katie^talk 00:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban Supdiop is apparently unable to refrain from socking even when there's a slim chance of returning to his original account. clpo13_(talk) 00:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban, I've been following this for a while and it's clear that this is needed. Kharkiv07 (T) 00:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban - Apparently Supdiop has only gone worser ever since this. No other solutions, from warnings to blocks, were effective. Of course, this solution will likely not become effective either, but this is the last straw. --TL22 (talk) 01:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban Everything I've seen about this situation has been so disruptive that I see no other remedy. Mkdw^talk 01:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• Strongest possible support of site ban forever and ever with no appeal, and perform periodic more-lenient-than-usual CheckUsers on Indian IPs. Vandal, social engineer. The IPs geolocate to India. I am inclined to believe that Supdiop may be a possible sock of CosmicEmperor. Esquivalience ^t 02:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC) - Edited: Writing style is different; sentence length + letters per word doesn't match.

CosmicEmperor is in Kolkatta; Sudiopop is in Hyderabad. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "with no appeal" See my reply at Softlavender's vote above. Also, no, Supdiop is not a sock of CE. Plus, CheckUser is not for fishing, so performing periodic CheckUsers would be inappropiate. --TL22 (talk) 02:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Clarified, and I am approaching 100% certain that Supdiop is just going to continue submitting time-wasting appeals. Esquivalience ^t 03:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

However, nowhere on the banning policy states that a user's ability to appeal their ban may be revoked, therefore that cannot be done. --TL22 (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you have it backwards. Unless the banning policy says you can't revoke a banned user's ability to appeal, then the community is most certainly empowered to impose that sanction. I, personally, wouldn't recommend it, as it totally removes the possibility of the growth and reform of the editor, and would probably only encourage unchecked socking, but there's no reason it can't be imposed. BMK (talk) 03:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree; I won't pile on below, but it is clear to me that revoking his right to appeal after sufficient time is not necessary at this stage. If he can truly step away for a year or two (six months no longer feels like enough, I think), I don't see why we can't give him a second chance. — Earwig ^talk 04:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support site ban - Net negative to the project. BMK (talk) 02:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban. Deny, and range block (they are all frm the same area). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban, but looking at his cross-wiki activity a global lock may be a reasonable measure in the future. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban, as per BMK. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support community ban with standard offer Even though Supdiop flips back and forth between being disruptive and apologetic, it's very clear by now that he isn't here to edit constructively. The standard offer is there for editors like Supdiop in case they get better; he might not, admittedly. I dream of horses (My edits) @ 03:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban Although I have attempted to defend him in the past on IRC, it is clear that encyclopedia-building is not Supdiop's main purpose of staying on WP.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 04:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:DENY. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I will edit normally if you unblock me. Please don't ban me. Please give me a chance. I will really use that opportunity to help wikipedia. My goal was not to disrupt wikipedia by creating two Fake RFAs, I did that for other reasons I told on my talk page. Please see my good work I've done in my past, I made 8000 edits, only 20 to 30 edits to my RFA pages. All other edits were good and beneficial to Wikipedia. I am socking to ask to help wikipedia. I will not do that if you unblock me. - 183.83.227.237 (talk) 04:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC) Ah, so that's why you put an insulting "barnstar" named after a sexual predator on the talk pages of editors who had voted for your banning, because you wanted to show that you weren't disruptive, and could be an asset to Wikipedia if only you were unblocked!! Interesting logic, that. Anyway, thanks for the barnstar, as it helped to confirm that my !vote to ban you was the correct one. You are either a troll or completely pathetic. In the spirit of WP:DENY, this is the last time I will acknowledge your person or your actions BMK (talk) 06:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC) Wrong sockmaster. BMK (talk) 06:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC) Block. Esquivalience t 04:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC) Yet another sock. See User talk:183.83.229.180 BMK (talk) 06:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support ban This post by another IP sock of Supdiop shows that they just dont WP:LISTEN, MarnetteD|Talk 04:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• I think that an ISP abuse report would be appropriate; e-mail of Beam Telecom dba ACT Fibernet is [email protected] if anyone has time. Esquivalience ^t 04:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban This situation is getting ridiculous. BethNaught (talk) 07:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban – unfortunately, this is the only viable solution at this point. ssт✈^(discuss) 07:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Kriyananda talk page

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

---

Another editor and myself have been trying to reach consensus for wording of two sentences but are unable to. Plus this new editor is accusing me of stalking - not sure why. [[102]] We need someone to read the Dismissal section regarding two sentences and help us resolve the issue. He wants to use the word claim and I am ok with disclose, wrote, reveal. If a company fired someone and shared why later, the word claim is not a valid verb in my view - it implies that they don't know the reason they fired which is ludricrous. Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Red Rose 13, wrong forum. Please take this issue to WP:DRN. Thanks.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

BTW: You must inform an editor if you bring a case to this ANI noticeboard. This time I have done it for you. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I moved it to the area that requests a third opinion. thanks for your help.Red Rose 13 (talk) 03:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Vandalism Report

Hi. This is to inform you that User talk:Phelicia2550 has been recreating deleted pages about his WP:No one cares about your garage band. I highly recommend his account to be blocked indefinitely since his vandalisms have started since October 2015. Thank you.

Alvin the Almighty (talk) 10:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• Fixed link. ansh666 10:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• I've left a message on their talk page explaining guidelines. It's likely that they're here to promote a person, but I do think that it's out of line to write things like "You still do not understand anything from the previous lessons", "You are NOT allowed to create any articles about Wikipedia:No one cares about your garage band", and "There will be no further warnings and i will keep an eye on you." This is likely why Phelicia interpreted your comments as you disliking the articles for personal reasons, as your comments did come across as a little rude. The basic rule of thumb when dealing with newbies is to assume that they can very likely be intimidated by the big policy pages and won't necessarily see everything - there have been many threads about this in various different places on Wikipedia. This means that if they keep doing the same thing and there hasn't really been any true discussion over the problems with a page, then you should try explaining the problems in more depth. It might just be that they genuinely didn't understand the guidelines. Sometimes someone can see something as a sign of notability when it really isn't, such as the claims of Martone's music playing on MTV when it was actually uploaded to their artists website. If you explained things more and they still continue after that point, then that's when you start getting more harsh/blunt with them. I have amended my initial message to make sure that they're aware that further mainspace creation does run the risk of ending with a block if they continue to try to create the articles in the mainspace from here on out, though. Basically, it's a WP:LASTCHANCE scenario. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• Dear Alvin. Don't speak as if you were God the Almighty herself. First, the existence of God the Almighty is controversial. Second, 'God is Almighty; but Alvin is Almighty; therefore... ' looks like a broken syllogism. From your user page, moreover, I don't see that your expertise about 'music bands' goes far beyond my own expertise about 'butterflies'. A more welcoming attitude would be more efficient than such a firephylia eruption: creating a page, even about a weak topic, cannot be described as vandalism! Pldx1 (talk) 12:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• Thanks for your comments, but it is my element that god is imaginary.Alvin the Almighty (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• Civility, please. The criterion for inclusion of bands in Wikipedia is at WP:BAND, and is rather clear-cut, because this problem comes up frequently. In 2009, there were five million bands on Myspace[103]. Few were notable enough for Wikipedia. Too many wanted in. That's perhaps why the language in "Wikipedia:No one cares about your garage band", which dates from that period, is a bit harsh. I'd suggest referring new editors to WP:BAND instead. Also, this isn't properly a vandalism issue; it's a promotion/conflict of interest issue. It could have been brought up at WP:COIN, where we deal with the almost-famous on a daily basis. As I wrote in an essay at Wikipedia:Hints on dealing with conflict of interest problems, "If the fame thing isn't working out, Wikipedia can't help you get there." John Nagle (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

User:86.165.204.5 harassing many users

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

---

[104]: All anti gay attacks on random users. TF ^{{ Contribs }} 18:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Seems extremely similar to 86.165.204.68 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who was reported above. clpo13_(talk) 18:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

We need this IP indef'd ASAP. TF ^{{ Contribs }} 18:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I blocked them one week. Indef on an IP is generally not a good idea. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ks0stm: Thanks! Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 18:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Anyone going to help clean up then? TF ^{{ Contribs }} 18:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I am deleting the pages, but help from fellow admins would be appreciated, I had originally other plans for the evening.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Special:Nuke strikes again. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks--Ymblanter (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I've emailed Oversight, if that helps. Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 18:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, now done.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

While the comments are not appropriate, they don't rise to the level of requiring oversight. We are limited to only oversighting the content listed here. Mike V • Talk 19:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, the IP explained why he was doing what he was doing. I could use some more opinions about the issue the IP is raising on their talk page (User talk:86.165.204.5). I can kinda see the IP's points about how the userbox he mentions could potentially cause issues for LGBT users, but like I said there, my gut is that there's no policy issue. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The template in question is {{User:UBX/onemanonewoman}}, which is about as civil a way to oppose gay marriage as possible. This is a silly an issue as, say, a Republican editor taking offense at someone using {{Template:Democrat Wikipedians}}. clpo13_(talk) 19:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

That was what I was thinking too. To me it's just a hazard of the internet (and life) that you'll come across people who don't share your opinion, but I thought I'd just give it a sanity check before I finalized that as my conclusion. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

(ec) I consider myself a part of the LGBT and I am a huge supporter of same-sex marriages. I don't find this template offensive. We all agree to disagree. We have opinions that differ from the other. Big deal. If it bothers, you shouldn't be here or just ignore it. The IP should be indef'd if they continue such behavior. That's not a way to compromise. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 19:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Revdel Needed

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

---

Edits [105], [106], [107], [108] need to be revdel'd as they all still have the User:PizzazzPicasso personal attacks on them. TF ^{{ Contribs }} 19:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done Biblioworm 19:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Long-term edit warring and personal attacks by User:Spshu

Spshu has engaged in edit wars several times over a few years, and has been blocked five times for the same offense, just on different pages:

• First block on October 18, 2013 - on Justice League 3000 - warning here
• Second block on January 24, 2014 - on Iron Man: Rise of Technovore - edit warring noticeboard discussion here
• Third block on January 6, 2015 - on One Magnificent Morning - noticeboard discussion here
• Fourth block on September 1, 2015 - discussion here
• Fifth (and current at the time of this writing) block on December 11, 2015 - on Laff (TV network) - discussion here

Not too long after the current block took effect, Spshu left an unblock request on his talk page that seems little more than a thinly-veiled personal attack directed at me. But that's just the tip of the iceberg. He has also shown retaliatory, even uncivil, behavior in the links presented above and on his talk page - some good examples are as follows:

• Removing warning against vandalism on your talk page, NeutralHomer; really rich when you have no clue. That is what Rollosmokes did when originally confronted with warnings against his vandalism of multiple pages while he entreated that the discussion should go to the TV Station project talk page. (Perhaps, you should read above what he had to say about that. And effectively YOU now.) Now the both of you refuse to acknowledge the discussion there that PTEN is a network. Spshu 15:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• No it does not. As per your article, Thomas did not open Kewpee's in 1923 and did not own that location until 1944 and was not Haloburger until 1967. All in your article. Each change is noted my version. Your are making a mountain out of a mole hill. In this case, Haloburger didn't come full formed as per your article; it was more evoluationary. I don't understand why in the world you don't understand your own article!!!! Spshu (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• At this point you are being disruptive and are causing the edit war to get your way. See Wikipedia:Overlink crisis as why not to have too much lapping navboxes (look for the "Morocco had gained 12 separate navboxes". Animated films are covered in another navbox and were link (as is Marvel Animation directly) to in the Marvel Films see also section in my edit. The animate film link takes them to Marvel Animation Section: Animated Marvel Features which has a list of the animated films and the article has the Marvel animated production navbox. Additional there will most likely more Marvel live action films and animated films. If you set such an overlap standard then "overlink crisis" will return. Thus my use of redunate as a reason to remove them. --Spshu (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• I end up having to beating the dead horse because fail to understand that this issue has been decided repeatly against your position and your continuing to edit war over the issue. Spshu (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• ←Where is your evidence that it still exists, King Shadeed? Your own "proof" is to latch on to two marketing executive titles and ignore the presents of two chairs for NBC Entertainment and NBC Broadcasting and that the page is for NBC ENTERTAINMENT not NBCU TV Group. Neither person's job description in their bio indicates that they jointly run NBCU TV Group but that they report directly to NBCU's CEO.Spshu (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Going about trying to eliminate articles you don't like, by turning them into redirect, and edit then to make it worse edit warring to try to get what you want, is rather wrong of you. You also tag articles that have references proving they are notable, with notability tags. Dream Focus 22:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• First, you are not assuming good faith nor have you read any of the discussion linked above nor can you prove that I don't like them. Prehaps, I like WP more and don't go around making WP what I want, but follow the guidelines. Also, it takes two to edit war. To a degree, it was a discussion taking place with the edit summaries. If you if looked at the edit summaries would show that the other party had no reason. Second, having references doesn't make them notable. The sources need be of significate coverage not routine coverage. I could launch an attack that you start articles that aren't notable, but I have not, instead I tag it as unnotable giving you a chance to make it notable or move it into a notable and related article. This is what I did with the Imprint article, create an article to hold this info until notable sources guidline is met. Would you preferred that I took your new article directly to deletion? Spshu (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• It is you who is edit warring as you have not waited for any other opinion. You were reversed for not doing so. You acknowledge that company do declare "new" companies that already exist. So once again, you are trying to blame me for your actions. Yup, you can have it your way. Spshu (talk) 13:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
• So you demand that people address you with your full legal name, first middle and last name, every time they address you? But, you want to be addressed as Stereorock here, which is not your legal name. Why are you using that? WP:COMMONNAME is the key here. So, some how you are telling me you can not tell that the call signs refer to TV stations in a TV station article? Spshu (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
• You think that AfD has any thing to do with hate Disney? Really? Did you dig up all the Disney article that I revamp from being nearly unsourced? Nope, because the AfD was all that you could come up with. What is in the TV Guide can preempted, so no that doesn't mean that they air nor any adding any references. Spshu (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
• Because you posted MY WARNING to you. That would look stupid for me to leave a notice from me to myself. You can see that you are just a name caller (a two year old activity) since I have left every 3RR notice that has been post to my talk page, EVEN ones that editors have posted falsely. You did not join the discussion open since 21:31, 15 March 2015, you ignored the edit summary directing you to the MOS, you ignored the link to Other Stuff before going over 3RR. Leaving the 3RR notice when you have done none of what the notice requires of you. So it even greater hypocrisy that you call me a vandal or a hypocrite. You are disruptive for disruption's sake. Spshu (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• You will cease leaving false warning on talk page. I will not be intimated by your miss use of warnings. Spshu (talk) 20:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I then took up, with KrakatoaKatie, why she didn't indef him if he had been edit warring for a long time, and she told me to bring it here, so I did. We cannot have such a toxic editor on Wikipedia.

Thus, I am proposing a block/ban on Spshu for long-term edit warring and incivility, based on all the above evidence. If any of you support such a block/ban, or oppose it, please reply. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 19:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I would like some community input about this block. Electricburst1996 urged me to indef Spshu and I declined. His behavior on his talk page, however, has me reconsidering. Katie^talk 20:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I won't give input on the bock itself but, as far as this conversation goes, Electricburst1996 starting a conversation about someone during a time when he or she knows Spshu is unable to take part in that conversation, is just plain childish. My recommendation would be to table/shelve this whole talk until he is able to come defend himself. I'm surprised the admins involved here (Liz, Katie), never stopped to consider that.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

If you read what Liz said just below this, you will find that she did in fact stop to consider it. LjL

You mean where she responded by saying she wouldn't respond and then continued to respond after saying she wouldn't? Ya, I read that. Not much of a consideration.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

As a general rule, I don't like giving an indefinite block to an editor while they are on a temporary block and can't respond to this complaint. It's due to expire soon so I will look for his response to these statements.

Electricburst1996, please provide some diffs/links in your complaint so we don't have to search for the comments Spshu made. It's usually important to see the context of the remarks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: Links provided. Click on the comments for the source of them. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 21:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I was looking at what seems to at least be the latest incidents between these two users, that on Laff (TV network). The page history shows that they had both been edit warring, but that it started with Spshu removing unsourced material, and Electricburst1996 reinstating it based on the fact that "no one" (else!) had expressed any concern. The edit war later continued, with further reinstatement of content on the ground that "other TV articles are as unsourced". Spshu correctly brought up WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In any case, i was always my understanding of policy that challenged unsourced material should not be reinstated without a source once it is removed. So, even though perhaps one use and not the other technically went over WP:3RR during this incident, I do not see Spshu acting any more inappropriately than Electricburst1996 at all; quite the contrary. LjL (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@LjL: Thanks for bringing up the other side of the issue, but this is not about the most recent incident; rather, it's about a string of similar incidents over a long period of time. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 22:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Electricburst1996: Per policy, anyone can bring up anything in an ANI thread and you are not allowed to say that the thread is only about something else. I would like to know your response to what LjL has brought up. Why did you put the unsourced material back and why did you then edit war regarding it? Please explain.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, it removed an entire section. I was trying to find a firsthand source that supported the entire section, but I had no luck. I guess it was my own hubris... ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 23:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Ya... I'm gonna go remove the unsourced section (the entire unsourced section) and, if you ever find a source, you can put it back at that time.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, good! I see you found one... and from October! So it would have been there when you were edit warring saying you were looking for one when clearly you really weren't or you would have found it at that time. This whole thing just keeps getting more and more phoney.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

In looking at it, this entire thing was handled incorrectly by not only Electricburst1996 but, also by Katie. Electricburst never should have reverted in the first place (he or she had no right to... ever). User:Spshu attempted a talk page discussion which Electricburst then deleted. Katie then blocked the guy before he ever had a chance to defend himself over at the 3RR board, even though everything I just said was right there waiting for her to see... y'know... if she'd taken the time to look, which she clearly didn't. I'm not saying "two wrongs make a right" (and Spshu was definitely in the wrong with the edit warring) but, at least he tried to do things properly (and was right to delete the unsourced info in the first place). Electricburst has done nothing but cause problems since this issue started (and is still doing it by starting a conversation here about an editor he or she knows can't defend themselves in)! Katie, I recommend you re-think this block you were too quick to instate. It's not making me trust your qualifications/ability to be an administrator.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Spshu will be able to step in sometime tomorrow. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 00:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

That's kind of the point, the discussion was timed so that he would not be able to defend himself, that he will be unblocked at a later time is a very weak cop out. This report is nothing more than the latest in a plethora of examples that your behavior has been unacceptable, and looks like WP:GAMING, pure and simple. I can't see any reason why you should not be blocked for disruptive behavior and edit-warring per the evidence that you yourself have provided. - Aoidh (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Wow..., indeed, @Electricburst1996: you must certainly have a very good explanation for deleting the discussion that was started on the article's talk page without even an edit summary?! Because that sort of thing is outright unacceptable. At this point I don't really care about the rather long and confusing list of not-clearly-abusive diffs that you posted, but your behavior during this latest incident with Spshu raises very deep concerns. LjL (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I deleted it because I interpreted it as a personal attack against me, rather than an attempt to discuss the content of the page. And as for the list of diffs, I was trying to demonstrate any warnings and discussions levied against the user in question. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 00:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Electricburst1996: Hmm, please help me understand this better... Exactly what part(s) of this post by Spshu did you consider a "personal attack against [yourself]"?Cebr1979 (talk) 01:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

It was copied verbatim from a warning he left me on my talk page, and the message is specifically directed at me. It's more about that than anything else. Nowhere in that message does it indicate that the user wants to improve the page in any way, shape or form, and all in all, the article talk page is just the wrong forum for the kind of message he left. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 01:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Ya! And then Katie chose to block Spshu (and is now considering an indef block for him as well) but, chose to do nothing with Electricburst1996?! I'm hoping Katie has "a very good explanation" for that!!!Cebr1979 (talk) 00:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, what I can see from Spshu's talk page and follows-up to his unblock requests is that there is probably some language barrier. But the editor has been around for a decade, with the first several years seeing no blocks. From that to an indef... something must have happened, and I'm not altogether sure it's all the editor's fault. LjL (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, he has been blocked five times for the same offense so far... ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 00:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

And that is all you have you say after being asked for a good explanation to your removal of talk page comments (thus hiding the fact that the other party had tried to discuss the matter)? At this point, I definitely think you should have a good WP:BOOMERANG coming towards you. LjL (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm thinking the same.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

IMO, both editors should have been blocked for violating WP:3RR. clpo13_(talk) 00:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I agree now that an indef is inappropriate, and the original block has now expired. Spshu had been blocked twice before for 72 hours for edit warring and 3RR violations. What about an IBAN for Spshu and Electricburst1996? Would that help fix this behavioral problem or possibly make the situation worse? Katie^talk 00:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I think at this point Electricburst1996's behavior should be investigated in further detail before an action is decided (and, hey, I did my part), because there are signs of maliciousness, such as the mentioned deleting of article talk page comments. You engage in an edit war and you remove the comments that the other party makes on the article talk page to try to discuss the issue? That's as unacceptable as any behavior on Wikipedia can get, and not possibly done in good faith. Aoidh above also mentions the possible existence of other serious past issues with Electricburst1996 so maybe they want to provide some evidence of that. LjL (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that borders on libel. Most of my edits have been in good faith and are relatively constructive. If you want to investigate, just do yourself a favor and go through my contributions history. All of my contribs from before 2014 are from when I was relatively new to the site, then I forgot about the account for a while. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 01:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

No, it doesn't "border on libel" to state the obvious, i.e. that removing article talk page comments like that is utterly unacceptable and should be sanctioned. If you think I'm libeling you, make a report against me. LjL (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

What I meant was, the part suggesting there are serious past issues with me borders on libel. I should have clarified that. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 01:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah. Well, that's not something I've claimed, though, it just seems like Aoidh's claim above. I don't presently know whether it's true or not, but given the current circumstances, their claim should be investigated. LjL (talk) 01:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

There really isn'y any such thing as "libel" here at the ANI board, Electricburst1996. This is the second time now (1) that I'm showing you the policies regarding this page. I suggest you read that thoroughly (and quickly).Cebr1979 (talk) 01:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

If Spshu's block has expired, then he's done his time and his debt is repaid, as far as I'm concerned. Any further action would just be continuing the childishness of it all. If (Hopefully: When) Electricburst1996 gets a boomerang out of all this, that can be dealt with at that time. In the name of fairness, however, Spshu should be issued an apology by you, Katie. You were wrong to block him without giving him a chance to defend himself first (he should have at least been able to say something) and, above all else, you should have looked into the matter before acting.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I think an IBAN would help greatly. But how do IBANs work on a technical level? ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 01:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Basically, the two of you wouldn't be allowed to talk to or about each other. Have you two ever encountered each other prior to this incident, though? If not, an IBAN is premature and unwarranted.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, there is a flare-up at The Disney Afternoon over the Disney-Kellogg Alliance name, which I felt shouldn't be included. I think between that and this, there is sufficient grounds for an IBAN. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 01:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Those are not sufficient grounds for an IBAN, those are examples of two people with opposing views sharing similar interests. In my experience, Electricburst1996, when on editor is quick to jump on the IBAN bandwagon it's because they're thinking something along the lines of, "Yippe! That sounds great! Then if I get there first, he can't revert me no matter what!" which is not the purpose of an IBAN. Once [[Spshu does join this thread (and hopefully he does), there will most likely be a boomerang for you, which will be supported by many. My advice to you is throw in the towel now and back away.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

If he does join, the argument will probably heat up to the extent where I just can't do it anymore. Might as well give up while I still can... ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 01:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

User Alec Smithson

I believe it's time to ask for review of my interactions with Alec Smithson, who has repeatedly accused me of vandalism, personal attacks, and stalking (diff diff diff diff diff diff, plenty more on request). If there's merit in his accusations, this stops here, read no further, I accept … well, whatever it is that I need to accept.

But if not: I started looking at some this editor's contributions after this note was left on my talk page (on the same day that Alec Smithson was indeffed on it.wp – his previous blocks on that wikipedia were for socking and copyright violation).

I found, as time went on:

• Lack of competence in the English language
• Frequent editing while logged out (e.g., as 95.237.141.108)
• Little understanding of WP:verifiability
• Repeated failure to provide attribution for translations made from other-language wikipedias – Fernando Carcupino, Lierna Castle, Battle of the Three Mountains. I listed Lierna Castle at WP:CP, but even that was not enough to persuade him to comply
• An apparently obsessive interest in a few narrow topics: The Polli family of Milan (Emilio Polli, Gino Polli, Polli Corporation; the Natoli family of Palermo (Giovanni Natoli, Antonino Natoli, Antonino Natoli (insurance man), Sperlinga, Principality of Sperlinga, Castle of Sperlinga); and the village of Lierna on Lake Como (Bianco di Lierna, Lierna (chair), Lierna Castle). Of course an obsessive interest is in itself no crime; but the promotional tone and dubious content in some of these pages is or was far from encyclopaedic
• Dubious content: (1) Bianco di Lierna, a wine that apparently does not exist; (2) Gino Polli, attribution of a medal introduced 42 years after the death of the subject, with no provision for posthumous award; (3) Giovanni Natoli, the supporters of the coat of arms were copied word-for-word from Diana, Princess of Wales (or from Template:Infobox COA wide/testcases), and are clearly unique to her (one from her husband's coat of arms, one from her father's).

In general, cleaning up and verifying his contributions has been a massive timesink for numerous editors; I'm not sure that the project has gained anything from his presence here. Stalk toy shows that the French, Italian, German, Latin, Dutch and Swedish Wikipedias have all decided they're better off without him. Is it time for us to follow suit? This may also be relevant. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The apparent unwillingness to acknowledge copyright and attribution problems (which I see extends to other language Wikipedias) alone is enough to show this user is a problem. Given the amount of time and good faith spent attempting to assist this user with policies and contributing in grammatically correct English, I'm beginning to think that it's time to apply WP:CIR. clpo13_(talk) 20:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Just looking at his talk page, I'm not sure his language skills are up to par for the English Wikipedia. There was a lot of comments I could not make sense of. But he hasn't edited since you posted the ANI notice on his talk page and I'd like to hear his response to your complaint, to see if he acknowledges making mistakes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Legal threat on my talk page

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

---

At User talk:Doug Weller#Moorish Science Temple of America bias wikipedia scholarship User:Sheik Way-El writes, after a long creed complaining about the article Moorish Science Temple of America "I can keep going and going with the blatant misinformation within this article. If these things are not changed, if you cannot find citations for slanderous statements like "Moorish-Americans drink alcohol and eat pork.", we will be suing this platform for false light as this article makes those interested in our organization not want to join. You have 72 hours to bring your citations or we will commence with a lawsuit in the appropriate venue. Peace." Doug Weller (talk) 19:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Blocked them indef. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Re the preceding section, "Legal threat on my talk page"

There's a little more to this than meets the eye. User:Sheik Way-El was clearly out of line with a legal threat, but he has a point. The article says they "face east when praying, regard Friday as their holy day, and call their god Allah and their leader Prophet. But the similarities to mainstream Islam end there. Moorish-Americans drink alcohol and eat pork. They don't pray five times a day or travel to Mecca, and their religious book deals more with Jesus than Muhammad.". Two points. (1) That quote in its entirety is a verbatim copyvio from a story from eight years ago. (2) Members of the Moorish Science Temple are Moslems, so the Quran forbids alcohol and pork (haram). Our article would need some serious sourcing to say they defy the Quran. I am removing the copyvio. Moriori (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

So, you're going to remove the source and then say it's unsourced??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Huh? I said "I am removing the copyvio." Moriori (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

And who is this "our" you refer to? John from Idegon (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Huldra and Terrible towel7

I just blocked Huldra (talk · contribs) and Terrible towel7 (talk · contribs) for flagrant edit warring on As'ad AbuKhalil. I see that the article is under arbitration remedies and sanctions, but I'm pretty lost about what steps need to be taken now that I've done that. Could another administrator more familiar with arbitration enforcement stuff please pick up from here or advise me on what I need to do? Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

You need to unblock Huldra immediately and apologize. If you're not "familiar" with their various relevant rules, don't go off half-cocked. You need to read this, at minimum: WP:ARBPIA3 Dan Murphy (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Unblock yes, apologize .. for what? Arbcom passed both this rule and this other rule without modifying the first rule to take into account the second. Someone should file a WP:ARCA to get it sorted. NE Ent 00:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC) Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_ARBPIA filed. NE Ent 01:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

After doing a search on Terrible towel7's edit history to verify no discretionary sanctions alert is present, I placed the {{ds/alert}} template on their talk page. NE Ent 00:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

It's right there on the top of the page Huldra was editing (same one the sockpuppet was editing) and all the Arbpia tagged pages, smart guy. ks whatever clearly didn't read it and just likes his blockination fix.Dan Murphy (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, of course. It couldn't just be a mistake. No, "ks whatever" is clearly on a power trip. clpo13_(talk) 00:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

That's Ks0stm. But regardless, I unblocked them with a full explanation. My two pieces of advice: WP:AE is better than revert warring, and someone should update {{ARBPIA}}. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I have also expanded upon the source of this at the clarification request filed by NE Ent. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I've expressed my thoughts at ANEW. Huldra's block was very bad, there was a WP:3RRBLP issue and it was declared as such in the first revert. 10-year clean block log: tainted for a single-purpose likely sock who was adding material that may look highly libelous. LjL (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

^^That is extremely unfortunate. Do admins have a way of purging block logs, I wonder?Cebr1979 (talk) 01:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the unblocking. I have edited in one of the most contentious areas of Wikipedia for over 10 years, without ever getting blocked. That was until Ks0stm came along and ruined my clean block-log. And giving an obvious sock reason to triumph. I´m so furious right now that smoke is coming out my ears (so it feels). Is there any way to clean that block-log? And a dozen WP:TROUT to User:Ks0stm Huldra (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• It's technically possible to RevDel them, though obscuring block log entries may be unpalatable to some. - Alison ^❤ 01:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
  • User:Alison thanks, palatable or not, who should I ask? The problem is that each and every "new editor" in the I/P area who comes along *will* use this against me. Guaranteed. It´s a .....rough neighbourhood. Huldra (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
    • I'd be happy to do it myself if there's a precedent for it. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
      • In my opinion (but I have no idea if policies agree with me or not), I think the "precedent" is the fact you issued a block in error and now your error needs to/should be corrected. If it's possible to be done (from a technical standpoint, I have no idea), it should be.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
      • I don't know if there's precedents, and I can understand wanting to ensure that it's accepted first, but I personally also think it should be done. LjL (talk) 01:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)