Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive918

Move/combine Babble back to Babble.com

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

We need to merge the history of pages "Babble.com" and new "Babble" to rejoin "Babble.com" and make page "Babble" a dab-page. The Internet blog website Babble.com was blanked/copied during 2014 (dif563) to hijack the redirect "Babble" (re Tower of Babel), but the notability is more like a disambiguation page, rather than grandstanding for one company, to also list "Babble (company)" inside page "Babble" as another meaning of the word. I think scholars refer "babble" to the Tower, and no way show exclusively a trendy website. // There is already page "Babble (disambiguation)" so easiest to redirect "Babble" there after merge to "Babble.com". -Wikid77 (talk) 13:36/13:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

OK Wikid77, the history merge is done with the content at Babble.com. Can we leave it to you to sort out the dab page? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

PS Better to move the dab page to Babble and leave Babble (disambiguation) as a redirect per WP:DABNAME, "The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself, provided there is no primary topic for that term." --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Tobystso6222

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user, who briefly sockpuppeted as User:A567e, seems to have taken a username change as Eqwdasf. I, however, couldn't find any record of this at WP:Changing username. Can someone confirm if this is legitimate, or he is just trying to avoid being identified by his sock record?--MaranoFan (talk) 09:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment) Seems to be legitimate - as contribution histories have been merged so must have had administrator approval. Also, please remember you must notify anyone you're discussing here, without exception. I'll do so now. Mike1901 (talk) 09:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

67.5.192.83 and personal attack

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I feel the second sentence of this comment merits a block. The background is here and at Talk:Terry Bean, where this IP, nearby IPs, and a procession of SPAs (one blocked twice for their comments at User talk:Lurie2 but writing in the same style as the IP) have made similar comments. Perhaps a range-block might be in order, the article page has already been semi-protected. MPS1992 (talk) 06:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Block, revdel, forget. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 07:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

This guy, and others acting together, have acted to obstruct editing to the article Terry Bean. I would be happy to discuss all this further, but my experience is that this article is controlled by a group of people who are trying to minimize the significance of a child-rape charge against Terry Bean. Further, and most importantly, is that MPS1992 is complaining about content on MY OWN talk page. He needs to notice that since it is on MY OWN talk page, it does not need to follow a specific rule. I will quote the exception to the specific rule, and section −

"Discussion of behavior in an appropriate forum, (e.g. user's talk page or Wikipedia noticeboard) does not in itself constitute a personal attack."

I will continue to defend this issue. 67.5.192.83 (talk) 07:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Editor blocked for 24 hours in the hope that the IP address will change by then. I'll revdel the actual edits. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CorenSearchBot throws false copyvio allegations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Dear admins, please stop User:CorenSearchBot from comparing new articles with the Wikipedia clone https://www.newikis.com/en, thereby throwing a substantial count of false positives, alleging a copyright violation where there isn't any. I already notified Coren a few days ago, but there was no response, nor was the bug fixed. Thanks, PanchoS (talk) 05:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Someone who knows RegEx can just add it here. The page also needs to be semi-protected. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 05:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Added to list. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, everybody. I'm not going to remove the badges from the U.S. election stubs I created, but maybe someone else would take a look at Category:Possible copyright violations, and sort them out. Thanks, PanchoS (talk) 05:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Done, and I've checked CorenSearchBot's deleted contribs for matching tags back to January 2015. There were a handful of articles speedied as copyvios of this mirror, but none solely for that; most were also G4s. —Cryptic 06:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Front Page Goof

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This isn't an incident, but due to a lack of a better place, I think this will get the most eyeballs (and be quickly fixed) here.

On the front page, in the "In The News" section, one of the blurbs currently reads In rowing, Cambridge win the 162nd Boat Race and Oxford win the 71st Women's Boat Race. It should be "wins", not "win". Trouts for whoever wrote that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, helpings of wet fish are served to those editors who do not recognize 'headline' style _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 04:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it's proper English in British English, but American English, that ain't right. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The better place is WP:ERRORS. But this case is an WP:ENGVAR issue - Comparison of American and British English#Formal and notional agreement. —Cryptic 05:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what's the issue because it read fine to me. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 07:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mass attack at PartyNextDoor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following accounts (and likley the same person) are vandalizing this page:

• George101lover3000 (talk · contribs)
• Newuser1524 (talk · contribs)
• IZAYATheGOD (talk · contribs)
• Lsksidn (talk · contribs)

I am requesting that these accounts be indefinitely blocked (all are clearly WP:NOTHERE and are obvious vandalism-only accounts anyways). Thanks! 172.56.39.87 (talk) 01:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected (simultaneously with Ian.thomson!) Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I've tried to restore your protection time. I can force myself to imagine that Newuser1524 might just be a new user who isn't familiar with WP:BLP yet, but since they added similar claims to the other three (who are definitely part of an attack)... Dunno. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you think it would be safe for you to indef-block the 3 accounts in order to prevent further abuse? 172.56.39.87 (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

They've all got warnings now. If they continue, they'll get further warnings and eventually blocks. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please ban and hide outrageous comments

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please ban the IP 2606:6000:fd07:e900:5553:91c0:e6f:d3a who's not only violating ARBPIA but posts extremely violent, racist and highly appropriate personal insults in edit summaries [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Jeppiz (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

See this edit. It should probably be hidden. The IP6 editor is from a familiar range, who likes to repeat his edit many times within a short time frame. See my talkpage history for example. The usual measure is to temporarily protect the article. Although I think we should indef block that range, usual reluctance to block IPs not withstanding. Debresser (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Debresser, that IP range should probably be indeffed. This is the stuff that makes Wikipedia as a whole look bad, when racist propaganda and incitement is allowed to be put forward. Jeppiz (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's one that should also be taken care of. http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AB%27Tselem&type=revision&diff=712385599 . I wonder if this is a previously banned user. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Now that you mention it... Debresser (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The IP geolocates to Virginia, FWIW. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

These qualify for revision deletion. Jeppiz I think it's best in the future to either message an active admin directly or ask for one here without posting the diffs, especially ones as abhorrent as these. Let's ping an active admin and a few willing do handle these requests - DoRD, Malcolmxl5, Doug Weller, BethNaught EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

This same racist troll is back immediately with a new IP [8]. Jeppiz (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if an admin could hide this [9] and also this [10]. (I realize the latter was acting in good intentions, but it repeats the very harsh personal insult at me in the edit summary so I'd want both those edits taken out.) Jeppiz (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

And this: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADebresser&type=revision&diff=712389334 Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I blocked the entire /64 range (the typical number of IPv6 addresses allocated to each customer of this ISP) and am looking at more edits that will need hiding. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Good! Although... This edit was made by a IP4 address: 186.91.234.38. Debresser (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@DoRD: Much appreciated! I see some are blocked as LTA. Is there an SPI page or anything we should direct future incidents to? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The IPv4 is an open proxy. It looks like User:JarlaxleArtemis. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

And we have more: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Contributions/201.7.216.85. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 20:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

That one is blocked as an open proxy now. Apologies for the block warring, zzuuzz. :\ ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, for what it's worth, I didn't see any accounts on any of the IPs. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Got the ping. All looks to be in hand, I think. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

A few admins are familiar with this kind of abuse and know how to deal with it most effectively. If you're not familiar with it, your best bet might be to contact the oversight team. (Somebody did in relation to this, and I've suppressed some of the more ... colourful edit summaries). ANI threads like this, although started with only the best of intentions, tend to draw more attention to these things. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

See this edit for his latest incarnation. Also, I strongly disagree with Mitchell. Can there be any reason not to point out at WP:ANI that Wikipedia is suffering from a vandal? Debresser (talk) 23:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, actually: this is what the guy *wants*. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 00:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive sock-puppet is back

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

103.56.240.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), likely a sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nsmutte, posted this fake report to EWNB. Since admins don't seem to bother showing up there anymore, I figured I might as well post this here, since this is where so many admins regularly hang-out. There have been previous fake reports such as this, however this one conveniently includes links to some of those previous fake reports. - ^theWOLFchild 10:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Qudghks2020

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Career vandal who specialises in blanking, misinformation, and alteration of cited text. Edit history speaks for itself,[11] as does his history of cautions, warnings and general notes for misbehaviour.[12]

An indefinite block seems relevant as this user is clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. B. Mastino (talk) 04:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @B. Mastino: can you please provide some example diffs? Their edit history from today doesn't appear to be clear vandalism to me. Though I see C.Fred did warn them today. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

This one is a perfect summary of his whole modus operandi: [13]. Here's a mean-spirited removal of an in-source note: [14]. Here's an example of his typical blanking without cause: [15]. Sure, there might be a few "good faith" edits in there to conceal his trolling agenda, but myself and others have now dedicated too much time to reverting his "work". B. Mastino (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. And I agree this is problematic behavior. Wonder if C.Fred has any comments? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I also talked about the user on WikiProject Professional wrestling talk page and was going to do the same until you beat me to it. The user is a constant vandal to wrestling articles, including Alberto Del Rio where he constantly replaces info with original research. [16][17][18] (adding in completely false, unsourced moves and names). He also reposts his created articles that were deleted per AfD multiple times (warnings seen on his talk page). "Hey there! How's it goin'?" 19:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I see from your discussion at WP:PW that it's not only you and I who've observed Qudghks2020's endless trolling; another user pointed out his "steadfastly inserting false information".[19] B. Mastino (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow. I had only seen the recent edits, but looking at his edit history, it looks like he's been making a lot of these same types of edits for going on nine months. Definitely he needs more than a 31-hour block if it happens again; since he's just now on a first final warning (as far as I can see), I hate to jump straight to a block without the proverbial "one last chance". However, I'm not optimistic that he'll suddenly straighten up. I'm not ready to block, but I wouldn't stand in the way of another administrator who thought it was time to hand one out. —C.Fred (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Numerous edits promoting Mr. Jwala Sharma and the Asian society of Safety Engineers

I've been tracking an IP-hopping vandal that makes promotional edits to articles related to safety, inserting sentences and paragraphs that begin with "As per Mr. jwala Sharma (Asian society of Safety Engineers)", and then continue to restate points already in the article, state the obvious, or are copyvios. None of the edits cite any sources other than Mr. Sharma himself. These edits are usually accompanies by an edit summary that same something like "upgraded" or "upgradations". This appears to be a concerted effort to promote Mr. Sharma and the ASSE. I have found over 160 almost 200 such edits from the following IPs:

I have submitted an edit filter request for "jwala sharma", but I'm not optimistic about that happening soon since Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested is backlogged by several months. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

If edit filters are impractical, how about page protection? How many pages are we talking about? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's a partial list or 40+ affected articles, but they keep finding new articles to add him to. Anything in Category:Safety and its subcategories seems to be fair game. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I've just blocked a couple that were active in the last two and a half hour or so. Strange how they are switching between IPv4 and IPv6 addresses and even overlapping with them. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe one of those IPs just deleted content from here just now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

So they have. Geolocates to Navi Mumbai (Ghansoli) like the other IPv6 addresses but a different /64 range from yesterday. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I found a couple more IPs: 27.58.157.103 and 27.58.140.243. These don't seem to numerically fit the pattern, but they're also from India (Gujarat). I also added four more articles, which shows that a reactive semiprotect of affected articles probably won't be enough. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 04:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

And 27.58.14.37, which I've blocked. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I added this to the edit filter, so that should be the end of this. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Collusion, Intimidation and ad hominem attacks at Stephen Sizer

I am of the opinion that users Keith-264, Hillbillyholiday and John have been colluding in an attempt to intimidate me so that they can undermine factual material in this article which is properly referenced and sourced in order to promote their own agenda.

• The problems started after Keith-264 deleted much of the lead paragraph on the specious grounds that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately pls take to talk page". This was after Philip Cross had already pointed out to him "That policy applies to unsourced material, not from an RS like the Times.". [20]
• I subsequently restored and edited the deleted data adding additional references. The paragraph was once again deleted by Keith-264 with this comment "Undid revision 711029654 by Clivel 0 (talk) pls discuss on talk page for consensus"
• In an attempt to discredit the sources, Keith-264 then posted on the talk page:
  "Again please discuss the allegation of antisemitism here, given the gravity of the allegation and its effects. Please also not that newspaper articles and other ephemera are not always of sufficient reliability and should be used with caution. Please make sure that the lead reflects the article, not drive-by edits." [21]
• Nomoskedasticity then correctly pointed out:
  There's nothing wrong with the newspapers being used; your implication that they are "ephemera" ("newspapers and other ephemera") is bizarre. Since the article discusses these issues, the lead should reflect it in that respect."
  To which Keith-264 responded in a threatening manner:
  "Please stick to the point, the lead contained a serious allegation that can have dire consequences to the individual. There is a discussion in the body of the article but that was not reflected in the lead. Please also remember WP:Civil"
• At about the same time, without posting a notice as required on Talk:Stephen Sizer Keith-264 simultaneously opened a parallel discussion on WP:BLPN [22].
• The conversation then went back and forth simultaneously on both Talk:Stephen Sizer and on WP:BLPN, I was initially unaware of the latter discussion as despite my name being mentioned in the discussion by Keith-264 I was not pinged as he had not include '[User: ]', he updated this some days later when at the same time he also posted the notice on Talk:Stephen Sizer.
• During this time Collect entered the conversation largely supporting Keith-264 who then falsely claimed:
  "especially since the sources purporting to support it have been debunked by Collect".
  Keith-264 then threatened me:
  "Either you echo the main body of the article or you are threatening to return potentially-libellous material without referring to the denials and rebuttals in the main body, which is soapboxing. Yet again you assume bad faith but I will read your edits carefully, if they reflect the article by being a summary description of the controversy, rather than potentially-libellous smears I will be satisfied. Please note that I will not do your job for you by adding balance to unbalanced edits, you are responsible for your edits, not me" [23]
  It should be noted that at this point Keith-264 had only deleted material and had not attempted to add any material.
• Keith-264 then repeated the same threat on WP:BLPN to which I responded:
  "Contrary to your assertion, there is no evidence that User:Collect has debunked anything. The sources you removed - articles from both The Independent and the Telegraph, as well as countless other news articles are explicit in their agreement that Sizer promoted antisemitic conspiracy theories. This is a matter of record, nothing to debunk. And in-itself, promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories is antisemetic. I will re-add the facts as they are documented in the source material. YOU arbitrarily removed these facts, if you consider the facts unbalanced, then it is not MY job to provide what you consider balance, that is YOUR job - you do it, but DO not delete the factual sourced material just because you do not like it"
  Which he followed up with an implied threat: "WP:NPOV, WP:OR, Association fallacy, ad hominem Keith-264 (talk)"
  followed by an ad hominem attack:
  "If you want to collect accusations and treat them as definitive, you're sliding into guilt by association, unless you give equal weight to denials and counter-accusations. Your insinuation about Collect's motives is reprehensible and fails to assume good faith, I suggest you apologise." [24]
• For three days the lead paragraph remained essentially bereft of content, and despite having deleted it Keith-264 had made no attempt to try and provide alternate text. I then inserted what I considered to be an accurate account of the controversy surrounding Stephen Sizer complete with source references.[25] this was almost immediately deleted by Keith-264 who again offered no alternative text, so once again left an almost completely void lead paragraph. I restored my deleted text, which once again was deleted by Keith-264.
• Without any prior input to the conversation, Hillbillyholiday entered the fray with a blatant and uncalled for threat [26].
• As Keith-264 was making no effort to add any content, but only intent on removing content, I filed a WP:AN/EW and correctly notified Keith-264 on his talk page. He responded with a threat on WP:BLPN [27]
• Nomoskedasticity then added a replacement paragraph which although likely to be less contentious than my text, still reflected reality.[28]
• Both Keith-264 and Collect made some modifications to the text by removing anything they considered contentious, Collect added a partial quote taken from one of the references. Being a partial quote, it gave completely the wrong impression. [29]
• I completed the quote and added some of the controversial material in accordance with the sources. [30].
• Hillbillyholiday then removed the quote completely, along with other controversial material. [31]
• Hillbillyholiday and I went back and forth a few times, at which point I requested that the page be locked and I started a new section on the Talk:Stephen Sizer page to try and reach some sort of consensus on the lead paragraph. [32]
• I subsequently added a list of five points that I thought could be discussed in order to try and reach consensus prior to us making any attempt at the actual wording. [33].
• Rather than accepting the genuine attempt by myself at trying to reach consensus, this was instead followed up by a number of personal attacks by Keith-264 [34] [35] [36] [37]
  And Hillbillyholiday enlisting John to intimidate me on my talk page by railing against a perfectly rational change I had previously added to Stephen Sizer. [38]

Clivel 0 (talk) 09:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I reject the allegations above as baseless slurs by a vexatious editor and request a ruling from a disinterested admin to end this vendetta once and for all. Keith-264 (talk) 09:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Collect, Keith, and I have merely been trying to follow BLP policies.

What really needs attention here are the actions of three editors who think it is acceptable to write Sizer is known primarily for his Anti-semitic anti-Zionism in the lede of this BLP.

• E.M.Gregory, who added it here
• Philip Cross, who restored it here
• Clivel 0, who added it here

As has been pointed out by various editors, both on the article's talkpage and BLP noticeboard, this is a highly contentious claim which is not even supported by the sources they have provided. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 10:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Respond I made 1 edit; it was well-sourced. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

ANI isn't the place to discuss the lede Spartaz Humbug! 12:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I do, however, wish to point out that the page as it stands reads oddly. The brief lede states that Sizer is a parish priest. It's second sentence reads: "Sizer is also notable for his opposition to Christian Zionism, which been the focus of his published works." What is omitted is that , Sizer is widely known for having been disciplined by his supervising Bishop, Andrew Watson (bishop), not for opposition to Christian Zionism but for, "chosen to disseminate, particularly via social media, some of which is clearly anti-Semitic," for his "increasingly undisciplined commitment to an anti-Zionist agenda", for "promoting subject matter, which is... openly racist," and for his 9/11 conspiracy theory, Bishop Watson called it, Sizer's "ridiculous suggestion that Israel may have been complicit in the events of 9/11." [39]. This modern disciplining of a Church of England clergyman was an extraordinary event.[40]. The lede certainly needs revision to reflect the things that has made Sizer notable, some would say notorious.[41].E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC) I think that the lead is unsatisfactory too and have suggested Sizer opposes Christian Zionism, which been the focus of his published works. In 2015 Sizer agreed with his bishop to refrain from using social media for six months after he linked to an article which implicated Israel in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, for which he apologised. It is believed to be the first ban of its kind issued by [a bishop]. I think something on these lines will give due weight and be notable, reflecting the body of the article in a descriptive manner. I thought that this edit had almost established consensus and that everything else would be aftermath but I was wrong. Keith-264 (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Since the edits that Clivel 0 is making are related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, this editor is covered by the arbitration ruling barring editors with fewer than 500 edits from the topic area. I have notified them on their talk page of this restriction. RolandR (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

thank you for the WP:ACDS warning on my talk page which I can only assume was made in good faith, nevertheless, as so many Israel haters are prone to point out, anti-Semitism and hatred of Israel are not necessarily synonymous so please do not conflate the two. In this case, this ruling clearly does not apply, because the discussion is about Sizer's dissemination of anti-Semitic material, and not about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Clivel 0 (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The OP made a specific attack on editors on the BLP talk page (bolding his)

"I am finding the continual threats, bullying and attempts at intimidation by User:Keith-264, User:Hillbillyholiday and User:Collect to be getting more than a little tiresome. Clearly there is collusion, because without any prior involvement User:Hillbillyholiday wrote on the WP:BLPN ...

As there was no "collusion" and no "threats" and no "intimidation" on that article, I find the posting here of the same personal attacks to be quite reprehensible. The issue is one where WP:BLP applies, and the issue boils down to whether a claim should be stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice that a person is an anti-Semite, where prior discussions have averred that such a claim is, by its nature, contentious. Further deponent sayeth not. Collect (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• I am weighing in to point out that describing many of Sizers' statements and online activity as anti-Semitic is "contentious" only in the sense that the theory that Jews were behind the 9/11 attacks is contentions. Sizer asserts that Israel was behind the attacks. Sizer is widely known for having been disciplined by his supervising Bishop, Andrew Watson for having "chosen to disseminate (material), particularly via social media, some of which is clearly anti-Semitic," for his "increasingly undisciplined commitment to an anti-Zionist agenda", for "promoting subject matter, which is... openly racist," and for his 9/11 conspiracy theory, Bishop Watson called it, Sizer's "ridiculous suggestion that Israel may have been complicit in the events of 9/11." [42]. This modern disciplining of a Church of England clergyman was an extraordinary event.[43]. [44]. But many reputable sources on Sizer's anti-Semitic activity and remarks exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I would like to point out: Reverend Stephen Sizer said he did not condone the article's accusations (The Independent), and the bishopric website has the apology I have never believed Israel or any other country was complicit in the terrorist atrocity of 9/11, and my sharing of this material was ill-considered and misguided. Seems to me this was a "one-off" per se linking to "WikiSpooks" and was retracted by Sizer - so accusing him of being an unrepentant anti-Semite as a claim of fact is a violation, per se, of WP:BLP. Cheers. And the earlier Daily Mail sourcing which was re-added is not only insufficient to call Sizer an anti-Semite, it quite carefully does not even make the claim which editors asserted it supported. Collect (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Your comments demonstrate why the lead was outside BLP criteria before I edited it. Wikipedia is no place to scapegoat someone or push nonNPOV agendas. If you look at the discussion you will see copious amounts of information that negates all of your claims. Might I suggest that since the Church of England is an arm of the British state and run by David Cameron, a politician, any claim made by any member, not just Sizer must be treated cautiously? Might I also suggest that is is common for newspapers to make inflammatory claims without grounds or with only spurious links to a supposed source? Keith-264 (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The Church of England is headed by the Queen, not by David Cameron, if you want to give it a non religious leader. Furthermore, RS is RS. If newspapers and other R report something, it can be included, even if it doesn't suit your particular POV. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

L. Windsor is an employee of the state, which is run by D. Cameron. See how easy it is to make claims based on the obvious which are instantly challenged? My POV is clear, WP:BLP was violated in the lead. If you read the discussion you will see that. I want a description of events that are covered in detail in the body of the article. Is that so bad? I also commend "*We certainly cannot use a tabloid source to support anything remotely controversial on a living person. I applaud the idea of discussing here and getting full consensus before adding or restoring anything on this to the article. --John (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)" by John to the audience. Keith-264 (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you in there, Your Majesty?

Queen Elizabeth is a red herring. The point is that reliable sources, including his boss the Bishop, state that many of the things Sizer has written and/or posted on social media are anti-Semitic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree about Liz but no he didn't.Keith-264 (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

IP disruption at Timothy Leary

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have been engaged in a content dispute with an IP, 2605:a000:1200:406f:bdc2:282a:6c52:766b, at Timothy Leary. Most recently, this has led the IP to make personal attacks against me, visible here, where the IP describes me as "YOU HYPOCRITE" (capitals in the original). As this is a direct and blatant violation of WP:NPA, I propose that the IP be blocked. I am really sick and tired of this, and believe the situation needs administrator intervention. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a content dispute where FreeKnowledgeCreator is stonewalling an IP, leading him to be annoyed. These things happen, but it's hardly worth doing anything about. The content dispute is in itself not an easy one, perhaps an RfC would actually be the right way to go. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I am one of several editors who disagreed with the IP, as you might have noticed if you had followed the discussion at the Leary talk page and at WP:NPOVN. I am actually pretty "annoyed" with the IP too, but I am not screaming at him in all capitals that he is a "HYPOCRITE", and thereby directly and blatantly violating WP:NPA. I stand by my call for the IP to be blocked; it has no right to behave that way. No objection in principle to an RfC. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

An editor calling another editor's deletion of cited text "unacceptable behavior" is hypocrisy when the editor making the accusation has repeatedly deleted cited content his or herself. Calling someone a hypocrite IS NOT verbal abuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 09:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you want to try your luck? I'm pretty sure that WP:NPA does mean that editors aren't allowed to call each other things like "YOU HYPOCRITE." It's not an ambiguous policy at all. Keep on calling me things like "YOU HYPOCRITE", and the result may not be to your liking. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Realistically, FKC, you were acting like a hypocrite, complaining about edit warring when in fact your behavior was no different. That's what the word means. You've been busy edit warring as well, c.f., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. You've also been blatantly forum-shopping. When you didn't get the answer you wanted on the article talk page, you went to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Timothy Leary and then to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Rolling archive#Timothy_Leary and now here, offering hyperbolic claims that views you don't like are "disruptive" (no, they just disagree with you) and that labeling Leary a philosopher is "the kind of thing that potentially damages Wikipedia's reputation." 6 Really? Wikipedia's reputation is on the line over this? I don't think so. I think it's time for a WP:BOOMERANG. Msnicki (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You have demonstrated your hypocrisy as an editor over and over again, so with all due respect yes you are indeed a hypocrite. What difference does it make whether I write in all caps or not. Actually the symbol for yelling or raising your voice is an exclamation mark not writing in caps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 09:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Your current attitude is not going to result in what you want. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Please WP:DONTBITE the newbies. I think he's frustrated by some pretty annoying behavior. Msnicki (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

As for biting, this AN/I report comes just two days after dragging the IP to the NPOV board. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there's some WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior here. It's the kind of thing that takes away the fun for everyone. Msnicki (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

And just to make things more confusing, it is not just "one" IP editor. I initially came to the defense of an IP after patrolling recent changes and noticed that FKC was a little harsh in edit summary to an IP when rv "philosopher". FKC despite being informed numerous times, is claiming that all IP editor involvement in the topic are the same one, and, even-though for myself my IP does change dynamically, it can be discerned that there are more than "one" IP editors involved.2601:80:4003:7416:8C4C:77AF:846C:E4CF (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Repeatedly calling someone a "hypocrite" is repeatedly violating WP:NPA. I can see why administrators might not want to immediately block the IP for one offense, when it is possibly new to Wikipedia, but IP is doing it over and again ("yes you are indeed a hypocrite", above), after being informed of WP:NPA. As for you, Msnicki, you could find a better way of expressing disagreement. You accused me of forum-shopping, but that's behaviour users engage in when they don't get what they want, which is not the case here. Most users who commented at WP:NPOVN agreed with me that the desirability of labeling Leary a philosopher was at least open to question. My request that the Leary article be protected was acted upon here. The IP's persistent offensive behaviour and personal attacks are a different matter again, and one which cannot be addressed at the neutral point of view noticeboard or requests for article protection. So I'm quite justified in bringing the matter here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course you are. Is it the first time? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 20:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you should avoid turning WP:ANI into a playpen? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

And that attitude isn't constructive either. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

How would you respond to a juvenile comment obviously designed purely to offend? It's reasonable to suggest that Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi not behave this way. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I would ignore it. If it continues I would consider why this person is upset, and if there is something I can do to calm him/her down and try to make the discussion constructive. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

FreeKnowledgeCreator is running rampage through articles and leaving editing summaries speaking as-if they are an authority about who, and how certain people should NOT be labeled as a philosopher. This is NOT just aimed at Timothy Leary at this point. I really dislike FKC's authoritative tone when doing their edits, because these are edits that have been long-standing and made by other editors IGF, and yet FKC has not yet pointed-to where they get this "authority" from. Consistently stating, "NPOV", "NPOV", and complete DENIAL when given what is standard required referencing/citing. I think that FKC needs to take a rest from philosophy topics and also answer some of the questions and/or acknowledge that they are hearing what other editors are saying instead-of answering like some kind-of bot that doesn't understand English. 2601:80:4003:7416:8C4C:77AF:846C:E4CF (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagreed with an edit you made at Aldous Huxley and reverted you. You reverted right back. That isn't the accepted way of dealing with disagreements. Per WP:BRD, you should have taken the matter to the talk page rather than immediately restore the edit. Most of your comment above is just "I don't like you" stuff, so it seems pointless to respond. What do you expect, for me to say that I don't like you either? Why should I waste my time with that? I stand by the edits I made at Aldous Huxley; the proper place to discuss them would be at the article's talk page, not ANI. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It sounds to me that you just have a bias toward any philosopher who is an advocate for psychedelic drugs. You are the only person who really has a problem with the sited source creditiing Timothy Leary as a philosopher. You should be banned from editing wikipedia for persistent edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You might try rereading the discussion at WP:NPOVN. Several editors questioned whether Leary should be called a philosopher. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

IP edit warring at Aldous Huxley

Stop this ridiculous bickering. I can't believe how long this has been going on. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
See here, here, and here. I have informed the IP editor of WP:BRD, and the need to discuss issues on talk instead of trying to change the article through edit warring, but am being ignored. The bottom line is that the IP editor seems to feel that no one can revert them, that they do not have to discuss their changes, and that they can always get what they want through edit warring. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC) Wow, the amount of hypocrisy here is really staggering . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC) Note that this user has been warned about personal attacks. The IP's response was to ask for an explanation of why calling someone a "hypocrite" is a personal attack, a question which suggests bad faith. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC) Note: I didn't acctually call you a hypocrite, I merely suggested that it is hypocritical for an editor to acuse another edditor of edit warring when he or she is really the one doing it his or herself, that my friend is hypocrisy. I dont know what makes you think you have the authority to overule every other editor who disagrees with you. Frankly I am getting pretty annoyed with your authoritarian style of editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk • contribs) That comment reveals a lack of understanding of how Wikipedia handles disputes. If you want to make a change to an article, and another editor disputes the change, you need to get agreement for it. Otherwise, the change is not made and the article remains as it was; that's the point of WP:BRD. I am not showing any special conviction that I have the right to "overrule" you by reverting you, and in fact I could equally well ask what gives you the right to "overrule" me by reverting my edits. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC) Not sure you're the person to lecture on how to handle disputes based on the way you've handled this one, edit warring and taking your complaint about a rather trivial content question to three different drama boards. This is genuinely over the top. Msnicki (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC) FKC, you never practice anything you preach, nobody ever agreed with you that Aldous Huxley wasnt a philosopher because he never recieved a paycheck for being one, but you reverted my edit anyway. What makes you think that your the only person who can decide who is and is not a philosopher? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC) I do not think that I am the only person who can decide who is and who is not a philosopher. I think that if you want to make a change to an article, and no one agrees with you that the change should be made, I have every right to revert you. If you want to the change the article from its default state, it is you who needs to get someone to agree with you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

77.238.65.171 and behavior on Flydubai Flight 981 talk page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I was looking over my watchlist, when I came upon 77.238.65.171's edits to Talk:Flydubai Flight 981. While there appears to be some discussion going on about the page, this user seems to be treating the page like a forum, and may or may not be linked to a person who was involved with the investigation for Germanwings Flight9525. Can another editor look into their behavior, as it is quite uncivil, and edits like this make me think all they want to do is spout nonsense on the talk page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 12:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for a month as they are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. MilborneOne (talk) 13:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recreation of Masreliez’s theorem

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The article Masreliez’s theorem was just recreated, after having been deleted 6 years ago. Someone should check and see if there is sufficient difference between this new version and the old one, or if it should be a speedily deleted. Swedish Wikipedia has had trouble with people inserting stuff relating to Johan Masreliez in different articles, often with intervals spanning years.

Andejons (talk) 07:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Reviewed current article, appears to be supported by the second source provided. NE Ent 17:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive sock at ANEW... again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

117.237.184.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - See Diff. Same user as two reports above that was blocked by Widr.
Still waiting for some admins to do some... admin'ing at ANEW, btw... - ^theWOLFchild 17:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Blocked this one. Widr (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for "bumping" this closed thread, but seriously, I highly commend Widr and his immediate response to cases like this. I had two AN/I reports sorted within seconds of filing them, thanks to this administrator. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 18:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Most admins are always very active with administrative actions right after they get elected. Before you get offended, it's not an accusation, just an observation. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 18:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bilby controlling all additions to article, breaching WP:OWN ?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On Judith_Wilyman_PhD_controversy article, Bilby re-edits all additions to the article to his slant or Uni bias, and dogedly determines outcomes on the talk page. I believe he is breaching WP:OWN. As a newbie I will no longer edit due to these dogmatic practices. His history shows he has spent too much compultion with Uni of Wollongong topics constantly, adding sentences an re-editing Brian Martin (social scientist) and Judith_Wilyman_PhD_controversy, which I believe may be an alert to WP:COI. 1.144.96.24 (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

More likely it alerts to enforcement of WP:BLP. Both are hounded by blp violators. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see that in his history. Bilby has hardly ever referred to BLP in his editorial WP:OWNership of the article. 1.144.96.24 (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Bilby made an addition to the end of the paragraph and the IP has been fiddling with it on various spurious grounds. The talk page discussion is very illuminating. There's a lot of histrionics from the IP but nothing actually concrete nor productive from their various outbursts. Bilby was more than accommodating during the discussion but whenever they asked the IP for what the problem was, all they got was random diatribe. Blackmane (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's ridiculous when Admin was trying to leave out which Uni manager made the apology, it's quite unique and unacademic to make such, and as such should be included here. I think it's a concern and distortion to coverup these facts. 1.144.96.24 (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Is the identity of the person reported in the article? If so, then that can be included, if not then it can't be included as that in itself is a BLP violation. The article is stuck behind a pay wall so that's not going to be cleared up. Do you have reliable sources that could identify this mystery person? It looks like the IP has a very strong POV in regards to this article which is becoming progressively clearer. Blackmane (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I now have a copy of article, and the apologist person is named. And thanks for your advice. I would assume that the Admin also had copy of newspaper, so why hide that? Admin had this information and was not disclosing, ie my POV on facts as opposed to coverup. So the name of person stays in article from what you are saying. It is also obvious Bilby has strong POV when it comes to this controversy. I will no longer involve in Bilbys edit wars, it's all his. 1.144.96.24 (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify the situation, the two articles have been the subject of a series of POV edits for some time, ever since the announcement of Wilyman's doctorate which had an anti-vaccine focus. This has led to a series of problems, in particular because one side - those strongly opposed to the awarding of the doctorate - have tended to dominate the two articles. This has led to serious problems, including significant BLP violations. At the moment the articles are better than they were, but fundamentally there is still ongoing pressure to keep the POV on one side of the debate. The IP's sudden appearance and editing seems to be part of this. Unfortunately, as the main editors have been very much on one side of the debate, moves towards neutrality have been shouted out as coverups and whitewash. In short, typical editing on a controversial topic. I've been trying to engage editors on the talk page, but it has been a tad challenging to get them to the table, so I've had to rely on BRD more than I'd like. - Bilby (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• This is clearly a frivolous complaint. Bilby is doing good work and interacting productively and patiently with others. My personal view is that Bilby is too kind to Wilyman and Martin, but that is a good thing since WP:BLP means where we err, it should always be on the side if kindness. Regardless, Bilby's input has manifestly resulted in better articles, better sourcing and an appropriate focus on content. Guy (Help!) 16:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Need semiprotect

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Two words: Erin Sanders. Just look at the edit history. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@White Arabian Filly: Recommend you file a request at WP:RPP. That's the standard location for requests for page protection. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, will do, but the IP and new user who are making all these crazy fake-file edits have to be dealt with too. I just can't figure out what it is they're trying to do. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• I've treated them with good faith and given them the {{welcome-anon-test}} welcome template. What happens next depends on the admin who replies at RfPP -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 22:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Cloisters

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An uninvolved admin needs to look at behaviour here. I don't mind a block or scold, by Beyond my Ken is bang out of order, but does not seem to realise, or have even a modicum of self awareness. My involvement started from a series of sub articles, and when I tried to link them in, was severely bitten by blind reverts and accusatory edit summaries. I suppose I fought back, but this doesn't seem like ending, and is more than imidatory. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The user in question, BMK, has single-handedly taken it upon themself to revert the consensus of four separate editors. I find their behaviour somewhat baffling. Note: I am married to the reporter; I still am a separate person with my own opinions. Kafka Liz (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

This is essentially a content dispute over two popcult items, both sourced to the Metropolitan Museum online website (there can hardly be a more reliable source about the Cloisters, which is a branch of the Met). If there's a behavioral question, it's over Ceoil's blanket refusal to talk about his removal of these two items, even though I asked him to do so 3 times, before he called in his friends and colleagues to help him out. (A discussion was eventually started by another editor).

I know that some editors just absolutely hate "In popular culture" sections, and if it were up to them, they'd be banned from Wikipedia, but there have been numerous discussion about the "popcult" question over the years, and that point of view has never prevailed. No doubt Ceoil thinks these two sourced items sully the article about something related to art history, but the community doesn't agree, nor does the community agree with editors (especially ones who have been blocked 13 times for personal attacks or harassment or disruptive editing [45]) refusing to discuss contested edits when asked to by another editor. Ceoil's bring the dispute here is laughable, considering his history, his canvassing, and his knee-jerk reverting. There. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs)

BMK, Ceoil, I think you'll both admit (albeit not to each other, and not when you feel backed into a corner) that you can be more stubborn than is good for you, or for the encyclopedia. So: BMK, please don't re-add that until there's consensus for it; it looks like a gaggle of people have disagreed with you. There's a thread on the talk page, see how it plays out, and (if applicable) bow out with grace if it goes against you. More importantly, you're handling this much more aggressively than is good for you, or for the encyclopedia. Ceoil, please don't re-post things to people's talk pages when they've removed them and you know they're unhappy with you, it's not cool, and adds sand to the gears. More importantly, you're handling this much more aggressively than is good for you, or for the encyclopedia. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, fair. But practically how can BMK be managed given blind reverts against established consensus? Also this about far more than a content dispute about the inclusion of wanton trivia, although it has rested on that. Its about behavior, and I never thought Id say this, but OWN. It worth mentioning that he is also trying to defend a "see also" section, that's as abstracted and unconnected, basically "other stuff on Earth". I see that as low value editing. Ceoil (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

There was a lot of ignoring BRD going on before consensus was established though, right (you were bold, he reverted...)? And mutual exceedence of 3RR? I suggest (though no one ever does it) to just have the discussion on the talk page while the article is in the state you don't like. The only other option is to follow policies to the letter like robots, and block two long term good faith editors who would react poorly to being blocked. (and, Ceoil, you know I hold you in high regard, but... you broke my irony meter when you quoted WP:OWN, please don't do that! :) ) --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Since it was inserted in July 2014 [46] and removed today [47], the "established consenus" is in, not out. Obviously consensus can change, but two to three folks and a spouse aren't very much of a consensus. NE Ent 22:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

That seems like weak reasoning; you are undermining thoughtful arguments, in an offhand, passing way. Want to try again? Ceoil (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I think Courcelles and Fluffnutter might be very offended by the concept that they are one person. I certainly take exception to what you are implying about me. Take this to email if you have further questions about my status as an autonomous person. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

NE Ent, if you're suggesting a "spouse" has no say, then just wow. I might maybe buy that if you're referring to Ceoil (being sarcastic), but you're clearly referring to Kafka Liz as "just a spouse". It's for that reason that we lose high quality female editors like her who have an enormous talent and enormous amount to contribute to this place. I was there because the museum is about 15th century art and I'm working on an article about 15th century art so it's not a huge stretch it would be on my watch. But, again, I just a woman. Go at it, gentlemen. Victoria (tk) 22:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Not that its much of an indication, but Kafka has seven featured articles to her name and a tenure of near 10 years. Shame on Ent. Ceoil (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Given that both editor and spouse are gender neutral, that it assumed the woman is "just a spouse" is a reflection of the reader, not the writer. The point that I was making is that while there are couples that both edit, generally they follow the prudent practice in not participating in the same discussions. Consider for example, the relatively low article and talk: overlap of Courcelles / Fluffernutter listed alphabetically [48], or Chase Me, Ladies, I'm the Cavalry / Panyd [49] (zero) contrasted with that of Ceoil / Kafka Liz [50]NE Ent 23:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I assume that meant to either cute or clever. Its neither, and hugely disingenuous. You need to apologise. Ceoil (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:FAMILY: "Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit with the same objectives. When editing the same articles, participating in the same community discussion, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute, closely related accounts should disclose the connection and observe relevant policies such as edit warring as if they were a single account. " (emphasis mine). Therefore, when evaluating consensus, it's perfectly reasonable to consider a couple a single vote. NE Ent 23:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

NE Ent you need to apologize. Kafka Liz is a person in her own right; she is not just a spouse. I was the person who said consensus had been established and you all can beat the hell out of me for saying that, but to come here and to tear down a woman in such a manner is unacceptable. It really is. Victoria (tk) 23:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

This is the sort of thing that gets people to arbcom, or indeffed. I really am baffled at such ill informed cheapness. In point of fact, Liz disclosed at first posting on talk, so I'm not sure what you insinuation is based on. Ceoil (talk) 23:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

What Ent said in plain English is when determining consensus, where two people are linked by marriage/living arrangements and editing in the same area, they will often be treated as one person as it is impossible to separate them. This is not an assumption of bad faith, rather this is an outcome due to numerous previous issues where spouses/partners have engaged in meat/sockpuppetry. No one judging consensus where the arguments are equally weighted is going to come back with anything but 'no consensus' in a 2 to 3 split. 2 to 4 is obviously a big difference, which is why Ent made the distinction of noting one was a spouse - as it has specific relevance in close-consensus discussions. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I opened the discussion per BMK's request and I hastily made a comment about consensus quickly forming when in fact I should have kept my mouth shut, or rather not typed anything. Above NE Ent writes, "but two to three folks and a spouse aren't very much of a consensus". Yes, maybe a few people doesn't make a consensus. The problem here is that there are two very long-term veteran editors, husband and wife for a fairly short period, and apparently per policy one has now lost her voice on Wikipedia. In other words she cannot opine or !vote, whether or not she agrees with the other person in the living arrangement, on RfAs, RFCs, talk page discussions, FACs, etc. That makes for a fairly miserable existence on Wikipedia and I don't think it's right to hit that person over the head with the fact that in deciding to make living arrangements with a fellow editor she's become a non-person in Wikipedia terms. This is sexism at it's worst and frankly probably should be addressed somehow - particularly now that we're 15 years into the project and these things happen. As it happens they've left the building, as they should in my opinion, and as their friend who's edited with both, before and since their current living arrangement, I've never thought of each as anything but her or his own person, capable of her or his own thoughts, and on principle need to leave the building for a while too. This really could have been dealt with in a better way. But I see that NE Ent has a fair amount of support for his position, so there's not a lot more to be done. Victoria (tk) 13:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, I know this is irritating at this stage, but there has been discussion on talk pages. This was posted *after that*. Ceoil (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you both edit warred before consensus formed (you violating "follow BRD"), and you both (and others) edit warred after a rough consensus formed (he violating "don't edit against consensus"). I'm puzzled by this desire for an admin with a banhammer to swoop in Admin ex machina and solve a content dispute that's gone off the rails, when you would normally hate that. Just (a) nobody revert anymore, and (b) discuss on talk page, and the problem goes away. But if we keep picking at scabs, it doesn't go away. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Whatever. No advice might have been better advice. Ceoil (talk)

@Floquenbeam: Yes, I will indeed admit to being stubborn, at times, especially when I get noting from the other side to work with. I think my very first revert of Ceoil's removal of 2 sourced popcult items asked for him to discuss it, the answer to which was an immediate kneejerk re-revert... and no discussion - and, yes, that pissed me off, and yes, I over-reacted. I have been trying (not always with great success) to simply take articles which provoke such disputes off my watchlist and just "letting shit go", and my mistake here was in not doing just that (which, incidentally, I did after my last edit to the page).

So... that's pretty much it from my point of view. If an admin wants to ding me for edit-warring, well, the evidence is all there, I have no real defense (except, of course, that those items were and remain legitimate sourced popcult items - but, you know, "don't edit war even when you're right"), so I can't honestly argue against it - but with the article off my watchlist, and having been the recipient of Ceoil's hospitality, I have no desire to go there again in any capacity to do anything whatsoever - I wash my hands of it. It's off my watchlist, and I'll try not to even look at the building when I walk in Fort Tryon Park (the Cloisters is a couple of blocks from my apartment building), let alone take any more pictures of it).

I do hope if the banhammer is wielded in my direction, that Ceoil would be in the cell next to mine, as the evidence is equally compelling against him (pace my old friend Alansohn). Perhaps as cellblock mates, we might even learn to value each other's contributions to the encyclopedia. In any case, I await adjudication. BMK (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I basically think the same. I don't like you, you could choke me, but we *both* over reacted. We are both highly strung and frankly both deserve a block of some order. But whatever about the mess here, we have now hit on a substantive and tangible issue; inclusion of factoids. Grand, at least its now content, and not about personalities. Jail time is fine, I'll send you a chib in that cake you were promised. Ok? Ceoil (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I had to look up "chib" -- my guess that it was the same as "shiv" in American slang seems to be correct -- but, frankly, if you're going to bake anything into a cake for me, I'd prefer a file or hacksaw. BMK (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Both Beyond My Ken and Ceoil have misused rollback ([51] [52]) to further the content dispute, and as such, I've revoked the flag on both; anyone is free to restore if they feel it appropriate. I've held off on additional action, as this discussion appears to be ongoing, but it's quickly becoming clear that while both users have edit warred, Beyond My Ken's edits to the page in question are clearly becoming disruptive on top of normal edit warring. I'd strongly recommend everyone drop everything and go to the talk page. --slakr^\ talk / 05:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

That's a good move, I hope they don't get into undo wars now, honestly. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 07:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

As a non-involved editor, it seems to me that both User:Beyond My Ken and User:Ceoil have admitted to edit warring. I propose this thread is closed with action taken by an admin after taking into consideration the (extensive) block-logs of both editors. DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Non-involved? SO you have no history at all with either of the parties? Not even at 13:54 on 27 March 2016 on this very page? Hmmmm. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Non-involved as in - I have not edited the Cloisters article and I have not been involved in the edit warring. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Block log highlights (see here) listing BMK's 3RR / edit warring blocks (7 so far by 7 different admins; 4 since 1/2015)

1. 09:32, 16 January 2016 UkPaolo (talk | contribs) blocked Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Violation of the three-revert rule)
2. 22:59, 15 October 2015 Ymblanter (talk | contribs) blocked Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 72 hours (account creation blocked) (Edit warring)
3. 13:50, 28 July 2015 The ed17 (talk | contribs) blocked Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 48 hours (account creation blocked) (Edit warring: long-term pattern, see http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=673506396#User:Beyond_My_Ken_reported_by_User:Staszek_Lem_.28Result:_Declined.29)
4. 02:21, 10 March 2015 Swarm (talk | contribs) blocked Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Violation of the three-revert rule: on Little Syria, Manhattan -- http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=650725160)
5. 10:02, 22 January 2014 Dpmuk (talk | contribs) blocked Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Violation of the three-revert rule: on No Other Woman (1933 film))
6. 21:30, 5 December 2010 Tariqabjotu (talk | contribs) blocked Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Violation of the three-revert rule: on The Limelight)
7. 10:28, 15 November 2010 SarekOfVulcan (talk | contribs) blocked Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Edit warring)

3RR noticeboard violations where BMK received a warning / page protected / no action (13 so far by 12 different editors; 7 since 1/2015)

1. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive135#User:Beyond_My_Ken_reported_by_User:Miami33139_.28Result:_Not_blocked.29 - Archived July 2010
2. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive201#User:Beyond_My_Ken_reported_by_Yworo_.28talk.29_.28Result:_Page_protected.29 - Archived December 2012
3. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive228#User:Beyond_My_Ken_reported_by_User:Cky2250_.28Result:_Protected.29 - Archived November 2013
4. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive232#User:Beyond_My_Ken_reported_by_User:JHunterJ_.28Result:_Protected.29 - Archived January 2014
5. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive234#User:Beyond_My_Ken_reported_by_User:Robsinden_.28Result:_Voluntary_restriction.29 - Archived February 2014
6. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive257#User:Beyond_My_Ken_reported_by_User:Lugnuts_.28Result:_No_blocks.29 - Archived October 2014
7. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive277#User:Beyond_My_Ken_reported_by_User:Padenton_.28Result:No_action_at_this_time.29 - Archived April 2015
8. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive279#User:Robynthehode_and_User:Beyond_My_Ken_reported_by_User:Lugnuts_.28Result:_Two_parties_warned.29 - Archived May 2015
9. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive283#User:Beyond_My_Ken_reported_by_User:Ibadibam_.28Result:_protected.29 - Archived June 2015
10. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive286#User:Beyond_My_Ken_reported_by_User:Skyerise_.28Result:_Page_protected.29 - Archived July 2015
11. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive282#User:Beyond_My_Ken_reported_by_User:Alansohn_.28Result:_No_action.29 - Archived August 2015
12. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive294#User:Beyond_My_Ken_reported_by_User:Volunteer_Marek_.28Result:_Protected.29 - Archived September 2015
13. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive214#User:Beyond_My_Ken_reported_by_User:Tenebrae_.28Result:_Declined_.28amicable_resolution.2C_I_hope.21.29.29 - Archived November 2015

Per the above, someone should be "taking into consideration the (extensive) block-logs of both editors". BMK, for one, has been blocked by seven different admins for edit warring. He's received no less than 13 non-blocks (warning / page protected / no action are included; no violation and blocked are excluded) and slaps on the wrist after edit warring reports by 12 different editors. These blocks and warnings have only become more frequent since January 2015. As usual, he's resorted to his "Aw, shucks. I guess I should have gone to the talk page sooner. I've got a bad temper." after being caught violating WP:3RR (or in this case, 6RR). As a bright-line rule, and one that Beyond My Ken has violated dozens of times, a block of increasing duration would be the most appropriate way to prevent slap on the wrist 37, 38 and 39. Alansohn (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Alanasohn:
  • Alansohn's block log
  • Alansohns editing restrictions (search on "Alansohn", one interaction ban)
  • Alansohn case at AE, result: blocked}
  • Alansohn case at AE, result: no violation)
• DrChrissy:
  • DrChrissy's block log
  • DrChrissy's editing restrictions (search on "DrChrissy", two topic bans, one community-imposed, one ArbCom imposed)
• Me (besides all the dirt Alansohn shared with us above):
  • Beyond My Ken's editing restrictions (search on "Beyond My Ken", but don't spend too much time doing so, as there are none)
• Let's not give too much credence to those who come here with unclean hands asking for blocks. If an admin believes that the behaviors of myself and Ceoil are blockable, 24 hours after edit-warring has ceased, and at least one of us has forsworn editing the article (I don't want to speak for Ceoil), so be it, but please let that decision be based on the evidence of the incident, not the hyperbole of uninvolved antagonists. BMK (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Just one more thing before I walk away from this thread, as I entirely intended to do before Alansohn posted above: it must have taken Alansohn a great deal of time to put together that second list, time that would -- at least in my opinion -- have better been spent editing articles and improving the encyclopedia. That Alansohn saw slagging me off as more important than improving the encyclopedia speaks volumes. Anyway, I'm gone (from this thread). BMK (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

BMK, you really need to stop your repeated misrepresentation of me. I proposed that "action" should be taken, not a block. Please stop telling lies about me or this could end up with you at yet another ANI. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Once again you attempt to Wikilawyer your way out of the obvious meaning of your comments. You actually expect anyone to believe that when you said "take action" you didn't mean "block this nasty fellow"? You do have a rather low opinion of our intelligence, don;t you?

Otherwise, I really don't know what you're talking about, anyone can follow the links I posted, which lead to your block log and your two topic bans. The block log is what it is -- my own opinion is that some of the best editors on Wikipedia get blocked occasionally -- and the topic bans -- which you seems to feel are unimprotant -- are serious indictments of your editing in those areas, as seen by the community and by ArbCom. There's nothing to dispute, no distortions -- and no more comments from me. BMK (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

"Action" on WP can mean in-action, trouting, informal warning, formal warning, etc. You are misrepresenting my post to suggest that I meant a block- I was deliberately leaving the type of action to the closing admin. This thread is not about me - it is highly disruptive for you to be adding details about my history and you are testing the community patience with this ill-advised attempt to divert attention away from yourself. There are two salient facts here. (1) You have admitted to edit warring. (2) You have a long history of blocks due to repeated edit warring and violation of 3RR. I think those 2 facts speak for themselves. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• No action They edit warred. They stopped. No action was taken when it was happening. No sanctions are appropriate for this stale dispute. I think all involved are aware that they edit warred, so there's no point in even an admonishment. Being dragged to ANI is enough to dissuade its continuation. If someone wants to ask for sanctions for a party to this dispute, they would be well advised to adequately allege an ongoing pattern of problematic behavior that has not been remedied by past action, and propose a specific action so the community can evaluate the proposal. Vague hinting at vague action will just create a wall of text that everyone will ignore and will be archived before long without any action. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Mendaliv, I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree. Just because editors are aware of their disruptive editing and apologise, does not mean the issue is dead and buried. If I outed an editor and then I apologised, would I escape sanctions? I think not. If I read the talk page correctly, this disruptive behaviour has led to the resignation of an editor. Both these editors are showing no signs of learning from their multiple previous block. User:Alansohn spent his time clarifying this issue for one of the editors involved and it is clear that "being dragged to ANI" has not stopped this repeat offending. The same is probably true for the other editor. Surely such disruptive behaviour can not simply be swept under the carpet. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm just not seeing a pattern of disruption that requires addressing here. With BMK's last two blocks, for instance, one was removed with an apology, while the other resulted in an unblock within an hour after BMK thoroughly explained why the reverts he made were related to removing BLP-violating content. As to the 3RRN listings, one of the last three in Alansohn's list was from 2013, not 2015; the second was the same dispute that resulted in the October 2015 block (which was released after an explanation); and the third resulted in no action because there was no 3RR violation. That takes us back to July 2015 without any blocks that stood or 3RRN reports that resulted in action against BMK. I'm sorry but that's more than long enough to break the back of any argument that there's a current pattern of disruption. And that's without looking further back. So I'm going to reiterate: There's no action to be taken here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Mendaliv, I admire your apologia, but BMK is not entitled to three, four or a half-dozen edit wars a year, each of which can be expunged with yet another disingenuous apology. Are you actually arguing that BMK isn't being adequately abusive in his edit warring that his 6RR's, which is not sufficient evidence "that there's a current pattern of disruption"? Beyond My Ken is dependent on a never-ending string of enablers to provide excuses for his ongoing pattern of edit warring and 3RR violations. 3RR is not a privilege; it's a violation of a bright-line rule. Alansohn (talk) 01:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

In order for sanctions to be merited they must be geared towards preventing something. While a past pattern of disruption might be interesting (I'm not conceding there is one), it's irrelevant if that pattern isn't active. What I'm saying is that because of the passage of time, any connection you could draw between this incident and any preexisting incidents would be so attenuated that you can't credibly claim that any pattern those previous incidents form is continued by this incident. Because of this, don't even reach the question of whether the previous incidents constitute a pattern of disruption. Even if we were to consider this incident as still meriting a block, the worst BMK could expect is 48 hours. In any event, the edit warring has stopped. There's nothing more to prevent. ANI shouldn't concern itself with this anymore. If BMK goes on to edit war again in the near future, however, sanctions might be appropriate. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Request

Hello, my name is Beyond My Ken, and by my participation it's obvious that I am well aware of the existence of the discussion above. As I have said before, I am trying very hard to stay away from it, as I really have nothing more to say, but it's difficult to do so when Alansohn pings me every time he mentions my name. I would like to request that Alansohn stop pinging me, as I am able to come here and read the discussion when I choose to do so, and don't really require Alansohn to yank my chain to get me here. Thank you. BMK (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive anonymous user (Portuguese) — Take Six

Resolved

 – Blocked /36 for 1 months. Materialscientist (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa, Mike V, JamesBWatson, Od Mishehu, EvergreenFir, Oshwah, and Materialscientist: The disruptive editing/trolling continues. Some IPs: 2001:8A0:6CC4:5601:6C28:CF82:5C88:D44F (talk · contribs), 2001:8A0:6CC4:5601:5843:4EFB:376B:93A8 (talk · contribs), 46.50.19.144 (talk · contribs).

I have reported this user previously: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. SLBedit (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

New IPs: 2001:8A0:6CC4:5601:1CCA:73CE:7A1F:D8B9 (talk · contribs), 2001:8A0:6CC4:5601:4C4E:3262:10A:B878 (talk · contribs). I request a range block 2001:8A0:6CC4:5601:*. SLBedit (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

QuackGuru's POV pushing and removal of sources

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think it has come time that the community takes a good look at the contributions by QuackGuru. Not only are they removing sources without a real explanation but they appear to be pushing their own POV. By tagging edits with "fails verification" "fails MEDRS" etc is unacceptable without further explanation on the talk page. I can provide diffs but a simple look at their history speaks for itself here. 216.16.239.98 (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Being as how you have a grand total of 4 edits, maybe it's you that needs to be given a good look. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

"a simple look at their history speaks for itself here" - No, it doesn't. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Seems like someone has issues with the editor listed above. Try taking it up with them first before ranting here. TJH2018 talk 21:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

It's someone logged-out, to be sure. GAB^Hello! 22:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:CUA 27

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

For the past few days, User:CUA 27 has been reverting a valid and good faith edit of mine at USA Rugby. [53] [54] When I tried to politely reason with him on his talk page [55] I was met with hostility and a nonsense reason for the reverting [56], basically, CUA appears to have a problem with a Rugby league hatnote on a Rugby union page because he appears to dislike Rugby league or just thinks its not worthy. IMHO, he is breaching WP:NPOV at this point. After my attempts to reason with him seemed to fail, I invited a neutral user, User:Mattlore (as he is active on both WP:RL and WP:RU) to give his opinion on the matter. [57] After Mattlore seemingly sided with me [58], CUA escalated to making what I feel is a bogus WP:3RR accusation against me. [59] I feel that CUA is now in breach of WP:NPOV and WP:HARRASS and I would like, if possible, an administrator to a) remove the bogus template warning from my talk page placed quite nastily by CUA and b) advise CUA to stop removing the hatnote from USA Rugby. Thanks for your time. 90.214.98.93 (talk) 03:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion at User_talk:CUA_27#USA_Rugby contains a fairly good record of our discussions up to this point. (The narrative above bears little resemblance to what has actually happened).
May I suggest a WP:BOOMERANG here for violations of WP:EDITWAR and WP:NPA and possible violations of WP:CANVAS? If you think a sanction of this IP and his account(s) is appropriate, a topic ban on rugby union articles may be worth considering, given that the hostility he has shown in recent months towards WP:RU editors demonstrates some possible WP:COMPETENCE issues.
This is my first time I am defending myself here at ANI, so if admins have thoughts on how I could have handled my part better in this unfortunate turn of events, I would welcome your feedback. Thanks. CUA 27 (talk) 04:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, I forgot to add CUA is making baseless Sockpuppetry accusations against me as part of his personal attacks. A simple checkuser would quickly show that I have only edited from this IP and therefore CUA's above defence and ban request to be completely invalid. 90.214.98.93 (talk) 04:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Further: I've offered CUA a discussion here to try and end this silliness and come to a reasonable conclusion. (This is 90.214.212.126 btw, Sky Broadband annoyingly resets IP when modem/router resets!) 90.214.212.126 (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I doubt being nominated by one of the editors as a neutral party makes me so, but I am involved in WP:RL and somewhat in WP:RU so I'll weigh in with my 2 cents here. In my view, a hatnote distinguishing between an organisation called USA Rugby and one called USA Rugby League is a no brainer and I don't see how it has got to the stage where it has reached ANI as both users should have followed BRD. Mattlore (talk) 05:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, I've only just seen the conversation at User_talk:CUA_27#USA_Rugby and wasn't aware of those accusations when I wrote the above comment. Mattlore (talk) 05:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Formal request for Boomerang sanctions

IP has violated WP:3RR and is committed to WP:EDITWARRING.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [60]
2. [61]
3. [62]. After this third revert I gave the WP:3RR warning to the IP [63] and to the user that seems to be the same editor [64]
4. [65]. After this fourth revert, I asked him to self-revert [66], which he refused to do.

CUA 27 (talk) 12:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment: CUA 27 is party #2 in said edit war. He has has once again decided to make baseless and unproven sock puppetry accusations against me after other established users didn't automatically side with him [67] [68] (he seems to think he has superiority over me because I choose to edit from IP and not from an account.) I am very concerned that his comments here and at Talk:USA Rugby seem to indicate his intentions to avoid WP:3RR by waiting a few days before just continuing the same disruptive editing. I have actually not broken 3RR (I've NOT made the same edit 3 times in a 24 hour period), though I have come uncomfortably close to it while trying to combat CUA's borderline vandalism, which I believe may be exempt from 3RR anyway?

Further, I worry now that CUA, who seems adamant that a Rugby league article must not be hatnoted from a Rugby union article is now way past breaching WP:NPOV and at worst he could even be in serious breach of WP:COI, if as I now suspect, he has a personal association with USA Rugby and PRO Rugby and believes USA Rugby League to be a rival organisation.

Finally, to be clear, my only edits in 2016, or any year of this decade for that matter, have come from this IP and the IP linked from my talk page. CUA is correct to suspect that I have a lot of knowledge of wiki-rules and not a newcomer. I was an active editor from an account until about 2009 IIRC when I retired it. I'll happily pass that account name on to an administrator privately if requested to do so. Thanks 90.214.212.126 (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I have given the page in question a 12 hour protection due to edit warring. If edit warring continues after the protection then blocks will be given out generously. I am hoping this will prevent the need for blocks now. HighInBC 03:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dingowasher and sacked

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Reported

• Dingowasher (talk · contribs · logs)

Reason

This editor was blocked for edit warring after report at ANEW (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive303#User:Dingowasher reported by User:JMHamo (Result: Blocked). The block was issued since the editor, against consensus, kept editing that Jose Mourinho was sacked (see diffs in earlier ANEW report). The reason why I am making a new report is that I just spotted that since that report, the editor has continued to change to "sacked" in sneaky edits despite consensus. He does not stop. Examples can be seen in [69], [70] and [71]. The editor can not be allowed to re add this content over and over again after being blocked for it. Qed237 (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The BBC says he was "sacked" (i.e. fired).[72] It does seem a bit colloquial for an encyclopedia, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: Media, specially in UK, announced he was "sacked" even before it was official and they use "sacked" all the time no matter what has happened. There has been many discussions about this on the talkpages and Dingowasher has been aware of this but edit warred anyway, and has now reinserted the same content again against consensus (most likely hoping it wont be dedected, until I did when he was reverted in this edit). Qed237 (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

And teams will often spin the manner of a coach's departure. That announcement is a "primary source". Can you find a "secondary source", such as BBC, which supports the terminology of the team's announcement? I'm thinking of Giants coach Tom Coughlin, who was pushed out, although the team didn't want to say it that way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

If you dont agree with the consensus, feel free to join previous discussions but we are getting of topic. We are talking about a bad behaviour from an editor delibirately trying to avoid consensus to push their view. The consensus that "it came to an end on 17 December" is far more neutral than "was sacked on 17 december ([73]), just like the consensus is. Qed237 (talk) 10:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the term "sacked" is proper. But the question remains, what do the non-primary sources say? Did he "jump" or was he "pushed"? A team's press release is inadequate as a source, and if that's what's being used as the source, you need to rethink it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The difficulty of finding a source for "sacked" is key here. Qed237 has misreported the discussion on the talk page where in fact consensus was not reached because all reliable sources pointed towards Mourinho being sacked.Dingowasher (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Calebjbaker's legal threat/claim of identity theft on WP:AIV

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Calebjbaker made a report on WP:AIV (link: [74]) regarding an edit that he said appeared to be an attempt of identity theft on the user. I do not know exactly the matter of the issue as his explanation in his AIV edit doesn't seem to be very clear on the issue. However, his edit as shown in the link seems to amount to a legal threat ("I will contact my attorney immediately [...] so that they can begin an action against the party"). My report is regarding his edit which seems to amount to a legal threat, and also to raise his request for resolution so that it may be attended to. Optakeover^(Talk) 07:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Actually, see Talk:Names of God#Request to add External link. User:Calebjbaker appears to be claiming his account has been compromised, and whoever compromised his account made a self-promotional post at that talk page. The AIV post appears to be noting that he intends to seek legal action against whoever compromised his account. I mean, okay, it's a legal threat... but I don't know if it's a NLT-worthy legal threat. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Granted he didn't specify who or what he wanted to take legal action against, but he did mention that he intends to find the identity of the culprit, to then "begin action against the party". Optakeover^(Talk) 08:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
    • I have removed Talk:Names of God#Request to add External link and changed my password. My intent was not to threaten the offending party, but rather to notify the Wikimedia Foundation that they'd be working with my legal representation primarily rather than myself as a user. I thank the administrators for a prompt response and clear direction on how to proceed. Please do not take any further action on this issue as I'm sure our 2 legal departments will reach a suitable conclusion to the matter. 👍 Calebjbaker (talk) 08:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I smell bullshit. The one "compromised" edit is a request to add his own essay as a source, which was received badly. He also uploaded it to Commons and has discussed it at various other venues. Guy (Help!) 08:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Calebjbaker, according to Wikipedia:Blocking policy, making legal threats or taking legal action outside the Wikipedia site are grounds for blocking, especially that you mentioned that you intend to take legal action on the perpetrator after securing his identity. Whatever you make of the culprit and despite his anonymity, he is still a Wikipedia user for being on Wikipedia having done what he did. Final action shall be made by the administrators and my comments will have no bearing on this, but I would like to say that a retraction of your intention to take legal action is the best way forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Optakeover (talk • contribs) 08:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh hell, he's just saying he wants to have his attorney talk to the Foundation. I don't think this falls in NLT territory given there's a claim of what is probably criminal wrongdoing. I don't think this is the kind of situation NLT was designed to clamp down on. That said, I agree with Guy that something about this case raises my hackles. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

(Sorry to sound like a jerk but) Nope, that's not just what he said. Just read his AIV report. Unless you tell me that a full retraction is not required, I'm inclined to think that he will follow through his legal action with or without announcing his intentions. Optakeover^(Talk) 08:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that is about as likely as scientifically robust validation of homeopathy. I strongly suspect this account was not in any way compromised, and this is all bluster. If it was compromised, any legal action has no bearing on Wikipedia editors as it would be an issue for the local laws on computer misuse. The best course of action here is for the user to STFU, of course.... Guy (Help!) 13:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I would think that if the account was compromised, 1) The culprit is still a Wikipedia user, and unless someone can tell me that because he misused a Wikipedia account and broke the rules that he is not a Wikipedia editor, I still feel its a legal threat against a user, 2) His comment says he intends to work with WF through his and their legal representatives. Yes, if such a circumstance is to occur, we wouldn't know what resolution would take place between both parties; but it doesn't seem to me like it rules out legal action against WF and subquently or otherwise, against the person who compromised his account. I don't know if legal recourse is required anyway, as User:Calebjbaker is advised as per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution that there are avenues for assistance short of engaging WM through legal means. Whatever it is, I believe that Calebjbaker has made a legal threat. Optakeover^(Talk) 14:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Bullshit!, If the account was compromised vandalism would've occurred or the "compromiser" would've perhaps posted on a board stating he had compromised the account ..... Personally I think they wanted to get their own book added to the article and when they realized it wasn't gonna happen they then created this drama, They should be blocked just for this pointless drama. –Davey2010^Talk 14:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New editor, troubles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please look at User talk:Nouman khan sherani, which is filled to the brim with all kinds of templates, none of them good (except for the welcome template). There's unsourced BLPs, copyvios, uploads lacking proper documentation. I think this editor needs someone friendlier than me to try and get them to talk, lest they end up quitting or getting blocked. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Drmies, I've hatted the warnings on the user's talk page, simply because I think it's the right thing to do in this instance. Friendly gesture. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 15:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I like that idea. It doesn't take away from the fact that they were necessary, of course. :( (In fact, I came to this because of a faulty image link which was supposed to go to an image--without proper attribution.) Drmies (talk) 15:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Drmies - they were indeed necessary, I agree, so I wouldn't have blanked them. I simply thought hiding them in their own section would be a way of saying "these are necessary although I understand you will, and should have already, acknowledged them - now let's move on". --Ches (talk) (contribs) 16:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

On the assumption they have been read and digested, agreed. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I hope so, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 16:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: I came across this as I was going through the daily uploads. A few of their uploads are F9. Should I tag them without Twinkle so they don't get more notices on their talk page? Seems like the ones that are definitely copyright violations should not stick around to see if/when they tag them with the proper source and license information so I want to tag them but I don't want to unnecessarily add more templates to their user talk page. --Majora (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Majora: I believe if you uncheck the box at the top of Twinkle that says "Notify page creator if possible", Twinkle won't place the notice on their talkpage. However, there is nothing wrong with doing them by hand. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 23:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

This user has not interacted with anyone, ever. The user either does not see any notifications, or does not speak English, or does not care. If I was an admin I'd block the user for 24 hours to see if (s)he reacts. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• I am willing to help, if he is willing to listen. I actually saved a page from deletion by adding sources which he created but he keeps replacing sourced information with unsourced of his own. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Actually, doesn't seem like a new user, you might as well block him, he is just disrupting Wikipedia. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

It's unbelievable. He's literally just carried on as before. Chesnaught, Drmies, all that good faith... still uploading unlicensed images, contextless films and non-notable actors. As said before: not one (that I could find) of his edits is in response to or regarding any other editor. This is pure WP:IDHT, and imagine the number of editors' time he has wasted: ignoring messages, reachouts, forcing CSDs, copyright evaluation. If someone is proposing a block now, it would be the perfect example of preventative. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I was proposing a block already yesterday. :-P --OpenFuture (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

GOOD, OpenFuture... Doesn't it have to be proposed officially though? Cheers! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Nope, I just blocked them. There's no need for an ANI discussion when they persistent violate the copyright policies despite warnings and show no sign of stopping. (And yes, I know that was a joke :) ) Thanks to Drmies for trying.

I blocked them indef, since there is no reason to believe, going on past behaviour, that upon expiry they wouldn't just blithely continue. Hope that's OK. BethNaught (talk) 14:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No, I think it was the only choice by now. Thanks for that. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. They were clearly ignoring everything and displaying an inability to communicate. Thank you, Drmies and Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi for your patience with this user, and thanks to BethNaught for doing the right thing. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 16:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Ionuţ Silaghi—Abusing Multiple Accounts

Can an admin take a look at this page: Ionuţ Silaghi? There are three accounts that have edited the page (mainly removing speedy deletion tags) at this page since it was tagged for deletion. Here are the accounts in question:

• Acmar tramkas (talk · contribs)
• Wikipedumusus (talk · contribs)
• Francis Hardwh (talk · contribs)

If the page meets the given criteria, can an admin also delete the page, if necessary, too? Thanks!! 172.58.33.176 (talk) 04:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The last two accounts were created in the last two hours, an hour apart :o _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 04:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Height is, apparently, so contentious

Chingis1991 has also been a party to the same height edits I previously reported being done by 37.150.210.174 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I considered reporting this to AIV but Chingis1991 hasn't received a pile of warnings yet although their latest edits seem like POINTy behavior. I considered reporting this to SPI because both the user and the IP strictly make these vandalistic edits to boxing/MMA biographies but I'm not sure there's an intent to deceive. Oddly, Chingis1991 returned to this sort of editing right after the IP got a warning from HighInBC. @EvergreenFir:, please take another look at this. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

If they do it again after the most recent block warning then I can do something. The only block warning I see is from after their most recent edit. It does appear that they may be the same person as the IP, however I am not 100% sure and thus don't want to act on that. HighInBC 14:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@HighInBC: I'm pointing to an editor and an IP that have done nothing constructive here. Despite that, you seem unwilling to take action. I fail to understand why. This conduct is undoubtedly going to continue;

• Treker and I will have to revert this vandalism in the meantime. I prefer to spend my time making constructive edits rather than wasting effort complaining to do-nothing admins. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: WP:RFA is right there. Show us how it's done. SQL^{Query me!} 10:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

This kind of vandalism is very common in MMA fighters and wrestlers articles and I think far more of them should be protected. I agree with Chris troutman, there is no reason to believe that the user is suddenly going to start doing useful contribution when they have so far only been concerned with screwing with articles in the same way.*Treker (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

As an admin I have to assume good faith. This means I don't assume two accounts are the same person without clear evidence, it means I don't block new users who have not done anything since their first block warning, it means I know what is and what is not vandalism. If another admin wants to block then they can do so based on their discretion. Please don't chew me out for not jumping to use my tools when you ask me to.

If you think the admins here are "do-nothing" then perhaps you should run for admin and do a better job yourself. HighInBC 00:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Needs a block both for username and contribution

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I saw | this user's contributions mentioned on the BLP board. This individual should be blocked for both their contribution and their username. KoshVorlon 16:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Also semi'd the article for a month. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inappropriate closure of discussion by 31.54.154.160

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

31.54.154.160 has twice now closed a discussion at Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items about whether or not the Boat Race should be removed from ITNR (see Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items#Removal_proposal:_The_Boat_Race). This discussion is active and ongoing, with opinions split between the two positions. While the discussion is somewhat heated, I think it is productive. 31.54.154.160's only other edits have been to nominate this year's Boat Race at ITN. He thus seems totally non-neutral, and his repeat closure of the discussion seems totally inappropriate. I'm requesting that someone uninvolved reopen the discussion and that someone uninvolved give 31.54.154.160 a warning for this behavior. Calathan (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It is unfortunate Calathan has omitted important information here. This exact discussion has already taken place three times recently, where consensus has been recognised by experienced closers. This discussion adds nothing new: no new evidence has come to light and there is no suggestion of a change of consensus. A direct repeat after such little time is a waste of time for everyone involved. The discussion was closed twice because of the original nominator, who ignored the closing justification and reopened it without any explanation. It is worth noting User:Calathan has strong views on this matter and was the nominator for one of the three recent discussions. 31.54.154.160 (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The last discussion was 11 months ago I believe, and seems to have reached no consensus whatsoever (it doesn't look like it was even closed). Also, as was pointed out in this current discussion, there was a slight majority of participants in the previous discussions who were against the status quo. Given the lack of consensus in prior discussions, 11 months seems like plenty of time to wait to start discussion up again. Calathan (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

There have been three lengthy discussions within the past two years, here, here and here, of which two have been formally closed with consensus for the same conclusion. There is not a lack of consensus, as you claim. Beginning this debate all over again, which you admit is heated, is disruptive. Neither is it helpful to present a disingenuous account to the administrators' noticeboard. 31.54.154.160 (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I've said nothing disingenuous here. I think restarting discussion at this point was reasonable and your close clearly was not appropriate. Calathan (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Running straight to ANI instead of posting to my talk page? Forgetting to mention the multiple recent discussions? Claiming these discussions had a lack of consensus despite the two formal closes? Come off it. 31.54.154.160 (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Your behavior was clearly inappropriate and disruptive. Maybe I should have posted on your talk page, but I don't think you would have listened. And the discussions clearly had a lack of overall consensus, making further discussion after almost a year obviously acceptable. Calathan (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I was about to write to 31.54.154.160's talk page, but since Calathan's already started something here: I think the closure was inappropriate, because consensus is not obvious. As of time of writing, there are 12 editors who favour keeping the item on ITNR (the eleven I listed, plus KTC) and 19 that favour removing (the original 18, plus Fuzheado). While consensus is not built on vote counts, when there are more editors favouring remove compared to favouring keep, I feel whoever closes the discussion in favour of "keep" should explain in more detail why they assess consensus that way. Something to the tune of "One side says ABC, the other says DEF, but because of XYZ, I am closing this in favour of keep" would be appropriate. The current closing summary - that the discussion has happened before - is not a strong reason in my mind to end the discussion prematurely, especially since the next-most recent discussion about this [75] garnered (by a significant margin) more opinions than the previous two discussions, had twice as many "remove" votes compared to "keep", and was not formally closed. That is, while the first two discussions were formally closed [76] [77], this third discussion had more participation, more lack of consensus, and was not formally closed - it turned out more a stale nomination than a consensus keep.

With that said, I think more or less all the arguments both ways for this discussion have been given, and further discussion is just repeating old arguments + throwing around snide remarks. I think therefore the best way to proceed is for an experienced uninvolved editor to assess consensus for this and the previous three discussions, and make a decision. If that decision is "keep", this editor should also decide on whether to impose a 2 year moratorium on the discussion, lest it happen against next year. Banedon (talk) 01:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You were going to write on my talk page twelve hours after your edit? You say the arguments for the discussion have already been given and continuing would just be repeating what has already happened: I agree, which is why I closed the discussion. It is a little difficult to ask, though, for the previous three discussions to be assessed again. We have already had two formal closes by independent editors that came to the same conclusion each time. Anyone disagreeing with this should have submitted a closure review at the time. You want two formal closes to be investigated and overturned because they do not coincide with your views. We cannot do this whenever someone is not happy with the result. 31.54.154.160 (talk) 01:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

A few things. One, I have a life outside of Wikipedia. Do not expect me to write on your talk page immediately as opposed to twelve hours after my edit. Two, consensus can change over time. Three, the two times the discussion were formally closed by independent editors, there were indeed more editors favouring the status quo / adding the item to ITNR than removing it. This was not the case in the third discussion, which as mentioned also attracted more participation and was not formally closed. If you prefer not to have the two formal closes "overturned", I do not mind an experienced uninvolved editor assessing consensus of the third and fourth discussions only. Banedon (talk) 01:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Yet you had the time to make this big edit? You say consensus can change, but wrote above that 'further discussion is just repeating old arguments'. It seems as if you are not happy with the previous results and wish to keep on trying until you get your own way. Stop wasting everyone's time with these drawn-out discussions and focus on building an encyclopedia, not pushing your point of view. 31.54.154.160 (talk) 02:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Are IP's even permitted to close such discussions? I do remember that Arbcom issued an injunction against IP's closing AFD(?). I'd have to do some digging to confirm this. @Drmies: may shed light faster than I can dig it up. Blackmane (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Is it my imagination or are we seeing an increase in non-admin closures on WP:ANI which are contentious? If we are, perhaps this needs to be discussed on a policy page.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd prefer IPs don't close discussions, they could well be someone who participated in the discussion. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 05:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

In this case the IP was closing it so as not to allow a discussion to occur, not closing it to assess the consensus. My complaint isn't that the IP is possibly one of the other people posting, but that he is preventing discussion from even taking place since he wants the status quo to remain. Calathan (talk) 06:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• It's been a while since the last discussion. I think it's more-than-reasonable to have this discussion again. Hobit (talk) 02:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• One quick look suggests that in this case it was not wise for the IP to close the discussion so quickly and yes, in general we do not allow unregistered editors to close possibly heated discussions. That's all I can say right now; I have not looked at previous discussions. Drmies (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Absolutely inappropriate close by the IP here. This person is at best a single purpose SPA that closed in a bid to enforce their preferred POV and at worst, someone else's scrutiny evading sock that closed in a bid to enforce their preferred POV. Resolute 15:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• I agree that the close seems kind of fast. It did not appear to be a SNOW or perennial proposal situation, and there was a fair bit of discussion after the first close was reversed. The IP editor's closure comments (along with anyone else that agreed) would have been better as an oppose vote rather than closing it completely. ZettaComposer (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Reopened, I found the the closure inappropriate. --Tone 07:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

inappropriate username: NeoTheNazi (talk · contribs)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A moment ago the new account User:NeoTheNazi has been created and used to add nonsense[78][79] to article Kemestaródfa, likely continuing the previous nonsense-edits by IP163.150.50.47 [80]. I'm not accustomed with the username-policy of :en, but IMO such a username is hardly acceptable. --Túrelio (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

reversion of rwsa in a topic because it's not a template and "I don't understand"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

today's edit following on from Teahouse discussion by tdw who thinks that a VE of a link is harder to comprehend than a VE of an rwsa link Dave Rave (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Um... In English, please? EEng 03:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

the edit made today, follow the link, following on from the discussion, follow the link, etc etc etc 04:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Dave Rave is trying to add a template that only serves to obfuscate a normal link in wikitext and replace it with complex template parameters into the text of articles without ever having gotten a consensus to do this. Someone has made the argument that it makes the complex line diagram templates easier to use in that context, and I'll trust their judgement as to the template's existence since line diagram templates very rarely need to be edited. However, adding this in mainspace serves absolutely no purpose except to make articles harder to edit, and in a whole succession of attempts to introduce it and posts like this on various noticeboards, Dave Rave has not once been able to advance a single reasonable argument why it belongs in a regular article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

This edit is disturbing, where Dave Rave's one supporter on this states that and I quote "you might be able to sucker her into falling afoul of WP:3RR". This behaviour needs to stop on both of their parts. I have always been happy to listen if anyone wants to raise an argument why these link-obfuscating templates should be used, but the only arguments they have even tried to make for mainspace make about as much sense (and are in the same tone) as his post here. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I was going to ask the usual "what admin action is required here?" question, until I saw that rather WP:BATTLEGROUND-esque comment pointed out.--Shirt58 (talk) 04:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

complex ? simpifies methinks. nevermind the actual edits resolving links to disam that need to be reverted Dave Rave (talk) 05:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

This is quite a storm in a teacup, especially saying that If you're trying to escalate this from a garden variety edit dispute to the sort of thing arbcom needs to get involved in, you're going about it the right way. Putting aside the hyperbole and ruffled feathers, what exactly in this run of the mill content dispute couldn't be solved by raising a RFC and broadcasting it on WP:TRAINS?

A couple of editors want to use a template to reduce the wiki markup needed, another editor disputes this. Three editors thus go round and round without achieving anything concrete. Run a RFC, if that doesn't work go to WP:DRN, but don't bring a content dispute to ANI. @Useddenim: please do not use such tactics to "win" a dispute. "Winning" does nothing but create bad blood. Blackmane (talk) 06:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

There's a plan. As a new (many years now) editor, I still don't get to see everything, but making it easier versus sticking my head in a sand dune is not something you get to resolve everyday despite much WP: searhing Dave Rave (talk) 06:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I really don't have any skin in this. As I said before, I’m not advocating their replacement of regular wikilinks in articles. I just said that it is merely personal preference. Occasionally I’ve used them in an article; sometimes they’ve been reverted, but usually not. I was pinged in the original discussion, so I gave my personal opinion. I see two editors who don't seem to want to “live and let live”, and it’s obvious which direction my sympathies lie, but WP:BATTLEGROUND?—no, not my fight. Useddenim (talk) 10:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Useddenim, it may not be your fight, but with that asinine comment you are certainly helping turn this area into a battleground. I urge you to reflect on what you said and I would like for you to ask yourself if you think that comment helps or hinders the collegiality we should share at a collaborative project. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kenneth Weishuhn

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Barcklay has twice added non-encyclopaedic text to the above article which seriously disparages a member of the local community here [81]. I think protection and rev del of the offending text is indicated. Thanks  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   10:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

They are obviously unfamiliar with our policies and have a red user talk page. The best you can do is to welcome them and explain our BLP/RS policy. If there are problems following such explanations which would require administrators' attention, please come back to ANI.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

My concern is that this history contains a serious allegation against a person who can, presumably , be identified. I am happy to deal with the editor. but I can't make edits disappear. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   10:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

(EC) There are/were other issues with that article. It included the parents previous criminal convictions (8 years prior to the event) for example, which are totally unrelated and uncyclopedic, and likely a BLP violation given their (lack of) individual notability. Agree with Velella however, the edit summary needs to be nuked as it clearly identifies a specific person (if not by name) Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The diff is removed, but the edit summary is still visible, so that still needs to be fixed. [82] --OpenFuture (talk) 11:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BATTLEGROUND and POV pushing by TripleVenom on Dr. Luke

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

TripleVenom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Dr. Luke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Reporting TripleVenom as an SPA engaged in BATTLEGROUND and POV pushing. Since February, TripleVenom has been trying to get a section header regarding Dr. Luke's lawsuit with Kesha changed to mention sexual assault allegations. This started during a time when IP editors were trying to do the same thing in reaction to uproar on social media regarding a judge's decision in the lawsuit. Despite efforts at discussion and an ongoing RfC (where until TripleVenom's edit today, users unanimously agreed that the header should not reflect the sexual assault allegations), TripleVenom yet again changed the section header ([83]). Compare to past edits since February ([84], [85], [86], [87]). TripleVenom also accuses everyone else of being biased and willfully ignorant ([88], [89]). Also note the now-REVDELed edits on the talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• The consensus in that RfC is obvious; I was tempted to close it, but it's only run for nine days. What is clear also is that the edit was against clear consensus, and that this is nothing more than edit warring. POV pushing, SPA--yes, that much seems clear as well, but for now I want to settle for a revert and a warning: TripleVenom, if you do this again (changing this heading = edit warring + POV pushing + editing against consensus), you will most likely be blocked indefinitely. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, since he is clearly a single-minded SPA bent only on BLP-vios and decidedly WP:NOTHERE, and this has been going on for two months, I would personally support an indef block right now. Softlavender (talk) 03:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad: compared to you I'm a paragon of virtue, patience, human kindness, and other good things. And I agree, but--and you've heard me say this before--I don't really have it in me right now, and I'm hoping this person will see the light. Like in the Blues Brothers. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Where is Materialscientist when you (meaning I) need him? Softlavender (talk) 03:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

No objection to a revert and warning. Don't have the highest hopes for reform, but no harm in giving a last chance. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree with EvergreenFir that comment above by Drmies at DIFF is a reasonable way to move forward here. Also, "we've got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses". — Cirt (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I should like to defend myself here. I understand people think I am just mucking with the page, but the article is seriously biased in favor of Dr. Luke. There is just no way in my mind that one can look at the reliable sources reporting on this subject and believe that the lawsuit section is a fair or honest description of the controversy. It goes out of its way to reduce the prominence of the rape allegations. It ends by casting serious doubt on Kesha's claims. The heading should indicate that the reason the controversy is notable is the rape allegations, and the body text shouldn't pick sides in a way that just doesn't match the reporting (by all means include mention of her previous statements but also include her explanations for why she is now saying something different). As written it looks like it completely favors Dr. Luke's account of events.

Also, I have repeatedly asked Evergeen how I can bring the page to the attention of wikipedia admins or editors because I think the current group of people editing are biased. Evergreen has not helped me to do so. The page clearly needs third party review. TripleVenom (talk) 18:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• I was going to recommend closing this as resolved and user warned (there has been an RfC running on the subject for 10 days; this thread and the RfC have already brought the article to the attention of the community at large; and TripleVenom has been warned that if they change the heading again against consensus they will be indefinitely blocked). But now I see that TripleVenom (talk · contribs) is an apparent sockpuppet of VernacularTombstone (talk · contribs). Drmies? Bbb23? -- Softlavender (talk) 00:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Good call. We don't need CU for this loud quacker. I think we can safely block the old one and let the new one go--looks like a case of old account, lost password, etc. They haven't edited simultaneously either. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attacks and uncivil comments by FreeatlastChitchat in Urdu language

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I don't want to mix this with the report against a different user, so I am creating a new post here as the user is different.

FreeatlastChitchat has edited the Urdu Wikipedia with Urdu edit summary. He or his friends can't claim anymore that he doesn't comprehend Urdu.

In this edit which was made in English Wikipedia, FreeatlstChitchat was referring to User:Kautilya3 as "Kutiya"

This is what "Kutiya" means literally. Read the second and third paragraph of the given link. And if you are still not convinced, then see what Urdu translation of bitch spells in this Pakistani website. --Greek Legend (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Just a note that when you moved this[90] you removed more than your own posting. I am placing a diff here so people can see the response that you already got. HighInBC 00:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

That's the reason I gave his contribution link in Urdu Wikipedia that was not given before in that edit.

@HighInBC: I removed it as that ANI post was against SheriffIsInTown and it was getting mixed up. FreeatlastChitchat is blocked right now for edit-warring. But he has to explain all these languages. And in the above post he was using phrases like "Burning bottom" and "Beaten to the punch" against me. Greek Legend (talk) 01:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I just wanted to be sure @SheriffIsInTown:'s opinion was not overlooked. HighInBC 01:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• And this has to do with English Wikipedia how? Softlavender (talk) 01:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Because the comment was made in English Wikipedia and Sheriff was claiming yesterday that Freeatlast may not know Urdu, which is false. Are we allowed to abuse in English wikipedia with non-English swear words? Greek Legend (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: This edit was in English wikipedia where he used the word "Kutiya". Greek Legend (talk) 01:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Then what is the point of mentioning the Urdu Wikipedia? We do not take complaints from Wikipedia in other languages. We solely take complaints from the English Wikipedia. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Point is due to a previous reply by SheriffIsInTown, that FreeatlastChitchat may not know Urdu language (Implying FLACC didn't use the word to abuse kautilya3 in English wikipedia). All links are given, if you care to click those links instead of asking me to repeat. You are experienced enough to know that those blue links are edit links. Or I have to explain that also. You will not check everything and give a straight comment. --Greek Legend (talk) 02:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

So we have an Urdu edit summary on Urdu Wikipedia. And the transliterated Urdu word for "bitch" in one ANI post by FALCC. Anything else? Or is this the sum total of your case against FALCC? You are filing an ANI thread over one personal attack against a third person, while FALCC is blocked? Softlavender (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

He is blocked for edit warring with another user which doesn't involve me. Though the comment was against a third person, but the comment by FLACC (where he abused Kautilya3) was a reply to my comment. He abused kautilya3 while replying me. So, I was involved. Do you get it? Now once again repeat the same questions. "What we will do with Urdu Wikipedia?" I will explain again. Thanks. Greek Legend (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Recommend closing this with no action. One personal attack (in another language no less) is not grounds for an ANI filing, much less when the editor is already blocked for a week. GreekLegend, please stop filing these frivolous ANIs. Kautilya3 said it best: [91]. If you file any more of these time-wasters, I'm nearly certain you will be hit with a WP:BOOMERANG. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Olexis

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A new single-purpose account, purely for power-pushing. It would be ok if they followed the policies, but they do not, and they self-confessed that they came here because the article on Stepan Bandera is offensive to Ukrainians, meaning they are hopeless.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I think you mean "POV"-pushing. He is engaging on the talk-page, it doesn't seem to be an AN/I issue quite yet, but if he continues POV-pushing without listening it may become. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant POV-pushing indeed. he is engaging at the talk page because I refused to discussed the issue at my user talk page (he was unhappy that he was reverted) and strongly advised him to go to the talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

It looks like quite typical behavior of an opinionated newbie to me. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry that i have changed this topic, but please read this!(summary)->

Dear administrator(Ymblander) i have noticed that you have some patricular point of view (they are hopeless) but please take a look [[92]] and you will see that russians want to delete that article because "The Article is "crude". Without facts.Based on some rumors, speculation and reasoning. We should wait for about 20 years to have some real facts before write it. But now we should remove it." but everybody knows about it(read wikipedia), only russian do not know it(Why?).(later Putin said that there were russian troops (in Crimea (the same situation we have in Afghanistan (soviet period))but this is not the purpose of our conversation) → And now i am a POV-pusher and they aren't. Very strange... Ymblanter also said that you will be out very soon because Bandera's article is offensive to me, so at this point we have two situations: 1)Russian wikipedia(their user) wants to delete an article because it "isn't" real. (Why?) 2)mine,some admin wants to block me because i express my opinion. so, how can i react to this?

Returning to Bandera:

---

Currently, the infobox says Ukrainian. Wasn't he technically Polish? Obviously, he had Ukrainian ethnicity, but he was a citizen of Poland, not of Ukraine which did not exist at the time?--Ymblanter (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

NO, he wasn't Polish because at the time Ukraine Ukrainian_People's_Republic was occupied and devided by Soviet Union and Poland so there was an Ukrainian nationality and you should know it because you are a moderator. For example, you made this article Nikolay_Bekryashev and you wrote that he was a russian painter but using your logic he wasn't because Russia did non exist at the time so he was soviet painter. If you open another article on wikipedia you will see that usually soviet people denoted like russians (but Russia did non exist at the time) so your logic is wrong. And please add to infobox Nationality Ukrainian. P.S. The talk that you made is provocative. Excuse me, why did you decide that Bandera wasn't ukrainian? "absolutely not Ukrainian"- what is that mean? The question isn't answered. Are you a historian to affirm that? Or you decided it yourself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olexis (talk • contribs) 08:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

"Ukrainian nationality" would mean Bander was a citizen of Ukraine. As Ukraine did not until 1991, he could not be an Ukrainian citizen. Period. He is certainly an Ukrainian politician, but this does not mean his nationality was Ukrainian.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC) Also, you have obvious difficulties with English and you are a POV pusher(WHY?). You should not be editing the English Wikipedia, certainly not until you learn the language.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

---

He was an ukrainian, you should read some historical articles about him. (And this Ymblander's logic i used in his article about Nikolay_Bekryashev, i had changed from russian to soviet painter). In this case you should change also Stalin's nationality - only soviet!

Please read this Ukrainian_People's_Republic. Did you see it? There is "On 10 June 1917 the Ukrainian Central Council declared its autonomy...but proclaimed its independence on 25 January 1918".Can you believe it?

You wrote Bander it seems that you have obvious difficulties with names, but usually, you russians, use it to humiliate him (only russian and ukrainians can understand this because of language particulars) so it is another obvious thing of your particular point of view!

Yes, at the beginning i made few errors "Failure to cite a reliable source","Claims are not supported by sources. Some sources not reliable" so i added reliaable source,but later Ymblanter told me that "this requires a discussion" because "I do not think adding Ukrainian sources would ever make the article closer to neutrality" but there were only russian and polish sources that blamed him (of killing people, etc).

Yes my english is not good enough but you (Ymblander) don't know history of Ukraine and trying to manage that section. I will send a request to wikipedia, and i will do my best,to stop you write/edit/etc ukrainian articles because you manipulate with facts! Thank you.Olexis (talk) 00:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

For that he is quite good at referencing....Lectonar (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• "he was unhappy that he was reverted" -- May I put in a plug here for the default setting for Preferences > Notifications > Edit Revert being changed to unchecked i.e. No? My doctor says my blood pressure has gone down 15 points since I unchecked that box, and so stopped getting those bull-sees-red notifications. See Tryptofish's wise essay WP:Revert_notification_opt-out. EEng 16:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Biscuittin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I don't know what user:Biscuittin posted here to get indef blocked. Not that I think he'll be missed, but if anyone has a copy could they email me, as the subject of the material? Thanks. Guy (Help!) 08:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@JzG: I suggest that you reach out to the oversighter who deleted the material. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to SQL and a couple of others I have now seen the material in question. I have a couple of comments.

1. My identity is not actually a secret. It's not on my talk page right now but has been on my user and talk pages in the past - I think it would be a stretch to state that anybody who uses my full name here has outed me.
2. My talk page links to my Twitter account, and the comments Biscuittin made can be trivially verified from there.
3. The claim of COI is baseless. I am indeed an active skeptic, but I came to skepticism from Wikipedia, not the other way round. Given Jimbo's unequivocal statement on the alignment between the skeptical view on alt-med claims and Wikipedia policy I doubt anyone but the usual griefers would have given it any credence at all.

Overall, I suggest that any appeal of his indefinite block should succeed. I won't pretend that I have much time for Biscuittin and the assertion of COI here amounts to a vexatious complaint, but I don't believe anybody would have taken it seriously and I don't think that is could be justly construed as outing.

Biscuittin has said he will take this up "through other channels". That is a threat of a sort, which may still be considered blockable; he also persisted in posting his silly assertion when he was told to stop (unsurprising to anyone who remembers the history of his quixotic essay on reform of Wikipedia now at User:QuackGuru/Reform of Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) or his advocacy of what looks very much like climate change denial). But this is not in bannination territory, not hardly. Guy (Help!) 16:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Not the blocking admin, but I did remove talkpage access as it was being used to repost the outing threat, which is defined in WP:OUTING as a personal attack. Have let them know they can appeal the block via UTRS, or possibly to Arbcom. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Noting that this oversighter block is under discussion amongst the oversighters/arbitrators as I write. Risker (talk) 01:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

OK. For what it's worth, I would say this action by Biscuittin is a dick move but not outing. Guy (Help!) 06:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

If editor A does not know that editor B's identity has been acknowledged on-wiki, but A makes suggestions at ANI regarding the presumed identity of B, and repeats them on another page after receiving a very blunt warning ("Recurrence will lead to an indefinite block"), was A violating WP:OUTING? By not bureaucracy, I guess not, but the behavior was extremely unwise. More importantly, if A is unblocked, I think some guidelines for the community should first be established: should B's identity be freely discussed on-wiki if people manage to find the trail? What if B's identity has not been generally known on-wiki for years? Johnuniq (talk) 08:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that this behaviour was unwise, and the continued insertion of the text, including on the user's Talk page, constitutes an act of abject stupidity given Wikipedia's rules on this, but I want to be clear that my identity is not a secret and although there is no love lost between me and Biscuittin I think it's important to be fair and to draw a distinction between WP:OUTING and more generic m:DICK, the latter being the actual issue IMO. Guy (Help!) 09:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Given the contents of this thread, I've undone my oversight of the original post here by Biscuittin. Those desperate to read it can find in the page history (though it's probably not worth a huge effort to do so). Other oversighters also removed other comments by Biscuittin - I've left these alone as they are a matter for the oversighters who acted on them. I've also retained my block on his talkpage access - the constant outing threats were a sufficient personal attack to justify this action, regardless of the actual content of the outing attempt. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Biscuittin's block has been modified from an {{OversightBlock}} to a "standard" indef block with talk page access still removed. Details can be found here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:lowercase sigmabot III & blacklisted website/s?

Not sure what is going on with this blacklisted titles issue but sigmabot's user page says for non-admins to report issues here to WP:AIV and the bot didn't archive that article's talk page. Shearonink (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• I am also prevented from creating Talk:Nigger/Archive 6, so it doesn't seem to be a problem with lowercase sigmabot, but page restrictions. I think that, the solution would simply to have an admin create the next archive page, but I am unsure if anything else should be done. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 00:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I have created a blank Talk:Nigger/Archive 6. Only admins, crats, and template editors can override the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Could someone (like an admin...) please help with this page restriction issue? I know sigmabot isn't technically malfunctioning but would like to get Talk: Nigger archived, hasn't been archived in 5 years (yes FIVE years). There are posts on there from 2011 and the talkpage has gotten too big. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

bunk Speedy deletion spree from User:Ivan_Pozdeev

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could someone block Ivan_Pozdeev (talk · contribs) to prevent a bunch of bunk CSD nominations? Possibly from April Fool's vandalism, but it's disruptive AF. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

No longer needed, per my talk page. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Declaration

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I hereby declare myself a supporter of the United Kingdom Brexit campaign. User:Chesnaught555 has shown he opposes my view, so I wish to engage in a civil debate. See [93] for more information regarding my cause. Onlywaybrexit (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello Onlywaybrexit - this isn't the place to discuss our political views. This is a noticeboard for matters which require administrator attention. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 14:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editor's personal behaviour in Basque sensitive articles

This Basque conflict and prisoners articles have shown lately the intervention of the editor Asilah1981 (talk · contribs) with a long history of irregular editing. I should urge a prompt, conclusive intervention, the editor has lately engaged in some kind of campaign regarding these sensitive articles with no attention to detail whatsoever, breach of civility, extremely charged, confrontational style, personal attacks, and eventually threats against myself, leading to an unacceptable risk of lack of freedom to edit. He was warned by another user both of his behaviour and editing stye, but the editor remains basically the same. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 08:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

another user and me have no issue, we are both editing articles together productively, despite an initial misunderstanding. These are not "Basque sensitive articles". They are two ghost articles which have been surreptitiously written by ETA apologists, particularly the article Basque National Liberation Movement Prisoners, which is clearly not under the supervision of more than two wikipedia editors - Iñaki LL and the original editor who has deleted his account (or has been blocked, I don't know). The entire article is written in language which exalts, justifies and expresses sympathy towards Basque terrorists ETA. It is largely unsourced except using pro-ETA sources. Its entire objective is to pass-off individuals in Spain condemned for murder, attempted murder, kidnapping etc.. for political prisoners of some sort. The opening paragraph is, in its entirely, a justification for ETA's existence and actions.

My "personal attack" against Iñaki LL was a indeed a bitter comment in Spanish (you are welcome to google translate it), following his systematic reverting of me removing a couple of the more outrageous statements in the article (the whole article is outrageous and offensive). He is offended by me stating he is an ETA apologist, when he has positioned himself as the defendor of this article in its current form. I stick to that claim and remind him that he is a citizen of Spain, a democratic country, where in our criminal code breaking law 10/1995 of 23 November is punishable with a prison sentence of one to two years: 'the exaltation or justification of terrorism by any means of public expression or diffusion.' You can find this in articles 571-578 of our criminal code. Wikipedia may not be censored but it is my duty as a citizen of Spain and the European Union to warn my fellow country men when they are breaking the law in a pretty vile way, particularly today when the continent is yet again hit by this scourge. Thank you.Asilah1981 (talk) 09:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I can see there has been a heated discussion at Talk:Basque conflict#Spin-off Article drafted by ETA sympathisers but, Iñaki LL, I don't see that you presented any evidence/diffs of misconduct. I recommend that if you all have reached an impasse, that you move the discussion over to Dispute Resolution where a mediator can help you move to a resolution over content disputes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Asilah, as I said to you on the Basque conflict page, I think you raise valid points, but I can tell you from many years' experience editing in that area that labelling people that disagree with you "serial terrorist apologists" is ill-advised, unlikely to persuade opponents or neutrals, and is a personal attack and sanctionable. Similarly, this edit where you say: "The (Spanish) state prosecutor can't act against Wikipedia, but they can act against individual editors if the offence is committed on Spanish territory. So if you are going to continue pursuing this with me, make sure you are not currently in Spanish territory" is really unhelpful, verging on a legal threat. Your input in that area is important, but you can make your points without attacking or issuing veiled threats against other editors. Valenciano (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

"Content disputes"? I beg you pardon??? It is a direct threat of prosecution against me, even other more serious. It is not over contents, it is over irregular behaviour, and serial violation of WP rules destined at intimidating. I thought his contribs were telling enough. The above editor threatens with legal action against me should I revert his edits, see edits here and here (this last one telling "I got/know you", in Spanish). More on legal threats "by the state prosecutor" against editors ("although it can not act against wikipedia") should I act in a way or another here "make sure you are not currently in Spanish territory". Check the intimidating tone, using terminology that has legal implications here.

I posted an edit in Basque conflict talk, making it clear: I am not willing to discuss in the present conditions of continuous verbal abuse and threats. It is a clear case of an editor bulldozing its way by intimidation, citing my life outside the WP. The above editor, whom at this point I cannot consider legitimate given this episode and previous history, has gone on with its veiled threatening style against those who do not think like him here. S/he has thereafter continued editing the article having his own way. I demand prompt unequivocal action against the above editor, and its indefinite block from WP. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

On the same unacceptable, abusive line here. Iñaki LL (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

It is ill advised, but it is not a direct threat of prosecution. You both need to cool down. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Have you really read the links above? Did you? Let me tell you it looks like not sorry. It is a threat on my out-of-the-WP life as pointed by himself, based on we do not know what really, since the Asilah1981's statements do not point to specific problems that may be addressed, but an overall feeling of aggravation. The goal seems rather to spread a feeling of being unsafe to dissuade editors from editing legitimately in freedom ("if you undo my edits"). There is an unacceptable inflammatory, emotional accusatory plea that makes any discussion impossible, the goal pursued as it seems (it is basically a 'my way or highway'), and thus create biased articles. Other than me and other WP editors, WP's reliability is the main victim. I should urge an immediate call to the free flow of legitimate ideas into the WP, and therefore a block to the above editor. Iñaki LL (talk) 08:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I have read the links above. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Iñaki LL, I have cooled down, I suggest you do the same. I have already stated in the edit you mention that I am NOT going to report you to the police in ANY case, so I am NOT threatening you. I am, however pointing to the fact that, if you engage in an edit war with me over an article with content which in Spain is clearly illegal (as well as deeply immoral), you are likely to be liable for "apology of terrorism". This is a serious risk for you outside wikipedia. I don't think you have committed a crime as of yet but you were definitely going down that road - Best warn you in advance! The risk you face is somewhat diminished by the depressingly low numbers of Spanish citizens who speak or understand English fluently but it is a risk nonetheless, particularly since your edits remain recorded into the future. The creator of article Basque National Liberation Movement Prisoners was fully aware of this and this is why he has deleted his account. Your edits in general are largely apolitical and constructive. Why get into trouble over such an ugly thing. I'm sure you know of what Madrid town Councillor Guillermo Zapata is going through right now. In 2016, one cannot continue to believe that the internet is a separate universe without real life consequences. Asilah1981 (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

It's good that you have cooled down. However, you still are very confrontational and non-constructive. I suggest you stop interpreting Spanish law and leave that to the legal system. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

OpenFuture Understood. But I remind you that the least offensive of the two articles: Basque Conflict has already been discussed in the Spanish parliament with an official request by Spanish party UPyD to the government to formally complain to Wikipedia (Simply because of its title/definition)http://www.huffingtonpost.es/2013/12/04/upyd-wikipedia-eta_n_4384982.html. Fortunately or unfortunately, no one has picked up on the worst of the two articles that I went ballistic over. This is not a question of my interpretation. The law is clear and the Spanish police has an entire team specialized in internet hate crimes and terrorism apology - a correct application of Wikipedia rules would bring such articles and their editors within the realm of legality as well as leading to another quality article which does not tarnish the reputation of wikipedia. Its a win-win situation. Up to you guys...Asilah1981 (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's up to the Spanish legal system. What you are doing NOW is getting very close to making legal threats against Wikipedia, which is an automatic ban. Don't do that. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

For a start, Spanish state security laws and procedures overall are extremely controversial both in the Spanish and Basque political life. Secondly, I should demand Asilah1981 to retract now from unacceptable verbal abuse and personal attack against me, like here (literally if someone does not understand Spanish: "(...) you are coming here and lying in English, standing up for your coward shoot-in-the-head friends" in order to start re-establishing some kind of normality. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

While the article should be written from as neutral a point of view as possible, the Spanish legal authorities have no jurisdiction over this American website, and what they think about the English-language Wikipedia is irrelevant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I do not know really why this is being belated, it is a matter of concern as a contributor to the WP and as part of its community that the serial violation of WP rules including serious personal attacks could go without consequences. I feel revolted specially as a wipikipedian by the two paragraphs starting and finishing "Valenciano You may be right (...) which kind of sucks." meant at paralyzing editors (by fear of editing something for which Asilah1981 may feel aggravated), dissuade from contributing unless they edit in one specific direction that s/he may find suitable enough by his/her own standards, citing a law (and the police) that looms over the editors like a sword of Damocles.

In fact, we do not know what the specific problem is (sentence, word...), it is the general intimidating atmosphere that remains. Check just this acusatory statement by the editor in question for the article "Basque National Liberation Movement Prisoners" (as labelled by ex-Spanish premier Aznar): "It is largely unsourced except using pro-ETA sources", check it for yourself, nothing more to add. And the (wo)man continues with the self-talk... Iñaki LL (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Iñaki LL actually, I would say the correct translation is "your friends of the bullet in the back of the head". Since the "soldiers" of the "basque national liberation movement" in the "basque conflict" seemed to consistently be unable to kill any of their victims unless it was from behind, particularly the nearly half of their victims who were basque civilians. Important clarification! OpenFuture I am nowhere near making legal threats against wikipedia because Spanish law does not apply to an American website nor does it even apply to editors who edit from outside Spain, such as yourself, for example. You could edit wikipedia saying ETA and ISIS are the best thing ever and that all Jews should be gassed and you would not be breaking Spanish law - unless you wrote that while being physically in Spain. Then you would be in hot water... I have mentioned this a couple of times already. Asilah1981 (talk) 23:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you should just drop it now that you have indeed mentioned this a couple of times already. And maybe you should read WP:NPA while you are at it, calling an editor a serial terrorist apologist could be considered a personal attack, I certainly think it is.--173.216.248.174 (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

173.216.248.174 Drop what? Have I started this discussion? Someone is requesting me being blocked indefinitely from wikipedia. Apology of terrorism is not an insult or a slander. It is a rather common phenomenon in Spain, which is why it has had to be criminalized (it is offensive to the victims of those murdered). As an example, only two days ago, a basque local chapter of a major national party Podemos refused to condemn the recent ISIS attacks in Brussels because they felt that being requested to condemn a terrorist attack is an oppressive restriction of their freedom of speech. Such is the country in which we live, sadly....Asilah1981 (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

You personally attacked an editor by calling them a serial terrorist apologist, and have yet to apologize for the personal attack. Then, you continue to insult them and poke at them by calling them a wimp and state they have nothing to "fear" (in scare quotes). And up above you accused them of "breaking the law in a pretty vile way" and also informed them that if they revert any of your edits, they could be held criminally liable for their editing here on Wikipedia. My suggestion to you is if you have a problem with the content of the article, then discuss ways to improve the content, and stop discussing the editor, or you risk being blocked.--173.216.248.174 (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

173.216.248.174 (talk If someone honestly tries to argue that I am restricting their human rights and they are now living "in fear" because of me, do not expect me NOT to poke fun at them. I suggest you stop portraying me as some sort of mafioso thug or member of the Stasi and we just move on from this silly discussion. I sure have. Asilah1981 (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Making a false claim against an editor can also be considered a personal attack and is clearly disruptive. Please provide evidence in the form of diffs where I portrayed/stated/said/claimed/alleged/implied that you are "some sort of mafioso thug" and/or a "member of the Stasi", or kindly retract that false statement. Thanks and please read WP:INDENT as well.--173.216.248.174 (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

While you may have moved on, your comments concerning authorities and potential criminal liability leave a chilling effect on discussion. If you wish to move on with meaningful discussion, you would do well to redact such comments. Making light of the concerns of others at your comments is disrespectful and not conducive to collaboration. Blackmane (talk) 02:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Blackmane What exactly would you like me to retract? I found an article which was an ode to terrorist group ETA and the convicted killers who are its members and a justification of their "armed struggle", peppered with outright lies. I tried to tone down the terrorism apology and was promptly reverted. Criminal liability is a reality, I mentioned it and was careful not to threaten anybody. Those editors who feel "fear", do not fear me but the justice system of a democratic european country, otherwise they would simply brush off my comments as lunacy or as idiotic. Note that nobody involved has actually denied my statements here. They have just complained that me pointing to the fact that apology of terrorism is a crime makes them feel fearful and uncomfortable. Why do they feel fearful? Do they think I am some kind of psycho serial killer who is going to track them down and kill them in their homes? No! Obviously not! Their fear amounts to accepting that they are engaging in this activity. So, tell me again, what should I retract exactly? 173.216.248.174 My claims are no less false than yours, where you say I use scare quotes, when they are just that... quotes citing someone. Anyone who says, implies I am being threatening is also engaging in a personal attack against my character, particularly when I have made it clear on multiple occasions I have no intention to harm anyone - quite the opposite really. 12:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Asilah1981 (talk)

Fear is not the issue here. The issue is that you are saying things that are hard to interpret in any other way than legal threats. You have been told to stop, but you don't seem to get the message. You need to understand that you can't do that. It's perfectly understandable that you didn't know about that rule, but now you do. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, OpenFuture, well I simply won't bring up the argument again. I will try to use Wikipedia-specific arguments like NPOV etc...

But, as my final explanation: They were never meant to be threats. If we were discussing something else and we all lived in China or North Korea or some country which was not within the EU (where human rights and freedom of speech are pretty much guaranteed), then maybe yes - it would be threatening somehow. I bring up the point of illegality precisely to underline that this type of editing is on the same level as holocaust / armenian genocide denial (illegal in other normal countries like France and Germany). In these countries freedom of speech is not more curtailed than it is on wikipedia.

If something is illegal in Spain, or Germany or France it is going to be contrary to wikipedia policy. If someone defaced the holocaust article with a German I.P. writing 'Burn the Jews' or 'the holocaust is a lie', I don't think any of you guys would complain if I mentioned that such editing is illegal in Germany. Anyways, as I said, I will not use this argument anymore since it seems to be misinterpreted.14:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Asilah1981 (talk)

What you intend them to be is much less important than how they are perceived. And it is threatening now as well. Glad to see that you agree to stop doing this, but I would like to point out that you call it an argument, and it isn't an argument. It is, at best, telling somebody that he is putting himself in danger by expressing a certain view. That is not an argument against that view, or even an argument against expressing that view. It is simply not an argument. So yes, please, use "Wikipedia specific" arguments only. This is in fact a good rule in general, the only arguments made should be based on Wikipedia principles such as NPOV and RS, etc. I might start calling it "Wikipedia specific arguments" in the future. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

OpenFutureI saw it as an Argument from authority, but yes overall I agree with you and I will avoid arguments which are personal and can be perceived as aggressive. Thanks for your feedback and patience.Asilah1981 (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no misinterpretation of anything in the legal threats and personal attacks described and linked above, it is what everybody can see it is. The above WP username has clearly a expiry date, it is troll and needs to be dealt with. Sadly my concern is that the editor may be perceiving s/he actually can get away with disruption, and keep shifting his/her attitudes as convenient, since the only thing s/he gets is a telling-off here, despite the obvious insistence in his/her ways (see Talk page of Basque conflict, "Come on Iñaki LL stop being a wimp. :-)", sic!). The editor has not yet asked for apologies or retracted from his/her specific personal attacks against me, in the slightest. Iñaki LL (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

And the above is personal attacks, and just as much disruptive and WP:BATTLE editing as you accuse others of. The WP:POT should not call the kettle black. You should all step back and cool down, and then try to edit in a calm rational manner. If you find this impossible, then perhaps none of you should edit topics related to Basque issues, as you all have clear problems keeping cool and neutral. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Whaaat? Are we really talking about the same thing? Please do not tell "you all" (or cite WP:BATTLE...) check who has said/done what since this started. I do not have anything to do with that user in whatever sense, please feel free to check short and long term histories, Ok? The fact that this is remaining here so long (sic) with such a clear set of evidence and still no decision made is a matter of concern for WP editors believing in criteria, evidence based operation. At the end of the day, the editors complaining irregular behaviours must take the whole burden of the proof, collect and bring the evidence, but for what? So far, I do not know really. I could also spot this customization of the article Basque National Liberation Prisoners, while legal threats and lack of trust were being discussed here. Note the near total absence of explanation lines. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You are engaging in WP:BATTLE behavior, personal attacks, and seem unable to WP:DROPTHESTICK. I recommended you to cool down already a week ago, you still have not cooled down. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

OpenFuture, I'm not engaging more on this topic and as agreed will modify my behavior, but Iñaki LL I think it is not quite accurate to say you have no history with me, you once falsely accused me and a bunch of other wikipedians of sockpuppetry, don't you remember? They were pretty insane and baseless accusations, we were all pretty upset about (although I seem to recall I wasn't your main target). Look here, [94]Asilah1981 (talk) 10:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, sure OpenFuture, its winding down, no action against or no consequences for the perpetrator, s/he has not even asked for apologies, and not required to either, the evidence is there, so there is no more blind than s/he who does not want to see. The (in)congruence in each one's interventions and statements in the overall histories is telling enough.

Asilah1981 (talk · contribs), both sentences are next to each other separated with a comma, but what I mean is I do not have anything to do with you in the attitudes or other, understand? (I made my point above, so I am not elaborating, not either in the astonishing case of the article you cited, where I engaged in discussion in its moment, yes!). However, should you engage in WP regular and collaborative editing, that should be fine with me. I am not wasting more time here. Anyone can check my history to know what my contribution is and what yours is on your history, my userpage talk is there and yours is also there for anyone to check, also the frontpages. (Sigh...) Iñaki LL (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Charlotte135's behavior

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

For months, Charlotte135 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly commented on me at the Charlotte135 talk page in inaccurate and disparaging ways. When I've pointed this out, noting that I would eventually do something about it, Charlotte135 continued, except in ways that do not mention my name; this is seen in spades in this section, which Charlotte135 retitled to take the focus from away from the topic ban. Charlotte135 also has a tendency to follow or track editors Charlotte135 has had significant disputes with, in ways I would categorize as WP:Hounding. For example, as noted here and here, with me, Montanabw and CFCF weighing in, Charlotte135 was hounding Shootingstar88 (talk · contribs). And before Charlotte135 claims that it was because of WP:Copyright issues, I advise editors to look closely at that matter; Charlotte135 had started following Shootingstar88 before the WP:Copyright issues drama Charlotte135 became a part of in that case. And now Charlotte135 is following me. And by that, I mean that Charlotte135 has scoped my entire contribution history and is choosing to edit articles I am clearly involved with, as seen here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. As is clear by this inaccurate summary of my and Montanabw's editing, Charlotte135 is very aware of the type of articles I edit. Charlotte135 stated, "It seems that some editors primarily edit on topics like horses or sexual type topics and then cursory minimal edits on other types of articles to blur their POV pushing." That section shows that Charlotte135 was testing the waters when it comes to what Charlotte135 can edit. For one, the "cursory minimal edits on other types of articles" wording speaks to the way Charlotte135 edits; the vast majority of Charlotte135's edits have been to the domestic violence areas, and related areas, on Wikipedia. Since Charlotte135's topic ban, Charlotte135 has been making minor editors to other articles, as if to indicate "Look everyone, I'm not a WP:SPA. I'm branching out." For two, I mainly edit sexual articles, anatomy articles, medical articles, social topics and popular culture topics. And even though I edit many things on this site, Charlotte135 is suddenly popping up at the medical, sexual or gender articles that I heavily edit, including the obscure or relatively low-traffic ones, as seen with this edit made to the Vaginal disease article, and this edit made to the Facesitting article. Coincidence? I think not.

When Charlotte135's topic ban is brought up by me, such as in this recent case at Talk:Domestic violence, where I made a point to note that Charlotte135 was continuing a past dispute soon after the topic ban expired, Charlotte135 goes off on an irrelevant and inaccurate tangent about my block log, as if to try to paint me in a bad light and put us on equal bad footing; as seen here, administrator Boing! said Zebedee thankfully commented on my block log after I once again suggested that Charlotte135 actually get informed on my blocks before repeatedly commenting on them inaccurately. In that same section, I noted to Charlotte135, "You are clearly seeking a confrontation with me any and everywhere you can get it. [...] I will not agree to a WP:Interaction ban unless it's a one-way interaction ban where you are not allowed to comment on me or focus on any article I heavily edit. [...] Common sense should tell you to stay clear of me unless necessary. It's nothing but a WP:Hounding attempt by you. If I revert you at any of these articles, you get your confrontation. If someone else reverts me, and I revert back, you can simply show up and invalidly support that person's revert with the excuse that you've edited the article before. You are quite easy to read. Everything you do is so transparent (predictable) to me." As that section shows, Gandydancer and Johnuniq are also still concerned about Charlotte135's behavior. Whenever Charlotte135's disruptive behavior is addressed, Charlotte135 argues that I am simply being a bully, accompanied by a gang, and that my main goal is to discredit. In fact, Charlotte135 still fails to see any valid reason for the topic ban; this is evident all over Charlotte135's talk page. Charlotte135 plays the "I am the victim" card. And in this case at the Domestic violence talk page, Charlotte135 accused me of an agenda for removing a WP:Undue weight piece from the lead. I am at the end of my rope with this editor. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: I crossed out the Urolagnia article above, because even though that article was added to my watchlist because of my concern about this this IP who eventually became this editor, I have yet to edit that article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll first of all point out that Charlotte135 has edited topics related to the female reproductive system at least as early as last November, while Flyer22 Reborn accumulates hundreds of minor edits to diverse articles daily. That there is some intersection is hardly surprising. The allegedly hounding edits do not seem to be in furtherance of any dispute on those pages, with Flyer22 or anyone else.

The conflict between Charlotte135 and Flyer22 apparently began in October at Talk:Domestic_violence/Archive_5#Claim_about_male_self_overestimating with a content dispute that Flyer22 almost immediately personalized. I first encountered the issue at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_198#Domestic_Violence_article, where it became quickly apparent that there was a simple resolution to the content dispute. I noted at the time the solution could have been easily reached had Flyer22 simply stuck to commenting on content rather than contributors.

Rather than accepting this resolution, Flyer22 continued to policy/forum shop by trying to get support from MEDRS Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)/Archive_21. Note especially how CFCF's opinion changes after Flyer22 tells him what to think. Subsequently CFCF began to edit war the policy page itselfWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#Disruptive_editing_on_Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_.28medicine.29_by_CFCF to make it agree with Flyer22. I don't know if Charlotte135's present accusations of canvassing can be supported, but Flyer22 and CFCF should definitely be regarded as a tag team wherever they appear.

While my attention was elsewhere, Flyer22 brought Charlotte135 to ANI based on the insinuations that Charlotte135 was an MRA and impersonating a woman.[[95]] These are not policy-based reasons, and making these allegations was a conduct violation in itself. Astoundingly, Mark Arsten placed a 3 month topic ban on Charlotte135 rather than boomeranging as would have been appropriate.

Flyer22's general style of interaction is to make arrogant and imperious demands, often declaring that their preferred changes are inevitable, and that their opponents are not competent to edit in certain areas. This gives the impression of attempting to intimidate editors and exert WP:OWNership of articles. This has in the past been directed towards myself, and is certainly still on display with regard to Charlotte135.[96][97][98][99] It can even be seen in Flyer22's presumptuous refusal to "agree to" a 2-way interaction ban.

The above notwithstanding, Charlotte135 needs to drop the stick with respect to the question of symmetry or non-symmetry of genders in domestic violence. Regardless of the merits, its a point the community would like to move on from. I suggest a 2-way interaction ban and 3 month topic ban for both Charlotte135 and Flyer22. Rhoark (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Rhoark, you were on the opposite side of CFCF and myself in these disputes, as should be clear to anyone who does their research on the matter. You mischaracterized things then, and you have done it again now. Case in point: Editing "hundreds of minor edits to diverse articles daily" via WP:STiki and Charlotte135 having some overlap with me in that way is one thing. Charlotte135 specifically targeting articles that I heavily edit (in a way that mirrors a tab on my contribution history), and obscure or barely-active articles that I edit, is another thing. Two, there was no WP:Forum shop violation. Three, CFCF and I are not as closely aligned as you make us out to be; I didn't even fully agree with CFCF and his proposals (again...doing one's research is a virtue). Four, there were no simple solutions at the Domestic violence article talk page when it came to Charlotte135's involvement; anyone is free to see what happened at that talk page during that time; they are free to see that Charlotte135 repeatedly failed to accept the literature with WP:Due weight, would ramble on about editor bias, editors being so and so, and that multiple editors were frustrated with Charlotte135 because of all of this. They will see exactly what led to Charlotte135's topic ban from the article. Another editor (Ongepotchket) is just the latest person to note that Charlotte135 is disruptive there. So you coming here and defending Charlotte135 and acting like the proposal and consensus for the topic ban on Charlotte135 were baseless and uncalled for makes not a bit of sense. If you are going to come to WP:ANI and defend a highly disruptive editor, then at least make a better case than that. As for your claim that "Flyer22's general style of interaction is to make arrogant and imperious demands, often declaring that their preferred changes are inevitable, and that their opponents are not competent to edit in certain areas.", it has gone on my top ten list of false claims made on Wikipedia. I do not make imperious demands, unless it's telling someone to stay off my talk page or to stop making false and inaccurate claims about me, as Charlotte135 repeatedly does, or to stop editing disruptively. And I have usually only noted that my preferred changes are inevitable when interacting with Charlotte135, since my preferred changes are policy or guideline-based and Charlotte135's preferred changes usually are not, and since Charlotte135 will waste editors' time with talk of supposed bias and repeatedly make false commentary and accusations of POV-pushing for following the WP:Due weight policy, or some other policy or guideline. Furthermore, as many know, I have a very low tolerance for disruptive editors; I do not treat disruptive editors the same way that I treat productive editors (the top my user page and talk page are clear about that), and I never will. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and as for Rhoark's claim that "Subsequently CFCF began to edit war the policy page to make it agree with Flyer22," I advise editors to read that WP:ANI thread, which didn't end in any kind of sanction against CFCF or consensus that CFCF was in the wrong. CFCF was restoring the guideline to what it was before it was changed without consensus. And as a number of medical editors agreed, the guideline supported my arguments anyway. But that's another discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

There you go again Flyer22reborn. Aggressively belittling and demeaning other editors that simply disagree with you. What utter nonsense, following you. To the contrary, you have been following me. If I was interested in following you, why did I suggest this? [100]. As a number of editors have noted, you seem to hold a very strong POV in relation to these domestic violence related articles as did the blocked editor shootingstar88 whom you befriended and was indefinitely blocked for extreme copyright violations and opening the project up to potential litigation by the authors of this original material they copied and pasted. IMHO you are far too personally involved in this emotional topic of domestic violence for some reason. I think it would be best for the project if you, and I, accepted Rhoark's neutral advice, and we both walked from this topic not just one of us, but both of us. I just don't care, to be honest with you, but I do believe your personal opinions on the topic and aggressive ownership of the article are preventing other fair minded editors from making neutral edits based on what the reliable sources actually say. That may then allow other editors to make changes if necessary without you and I bickering over nothing. It looks like at least 2 other editors on the talk page also disagree with you, not just me, and countless others you have scared away. Here's editor OpenFuture commenting [101] So, what do you say? You and I can then edit other topics and stay away from each other. Sound fair?Charlotte135 (talk) 06:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: And yet the inaccurate statements from Charlotte135 continue above. For example, there have been no number of editors who "have noted [I] seem to hold a very strong POV in relation to these domestic violence related articles"; instead, what a number of editors have noted is that I help keep out severe WP:Neutral violations (especially as they relate to that policy's WP:Due weight section), and correct editors who misunderstand that policy. My contribution history is also nothing like Shootingstar88's.

Charlotte135, you are problematic when it comes to gender topics, and especially the domestic violence topics...period. Various editors have been clear about that. When various editors, ones not tied to men's rights activism, state the same thing about me when it comes to gender topics, and especially the domestic violence topics, then I will consider walking away from them. Right now, I am helping to keep the type of mess you want to add to these articles out of it. My supposed POV adheres to the literature with WP:Due weight. Your POV does not. The only true support you've had thus far is from those who are sympathetic to men's rights views or those who hold men's rights view. From here on out in this thread, I will not respond to you any further, since you cannot help but present matters inaccurately and tell falsehoods. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

And if you keep following me, despite your asinine denials, I will present a thorough case against you with diff-links making it explicitly clear that none of these articles you are suddenly showing up at are coincidental matters. And along with that thorough case, there will indeed be a proposal. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

As I say7 Flyer22, it is clearly you who has been following every edit I make. And just as Rhoark and so many other editors you attack, demean, threaten and belittle, I could, and should provide a detailed list of diffs whereby you have obviously followed me. You are far from neutral on these gender topics. Everyone knows this. Further you aggressively attack other editors and exhibit ownership behavior on these articles. I just decided to stand up to you, that's all. Why not just walk away now if you are so neutral and let other editors clean up yours and shootingstar88's mess? If you do, I will. I just don't care, to be honest. But remember, I actually suggested an interaction ban, two way, well before you posted here. As you carefully cherrypick your diffs to include and not include, just like your sources and editing language, that was something you did not include above. Many editors have pointed this out to you, but you don't listen and your disruptive behavior is scary to be honest. But Rhoark and so many other editors has already pointed this out.Charlotte135 (talk) 08:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

And yes, your own contribution history on these gender based articles, most of which I have not edited, is almost identical to blocked user Shootingstar88's. Absolutely, no doubt about it. If any editor wants to see an actual SPA and real POV pushing anyone should scrutinize carefully Shootingstar88's entire edit history, and you Flyer22reborn, helping them create it, and then your desperate attempts at trying to get them unblocked for their severe copyright violations that open the project up to potential litigation. Something you fail to understand. And as administrator Diannaa told you, it would take several months, and three hours a day to clean up, and you assured everyone you would do it, and actively prevented other editors from going near Shootingstar88's copyright violation mess, which still remains in these gender related articles. Yes, I do find that particularly disruptive and damaging to the project Flyer22. Litigation from authors of original work that editors copy and paste into articles, is a real and definite threat to the project Flyer22reborn. It's their original work. They own the rights. You don't seem to understand or care.Charlotte135 (talk) 08:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

As someone not involved in these broils, I think I might point out a trope or habit which consistently worsens things -- in my opinion, probably intentionally and unquestionably disruptively. Charlotte135 often replies to her adversary’s edits with direct address, and then repeats the name -- usually again with direct address -- later in the rebuttal, often as part of a rhetorical question. The effect is often to infuriate her interlocutor, first because it personalizes a content dispute, and second because English has a specific term for a rhetorical question posed in direct address. This is a taunt. The quality of breathless schoolyard taunting is accentuated because Charlotte135 often omits the comma required before the appositive direct address. We see all this in the paragraph above. We see it here [102]. It seems clear that either this editor wants to exacerbate tension or that their English (or perhaps their manners) are not up to the task of managing tension in these areas. There are lots of areas on Wikipedia that deserve attention -- biographies of women in the sciences, botanical articles on Australian plants.MarkBernstein (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

As someone peripherally involved, and therefore targeted by Charlotte135, I have to agree with Flyer22reborn and MarkBerstein that Charlotte135 engages in WP:BAITing, and has repeatedly engaged in tendentious editing followed by personal attacks against Flyer; Charlotte135 was topic-banned for their behavior and we are less than a week back and once again Charlotte135 is doing exactly the same thing -- inserting nonsense edits with a "men's rights" tone, claiming innocence and neutrality, then baiting opponents until they are ready to rip their hair out. This needs to be stomped on, now. I suggest at last a 60-day topic ban on Charlotte135 and if this editor fails to learn their lesson, then indef bans are appropriate. Montanabw^(talk) 17:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

pinging Diannaa, since her name was invoked above. I'm sure her input would be clarifying. John from Idegon (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Montana said it very well and I am in complete agreement with her. In fact that includes the "tear your hair out" comment as I've often thought the same thing myself. Editors should not be tested to the end of their patience, as Charlotte is always so good at. Gandydancer (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• I've reviewed Charlotte's edits and I agree with the original posting and what others have said here. Charlotte is violating the spirit and letter of WP:HARASS, and is following Flyer around picking fights. Sanctionable and unwise, and something that Flyer seems to attract for some reason. I am with Monatabw and will make a proposal below. Jytdog (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

I'll take a step past what Montanabw proposes and simply propose a TBAN for Charlotte135 under the GamerGate DS with standard appeal available after one year. Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Apart from Rhoark's neutral, objective and detailed comments above, talking about Flyer22reborn's disruptive and aggressive behavior, all we have is literally the same set of friends of Flyer22, Gandydancer, Montabw and Jytdog falsely accusing me of following their friend Flyer22?? With no evidence. And even though, and well before Flyer22 posted here, I was the one who suggested a 2 way interaction ban, to stop Flyer22 and her friends following, harassing and bullying me.

Obviously administrator Diannaa would be the only one to look at this please, and adjudicate and dare I say, have the courage as an administrator, to actually place sanctions on Flyer22reborn as well. I would respect their decision. However otherwise this is just like a gang at school bullying an individual for standing up to them, like Rhoark and others have tried to do, but got beaten down by Flyer22reborn's unrelenting aggression and fear tactics on Wikipedia.Charlotte135 (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I also note that while Flyer22reborn and I are vacant from the domestic violence article, other editors are actually able to edit the article in the spirit of things. I hope this continues. However I fear that if Flyer22reborn were to be allowed to continue their editing at that article, they will again scare off other good faith editors trying to add content that is actually based on what the reliable sources say. Looking at the edit history on these articles Flyer22 seems to have engaged in many conflicts with many different opposing editors. And many editors have noted Flyer22reborn's lack of neutrality and POV pushing. Can I ask Diannaa to please consider a fair, reasonable and equal sanction here, based on Rhoark's neutral and detailed comments above [103]. I would agree with Rhoark's solution of "I suggest a 2-way interaction ban and 3 month topic ban for both Charlotte135 and Flyer22." The key word is both.Charlotte135 (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I also notice that John from Idegon has pinged Diannaa, and said "her input would be clarifying." I think this is appropriate as I don't see how friend's of Flyer22reborn, (administrators or editors) could possibly make any neutral and fair decisions on this matter.Charlotte135 (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

A question to administrators please? Is contacting other editors/friends off or on Wikipedia a form of Wikipedia:Canvassing? I have been reading the policy for a few days and I'd appreciate clarification. I must hastily add, so not again falsely accused of following Flyer22reborn, because once again they are over there at Wikipedia talk:Canvassing, fighting it out with another editor. Flyer22reborn is once again over there now, demeaning, belittling and mocking another editor. My question though stands as when I brought it up before with Flyer22 and her friends, they called it ridiculous, and demeaned my understanding of the policy. Just like they Flyer22reborn seems to be doing again at Wikipedia talk:Canvassing. I'd appreciate a neutral administrator to explain canvassing to me, especially here at ANI?Charlotte135 (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• To all that, i will just say, wow. Jytdog (talk) 03:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Wow. However Jytdog, you are very often called upon or pinged, to partake and support Flyer22reborn's point of view. It happended in a few conversations I've had in the past with Flyer22. And I'm sure if I did go through your edit history, which I certainly can't be bothered doing, there would be other instances over the years. Once again, boom, here you all are, right on cue. Is pinging in this way, for support, esp here at ANI a form of Wikipedia:Canvassing? Probably best you don't answer. Same discussion is happening over at Wikipedia talk:Canvassing. When good faith editors like me and others wonder if this is allowed or how much weight, editors opinions who are pinged, off, or on, Wikipedia, it is a valid question Jytdog, despite your sarcastic "Wow," in an attempt to discredit, demean and belittle, my serious question. I realize I don't have your experience here, so please excuse my ignorance.Charlotte135 (talk) 03:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm grateful for the good work that Flyer is doing and I hate to think what some of our articles would look like if she had not stepped in. I support Jytdog's suggestion re a ban. Gandydancer (talk) 03:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure you are grateful Gandydancer but I'm pretty sure the project will survive, and other good faith, neutral editors, were allowed to got on with the job based on what the reliable sources actually say, in these emotional topics, if Rhoark's sensible, fair and workable solution, of a 2-way interaction ban and topic ban for both me and your close friend Flyer22 was applied.Charlotte135 (talk) 04:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Diannaa Can I ask administrator Diannaa to please consider a fair, reasonable and equal sanction here, based on Rhoark's neutral and detailed comments above [104]. I would agree with Rhoark's solution of "I suggest a 2-way interaction ban and 3 month topic ban for both Charlotte135 and Flyer22." The key word is both.Charlotte135 (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• A two-way interaction ban punishes the victim equally with the bully and is inappropriate; here it is crystal clear that Charlotte135 is the primary offender. I concur with Jytdog that perhaps admins could consider a TBAN for Charlotte135 under the GamerGate DS. We have a pattern of hounding and vicious attacks on multiple people, gaming the system and manipulating what has actually been said and done across multiple articles. This editor needs a different sandbox in which to play. Montanabw^(talk) 06:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Save the further abuse and scary talk Montanabw. It is very clear on my talk page User talk:Charlotte135 under the Questions & Answers header that this was going to happen again, and me be ganged up on. Please don't be so rude and dismissive of Rhoark's neutral and detailed comments above [105].

And why would I have suggested an interaction ban myself before Flyer22reborn posted here, if I was the bully. It is very clear the same old gang members or Wikipedia:Tag team are at it again. I knew this would happen though. That's why I tried to get advice from an actual administrator, Diannaa prior to being set up, baited and then dragged over here. This discussion on my talk page is here [106] and my reply to administrator Diannaa is here [107]. My only mistake was to take the old tag team's bait and then be dragged back in so Flyer22reborn could post it here and the rest of the tag team come in on cue, and comment. Flyer22reborn's aggressive ownership of these articles needs to be stopped and Rhoark's solution of a "2-way interaction ban and 3 month topic ban for both Charlotte135 and Flyer22." But as I said, both is the only fair solution and Diannaa is the best person to adjudicate, not you Montanabw. Charlotte135 (talk) 07:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

While some admins adjudicate disputes, I am not one of them. Dispute resolution is not something I am good at. Sorry, — Diannaa (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem with interaction bans is that they can sometimes increase tension between editors. Some editors become vigilant about enforcing an interaction ban and viewing crossing paths with the other editor as harassment and then we are back at ANI, often on a regular basis as an editor seeks sanctions for violations of an I-ban. Admins want to defuse conflict, not take measures that increase it.

It would be best if you two would voluntarily keep out of each other's way. These reappearances at ANI are not good for you, Charlotte135 or for Flyer22reborn. I would think since you are adults you could find a way to resolve this dispute without having to have admins imposing topic bans or blocks. You can see, by the fact that no admins have jumped into the discussion that there isn't a strong desire to impose sanctions on either of you. But that can change if you can't drop the stick and walk away. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Liz while i hear that, the evidence here is very clear that Charlotte135 is pursuing Flyer in a very harass-y way. Flyer gets these men's rights activists who stick to her and do hound her, and "Charlotte135" is the most recent edition. This behavior is not OK. It is part of what makes WP a nightmare for some people. I really believe that a TBAN under the Gamergate DS is the way to diffuse tension here. Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok. So it's a new day. But still, the men's rights stuff is re-hashed, once again. Whoever you are directing that at this time Jytdog (and it seems at me I really, really, really think you and others should drop it. It is sounding pretty childish I have to say and I'm sure there are many editors here who would agree. This is something Diannaa and I have discussed and Diannaa gave me excellent advice, which I should have applied. That is, don't take the bait, and react to such attacks. I am a feminist Jytdog, for the record, and do actually identify as a feminist, but really who cares? Does that matter here? What I see by this mens rights nonsense that you, Gandydancer, Montabw, Flyer22reborn and a few others throw at other editors is bias and uncivil behavior. Nothing more and nothing less. I also wonder why it has been allowed to continue. It's offensive and disruptive to the project and goes against policy. Unfortunately it seems to have been a pattern over many years on Wikipedia talk pages I have noticed, and I actually think it needs to be stamped out permanently. I'm sure that other editors are adult enough to handle any biased editing, from any editor. However accusing people of being mens rights activists, in a desperate attempt to discredit them, should end right now. Please. Liz, I am an adult, so I can drop the stick and walk away if Flyer22reborn can.Charlotte135 (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

That would be great Charlott135, if you steered away from the topics where Flyer edits. You are the one who steered into them. It is clear as day. You can absolutely make all this go away by just indeed walking away and stop pursuing her. If you agree to do that, this thread could close right now. Jytdog (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

You have avoided my genuine request to please drop the men's rights stuff Jytdog. At least with me. I really have had enough of it and consider it entirely unjustified, and a personal attack. I really would like you and others to stop that, if that's okay with you and your friends. And I have not "pursued" Flyer22reborn, contrary to what you say. However I have engaged in long winded mutual discussions and conflicts with Flyer22, which I am willing to walk away from. I will also try and avoid Flyer22reborn, wherever I can from here on. For my sanity, if nothing else. By you saying I have pursued or harassed her, does not make it true. And I think Liz was actually directing her advice to stop our bickering and conflict on the few occasions we do come into contact, not the false allegations, with no evidence, you are posting here to discredit me. And for the record my recent single edit to the domestic violence article, two or three other independent editors agreed with. Flyer22reborn deleted that sentence right before my topic ban expired, because we had discussed it at length in the past, and she knew it would provoke a reaction I'm sure (bait). I wasn't going to comment (take the bait), but I did, stupidly, and doing so fell right into her trap, and we all ended up here. Even that, I've let go of.

The problem here is that Flyer22reborn seems to have edited, to some degree, every single possible sexual topic on Wikipedia. And I really mean that, without exaggeration. It's quite incredible. That's okay, but are you, or anyone else actually saying I cannot edit any of those hundreds of articles? I asked this question of administrators Diannaa and Mark Arsten a few weeks ago and here was Mark's response [108]. Rhoark's neutral and detailed comments seen here [109] at least provided some evidence as to Flyer22reborn's behavior, whereas no evidence has been provided to back up your accusations. My point again is yes Liz, I can definitely drop the stick and walk away if Flyer22reborn can, and have already taken the lead. I won't accept this one sided blame you and your friends are trying to stitch me up with again Jytdog, that's all. There is another solution here too. Let's all be adults here and work with me and be civil toward me if we cross paths. And I will pay you the same respect. I promise. However if you can't, or won't do that, I do insist that you, Flyer22reborn, Gandydancer, Montabw and a few others drop the mens rights BS, at least towards me. Please.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

If you will agree to walk away, then agree to walk away. Don't turn back and try to "get" Flyer. If you will not agree to walk away from the GamerGate field then the community should TBAN you. Jytdog (talk) 05:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Liz, were you talking to Flyer22reborn too please? Jytdog, I've admitted getting into stupid 2-way bickering and conflicts with Flyer22reborn, which are not helpful and are disruptive, but I won't accept your false accusations of harassing or following her and definitely not accept you trying to now embroil me in any way in the gamgergate controversy and biased editing. Editor Rhoark and so many other good faith editors have also been offended and unduly scared away from articles by Flyer22reborn's aggressive and uncivil editing and men's rights labeling, and it needs to stop, or at least be tempered, rather than Flyer22reborn and the rest of the Wikipedia:Tag team, believe they are above any sanctions here on Wikipedia and continue to roam free. If I'm ganged up on again, rather than reading my comments above and how I have already taken Liz's two-way advice to "keep out of each others way" wherever possible, then so be it. However I'm hoping that neutral and fair administrators like Liz and Diannaa can again read my comments please, and look at my actual edits to articles, and make their own decision to close this thread rather than feel pressured by you Jytdog. IMO it also would have been appropriate and respectful to Liz, and the community, if Flyer22reborn had responded to Liz's fair suggestion to resolve this too. I'm pretty sure Liz and Rhoark were not just talking to me.Charlotte135 (talk) 08:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with Jytdog that a topic ban should be placed on Charlotte135.--MONGO 13:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mongo. Could you please provide one diff here as to why a topic ban?Charlotte135 (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

MONGO Just so your opinion is neutral Mongo, and based on something, would you mind providing any actual evidence, reasoning and some diffs. Anything?Charlotte135 (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

For the love of god please stop randomly bolding words. It doesn't make your argument any more impressive much like how using capslock doesn't make you more important. --Tarage (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

For the love of god, I have already taken the lead on administrator Liz's fair two-way advice, to both Flyer22reborn and I, to be adults and "keep out of each others way" wherever possible.Charlotte135 (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog is giving an excellent summary of what's been going on here and I suggest we take his advise on the solution. Gandydancer (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gandydancer. "advise" is spelt "advice". Administrator Liz, I have for my part, at least, taken your fair two-way advice, to both Flyer22reborn and I, to be adults and "keep out of each others way" wherever possible. What more can I do? The issue dragged here was my alleged interaction with Flyer22. Since my topic ban expired on the 15th, my editing has shown no bias, in any way, and no editor here has provided any evidence, not even a single diff to show otherwise. Please rule on this Liz. Surely there are other real cases to be dealing with. Thank you.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I know the difference - it was an error and not something worth mentioning, IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

It was just that I remember you making such a big deal of the fact and bragging to me that you're IQ was in the top 5% of the population on internet IQ tests. I did not think that was necessary to try and demean other editors by saying that, that's all. I mean, who cares what you think your IQ is. So when you made that spelling error I thought it was worth pointing out.Charlotte135 (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Did you seriously nitpick someone's spelling on a non-article page? Stop. Now. You are burning every god damn bridge you possibly can and it needs to stop. --Tarage (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• I think it is time for an admin to step in here; the parameters of this discussion are well-defined and Charlotte135 has taken the WP:ROPE. At a minimum, the topic ban needs to be reimposed. Charlotte135 IS taking the same tone of editing that got this editor their original topic ban, is stalking and harassing Flyer22reborn, and though Liz means well, a two-way ban is not going to work; Flyer DOES get targeted by men's rights activists and has any number of people who mean ill-will just waiting for an excuse to harass her further. This is Charlotte135's behavior we are looking at and Charlotte135's alone. The responses and personal attacks by this user toward just about every other user who weighed in here with any kind of critical commentary pretty much make the case. Montanabw^(talk) 04:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• Disclosure - I've had encounters with both parties in the past, so I may be considered marginally involved. That said, I'm having a difficult time figuring out the root issue here.

Charlotte135 has a clear beef with Flyer22. Their interactions started back on 20 October 2015 on domestic violence where the two begin to edit war a bit. Flyer22's behavior and interactions with Charlotte haven't been ideal, especially for a veteran editor. However, Flyer22 has been the subject of repeated harassment in the past and often gets the brunt of antifeminist, homophobic, and transphobic editors' personal attacks and sockpuppeting users (note: not calling Charlotte these things)... which makes me under understanding of short tempers and incivility from Flyer22. Flyer22 has a record of grumpiness, but a strong record of constructive editing as well. We certainly has our resident grumps and incivil editors and after months of strong concern about CIVIL and enforcement-related bashing of my head against a wall, I've come to the conclusion that so long as they aren't making direct personal attacks, harassing, or using slurs, leave them be. Or maybe trout them a few times. Flyer22, turn down the grump, disengage (which she seems to have done already after the ANI filing), and avoid being so BITEy. If an editor starts making questionable or POV edits, let other editors address the behavior if your initial attempts to address it fail. There's little harm in having POV or UNDUE editors on an article for a bit; they'll be addressed soon enough. I acknowledge that I'm generally sympathetic to Flyer22's experiences on Wikipedia and that my interpretation of events is informed by that).

However I'm unclear as to why Charlotte resorts rather quickly to name calling and bludgeoning. From what I can tell, it stems more from a strong POV than past issues. From the get-go on domestic violence, Charlotte shows a strong POV and battleground mentality. This is not unusual for a motivated new editor though. The thing is, that hasn't seemed to change at all. It may have gotten worse. And it continued after a 3 month topic ban. I am wondering if Charlotte is able to be a constructive editor in this area at all. She seems able to edit other areas well enough, so to me a tban would be a reasonable course of action. I do think the evidence Flyer22 provided supports the accusations of hounding/harassment/following. But I've seen so many ibans fail, and frankly this is about more than just two editors who can't get along. The BLUDGEONING and combative tone on this ANI alone demonstrates some level of inability to see her own problematic behavior.

Based on Jytdog's and Montanabw's and Liz's comments, as well as Charlotte's BLUDEGONing, abuse of deceased horses, and lack of recognition of own problematic behaviors, I think a tban would be best. Had I commented a couple days ago, I might have gone for a formal warning, but the comments on this ANI shift me more towards a tban. Jytdog suggested the Gamergate DS, but I don't think Charlotte was alerted to those discretionary sanctions before. However, Bbb23 did notify her of the Men's Rights Movement general sanctions ([110]) which includes the possibility of "other measures the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project". A tban on gender, sex, sexuality related articles (or articles related to controversies thereof) would seem to cover most of the area of disruption. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that thoughtful analysis, EvergreenFir. That makes sense to me. Jytdog (talk) 14:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I thank EvergreenFir as well. Sounds good. Gandydancer (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Could EvergreenFir or any editor please point out just one single diff where, since the 15th my editing would possibly justify a topic ban. I have kept asking this, but no-one, not Mongo, no-one, has been able to show even one single diff or any actual evidence whatsoever. This was dragged here by Flyer22 reborn for our two-way interactions and conflicts. Suddenly a topic ban has been imposed, but with no diffs and no evidence presented from the 15th onward. I asked this question of administrators Diannaa and Mark Arsten a few weeks ago and here was Mark's response [111]. Also this discussion with Diannaa on my talk page is here [112] and my reply is here [113]. When I dared to made one single edit to the domestic violence article, that two other independent editors agreed with, sure enough, I was jumped on, and here we are. And the only people who have weighed in on this discussion here too are the same group of editors and friends I discuss on my talk page. Editors who I am sure, in other respects, are all good editors. But that point is also discussed in the Wikipedia:Tag team essay too. All very strange.Charlotte135 (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Your edit on domestic violence mere days after your tban edited, a continuation of your initial beef from October which results in your tban, and the ensuing argument on the article's talk page. Which then continued the following day with other users ([114], including a personal attack on Flyer22 (see edit summary) despite the fact that you were the one to initially delete comments ([115]) which Flyer22 reverted ([116])... likely an edit conflict, but you seized on it as evidence of malice. The argument continued two days later ([117]). While all of this is happening, you're following Flyer22 to brand new pages (shown in diffs in initial complaint). You literally only stop once this ANI is filed. Like I said, I think Flyer22 and you have a major beef, but I don't think that's the locus of the problem. You edited just fine on psychology-related articles during your tban... you dabbled in feminism articles even (where I first encountered you). But that you immediately returned to your dispute on domestic violence immediately after your tban and followed Flyer22 around suggests your behavior is the problem and the certain areas foster problematic behaviors from you. Flyer22 might be a catalyst, but isn't the cause. She isn't following you, she's just reacting (admittedly in a hostile way) to you when you show up. It doesn't seem fair to punish Flyer22 for your problematic behaviors (which is what an iban would do). And frankly one-way ibans don't seem to work. So tban is my conclusion; remove you from the areas that foster your behavior. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, I'm not going to bother compiling a detailing diff history of exactly how Flyer22reborn baited me by removing certain edits, right before the 15th, and all the times they monitored my talk pages and the masses of personal attacks and uncivil behavior toward me. What's the point, nothing would happen to them anyway, and everyone knows that. I also can't be bothered, as I said to Diannaa. However foolishly, after the 15th, I took Flyer's bait. I also felt like testing my liberty on the project to be honest. Just like any other editor, and apply Mark Arsten's response to what I can do and cant edit after Flyer22 kept commenting on different talk pages trying to restrict me unfairly and for no reason at all, from editing certain articles [118] and Diannaa's advice [119]. But then I even apologized for my own childish reaction and suggested an interaction ban with Flyer22reborn - before they posted here. In fact I have asked Flyer22reborn to work with me many times but they refused and instead wanted to continue the conflict. I'm not the only one Flyer22reborn has conflicts with either. Over at Wikipedia talk:Canvassing Flyer22reborn has been upsetting more folks. It's becoming almost daily. Wherever you go, Flyer22reborn is upsetting, beliitling, demeaning and taunting other good faith, and in many cases very experienced editors too, apart from her large group of friends, both editors and administrators. These good faith independent editors are then labelled disruptive, or men's rights, or just plain daft, and ignorant for not agreeing with Flyer22 and not understanding policy as well as Flyer22reborn does. My concern is that Flyer22 knows damn well they can get away with it here on Wikipedia nowadays, for some reason. It doesn't seem to matter how rude, how disruptive they are, and how many edits are blatant POV pushing, it's tolerated again and again, much to the amazement of many editors here. And it seems to be getting worse. They can basically do whatever they like and get away with it. I thought Rhoark's neutral and detailed comments above summarized all of these points very well, but was again quickly smashed by Flyer22reborn. [120].

EvergreenFir As far as my topic ban, I can happily walk from the ridiculously biased domestic violence topic and articles that Flyer22reborn and shootingstar88 and some others have filled with cherry picked sources and POV, but why the gender and sexual topics EvergreenFir? Especially since I have already taken the lead on administrator Liz's fair two-way advice, to both Flyer22reborn and I, to be adults and "keep out of each others way" wherever possible. If I see Flyer22reborn I will not interact. Simple. Can you provide some reasons for those other topics please? And for goodness sake, please not the men's rights stuff again. Please.Charlotte135 (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Is it because Flyer22reborn has edited to some degree literally every, single possible sexual article that exists, and therefore a broad brush has been applied? As an adult, and an editor who is here to help with the project, I can assure you again, that I will follow Liz's fair advice. Would you possibly consider just a topic ban on the domestic violence articles instead? I don't understand otherwise, especially given Flyer22reborn's has had absolutely no sanctions applied to them over all of this.Charlotte135 (talk) 01:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, it looks like you are trying to quickly close this off now, but administrators Liz and EvergreenFir have proposed very different solutions and so did editor Rhoark. And both administrators Diannaa and Mark Arsten, have been involved indirectly here too, through the advice they both provided to me prior to the 15th. Would you mind please just letting EvergreenFir read these new comments, and my fair proposal, and then they can close it off as an administrator and hopefully consider my good faith proposal and points I've made. Like you, I am here to improve the project despite your bad faith accusations. Thank you.Charlotte135 (talk) 03:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

All I did on this thread was fix indenting. Stop digging. Jytdog (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I was just about to apologize to you, after seeing it was another case you were referring to not this one, but you beat me to it. Sorry.Charlotte135 (talk) 04:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've been hacking up the DV article like a Dexter montage, and surprisingly, there has been no resultant shit storm. The issue seems to have boiled down to

• Flyer and Charlotte had bad blood to begin with, and pretty quickly devolved into assumptions of bad faith.
• Lot's of accusations mostly centered around Charlotte's prev block, and somewhat less so about her current behavior
• A recent discussion that is mostly a stylistic difference of opinion
• A lot of unhelpful comments by a very new editor, Shy1alize

At the end of the day, everyone needs to learn how to avoid ad hominem. Charlotte needs to learn when trivial things are trivial and defer to more experienced editors, because it didn't really matter that much anyway. Flyer needs to practice how to have discussions with new editors without it translating in new-editor-speak to "fuck you and your wrong opinion." Shy1alize has a lot to learn period. And the RfC seems to have resolved the issue anyway. Charlotte served her time and nothing in this case in-and-of-itself seems like grounds for a ban, at least to me. The article moves on. There is no current disruption except for the ad nauseam discussion here. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

What you are missing, is the whole point of the OP which is not about the DV article (and your metaphors for your work there are inapt at best) - it is about Charlotte following Flyer around. Jytdog (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

No. That's in the "bad blood" part. Flyer is ubiquitous in gender/sexuality related articles, as has been pointed out, I believe.

Perhaps most importantly, I haven't actually seen that much Dexter. The prevalence of serial killers just doesn't add up. My wife went through a Netflix phase. Also, the overuse of voice over...oy vey, don't get me started.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your unbiased and independent comments Timothyjosephwood. Your input here is appreciated. By the way, even though I’m not a Dexter fan either, I thought your metaphor was quite apt on the domestic violence article. Although I stayed well clear, thank you for your recent work on that article. It would be good to see further consensus-based editing over there, and in related articles, where a number of different editors, work together to form an article that is fully compliant with Wikipedia's core content policies, such as neutrality (WP:NPOV), no original research (WP:NOR) and verifiability (WP:V).

The other largely unsubstantiated comments on this thread, are from a few close friends of Flyer22, mainly Gandydancer, Montabw and Jytdog. It should also be noted that I have had interpersonal conflict with Gandydancer and Montanbw in the past and they dislike me personally, with a vengeance, that’s for sure, and from also a motive of vengeance IMO but the fact is, they never, ever provide diffs, or any evidence at all to back up their drive-by comments and just suddenly appear, wherever I am being discussed by Flyer22reborn. On the other side of the ring, is Rhoark's comments [121] Timothyjosephwood’s comments above, administrator Diannaa's advice [122] administrator Mark Arsten's advice and opinion [123] and administrator Liz's fair minded comments and solution [124] and of course, my own defence, with diffs, which unfortunately appears a little lost in translation. Another neutral editor, Kingsindian, who carefully analyzed the situation when I was topic banned a few months ago, and added their thoughtful and detailed comments, can be seen here for some further perspective on this mutual bad blood between flyer22reborn, and I and also paints Flyer22 as being far from innocent in our interactions. [125]

Could I make a number of facts very clear here for the record. Firstly, I am not a men’s rights activist (no offence to anyone who actually is, by the way) but for the last time, I am not. And I don’t believe most of the many other editors who have had conflicts with Flyer22reborn are either. Secondly I am here to help, and be constructive, and my edits are not disruptive. Both Timothyjosephwood’s and Kingsindian’s comments directly support this fact, particularly after the 15th March. Nor have I exhibited any POV since the 15th, anywhere, and no diffs or evidence have been presented here, showing otherwise contray. Thirdly I am not, I repeat, not following Flyer22reborn around. If anything, the opposite has occurred. Here are my comments, prior to Flyer22reborn dragging me to ANI, and me actually suggesting an interaction ban. [126]

For the record, I have also genuinely asked Flyer22 if they would like to work with me and bury the hatchet on no less than 8 occasions (maybe more). Each time Flyer22reborn has rudely told me to piss off, no way. So I’ve actually given up on trying to work with them now, to be honest, and will instead, like Liz fairly suggested, just ignore or avoid Flyer22 in the future, rather than taking her bait. One can only get rejected, demeaned and belittled so many times before one gives up on working with someone. Here is another example of me deciding to try and resolve further conflict and not take the bait, which is the complete opposite of harassing, Flyer22reborn. [127] And here’s an example of me just letting it go and walking away before, Flyer22reborn still decided to drag me over here. [128] I think the point that everyone realizes, even Jytdog, is that Flyer22reborn seems unable to ever accept they are wrong or just back down. A current ongoing example of this is at Talk:Child abuse, where Flyer22reborn is once again insisting they know best, and belittling Coconutporkpie’s knowledge of policy. Further evidence against accusations of harassment I chose to stay well out of that dispute also, although I definitely agree with Coconutporkpie. And by the way, I only noticed this long running dispute at that article, as I have made a number of edits to the child neglect article and thought at one stage the two articles could have been integrated. Anyway, we all need to back down sometimes in life. We all need to admit we are wrong too. That is if we are adults. I think this is why Liz and other editors here have also advised Flyer22 to be an adult and stop demeaning others if they happen to disagree.

I think the fact that administrator Liz was involved in another case where Flyer22reborn’s friend and protégé Shootingstar88, was reprimanded at ANI for attacking me, and then later Diannaa blocked twice for copyright violations, puts her in the best position to decide on this case, but anyway. And I had already taken the lead on administrator Liz's fair two-way advice, to both Flyer22reborn and I, to be adults and "keep out of each other’s way" wherever possible. I have also now taken on board Timothyjosephwood’s advice that “everyone needs to learn how to avoid ad hominem” and his direct advice to me that “Charlotte needs to learn when trivial things are trivial and defer to more experienced editors, because it didn't really matter that much anyway.” Having said all of that, could I possibly be given a warning instead, and some good faith assumed here, without an actual topic ban, and we then see how things go, instead of smashing me and imposing a sweeping topic ban for ….? and let Flyer22reborn to continue roaming scott free? Seems a tad unfair. If the same behavior did continue, could we then deal with it in a heavier handed manner EvergreenFir? Please at least consider this option instead, and as administrator Liz first suggested, and now another independent editor Timothyjosephwood has reiterated, after their own careful consideration and work at the domestic violence article. Thank you.Charlotte135 (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

♫ Let it go. Let it gooooo. ♫ Timothyjosephwood (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Great song, thanks Timothyjosephwood. So inspirational. My 5 year old daughter and I love that movie. I feel like an idiot everyone. And not for the above reasons, or because Flyer22reborn and her friends keep telling me I am, for not agreeing with them and standing up to them. No, it's because some lovely kind hearted IP just left an enlightening message on my talk page. It was simple, sincere and direct. It read EvergreenFir is not an admin You see, those five words: EvergreenFir is not an admin, changes everything for me. And they explained everything for me. Thanks so much EvergreenFir, for not telling me that fact, and casting such ridiculous aspirations, without any evidence in the way of diffs. I also wondered how EvergreenFir's solution was so very different to the real administrators fair minded decision. Now I know. Since I did my time as Timothyjosephwood put it, the evidence clearly shows I have not edited either disruptively, nor with any POV. The mountain of evidence also shows that no, I have not been harassing Flyer22, and in fact, the opposite may be true. But let's let it go. From here on, I'm going to follow administrator Diannaa's advice [129] administrator Mark Arsten's advice and opinion [130] and administrator Liz's fair minded comments and solution [131] So Liz, could we please just close this ridiculous thread, and in the words of the great Idina Menzel, just let it go the past is in the past, and we all get back to editing and building the project. Please Liz.Charlotte135 (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. But I don't think you understand that a good portion of the cases here just get ignored and auto archived if you stop being disruptive and....Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Also I'm envious. We're pregnant. My wife wants a boy. I kindof want a girl. I wanted to name her Rosa, but my wife thinks it's too ethnic (she white af). PM me with good girl names if you can. We're committed to a "II" if it's a boy. Family thing.

Also if you can be constructive, I could use some shovel and hammer over at DV. A lot needs to be done. If you can help me take one word out of every sentence for tightening, that would be great. Just don't sweat the small stuff, which is how this all happened.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I've tried to avoid Gamergate and "Men's Rights" issues, but it's clear that there needs to be a TBAN and NPABAN on Charlotte135. I don't see evidence that Flyer22 is a problem, but there may be some complex issue that needs resolution. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Always liked the name Rose, Timothyjosephwood. Maybe that could be a compromise, if she's a girl that is, and your wife likes the name. I'd be happy to help over there, and thank you for your good faith offer, but seriously given that Flyer22reborn is still actively involved, I think I will continue to follow administrator Liz's solution instead, and try and keep out of each others way wherever possible. I noticed that the second paragraph of domestic violence I mostly wrote is still standing though, after all the trimming, so at least I have been able to offer some constructive editing to that article.Charlotte135 (talk) 07:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support for excessive walls of text including jumping on any opportunity to turn the discussion away from germane topics, ad hominem arguments, and for general badgering people who disagree with their viewpoints. Now I await the incipient TLDR-coma inducing rebuttal from the user at the core of this debate. Hasteur (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Starting to agree with you Hasteur... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for closure

Can we get an administrator who has not yet weighed in on this discussion to assess the consensus and close this thread? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

 Doing... in the next hourfew hours unless anyone beats me to it. Will take a while to untangle the thread. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you and best of luck Euryalus. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Long Page is Long

This page is longer than normal, someone more competent at wiki type things than me should archive some of it. 86.170.7.13 (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@86.170.7.13: Hello! This is no need to archive this page, (if this is the one you are talking about), because it is automatically updated by a bot. Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 19:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

This. Also, this time of year is generally a little busy, with kids on spring break, April Fools running about, and general chaos. The bot will sort it out - maybe twice or three times, for extra excitement. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

That's fine I suppose. Bonus Question - why is there no article about longcat? 86.170.7.13 (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Because nobody has made one yet. ansh666 22:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Another user posting Personal information on my talk page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A previously unknown user has requested I send them a Barnstar. I am mindful it is April 1st, so I posted that I would not unless they were Rachel Riley (relating to their username), and posted their phone number to me. They have posted a phone number, which I suspect needs to be be removed. I'm not asking for any other action at this point, so I have not pinged the user. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Hopefully Oversight will get back to me shortly. I've notified them of the situation. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 21:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, there is no way that phone number could be the phone number of the person who is the subject of the BLP. It's at most just the phone number of the editor who posted it voluntarily, so there's nothing to oversight I think. I've deleted the whole thing. I think it was just April 1 trolling. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

If it is the phone number of the user (rather than the BLP subject), it is personal information. In the case of young editors, this information is suppressed as soon as possible. I am unsure what the procedure is when the user is ostensibly over the age of majority. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 21:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

(e/c) Oh I see! I had not considered for one second that the number was the real number of the BLP. I was more worried that the number might be the real number of the User and I thought this was contrary to policy about posting personal information. I'm happy whether it is deleted or suppressed. My motivation here is to protect the user who I suspect might not be aware enough of WP to protect themselves. 21:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC) DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

It could be either/or, DrChrissy. Not sure if this was a mistake, but your name is not displayed within your above comment. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 21:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I guess it's possible that the editor could be a minor, but the editing history is entirely about trolling. Perhaps a block actually should be considered, even though it is not why this filing was made. The simplest solution would probably be for an admin to revdel what I already deleted, and then everyone just moves on. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Spoken like a true ARBCOM member (hee hee April 1st)[132]. I agree with that entirely. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Now, that's insulting! Now we need revdel! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

<outdent>Revisions deleted. Any personal phone number is generally oversighted, so we await OS action. Acroterion (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and I stand corrected. (And not for the first time, either!) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

How can a fish stand corrected unless perhaps you are a Tripod fish? ;-) It looks as if the postings at my Talk page have been oversighted - thanks. I think this thread can be closed and put to bed. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Problematic long-term IP editor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

50.184.105.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This user performs lots of mildly constructive edits, frequently peppered with unsourced and incorrect information. Has received many warnings on their talk page, but there has been no response or change in behavior. Examples of bad edits from just the last week or so: [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] A block of at least 48 hours or so might help send the message. Toohool (talk) 04:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, he's received five TP warnings, including two final warnings, in the last three weeks. So unless there is some kind of mitigating circumstance (like he comes here to this thread and agrees to stop the problematic/disruptive editing), he probably does need a block or else he's just going to continue. He also needs to always leave an edit summary. Softlavender (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked 31 hours to prevent further disruption. Listef (klat) 10:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extreme personal attack and harassment by User:SheriffIsInTown

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

He had editing dispute with some users and he accused them of being internet terrorists. There was clear vandalism by an internationally known hackers and Internet terrorists network based in Mumbai belonging to this same very agency In the above edit made on 27th March, ShriffIsInTown has gave a link to some hacking website. I request users not to click the link.

Later on User:MBlaze Lightning filed an SPI where ShriffIsInTown started to support the sockpuppet and accuse MBlaze Lightning of filing a wrong SPI. See the comment history of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/VisionHawk. Even after the SPI result he started pinging administrators, requesting them to favour the blocked user, in the second paragraph of this comment. --Greek Legend (talk) 05:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Ridiculous bad faith report that should earn the nom some sort of sanctionPerhaps the Nom should peruse history before reporting? Sherif was pointing out the fact that a couple of IP's have been quick to vandalise the article ever since new info was added. Well if someone calls a vandal as "internet terrorist" I am sure there is no harm, they are trying to destroy wikipedia so to be frank you can call them whatever you want. And this was not just an edit that was disputes, this was clear vandalism. As for the so called Pinging of admins to come and favor the bad bad user", the diff shows that Sherif wanted a "shorter block" not an unblock, and this is quite common across wikipedia, reporting this to ANI is beyond assuming bad faith , it is ridiculous and ****Y. Secondly Greek Legend himself wanted to "protect" or defend MBL as is clear from his own comments here on another user's TP. Now I don't want to assume anything, I am just saying that if someone beat you to the punch you should not cry and run to the admins asking for his ban, it is not Shriffs fault that you could not protect MBL from the "POV pushers", so please do not take it out on him. So all in all, a very very bad faith report, which would have earned any student a burning bottom had he taken this to the headmaster. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

:: Protect? I didn't want him to be unblocked. And why did you say about the same comment Quite right User:Greek Legend has hit the nail on the head in the same user page. Greek Legend (talk) 07:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by this statement of yours that "you did not want him unblocked". You just wanted Kutilya to side with him on the SPI as is quite clear from your statement. Also you called everyone involved in the SPI as "POV pusherS" which is a personal attack in itself. Furthermore my comment on MBL's page endorses your statement that MBL should stay away from politics related editing, and has Literally nothing to do with this bad faith nomination. To be frank with a kettle as black as your editing history you are under greater threat of being blocked for canvassing as you did at Kutilyas TP and for calling other users POV pushers when nothing has been proven against them. Sherrif called some IP vandals as "internet terrorists" and you are all up in arms about it and you are yourself calling like 5 established users POV pushers and its all right. Bravo! FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

::::Anyone can check the timings and see that I made the comment after the SPI was completed. While you all were involved, when the SPI was going on. Talk pages are for discussion. And this user:FreeatlastChitchat is also part of the group in the above mentioned SPI who was accusing MBlaze Lightning of making frivolous SPI. And the last line of this edit So all in all, a very very bad faith report, which would have earned any student a burning bottom had he taken this to the headmaster. is a personal attack. If no administrator takes any action, then it would seem experienced users are allowed to abuse new users. And FreeatlastChitchat is also referring "User:Kautilya3" as "Kutiya". This is local slang word in Urdu. He used this word more than once. It can't be a simple mistake.Greek Legend (talk) 08:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Greek Legend Yes you made the comment after the SPI, that is what I have been saying all along. You are so angry at sherif for beating you to the punch that as soon as the SPI is over you go over to K's page and say "OMG" we should have ganged up and defended poor MBL from these POV pushers. Then you vent your anger on Sherif by reporting him to ANI. HOW DARE he give his opinion against your express wishes? It is hilarious that you wanted to do something, but sheriff did it before you, so now you want him banned. Anyway as to your other comments. Firstly I accused MBL of a frivolous SPI against TalhaZubair and I was vindicated when the CU check showed that he had done nothing wrong. I have no idea why you are trying to add that information in this thread. you do realise that what you are linking goes against what you are trying to prove right? Secondly the word Kutiya means cunning, it is not used to denigrate anyone. Rather it is used by friends as a means of praise. You can see the use here tu bari kutti cheez hay yaar meaning that you are really cunning and astute. So that lays to rest your another assumption of bad faith. Thirdly I have now changed the word back to Kautilya so its no harm no foul. Lets get back to your attempt to canvas and your Personal attacks on user whom you call POV pushers. Also just when did it become a crime to call an SPI frivolous? You do realise that you do not own/run/have exclusive access to wikipedia right? It is a right of everyone to edit it and give their opinions. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

:::::: No it has some other derogatory meaning also. Greek Legend (talk) 08:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Greek Legend of course it does, as almost every single word in punjabi, but I have changed it back so please be kind enough to stop dangling the red herring. Why did you report sheriff for the exact same thing that you wanted to do btw? are you allowed to do these things exclusively? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

:::::::: This is my last comment here - You said above that I did the same thing. When and how I have made personal attacks against any user? When did I ping three administrators to favour a blocked user? (That was the original post). Bye and don't ping me again. Greek Legend (talk) 08:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Greek Legend you asked two questions, let me answer them, then you wont be pinged further. You asked "When and how I have made personal attacks against any user?". Well calling users POV pushers is a personal attack and a bad one at that. You called almost half a dozen editors POV pushers at Kautilya3's TP as I have just shown. there is no innuendo or veiled reference, you outright called them POV pushers. Your second question was "When did I ping three administrators to favour a blocked user?". I have already replied to this that your anger stems from the fact that you got beaten to the punch. As is clear from your comments at Kautilyas page, you "wanted" to gang up and "defend" MBL but were not able to do so, and this is the sole reason for this bad faith joke of a report. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't want to comment again, but this use is repeatedly pinging me here, misinterpreting my comments and also making continuous personal attacks in this post as saying "you got beaten to the punch" along with other personal attacks mentioned above. No administrator took any action, that's why he thinks he can say whatever he want and get away with it. Greek Legend (talk) 10:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@ Greek Legend plz do explain what has been misinterpreted in this statement of yours"He was alone against a bunch of POV pushers in that SPI". Please explain it to us so you can tell us what you meant by this. If you explain it yourself there will be no way anyone can misinterpret it as you will have given the explanation yourself. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

:: You are accusing me of Canvassing, which I did not do ever. Users can have conversation about anything. Yesterday I saw how a group was accusing MBlaze in that SPI. Today I found the SPI was successful and those users blocked. I found that he was right and all of you were wrong about the SPI. I mentioned that to Kautilya3. Do you have any problem if I saw anything to anybody when the SPI is over? I didn't ask Kautilya to comment anywhere. Kautilya never edited according to my request ever in the past. Kautilya edits according to his own will. You are misinterpreting my comment as you were against M Blaze in that SPI and you didn't like my comment on Kautilya's talk page. That's why you are making repeated personal attacks here again and again.--Greek Legend (talk) 10:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Greek Legend: I don't see an accusation of canvassing on part of FALCC. I agree that users can have conversation about anything but your encouragement of MBL's battleground and edit-warring behavior and then calling his opponents POV pushers does not carry an image of a good faith editor. Your message while awarding him the barnstar tantamounts to "them vs. us". Your message "The way your opponents were screaming and shouting against you. " and "Let them push their POV." to him carries a sound bite of teaming up behavior. Please don't make it "India vs Pakistan", this is an encyclopedia and not a battleground, please keep it that way. As about the SPI, i already mentioned that i was talking about the "lack of evidence" and how "TalhaZubairButt" and "DelusionMBT" do not seem to be connected and i was proven right. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

:::: Two times he has used the word canvas. If you don't want to read then don't read his long comments. Go through his comment history in this post again and you will find what you are looking for. Thanks. Greek Legend (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I did not see Kautilya's TP before but saw it now. So, how do you explain your message "He was alone against a bunch of POV pushers in that SPI." You were served ARBIPA notification by Kautilya on 23 February 2016. [[WP:ARBIPA]'s first decision calls for "Assumption of good faith" but you are completely doing opposite of it, you are calling your opponents POV pushers which seem to be Pakistani editors, you are leaving messages on talk pages of seemingly Indian editors and asking them to team up, do not leave your buddies alone. Are you some kind of assigned coordinator among them? Honestly, you should be coming under ARBIPA enforcement for this. This behavior of yours is against the principles of building an encyclopedia and should not be tolerated. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Guys, I will quickly address two points raised in this ANI. First of all, it seems like MBL is on the revenge again against an editor with whom he had disputes with. He couldn't get blocked one (TalhaZubairButt) now he is trying to get blocked the other. As you can see from my userpage User:SheriffIsInTown#Successful Sock-puppet Investigations, I have over 87% success rate of exposing socks and by looking at his frivolous SPI, I knew that TalhaZubairButt was not connected to DelusionMBT and I was proven right by CU. Instead of filing this report, he should be apologizing to TalhaZubairButt whom he accused of being a sock-puppet of Wikibaba1977 and LanguageXpert under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TripWire#18 March 2017, another accusation proven wrong by Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VisionHawk. He also filed a frivolous ANI at Edit-warring noticeboard against me which he had to withdraw. He is himself under violation of 1RR imposed on Pakistan, India and Afghanistan articles. He reverted twice the content in which Pakistan and India are both mentioned on Research and Analysis Wing but so for no action is taken against him. As for IP which vandalised Research and Analysis Wing was not an IP rather it was a network address and I have never seen a network address appear like this in the edits before. Notice 0 at the end of 101.60.229.0. It looked suspicious to me so when I searched for it on the Internet, I found that International Anti-hacker Alliance website has this network blacklisted and they claimed that this network was actually tied to known hackers and Internet terrorists and location of the network shows up as well so nothing hidden about it. Mind you that website is Anti-hacker and not hacking website as MBL claimed, two opposite side of coins. Its same like email spam fighting websites such as Blue Cop etc. I would request admins to block the whole network 101.60.229.0 since it's very dangerous to allow them to continue to vandalise Wikipedia. This frivolous ANI should be thrown out of the window since calling "a spade a spade" is no crime. It seems now MBL is trying to throw everything at me to get me blocked as he did to TalhaZubairButt. I requested for shorter block of DelusionMBT because I genuinely thought he did not completely understood the whole procedure and seemed inexperienced to me and was willing to learn from his mistakes. I also genuinely did not know that pinging admins to unblock a user was wrong but you can let me know If it was wrong and I won't do in future. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 09:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Note Sheriff does have seem to have a slightly unencyclopaedic view of collegiality. Not taking sides in this particular report or anything; but that User Page has some most peculiar elements. Cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Would you spell them out here? My user page is just for fun. It carries a police theme, its my personal choice, goes with my username, nothing to do with my editing and i never indulge on what other users have on their pages, your user page is for you to keep it as it pleases you. I have an incomplete Verbiage Keys section which might help you understand many things about my user page. Also, i would like to add that maybe, you want to suggest how to lay out my user page, do you want me to blank it out completely so that it does not bother you or you want me to copy your page to my page so it looks exactly the same as yours which should make you very happy. Let me know because i am all for collegiality! :) Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Since my name has been mentioned about a hundred times here already, I thought I would make a few remarks in the interest of drawing this discussion to a close. I have been editing India-Pakistan pages for about 18 months, and I can tell you that I have seen very few saints and very few devils. All the editors fall somewhere in between; they all carry some biases, want to push some POVs, take some short-cuts, play the system etc. That is the reality, and it is not all bad. When there are intense disputes between "biased" editors, the real truth can be slowly found. I only wish they debate a bit more coherently so that I can understand the truth faster. Both MBlaze and Freeatlast fall into this category. They have crossed the line and are currently undergoing a learning experience. Let them do it in peace and let us go back to work. We can spend our time more fruitfully by picking up those pages that are dying for our attention. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat blocked for one week

irrelevant Spartaz Humbug! 14:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
*Comment SheriffIsInTown just saw that FreeatlastChitchat is blocked for one week and trying to divert the attention. I don't edit all these India-Pakistan war articles. Greek Legend (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC) This is again, "not an assumption of good faith". I did not see if FreeatlastChitchat was blocked. I do not follow others like you do. What do you mean by "diverting the attention"? If he is already blocked then he is already blocked. How would it serve me or him if i try to divert the attention? How this announcement of yours serve this ANI? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC) :: Any experienced neutral editor can see through what is going on here. I can't just go on explaining again and again. I have other interests in Wikipedia than these arbitration topics. --Greek Legend (talk) 14:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

:I made the above hatted comment after a proposal by Sheriff which he has removed. Greek Legend (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ms Sarah Welch not abiding by consensus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

We have clear consensus HERE to replace extremely cherrypicked content of Ms Sarah Welch with some basic content from 2 academic books. However Ms Sarah Welch refuses to abide by the consensus.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• No, you do not--you have one drive-by commentator who agrees with you. And might I suggest toning down the rhetoric a bit--"extremely"? Since you do not have any clear consensus, this is a content issue--good luck with it. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: This is a content dispute, where @VictoriaGrayson has argued, "WP:CONSENSUS does override Wikipedia policies. See WP:IAGR." Such right to revoke wikipedia's core content policies/guidelines such as WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:LEAD etc, for specific wikipedia articles, just because one relatively new editor agreed with @VictoriaGrayson, is unusual and needs community wide discussion at the very least. Few days ago, I already invited @VictoriaGrayson to add Nicholson's view to the article. Before this ANI was filed, I have offered to do that, if @VictoriaGrayson wants me to add summary from Nicholson. I suggest we let this content dispute return to the article's talk page, and let it get resolved through the due process and a collaborative effort. FWIW, I believe @VictoriaGrayson is a valued contributor to Buddhism/Hinduism/Indic articles. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Someone is proposing a community ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Someone is proposing a community ban

I have moved this discussion from ANI to AN because admin user:KrakatoaKatie commented in it that "Community ban discussions belong at AN". I hope we are now in the correct place. Tradedia^talk 08:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Delinker abuse by Cow Cleaner sock

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Someone please quickly block this user: Special:Contributions/Great_Deeds_Great_Words EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked them for 31hr, though I don't have enough knowledge on the Cow Cleaner case to comfortably make the block longer; if another admin has better judgement please override me for that. That said, the edits they made before I could block are NPAs and really need a mass revdel...--MASEM (t) 03:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Masem: Thank you for the block. I started an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Cow_cleaner_5000. Should be enough time for someone to review it. Those edit summaries are typical of Cow Cleaner though. :-/ Why is a new account able to use Twinkle and mass delink like that? Seems like something we outta fix. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Given the edit summaries, I would say an indefinite not here block is in order. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 04:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

No worries from me, as I noted, I wasn't sure enough on the details. --MASEM (t) 04:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Updated. Cheers, --kelapstick^(bainuu) 04:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Since we are on the revdel, why not also revdel the summaries from this identified sock, Diddlydoo372 (talk · contribs)? —Farix (t | c) 04:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done --kelapstick^(bainuu) 04:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat by Timpicerilo

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please see last lines of dif. User has been getting more and more upset at Talk page of a fringey BLP and lost it. Jytdog (talk) 06:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

warned by admin User:SQL. Sufficient? Jytdog (talk) 07:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm waiting to see a response here, or at the user's page. It seems like a heat of the moment, borderline at best legal threat. We'll see if they repeat it. SQL^{Query me!} 07:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

No borderline about it, it's a blatant legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Any admin that interperts it that way are still able to - and more than welcome to block them. SQL^{Query me!} 09:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not a legal threat within the scope of WP:NLT. But it still, in my view, warrants a block for pure disruption/battleground/uncivil conduct. People shouldn't be using threats of stirring up off-wiki trouble, or inciting others to bring lawsuits, to settle editing disputes. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• IMO, Timpicerilo needs banning from that page. Look at the talk page. A massive wall of WP:THETRUTH based on novel synthesis from unusable sources. Guy (Help!) 08:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not threatening anyone I recommended to Greger personally off Wikipedia IMO that he should take legel action for the obvious slander against him. Skeptics with no experience in nutrition falsely critiquing a expert in nutrition? Give me a break you don't have to ban me because I quit Wikipedia if this illegal activity is what it comes down to. BTW check accounts for sock puppetry on this articles talk page even though you will find I was falsely accused there may be some on the other side that are.Timpicerilo (talk) 10:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

And, that's where you lept over the line. You may return when this legal action has been completed, or rescinded. SQL^{Query me!} 11:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Saying that you are recommending somebody to take legal action against Wikipedia or a Wikipedia user is meant to make people edit their page or give in to your opinions. That means it's an attempt from your side to win an argument; not based on neutral point of view reliable sources, but based on fear. That means it falls under the WP:NLT rule, or is at least borderline. You therefore should retract this statement, and in fact recommend Greger to NOT take legal action, because that won't work and is a waste of time an money for everyone involved. Follow Wikipedia rules and policies instead, and all will be well. It's also must faster. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

User continues to make threats. SQL^{Query me!} 11:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editor attacking others at Talk:Twilight

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Pocketthis (talk · contribs) seems to be pushing a anti-religion agenda and attacking others at Talk:Twilight. When an editor introduced an edit and started a discussion on the talk page when their edit was reverted, Pocketthis reponded with this rant that says "The subject is "CLOSED" because this is Wikipedia's protocol, and I've been helping enforce it for 5 years. You don't come with good will. You come with religion. You are a religious person. A person of faith. Please feel free to contribute to in the articles written by those who also live their lives on faith and not fact. No compromise." and this one, saying things such as "This isn't the inside of someone's home where you can pop up on the TV screen begging for dollars, promising the sick, the old and the poor redemption, simply by sending in their life savings." and "You can't pray here. Now think of the religious articles as your church. Keep it where it belongs, and all is good."

As per WP:NPA#WHATIS: Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views is a personal attack. That seems to be this editor's modus operandi. When I asked him to tone down his rhetoric on his talk page, he stated that because I was part of a (completely different) religion, that I should "bow out" because my "religious sympathies are showing". When I reverted the article back to it's previous state per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO, he reverted with the edit summary A Buddhist is trying to reinsert the religious section here. I've done my bit. If you cowards don't come to my aid, this article and hundreds like it will become part of Wikibible and noted on their talk page that YOU have started the edit war! You reversed my removal. Saying that edit-warring has "a guilty party" and it's certainly not them, despite them being the one making all the reverts.

Pocketthis is not a new editor, and should be very aware by now that this kind of behavior is inappropriate. Attacking other editors, edit-warring while blaming every other editor for edit-warring is something that would be expected from a new editor, but not someone that has been here for over four years with a few thousand edits under their belt. Their comments and actions have made it clear that they aren't here to collaborate with others (especially those he feels are compromised by having an opinion he doesn't share), and I really think some kind of administrator intervention is required. Pocketthis has been notified of this discussion. - Aoidh (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• I attacked no one. I am trying to protect the integrity of our encyclopedia from Bible pushers, who use science articles as a venue to preach. This man accusing me of attacking a new user, (which by the way isn't a new user, but an old one disguised a new one), is a Buddhist, and has sympathy for those who would insert matters of faith into a science article. I am trying to keep Wikipedia from becoming Wikibible. I should be thanked, and not spanked. - thanksPocketthis (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
• P.S. I have said my piece, and made my edits as to the issue pertaining to religion in the Twilight Article. I am done. There is no need to worry about any further comments by me. If what I have said and done there isn't enough for others to come to my aid, then it is what it is, and there's nothing I can do about it. - thanks-Pocketthis (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Pocketthis seems to be an atheistic fanatic. Case ends. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 17:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Pocketthis, no one is coming to your aid because you are wrong. By comparison, it doesn't matter that I personally think genocide is bad. It's still a thing, and there are still Wikipedia articles on it. It doesn't matter that I think astrology is nonsense. It's still a thing and there is still a WP article on it. By the same measure, it doesn't matter that you and I are atheists. Religion is still a thing that exists, and is therefore an appropriate topic for inclusion in WP. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• I appreciate your opinion Timothy, however, our science articles are being hijacked by religious fanatics. This is the max the Twilight article should have to say about anything pertaining to religion: Many religions view the twilight time of the day as holy, and many activities in various religions are practiced during that time. Anything more, and you start a 10,000 character religious section, inviting every religious faith to come make their pitch. Haven't we seen enough religious destruction in the world to know what they are really selling? It is so obvious and absurd, I'm having a hard time containing myself speaking of it. From the beginning of recorded time, one faith or another has killed thousands in the name of their God. Why can't we keep a lid on it here? Or at least keep in their religious articles. Miserly loves company, let them be miserable there. - Pocketthis (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

  Totally not a personal attack. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 19:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Pocketthis, sorry man, but your personal philosophical opinion on the role of religion in the grand scheme of the universe simply isn't relevant. Get off the WP:SOAPBOX. You don't have a 10,000 character religious section, if you end up with one, then argue WP:DUEWEIGHT. You have a small (severely undersourced) section. So drop the slippery slope. Compare the section under Sun which perfectly appropriately addresses historically significant cultural and religious issues related to the sun, a section which you yourself have edited in the past and apparently had no problem with. WP is not the place to wage your personal social war. All these high handed proclamations about the fate of humanity just makes you look like you're WP:NOTHERE, and your going to wind up banned if you don't get a bit of a reality check. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• I have already said here that I was done with any further religious editing in that article. I was just commenting here with you as a mini debate. I see that you do not wish to debate, so I am done with debating as well. Good day-Pocketthis (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem is your personal attacks and battleground mentality as much as your editing on the article. You cannot attack other editors on Wikipedia, especially for something as simple as having a viewpoint that you don't agree with. As far as I can see, you don't need to be touching any religious information on any article, because you have shown that you do not have the capacity to handle it, or other editors, appropriately. I don't know if a topic ban is needed, but it might be needed here to avoid a block. I don't know if you're having an off day or if there is a history of this behavior, I'm looking into that now, but the fact that you think this behavior is okay is the real issue. - Aoidh (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

He is certainly not competent enough to touch religious discussions for the rest of his life (this is coming from a non-theist, hit me). --QEDK (T 📖 C) 20:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• I thought this was all over, and I really want it to be. On the other hand, I must say that the issue here I have a problem with, even more than the religious sections in science articles, is being accused by the user that opened this discussion, saying that I attacked someone in the talk article. All I did in the talk article was "talk". Yes, my opinion was very concise and deliberate, but that is just because I grew up in Brooklyn, NY, and I speak from the front of my mouth. There is no speaking from the side of my mouth, or under my breath. I tell it as I see it. I do so politely, and that is not attacking anyone. The person with real issues here, is the user/reviewer that opened this discussion. I truly believe that from the bottom of my heart. I never threatened the fellow in the talk page. The word Attack as used here is absurd. I will admit that as the years go by, I am more convinced that organized religion is not a good thing. To that opinion.....I am guilty. Also, perhaps I have been drinking a bit too much coffee. I'll cut down. Can we put this to bed now? - Thanks -Pocketthis (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

"You don't come with good will. You come with religion. You are a religious person." Puts an interesting spin on WP:BADFAITH (Pun completely intended).

"This isn't the inside of someone's home where you can pop up on the TV screen begging for dollars, promising the sick, the old and the poor redemption, simply by sending in their life savings." Really? I mean, hyperbole for sure. WP:CIVIL is a slam dunk. WP:SOAPBOX and a half. WP:NPA just for good measure. (But hey, if this is a way to get rid of the WP donation banner then I'm all for it.)

And this is not to mention that your entire premise is just wrong. Compare the article on the sun, as has been brought up already. Compare bread, gold, monogamy, capital punishment. The topic doesn't matter. If there are WP:RS that make the connection, and it's not WP:UNDUE weight, then it belongs.

The grand irony is, that if you had actually argued against the section based on the weakness of its sources, you would have had a good point. Instead you've nearly categorically disqualified yourself to have that discussion. You just make things worse with the "I just want it all to be over, but before it is, I want to have the last word and make sure everyone knows I'm completely justified.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Here is my perspective on this. First, here is the content that User:Matt1618 wanted to add. Pretty heavy on the Roman Catholic thing, and if you look at Matt1618's contribs, they are 100% WP:SPA for things Roman Catholic, and their username is the biblical verse on which the Pope bases his claim of primacy. In my view, this user is so far here to use Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX for things Roman Catholic, which is not OK. So User:Pocketthis was hitting a mark with their shotgun blasts. Matt1618 please reply here and let us know that you understand that the way you have been using Wikipedia is not OK.

That said, what Pocketthis wrote on the Talk page was out to lunch and over the top. Almost every article on archetypical natural phenomena has a section that discusses importance to "Culture" in various ways (which is really how those article should be sectioned - a Culture section that deals with things like, art, literature, religion, etc). Examples: Dawn#Mythology_and_religion + Dawn#Dawn_in_the_world_of_Art + Dawn#Literature; Blue_hour (pretty much 100% culture); Night#Cultural_aspects; Rainbow#Culture; Moon#In_culture; heck, Mars#In_culture and even Flower#Symbolism. So the notion that "religion" as a subset of Culture per has no place in an article about an archetypal time of day, is just out to lunch. I'll add here that the Twilight article is only part of one WikiProject, WP:WikiProject Time which is defunct and never created a manual of style to guide sectioning, but I would reckon they would have a "Culture" section if they had a MoS.

Pocketthis, you also did nothing to get community input when you had your disagreement and as the more experienced user that would have been wiser of you. And you were beyond blunt and into strident. That is what everybody here has said. So let me ask you - can you hear that what you said about "no religion" was not correct, and that the way you said it was way too strident? If you cannot see those things, there are bigger problems than a TBAN from religion would solve. If you can see that, there is no need for a TBAN, in my view, especially if you can bring yourself to apologize for what you did, too. (for real, not fakey) Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• My perspective on this is along the lines of @Jytdog:'s response. These sections do tend to a "I have to get the details of my group in" level of overdetail, and it seems to me that what we have now could be reduced profitably. Pocketthis's response, on the other hand, is way out of line. It's one thing to overrun articles with this sort of material, but really, an article on twilight that doesn't talk about its religious significance is incomplete, and the hostility to religion expressed (a) over the top and (b) an obvious violation of neutrality. Mangoe (talk) 12:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal from the topic of religion

The above makes it very clear that Pocketthis (talk · contribs) cannot constructively edit, or discuss, the topic of religion on Wikipedia. Outside of the topic of religion the editor's edits seem constructive, but if they keep at this they are going to get themselves blocked from editing. For that reason, I propose that the editor be topic banned from the subject of religion on Wikipedia for at least six months. The fact that they don't see their behavior regarding the topic of religion as a problem indicates that they don't need to be discussing it at all. Saying "You don't come with good will. You come with religion." is not "polite", no matter how much Pocketthis says otherwise, and the fact that they are willing to give "no compromise" on the subject means they should not be editing the subject at all. In their own words above, "I'm having a hard time containing myself speaking of it." This edit summary, more than any other thing, sums up why they should be topic banned. - Aoidh (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support - As proposer. - Aoidh (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

You sir are a Buddhist that has lost his way. If you would have simply showed up in the Twilight talk page, and asked me to tone it down politely, I would have re-read my reply to the man, and tried to be more forgiving of his relentless posting. However, you chose to come here and make my life miserable because you felt your own faith threatened. Where is "your" compassion for fellow man? You lost it along the way. This isn't the living room with the TV in it asking for donations, or the front gate just waiting for that sought after Watchtower. It is an encyclopedia. This man put 2500 words about Christianity in the Twilight article, and when it was removed, he would not stop posting his opinions. I also didn't stop posting mine. Yes, I could have been more forgiving, and compromising, however, when the fellow lied to me and told me he was just a "new user" trying to do whatever, I closed the door on having an open mind. And......when this is all said and done and decided, the truth about his identity will eventually surface, and you might feel differently. How do I know he is not a new user? All of us that have been here for years know when they are talking to a sock puppet, or a banned user claiming to be a "new user". I don't have to give examples. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you don't belong here in this discussion. Any real user, that had prior posts, and was respected by the community would have gotten a completely different response from me there. I think you all of know that. I have worked here with the best in the world for 5 years, and you would block me over a talk page exchange with a sock puppet. Sad.. Sad commentary indeed.

• do not support- as recipient - Pocketthis (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Every time you comment you dig yourself in deeper. You are incapable of discussing religion in a civil manner, for whatever reason. The funny thing is, I'm certain that I've never said I was a Buddhist on Wikipedia. Not just in discussions with you, but ever. I'm an active part of the WikiProject Buddhism, and have a quote from the Dhammapada on my user page because it's relevant to how people should discuss things on Wikipedia. That doesn't make me Buddhist, and the only person who has brought up Buddhism is you, so how is it that "my faith is being threatened"? The Twilight article does not, and as far as I know, has never mentioned Buddhism, nor have I in any discussion with you up until this comment. Yet you see the word "WikiProject Buddhism" on my user page and automatically attack me for it, saying that "because I'm Buddhist" that I shouldn't have any say in the subject of religion, and that my "religious sympathies are showing" simply because I disagree with you. The very mention of the word religion seems to compromise your ability to have any sort of dialogue, and instead you start going into these diatribes that hardly have anything to do with the subject at hand. Instead of explaining why you should not be topic banned from religion, you chose to attack me and what you assume is my personal religion. If anything, that's more evidence that you need to be topic banned before you are blocked completely. - Aoidh (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• There you go with that word Attack again. Were you beat up as a child? Seriously my friend, I think the person that is out of control here is you. How have you ever managed to maintain your seniority here with your lack of compassion and diplomacy? Amazing.-Pocketthis (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support temp topic ban due to refusal to stop digging, and tendency toward WP:Discrimination. As for Aoidh, enough, we get it. Shh. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

True. - Aoidh (talk) 10:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support temporary topic ban - enough is enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
• Why don't you fellows go and ban the sock puppet and do something constructive here. I'm being railroaded, and I would find it amusing if I didn't spend so many hours of my life here trying to improve and beautify this place. What a disgrace this is. Other than the level headed admin that ended this case, you should all be ashamed of yourselves. This is how you treat a 5 year veteran of the site that has fought vandalizum tooth and nail here everyday. I have beautified your articles with photography, and made some of the best friends of my life here, of which I do not plan on informing them of this atrocity, or ask for their help. Have fun here wolf-pack, and thank you "starter of this thread". You have only reinforced my feelings about those involved in organized religion. My advice is don't look in the mirror tonight, you might not like what you see.Pocketthis (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Dood. So much melodrama. Schtap. This is the problem. Learn to learn. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Insulting other editors proves no understanding of the "write for the enemy" aspect of NPOV. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 01:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support Indefinite topic ban. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 05:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Doesn't seem to be able to edit neutrally on the subject. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support - topic ban, minimum 6 months or more. Just because this user has spent "5 years beautifying the place", doesn't give them a free pass from disruptive editing, personal attacks and discrimination. - ^theWOLFchild 19:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC) (in fact, only certain editors get free passes around here, usually they're buddies with the admins, and this doesn't seem to apply here)
• Support as someone who thinks religion is a bunch of grownup fairy tales, though historically important and worthy, on the whole, for what it tries to do. ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs) 01:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support Although from a philosophical perspective my thinking is more in line with Pocketthis and EEng, this is an international project which should aim to be more inclusive in its approach to editors. Comments such as those by Pocketthis are counter to these aims and should be duly sanctioned. Blackmane (talk) 06:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it's unfair both to yourself and to me to fail to emphasize the substantial difference between ourselves and Pocktthis in terms of attitude. EEng 20:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support per WP:IDONTHEARTHAT, WP:COMPETENCE and WP:NPA. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 12:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support - this fight is silly and needs to be apprehended appropriately.--Loyalmoonie (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)Chris
• oppose seeing that the editor in question hasn't shown that much interest in editing on religious topics. I do think that WP:DROPTHESTICK is definitely in order, however. Mangoe (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
• SNOW support: This editor is quite clearly (and I'm sure the irony of the wording will not be lost on them) on a crusade to limit or expunge as much reference to religion on the project as possible. Frankly, the motivating factors and lack of perspective suggest a deep WP:COMPETENCY issue with regard to understanding the basic concept of encyclopedia building, as opposed to WP:ADVOCACY/the desire to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Their comments call into question whether they are capable of even remotely applying a WP:Neutral point of view with regard to the topic of religion (or indeed, any social topic they may have strong feelings about). I personally have doubts that this is the last stop at ANI for this contributor, but a topic-ban regarding all content and discussions relating to religion, broadly construed, is the appropriate first step. That incorporates a great many articles and discussions, but it is the user themselves who has set the bounds of those restrictions by being unable to countenance reference to an ubiquitous feature of human culture that touches upon many other areas which will necessarily incorporate coverage of religious topics, quite regardless of any judgement of whether those beliefs are rational or not. I disagree with the proposal only in that I think the ban needs to be indefinite, with a minimum 1-year of concerted, non-confrontational, non-soapbox editing, free of WP:PAs, before an appeal of the ban is brought before the community. Snow ^{let's rap} 11:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support - This is identity-based harassment. and personal attacks. If the user cannot set aside their own prejudices we should remove them from the topic. I'll add that this tban should extend to include spirituality and faith as religion has a specific definition and connotation. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mansfield Town F.C.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Conflict of interest paid editing account User:Matthewjoule is being used only for promotional purposes on Mansfield Town F.C.. Slow edit warring, adding the same promotional info without any discussion on the talk page, article ownership issues. Has been blocked before for his behaviour and repeatedly warned but carries on regardless. Theroadislong (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

This certainly doesn't look good. From their talk page "As part of my role, I am required to keep the Mansfield Town FC and John Radford (businessman) pages up to date. Therefore, I will be continuing to edit the pages." As they have been reverted multiple times by several different users, yet continue to make the same edits (at least 10-15 times), I suggest a month-long block for now and an indefinite topic ban from Mansfield Town-related articles if other admins have no objections? Number 57 22:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked this editor for 30 days. No objection to the topic ban. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 23:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Just for record, this editor has a major COI with this article as a simple search reveals they are the Media and Communications Assistant at Mansfield Town FC. Blackmane (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

If he can post accurate information and sources on the talk page, and let others post the information after it's verified, I've got no problem. But "It's correct because I say it's correct" just ain't gonna fly. I'll watchlist and see what they do. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree with this analysis of best practice and suggested talk page usage by Ultraexactzz, above. Good recommendations. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Content removal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

To ANI,

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Salah_Abdeslam&action=history

taking into account the previous warnings the editor has had on edit warring, I provide the following for the attention of those concerned with this issue:

https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Parsley+Man&project=en.wiki.x.io:

Total edits: 3,645,

Reverted edits: 68,

86.8% of edit total are Article edits.

Most edits done by this editor (first three listed):

• 369 Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge -"The occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge was an armed standoff in Harney County, Oregon, United States, between armed anti-government militants and county, state, and federal law enforcement agencies."
• 208 2016 Brussels bombings
• 177 2015 San Bernardino attack

I think this editor is dealing with subjects which complement each other, and keeping this editor would prove to be of benefit to wikipedia, because he has chosen to largely specialise in an area of editing which I've indicated. Unfortunately he has for some reason removed content, which to me seems unjustified in at least this particular case:

edit 20:21, 29 March 2016 - His father was born in 1949, in Oran, Algeria. (ref name=" Christophe273 ")

I decided to retain this information, and the reason I chose to give was "the french version has this info" - Le père de Salah Abdeslam est un Marocain né à Oran, en Algérie française, en 1949 - L. Christophe, « Salah Abdeslam, d’un vol raté à Limelette au carnage de Paris (PORTRAIT) » [archive], La Libre.be,‎ 19 mars 2016 (consulté le 27 mars 2016).

The editor in question has removed additional content which I see no reason to omit.

sincerely, 6cb49af5c4 (talk) 10:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I just thought to add, my experience of this editor in contribution to Salah Abdeslam (please see https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-articleinfo/?article=Salah_Abdeslam&project=en.wiki.x.io - Top editors), prior to this issue, is he (/she...) has made a positive contribution to the editorial process. Which is of course a given, or else a notification would have been posted here earlier. This was his first edit on the article 02:20, 18 December 2015‎ Parsley Man (talk | contribs)‎ m - http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Salah_Abdeslam&offset=20160320010010&limit=500&action=history - 115 edits, 7 minor edits since then. 6cb49af5c4 (talk) 10:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

How is this an AN/I issue? Discuss it with him on the talk page. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Content dispute. Please read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and the heading of this page. Unless you are accusing The Other Editor of some sort of unacceptable behavior and provide evidence gor those transgressions in the form of links, this does not belong on WP:ANI. The fact that you don't see a reason, does not mean there aren't any (WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP). Kleuske (talk) 11:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, I started a discussion regarding the material I deleted on the talk page here. Parsley Man (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Threats from Cryptic & CSD:U5

User:Cryptic says "It was declined because it was explicitly marked as a draft, which makes it not be a U5, until you edited that off. We have a word for people who people who edit a page that was not a speedy candidate to make it into one. That word is "vandal". If you don't want to be blocked like one, don't act like one." Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#User:Sabesh1.2FEnhanced_efficiency_fertilizers

First, Twinkle automatically replaces the userspace draft header with the CSD tag like this [141], it is nothing I did intentionally. Second, I have yet to see another Admin say anything like this, and I've had many similar pages deleted WP:U5 Finally, I take this as a serious threat because he is an Admin and could block me, and it's not the first time he's made the threat against me. Therefore I'm bringing this for wider view. If I'm using WP:U5 incorrectly I'd like to know ASAP so I can change how I am doing things.

He reverted about 14 of my WP:U5 tags in a row including these other examples I've now sent to MfD that I believe are obvious uncontroversial WP:U5:

• Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#User:Aponiatowski11.2FRegis_Historical_Society
• Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#User:Apcuser94.2FAPSU_1000_.28Austin_Peay_State_University.29
• Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#User:AppleSocialUK.2FJames_Kenny

Legacypac (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Cryptic is responding appropriately to sloppy inaccurate CSD tagging. Check the opening sentence of WP:CSD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Cryptic is an admin and has the right to decline them all if Cryptic doesn't think a page violates U5. I think your point is fair in that twinkle for some reason does replace the userspace draft template with the U5 notice but if it doesn't violate U5 to Cryptic, drop it and take it to MFD. Cryptic, I think the accusation of intent is incorrect but I think U5 is so badly worded and so misused, I'm barely sure when it's appropriate. I'd say that if Cryptic blocks for wrong U5 tagging, it would be inappropriate but there's numerous other discussions and antics going on, Legacypac, that a block could be justified, I'm just saying. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't any editor have the right to remove a CSD tag, with only some specific restrictions?

Weren't we re-working the wording of U5, I guess we got sidetracted? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• If Twinkle does that automatically, I apologize, but it's a pretty glaring bug that needs to be fixed post-haste. (And it's not one that I've seen with other users' U5 tags.) This is no different than it replacing the rest of the article with "aaksjhkasjhas" when you add a {{db-g1}} tag. Re U5, this is the WT:CSD discussion; the language there is "Whether pages plausibly intended or explicitly marked as drafts would be eligible under the new criterion, and which". —Cryptic 06:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, then, Legacypac, is this resolved now? I think we can have a further discussion at WT:CSD about U5 language and wording if you want but I think the discussions before was pretty detailed. The bug someone can take to WT:TWINKLEis it? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Again, blatant misuse of U5, if other admins do use it as a blanket deletion tag for some proper drafts, they are the ones in the grey zone. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 07:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not a misuse if the CSD is declined. You can call it mistagging but it's not like U5 was actually used to get anything done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I meant it in the context you said - something sort of like, using U5 to try and get them deleted which was wrong. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 07:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

From my perspective, a misuse of the CSD tag would be if the admin deleted it based on a wrong tag (say a ridiculously expansive version of G6). That's a contrast to a mistagging when a non-admin can do. Doesn't matter, I agree, it's still an accusation, whether it's intentional or reckless is another matter. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• User:Amol.Gaitonde/Songs I like is a page that was appropriately deleted per WP:CSD#U5. The content was a list of songs that the user apparently liked.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 08:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • As far as content I agree; but that user has plenty of non-userspace contributions, another blocker for using U5. —Cryptic 08:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Why is this on ANI? Did you try to explain to Cryptic that Twinkle auto-strips the template? Honestly Legacypac... where there's smoke there's fire. I like that you're being bold and mapping out the nuances of how different policies work, but it's getting to the point that your good faith conduct is becoming disruptive. You surely must expect some negative reaction at this point. Slow the hell down. Try to settle the dispute. U5 CSDs aren't generally urgent, so take a break from them. We can figure this out if we work together. Coming back to ANI again and again is only raising the temperature of this dispute. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks at Talk:Timothy Leary

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

After I reminded IP editor 2605:a000:1200:600f:bdc2:282a:6c52:766b of talk page guidelines, specifically WP:TPYES ("Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page"), the IP responded with, "Shove it your ass you fucking moron." I request an immediate block for the IP, and if need be, semi-protection of Talk:Timothy Leary. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

This is the 5th attempt by FKC to take this losing issue to a drama board. At dispute is a claim in the lede paragraph that Timothy Leary was, among other things, a philosopher. There is currently one source cited and I have made an edit request to 6 more that clearly identify Leary as a philosopher.

FKC has been fighting this tooth and nail, first by edit warring, then with incessant trips to various drama boards. The IP is a newbie and clearly becoming frustrated for good reason. FKC denies Leary was a philosopher based on various completely made-up and completely specious conditions, including insisting he didn't really make his living as a philosopher, that the numerous sources identifying him as a philosopher (several books and newspapers) aren't sufficiently high quality, that the view that he was a philosopher was sufficient "significant" (whatever that means), and tediously picking apart the wording in the cited sources, e.g., arguing that sources that describe his work as "exploring the cultural and philosophical drugs" or that state that "he founded a sort of LSD philosophy of use that involved aspects of mind expansion" don't count because they don't actually call him a philosopher. Never mind that 5 other sources do call him that.

Realistically, this is a case of someone who simply cannot let go. He has turned what should be a simple (and easy!) content question into a WP:BATTLEFIELD. The problem is not the newbie IP. It is FKC. Msnicki (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

No. This is the first time I have taken this violation of WP:NPA to ANI. I have not mentioned the ongoing content disputes at Timothy Leary, which are a different issue entirely. Calling the IP a "newbie" is inventing an excuse for obviously unacceptable behavior. He or she knows that what he or she is doing is against the rules. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what he knows and unless you have a previously undisclosed mind-reading ability, neither do you. He is clearly a newbie, as demonstrated both by his small number of edits and his being unaware until it was pointed out that editing a post after it's been replied to is discouraged. I think you've been biting the newbie at every turn and it's not surprising you've frustrated him with these recurrent complaints at the drama boards. Msnicki (talk) 03:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I know that the user is aware that he or she is violating the rules because (for example) I specifically pointed out to him or her that talk pages are for discussing improving the article, not for discussing (which includes hurling personal abuse at) other editors. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know that he knows what if anything you say is true. You've done nothing to gain his trust (or mine, for that matter) as a collegial individual interested in working with others. All he's seen of you is WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Msnicki (talk) 03:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

As I said, you're inventing excuses for bad behaviour. I provided the IP with a link to the talk page guidelines, which I did not invent. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The excuse is that he is a newbie, impatient, and not used to people stubbornly stonewalling him. It's a very frustrating experience, and you need to bang your head a few times until you learn it's the wrong way to deal with the situation. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

How about you give up debating philosophy and go back to writing atricles about male homosexuality?2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 03:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll edit articles about any topic I like. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Where are the diffs? Also, I just closed the last iteration of this at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive918#IP_disruption_at_Timothy_Leary... and I see the horse carcass is still being abused... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I provided a link to the edit in which the IP violates WP:NPA above. If you really need it repeated, then here it is. The IP is guilty of violating WP:NPA quite blatantly, also, I believe this may well be the same user who did it before, and was warned for it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, just saw it upon rereading. My bad. Multitasking. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Same IP editor continuing personal attacks after last ANI which ended in a warning. Support block of IP editor. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:BP, Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. I think the IP will not do this again and that a block is not needed. Msnicki (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Msnicki: - No I see no evidence this will stop. The user changed IP addresses (well, subnet ids, same router though) and continued the same behavior from before. You were in the previous thread too, trying to defend the IP editor. Is the IP editor you logged out? I don't see how you can make such assurances otherwise. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

There may be two different IP editors, c.f., [142]. The IP editor is not me. I have NEVER used a sockpuppet and I do not edit logged out. I cannot guarantee the IP will behave himself but I have suggested [143] that he acknowledge that his remarks were unhelpful and I think he should have a chance to step up and do that. Msnicki (talk) 04:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• The IP is just having fun. It is unfortunate that Msnicki is aiding them pursue the extremely unencyclopedic idea that the occupation of Timothy Leary included "philosopher". My advice to FKC and any other supporters of sanity would be to ignore the page for a couple of weeks—getting a sensible outcome at Wikipedia sometimes requires a long view, and the stirrers will persist as long as there is excitement at the article or its talk, or noticeboards. Johnuniq (talk) 04:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Not true. I do not agree that to be a philosopher, that must be one's "occupation". That requirement appears nowhere in the definition at Philosopher. But that aside, it was his occupation, as reported in one of those 6 additional sources [144] I supplied. Msnicki (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

This edit war/debate has been going on for 7 days now. Numerous reliable sources crediting Timothy Leary have been found and FKC always finds a reason to argue that the cited source isn't valid or that the source isn't of good enough quality to meet his made-up standards. FKC has proven himself to be biased toward philosophers who advocated psychedelic drugs on the grounds that he went to Aldous Huxley's article immediately after Leary's page was blocked and deleted philosopher from his list of occupations. Despite how the rules are being interpreted calling someone a hypocrite if that person is being hypocritical, is only criticism of one's behavior and is not a "personal attack". FKC has repeatedly accused me and others of breaking wikipedia's rules for the most trivial and mundane reasons ranging from simple disagreement to criticism of FKC's beraucratic authoritarian style of editing. It becomes really agitating and annoying when the rule book is thrown in your face everytime you disagree with a statement or criticise another editor's behavior.2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 05:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

That comment is important for the sole reason that it shows that you are the same editor who previously described me as "YOU HYPOCRITE" (as mentioned in a previous ANI thread) and that you are thus continuing personal attacks after being warned and told that was unacceptable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't care how the rules are being interpreted calling someone a hypocrite is not a "personal attack". I havn't broke any of wikipedia's rules untill just recently.2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 05:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, that is the same user as before. In saying, "calling someone a hypocrite if that person is being hypocritical, is only criticism of one's behavior", the IP user is defending its past behaviour, for which it was warned. The user's comment also proves my point that he or she knows he or she is breaking the rules. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

You accuse people of breaking the rules just for disagreeing with you. Again you have proven yourself unable to handle criticism. You keep saying, comment on the content not the contributor, only if anyone disagrees with or criticizes your content you accuse them of violating WP:NPA,WP:TPYES, or WP:CIVIL.2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 06:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

That is pointless bickering that accomplishes nothing. The fact that users other than me are now calling for you to be blocked should show you what you are doing wrong. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment by non-involved editor The language used by the IP user identified in the original posting is totally unacceptable. WP:Civility standards are slipping and this needs addressing. Newbie or not, a message needs to be sent to the community that admins will not tolerate such incivility. DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

With editors like FKC turning wikipedia into a total bureaucracy, at this point I really don't care whether i'm banned or not. FKC you been forum shopping and edit warring to remove properly cited informartion for 7 days now, you are in no position to be lecturing anyone about the rules.2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shared use of account by Nyctemana55

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Based on this comment, it appears Nyctemana55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) violates WP:NOSHARING, as the account refers to itself in the third person; seemingly saying that multiple people are using the account. Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 18:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I have commented on their user talk. You may be right, but you could have explained this restriction to them yourself before posting here. Fences&Windows 23:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Nyctemana55 has explained on his talk page why he used the third person. I strongly suggest people read it. This whole episode could have been handled much better and more (dare I use the word) more kindly. Here's a brand new editor, surely a quick personal note of explanation and a personal welcome, would have been infinitely preferable to [145], [146], [147] followed by reporting them to ANI. I'm frankly embarrassed at the way this editor has been treated. Voceditenore (talk) 10:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it has been utterly shameful. Thincat (talk) 10:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Psomu800

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Psomu800 (talk · contribs) has persistently violated copyright policy by placing copyrighted text into numerous articles despite warnings. Recent examples:

• diff 1 – content copied to All India Radio article from here, here and here.
• diff 2 – content copied to RuPay article from here.
• diff 3 – content copied to India Posts article from here.

I think we should follow WP:CV and block Psomu800 for the protection of the project, pending satisfactory assurances that infringement will not continue. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It happened again (diff 4). This time Psomu800 copied text to the Hinduja Global Solutions article from here. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Suggest posting to Wikipedia:Copyright problems for more attention on the articles in question, and to Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations for more eyes on the user issues. — Cirt (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I have now filed a case at Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations#Psomu800. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

English Democrats

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The English Democrats are not a far-right party. However the political ideology box on their page says they are "far right". I've been warned about saying this is slanderous. However, it clearly is - especially when the source provided does no even say "far right" but "right wing". Bizarrely I have tried to point this out on the talk page only to get people leaving warning messages on my talk page.

See also my discussion here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:English_Democrats#Political_spectrum 86.14.2.77 (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Not "slanderous" just an abuse of cites - the two given do not support "far-right" at all. Happens far too often on Wikipedia - some folks think giving a "ref" means no one will ever actually check the claim asserted to be made in it. Collect (talk) 13:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute to me. GAB^Hello! 19:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

ED are widely identified as far right by WP:RS. ED hates this and fans have spent many hours trying to change this in Wikipedia. Anything more you need to know? Guy (Help!) 23:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Saying something is slanderous is a bad idea since it runs the risk it'll be perceived as trying the same thing as try for the same sort of chilling effect of a legal threat. In a few limited cases like with BLPs, it may be acceptable but the vast majority of the time, you should instead clearly explain what the problem is in accordance with wikipedia policy rather than needing to bring up slander/libel. Nil Einne (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

When people say things on the article's talk page such as "Since we are required to edit carefully all articles naming living persons, the rule is clear - since more sources just say "right wing" we pretty much have to stick with the less extreme adjective", it seems clear that BLP is being brought up as applying. Sometimes, to some people, rules seem very clear, and policies involving biographies apply to all articles naming living people (even when it concerns the parts that aren't specifically about the people). I sometimes wish I could have such certainties in my life. LjL (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Even in BLP cases you should still avoid bringing up defamation. I'm not going to fault someone who mentions slander if we call someone a paedophile who raped lots of kids and helped makes bombs and provided other support for ISIS and tortured random people and cute furry animals to death when there is zero sourcing for any of this (perhaps it's vandalism); but it's not likely to be helpful to bring up slander because we call a political party far right regardless of the sourcing problems and even if it does name living people associated with it. Nil Einne (talk) 04:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

If standard dispute resolution processes have not yet been attempted, I would suggest Request for Comment process on the article talk page, with pre-formatted sections on the talk page when you start the RFC one for previously-involved and another for previously-uninvolved-editors, to gain some further insight into the article and how to hopefully constructively move forward with additional outside input. Recommendation: When doing so, suggest gaining additional helpful previously-uninvolved-contributors to the WP:RFC on the article talk page, by posting a neutrally-worded-notice to the BLP noticeboard to get some additional eyes on the matter. — Cirt (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Renewed trolling on Constellation Brands and Accolade Wines

An individual with a many-year long bizarre fixation for trolling Constellation Brands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Accolade Wines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is at it again. This is a combination of vandalism / edit warring / socking so I'm bring it up here. The latest accounts:

• Wikiecontrols (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bellademo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Talatte120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Winestories (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Admins have been periodically indeffing the socks and semi-protecting the articles. In 2014 there was Trojanhorse112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and looking back, various others. Blocking these accounts doesn't do a whole lot of good because they keep creating new ones. A range block perhaps? Plus time for medium-duration semi-protecting the articles. No point notifying the trolls. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 04:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

There's a lot of quaking going on. The newest incarnation is

• WikiBigdemon (talk · contribs), which seems to be impersonating wikidemon (talk · contribs) and is less than civil [148]

I think WP:SPI may be a better venue. Kleuske (talk) 11:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

SPI is bureaucratic and process-bound. We know exactly what the issue is, nothing to investigate. What can be accomplished there? - Wikidemon (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok. (assuming the question is rhetorical). Attention was payed, things got reverted, so it's time to close this request. Kleuske (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't meant to be rhetorical — but Floquenbeam answered it, below. I really don't want to provoke this person. Their behavior and language seem obsessive and irrational, and I do't want them fixating on me and my Wikipedia presence the way they have on this company. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• I semiprotected the two articles for a year. I can block these 4-5 accounts, but as mentioned above, this person seems fairly motivated, and will probably keep creating new accounts and getting them autoconfirmed. SPI allows a more structured way to keep track of future socks, and flag the attention of a checkuser when needed; I'd agree an SPI would be helpful. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. If it happens, I hope it's possible to do so without alerting them to the SPI or my initiating it (see above). - Wikidemon (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The User:WikiBigdemon account seemed already fixated on you, which is not acceptable. I've blocked that one per the username policy. Bishonen | talk 15:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC).

Agree with Kleuske and Floquenbeam that WP:SPI would help here to compile evidence and have a formatted regular process to gain checkuser eyes and maintain analysis of sockpuppets going forwards. — Cirt (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for RevDel

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Would an administrator please RevDel the recent BLP-violating changes and reverts at Francesca Le and Talk:Francesca Le. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Nofil Jawed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Nofil Jawed (talk · contribs)'s behaviour has became clearly disruptive. The few diffs below show the user made no attempts to communicate with others (except through edit summaries, some of them using uncivil vocabulary [149]) and is engaged in warring across a number of articles:

• At Shaheen Air: [150] [151]
• At Shaheen Air destinations [152] [153]
• At Pakistan International Airlines: [154] [155] [156]

They also keep sourcing their changes with no reliable sources, ignoring basic policies and project guidelines.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 03:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Warring from this user is evident at Shaheen Air and Shaheen Air destinations, even after they received a warninn regarding WP:3RR.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Nofil Jawed (talk · contribs) has been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. MilborneOne (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Packerfansam still removing content for POV reasons

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

which I suspect will be the breaking point for the community's forbearance on taking action here.

In 2015, Packerfansam was brought to AN/I for repeatedly removing content related to non-Christian religions, LGBT people, pornography, magic, and so on. No action was taken due to a lack of consensus. Since then, Packerfansam has continued her behavior.[157][158][159][160][161][162][163][164][165][166][167][168][169][170][171] (Some of these diffs might be individually defensible; the pattern is not.) After collecting those diffs, I warned her in September 2015 to stop.[172] I stopped keeping track of her after that warning, so I don't have a complete list of newer diffs, but she is apparently still bowdlerizing articles. JohnInDC has fortunately continued to revert her removals and has warned her repeatedly since.[173] Just today, she removed mention of a Playboy model. On March 21 she deleted a porn actress and the word "magician". I think she's had enough warnings. KateWishing (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to wait for Packerfansam to respond to this before making an opinion/judgment here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

As KateWishing notes, I've been restoring these excisions from time to time. Here is a partial list of questionable removals of content I've restored since September:

September 27 - Removed without comment from Green Bay, Wisconsin, mentions of places of worship for Muslims, Unitarians and Jews, while adding information about Episcopalians.

October 15 - At Ted Turner, she removed a reliably-sourced quote from Turner declaring himself to be agnostic, claiming that it was “contradicted” by information elsewhere in article, when the excised information was more recent than the “contradictory” text.

October 28 - At Waukesha, Wisconsin she deleted without comment a former Playboy Playmate from the list of notable people.

November 24 - Removed “porn actor and activist” from description of a notable person, when that is largely the basis of their notability

November 25 - Changed description of notable resident Theodore Hardeen from “magician” to “performer”, when notability of the subject (Houdini's younger brother in fact) was specifically as a "magician"

December 4 - Changed description of notable alumnus John Hamman from “magician” to “performer”, when Hamman was known specifically for his innovative magic techniques

December 6 - Removed phrase, “of disputed gender” on the dab page leading to an article of a surgeon whose notability largely rested on this fact

December 10 - Deleted a Jewish temple from a list of local churches in Mentor, Ohio on the ground that it is “not a church”.

December 28 - Again removed “paranormal investigator” from the description of an alumnus (following a prior reversion of the same excision)

January 3 - Again removed “porn actor and activist” from description of notable person, when that is largely basis of their notability

January 7 - At Waukesha, Wisconsin she once again deleted a former Playboy Playmate from the list of notable people without comment.

January 10 - Deleted without comment a notable “erotic actress” from a list of List_of_people_from_Devon

January 23 - Again removes without comment "magician" from the description of notable alumnus and magician John Hamman

February 7 - Again deletes without comment the Playmate from Waukesha,_Wisconsin

March 20 - Deleted without comment notable adult actress and Cleveland native Mary Carey from List of people from Cleveland

March 21 - Removed, yet again, the term “magician” from the description of John Hamman

March 22 - following my comment to her on her Talk page she substituted the inaccurate term "illusionist" for "magician" to describe John Hamman

March 23 - Deleted mention of a Playboy playmate from a list of notable residents

JohnInDC (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• Looks like a content dispute to me. Take, for example, your last March 23 diff. The porn actress removed is not notable and doesn't appear to be from Kent. --I am One of Many (talk) 02:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• I disagree. The linked content says the person is from Canterbury. Canterbury is in Kent. And, while the woman now appears here in a List of Playboy playmates rather than in a standalone article, a standalone article was in place for five years unchallenged on any notability basis before it was consolidated with the List, as redundant of it. As for the rest of the edits above, most - if not all - are indefensible as good faith, objective revisions, but rather reflect the POV of the editor. JohnInDC (talk) 03:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The ANI link at the top of this entry contains a couple of summaries of the editing that prompted that original posting (which was mine). That discussion also reads in an uncommonly linear fashion down as far as the collapsed text, for those who are understandably daunted by revisiting the ANI archives. A partial list of similar, post-ANI edits can be found here, under the heading "Packerfansam". I suggest that folks give those two locations a look to assist in understanding the concerns that KateWishing has raised. These and the prior edits are all of a piece. JohnInDC (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• The pattern of editing seems rather clear and problematic. The two past ANIs past discussions (here and here) strongly suggest a long-term pattern that shows no signs of abating. I would like to hear from Packerfansam before voting on KateWishing's proposal below. That might take a day or so though. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, it's a good idea to be patient. She can sometimes go a week between edits. (BTW that second link I provided is a Talk page discussion, not an ANI.) JohnInDC (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@JohnInDC: Thanks for pointing that out. Fixed! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience. Frankly, yes there are a number of things that I disagree about with regards to things like notability. However, there are some instances listed above that I take issue with, even factoring in our apparent differences in beliefs. Referring to the edit on Mentor, OH, the section at the time was about local churches, the title of the section was about churches. There didn't seem to be any major concern about it at the time, and if I recall correctly, the title was later changed something along the lines of 'Places of Worship'. Regarding Ted Turner, it had established in the article that he had declared himself no longer an agnostic. I didn't see if there were exact dates attached, but if that's not a contradiction I don't know what is. Regards to the alumnus of Beloit College, no I'm not particularly a fan of his genre, but if I remember right, at the time I was under the impression that he had also hosted something else in a different genre and so 'TV host' as a more general description seemed like it would have worked fine. I could be or could have been confused or remembering wrong.

I would like to reinforce that if I'm a bit slow in my responses, don't automatically take it as meaning that I'm blowing this off. Thanks. Packerfansam (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

So long as you keep grasping for any semi-plausible reason to remove information that offends you, you're going to keep making these mistakes. You say you removed information about non-Christian religions here because of a "Churches" header, here because (???), here to simplify, and here because it was unsourced? No. All of those edits were made for the same reason. KateWishing (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Given the clarity and specificity of the concerns raised about Packerfansam's POV editing, it is striking how little reassurance she offers that she is careful to edit free from her (acknowledged) POV, or, that she even recognizes the issue as a proper subject of community concern. JohnInDC (talk) 03:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Such a large section, like the one at the Eau Claire page should have been better-sourced (see WP:PROVEIT). I would also point out that I've made a number of edits to pages, such as the ones for Pewaukee, Wisconsin and West Bend, Wisconsin, and I made no alterations to sections that apparently stir up this controversy. That would seem to disrupt the so-called pattern. Packerfansam (talk) 04:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit restriction proposal

Most of Packerfansam's edits are helpful, so a topic ban on certain contentious subjects should resolve the issue. I propose: "Packerfansam may not remove content pertaining to religion, sexuality, magic, or the paranormal." This should not unduly interfere with her primary task of improving political biographies (in case it ever does, I'd be happy to review any edit she suggests). KateWishing (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I think this would be better described as an editing restriction. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support edit restriction (perhaps the better term than “topic ban”). Packerfansam above acknowledges – albeit obliquely – that certain of her beliefs may conflict with Wikipedia policy. Previously in a similar context, she has indicated that she has “opinions”, for which she is “willing to take the heat”, link. While generally her problematic edits are made without explanation, she has from time to time afforded a glimpse into her thinking by expressly and specifically objecting to material that, by Wikipedia standards, is wholly acceptable. (E.g. Playboy Magazine, here; the “notability” of pornographic actresses, here.) When confronted, she does not deny a POV or that she edits based on it, but instead picks and defends two or three of her least troublesome edits with explanations that can be at least tied back to proper policies, and foregoes comment on the balance. This has been going on for more than a year. Packerfansam has been made abundantly aware of the problem and yet continues to remove material that offends her personally. Her judgment concerning certain topics simply cannot be trusted and she should be prohibited from making edits relating to them. JohnInDC (talk) 12:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support after seeing Packerfansam's comments above and JohnInDC's comments, which seem like an excellent summary and interpretation of events. Further, given the diffs JohnInDC provided, I think the editing restriction is warranted. Boldly changing section header here to "edit restriction proposal" EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support, I believe a minimal editing restriction could fix the problem here. Max Semenik (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is virtually no basis for this restriction. Edits such as this are quite appropriate. A formal restriction because she changed "magician" to "illusionist" here? That's ridiculous. Or for removing removing "magician" from the description of John Hamman as Notable alumni from Gale College here? Again, this is ridiculous. He is notable as a Marianist Brother and as a magician, but this is a list of notable alumni from Gale College for which his religious notability is most relevant in a brief description. Contrary to the claims of JohnInDC, Packerfansam does respond to issues raised with her edits. The vast majority of the diffs listed above are OLD, have been previously discussed, and Packerfansam has changed her editing in response to criticism. The few new diffs are almost entirely unproblematic. Let's drop this and handle content issues the Wikipedia way by discussion. --I am One of Many (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with analysis of I am One of Many. Further, it is not clear if sufficient dispute resolution has been involved here, and existing processes such as individual Requests for Comment on specific article talk pages, to draw in previously-uninvolved-editors to comment, could help out here. — Cirt (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

  What dispute do you expect us to resolve? Packerfansam has not seriously contested any reversions of her edits and just continues to make similar removals throughout other articles, apparently hoping no one will notice. This thread is about a behavioural pattern and not any specific article. KateWishing (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

  I don't believe that is correct. I don't see any significant recent problems. This old issues from last year were discusses and she modified her behavior. Isn't that exactly what we aim for in resolving content issues? --I am One of Many (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

  Almost all of the diffs in this thread post-date the last AN/I. It's a significant problem that people are still having to volunteer their time to make sure she does not remove content because it offends her religious sensibilities. Do you really doubt that's the reason for excisions like this or this (both well after AN/I and other warnings)? The very most recent removals might not seem as grave, but should we just allow her to remove impious words like "magician" and porn actresses because it's not a big deal? KateWishing (talk) 04:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

  Every one of the edits listed above is from the past 6 months (some just a few days old when listed here), all are post-ANI, all are subsequent to repeated further admonitions and attempts to engage Packerfansam, and - most tellingly - all are the exact same kind of problematic edits that started these threads. If she has "improved" it is only that the she now removes single words and deletes single persons who offend her, rather than entire swaths of text. Her mission is the same. She's just flying lower under the radar. JohnInDC (talk) 12:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

  Also. "Requests for comment" on what? Whether Playboy Magazine is a reliable source, whether notable people should be removed from pertinent lists when they're notable for pornography or posing naked? These aren't content disputes, good grief. JohnInDC (talk) 13:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

  Just because a person has a notable article on Wikipedia does not imply that they are a notable person from a given place. That can be a matter for discussion. I think that this is especially true for people notably for fucking. For example, I would guess we have a number of porn actors with articles from Los Angeles, but very few are listed in List of people from Los Angeles. So, just because somebody is notable for fucking doesn't automatically mean they should be listed as a notable person from a given place. So, this complaint largely falls under a content dispute. --I am One of Many (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

  Wait. So porn actress, gubernatorial candidate and Cleveland native Mary Carey should be subject to different rules of inclusion in lists because of her profession? That should be Wikipedia policy? JohnInDC (talk) 19:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

  Or, more to the point, you say this is policy and Packerfansam is simply executing it neutrally and in good faith? That's what we've been seeing these past 15 months? JohnInDC (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

  What I'm saying is that including any person as a notable person from a given place is not automatic based only on whether they have a notable article. It is a matter for discussion. So, there was nothing wrong with Packerfansam removing a porn actor's name from a list of notable people per the principle I'm making and per WP:BOLD. Where that removal goes wrong is if it persists after discussion and a consensus is reached. In this particular case, I don't see the discussion that reached consensus before coming here as Cirt points out above. Moreover, I don't see evidence that once a consensus is reached, that Packerfansam has continued to go against consensus. --I am One of Many (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Packerfansam routinely excises material relating to specific subjects (again - usually, sex; non-Christian religions or anti-Christian content; lesbian / gay transgender issues; and stray categories like "magic" that KateWishing astutely describes as "impious"). This has been going on for more than a year. Previously she rewrote entire sections of articles (see Christianity, where with no explanation whatsoever, she recast the “Criticism and apologetics” section as “Arguments and apologetics”, and removed two paragraphs of sourced critical commentary by Nietzsche, Bertrand Russell and current Jewish and Muslim theologians, and a (sourced) observation by an atheist that some Bible stories may be based on myth). More recently she just takes out a word or two, no matter how pertinent or well-sourced; or removes notable subjects from lists on which they unquestionably belong - all, again, in the same general subject areas. And to be clear, it's not just people who are famous for fucking: Last August at List of people from Chicago, editing while logged out, she deleted Anton LaVey – founder of the Church of Satan, and notable by any measure. Just - took him out! And in the same edit removed a description of another person as "Orthodox Jewish" (along with the source for it. Her edit summary explanation - "certain content seemed inappropriate". By what conceivable NPOV measure?

This isn't "bold". It's "brazen", and I'm mystified why the community should be required to tolerate this kind of continuing, drip-by-drip degradation of the encyclopedia, in plain contravention of the NPOV policy. Wikipedia is not hers to do with as she thinks fit. JohnInDC (talk) 01:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

And - just to close off one unfruitful line of discussion, WP:LISTPEOPLE provides that someone shouldn't be on a "list of persons" unless they're 1) notable; and 2) membership in the group is established by reliable sources. "List of people from Chicago" by its own terms includes people born in Chicago, which Anton LaVey was. "List of people from Cleveland" is similarly express about who's included; and Carey was born there. I am at a loss to understand what good faith dispute there can be about whether these people, who are notable, and who plainly meet the selection criteria, should be included or not. JohnInDC (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose: I just am not convinced by what I've seen above that the pattern suggested here is 100% a reflection of just Packerfansam's propensities; from what I've seen from looking into this, and considering the evidence and the course of discussion listed above, it seems at least possible that it might also be (at least partly) a case of confirmation bias in the diffs selected to represent her. Further, to the extent Packerfansam's contributions are skewed (and yes, there are some curious decisions) I think it's less a matter of ideological preoccupation with particular topics and more idiosyncratic semantics. That is, it seems to be more about classification than a desire to purge smutty content. The religion issue is more mixed and a bit problematic looking. Still, topic banning from four massively broad topics, which can be construed to involve a significant chunk of the entire project, seems unlikely to address objections to her "pattern".

But, presently at least, PFS doesn't seem hostile to discussion about her habits, even though the criticism here from two parties has been quite severe. Is she edit warring to force her preferred version of articles, against substantial consensus? If so, those are the diffs I'd like to see. Have dispute resolution forums been attempted for any of the affected articles? Honestly, there are possible issues here worth examining--and maybe this would have been a weak oppose for a narrower topic ban. But the massive scope and severity of the sanction being considered here require a showing of substantial disruption, tendentiousness, and intransigence across a lot of editorial territory. That case has just not been made. I'd advise PFS to be more thoughtful and conservative with removing content from lists (especially as regards religion, which is the area I see as having the strongest POV argument of all the concerns raised here), but I can't support banning her from every article that has anything to do with sex, religion, or the supernatural. Snow ^{let's rap} 10:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Upwards of 98% of Packerfansam's edits are of two kinds - she creates and revises stub articles about Wisconsin assemblymen from the 1800s (literally thousands of these), and edits collateral articles such as their birthplaces or alma maters, to include them. In the course of these peregrinations she makes certain other characteristic, idiosyncratic edits - changing "References" to "Reference" where there is but one of them, see link and removing overarching articles from logically included sub-category classifications, such as here. (I am sure there is a better way to describe that, but that's a good example.) She routinely removes "findagrave.com" and "politicalgraveyard.com" as sources from the articles she created earlier, beginning after someone told her they were non-RS. And then there are these others. It doesn't appear to me that she often goes out of her way to find sexual / religious / etc. material to excise, as she may once have, but rather simply removes or changes it when she happens across it. I don't think "confirmation bias" quite describes the examples I listed above, or which prompted KateWishing to start this discussion, because when the subject is not one of these suspect ones, PFS's edits are fine - or, at least they present their own logic even without any edit summary. The only inexplicable excisions or revisions, the ones that lack logical, factual or WP policy support, are those dealing with sex, LGBT issues and religion. I also don't think that an editing restriction would impair her freedom to edit in the areas where she concentrates, and believe it would solve this problem.

This exchange with PFS is typical when concerns are raised with her. No tendentiousness but no explanation or engagement either.

I really do recommend reviewing the original ANI for history and context; you may better understand my frustration in that case. But in any case, I appreciate the thoughtful and measured comments and the opportunity for discussion. JohnInDC (talk) 12:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes, some of those edits from the first ANI do cast your concerns in a new light (edits like [174] and [175] seem less likely to be incidental than those discussed here). Still, those are stale and, even if we treat them as just informing upon the more recent issues (that is to say, use them to establish a pattern), the proposed sanction is still a drastic one. Furthermore, it looks like this discussion is about to be closed and even if I changed my !vote, there just wouldn't be enough consensus here to support a TBAN. So I will do the most which I can under the circumstances, which is to tell Packerfansam that A) they have to do more to avoid bias in their editing and B) they should also be cautious of the possibility of a third ANI, which I suspect will be the breaking point for the community's forbearance on taking action here. But if there is such a third discussion in the future, either side can feel free to ping me to it. Snow ^{let's rap} 13:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. Again I appreciate the considered, uh, consideration! JohnInDC (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Close needed

The thread was archived without closure. I restored it. KateWishing (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

 Doing... but will be a few hours as it's midnight here. If anyone wants to beat me to it, they should feel free. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User AmitPaul23

Disruptive user 103.41.212.74 (talk · contribs) who later created account AmitPaul23 (talk · contribs) to circumvent semi-protection:

• 13:51, March 28, 2016: "Muslms cannot be trusted" (link)
• 14:43, March 28, 2016: Blanket revert (link)

I left a notification for the above user on his talk page here: User talk:AmitPaul23#Administrators' noticeboard.

Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I diocussed in talk page, your the one andalsi who reverted without agreement — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmitPaul23 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• This is a brand new editor, those who edit using an IP are allowed to register and this is not "circumventing" anything. They've made one edit to List of expeditions of Muhammad. They seem to have a relatively low level of language ability in English, but you should try talking to them about consensus, no personal attacks and neutral point of view before coming here so quickly. Fences&Windows 18:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Fences and windows: Regarding my "circumventing" comment: An administrator intervened earlier and restricted article editing to autoconfirmed users. That is when AmitPaul23 appeared. This is the only reason why Amit abandoned IP editing and transferred his editing to the registered account. Notice that the user made zero contributions on the talk page besides inquiring on ways to revert content, because "Muslms cannot be trusted". After a comment like that, I do find it strange that you fault me for failing to welcome and educate the "newcomer"! Meanwhile, another blanket revert has been made Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• I agree and disagree with Fences and windows. This appears to be a new user with possibly limited English skills, but this user has made it obvious that he is unwilling or unable to understand WP policies by using edits to ask How do I...? and Why can't I...? question and even to make complaints about WP process (see [176],[177], [178], [179], [180]).
• Since the user's most recent edit[181] is a reply on his own Talk page we know the user is now aware of it and thus has seen some of the helpful posts put there for new users as well as some of the rapidly accumulating warning templates. It may be that he never knew to look there and so I am going to assume good faith and say the clock starts with that edit [11:43, March 28, 2016] now that we know for a fact he has seen the Welcome advise.
• The reasons I disagree and why I use phrases like "appears to be a new user" and "possibly limited English skills" are these more sophisticated edits here and here which demonstrate better than average understanding of WP templates and table syntax, knowledge potentially far beyond the level of a user who uses article talk page edits to ask why? and how?.
• Additionally it cannot be ignored that this user is not as new as one would think since the AmitPaul23 account was actually created January 2, 2016 and the first and only thing the user did back then was create a substantial (albiet off-topic) Talk Page section on our beloved Main Page[182]. I think it is also notable that this single edit was done twenty-four days after creating the account, very non-typical behavior.
• Finally, and of great concern, is ANY user making edits on Islam-related articles while simultaneously leaving comments such as those in this edit which is both Islamophobic ("Muslms cannot be trusted") and a personal attack ("What kind of name is Andalusi, seems ISsupporter"). THAT behavior is potentially an ANI issue.

Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 20:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Koala Tea Of Mercy: There have been some rumors on possible links between that user and Misconceptions2 (who has a sock puppetry history), I think that would possibly, if true, coherently explain your 4^th point. I think investigating about that may reveal some possible connection.

20:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: Since I am unfamiliar with these "rumors" please open an SPI on the subject at your convenience. Thanks. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 20:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Sockpuppetry allegations belong at WP:SPI not here. Otherwise the first comment is approaching WP:NOTHERE levels. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed Ricky81682. That is why I told CounterTime to open the SPI per procedure. User @MusikAnimal: may also be interested in this discussion for other reasons. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 21:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'm monitoring the page and am not blocking anyone just yet... It's true that previous protections were with the disputed content intact (protecting current version is procedural). When it the content gets removed, we see new editors show up. AmitPaul23 in particular has now been given fair notice about relevant sanctions and warnings for edit warring — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

  This had better do the trick. Page protected, this time with the disputed content removed. I want to see the other side engage in discussion, and when the time comes, seek formal closure. This has gone on long enough. Sockpuppetry or not we will find a true established consensus and put an end to this edit war, once and for all — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Ricky81682, above, that the best place to present evidence for sockpuppetry would be to file a new case page at sock puppet investigations standard processes, where it will trigger analysis from outside admins to investigate the matter further. — Cirt (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

We seem to have gotten off-track. This ANI was opened about disruptive behavior, not socking. I agree an SPI, if needed, belongs elsewhere but that does not dismiss the legitimate original question on this page of editorial misconduct such as the all-too-clear anti-muslim comment ("Muslms cannot be trusted") and the thinly-veiled personal attack against Al-Andalusi, implying he/she might be an "ISsupporter" (terrorist) simply because their username sounds Arabic (see racial profiling). Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 14:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

About a Range block due to a "Disruptive anonymous user (Portuguese)"

Hi. Note that I don't know much about range blocks. I accidentally tried to edit while logged out (which I never do for years) and I noticed that my IP is blocked. It is a range block, discussed here recently, at Disruptive anonymous user (Portuguese) — Take Six (at archive #918). The requested range was "2001:8A0:6CC4:5601:*", and I sure do not know if that is a lot or not. But I do know that at least some of it belongs to MEO (Portugal), one of the largest ISPs in Portugal, because mine does. If the range is wide, it means that we are blocking non logged in editors from a possibly large portion of Portugal, for the duration of one month, because of some persistent disruptive user. It may be a bit harsh, no? (Again, kind-of-disclaimers: I don't know much about range blocks; and I am obviously from, and at, Portugal) - Nabla (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

(pinging everybody, please add if I forgot someone: @Diannaa, Mike V, JamesBWatson, Od Mishehu, EvergreenFir, Oshwah, and Materialscientist: @SLBedit:)

• Nabla: It appears to be a soft rangeblock (rather than a hard rangeblock), so that means anyone who wishes to create a registered account from that IP range still can, and can edit that way. So no one is actually blocked form editing -- they are simply blocked from using IPs to edit. Also, your WP:PINGs didn't work, because you have to type four tildes at the very same time as you type and post the pings (and no, adding the tildes in a later post won't make the pings work.) Softlavender (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Softlavender, I did not knew that about the pings, thank you. (I'll re-read it). And so, here they go again. @Diannaa, Mike V, JamesBWatson, Od Mishehu, and EvergreenFir: @Oshwah, Materialscientist, and SLBedit:) Hi! Sure, the warning message said I/they may edit if they create an account. Nevertheless, it is allowed to edit using only an IP, and a potentially large part o my country lost that "right" for a month, because of some guy. It may be common blocking policy, that is something I don't follow often, but it looks kind of harsh - Nabla (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
• Only ten IPs have edited using that range since September and they appear all to be the one person. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Could be that the range covers a relatively small area - maybe the disruptive editor it is the guy next door to me :-) Anyway, if the edits are that rare, why a one month range block?... Maybe protecting a couple of pages would do. Oh well... I am not going to complain much about it. I just hope that people is aware that it is a ISPs IP, and the range MAY be a large part of a medium sized country. (Would we block a large part of, e.g., North Carolina, USA?) - Nabla (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Way too many pages to be protected, and, like Malcolmxl5 said, that IP range appears to have been used by the disruptive user only, since September. SLBedit (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

A large number of IPs doesn't always mean a large number of users are affected. I've come across /16 IPv4 ranges where there's one, maybe two people on it. Since it's anon only, those with accounts can use it. If anyone wants to edit, they can go through the account creation process as noted on the block template. I don't think a month is too long of a block. Mike V • Talk 20:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

That is particularly true when we are dealing with IP v6 ranges, as we are here. For some reason that I don't understand, some ISPs allocate huge batches of IP addresses to just one connection, so that blocking a large number of IP addresses may actually affect very few people. I didn't place this block, but I have in the past placed blocks on very large IP v6 ranges, after I have checked the history, and found that all the edits that I can see from the range have clearly been from the same person. I have just checked the editing history of a couple of dozen IP addresses in the blocked range, over a period extending back to February 2015. By no means all of them appear to have been the disruptive editor who the block was intended to stop, but of those that weren't, every single edit that I saw was either vandalism, spam, or point-of-view pushing. That doesn't necessarily mean that there have been no constructive edits in the range, but it does suggest that if there are any then their number is very small, so that any collateral damage will probably be tiny in proportion to the benefit of the block. @Nabla: The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The pages seem to be related to football club SLB, both it and its main historical rival SCP, are from the same city. It is easily likely to have long lasting disruption on pages related to both clubs over long periods of time. If the range is from the same area and if the edits look alike, means only that fans from the same broad region share the same broad will to "poke" on the rival, not that it is one single user over a long period. - Nabla (talk) 08:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Not necessarily, since you have no proof of that. Experienced CheckUsers or SPI admins can determine if users are likely the same person or not, and the consensus here is that it's the same person. Softlavender (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

IP: 86.154.103.86 / 81.131.172.210 / 81.131.171.81

An IP user with at least three IPs (86.154.103.86 / 81.131.172.210 / 81.131.171.81 ) has been persistently undoing the implementation of a long-discussed plan to consolidate redundant material that existed in a range of different articles. The plan was to remove the redundant material and place it in only one article, with links to that article from the others. An anonymous user who is obviously new to Wikipedia should not be allowed to disrupt this process.

Here are his attempts to block implementation:

[183]

[184]

[185] — Preceding unsigned comment added by GBRV (talk • contribs) 23:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Hi GBRV, the correct way to deal with an IP-hopper who is repeatedly disrupting an article is to go to WP:RFPP and request semi-protection of the article, explaining the reason. This will prevent IPs from editing the article. Softlavender (talk) 01:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
• I semi-protected the article for a little while. But can I just say HOLY MOLY GBRV, you could have been a lot more clear. It's not until the last revert that a talk page is indicated where this discussion is to have taken place; there is nothing on the talk page of this article. You managed to place a templated alert on a bunch of IP talk pages, but on what IP talk page do I see an attempt to, you know, talk? Like to a human being? Because that's my last point, "an anonymous user can't just undo this agreement". We're all anonymous here. My real name is not Drmies. And there is nothing that somehow would allow a non-anonymous user (you mean "user with registered account") to undo some agreement--at least in this case, IPs and registered users are equal. Now please go and engage in conversation, not just in reverts and templated warnings. Why didn't you even mention the article in this posting? Drmies (talk) 03:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Drmies: First of all, thank you for protecting the article. Secondly: The discussions occurred at the following subsection of the talk page, although it's mixed in with a lot of other stuff and doesn't mention the "Chronology of Jesus" article by name because there are so many articles which all contained the same material that needed to be consolidated (we didn't need to mention each article individually): [186]

But my objection to this IP's edits stemmed from the fact that he was trying to nullify decisions that had been made in a contentious debate that has gone on for months in several different articles, and which he had never bothered to participate in. If any random person can single-handedly nullify decisions, that pretty much negates any reason to negotiate these things in the first place. That's why his edits have been reverted by three different people. It's tremendously frustrating to have all this effort undone by one guy who doesn't even bother to take the time to register, and yet the rest of us are expected to spend extra time debating him and gaining his approval? Thank you again for protecting the article. GBRV (talk) 00:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

K.C. Pant and Sureshpandey

Sureshpandey (talk · contribs) has been editing the K.C. Pant page disruptively for more than a month now. Back in February, I tried to report him at AN3, but my report was not dealt with. Since that report, the editor has disclosed that he is part of a team of historians dealing with the Pant family, and has made multiple attempts to stop editors from editing his pages of interest (the sections below the one referenced to are also of use). The page history shows that Suresh has made edits, logged in and out, continuously reverting corrections of the issues on the article -- my particular vice is the look and feel of his edits. Here is his request on my talk page to stop me editing the page. Any help, action or advice would be appreciated. Thanks, ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 13:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Seems to be mostly a good faith effort, with a lot of cultural misunderstanding (both internationally and regarding WP culture). It's good that they're archiving these photographs. More power to them. But I think there's a bit of a difference in expectation regarding online clutter. In my experience Indian sites do tend toward this kind of uber clutter as a norm, where western sites are more minimalistic. Maybe could use an RfC or something similar to bring third parties to bear? Probably good to explain WP:OWN. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Also I'm not entirely sure I agree with Malcolmxl5 in assuming WP:COI and discouraging editing at all. Seems a little WP:DONTBITE. Being an expert in a field doesn't automatically imply a necessary COI. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to be corrected if my reading of the situation is wrong. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the extended issue last year with No Gun Ri and CJHanley (ANI is buried somewhere here), where a lot of it boiled down to funneling behavior productively. But, just my two cents. I'm nobody important. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

You're as important as anyone on here. :) I'll remove my comments from the user's talk page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

If standard dispute resolution processes have not yet been attempted, I would suggest Request for Comment process on the article talk page, with pre-formatted sections on the talk page when you start the RFC one for previously-involved and another for previously-uninvolved-editors, to gain some further insight into the article and how to hopefully constructively move forward with additional outside input. — Cirt (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Uh, maybe not so good faith, there seems to be IP edits that are editing only K.C Pant or LLa Pant and KC Pant that pretty much revert back to the version Sureshpandey put in, I saw at least 3 of them, all trace back to New Delhi, all edit no where else except K.C Pant and/or Lla Pant | this one edited K.C pants 1 time and no where else , | this one edited Lla Pant and K.C Pant, 1 each and no where else , | this one also edited only K.C pants and reverted back to Sureshpandey's version . The | history of that page shows more I.P reverts, interestingly enough, Sureshpandy's behavior is to post as sureshpandy, but most of the time, revert with an I.P, some of the edit summaries say they're reverting someone and they always revert back to sureshpandy's version. Since there's no hardcore evidence this individual is socking deliberately, I'd recommend semi-protection due to edit warring on this article for a bit. KoshVorlon 15:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:SPI would be a good place to investigate that type of sockpuppet behavior pattern further by additional eyes. — Cirt (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I am more familiar with the user's behaviour at Govind Ballabh Pant, where he has also added image clutter that swamps the page [187]. Any attempt to delete the images meets with a form response on other users' talk pages, and the user reinstates all of them immediately. This is an WP:SPA that cares nothing about Wikipedia consensual editing. Some form of warning to the user to seek consensus would be useful. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

  Indeed, he is trying to be contributive, but for the sole purpose of the Pant family articles. This leaves room for some dogged-ness over the content, which could make agreement difficult, but there is also the fault on my behalf for neglecting paths which are more constructive than continuously reverting, and perhaps leaving an explanation in the edit summary, where it is necessary. If this continues to occur beyond this, I will be clearer about the issues and the consequences of ignoring my concerns. Thanks, ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 17:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Assuming that the photographs he's uploaded are legit and usable, may be a fair compromise to put one of those mini galleries at the bottom of the pages. No idea what they're actually called. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

They are just called galleries (using the <gallery></gallery> markup), but Wikimedia Commons itself serves the purpose of a gallery. There is an additional issue of copyright here -- have images like File:Mr._K.C._Pant_with_Mikhail_Gorbachev.jpg really been published under CC-BY-SA 4.0? Or did one just 'tick all the needed boxes'? ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 19:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there an unknown category? Honest question. My few WM uploads have been pretty cut and dry. What happens when I get my grandma's old pics and upload them? Timothyjosephwood (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

There is the opportunity to place them in a new category, so K. C. Pant or my grandma's old pictures for example. Then, you can link to these images at the bottom of the Wikipedia page (have you seen this before? I don't know the template name to do this though). ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 05:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

No no, I meant, in a situation like this fellow seems (claims) to have, where you just dig up old photos, is there a way to get them into the public domain? Timothyjosephwood (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Beautifulpeoplelikeyou

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk · contribs)

Topic-banned SPA. Persistent blatant incivility. IMO this response must be the last straw. WP:NOTHERE Staszek Lem (talk) 04:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The only edit that isn't immediately obvious WP:ADVOCACY is this one, and this response has me wondering about that. This makes it pretty clear that's what they're here for, but that's before the topic ban. This and this are absolutely unacceptable, and I'm leaving them a message about that.

The incivility started after the topic ban, and although related, is technically a different problem. I do agree that they're WP:NOTHERE and will be indefinitely blocked shortly, but I'm inclined to give another foot of WP:ROPE so as to leave no excuse.

EDIT: I see that some incivility has come up before, but they're now at the final warning for that and for the topic ban. If they cross the line on either and I'm on, I'll block. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

No need to waste more rope... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Meh, I don't agree. It's been about a week since the TB was enacted, and all that I see in this editor's contribs is some attempts to appeal or fight back against or figure out the scope of the topic ban. I don't think we should consider that as necessarily problematic. I do agree that this editor is probably NOTHERE, but I generally disapprove of the idea of penalizing editors for requesting review of administrative decisions except where there's been a pattern of abusive or vexatious requests (and even then I'm not crazy about the idea). If Beautifulpeoplelikeyou keeps mucking about in content areas connected with the topic ban then absolutely lower the boom. But until that happens—and I think the Rare earth industry in China edit isn't obvious enough to count—we should give another foot or so of rope. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

When an admin explains that no, they really *will* enact the topic ban, and as a result gets called a "worthless idiot", that's evidence that the user has absolutely no intention of becoming a constructive contributor. Even fighting against the limits of the ban just shows that they intend to try to circumvent it, or make it smaller by Salami tactics. It is clear evidence of bad faith. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

There's an argument in there, but in my view it's entirely dwarfed by the problem that we'd have by rendering topic bans not subject to appeal. Things happen. And editors with low levels of experience in administrative matters are going to make mistakes in trying to appeal things. I cannot see enforcing a topic ban solely on the grounds that he disagrees with the topic ban once. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Appealing against a topic ban, and throwing insults around you, are two different things. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• comment His incivilities bother much more than anything here. Mhhossein (talk) 08:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

They bother me, too, which is why I'm still keeping my finger on the trigger. While I am not 110% in agreement with Mendaliv, I do see the incivility and the topic ban as two issues they're at their final warning on. If they were at final warnings for a couple additional problems, I'd add them up. But right now, it's not enough IMO. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, my personal view on this is that sanctioned editors are expected to kick back against the admins, and we are expected to have a fairly thick skin, but not infinitely thick. In this case I would be wary of taking action unless @Spartaz: asks for it. This is at the outer edges of "mere vulgar abuse", if Spartaz requested a block for NPA then I would support it, but otherwise I'd leave the guy to burn out on his own. Guy (Help!) 09:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Absolutely agree with Guy, responding to this rather childish behaviour simply validates his narrative and I left it because I'm happy being the better person here. My guess is that they will fade away on their own without need for us to give him more drama to react against. That fading will be quicker if they are simply left to vent. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Spartaz: Your points seemed much interesting to me. Being the better person! Mhhossein (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Agree with Guy and Spartaz. People get pissed off when they get sanctioned. If he keeps it up, then we can look towards further sanctions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• His mind is being controlled by some electromagnetic torture. Cut him some slack. There are lots of eyes on him now. A new faux pas can garner a block, now that he has been warned on all fronts, but for now just keep an eye out. Softlavender (talk) 11:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Panama Papers

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am hoping a neutral person could step in and help me and Potorochin resolve a dispute. He deleted a section regarding Vladimir Putin in his role in the controversy regarding the leaks surrounding the Panama Papers. He immediately deletes a series of references to Putin and i restore them. He immediately accuses me of pushing my political agenda twice and writes on my talk page saying the same thing.

Thing is, Im ethnic Chinese and i didn't remove the links to president Xi Jiping on the page. I think a neutral party should resolve it. I don't want to break 3RR so someone voice a neutral opinion.

This is an edit to add regarding content that could be added. According to several credible news reports saying Putin has a role. Although Putin is not explicitly named in the papers, the paper trail (no pun intended) implicates Puting having a role.

ok ok. I have to back-track now. I realize that Putin is not mentioned but the deletion of material is more of nationalist deletion protection by him. I think that the issue is that the removal of content is not 100% waranted since it implies Putn is in on it. Only thing is that I do want to see is that the content is not repeatedly removed because the information is relevant and implied that he is involved. Winterysteppe (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Have either of you opened a discussion on the article's talk page to try and resolve this, and maybe get a wider input from other editor's?--173.216.248.174 (talk) 02:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

good idea. should have done that first.

• User:Winterysteppe have reverted my edits five times, either without any explanations (1, 2) or accusing me in "Nationalist POV" (3) or "Nationalist soapboxin" (4, 5). I kept pointing out to him in the explanations of my edits, that this article is about Panama Papers, and Putin's name was not even mentioned in the Panama Papers, but he wrote on my talk page that I'm in a "nationalist soapbox". I never removed all the information about Putin from this article, but my point is: one sentence about Putin in this article is enough, there is no need to dump this article with all the smear ungrounded accusations which was thrown on him, despite his name not even been mentioned anywhere in the Panama Papers. - Daniel (talk) 03:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

It is a bit of white washing in regards to Russian involvement. I took a second look at it and the removed content makes the Putin's involvement look minimal. Im all for removal of slander but this is not the case at all. It is a simple white-washing that i do not approve of. Winterysteppe (talk) 03:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Potorochin/Daniel's cleanup has some merit to me, albeit imperfect. But labeling someone "Nationalist" is only asking to be blocked for incivility. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Edit warring You are both engaged in an edit war. You should both step back from this for awhile.
  • Pancho's edit
  • Winterysteppe 1st revert
  • Pancho's 1st revert
  • Winterysteppe's 2nd revert
  • Pancho's 2nd revert
  • Winterysteppe's 3rd revert
  • Pancho's 3rd revert
  • Winterysteppe's 4th revert
  • Pancho's 4th revert
  • Winterysteppe's 5th revert
• All of these are within a span of 4 hours. I suggest you both stop editing this article immediately and find something else to do for awhile.--v/r - TP 03:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• I would invite anyone interested in this dispute to review the infowar section of this report. Regards to all Buckshot06 (talk) 04:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• The article of the UK institute, which you referenced above is claiming that Russia is conducting "information warfare" and talks about "Russian disinformation campaigns". But what we see with the Panama Papers case is actually the opposite - it is the "information warfare" and "disinformation campaign" attempting to smear Putin, despite his name not even been mentioned in these papers. So thank you for providing the correct definition of what some media is doing at the moment. I hope Wikipedia would not become a part of this smear campaign.

And, by the way, Buckshot06, I'm not a "Kremlin Troll" as you just called me- Daniel (talk) 05:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no anti-Putin smear campaign. The fact that you claim this and blame this proves that you are pushing a POV. Don't do that. Stay neutral and rely on reliable sources, and you'll be fine. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Indignant politicians who are accused of malfeasance usually use the term "smear campaign" when protesting their innocence. Use of such a term does not negate the criticism. In the case of Putin, the information presented is so obviously noteworthy that we as encyclopedians would be failing in our duties if we did not reflect it in the article. I don't see anyone continually deleting the information presented which relates to the Icelandic PM or the Argentine President etc etc. In Putin's case, and this is just just one example, and it comes from reliable sources: his closest friend, a cellist who is not a businessman, somehow handles a few hundred million dollars worth of assets which themselves are closely-linked to the Kremlin. And that is just one of many, many coincidences. We must either present this information or fail in our duties. Editors who persistently delete same should be issued with warnings of likely suspension if they continue to do so, IMO. Boscaswell talk 05:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I am really stunned that people keep adding the info to the article about Putin even though it says explicitly that he was not involved. This sounds like a BLP violation to me. On the other hand, Petro Poroshenko is involved, but nobody cared to add anything to the article about him. The only way I can interpret this is "Russia and Putin are evil, let us add everything which is potentially make them look bad".--Ymblanter (talk) 06:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

No, "not mentioned" and "not involved" are completely different things. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

If the guy's name were not Vladimir Putin but Elon Musk, the article were already protected for severe BLP violations. That he was involved are speculations, we can discuss whether they are likely or not (IMO highly likely), but this is original research. Reliably sourced facts are that his name is just not there. The information should go to the articles on Roldugin, Rotenberg and other where it belongs to, and, obviuosly, to Panama Papers. And the fact that nobody cared about Poroshenko suggests that some editors are just not acting in good faith here, two days would be enough to add homogeneous info about all participants based on reliable sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Elon Musk is a good comparison since he's largely a business person not a politician and definitely not the leader of a country. If the friends of Elon Musk unexpectedly have a lot of money it's a little weird and could suggest some dodgy dealings on the part of Elon Musk, but it's far more difficult to say then if the friends of a politician and world leader suddenly have a lot of money. And protection or not, I think we can be fairly sure there would be even more edit warring and hand wringing over the articles if the friends of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or George W. Bush unexpectedly had a lot of money. Nil Einne (talk) 06:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, I do not know, to me it still sounds like a BLP violation. May be taking it to DRN could help.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Well I never commented on whether or not it's a BLP violation. My point was solely that the the comparisons to Elon Musk or the suggestion it's solely because of anti Putinism or Russophobia is missing the point. In reality, if this involved a significant American politician there would be even more attention. It may or may not be true there would be some different outcomes (in terms of protection etc) because of editor systemic biases etc. But the friends of a significant politician, particularly the leader of a country, mysteriously having a lot of money which no one realisticly expects them to have is always going to be linked back to the politician by numerous sources. And so the issue of whether we should mention that person in coverage in our articles and whether it should be mentioned in the article of that person is going to arise. Nil Einne (talk) 07:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I am pretty sure in the case of an Americal politician the article would be fully protected first, and all discussion would happen at the talk page afterwards, without any edit-warring, dragging users to ANI etc.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

(Several EC) I presume we're talking about the Panama Papers article since that seems to be the only article under discussion in this section? If so, Petro Poroshenko was first named here [188] along with other people named. This was removed when the long list was split [189]. He was re-added here [190] and a section was added here [191]. The info is still in the current version of our article [192] and what I assume is the version from when you were commenting [193] although now moved out of a specific Ukraine section (the Ukraine section is now only covering reactions as it seems it was always intended to). Putin was actually in the original version of the article [194] but I think that's because we first heard of the documents in a major way when the Kremlin mentioned an upcoming leak to smear Putin (which is now a little weird since the papers affect a lot of people). After that he's mentioned in several but not all of the examples above. There seems to have been a lot of back and forth over the depth of the Putin stuff e.g. [195] [196] [197] but it seems difficult to make the claim there's clearly been a bias in favour of mentioning Putin but not Petro Poroshenko although it is mentioned after the Putin stuff currently. A complicating factor is that the Petro Poroshenko stuff seems relatively simple, but the Putin stuff is not, so if there is merit to mention the Putin stuff it may take up more text. Nil Einne (talk) 06:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

No, I am perfectly fine with mentioning Putin on the article Panama Papers. We (at least I) are talking about the articles Vladimir Putin (check the history) and Petro Poroshenko.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I see that the info was removed from the Putin article earlier this morning (possibly will be readded back, since there continuous edit-warring in the article).--Ymblanter (talk) 06:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

(EC) But no one else in this discussion seems to be talking about the Vladimir Putin article so it would be helpful to at least make it clear you're talking about another article that isn't the focus of this discussion. From what I can tell, there's been some edit warring in the Vladimir Putin article but I don't think it's even met 3RR yet. (Which doesn't mean it's okay but is probably partly the reason why the Panama Papers article has gotten more attention. That and it's obviously the primary focus of the leak.) Nil Einne (talk) 07:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, I apologize for not expressing myself clearly.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Mention of the Vladimir Putin article brings me to an important point, which to me substantiates Winterysteppe's consideration that persistent deletion of perceived criticism of Putin is nationalist deletion protection. I spent some time looking at the Putin article and it's associated Talk page and revision history some years ago. There was one editor who was very active there at the time, who used every trick in the book (read, every WP:RULETOSUPPORTWHATIWANTTODO), who used all sorts of convoluted arguments, to delete anything remotely critical of Putin. If s/he wasn't a full time editor, I'd be surprised. The time? A week or three before the last Russian Presidential election. Boscaswell talk 07:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Why are you taking your content dispute here in this board? Is there anything regarding behavioral conduct which you think needs to be taken care of by admins? I would resolve the dispute through suggestions which exist at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Mhhossein (talk) 13:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Its over the conduct of the other person who keeps white washing the role of Putin, even though there is a reason due to circumstantial evidence that would implicate him. It does sound like legalese. If he isn't caught red-handed, he didn't do it. However, the evidence would deeply connect Putin, despite not being explicitly named. The discussion is for an admin(s) and possibly the community to reach a consensus to determine if the extra information implcating Putin is to be kept. Winterysteppe (talk) 13:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

  Well, may be admins indeed should block you for edit-warring. The content dispute in which you are one of the sides (and a pretty vocal one) doe not belong to ANI.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

  perhaps best to close the case. doesn't belong at ANI. perhaps best at the talk page. Winterysteppe (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

user Chilangahiphop and promotional ownership of Wang Ramirez

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Chilangahiphop (talk · contribs)
• Wang Ramirez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Longterm single purpose account. Persistent addition of copyright violation and promotional content. I asked for assistance a few hours ago at the BLP noticeboard, but there's been no response, then reported at AIV, where it was recommended that I open a thread here (By now, I'm wondering which is more exasperating, dealing with the account at hand or Wiki bureacracy--this could have been put to rest with minimal fuss this morning). The article is a show biz puff piece, but the apparent COI account needs to be addressed before it can be brought to encyclopedic guidelines. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• I removed some obvious promotalk and issued an "only" warning--since I'm a Dr. and you're an IP, my warning counts more than yours, of course. Maybe. Let's see if they get the message now; if not, it'll be a block for promotional editing. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Much appreciated, Dr. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User inserting contact details into articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• See history. Alexbrn (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• I notified them for you. [198] Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I contacted the Oversight team regarding their edits, including one just after this ANI notice was posted. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I feel like this deserves some kind of award. Dumbest vandal of the month. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Admits evading block via new, current account

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:CitiesGamer66 caught my attention by making some pretty strange edits for being so new (account created March 12, 2016), among them being this - his first. Then more of the same user space edits that followed which show a familiarity with Wikipedia (userboxes and the like) a brand new account isn't likely to be making. Then, there was this edit where they !voted at an RfA - also not new user kind of behavior. This, at their User Page however, says it all: "y'all I'm CitiesGamer66(AKA KGirlTrucker87) After my anonymous account is blocked for a week, I decided to create an account to prevent any further notices including indef blocks and bans on Wikipedia." Not a new account, admits to creating the account to evade a block. Unsure what to do other than report it here as I can't go to SPI since I have no idea what their previous account was. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't really see block evasion here, at least not meaningfully. The editor admitted their IP address had been blocked for a week -- but effectively sat the week out with this account, making edits only in their own userspace. I can't say the behaviour was the most optimal, but (for good reason) editors aren't required to disclose IP addresses they've edited from absent really unusual circumstances. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

If the individual edited anywhere's other then their own space, while being blocked? then it's evasion. GoodDay (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was not trying to evade an block, all what I did is stay away from Wikipedia for a week, Then created the account after the block expired. KGirlTrucker87 (talk) 00:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Your comment at your userspace is as follows: "I decided to create an account to prevent any further notices including indef blocks and bans on Wikipedia. Your stated intent was to avoid scrutiny and any connection with your blocked IP. So, my question is: on what date was your IP blocked and what IP address were you using when you were blocked? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Per meta:Privacy Policy, the user is not required to disclose that. See Hullaballoo's comment again. No such user (talk) 08:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Was this a block or an autoblock? Guy (Help!) 09:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything to worry about here. If there are actual problematic edits, post a diff; otherwise, shrug it off and we can come back here if something happens that requires it. KGirlTrucker87, welcome to Wikipedia, and remember to use your powers only for good :). I'd encourage you to contribute to content instead of fighting vandals, at least until you have written or helped write an article or two (not necessarily big fancy ones). Yes we have "rules" but we shouldn't be too preoccupied with them. It takes some practice to know when to care about them and when not to. 173.228.123.194 (talk) 10:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

CitiesGamer66 (AKA KGirlTrucker87) explains what happened above, her IP was blocked for a week, she stayed away that week and then came back and created an account. Unless there is evidence that CitiesGamer66 has done something wrong, this should be closed. -- GB fan 10:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of information

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Occurring on Amaras Monastery. User has been warned about actions before. Nocturnal781 (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Closing since user is now blocked. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editor posting links to what appear to be celebrity home addresses as references

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I don't think I've seen this one before. Marbe166 has posted links to a search engine purporting to report the home address of two Swedish celebrities. ([199], [200] are the most recent relevant edits) Shouldn't this be suppressed? It's either inappropriately intrusive or inaccurate, and its use really can't be necessary (it's used only to support "relationship" gossip, and if this is the only source available then the claim is OR). The search engine may be publicly accessible, but we've suppressed junk claims available on IMDB, as well as more controversial matters. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like something to send to OS and see what they want to do with it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I've gone ahead and sent an email to User:Oversight, notifying them about this ANI thread. — Cirt (talk) 00:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: I've suppressed the edit. As the red box on the edit page notes, please do not post oversight requests here. Instead, email the oversight team. Mike V • Talk 02:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Mike V, this thread now appears to be done. — Cirt (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not done, only one of the articles has had the information suppressed. I've e-mailed oversight again. Bishonen | talk 14:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC).

Alright, no worries, thank you for doing that, most appreciated ! :) — Cirt (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This has in fact been kicked to ArbCom -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

---

Wikicology has made a legal threat here, claiming 'Invasion of the right to privacy can be the basis for a lawsuit for damages against the person or entity violating the right. You are unlawfully intruding into my private life, unauthorized disclosure of my personal information.' Background: he has created an article about himself (actually the seventh article about himself). See

• Olatunde olalekan isaac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Olatunde Olalekan Isaac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Olatunde O Isaac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Olatunde isaac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Olatunde olalekan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Olatunde isaac O (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have challenged his claim to be a biochemist, in the 'occupation' section of the infobox [201]. He also says on his Foundation page: "I'm Olatunde Isaac, a Nigerian academic and a medical laboratory scientist". Which university does he work at? His Academia page states 'Olatunde Olalekan Isaac hasn't uploaded any papers yet'. Are there any papers? An 'academic' technically is employed by or is a fellow of some institution, or at the very least has at least one published paper.

This raises a number of interesting issues. Is it OK on Wikipedia to say you are an academic, or a scientist, given that some would regard it as a pseudonym and not really have a problem with it. Or is it a form of identity fraud, designed to improve one's standing or authority in the wiki world? Is it OK to claim invasion of privacy, even when you have written an article about yourself? Or is he saying that he has nothing to do with the subject of the article, and is not writing about himself? E.g. here he claims that he has nothing to do with the subject of the article. Here he claims that olatunde olalekan and Olatunde Isaac are two different people. "One is a notable biochemist from Nigeria(I mean Olatunde Isaac) who was known for dacryodes edulis. Olatunde olalekan is a non notable researcher".

MichaelQSchmidt has argued WP:CLEANSTART, however I can't see it is a clean start, given he has repeated exactly the behaviour we saw before, namely trying to publish an article about himself on Wikipedia, by creating a whole host of stubs, or adding material of dubious quality, ingratiating himself with the WMF in an attempt to acquire notability. We had a similar case with user:Wifione, of course. Peter Damian (talk) 07:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Note: What I wrote at that discussion about way-earlier poor edits only alluded to above was "Sadly, many newcomers do similar.. some from angst.. some from inexperience. For those who accept it as a learning experience and apologize and promise to not repeat those earlier errors in understanding, what is hurt by WP:AGF and allowing a WP:CLEANSTART?" That said, I see no "legal threat" in the linked quote, and simply an editor understandably worrying over "unauthorized disclosure of my personal information" shows A) a natural unhappiness about a perceived threat of WP:OUTING and B) unhappiness with your continued digging and chiding over the closed issue of his earlier inexperienced editing. WP:STICK is applicable here. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • "This is a young man who made a mistake. In the grand scheme of things what he did was pretty minor. Having a pseudonym, and - sort of - fleshing it out with some (pauses, waves hands) traits - that's really no big deal, I mean, that's part of online life. " That sort of thing, yes? Peter Damian (talk) 08:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • And it's not STICK. There are two important principles involved here. (1) Is it OK to challenge someone representing the WMF, on whether their claimed academic credentials are genuine. (2) If someone writes an article about themselves, claiming that they are a scientist or a doctor or distinguished lawyer, can they claim invasion of privacy, even though they are the subject of the article itself? Peter Damian (talk) 08:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

That's where you got it completely wrong. Firstly I'm not in anyway a representative of the Wikimedia Foundation. I'm a volunter like anyone here. Secondly, writing about oneself is not forbidden. See WP:WWA, where there is a notice that I'm a Wikipedian with article. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I imagine MichaelQSchmidt knows a thing or two about clean starts. Peter Damian (talk)

For that matter so do you and I can't see what relevance either has on two editors in good standing. Casting dirt like this just makes you look a bit of a shit and suggests that you don't really have a case and are casting dirt around instead in the hope that it will stick somewhere. Not cool Peter, not cool. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The difference is, unlike other people, that I have never written an article about myself with the help of an army of socks. Nor have I ever lied about a sock. Nor have I claimed academic credentials, or an occupation I did not have. My two points above remain. Not cool, Spartaz. Peter Damian (talk) 13:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment: Firstly, I never made any legal threat. I was only trying to explain to him why it is inappropriate to intrude into ones privacy. This editor is looking for thousands of ways to embarrass me. This is against the spirit of collaboration. I have tried all I could to avoid any conflict with this editor but It seemed to me that conflict is their hobby. I had tried all I could to explain to this editor while some things happened in my earliest time on Wikipedia. I'm a bit disturbed by this editor's behavior here on Wikipedia. A quick analysis of his contribution shows that he only made 4934 edit counts in his 12 years of being on Wikipedia. Out of the 4934 edits, only 18% where made to main space, 18.98 to userpage and 31.73 to User talk pages where he moves around to attack other editors, engaging in unnecessary arguments. This is odd to me!. Yes, about two years ago, I had a competency issue, trying to write about myself without prior knowledge of what Wikipedia is all about. Then, this led me to create multiple account to write on the same topic with the believe that an article about me will stay. Few days later I knew about WP:Sock Puppetry as a policy and the implication of engaging it, I told RHaworth about the accounts and my new account, Wikicology. RHaworth decided not to block me after I told him that I will continue to contribute constructively. In fact, that was when I know that a subject must pass WP:GNG or other criteria to be included on Wikipedia. Since then, I have been contributing significantly to the project both online and offline which made me to gain media attention in my country, Nigeria for my tireless contributions to Wikipedia. We normally see all manners of disruptive behavior from new editor. This particular one is a typical example of what we normally experience when new editors join Wikipedia especially those that aren't the product of Wikipedia Workshops/training. Some of this editors later get it right and they remain a long-term and valuable editors. Wikipedia is complex, and it's often difficult for new editors to understand how the encyclopedia works. They have no idea of the basic policies and guideline, WP:GNG, WP:CV, WP:BLP and what count as WP:RS. Some of them have not even heard of the word "Sock puppetry" and any other related terms. They usually think Wikipedia is like a social media where anything goes. Hence, they unknowingly get themselves in all manners of troubles and some of them get blocked or Ban. What this editor pointed out is the oldest history of a now experienced editor who has now grown to be an asset to the community. The then, new editor is now a major contributor of Nigeria related articles to Wikipedia. In addition to creating over 500 articles on the English wikipedia with GA and bunch of DYK, he has recruited several Wikimedians for the Wikimedia Foundation through series of workshops/training organized by him in Nigeria, a country where there are low number of people contributing to Wikimedia Project. He served as member of the Individual Engagement Grant Committee as a volunteer and was twice a grantee of the WMF. The then, non-notable "Olatunde Isaac" is now notable. I achieve this notability as a result of my tireless contributions to Wikipedia. I will also like to mention that I didn't just jumped into creating the article. I consulted Nikki Maria and MichaelQSchmidt who advised me to write it in my sandbox which I did and MichaelQSchmidt help to move it to mainspace. I don't know Peter's motive behind this dead issue perhaps he felt I'm against "WikiProject Accuracy" conceptualized by Atsme and decided to embarrass me. However, Peter fail to understand that those accounts were blocked to prevent further disruption and not as a punishment. The accounts were blocked because they were used inappropriately to create article about a non-notable person. When Wikicology was created, it was declared to RHaworth (one of the blocking admin) on his talk where Peter found it like anybody el. RHaworth allowed me to continue editing since I had promised not to be involve in such a nonsensical exercise and will always make good contributions on wikipedia. Per my personal information, I'm a volunteer and not a paid Wikimedia Foundation staff. I'm never under any obligation to declare my identity on Wikipedia. Today, I can call myself a "Dog" and tomorrow, I can say I'm "human". It is not a business of any editor. Identity verification is only required if I wish to become a WMF paid staff, WP:Oversighter or WP:CheckUser. However, if I choose to become one, I will send it to WMF through a private channel, and it will be destroyed upon receipt & verification and will not be shared with anyone outside the Wikimedia Foundation. Peter started bringing my personal information to wikipedia without any authorization to do so, which I considered a breach of privacy. The growth of Wikipedia is declining because of attitude like this. How on earth will I make legal threat? Perhaps he taught I'm going to fill a suit against him for invasion of privacy. I can never fill a suit against a fellow Wikipedian. Over my dead body! Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Clear legal threat, but there seems to be some background here that requires further investigation, as part of a WP:DOLT analysis, particularly given there seem to be claims of WP:OUTING-like violations... which in my view would be a mitigating circumstance for what we normally consider indef-worthy behavior. Additionally, Wikicology's response above can also be read as disavowing a legal threat... which would help get us out of NLT territory, but not necessarily out of disruptive incivility territory. Telling someone that something they're doing on-wiki is legally harms you or gives you a cause of action against that person in a post intended to cause that person to stop whatever they were doing that you believe is legally harming your or gave rise to that cause of action is the very definition of a legal threat. Legal threats need not take the form of "I am going to sue you" or "I am strongly considering suing you." —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • To put my analysis more simply: The following sort of statement is a legal threat: "You are doing x. By doing x you are harming my y rights. Harming someone's y rights is grounds for a lawsuit." If you say that A implies B, B implies C, and A is true, then you're also saying B and C are true. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Mendaliv; thank you so much for your comment. I didn't mean it the way it was interpreted. Like I said, I can not fill a suit against a fellow Wikipedia and I'm not threatening to do so. Cheers! Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Mendaliv I think you need to look carefully at the 'outing' claim. As I mention above, Wikicology has written an article about himself (Olatunde_Isaac), where he claims to be a biochemist. If I then ask about his credentials as a practising biochemist, qua subject of article, is that outing? Common sense suggests not. Peter Damian (talk) 10:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, you have no right whatsoever to ask me my credential as a practicing biochemist. Do I came to you for employment? Secondly, show me the policy that says that editors should be punished for writing or editing contents about themselves. Lastly, This is a clear case of WP:OUTING. per WP:OUTING, posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, other contact information, or photograph, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

But I DO have a right to ask for evidence that Olatunde Isaac is a practising biochemist. Are you familiar with the WP policies on reliable sources? Where, as author of the article, is your evidence that Olatunde Isaac is a practising biochemist? It's really simple, right? Peter Damian (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Anything you wish to know about Olatunde Isaac is already on the article. Every claims in the article are supported by reliable sources and if you find any unsourced claim, you're free to remove it. What you're saying is like asking Gbenga Daniel to upload his credential or send them to you to verify his academic background. This attitude is disruptive and unacceptable. Wikipedia doesn't require any editor to request for other editors or subject of an article's personal information. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Autobiography says "Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is an example of conflict of interest editing and is strongly discouraged. Editing a biography about yourself is acceptable only if you are removing unambiguous vandalism or clear-cut and serious violations of our biography of living persons policy". Can I ask if you are the same person as Olatunde Isaac ? Peter Damian (talk) 11:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Strongly discouraged not forbidden and not a Criminal offense'. Why not stop User:Jimbo Wales from editing Jimmy Wales or tag his article with COI template.? Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:Wikilawyering does nothing to help this case, and, as far as a cursory inspection goes, User:Jimbo Wales has the good sense not to edit that article. Oh, and... We don't do "criminal offences" here. Kleuske (talk) 11:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology uses hos personal page as a sort of "Wikimedia CV". I guess that's OK, it's Wikipedia related. But asking you to back up the claims you do there seems perfectly fine. Or in short, if you claim to be a practicing biologist, I see no problem in asking you for your credentials. If you aren't willing to provide them, then you should not make the claim. Especially since it in the Wikipedia context is completely irrelevant. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@OpenFuture: If Wikicology states he's a biologist on his user page, why would he have to "back that up"...? Numerous editors here state tidbits of personal info about themselves on their userpages, often by way of userboxes. Are you saying that everyone must prove this info? That's just silly. What if they don't? Must it be removed? Should they be blocked? Do have a policy to cite in support of this? Because afaic WP:AGF applies here. If he says he says he's biologist, than just accept it. There is no reason to doubt it, and there is no reason to question it in the first place. - ^theWOLFchild 20:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Essjay stated he was a Professor of Theology on his user page. That did not end well, and it says much for assuming 'good faith'. Peter Damian (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Your point being...? - ^theWOLFchild 21:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Peter Damian; with all sense of humility, I doubt if you understand the difference between a paid staff and a volunteer Wikipedian. Essjay stated that on his user page and on MEDIA. In addition, he his a paid WMF staff, oversight, checkuser and bureaucrat thus he was expected to reveal his identity. That's not the case here. I'm neither a paid WMF staff, nor oversight, or checkuser and bureaucrat. I'm a volunteer like you and anyone around. If I may ask, when did personal identity disclosure becomes a criteria to edit Wikipedia as a volunteer? Point me to that policy. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

You're misinformed, Wikicology. Essjay was a volunteer, too. And he made statements in the media, just like you do. Can we agree that misrepresentations to the public and/or the community are not a good thing? Andreas JN466 22:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thewolfchild, I didn't express any of the opinions and claims that you now ask me to I defend. So I won't. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)--OpenFuture (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

"But asking you to back up the claims you do there seems perfectly fine. Or in short, if you claim to be a practicing biologist, I see no problem in asking you for your credentials. If you aren't willing to provide them, then you should not make the claim." Defend that.
Meanwhile, I think I'll go put a "This user is an astronaut" userbox on my user page. Will I need to prove that? - ^theWOLFchild 21:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it's rather clear and self-evident, and don't know what your problem with that statement is. No, you don't need to prove that you are an astronaut, and I didn't say you needed to prove it, and also, no-one will believe you, just like nobody for a second thinks you are actually the child of a wolf. You are not using your real name and not making claims about who you are in reality. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@OpenFuture: Ah, I see. So any editor here that has a username that appears to be a normal name instead of a nickname, and has any type of occupation or qualification mentioned on their userpage, must "back those claims up or remove them". OK, I got it now. I understand the position you're taking. I just don't understand why. In short, why must Wikicology "back up his claim to being a biologist or remove it"...? - ^theWOLFchild 18:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

That's nothing like what I said, please try to discuss this in a rational manner without these silly straw men. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

sigh... Let's look, again, at exactly what you did say; "But asking you to back up the claims you do there [user page] seems perfectly fine. Or in short, if you claim to be a practicing biologist, I see no problem in asking you for your credentials. If you aren't willing to provide them, then you should not make the claim." So, again, why should he have to "back that up"? And if he chooses not to, why should he "not make the claim"? That is the comment you made. Are you going to explain it? Or are you going to continue with your dog and pony show? - ^theWOLFchild 15:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Because he is making a biographical claim about himself, a real, named person, in a biography he is using to bolster his credentials as the de facto public face of Wikipedia in Nigeria. If he wasn't willing to back that up (which he was) he should not have made that claim. This is self-evidently different from you make humorous fantastical claims about your made up anonymous Wikipedia username. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

But, as I already asked above, what about the numerous accounts here on WP where people use normal names, instead of nicknames as their usernames and list some type of qualification or occupation on their userpage, either in standard text or by way of Userboxes... should they all have to back up these claims as well? My 'astronaut userbox' was just an example. What about people who list more typical everyday jobs (Firefighter, Doctor, Lawyer, Military) or common university degrees? Where do you draw the line? - ^theWOLFchild 16:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Every reply you make ignores most of the things I say, and sometimes invents things I didn't say. I'm leaving this discussion now, it's not constructive. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

So, more dog and pony. Got it. - ^theWOLFchild 03:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The line would obviously be drawn in relation to the degree to which the credential influences peer consideration of the claimant's edits. If you were using an astronaut userbox as part of a false identity, Thewolfchild, that would chill others from closely examining your edits on aerospace topics and that would be a problem. If you made false claims of membership in an elite military squad and they chilled close examination of your edits to firearms articles then that would be a problem. And if false claims that one is a lecturing biology professor chills examination of one's edits to articles on poisoning then that is clearly a problem. -Thibbs (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Well, it was a clear legal threat. Please don't do that, User:Wikicology. There is no WP:OUTING, since you clearly identify on your user page. And it's not really right to say that you don't in any way represent the Wikimedia Foundation; your user page on Meta describes you in large letters as "Manager, Wikipedia Education Program Nigeria" etc., and your user page here features extensive descriptions of your volunteer participation in WMF activities like the Wikipedia Library. Of course as a volunteer you don't legally represent the WMF, but in a public-relations sense you do, given the press and outreach work you do in your home country.
• Now, as Peter Damian points out, we have had scandals within the Wikimedia movement before where people in leadership positions misrepresented their academic credentials, sockpuppeted extensively (you have candidly acknowledged your own sockpuppeting history), and so forth. They have harmed this movement. So it seems a fair question to me for the community to ask you whether you are in fact working as an academic or biochemist, because that is the impression your biography gives. If you just have a biochemistry degree, but are not currently working in the field, it would be better to say that (and there is no shame in that). Perhaps User:AKoval_(WMF) might like to weigh in here; you could for example provide documentation of your qualifications and current professional activity to her. At the end of the day, your fellow volunteers have an understandable desire to avoid misrepresentations that could lead to disrepute for the Wikimedia movement. As you are one of the public faces of Wikipedia in the Nigerian media, I think you should be open about this. Andreas JN466 13:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much Jayen466. I'm going to officially post the documentation of my credentials to the Wikimedia Foundation next week and I will Cced Anal Koval. I'm currently not in my home in Lagos. Do you think it's ideal for peter to slammed the article about me, Olatunde Isaac with WP:COI template even when it has been declared at WP:WWA? This is unfair. We don't have to be unfair with ourselves. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm daft; I had forgotten that Anna Koval recently left the Wikimedia Foundation. The Wikipedia Education Program is now managed by Floor Koudijs. Andreas JN466 11:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• I don't know the underlying matters here but that was a clear legal threat, no doubt. Maybe made in the heat of the moment, but a threat, still the same. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 14:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
• I agree that we shouldn't dig up ancient history and newbie mistakes. But Olatunde, you wrote the latest version of the bio this month, and Michael moved it into mainspace, so now it's an issue. Writing your own bio is a violation of WP:COI. Current footnotes 1, 3 and 4 are almost identical and seem to have relied on a press release. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Note Re-statement of WP:NLT here, by User:Newyorkbrad. Might be relevant to your discussions. Cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Further concerns

I have further concerns about this editor. I was puzzled by the way that he comes across as somewhat illiterate, and yet manages to come upt with a large and apparently impressive article like Nitrogen dioxide poisoning. I now have copyvio concerns. See my investigation here. As already noted by another editor, Olatunde's references either point to nonexisting webpages, to webpages not mentioning the subject, or unrelated Wikipedia articles. The same seems to be true of Nitrogen dioxide poisoning. He copies passages verbatim from other articles about other kinds of poisoning (such as Chlorine and Beryllium), and refs these to completely unrelated articles. E.g. he writes

Mucous membranes are primarily affected, along with type I pneumocytes and the respiratory epithelium. The generation of free radicals from lipid peroxidation results in irritation of the bronchioles and alveoli, causing rapid destruction of the respiratory epithelial cells. The reaction's net result is the release of fluids, leading to pulmonary edema.[22]

But cite-22 refers to a paper which contains none of the text whatsoever, indeed almost no references to Nitrogen Dioxide. It's like that for every part I have looked at. This is not just a copyvio issue (he is copying from Wikipedia anyway) but potentially a public health risk, I would have thought (but I am not a medical expert). Could some expert look at this article please? Peter Damian (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Recommend closing this subsection: ANI is not the place to handle the content aspect of disputes like these. WP:COIN would be far better. With all due respect to Wikicology I would recommend he exercise care in editing articles about himself. Aside from that and the claimed legal threat above (which has been disavowed), there is nothing here clearly meriting administrator intervention. If some wrongdoing is demonstrated, rather than merely claimed, action might be appropriate. Even then I would advise Peter Damian to take care to avoid the appearance of impropriety in pursuing this matter: To my admittedly uninformed self, this looks a bit obsessive, and could give rise to sanctions for harassing behavior. (stricken as wrongdoing has since been clearly demonstrated) (stricken per everything below) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree with Mendaliv. Close this and other sub-sections as distractive to the main cause of complaint. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Messenger well and truly shot. Thanks Mendaliv Peter Damian (talk) 06:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

To prevent fragmentation of the discussion, I think it's best to keep it in one place. FWIW, spot checks of the references in nitrogen dioxide poisoning make it seem somewhat probable that there is a real concern here. To give one example, the sentence "Methemoglobinemia prevents the binding of oxygen to hemoglobin, causing oxygen depletion which can potentially lead to severe hypoxia." is sourced to Kattan M, et al. (2007). "Health effects of indoor nitrogen dioxide and passive smoking on urban asthmatic children." The source's full text is online and mentions neither methemoglobinemia nor hypoxia, which is concerning. Doc James has said he will look into this; it would inform this discussion if he could let us know his impressions here in due course. Andreas JN466 23:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow...Thank you. I just read through the source and sentence myself and actually, the source provided do not support the sentence "Methemoglobinemia prevents the binding of oxygen to hemoglobin, causing oxygen depletion which can potentially lead to severe hypoxia." But that sentence is correct.[202]. Still a mystery that I added that source, anyway.I will request an expert to clean it up. Happy easter. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 01:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Mendaliv, I'm familiar with Peter's history, but I'm pretty sure you're shooting the messenger, here. After creation and initial editing by Wikicology (only), the article had 37 references. I have checked the first 10 of them. Of these, 1 cannot be retrieved, 2 support part but not all of the preceding content, and the remaining 7 all have something to do with nitrogen dioxide, but don't support the content that precedes them. There appears to be a serious misinterpretation in using one of them: "The values [for EPA recommended exposure levels] were also based on concentation of Nitrogen dioxide that show a significant and direct effects on the pulmonary function of asthmatic patients," when in fact that study showed that asthma was correlated with NO₂ exposure below the set levels. Furthermore, the article repeatedly suggests that NO₂ exposure causes heart failure; that's at most a chronic rather than an acute result of exposure, and I'm not finding literature that bears that out. (One study suggested that exposure might increase the risk of mortality from existing heart disease, which is quite a different story.) I'm afraid this suggests to me that many, though not all, of the references were added at random after the text was composed to give it greater gravitas; the example chosen above by Andreas is not a fluke. Choess (talk) 02:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology seems to be copying text between articles without attribution. Parts of Gibbs's thermodynamic surface, which he created on 9 January 2016 (most of it in one edit [203]) appear in Maxwell's thermodynamic surface and in User:SciFox/sandbox. For example, see the internal search result for "Maxwell sculpted the original model in clay." [204]

It appears that sources are then added to some articles inappropriately or were perhaps wrong in the original.

Wikicology, if you copy text, you should add attribution to the edit summary, such as copied content from [[page name]]. Without attribution, it's a copyright violation. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Noted. Thank you. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I have redirected Gibbs's thermodynamic surface to Maxwell's thermodynamic surface. See [205] and [206]. The Gibbs thing looks like some kind of exercise. Question: user SciFox (talk · contribs) = Wikicology (talk · contribs)? - DVdm (talk) 08:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so. Looking at SciFox's sandbox, they appear to have started translating the article into German, which I would not expect if they were the same user. Choess (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Looking at the situation:
  • This is a legal threat[207]. That this threat has not been crossed out I find very concerning.
  • If one has written an article about themselves they have willingly disclosed their identity. But more concerning one should not be writing an article about himself. Linking to WP:WWA is not support for this. That User:Wikicology first says he was not writing about himself and now says that they are is a move forwards.
  • The policy that says you cannot write about yourself is WP:COI. It says "Do not edit Wikipedia in your own interests or in the interests of your external relationships." It is definitely fair for Peter to add the COI template to the article you wrote about yourself.
  • As a member of the Individual Engagement Grant Committee yes they do represent the Wikimedia foundation and yes one expects a high degree of honesty. That they have blanked the article they created about them self is a positive step.[208]
  • Nitrogen dioxide poisoning has now been redirected by User:Jytdog. I am still concerned. The first referenced sentence is "It usually occurs after the inhalation of beyond the threshold limit value." supported by this ref [209]. What content in there supports this claim?
  • That Wikicology is working to improve content about Nigeria is excellent as is their efforts to promote Wikipedia in that country. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't mean any legal threat. I crossed out this statement. I will request for cleanup on the medical related topics I wrote. Thank you. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for crossing it out User:Wikicology Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'm looking at New York City Legionnaires' disease outbreak here. It's not the same order of serious as writing your own biography or misrepresenting sources in a biomedical article but seems to have some plagiarism and sourcing problems. I've just had guests arrive but will continue with this in a few hours.

Above, people are agitating to close this thread. Please don't. Let's keep all this in one place until we know what we're dealing with here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

OK. I've finished (here).

Wikicology, first I have to say I'm very sorry you're going through this now. This can't be easy for you.

1. This article and 2015 Bronx Legionnaires' disease outbreaks were created at roughly the same time. They both cover the 2015 Bronx outbreak, and I presume both authors searched en.Wikipedia and found no coverage of the topic before creating their respective articles.
2. You begin the article with a falsehood (the only falsehood I could find). The outbreak the article addresses isn't the first known cases of infection by Legionella pneumophila in New York City.
3. Three of the eight citations in the article don't actually support what they're meant to support.
4. There are three instances of very close paraphrasing. In the first instance you've copied from a Wikipedia article. In such cases, as SarahSV pointed out above, it's best to mention in your edit summary that you copied it from X Wikipedia article. In the second instance, you don't actually cite the source (the New York Times). That is plagiarism. You cite the source in the last instance but, if you can't think of a good paraphrase, I recommend just quoting the source directly, between " and ", otherwise you leave our reader with the impression that you came up with that form of words.

Jytdog has just redirected the article to Legionnaires' disease#History.[210] where he's written a nice summary of the salient points of the 2015 Bronx cases. This seems appropriate to me. I've just redirected 2015 Bronx Legionnaires' disease outbreaks to Legionnaires' disease#History. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Firstly. I want to thank you for the diligent work on the article. Thanks for the helpful advice. I'm so grateful. It's a learning curve. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

'Learning curve'? You learned the art of currying favour] pretty quickly Peter Damian (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• I spent today working over two of these articles, Nitrogen dioxide poisoning (that is a permalink, prior to the redirect with now goes here: Nitrogen_dioxide#Toxicity) and I just finished completely rewriting Chlorine gas poisoning (prior version is here). Am just starting to work on Beryllium poisoning (permalink). These articles were/are The two articles I cleaned were each a disaster, and I am not being hyperbolic. Whatever else happens here, I would like there to be an indefinite topic-ban from anything related to health for Wikicology. Jytdog (talk) 08:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC))

  AFAICT, Wikicology has never edited the Beryllium poisoning article. Choess (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I had finished cleaning up the other two and had not started the beryllium article when I wrote that. Yes, the Beryllium article was not even close as bad as the other two. Thanks for pointing out that it was not part of the problem. Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Wikicology, it would help if you could say how you intend to fix these issues. I see there are issues with image uploads too. [211] I randomly checked a few sentences in your Igogo festival, and the sources did not seem to support them (from "Following the King's visitation" to "end of the festival for that year").

We all make mistakes. Fixing them is important, as is reflecting on why they happened so that you can put personal processes in place to avoid them in future. The more we see of you doing that, the less of an issue this will be. In the meantime, I agree with Jytdog that you should avoid anything health-related, and I would add to that no COI editing. Perhaps if you can agree to that, no formal topic ban would be needed. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you SlimVirgin, I strongly agree to this. In the interim, I will focus on general cleanup on the articles and images. If I need any assistance, I will contact you or any other experienced editor. I will start doing this by next week. See this bizarre request by Peter.Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Wikicology you have not offered any explanation as to why you are creating all this bad content and continuing to use Wikipedia to promote yourself. You need to offer an explanation. I for one don't trust you to clean up as you have not shown any indication that you understand what you have done wrong. Jytdog (talk) 07:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course I understood what I did wrong. I have no negative intention. Just as User:SlimVirgin said, there are instances where the sources I provided do not support claims in the medical-related topics that was pointed out. There are also instances, where I wrongly copied text from other articles in the medical related topics without attribution. That won't repeat itself again. My non-medical related articles are fine but I will still double-check for any problem. I may also invite people to review again after the cleanup. I never know that writing about myself will be a major problem but now that I know, I have requested the article deletion and it has been deleted. I won't go back to this again. I will refrain from medical-related topics and other controversial topics. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology, you have not addressed fully the issue above (see the mention of the article Igogo festival). It's not just your medical editing/articles which are problematical. Your other articles are full of fake references as well. You have written several hundred Wikipedia articles. Are they all full of fake references and fabricated information? Softlavender (talk) 09:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm deeply sorry for this extremely slow response. It's a stressful day for me. I will like to say that my articles are not full of fake references. The ones that was pointed as was due to impatience. My Nigeria-related articles doesn't really have a major problem. Igogo festival once featured on DYK and if there is going to be a problem, it's certainly not going to be a major one. Almost all articles on Wikipedia have one problems or the other. No article is perfect, even some of our featured articles. Accuracy is a general problem on Wikipedia. If we should start digging up people's article, we will surely have something to raise concerns about. Like I earlier said, by next week, I will go over the articles again to check for problems even the ones that featured on DYK. Sincerely, this is really a difficult time for me. I however seek for community forgiveness never to repeat things like this. In fact, I will restrict my edits to Nigeria-related topics. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the comments above by Softlavender. The valid concerns raised above about fake references, poor quality editing on medical articles, and unreliable sourcing standards, are most disturbing. — Cirt (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Wikicology, it would help if you could explain how these things have happened. I've noticed that you create a lot of articles in one edit; for example, this is the first revision of Igogo festival. So, first question: are you preparing them elsewhere and pasting them in? Second question: can you say something about how you find and choose sources? SarahSV ^(talk) 16:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks you. Its just like a dream. I can still not understand how I unintentionally created those mess. Maybe I was impatience! Per your question; I often write the contents with sources as a draft outside mainspace (or sandbox), then paste it on mainspace. I usually don't use sandbox. I search for sources online and I choose sources based on their reliability and relevance. I create a lots of articles on a daily basis. Sincerely, I unintentionally messed up on those medical-related topics. I will refrain from medical related-topics for years. Please advice. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain why you thought a novel was reliable and relevant as a source for an article? That content was also completely unsupported by the source as well. I'm afraid that the more we look into your edits, the more problems we find and that it is evidently not restricted to those medical articles. SmartSE (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology, if indeed as you say, you can still not understand how you unintentionally created this mess, could it be that your account is used by other people, with or without your being aware of it? Some kind of team perhaps? That might explain some things. - DVdm (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

DVdm, I don't share my account with anyone. I don't share my device with any of my team member and I rarely login my account in other device. I've decided to do something. By next week, I will pick the articles I've created one-by-one to fix any problem I found. I will triple check the sources, then invite one or two experienced editors to review them again. I was probably too hasty or impatient to double check some of my articles. I feel remorseful about this brothers. Thank you so much. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a simpler explanation is that, to achieve credibility and recognition on Wikipedia, you needed to create a substantial number of long articles with diverse sources. This (as I know) is difficult and takes a long time. A simpler way, as long as you are not found out, is to take the structure of a different article, say on Beryllium poisoning, then add random references that appear to reflect the new subject, and lo you have an article on Nitrogen Dioxide poisoning. And of course, yet again, you are lying to us. You "unintentionally created those mess"? My foot. Perhaps you can also explain how here you protest your innocence, saying that 'olatunde olalekan' and 'Olatunde Isaac' are two different people. Is that true? Are they different people? If not, was your error 'unintentional'? How? Again, the simplest explanation is that you were telling us a fat, whopping great lie. Peter Damian (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, and in the same place you protest that you "promise to learn more about editting so that the same mistake will not repeat itself." You are making the same sorts of promises here again. What assurance do we have that you will keep your promises, given that you didn't before? Peter Damian (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Peter, one thing I haven't understood is how Beryllium poisoning fits in. Wikicology hasn't edited it. Did he copy parts of it to another article, and if so can you give an example? SarahSV ^(talk) 18:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, see my notes page here and look at the examples. E.g. the old Beryllium poisoning article reads "persistent dry cough. It can result in anorexia, weight loss, and may also lead to right-side heart enlargement and heart disease in advanced cases.", his NO2 article read "persistent dry cough, all of which may result in weight loss, anorexia and may also lead to right-side heart enlargement and heart disease in advanced cases." He then references it to "Sources and concentrations of indoor nitrogen dioxide in Barcelona, Spain", which is quite comical. Peter Damian (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

He has obviously been doing this for a long time. See e.g. here. What is the connection between the completion of a church, and Matthew chapter 2? Written while socking, but my guess is that he quickly learned that Wikipedians rarely check that the source supports the content. After all, that edit stuck for years, and is still there. Realising that he could manufacture seemingly well-sourced articles and thereby gain a rep on Wikipedia, he gave up socking in order to build the rep up, so successfully that he now represents WMF as 'the face of Wikipedia in Nigeria'. It's actually pretty impressive. Peter Damian (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology, can you clarify some of this? For example, did you copy words from Beryllium poisoning to Nitrogen dioxide poisoning? SarahSV ^(talk) 20:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't remember doing that. The truth is, most of these gas poisoning have similar symptoms but if the sources I provided does not support it, then its still a mess. I admit my errors on these topics and I will stay off-clear from topics like this. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Yet other articles?

I have just found this, an apparently well-sourced article where the sources are apparent only. I haven't had time to check out comprehensively however. Supper time now, will look tomorrow, any help is welcome. Peter Damian (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• As already mentioned at User talk:RHaworth, a recent example. This was just the first randomly picked recent contribution that I checked and just reverted, so there's probably a lot more, likely far too much to be checked by even a handful of people.
• Second random check: [212]. Removed unsourced red links [213]. - DVdm (talk) 06:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Repeating the diff, that self-referencing/COI edit you reverted was made by Wikicology just on March 2, 2016. That is very recent. Jytdog (talk) 07:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I think my action is fine in the example {U|Dvdm}} pointed out. Yes, I removed the external link because the link is already on the infobox. In this edit, and this one you pointed out, my edit is also fine. Firstly, I created Olu Aboluwoye and I nominated it for deletion myself through WP:AfD. The article was deleted but still appear on the list of notable faculty member on the Adekunle Ajasin University article. Dvdm and Jytdog, should "Olu Aboluwoye" remain on the list? The removal of other non-notable people from the list is also justified.

Per this policy, a person is typically included in a list of people only if all the following requirements are met:

• The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement.
• The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources.

There are some common exceptions to the typical notability requirement:

• If the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met. If a person in a list does not have a Wikipedia article about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to: a) establish their membership in the list's group; and b) to establish their notability on either WP:BLP1E or WP:BIO1E.

No reliable sources to established the subject notability and no indication that the people met the above requirement. Hence their removal. Please don't see my comment as argumentative. I'm only trying to explain the reasons for my action. There are lots to learn here and no one is perfect. I will address all the concern raised and there is no doubt that I've learn from my mistakes. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

(fixed indentation, no further comment) - DVdm (talk) 11:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Not an article, but an i.m.o. disturbing comment in user Widr's last week's RFA: [214]. Quoting:

  I wouldn't recommend blocking, unless it is a last resort. Ritchie333 is correct that anyone can revert "poop" from an article, but these so-called vandal fighters never seem to notice the stuff that really matters and this is worrisome.

  Given what we have here, I think that Wikicology pointing to this is very worrisome. - DVdm (talk) 09:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

What I simply implied was that vandal fighters are doing some great work but should be careful with using the block button. Some editors, especially newbies sometimes unintentionally vandalize Wikipedia and they only need someone to explain what count as vandalism to them not to immediately block them. Please, don't quote me out of context. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I quoted this specially because of the context. - DVdm (talk) 11:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

It's impossible for newbies to "unintentionally vandalise" because vandalism means that edits are not made in good faith. SmartSE (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The number, type, and scope of these issues is alarming

Forgive the subthread, but we are talking about all of this so casually we might as well be talking about the lovely weather. In fact, we are talking about a number of extremely major issues, any one of which would get a person indef blocked or banned:

• Creating seven different Wikipedia articles about himself (and then attempting to backpedal by blatantly lying and saying they are two different people -- who merely happen to have the exact same first and middle name)
• Multiple instances of inserting potentially dangerous medical misinformation into Wikipedia articles
• Fake references, links to nonexisting webpages or webpages not mentioning the subject, sources that contradict what they are supposedly substantiating
• Copyright violations
• Legal threat
• Sockpuppetry [215]

... and whatever else I may have missed. This is looking even worse than the Wifione case to me. Why isn't this at ArbCom already, and/or why isn't a site ban being proposed? Softlavender (talk) 08:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• A site ban would be punitive overkill and can actually encourage creation of puppets by some. As long as the old behavior is no longer repeated and there is evidence of recent editing being productive, I think ArbCom can best decide if recent behavior is better or worse than that of three years ago and whether or not a WP:CLEANSTART can be officially allowed and condoned. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• I welcome the neutral eyes of ArbCom and thus "officially" request a recognition and approval of a CLEANSTART by ArbCom,.. mostly because I wish to improve Nigerian topics and some editors choosing to continually revisit my newcomer mistakes is not productive. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Past errors may be forgiven just so long as you accede to whatever they decide. Not obeying could result in a long-term block or ban. Even our filing User:Peter Damian knows that this sort of fairness can work. [216][217] Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Yeow. So my thought is that a cleanstart isn't really merited if these are, indeed, old problems/newbie mistakes. If that's all they are, let's fix them now. Someone who has made mistakes in the past and owns up to them is extremely valuable, provided they make a concerted effort towards improving. If the problem is harassment on the basis of those old problems/newbie mistakes, then the gavel should fall against the person doing the harassment. I'm not arguing that there is harassment, but so long as it's on-wiki and not pervasive, I think it has the potential to do a great deal of reputational harm both to Wikicology and to the project to give the appearance that one of our most prominent Nigerian editors has been cast out for those mistakes. On the other hand, if there's ongoing disruption and serious problems with Wikicology's editing, then a cleanstart is not merited because it'd permit him to just walk away from damage and conceal future problems from whatever cleanstart account Wikicology is granted.
  In short, no matter what the facts are, I don't think the conclusion would be to authorize a clean start. Rather, I would suggest that what we need is factfinding and conclusions drawn as to whether Wikicology's recent editing behavior is disruptive or damaging, and if so what (if any) sanctions should lie to prevent further disruption. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll also note that declaring oneself to be a sockpuppet is generally not considered a newbie mistake... even if it did happen just under 2 years ago. Considering the timing of claim, master account's name, and what all the accounts did—persistently create articles about Olatunde Isaac, as well as AfC drafts, and uploading files—it's a credible claim. I believe Wikicology has some difficult questions to answer, and those questions are not going to end with this ANI thread. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

It's a newbie mistake to try to create Olatunde Isaac, multiple times when the topic was clearly not a notable one. Experienced editor will never commit such blunder (please, don't see my comment as argumentative). It's recent recreation by me is never a mistake but a misunderstanding of the COI Policy. I never imagine that it will create a serious problem. Like I said I did consulted Nikki Maria and Michael. I was advised to write it in my sandbox if there are sources that will establish notability. I did and Michael moved it to main space on my request. If I had been discouraged, of course I wouldn't have recreated it. I however seek for community forgiveness never to repeat things like this. In fact, I will restrict my edits to Nigeria-related topics, in the interim. In addition, the topic Olatunde Isaac should be salted. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• These aren't newcomer mistakes. His latest of his seven articles on himself was created just this month. He is still creating havoc. He has created 550 articles, all of which will have to be gone over with a fine-tooth comb for fake references and false information. He should not be in a position of leadership, and his Wikimedia page should be removed. He is on some sort of strange and misleading trip, in my view, exemplified for instance by his RfA five months ago: [218]. A site ban would not be punitive, it would be preventive, the same as with Wifione. I believe the case deserves a full and thorough review by ArbCom -- not to approve a so-called fresh start, but to assess how deep the level of falsehood and problematical editing goes, and in view of a possible site ban. Softlavender (talk) 10:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Nothere. Why is this ed still allowed on the project? -Roxy the dog™ woof 10:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• I never knew it will be a bad idea to write about myself again. I felt I could write it neutrally and declare the WP:COI. I admitted that I was wrong for doing this and I feel remorseful. This won't repeat itself again. I felt it was deleted and my attempt to recreate it then was considered disruptive because it was a clear non-notable topic. Actually, here is no policy that state that editors should declare their identity on Wikipedia. Like I said earlier, I may decided to call myself a "Fisherman" or a "Lawyer" it doesn't mean they are true since there is no reliable sources that supported such claim and identity disclosure is never a requirement to contribute to Wikipedia. Now that community feels it is proper to be truthful about this especially when I'm now becoming the face of Wikipedia in Nigeria, I will officially forward the documentation of my credential and profession to the WMF and if anyone wish to be copied, I will be more than glad to put them in copy of my email. There after, I will immediately make changes to my userpages. I however seek for community forgiveness never to repeat things like this. In fact, I will restrict my edits to Nigeria-related topics. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The face of Wikipedia in Nigeria. Omg. Where is the banhammer? -Roxy the dog™ woof 13:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think a site ban is called for, as I think this used could be helpful in other areas. However I don't think they should be writing about themselves. If they truly justify an article then there should be other people who can write about it. While COI editing is technically allowed here, I think in this case the community may want to consider disallowing it. HighInBC 14:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

It would probably be a good idea, as long as we're here, set up a topic ban for Wikicology with respect to himself in all content spaces (i.e., he can still talk about himself in project and userspace, just not in articles, files, categories, templates for use in mainspace, etc.), as well as any publications to which he has contributed. That topic ban should be indefinite, given we're already ~3 years into this (including the previous accounts). I don't think we should accept a voluntary agreement to not do it, unless it's formalized as a topic ban. This would not be the resolution of this situation, but merely so we can pare down the topics of discussion, whether for here or for ArbCom. Again, this is not intended to foreclose a siteban discussion or ArbCom filing, just to hone the discussion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

It's clear that Wikicology is at least trying to present himself as a Wikipedia representative, and actively trying to become the face of Wikipedia in Nigeria, and as such it's absolutely shocking that he seems to have no knowledge of even basic Wikipedia policy, and doesn't even by himself understand basic principles of neutrality. At the very least he should remove his self-aggrandizing autobiography from his User-page and stop trying to put himself forwards as some sort of Wikipedia expert. If he doesn't do that, I would support a ban to show that this guy most certainly does not represent Wikipedia in any way.

I also wonder if these kinds of pages are common and accepted: Wikipedia:Yabatech_Wikipedia_Education_Program_Seminar, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Workshop for Students of Fountain University. I've never seen anything like that. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I want to let you know that I blanked my user page Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I think pages like that, documenting past outreach projects and workshops are not unusual, but in recent years have been much more commonly kept over at meta. I do want to comment, though, that Wikicology evidently has done a lot in terms of outreach and workshops. For instance, he's one of the proposers/coordinators of an upcoming Foundation-funded project to create photographic content of Nigeria, and is a member of the Individual Engagement Grants committee. I'm not saying that should be an endorsement or make him immune to oversight for acts or omissions over here, but if he is positively contributing in other ways a siteban might serve to hamstring support for getting future projects rolling. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I am a little concerned that at Wikicology's recent Request for Adminship Davidcannon told Wikipedians Wikicology was a lecturer at Adekunle Ajasin University. Searching the university' website for his name yields nothing, and he is not on the staff list. In this context I note this edit from earlier this month, in which Wikicology (1) added himself as the only notable alumnus of the university and (2) deleted the external link to the university's official site (the link was also present in the infobox, but malformed and not clickable). --Andreas JN466 14:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Henceforth:

• I will never edit content about myself again
• I will never use another account other than this one
• I will appropriately paraphrase all content and
• only use high quality secondary sources going forwards. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Wikicology: if henceforth you will indeed never use another account other than this one, would you please provide a full list of the accounts that you have recently (and since 3 June 2014) used? I think that would be helpful. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for all your comments and advise so far. Sincerely, I do not have any other account. This is the only account I'm using since June 3, 2014. Thank you. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

And how do we know you are telling the truth, given that here you said "I don't know If any of the above suspects of sockpuppet also uses the same browsing center because its not my juridition to be monitoring anybody that visit the same computer center so I wouldn't know if any one is using the same Ip to abuse wikipedia. Although I appear more like a new user.Am not realy a new user I once have an account on wikipedia but I lost the diary that contain the pin and username. That's why I created a new one you see as “sixtyn”. Esteem wikipedian,let's not punish the inoccent ones for what they knows nothing about. " Peter Damian (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

AND AGAIN: 1 Dec 2013. "The seeming sources that were actually to wikipedia articles that did not support the content gave a false air of significance to the subject. I would strongly recommend against doing that again. Wikipedia articles may not be used to source articles. " How can he plausibly claim that this was an accident or a mystery or a dream, given that this has been his mode of operation for well over 2 years? Peter Damian (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Peter Damian stop being hostile with me. An editor has warn you here and another editor raised similar concern about your behavior on my talk page. This is not a battle ground and Wikipedia is not about winning. If everyone behaves like this then you won't have been allowed to continue editing here, considering your past behavior. I learn that you yourself were blocked multiple times and the last was an indef-blocked for maybe 5 years. So you sure ain't perfect. I wonder what socks you used during those many years. one has to wonder why this guy does not believe in clean start. Heck he was at one time even banned. you were banned from editing for using multiple sock puppets. See Category:Suspected_Wikipedia sockpuppets of Peter Damian. It was reversed after you appealed to ArbCom. Now tell me, considering your disruptive behavior, are you not suppose to be site ban yourself? And you're here asking people to stone a sinner (seeking for forgiveness) to death when you yourself is the most sinful person. I don't expect people like you to be giving advise on sockpuppetry-related issue as a MASTER of SOCKPUPPETRY. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

This sort of counterattack doesn't help your cause, Wikicology, given how many editors have verified and endorsed Peter Damian's concerns above. Drop it. Andreas JN466 22:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment

This is an open comment for everyone; Chill out. It's as if some of you are out for blood. Sure, Wikicology has created somewhat of a mess, but it doesn't seem as if he did so with any malice or intent to harm. Wikipedia is a massive, complex beast and not easiest thing to learn quickly (especially if English is not your primary language). I think that Wikicology's involvement with the WMF and certainly his participation and attitude here at ANI speaks volumes. He's knows he's made mistakes, he knows they need to be cleaned up and that he has a lot to learn. Asking for blocks and bans and whatnot will solve nothing. I think if we ask Wikicology to voluntarily stop creating articles or adding content for now, until he can demonstrate a competence for doing so and a sound knowledge of the editing guidelines, will suffice. In the meantime, allow him to help with the clean-up, it would be a good learning experience. Perhaps some mentoring would help as well... - ^theWOLFchild 21:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

" ... his participation and attitude here at ANI speaks volumes. He's knows he's made mistakes, he knows they need to be cleaned up and that he has a lot to learn." He's learned how to speak sweetly and make promises which he does not keep. Aside from his COI, constant self-promotion, lies about who he is and his employment/profession (see Andreas's revelations above), copyright violations, and dangerous medical misinformation, he has created 550 articles which are likely full of the same fake references and false information that all of the ones we have examined so far are. Softlavender (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that there are serious concerns with this editors contribs. Dialing back at this time just isn't an option, not merely because of the seriousness of the claims, but the positions of trust Wikicology has attained both here and in the grant-awarding bodies on meta. In determining whether Wikicology has done wrong we need to clear it up publicly and transparently. In my view the most serious claim here is becoming falsified research and credentials: If it's true, then the Foundation appears to have bankrolled some of this editor's activities through grant disbursals. If false, then continuing to pursue this looks like it will severely damage the Wikipedia movement in Nigeria. It's a really serious situation that needs to be handled carefully. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm also concerned whether some of the 550 articles he has written are COI/paid, especially those concerning people or organizations in his home country. He has created an average of approximately one article per day (hard to tell the full number since deleted articles don't always show up on the X!'s tools) since he started editing, which in itself is odd in my view, particularly since many of them are quite large and have quite a large number of 'citations'. In terms of "If false, then continuing to pursue this looks like it will severely damage the Wikipedia movement in Nigeria", I disagree. The whole thing has to be rooted out from the bottom up. It would be scandalous not to investigate this. Softlavender (talk) 02:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC); edited 03:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

As others have said above, an ArbCom case may be the best venue for such an investigation, given the amount of material that has to be critically examined, and the fact that some of it is no longer even visible to non-admins. It's too much for AN/I to handle. Andreas JN466 03:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I concur. This is beyond ANI's ability to review at this point. @Softlavender: I actually wholeheartedly agree with you, that it would be scandalous to fail to review this situation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment:: Initially, I decided to be silent about my employment status and credentials but I have decided to break silence about series of accusation of falsified credentials. First of all, I never in anyway falsified my credentials and it is quiet unfortunate that people keep accusing me of this here. I'm a biochemist just as I had stated in my userpage and anywhere you can find it. I once lectured at "Adekunle Ajasin University Annex" but not directly employed by the University (not a formal employment). I did this for few months before my current employment. Currently, I work as a medical lab scientist at "Dynamics medical laboratory and diagnostics service", here in Lagos, Nigeria. I was employed there before my National Youth Service Program and I returned to the organization after the program. The fact that my former work at the annex is informal is why you can't find my name on the university staff list and no media have ever described me as ACADEMIC neither have I stated it anywhere outside Wikipedia that I'm an academic. Wikipedia is informal, thus I can include informal information/activities on my userpage. If the WMF had formally requested for my personal information/credentials, there is no way I can include my work at the annex. To avoid any doubt, I am more than ready to forward my Certificates to the WMF with my professional employment status, to clear every doubt. If anyone his interested, I will Cced you. I recently blanked my userpage because I felt personal information is not even necessary in the first place. I'm sad to seeing all these accusations. Why would anyone call me a liar and accused me of falsified credential when I have not presented any formal documents that contradicted what is on my userpage? This is disheartening!!! Even when Olatunde Isaac was created, did I went ahead to include this on the list of academics? Did all the reliable sources in the article refers to me as academic?. If you must accuse people of falsified credential on the basis of what you see on their userpage, why have you not been accusing those that include series of things like "This user is a medical doctor" This user is a chemist" in sandboxes on their userpage. Take this case to Abcom, they know how to best handle this. All the accusers too will be mentioned, they would have to provide all the necessary documents to back their accusation. If any of the accusers refuse to take this to Abcom, I'm going to take this to Abcom myself. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 05:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Not directly employed by the University? Then how do explain this photo of you labeled "Wikicology in his office at Adekunle Ajasin University, Nigeria" [219] (which retained that caption until 31 October 2015, the day after you withdrew your failed RfA)? -- Softlavender (talk) 06:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Am I not suppose to describe my image? Yes the caption is suppose to be " Wikicology in his office at Adekunle Ajasin University Annex" but I never really took the photo serious. In fact, that wasn't really my personal office, I have no personal office there. When I took the photo, someone told me it was fine. He said "Isaac, this photo is fine, it looks as if you're in your personal office" that's why I used the caption." I have never thought it would misinformed other editors, afterall Wikipedia Userpage is an informal place for volunteers. I apologize if you are misinformed with the caption. I'm not the photo-loving type that's why it was there for long and when I got a better one I removed it. Is there any problem with that? Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is your continued misrepresentation of yourself and your continued self-promotion for your own advancement. Softlavender (talk) 07:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• More fun with self-created Wikipedia articles on himself:

• Olatunde olalekan isaac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was created four times
• Olatunde Olalekan Isaac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was created two times
• Olatunde O Isaac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Olatunde isaac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Olatunde olalekan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was created four times
• Olatunde isaac O (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Olatunde Isaac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was created 2 March 2016 and deleted at creator's request three days ago after this ANI was filed

That makes a total of 14 times he has posted articles on himself on Wikipedia article space. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I do not see how this is relevant here again. This had been already noted above. Yes, I created the article 13 times as a newbie (with socks) when the topic was clearly not notable and the accounts I used to recreate it were blocked. It's recreation is as a result of the significant of the topic in multiple independent reliable sources. Just as I had said earlier, I never put it directly on the mainspace. Michael Q. Schmidt moved it to mainspace. Now that it has generated a lots of heating reaction, I requested for it to be speedily deleted and have also requested that it should be SALTED which is a good step. I've been advised above not to write about myself again by several editors. I have agreed. What else do you want? Are you just interested in Drama? If that's your aim then you are not helping this discussion. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Creating 13 articles on yourself over a period of more than six months cannot be attributed to "newbie"-ism: it is sheer dogged policy-violating self-promotionalism beyond all reasonable assumptions of good faith. And the one you created this month is the same thing -- do not persist in trying to cover your tracks by claiming someone else put it on mainspace; you wrote the article with the intention of putting it on mainspace to promote yourself, as you have a lengthy history of doing. Softlavender (talk) 07:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Unless you believe editors here somehow did not look at or read the opening of this ANI, repeating that list of failures again simply makes a long discussion even longer. And pardon, but most of these poorly written beginner errors happened three years ago and, while definitely showing lack of editorial experience, I cannot see them as recent events intended to disrupt or defraud. Unstated above is that the repeatedly A7 speedied efforts Olatunde olalekan isaac, Olatunde Olalekan Isaac, Olatunde O Isaac, Olatunde isaac, and Olatunde olalekan all occurred during the last quarter of 2013, Olatunde isaac O happened in April 2014, and the last effort Olatunde Isaac did not happen until two years later. And it is to the ultimate good that Wikicology finally begins (through multiple explanations) to understand the criteria of WP:BIO, and has himself removed the failed article. Perhaps someone might wish to WP:ADOPT and counsel? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I think you've failed to notice that I posted exactly how many times each article was re-created, meaning that he created articles on himself not merely 7 times, but 14 times -- double the number mentioned in the OP. And the earliest ones occurred from 26 August 2013 through 22 April 2014, so that's 2 to 2.5 years ago (not three), and the latest one was just this month. The reason he requested the deletion of that recent one is to cover his tracks, as people were discovering even more discrepancies and falsehoods in it. It's clear to me from all of the conversations I have read concerning this entire affair that he has been misrepresenting himself, and his employment/occupation, on Wikipedia for quite some time, and that moreover he has used Wikipedia and his activities here to boost his own notability, and therefore in a kind of feedback loop his self-representation (or misrepresentation), hat-collecting, mass article generation, and ladder-climbing somehow garnered him enough notability for his own Wikipedia article -- an article he quickly got deleted so we could not peruse it. Softlavender (talk) 11:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

MichaelQSchmidt, one thing I don't understand is why you moved the most recent bio into mainspace on 2 March, just over three hours after he created it. The notability issue was obvious, you knew that he had written it, and several sources were identical (and seemed to have been based on press releases, possibly written by the subject). Yet here you say "it is to the ultimate good that Wikicology finally begins ... to understand the criteria of WP:BIO, and has himself removed the failed article." SarahSV ^(talk) 15:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I just took a look through a few more articles to see if this was as widespread an issue as it seems. At Eucharia Oluchi Nwaichi, awards given to other people were credited to the article subject (fixed), and other statements were unsourced. At Friday Okonofua large parts of his career section were cited to unrelated sources that only mention him or were scientific papers authored by him, and I just removed a whole load else that was not backed up at all by the cited sources. I share the concerns of the users above about the quality of the articles created by Wikicology. Sam Walton (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

A search for *.newspunch.org, the site Wikicology used for his own recent bio at User:Wikicology revealed article Iyabo Ojo, created by Wikicology on 1 April 2015 ([220]). Since then it was maintained by others: [221]. Current situation:

• ref 1: "error 404"
• ref 2: "sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist"
• ref 3: says nothing about "director and producer"
• ref 4: not found
• ref 5: not found
• ref 6: not found
• ref 7: says nothing about the sentence to which it is attached
• ref 8: says nothing about the sentence to which it is attached
• ref 9: backs the last part of the sentence in the text
• ref 10: backs the scripting part of the sentence in the text
• ref 11: "error 404"
• ref 12: backs the name of a film

How does one go about putting this straight? - DVdm (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Give him some novel type of topic ban? No creation of new articles, no addition of new content, until he has revisited all his articles and either corrected the sources or removed the unsourced or porly sourced information. He has been creating problems for years now, and it is clear that it was ongoing until this ANI discussion started. He should also cease all activities as a public face of Wikipedia, as this really isn't the kind of image we want to have. Fram (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Um, I was not talking about putting him straight here, if that is possible. I was referring to the article. - DVdm (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Since the First Stable Version of Wikicology's User Page name-drops administrator RHaworth as a "mentor," I would be very much interested in their views of the current case. Carrite (talk) 18:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposals

I just looked at this interview, linked in the latest incarnation of his autobiography. In it, he discusses Yoruba tribal marks: "for example, when I wrote an article entitled "Yoruba Tribal marks", I got a sense of accomplishment from knowing that over 5 million people would read it." (which, at some 1,000 pageviews a month, would take some 300 years to achieve; if you really did say that to the interviewer, then again I'ld much prefer that you no longer presented yourself as the face of the Nigerian Wikipedians).

Sure enough, that article has the exact same problems as those discussed above. I checked the "Pele" section. The first source[222] doesn't mention "pele" at all. The second source[223] mentions Pele, but doesn't support anything it supposedly references. Source 8 doesn't support the sentence it references. And so on. The final sentence, about president Obasanjo, is probably a reference to the source from the preceding sentence[224], but that source makes it clear that it was his father that had the marks, not the President. Basically, the whole paragraph should be removed and rewritten from scratch. I note that this article was on DYK as well...

Please, whether it is a complete block or a severe topic ban like I described above, something drastic needs to be done in any case. Way too much damage has been done already, and every article he wrote or significantly contributed to needs a thorough recheck (or being moved to userspace or draft space perhaps). Fram (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that we should move toward a decision. Several editors have spot-checked his articles. The sources are about the topic, but only generally so; they regularly don't support the content. I keep hoping that Wikicology will commit to fixing the articles, but the issue now is whether anyone would even want that. A ban from mainspace therefore seems inevitable. The question becomes whether it should extend to a total community ban, or whether we should hand it over to the ArbCom. I can't see the ArbCom reaching a different decision, mind you. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• I oppose a site ban at this time. I propose that, for one year, that the editor's main space work be limited to cleaning up and improving the articles that they have created. I think the editor understands that this would be their last chance. I am willing to mentor the editor, and I think they would benefit from more than one mentor. I think that there is a possibility that this editor can be transformed into an asset to this project. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• I might have supported that until a few hours ago. But having seen Wikicology's recent posts about how it didn't matter that his photograph caption was untrue (the one of him in his office at the university, even though he has never had an office there), and how it didn't matter that he claimed to be an academic because he had only ever made that claim on Wikipedia (including in his mainspace bio), I now wonder whether there is a fundamental disconnect. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• A site ban would make concerted improvement of the hundreds of articles he has created very unlikely. I say give him a year to clean up his messes and re-evaluate then. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Asking him to clean up his articles makes sense, but is he both able and willing? I asked him today about an unsourced claim in an article of his (see Talk:Child sexual abuse in Nigeria#Source request). He replied that it was an older article he had written 18 months ago, and he supplied a link to a source for the claim. [225] But the source he supplied had simply copied the relevant portion of the Wikipedia article word for word. So he still seems to have difficulty identifying reliable sources (but he is teaching people how to edit on behalf of the Wiki Education Foundation).

You've offered to be a mentor, but are you prepared for that amount of work? SarahSV ^(talk) 19:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I have made the offer and I think that I have a well-established record of helping editors and getting them on track. I promise you that I will not tolerate any more misbehavior. If I see any, I will be right here at ANI reporting that mentorship did not work in this case. I hope one or two other experienced editors will help as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, Jim, mentorship is only useful to those who seriously seek it and attempt to abide by it. This user's very first edits referenced "mentor" RHaworth. Let's hear from them before we get carried away with saving a misrepresenter, a sock puppeteer, a serial (14-times!) COI autobiography creator, source misuser, etc. etc. etc. who has attempted to get into the WMF funding cookie jar on multiple occasions with mixed success to head various projects. Don't dive in front of a runaway school bus being driven by someone who does not belong behind the wheel with offers to help lend them pointers how to parallel park. Carrite (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

After digging into edit history for 45 minutes this morning, I am seeing a good deal of good faith work; mentorship might be the right solution here rather than the chopping block. Carrite (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment: -- Many thanks to everyone that has participated in this discussion. I lack words to say thank you but for better choice of words THANK YOU. Am so grateful. However, I will impose a 1 year topic ban on myself with regards to creating any new articles, and will focus on cleaning up the articles i created, and will do exactly as SlimVirgin suggested regarding citations to quality sources. After I finish correcting each article, I will be diligent in having experienced editors such as HighInBC and SlimVirgin review them, to make sure they meet expectations. I plea to the community to please give me another chance. I've accepted the mentorship by Cullen328 and will work diligently to correct the mistakes I made in the articles I created, if allowed to do so, and will source everything properly and not make those same mistakes again. I will work diligently to fix the mess I made in an effort to re-establish trust from the community and if I stray from that after my probationary period, I will quietly accept the community's decision. Thank you. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

ANI Sep 2014

This ANI from September 2014 says it all. A variety of users express concern about issues identical to those raised here. (Except they weren't aware of the earlier socking). E.g compentence ('the trail of destruction this editor seems intent on leaving in their wake'), the lecturing, biting back at criticism, frequent copyright violation, weird excuses for the copyvio, including browser malfunction that caused an accidential paste from the clipboard. Generally, the complete inability or refusal to understand what they were doing wrong. DGG warns of an indef but fails to carry out, postdlf proposes a site ban, or at least an indef. Peter Damian (talk) 17:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Request

It is apparently clear that I've demonstrated a certain level of incompetence which led to series of problems. The truth is, I'm just too excessively enthusiastic as a young man who is ready to learn. I never have any intention to harm the project and all have done so far is in good faith. I therefore humbly request a CLEAN START and someone to ADOPT me and I won't create or add any content to mainspace until they can attest that I'm experienced enough to do so. Also the page Olatunde Isaac should be salted. I believe, this will be more productive than indef block. Thank you. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 18:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I've left a note on your talk explaining why clean start wouldn't work. You've had too many accounts, all with the same issues. Wikipedia:Clean start does not allow clean starts for:

Any user who has active bans, blocks or sanctions (including, but not limited to those listed here); or is being or about to be formally discussed for their conduct; or is attempting to evade scrutiny ...

I also noted on your talk that you've suggested moving articles you wrote out of mainspace. But as others have edited them, that wouldn't be appropriate, so please don't make any page moves. What you should do instead is start removing unsourced material from them. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal - indef block

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The lengthy ANI thread from 2014, linked above, shows that all these same sorts of promises and excuses we are seeing now from User:Wikicology, have all been seen before, nearly two years ago. And the difference is not a lot. There is no need for an arbcom case. There is also no need for burning more community time on this. Hundreds of very problematic articles have been created over a very long time period.

Proposal is for an indefinite block of User:Wikicology from the English Wikipedia, while recognising that he may be much better able to contribute to Wikipedias in languages in which he is more fluent. And also recognising his hard work and great efforts to help the Wikipedia movement.

• Support as proposer. MPS1992 (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Wikicology can appeal to UTRS when their English has improved significantly. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 20:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Wtf does their English has to do with this? Whatever can be said about Wikicology their English proficiency is not the problem - many users get along fine with much less English. Also Nigerian English is its own variety and should be respected as such.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Too long. Would support a block community ban with permission to appeal in one year. Would also support a mentorship agreement under which Wikicology is topic banned from mainspace for a year, but during which they can work on repairing their articles in their sandbox, under supervision. This would require the mentor to take responsibility for content when it is posted to mainspace after cleanup. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• I apologise, perhaps my proposal was not well worded. An indefinite block can be appealed any time. MPS1992 (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I am now starting to think that Maunus' idea of a community ban (thank you for clarifying that) may be better. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 21:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Here we have a user who fabricates references; misrepresents his credentials to improve his on-wiki image, and thinks little of it; plagiarises from Wikipedia and non-Wikipedia sources; makes thinly veiled legal threats; has used WP for self-promotion; clearly lacks competence in several areas, including ideas of reliable sourcing; and even if you forgive all of that, cannot, as far as I can see, be trusted to fix his mistakes. While Cullen's offer shows generosity and faith, I do not believe the extra effort spent on monitoring Wikicology's contributions and mentoring him, with a level of scrutiny commensurate to the seriousness of these issues, is justified over and above the effort it will take to fix the mess already made. Support an indefinite block, but prefer a community ban. BethNaught (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• I encourage respondents who support the proposal, to also mention if they would prefer, or countenance, a community ban. MPS1992 (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose A far better outcome for the encyclopedia is to require this editor to spend one year cleaning up and improving the hundreds of articles they have created, under a mentorship. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Do you offer to present a summary of the cleanup work accomplished under your mentorship to this forum after the one year has elapsed? If the problem articles have not been sensibly cleaned by Wikicology, do you undertake to complete that task yourself? For all articles he has edited under all of his accounts, known now or admitted or found later? MPS1992 (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
    • MPS1992, yes, I commit to reporting back here in one year. I do not commit to cleaning up every single one of some 500 articles if the mentorship fails. I will read all of them, identify and tag the most glaring problems, and prioritize the cleanup efforts. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Jim, a year is a long time. As we've seen, the community's memory is short: if it hadn't been for Peter Damian's diligence, nobody here would have remembered the previous AN/I discussion. Would you consider providing an interim report to those who commented here – say, in two weeks' time, while everybody still remembers this discussion – to indicate whether the clean-up and mentoring effort appears to be working? Andreas JN466 02:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
        • Yes, Andreas, if the community does not agree to block or ban this editor, then of course I will report back in two weeks or at any other reasonable interval. As I said earlier, I think that three editors should help mentor Wikicology, so I hope Irondome will reconsider and also assist. On the other hand, if the community reaches consensus that Wikicology should no longer edit here, I will step aside and respect that decision. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Cullen328, I would be happy to assist in any mentoring plan. I am a strong believer in editor retention, and mentoring is an under - used tool on WP, as an alternative to blocks or bans. My personal experience with mentoring has shown that it is a strong behaviour - modifier, if the mentoree accepts it in GF. Nigerian editors are under - represented on the English'pedia in addition, so I believe mentoring is a good, viable option in this case. Irondome (talk) 03:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• I will mentor this editor. And I accept the terms above, although it will put my own nascent projects back a year. Irondome (talk) 23:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC) See acceptance above by Cullen talk. Irondome (talk) 00:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per the sense that some editors are angry (no, not all) and wish to react punitively toward an apologetic editor they perceive as a "problem". That worry stated, and since the editor has repeatedly told us that he will not repeat editing behaviors found abhorrent, I concur with Cullen328. Let him prove and improve himself under a mentorship. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support per BethNaught's comments above. I have no particular issue with people misrepresenting their identity online (and yes, you are patently fabricating your identity, since in this thread you say you're a lab assistant but six months ago you made the explicit statement that "I'm a Biochemist and a university lecturer"), provided it's not done Essjay-style to argue from a supposed position of authority, but fabricating references is an absolute line in the sand as far as I'm concerned. I've no doubt that the people suggesting mentorship above are doing so in good faith, but IMO the concept of mentorship applies to new users who aren't familiar with Wikipedia's arcane policies and practices, not to users who've been highly active for years and are well aware of the policies in question, but appear to believe IAR gives them a carte blanche to disregard any policy they feel inconveniences them. Realistically, someone with a two year, 8800-edit history isn't going to suddenly change (particularly someone who considers themself the self-appointed "face of Wikipedia"), and the only alternative to blocking would be a set of restrictions so onerous he would probably prefer a block and a clean break; I'd suggest "no addition of anything to mainspace without having it checked by a neutral third party, and a blanket ban on article creation other than via the WP:AFC process" as an absolute minimum. ‑ Iridescent 23:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have a serious problem with anyone fabricating credentials, which is not the same thing as fabricating identity. I nearly didn't look any closer at this, given his claim to be a biochemist by occupation, an academic, a 'medical laboratory scientist'. This, together with articles which at first glance seemed impressive, such as Nitrogen dioxide poisoning (now deleted) suggested this person was an authority with complete command of their subject. Fake credentials and faking any kind of authority, are a complete no-no. Peter Damian (talk) 08:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
    • @Peter Damian, re-read what I wrote; I have no issue with people using fake identities (if you have a long memory, you presumably recall my lobbying for the unblock of Poetlister provided he stopped using multiple accounts), but this is someone apparently faking credentials to give themselves a supposed position of authority. (I say "apparently" because what I know about the structure of Nigerian higher education could be written on a stamp, and it's possible that "lecturer" is a generic term there for "someone employed by a university" in the same way that the meaning of "professor" varies between countries.) That is, someone not a biochemist/attorney/fireman is welcome to claim they are one, but if they do so and don't genuinely have the knowledge they should stay away from biochemistry/legal/fire related articles since their presence on those articles constitutes the inappropriate claim of authority; as far as I'm concerned Essjay could have claimed to be a leading theologian as much as he liked if he'd written on petroleum geology or 1980s sitcoms, rather than on religion and ethics. Note that I'm not defending him, but supporting an indefinite block and proposing that if not blocked, the minimum necessary topic ban would be so onerous as to effectively constitute a permanent ban, since it would create conditions in which it's virtually impossible to work. ‑ Iridescent 14:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Right, that's something that's bothered me as well. Lecturer may indeed have a different meaning in Nigerian academia. But a great deal of Wikicology's time appears to have been spent on puffing up his identity, and not correcting any mistakes that crop up. But I'm going to have to differ with Iridescent in that I can't approve of editors making seriously exaggerated claims about themselves. And while it does fall a bit outside our scope, I think that needs to be especially strongly condemned among editors who seek grant money from the Foundation. I don't have a problem with someone jokingly self-describing as an emperor or the "four-star General of Wikipedia". But calling oneself a doctor or lawyer when it's untrue is different. I'm not saying people should have to prove their claims about themselves, but people shouldn't fabricate credentials or permit convenient false impressions about themselves stand. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
        • Agree. Any such claim is implying authority, even if it is not asserted. And you have to ask why an editor is faking credentials in the first place. Surely to convey the impression of authority, and of command of the subject. Peter Damian (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
          • According to this source, it is illegal to work as a lecturer in Nigeria without a PhD. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Second choice: Cullen brings up a nice alternative, that we should require a mentorship under which the he'll clean up the mess he's created. But I never see those working. My first preference is to see this at ArbCom (I recognize that an indef block and ArbCom are not mutually exclusive). I think AffCom or some other body over at meta needs to check on Wikicology's activities more broadly, with possible involvement of the Foundation board, to carefully examine the grants that Wikicology has received. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Also, support Cullen's plan—three mentors/supervisors and a mainspace ban until he's cleaned up the mess he's created to their satisfaction—as my third choice. Should Wikicology retire in that time, I'd want this plan to automatically convert to a siteban. And, as before, I consider the implementation of this plan as something in addition to, rather than substituting for, arbitration and other proceedings. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC) (stricken per below)
    • I no longer support Cullen's plan in consideration of all the other problems that are becoming apparent, and given it looks like Wikicology might not stick around anyway. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

*Way too harsh Irondome (talk) 05:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support site ban and stripping of all Wikimedia and WMF posts, etc. Unfortunately, this lengthy ANI thread has actually only scratched the surface of this user's problematical behaviors. If he is not site banned and stripped of WMF posts here, this will need to go to ArbCom, because this entire case, taken as a whole, has remarkable resemblances to the Essjay controversy and to Wifione. "Mentoring" etc. isn't going to cut it -- this user has achieved far too much power already, has engaged in far far too much deception, and the situation is well beyond repair or rehabilitation. I actually think this should go to ArbCom anyway, because much of the evidence can only be viewed by admins at this point. Softlavender (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support site ban, and count me voting against any appeal in the future, ever (Redacted) Imagine what detractors of Wikipedia will say after seeing all this? How can anyone trust medical articles in Wikipedia anymore? And if this guy is not forever banned from the site, the detractors will say that not only medical articles in Wikipedia are crap, but also Wikipedia administration is complacent with all this bullshit and letting it happen unchecked. Wikipedia is in grave danger and we need to act forcefully to save it. So you want to allow him to clean his own mess? This is like making a baby change his own diapers. Not going to happen. It is very heartwarming to see so many nice people around here. But I am sorry to have to break to you that Santa Claus doesn’t exist and we are not living in Disneyland. Tradedia^talk 08:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Let me register my surprise that an editor with a PhD would speak so crudely ("those kind of people", scam, fraudster) and bringing up nationality which is not relevant in this case. Regardless of what happens to Wikicology, his behavior doesn't warrant personal attacks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• This is totally inappropriate. Please stick to the facts, which seem dramatic enough on their own without getting into personal attacks and offensive comparisons/generalizations. I went ahead and redacted the first part of the comment, per WP:TPO. If others feel this is unnecessary and want to restore, please do so. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support indef block and/or community ban, whichever of these options is more secure (It is not entirely clear to me when I read wp:CBAN.) As I said on my talk page to Peter: I think that our philosophies of assuming good faith, giving multiple "final" warnings and "second" chances, encouraging anonymity, and allowing incompetence, are overall beneficial and obvioulsy have made Wikipedia into what it is. But honest, well-meant—and some naive or alas downright silly—judgement mistakes have been made and will of course always be made. Then it goes wrong. And then it gets put straight again. Or only partly. Or not. ([226]). Mentorship for someone who has been "editing wikipedia anonymously since 2005"? I honestly think that would be another judgement mistake, resulting in another waste of time and effort. - DVdm (talk) 08:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

It is (sadly) amusing to read the second question in the interview you link above "Q: We understand that you have the highest number of articles by a Nigerian on Wikipedia, how were able to achieve that feat?" Real answer: "Well, I just made up stuff and copy/pasted fake refs." Tradedia^talk 09:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see that in the interview linked. Until you can back up that statement, I'm collapsing it as flatly misleading. (And I do that as someone who pretty much believes that you-know-who should be booted out forthwith.) EEng 00:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Off course I am not claiming this is the answer he gave to the interviewer. Notice I wrote “Real answer”. This is the answer that you can imagine he would have given if he wanted to reflect reality. I thought it was obvious... Tradedia^talk 04:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose until reviewed by Arbcom I have nothing against this editor personally, but there are a number of in-principle issues here that I would like Arbcom to review or to take up. I have asked them just now. The main issues are (1) is it OK to fake credentials or not. (2) Are editors who claim such credentials accountable, i.e. are they obliged to defend their claims. I had a lot of pushback from Wikicology when I politely asked him about this, such as claimed invasion of privacy, harassment etc. Peter Damian (talk) 09:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Serial abuser of the wiki. I have zero confidence in this individual. Zero. Carrite (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

After 45 minutes exploring edit history, I am seeing enough good faith encyclopedia work to move from Support to Neutral. Pinging Sjones23 who cited my rationale. Carrite (talk) 15:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Regretfully support ban. Having kept an eye on Wikicology's edits for some time, I had hoped that he would learn the errors of his ways, over time and I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt. I had been erring towards Cullen's proposal to mentor cleaning up the mess he has created would work, but in this edit today he has yet again added unverifiable information which is in fact closely paraphrasing other sources: There is nothing about wetlands in the source, yet numerous examples of a very similar sentence to be found in other sources. He wrote "356,861 hectares from which 75,755 hectares are wetlands" they say "356,861 hectares of which 75,755 hectares are wetlands". The part on population growth is also not in the source and has instead been lifted from Kwara#Population. He wrote: "constitutes about 6.44% of the Nation's total population having relied upon immigration for Population growth and Socioeconomic development". That article states: "constitutes about 1.69% of the Nation's total population having relied upon immigration for Population growth and Socioeconomic development". This is the final straw for me as it shows he still doesn't understand how to create content is incapable of changing. In combination with the autobiography and calling himself the "face of Wikipedia" I don't think that we have any other option but to ban him. SmartSE (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support per Carrite's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC).
  • I'm expanding my rationale on my support vote: This user's disruptiveness and fake references to articles are causing more harm than good, so a block or ban would help minimize the damage to Wikipedia. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Favour mentoring Since going into this in more depth, the situation is far, far worse than I thought. Mentoring I don't believe would work. Having never come across the user before, I am baffled by this editors' behaviour patterns. The community can only support colleagues to a certain limit. AS these issues go back to 2014, I throw up my hands. Irondome (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC) Would assist in mentoring, and awaiting WF input on my T/P. If we can agree on priorities of issues to be addressed, there may be a way forward. Irondome (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x2

• Oppose - if Cullen is willing to mentor this user to become a more effective contributor and help clean up all his articles, then I think we should give that a try first. If it doesn't work, the situation can always be re-evaluated. - ^theWOLFchild 19:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Thewolfchild Anyone who knows me around here, including you, hopefully would recognise that I always try to see the best in colleagues, and try everything to keep editors on - board. In this case, the sheer breadth of issues from false claims of academic tenure, the WMF connection, the conscious off-wiki publicity seeking, make mentoring problematic. To be a mentor, one has to do a cost - benefit analysis in a sense. It helps if the mentoree can fully accept the issues. That's the baseline. But here we are facing ambiguity. The basic editing issues would appear to be a clear case of WP:CIR. I just think this is beyond a potential save through mentoring. Trust is vital. The community seems to have indicated this has been fatally compromised with regard to this ed in this case. It just baffles me. Irondome (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Irondome Fair enough. But I don't agree with the overall analysis being tossed around here. For example, has he "faked his credentials"...? He's offered to forward to them for verification. That leaves... what? A caption on a photo that say "Wikicology in his office"...? Pfft! Big deal. I can't believe people are making an issue out of that. I'm not denying that Wikicology has created a significant mess here, but give him an opportunity to clean it up. What's the alternative? Ban him and wait for others to do it? (like that'll happen...) Mendaliv has offered some better alternatives above, which include a ban if Wikicology doesn't live up to his end of the bargain (which I support). But give him a chance at least. Also, let me ask you this; If Wikicology isn't banned and goes on to be mentored by Cullen, will you help Cullen out then? - ^theWOLFchild 19:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I would help Cullen in any way I could. If we can untangle this shitty shitty mess. I am quite happy to change my vote to something less drastic if we can just unbundle this tangle of issues. I said I never give up on people. It is the sheer range of issues and W's behaviours which are blowing my mind at the mo. But I would appreciate some more relevant input from Wikicology. Just come clean man, and make an authoritative statement. It might even help. Irondome (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the thing about Wikicology's appearance of authority is just a bunch of bits and pieces that people, unfortunately, added up to make him out to be something more than he really is. He's said he's a lecturer (he may have given a lecture), he has a picture marked as in his office (he may have had some office space, I know I briefly did in undergrad)... he's said a number of things that people took as more impressive than they really are. But where I see a problem is that when people were clearly taking those things as far too impressive, where was Wikicology? I'd be horrified if my wiki-colleagues were to look at my userboxes and then describe me as a lawyer on that basis. I agree that sometimes little things like that can spin out of control, but Wikicology's silence—evidently being willing for the community's demonstrated misunderstanding of that work to its detriment, in, for example, his RfA nomination—is still disturbing. As many men have learned, a hair here and a hair there before long adds up to a whole head... and Wikicology seemed to have quite the coif at the beginning of this thread. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I think you need to read this by him, where he concedes he was not 'directly employed' by the university. Softlavender challenged him asking about the picture of the 'office'. Then, bizarrely, he replies saying "Am I not suppose to describe my image?" and that he never took the image seriously, that it wasn't his office at all, and that someone said it was fine because it looked like a personal office. "I have never thought it would misinformed other editors, afterall Wikipedia Userpage is an informal place for volunteers. I apologize if you are misinformed with the caption." It is completely surreal. Peter Damian (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Opose. While all mentioned allegations reveal serious threats to Wikipedia's and Wikicology's credibility it is a fact that he apologised for all exaggerations of his credentials and all bad quality editing. On the other hand he is doing good work to promote the Open Knowledge movement and the Wiki projects in Nigeria. And we have to understand what it takes to be heard in Nigeria. To be able to talk to functionaries you have to present a picture of some standing. And that's where the story went wrong. He overdid his self-promotion to get recognized. He is still needed in Nigeria to promote and kick start the Yoruba Wikipedia, to promote Wiki Loves Women and to hold the Nigerian Wikipedia community together. I am very sure that he learned from the investigation of all he did in the last days and that he should be given a new chance. Closely watched, off course. --Gereon K. (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose If Cullen and Wikicology think he can be saved by mentorship, the wiki won't break in the meantime. If it works then the educational benefits of the project are expanded (not least of all to Wikicology, and whomever he may educate, but also for the international understanding of the Project - we may well need to figure out what it means to effectively communicate in non-North/non-Australian Englishes) -- if it doesn't work, the damage can be remedied, but there is no remedy of any kind if this is passed. We may well have to bar the door one day (given the problems, Wikicology, you are on notice), just not today. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I'm totally not convinced by his "just give me one more chance, this time I mean it, even after all those other times you gave me one more chance" rhetoric, and I think the damage to the project detailed above is so severe and pervasive and that Wikicology shows so little evidence of being able to recognize and clean up the problems that putting him on probation until the mess is fixed will be counterproductive. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I still think a site ban is the right eventual outcome, but am now leaning towards the view that this would be better decided by ArbCom than by this board. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support site ban, and delete all contributions. This user seems to have done enormous harm to Wikipedia. Worse, we now have hundreds of articles that appear to be fake, at least partially. A small number of his claims have been checked, and none of the checked claims hold. That makes it very likely all, or at least a great deal, of the other articles created or edited by the user contain similar misinformation. Banning the user should be obvious. In addition, I'd say it's absolutely essential that the user's edit be undone, and created articles deleted, as they risk seriously undermining the credibility of the project. Jeppiz (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are significant problems here, but nothing that can't be cleaned up. There is a big problem with 404/dead link refs. We need consensus to go through the articles/edits and remove all 404/dead link references I think, with other removals of inserted text at editor discretion. Probably we should also consider some group AfDs.

However there is need for properly sourced work to be done on Yoruba subjects. If Wikicology can contribute to this, it would be a step in the right direction.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC).

• Rich, I just spent a couple of hours at Talk:Child sexual abuse in Nigeria. I am not sure you fully appreciate the scale of the clean-up task here. The talk page discussion there also illustrates succinctly that the process of citogenesis has already begun. Andreas JN466 04:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Andreas: I too have worked on that article. It is a tricky subject and I can't fault someone for getting it wrong there. Certainly I will agree that the emotional response is to "block indef." due to the scale of the clean-up task. But the scale of the task is not relevant. What's important is whether future contributions have the potential to be a net positive.

Also note most of the articles are 2 line biographies, and very quick to check.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC).

I appreciate your input over there, Rich. But my intention in pointing out the size of the clean-up task wasn't actually to reinforce the emotional reaction "indef him because he's caused trouble". The issue is rather that we have had cases like this before, where editors have been found to have created large amounts of problematic content, and in most of these cases, the clean-up operation that people spoke of never really happened, with the effort grinding to a halt within a few days or weeks of the problem becoming apparent and most articles left unreviewed. Quite possibly, the best chance of the clean-up operation actually happening in this specific case involves letting Wikicology do it, systematically, under strict mentorship. This is another reason why I would like this to go to ArbCom, because no matter what decision this thread comes to, the likely outcome seems to me that it will be forgotten by most within a month of its closure. And while people may now say, like you, "there is nothing here that can't be cleaned up", the fact will then be that some of this spurious content will be around for years to come, and be repeated by other sources blindly copying from Wikipedia, as has already happened.

By the way, you certainly can and should fault Wikicology for providing the Philippine Statistics Authority's list of family and health surveys as a source for an unsourced statement in Child sexual abuse in Nigeria simply because the Philippines' "National Demographics and Health Surveys" share their "NDHS" acronym with the "Nigerian Demographics and Health Survey" (which also didn't back up the statement made in the article). This kind of surreal referencing has absolutely nothing to do with this being a tricky subject. Andreas JN466 14:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. This needs to go to ArbCom, if only for the reason that an exhaustive investigation is necessary for the community to acquire a full grasp of the sheer scale of the problem. Andreas JN466 04:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support: Wikicology's faux references are severely concerning, while failure to take his copyvios seriously is dangerous; only a ban would prevent this damage. Esquivalience ^t 05:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support indef block or site ban. As Hijiri88 points out out below, he's already posted similar apologies in the past:
  • Wikicology in 2014: "This discussion has really exposed me to a lot of things and I will make use of all the advices provided above which I have already put into play and I promise to abide and adhere strictly to every policies. On this note I beg you to temper justice with mercy."
  • Wikicology in 2016: I hereby beg the community to temper justice with mercy. Hence forth, I will 100% abide by the policies and guidelines and if I violate any of these, a site ban should be imposed without appeal.

Maybe he's done some good for Wikipedia, but right now we need a clean break. Once he understands what went wrong and can convince the community that it won't happen again, he can come back. But, right now, I really don't think he understands. As pointed out above by SmartSE, he's still disruptively editing even during this site ban discussion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support Indef block; the disruption this user has already caused makes such an action necessary to prevent repetition. Offers of mentorship, etc., are appreciated, and respected, but I suggest that the user already understands the founding pillars and policies of the project: he merely chooses to subvert them. As for his apology, I note that it was made after this block proposal was initiated, which suggests it is an attempt to avoid sanction rather than a genuine understanding of the community's concerns. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC) (re-signed, hours later, as sig was broken)
• Support community site ban. He would not be trusted to make future contributions which means anything he creates will require vetting. That in itself is too much control over community effort. He seems to have edited articles in a field as a way of building up credentials he doesn't have without any regard for the harm erroneous information might cause. It's a scam that has been played multiple times by this user and he needs to be shown the door. Arbcom and WMF can take any additional action they like but the communities patience and goodwill is exhausted. --DHeyward (talk) 09:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support site ban. Problems have been raised with this editor repeatedly over years, and they responded with empty apologies and promises. They appear to be using their editing for self-promotion, including multiple autobios, and their other editing is of such low quality that several articles have been simply redirected rather than cleaned up. They appear to be cutting-and-pasting to create articles and using unreliable and even false referencing. Fences&Windows 13:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support It has been pointed out in detail during the first ANI case of Sep 2014, that the use of sources which do not support the content is a no-go (see the 15 intermediary edits showing ref problems and his response to it on his talk page. After the ANI he has also received mentoring although I can't find any diffs of that now (perhaps deleted in the meantime). This user has also in the past two years been a very active member on AfD discussions and nominations so one should expect a certain level of competence from him so using arguments such as being a newbie and being overzealous just doesn't cut it. It seems to me that this user is abusing Wikipedia for self promotion: he started out here in previous reincarnations to write his biography, then, with his present user name, aspired to adminship, and in the meantime also has become a recipient of funds from WMF. As in the first ANI, he has again gone from attacking critical editors and making up excuses for his actions to, after the amount of evidence of his misconduct started to pile up, asking for forgiveness stating that he now understands where he has gone wrong. And again he includes a round of "thank you so much for pointing out my mistakes, I will never repeat them again" messages to key people involved in the discussion. The leniency that he received 1 1/2 years ago has now been shown to be detrimental to wikipedia and I highly doubt it that giving him a 3rd chance this time will have the desired effect in making him a good editor. - Takeaway (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support site ban, and global lock. He's a bad editor, and should be away from all Wikimedia projects.KGirlTrucker87 (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support with the understanding that indefinite does not (and should not) necessarily mean forever. From the outset, Wikicology has been here for a personal advancement in status rather than having an impartial and anonymous interest in contributing to an encyclopedia of world knowledge. His user name was chosen to appear as impressive and official-sounding as possible (I am surprised it has been allowed, given the risk of misidentification). Back in September 2014 at [227] I wrote "I came across Wikicology a couple of months ago. My thoughts were, this editor has got hold of a copy of How to become a Wikipedia Administrator in 6 months". Despite his setbacks, I am certain that Wikicology will not stop in his goal to become an administrator [228], and I think Wikicology knows enough about how to tick all the correct boxes to eventually attain that goal despite the clear failings in his editing style, in his interactions with other editors, and the many black marks in his editing history. So stop him now, while we have the chance. A long ban would put a stop to Wikicology's administrator ambitions, and freed from this obsession of becoming an administrator Wikicology might reform his editing style (if he choses to eventually return by successfully appealing his ban in maybe a year from now). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support with this still going to ArbCom to sort out the depth of the problem and what it will take to fix it. When the case starts he can be unblocked with the understanding that the only pages he can post to is the case pages. This person needs to be stopped now. When brought to ANI in 2014 they said, almost verbatim, the same things they are saying now. It's all bullshit. What was the last count now? 14 times they tried to make an article about themselves? Fake credentials. Fake articles to bolster their article count. This person doesn't care about anything here but self aggrandizing. Capeo (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose – This needs to go to ArbCom. There are so many issues, so much heated rhetoric, and so little structure that it's difficult to discern the true extent of this user's disruption and whether an alternative to an indefinite block would be viable. I (and I suspect many others) trust Cullen328 a lot, and mentoring under his guidance might be worth a shot. But I also understand the distrust towards Wikicology's apologies given that he's made the same ones before under similar circumstances. We need the structured process of arbitration to break the back of this case. Mz7 (talk) 00:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support a community ban. Everything that can be checked is not simply untrue, but purposely deceitful.

1. First and above all, this user is not a newbie nor an anonymous. When interviewed by a Nigerian news media, [229], this user introduces himself as: "I've been editing wikipedia anonymously since 2005 but I became an established editor in 2014", followed by "I'm an Ambassador of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) and Outreach Coordinator of 'The Wikipedia Library' as well as Coordinator of the 'Wikipedia Education Program' in Nigeria".
   
2. At Linkedin[230], this user is described as "Student at Adekunle Ajasin University". When he tried to become an administrator here, at en:wp, this user was introduced as "a lecturer at Adekunle Ajasin University in Nigeria [who] focuses primarily on Nigeria-related topics, but also contributes to numerous topics, such as Medicine, Biochemistry, Molecular biology, Governments Politics, History, Culture, Business and other encyclopedic subjects". And the user page of this user was not only starting with "a Nigerian academic and a medical laboratory scientist" but was adorned with the picture and the caption reproduced here, at the right of the present text.
   
3. At [Wikimedia-l], someone describing himself as "Olatunde Isaac; Manager, Wikipedia Education Program Nigeria; User page: Wikicology; Facebook: Olatunde Olalekan Isaac" sends his farewell to Anna Koval, saying "you are a mentor and a leader", "we are proud of you". And now look how the same person is unable to even write her name right.
   
4. At Nitrogen dioxide poisoning, this user backed the quotation "significant exposure may result in fatal conditions that could lead to shorter life span due to heart failure" by a study that compares 6 indoor heaters and 3 ventilations. And also backed "may progress to nasal fissures, ulcerations, or perforation" by a study about underground parking garages. A complete study has already been done above, by several contributors: quite each citation is a fake, linking to something that is not about the quotation. As a result, the curation process was to erase everything. And a lot of articles are of the same vein.
   
5. In the present discussion, the rationale of these fake articles has been explicitely stated: "to gain media attention in my country, Nigeria, for my tireless contributions to Wikipedia". The aim is not mainly to promote himself here, but to promote himself in Nigeria, using Wikimedia as a booster.
6. At the end, this user concludes his techsmart.ng interview by: "I care deeply about the integrity of Wikipedia, and take very seriously my responsibilities as a member of the Wikipedia community. I would never knowingly do anything to compromise that trust." Once again, the main misdeed is not having poisonned a lot of articles. The question to answer is if we really want a guy with such a deceiving behaviour acting as the face of Wikipedia, in Nigeria or anywhere else, or if we think that such a liar should be ousted. Pldx1 (talk) 07:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

   Note, after this thread was closed: I commented out the above image. Please don't post images like this at ANI; they show up in popups and other such things. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support regretfully. This is a serious WP:CIR issue, and I don't see much evidence that Wikicology gets it, for multiple values of it. Guy (Help!) 09:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Way to much damage has been done and I don't think a clean start or mentoring would ever work as after about 2-3 years he could end up going back to what got him here in the first place (and I personally don't and wouldn't trust the user after the above), After the amount of damage caused I don't see a more sensible outcome than Indef...., There's only so much WP:ROPE one can give. –Davey2010^Talk 15:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Let it go to Arbcom as per Mz7 above, who has admirably summed up my concerns here. GAB^Hello! 21:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Additional proposal: Formalized topic ban on "Olatunde Isaac"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It was suggested somewhere above that, while COI editing and editing about oneself isn't forbidden, we might want to consider forbidding it in this case. While Wikicology has agreed to stop creating articles on Olatunde Isaac, in light of all the background here and repeated transgressions, a formal topic ban should be put in place. This is not intended to replace any other sanction proposals—rather, it's intended as a topic ban that should probably never be revoked, even if other sanctions are lifted. As such, I propose the following:

Wikicology is indefinitely topic banned from: creating, editing, and proposing articles about Olatunde Isaac; from putting images of Olatunde Isaac in mainspace; from adding references to any publications written by or credited to Olatunde Isaac anywhere in mainspace; and from adding written content about Olatunde Isaac anywhere in mainspace.

I believe this needs to be formalized so that both we and Wikicology know specifically what he's prohibited from doing in order that there's no quibbling over the specifics, and any question over how the sanction might be lifted (a voluntary one might provide more wiggle room). Once again, I want to assure any discussants that this is not intended to supplant any other proposals, but as a separate sanction that should survive any others that may someday be lifted. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support as proposer. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support in addition to the ban/block proposal. BethNaught (talk) 09:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose until reviewed by Arbcom See my comments above. Peter Damian (talk) 09:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is an end-run deal apparently designed to subvert and supersede the major and formal investigation which should occur at ArbCom. It's too late for deals and topic bans and cleanups and mentoring. Softlavender (talk) 10:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oh come the hell on. If anything, this is designed to augment and supplement whatever ArbCom needs to do. By handling the resolution of this aspect of the case, it frees ArbCom up to consider the far more serious issues. ArbCom isn't some kind of inquisition: They aren't going to independently root out more and more bad things. If anything, a ridiculously minor aspect of the case like this has the potential to distract ArbCom from those serious issues. This proposal will prevent Wikicology or any other individuals from shifting the focus of any arbitration proceedings away from the worse problems. Odds are if you dropped this entire case in ArbCom's lap as is, this would be the sole outcome anyway. By slicing an entire portion of the dispute off, and taking it out of ArbCom's hands, you free up space in pleadings, in evidence, and in argumentation to present those other matters. If you think dealing with this before ArbCom as a massive quagmire would be more helpful, then go and do it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I commented here. I agree it's not about dispute resolution as such, but there are some really important principles involved. Some are saying, indeed Mendaliv themselves, that the most serious claim here is becoming falsified research and credentials, others are saying it's not a big deal. Jimmy himself once said it was not a big deal, in an online context. I would like that one cleared up, by any means. Peter Damian (talk) 10:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support in addition to any other sanctions we might impose. One time would be par for the course, and a common way that people break into Wikipedia editing and learn to contribute more constructively. 14 times, with bonus sockpuppetry, shows no evidence of learning to do better. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support as an obvious first step while considering other measures. This should be uncontroversial and can be imposed immediately, without waiting for the slow grinding of Arbcom's wheels. --MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Apology

•  Comment: --- I apologize to the community for my gross misconduct. It is true that I hold a degree in Biochemistry and work as a lab scientist and I'm ready to upload my credential and my employment documentation for the community to review anytime I'm called upon to do so. I think I'm just too overzealous with how I go about things which is not the best way for young people like me. The truth remain that I have no bad intention to cause harm to Wikipedia and to betray the community trust. I have no defense mechanism and its apparently clear that I had demonstrated a high level of incompetence. I hereby beg the community to temper justice with mercy. Hence forth, I will 100% abide by the policies and guidelines and if I violate any of these, a site ban should be imposed without appeal. I will work diligenttly with Cullen328 to cleanup the mess I created. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• I am not seeing any relevant apology here . You say that you do have a degree in Biochemistry, and that you do work as a lab scientist, as though you had been telling the truth all along. What about your claims to be a lecturer? As Sarah says here, your statements that it didn't matter that your photograph caption was untrue (the one of him 'in his office at the university', even though he has never had an office there), and how it didn't matter that you claimed to be an academic because you had only ever made that claim that on Wikipedia suggest that there is a fundamental disconnect. You are incapable of apologising because you cannot see what needs apologising for. How about apologising for the many lies you told to the community, and the many lies you told about the lies? Peter Damian (talk) 11:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

What "relevance" are you looking for? It appears to be a sincere apology. He uses language such as "gross misconduct", "high level of incompetence", he is "begging for mercy" and has offered to forward his credentials. What else do you need? - ^theWOLFchild 19:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

He has submitted in advance to a site ban if he fails to uphold policies again. That's good enough in my book (and I was greatly unimpressed before, see Talk:Lagosians and Talk:Lagos_State#Proposed_merge_from_Lagosians). – Fayenatic London 22:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: I'm staying out of this discussion as much as possible because, frankly, my opinions on what Wikicology has done are quite strong and I'm afraid I might make a bad judgement call (the worst part of it I already expressed on Curly Turkey's talk page, though). But did you read the 2014/09 ANI discussion? Wikicology said the same thing back then -- I promise to abide and adhere strictly to every policies. On this note I beg you to temper justice with mercy. He clearly wasn't sincere then, so just saying "he is begging for mercy" is no proof that he is sincere this time. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Quite. Wikicology hits a lot of our weaknesses, because he can display contrition and in many situations can give a forthright manner in communication. When a person like that is faced with adversity, particularly when said person tries to own up to mistakes and uses very contrite language, there's a desire to defend that person. Compare meatball:DefendEachOther, which is an observation I really enjoy seeing in practice. But contrition and apology is not enough. There has to be progress. As Hijiri88 demonstrates, we've already turned the other cheek, we've already given a second chance, at least once before. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

There are several fundamental differences here. He has now agreed to an offer of mentorship. He has now agreed to not create more articles and to work on clean-up. He has now agreed to a site-ban, if he fails. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology did receive mentoring after their first ANI case. This was organised outside of the ANI discussion. I can't seem to find the relevant diffs now (perhaps deleted in the meantime) but I am sure that Wikicology can vouch for it. - Takeaway (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I think Takeaway is correct, but that it was Wikicology himself who proposed and arranged it, approaching some editors he said he admired, rather than it being imposed. So the diffs might be communications on other editors' talk pages. However I might be wrong, since it is now just a vague memory on my part and I didn't pay any further attention to Wikicology after that ANI discussion dried up. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Even if true, mentors do sometimes bail, but there is no evidence that Cullen will (quite the opposite: Cullen as agreed to report back), and then there is the clean-up (how much better can it get for the Pedia and everyone if that succeeds), and the agreement to site-ban, if it does not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I remember that the then mentor didn't bail and that Wikicology successfully finished the mentoring period. - Takeaway (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Assuming that's true, you have brought forth evidence of reform, constructive contribution, and working with others constructively. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Which apparently didn't last very long seeing how he now stands here for some of the same mistakes he made before the first round of mentoring. - Takeaway (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Not having the details of the mentoring, it is not possible to say. At any rate, mentoring is only one-part of what is the present plan. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Note I had begun a dialogue with Wikicology on my T/P. I should clarify that I am willing to assist mentoring. I have asked for an account of what's been going on and Ideas from WK on the priority areas to tackle. Constructive contributions are welcome. Simon Irondome (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Wao! I don't have much to say on this, because it is a bit of a shock to me. Seriously. @Wikicology: has always seemed to me as a dedicated volunteer, which I really admire. I have participated in a few offline wikipedia community events with Wikicology and he seem to have this burning passion for the progress of Wikipedia. I think this is just a total misunderstanding on his part on what is right for the movement, and what is not. I also believe he is genuinely sorry and has definitely learnt his lessons. I hope the community would give him this last chance he asks for. Give him the chance to prove himself just this last time. I hope the best comes out from ArbCom; I'm sure he must be going through a lot right now. All of these happened so fast!--Jamie Tubers (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for arbitration filed

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Wikicology. --Andreas JN466 05:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Another proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There has been no clear consensus among the previous proposals to block indefinite and/or ban. Let's try another approach.

Proposed

Wikicology is will endeavour to clean up the 500+ articles he's created, with the goal of bringing them to Wikipedia's standards. He will accept the mentorship of Cullen328 and any advice given by Irondome, and any other experienced editors. He will not create any more articles unless approved by his mentor. He will not edit any articles unless approved by his mentor, with the exception of the ones he's cleaning up. If at any point it appears that Wikicology is not working towards this goal, or his mentor feels he not contributing in good faith, then he will be banned from the project. - ^theWOLFchild 16:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Edit: "...and any other experienced editors" - can be determined here or by the mentor(s). - ^theWOLFchild 17:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support (as proposer) - ^theWOLFchild 17:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support Irondome (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Definitely not. Do you realise just how ridiculous making it compulsory to accept any advice … given by any experienced editors is? As you can see from this very thread, it's rare for a group of Wikipedia editors to agree on anything (and if you search enough, you can find someone willing to endorse pretty much any course of action). You may want to look into just how well it went last time somebody tried to implement a proposal like this. ‑ Iridescent 16:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

It was an attempt, and a brave attempt. There is no cast - iron reason to assume failure if it is repeated. What is being proposed is strong oversight by the community from the off. In the linked example, there appears to have been some pushback by the mentoree based on the final statement of closure. It is very likely we will get a more positive outcome here. Irondome (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Iridescent: The speficis can be adjusted. Do you support the concept? If so, then suggest any changes you'd like to see. - ^theWOLFchild 17:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, mostly because Wikicology is not an new editor (and thinks he has experience enough to have even requested to be an administrator). I seem to recall that when he was a new editor a mentoring solution was suggested (after this [231]). In that earlier case there were numerous comments about his inability to take advice or follow advice or stop doing certain things. Has Wikicology changed? If the proposed mentors want to mentor or give advice to Wikicology in an informal way then that is OK, but I don't think this should be made into a formalized solution. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: Sorry, but your comment makes no sense. None at all. Can you clarify? - ^theWOLFchild 17:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposing as a solution something that has failed in the past makes no sense at all. Mentoring is for new editors who are willing to take advice, not for long-term editors who have shown a repeated pattern of rejecting advice and who are so secure in the certainty of their correctness that they assume administrator status is within their grasp. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

AFAIK WC has never had official mentoring, especially under threat of a site ban if he fails to comply. There is no downside here. Either it doesn't work, and he's banned. Or it does, and the articles are fixed and we gain worthy, rehabilitated and redeemed editor. - ^theWOLFchild 01:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support (except strike that any experienced editor clause as vague) we should definitely try it, the pedia can win big, and if not the ban kicks in. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - It is absurd to expect someone who was — intentionally or unwittingly — the cause of a problem to fix that problem. We don't know anything about motivations, we don't know about awareness that there even was a problem. We're already dealing with someone who falsely represented themselves, for sure. How much of the content is utterly faked? It's not for them to tell us. Zero trust. Zero. There needs to be independent inquiry and cleanup either through or akin to a CCI case. Carrite (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Considering this effort would be supervised by Cullen and Irondome (at the least), what is there to lose? Where is the "absurdity"? Either he fixes the problem, (a win for the project), or he's banned, (which is what you want anyway) and the project is no worse off. - ^theWOLFchild 18:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

(ec)In a CCI case, the user is actively encouraged to participate in cleaning up their own mess, and unlike CCI, here he has two editors looking over his shoulder. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's unclear that Wikicology has the willingness and WP:COMPETENCE to clean up the mess he created. If he couldn't recognize bad sources when he was creating these articles, what would suddenly be different that would let him recognize them now? Past history seems to show him putting on a show of contrition and then reverting to past misbehavior after the fuss dies down. Cleaning up this problem is too important to entrust it to someone like this. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

David Eppstein: Really important? As no one is saying you could not also clean-up, and/or also watch him do it, what you say is a 'non-sequitur'. If it's important, let's not leave here without a plan. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps every editor here casting an 'oppose' !vote should personally assume responsibility for cleaning up 20 of WC articles. - ^theWOLFchild 21:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be attacking anyone who declines to accept your proposal. The above comment is not doing your proposal any good. If every one of the 500+ articles that WC has created is really needing "cleaning up" as you suggest, is mentoring an appropriate solution for an editor who has created that amount of disruption? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Relax, no one is being "attacked" here. And, yes... the specific mentoring proposal that Cullen and Irondome have put forward have a very good chance of success. There is nothing to lose. Either it works, and WP is better off, or it doesn't, WC is banned and WP still goes on... - ^theWOLFchild 01:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

No. Not the mentoring, the cleaning-up is the appropriate solution - the mentoring is to get it done and appropriately, and the no more articles is to get it done without further ado. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

At a guess, I'd say thousands of Wikipedia articles are "cleaned up" in some way every day - so the cleaning up of WC's 500+ will be done anyway, eventually, under the normal editing processes that all articles can go through. But what this proposal is saying is that an editor who thinks so highly of his Wikipedia editing abilities that he feels ready to be an administrator is actually so currently unfit to be an editor that he should not be allowed to make any article edits without approval. I really don't think mentoring can fix a problem this serious. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

This proposal is not saying anything of the kind. I'm just trying to find a solution that benefits the project and brings this ridiculous ANI to a close. What solution do you have to propose instead? (Oh, and fat chance of those articles somehow being magically cleaned up on their own. It's not as if Nigerian-based content is a hotbed of copy-editing activity here.) - ^theWOLFchild 01:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per David Eppstein inter alia. Wikicology has already had plenty of rope. BethNaught (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support I was just about to propose something like this too. Look, I agree that several of the concerns raised about this user (sockpuppetry, autobiography, repeated recreation of deleted articles) are serious and could be blockable. The first such action was in 2013, but the most recent recreation of the autobiography was less than a month ago,[232] so an "I didn't know any better" defense does not appear to be justifiable. Other concerns (poor quality of articles created, poor sourcing), as outlined at this ANI discussion, could be considered for lesser sanctions such as a topic ban. The complaint about "faking credentials" does not concern me, but there are other serious issues here. However, I find much to admire in this user and I would very much like to retain him as a member of Wikipedia. Wikipedia really needs people who care about the project and work (as a volunteer, please note) to extend its reach to less-served areas of the world. So rather than a block or community ban, I would much prefer something like Wolfchild's suggestion. I would propose a one-year topic ban on creating articles, during which time he cleans up (with supervision) the articles he has already created, accepts the kind offer of mentorship from Cullen and Irondome and possibly others acceptable to this discussion, and continues to promote Wikipedia in his own country. --MelanieN (talk) 22:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: This editor's contribs should be removed to draftspace or talk pages until they are positively evaluated by independent editors. I have zero confidence in this editor's ability to repair the damage he's done, even with mentorship. It seems like every day we're finding out something else detrimental this editor has done. Why should we let him loose and risk more, even harder to detect damage? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• No, just no This type of proposal gets thought of all the time when someone spews a mess into 100's of articles (copyvios or whatever else), and it never works. If they could tell the difference, they wouldn't have created the problem in the first place. 173.228.123.194 (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

"All the time"...? Really? Show me one other time... - ^theWOLFchild 03:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Gavin.collins, for one. 184.13.27.137 (talk) 06:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

One example, from 6 years ago. When you said "all the time" and it "never works", I was expecting a long list of examples to support that. - ^theWOLFchild 16:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, you're looking for an example of an editor who needed mediation and then continued to engage in the same sort of behavior necessitating further blocks after the mediation ended? You of all people are asking this question, Thewolfchild? Really? -Thibbs (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm asking that question. Do you need me to use smaller words? - ^theWOLFchild02:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is a bad joke. Wikicology pretends to be a lecturer when talking here, and pretends to be a Wikipedian in good repute when talking outside, to Nigerian press or to Nigerian faculty. I don't trust User:Cullen328 or User:Irondome for being able to check if Wikicology introduces himself as a guy on the verge of being ousted or as "the face of Wikipedia in Nigeria". Pldx1 (talk) 07:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

No, it's a not a "joke", just a proposal to try and bring this nonsense to an end and get started on the clean-up, which no one, (including you) has expressed any interest in helping with, except for Cullen and Irondome, the 2 editors you have just insulted no reason. - ^theWOLFchild 16:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Monitoring an Ambassador because you don't trust what he could say, what a great concept ! Pldx1 (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Pldx1 Your sarcastic and negative tone is really not helping here. Irondome (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's sarcasm. I think he really doesn't know what he's talking about... - ^theWOLFchild 17:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - He's caused enough damage to the point where I personally don't trust him to clean up and fix those mistakes, Plus he cannot be monitored 24 hours a day and so he could easily do more damage without anyone noticing (I apologize if it comes across as bad faith but it's honestly how I feel). –Davey2010^Talk 15:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal Withdrawn.

Consider this proposal withdrawn, as it's clear it isn't going anywhere, just like all the other proposals above, and the ANI in general. Obviously ArbCom will have to step in and handle this since the community is incapable of doing so. While I don't think Wikicology is as evil as everyone is making him out to be, he certainly has created one hell of a mess, but aside from Cullen and Irondome, I don't really see anyone else offering to help clean it up. I hope ArbCom takes notice of the offer put forward by these 2 generous editors. - ^theWOLFchild 16:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment leaning toward support - This isn't a personal promise or a policy/guideline proposal, it's a proposal regarding the community's approach to handling a problematic editor. So I'm not sure it's really the sort of proposal that can be withdrawn, Thewolfchild. Especially not at this point. There are numerous editors who support it in good faith and although this ANI thread's closure may put an end to the proposal, further discussion on the topic in the meanwhile may help ArbCom down the road if it comes to that. I lean toward supporting this proposal as well. There's a certain poetic justice in getting someone who caused problems to be the one to clean them up. -Thibbs (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks anyway, but it's clear that this proposal will not gain the requisite consensus for implementation. It's also clear that this ANI is well past the point of being useful. I now agree with the majority here that ArbCom needs to step in and handle this and should close this ANI. I'm hoping that marking my clearly failed proposal as 'withdrawn' will expedite the process. I have made mention of this in my entry at the ArbCom request, bringing this proposal to their attention, so hopefully it, and the !votes of the 3 supporting editors, will not be wasted. - ^theWOLFchild 17:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of user rights?

Wikicology has accountcreator, yet is an admitted sockpuppeteer. He also has autopatrolled and a PC reviewer, but has been demonstrated to create a great deal of problematic content. Would someone please remove access to these tools? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

This has been partially done by User:Xeno [233]. SmartSE (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Credentials

Today, at ArbCom, and OTRS member confirmed receipt of Wikicology's credentials, and so, I think all the accusations (and associated insults) about "faked credentials" needs to stop. There are some comments here that are not only a violation of policy, but in poor taste. I would suggest that participants review your remarks, redact where necessary and even perhaps, offer an apology. (something, something, "talking the talk", blah blah blah...) - ^theWOLFchild 00:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

All that's been verified by OTRS is that Wikicology has sent files claiming to have had a degree and a job. Respectfully, you appear to be missing the critical aspect of this matter, that Wikicology claimed to be a "lecturer" (a position which, in Nigeria, appears to require, either by law or by regulation, a PhD), which claim was relied upon in multiple venues to the community's detriment (e.g., his RfA), and which detrimental reliance Wikicology willfully failed to even attempt to remedy until he was confronted about it in this thread. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah. I thought the big kerfuffle was over whether or not he has a qualification (ie: degree) in biology and whether or not he was working in that field (that and the whole 'office' thing...). He stated that he gave lectures at the university, has that been disproven? And what "law or regulation" (in Nigeria) regulates the title of "lecturer"? *Note; Keep in mind I only ask for my own curiosity now. Nothing that is said here will change what is to come. This ANI is a bust. It'll have be shut down and ArbCom will have to step in and address this whole mess. Oh well, at least we tried... Cheers. - ^theWOLFchild 02:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

There was an illuminating comment by NinjaRobotPirate buried way above (diff). The evident point is that Nigerian universities are not permitted to employ non-PhDs as lecturers. The important part of that is, even if it shows there is a historical tendency of non-PhDs being employed as lecturers by some Nigerian universities, the standard of the relevant community is that in Nigeria, a person who is a lecturer is expected to be a PhD. The problem, at least for me, and which has been raised elsewhere, is that in multiple places Wikicology has called himself a lecturer. Everything I have seen about Wikicology is that he holds a bachelor's, and which was only fairly recently awarded. The claim of being a lecturer has been taken to the community's detriment, and in at least the case of his RfA, stated in the nom statement. While Wikicology isn't responsible for the mistakes of others in overstating his credentials, I believe he has a responsibility to correct our misapprehensions when he is made aware of them (i.e., in the RfA nom statement). I agree, there are some distasteful claims being made in this ANI and elsewhere, which do our community a great disservice. In spite of those claims, there's still a huge amount of things wrong here. I concur that ArbCom is going to need to handle this in some manner. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

It would do well to remember what happened last time Wikipedia took someone's credentials at face value.... Blackmane (talk) 02:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, Wikicology could prove conclusively that he has a doctorate and a teaching position at a university (even though he has already admitted that this latter was a lie) and it still wouldn't justify what he did in the article space. Furthermore, the submitted documents imply that Wikicology does not hold anything more than a BSc. If I have read the above thread correctly, Wikicology claimed to be a professional researcher with a university teaching position (the latter having already been admitted to being a lie), clearly implying he had a doctorate. The submitted documents just give more evidence that he was lying. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Interaction with other editors

User:Olaniyan Olushola recently removed Wikicology as a mentor on his user page but has not commented here. In addition I noticed a User creation log where one of Olushola's adoptees accounts was created by Wikicology during some sort of class (per the log). Also, they have an overlap with WIMBIZ. I don't know if this is enough for SPI but I found it odd that the "mentor" was removed without comment. I would certainly like to hear Olaniyan Olushola's opinion of Wikicology as they seem familiar with each other. --DHeyward (talk) 09:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it's a little too early to call for a SPI, and honestly doubt a CU would be helpful. Both editors have been active in the Nigerian Wikipedian User Group and held edit-a-thons together, so they've almost certainly shared IP addresses at a variety of times. I know CUs see more than that, but meh. I would like to hear anything Olaniyan Olushola has to say about Wikicology, though. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Kick it to arbcomm

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Some arbitrators are making noise that they want to see how this discussion plays out before agreeing to a case. I don't think this discussion is going to end in a coherent solution of the sort that arbcomm can provide. I recommend that an uninvolved administrator close the discussion with a result: demand arbcomm action. That's what needs to happen here.

jps (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• I'd be totally fine with this. ANI isn't going to resolve this adequately. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Agreed. This thread should be closed so Arbitration can move ahead. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Mz7 (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support - End this train wreck already. - ^theWOLFchild 16:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support I don't know about "demand", but yeah it's better to kick this to them if they'll take it. 173.228.123.194 (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support They're waiting for this ANI to close anyway... just get it over with and let arbcom deal with it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support for the following reasons: 1) Too complex for ANI, 2) No clear consensus forming here, 3) Private evidence is now in play which prevents the community from making an informed decision, 4) The person in question has complained about having to face this on two fronts, 5) Arbcom members have mentioned waiting for this discussion to be closed before accepting and it is unlikely we will solve this. Though demand arbcomm action seems like an odd close, more appropriate would be It is unlikely the community will come to a resolution here. We don't need to be demanding things from arbcom, they know how to decide on action. HighInBC 17:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support - what a mess. Peter Damian (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support --Andreas JN466 17:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Too many issues all rolled up into one big mess. Best handled at arbcomm. - Takeaway (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support - needs sorting out as soon as possible. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 18:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support The clear consensus appears to be that Arbcom deals with this. I agree. However, we should be thinking about unbundling the issues that ANI can deal with here, and some of the issues that it cannot. We can enforce a ban on Wc working on any new material, and have him work with others under close supervision on material he has compromised. If he explicitly follows instructions and has shown in a year that he can competently handle citations, notability, all the nuts and bolts stuff, then we can re-consider what to do. I believe their are cultural issues which have not been addressed which has driven some of Wc's behaviours. There are many intelligent colleagues acting in GF here. It would be suprising if we cannot think of some solution at this level. However that has turned out to be the case. Irondome (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Irondome: The problem with ANI is a complete lack of structure. The free-for-all format here works well for smaller disputes, but less so for the complexity of this one. The sheer breadth of issues is so overwhelming that I would be very impressed if we could unite behind a solution at this level. The more structured, formalized process of evidence submission and remedy workshopping at ArbCom is far better suited for a complicated dispute such as this one. As far as working "with others under close supervision" goes, it is my understanding that that was already proposed and discussed extensively above, but there was no consensus to implement it—but that's also something we can recommend to ArbCom. Mz7 (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• I now agree, and would be happy to propose solutions there.

@Irondome: You know that you can participate at the arbcomm case, right? I think your suggestions are valuable, but would be better if made in the context of an arbcomm statement, workshop proposal, or request for motion. jps (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Indeed. I now intend to.
• Oppose. I believe there is clear evidence to support an immediate indefinite block, and I also believe that there is consensus in the thread above for that to happen. Arbcom have indicated they will wait for any such outcome before commencing proceedings anyway. The sooner action is taken, the better, in my view. MPS1992 (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@MPS1992: Everyone here is in agreement that there is "enough evidence" to support an immediate indefinite block. In fact, in theory at least, any evidence would be enough to support such a block, as any admin is at liberty to unilaterally impose a block based on their own research into a user's behaviour. The problem is that if Wikicology is simply blocked, there would be nothing stopping any roaming admin from unblocking him. So a site ban is probably what is called for (I would actually oppose a blank "block" with no ban to accompany it). Furthermore, a number of us are still undecided as to whether an immediate and unconditional community ban is the best result here. Wikicology has offered to help clean up his own mess, and several others have offered to make sure he does this, so blocking Wikicology may not actually be the best result -- if he is blocked, it's possible his bullshit articles will just remain indefinitely, with no one with the motivation to clean them up. This is what I am afraid of (but I actually doubt he will do much good, which is why I'm not !voting either way), and many other editors have said the same thing. Indefinitely blocking the subject of an open ArbCom case is a terrible idea. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

If memory serves, when a party to an ArbCom case is indeffed prior to a case being opened, the possible outcomes are: (1) Case declined as moot, (2) Case opened and editor unblocked solely to participate in the case, or (3) Case opened but held in abeyance (i.e., if the blocked editor also retires). A block or ban would almost certainly interfere with an ArbCom case. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support - There is too much going on here to just say indef block and leave it. Such an action is only one solution to one problem. Not only that, but there is the recent OTRS action, which requires special permission to view. If the community is able to help clean up, then it should, however, I believe that the administrative action should be left to ArbCom. In other words: This issue is beyond the ability of the community to resolve. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 22:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Essentially per all the reasons wisely stated by HighInBC (talk · contribs) in this comment, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Only solution, Huldra (talk) 23:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support - As I said at Arbcom this is way too complex for ANI to handle and should instead be handled by Arbcom themselves, MPS deserves a trout for reopening this trainwreck, Someone please close it. –Davey2010^Talk 02:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Just enact the community ban. I stubbed one article, Iyabo Ojo, that was full of random citations that failed verification. I didn't need ArbCom's help to do it, and I don't think we need ArbCom's help to close this properly. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for close

Could an uninvolved admin please close this topic. It's been closed a couple times with the resolution of referring to arbcomm, but that was disputed/reverted by MPS1992 who sees a consensus to indef block, so someone has to decide. There's some more discussion at user talk:MPS1992. 173.228.123.194 (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

See also User talk:Mike1901#Can you do us a favour?. Mz7 (talk) 03:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.