Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 11:59, 11 June 2016

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Shortcuts

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

Before posting:
- Consider other means of dispute resolution first
- Read these tips for dealing with incivility
- If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
- If the issue concerns use of admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
- Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

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

Start a new discussion

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357
358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367
Incidents (archives, search)
1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165
1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480
481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336
337	338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Editing on Jesus Christ

(non-admin closure) User:Adasegogisdi blocked for 1 week. moveon.jpegFAMASFREENODE (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is about [1] where I have been accused of edit warring and of supporting racism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:Adasegogisdi has also broken 3RR at Jesus. St Anselm (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is true. We have a small group of editors, namely [2] and User:StAnselm blocking the accurate and oldest picture associated with the article Jesus Christ to uphold their white supremacist viewpoint. -Adasegogisdi (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When reverting her edits, the WP:FRINGE view is that most Christians would support Jesus Christ the Father, which is a fringe Christian belief and a heresy for mainstream Christians. The WP:OR is using the Bible as source of beliefs expressed in Wikipedia's voice, instead of quoting secondary sources published by Bible scholars. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this here? This sounds like a content dispute and you should follow the dispute resolution hierarchy, and please remove the pictures. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Joseph, it is here because one editor is calling other editors "white supremacists" and "racists". Is there nothing that can be done to stop this? St Anselm (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the pictures as they're part of a content dispute which cannot be solved here. Content disputes should be discussed on article talk pages, and bropught to dispute resolution if they cannot be solved there. Admins rule on behavioral problems, not content disputes.

@Tgeorgescu: In your complaint, you failed to mention that you dropped a ton of templated warnings on the talk page of Adasegogisdi. All you received was a standard edit warring notice, and a hand-rolled notice about racism. BMK (talk) 19:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, if I have dropped them in bad faith I should be reprimanded, but if I have rightly issued them I should be commended. I even tried to explain her that the Bible is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith or bad faith, putting a whole bunch of templates on someone's talk page can easily be interpreted as an attack. It would have been better to write a couple of paragraphs outlining the problems as you see them. BMK (talk) 19:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record: I have no preference for either image, what I objected against was expressing a fringe view and indulging in original research. My impression is that each subsequent policy violation deserves a higher order warning template, otherwise why are those templates there? They can be used to convey that an editor has repeatedly violated a certain policy. Wise editors are able to take heed and desist from violating policies. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just because your tool box has a hammer in it doesn't mean you should use it to open the pickle jar. A wiser editor used templates sparingly, and discussion more. BMK (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: I can well understand that you might think a warning template or two is a softer response than taking someone to ANI, because it is. Having said that, I see at least seven templates from you on that editor's talk page. If in the future you have to go so far as to issue a second warning template in quick succession, you might also add a bit more relevant text regarding the specific actions in question, and which policies and/or guidelines they violate. And, if you ever feel the need to go to a third template in a short period of time, it would probably be best to take the matter here first, because I tend to think third warnings without any action tend to be much less effective. John Carter (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, good to know for the future. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible is the primary source. And the Bible scholars they are using are obviously white racists and ignorant of the text. "Isaiah 53:2" and "Jesus has bronze skin". And there are secondary sources available: "UPCI" and "namb.net"-Adasegogisdi (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm seeing the issue here. In reading the text, an interpretation of one way or another is not "racism". It would be best if you not say that the comments are from racists or white supremacists. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked Adasegogisdi for 48 hours for edit warring and breaching WP:3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reading their unblock request I'm wondering if a longer block might be in order. Calling editors "white supremacists" definitely is a personal attack, and reflects a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People from the middle east are traditionally considered to be Caucasian. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But there is a difference, albeit, maybe, a slight one, between being "Caucasian" and being "white". And I have to agree with Bbb23 that interpreting text should not be a basis for being branded a racist. John Carter (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that was me. Bbb23 just did the blocking. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you're right - so I skwewed up. FWIW, if you ever have to deal with me in the future, you'll probably get used to my doing that. ;( John Carter (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Different cultures tend to portray Jesus as "one of us". This is no big deal. See Race and appearance of Jesus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, and hardly a reason to call another editor a racist. We have enough true racism in the world without throwing the claim around indiscriminantly. BMK (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

propose an indefinite block for:
- their unblock request: White supremacist editors User talk:StAnselm and User talk:Tgeorgescu are upholding their views on Jesus and forbidding debate which followed
- this warning to StAnselm and the same to Tgeorgescu:Please stop upholding a racist viewpoint on a major article. "Atlantic" Discuss on the relevant talk page and
- this extremely aggressive post here at ANI.

This editor has The Truth^TM and is not here to collaborate with others who think differently; that together with the lack of competence demonstrated by taking an article in Popular Mechanics as The Last Word on how Jesus looked, is a recipe for endless disruption. Jytdog (talk) 05:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- (Non-administrator comment) Agreed. WP:CIR issues wrt WP:RS ([3], [4]) along with WP:OR (St. Calixtus catacomb image interpretation), unfounded accusations of racism and white supremacism for those who do not agree. Sufficient grounds for a ban, I would think. Kleuske (talk) 08:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I said that above regarding the unblock request. Immediately calling anyone who differs with you a racist or white supremacist is a tell-tale sign you aren't here for the collective good. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose indef block - This is a very new editor who has, I think, maybe taken on more than she should chew too early. I might not oppose some sort of lesser sanction, and would certainly encourage the editor to seek a mentor as per WP:MENTOR, as well as make use of the Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it might be a bit early for a site ban, particularly if the editor's primary field of interest is beliefs or groups of a broadly Christian nature which might be comparatively underrepresented here yet. John Carter (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Adasegogisdi you need to find WP:RS with sufficient authority to support your claims. I mention authority here since the subject matter implies there most be many, many RS so we will naturally go with the ones that have the most support (i.e. are widely cited etc). We intentionally limited interpretations of primary sources, so claims like "These scholars are wrong because this primary source says...." are generally not really useful especially with a text as long as and with as complicated a history as the bible. Not to mention if this issue is Jesus Christ rather than "what the bible says about Jesus Christ", the bible is only one source anyway. If you are unable to find sufficiently compelling RS to support your claim, either your intepretation is wrong or it's right but for some reason people have realised yet. Rightly or wrongly, the nature of wikipedia means our articles will mostly stick with the normal view rather than a WP:Fringe view. Nil Einne (talk)

Well, the skin color of the Jesus image was not my problem with her edits, but the patently false claim that most Christian denominations would support Jesus Christ the Father (Patripassianism). Unfortunately, she combined two different claims in one edit, and one of those claims is ridiculous. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it really matters what the issue is. The point is they need sufficiently compelling reliable secondary sources, not their own intepretation of primary sources. If there isn't sufficient support for their intepretation in secondary sources then they need to accept their view is minority or fringe at the moment for whatever reason and until and unless this changes the article will reflect that and possibly not even mention their view at all. If they are able to find these secondary sources then they should do so rather than trying to prove something based on primary sources or poor secondary souces. This is quite an important point and one people often have trouble understanding since for general research going to primary sources is often encouraged but as an encylopaedia it isn't how we operate. Nil Einne (talk) 04:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support I am prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt, as a newbie who did not know the rules. So, I support the indefinite block only if after her block expires she shows no signs of having learned from the block. As I have argued on Talk:Jesus, I find that she has WP:COMPETENCE problems and that she quite easily casts aspersions, but I am prepared to give her a chance if she shows that she has learned from her block. The gist is: it is not error which deserves indefinite blocking, but persisting in error. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ban and an indef (as of now) - Way too much, way too soon. Bans are for incorrigible LTAs, not relative newbies. Is this bad behavior? Absolutely, and I'm not questioning that. Still, once the block wears off, then I suggest we give her another chance, as per John Carter and Tgeorgescu. GAB^gab 00:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ban and indefinite block This a week-old account. Wikipedia has respected editors who acted out when they first started editing the project. And it also didn't help that they also suffered "Death by template" on their user talk page. That blanket templating would anger any editor. I'm in favor of WP:ROPE and I think John Carter has a good point about having a diversity of editors' viewpoints. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose ban (for the present)~~. I would have preferred the block to have been for the unfounded accusations of racism rather than merely being for edit-warring, so that a clear message would have been sent. But we certainly don't have enough evidence yet that basic competence is lacking, and with good mentoring and encouragement Adasegogisdi has the potential to become a fine editor. St Anselm (talk) 02:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at their contribs and I don't see any evidence of potential to become a fine editor and lots of evidence for potential for continued disruption. Lots of people come to Wikipedia because they are committed to some view about X and they don't care at all about this place nor how we do things, and that is what I see here - NOTHERE. To be clear, in my view the indef should of course be appeal-able and they should be unblocked if they some show some inkling of understanding that Wikipedia is not a blog where it is OK to flame people and make very strong assertions that have no basis in policy or guidelines. But I can read :) and I see that others are not seeing things this way. Jytdog (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The edit warring and the charges of racism continue; I blocked the editor for a week, against my better judgment, because there were so many editors opposing an indef block. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
my opinion only I don't think this editor is going to improve their behavior, because everything about their editing here shows that they are on a mission from God. They jumped immediately to these subjects, creating a tract and picking a fight about the lead image. Every time we've discussed that image, it has been a struggle, given the huge range of possibilities and the importance this tends to have for the people who care enough to participate. It wasn't that long ago that we went through changing to the current image after a long discussion. So this new editor comes in spouting a great deal of tendentious nonsense (e.g., how is a Sicilian image from the 1100s based either on a Borgia from the 1400s or a German of any sort?). They can have some more rope, but it's just going to end up with more personal attacks and refusal to participate in anything resembling reasonable discussion. Mangoe (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After this request - I think the user has demonstrated that they are not going to be able to edit in a collaborative project. I think an indef block is appropriate here. SQL ^{Query me!} 22:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, given the behaviour has continued after the block, I have switched to supporting an indef block as well. St Anselm (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also switching to indef: "American racism", "Christ's ethnicity is clearly stated in the Bible, and should not be distorted by white fools who hate blacks", "Editors not discussing racist bias", "This racism is unacceptable", "We have a small group of editors... blocking the accurate and oldest picture associated with the article Jesus Christ to uphold their white supremacist viewpoint", "Please stop upholding a racist viewpoint on a major article". Enough already. GAB^gab 15:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ban GAB said it above me, "Enough already." --Adam in MO Talk 16:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indef As I stated before I felt that a longer block was in order originally as this editor did not seem to be here to build the encyclopedia. Further edits have proven this point. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ban - We don't escalate from one week to a ban for a personal attack, do we? Obviously, this might be a short car ride from here to there, but noobs need to be allowed a reasonable chance to adapt. Carrite (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

To whom it may concern

I was told this was a more appropriate place for the request I made here [5]. I'm not into infinite hoop-jumping, so take it for what you will, but I'm not going to invest a lot of time in follow-up to this observation. I've got better things to do with my life than wiki-lawyering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.167.67 (talk) 03:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, did you notify User:Cuzkatzimhut that you were presenting a complaint about them here? This is a requirement. See the top of the page.

Second, what I see is that Cuzkatzimhut reverted your addition of a ^{[clarification needed]} template at Dynamical pictures with the perfectly civil comment "It is detailed at mathematical length subsequently, Pls discuss in Talkpage before vandalizing." Other than the characterization as vandalizing, which you might (but probably shouldn't) take exception to, what exactly is abusive about this? And did you take the editor's suggestion to discuss on the article's Talk page? It appears not from your editing history. General Ization ^Talk 03:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, true, but let me add that Cuzkatzimhut's comment, that the IP should get an account so "they can be talked to, responsibly and accountably", I object to the sentiment and the statement. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He does have a point. IP editors can't be pinged, and the router in my office recycles the IP every time the phone rings, meaning you can't easily notify somebody if you want to talk about something (as the relevant user talk page changes with the wind), and can only blindly hope they stumble across your talk page post, which doesn't happen too often. (As for how I know all this, an exercise for the reader, not that I'd advocate doing the odd edit as an IP when you're supposed to be on wikibreak, oh no...) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So it is possible that Cuzkatzimhut has a bad attitude when it comes to IPs and their edits. The question remains whether and how that attitude has manifested itself in some behavior that is appropriate to discuss at ANI. So far, I see none, and this is not the attitude correction noticeboard. General Ization ^Talk 04:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A minnow on their talk page reminding them that good faith edits aren't vandalism.--v/r - T P 05:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Small reminder that I was asked to post here, after already having tried elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.167.67 (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cuzkatzimhut seems to have some sort of bad attitude, when it comes to IPs. But, a lot of editors here have a bad attitude towards everyone.

[[6]]

however he also seems quite proud of being able to click on the whois link for IPs and post their locations, which despite whois being easy to use, is also borderline outing. [[7]] User_talk:131.111.176.163 [[8]]

I'd suggest that someone might want to have a word, and suggest that he treats IPs with a little more respect, and more importantly, he needs to stop hunting around whois so he can put their locations in his edit summaries. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Someone might want to suggest appropriate use of twinkle too.

"Reverted good faith edits by 207.72.1.90 (talk): Unwarranted & tendentious: " Well if its tendentious its not a good faith edit is it?

"Created page with 'Would you like to get a WP account? It gives you an inside track and obscures your Cambridge IP coordinates--should you be inclined to be concerned....". "Reverted 1 edit by 131.104.23.9 (talk): Evidently they skimp on dimensional analysis at Guelph. Please think before you trash!" - Both insulting and indicating they are routinely looking into IP locations. The use of naming peoples locations - while not outing per the policy - is certainly prodding the edges of the spirit of it: "Reverted 1 edit by 128.61.123.55 (talk): Does what you wrote appear proportional to the inverse in Atlanta? please desist from vandalism.",

"Reverted 1 edit by 128.138.191.69 (talk): Dick you check where a point on the x-axis goes?" - Just insulting.

"Created page with 'Please get a legitimate account. Peremptory reverts especially on controversial flagged issues such as this one are frowned upon by Wikipedia." "Reverted 1 edit by 155.69.125.175 (talk): Can you please get an account so this can be discussed instead of PEREMPTORY REVERTS?" - while reverting... Incorrect anyway, for the moment editing as an IP is a legitimate account and so on.

From looking at their history they appear to have an ongoing problem with IP's editing articles they are watching, mild to moderate incivility depending on how annoyed they are, an inaccurate and out of process understanding of the rights allowed to IP editors, as well as an inaccurate understanding of what is 'vandalism' on wikipedia (no it is not something you disagree with, or even something that is factually wrong). Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think my opinion here is not worth a whole lot (I'm not an admin, and I have been blocked a couple of times) however, this might be a situation in which a respected admin talking to this guy, one to one and explaining what is and isn't good, might go a long way. It's all simple stuff "don't state the location of IP editors and don't make comments/edits based on if an editor decides to make an account or not." Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the moment we start treating one opinion as being worth more than another just because of a couple of short blocks, we might as well hang WP:AGF out to dry, because we'll have pissed all over it

_Muffled ^Pocketed 10:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly right. My feeling is that Wikipedia is often an unwelcoming place for IP users like myself, due to disproportionate responses by some editors. I understand that there are problems, but why does that make me part of the problem? I like the trend towards automated vandalism detection, as I believe that is much more neutral. I will be much happier with the general state of affairs when WP assumes good faith, and when the wiki-lawyering is reduced to a minimum. At that point, it might actually feel like I'm part of a respectful community again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.167.67 (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. The more universal that attitude becomes, the better this place will be. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly did not mean "Dick you check where..." but "Did you check where...", which my check-speller garbled and I could not amend--of course I would be apologetic for that! "Tendentious" could be in good faith but still counterproductive. "Outing" of the IPs location is an illustration of why IPs might opt for an account; WP provides these in plethora for a reason. Besides, tell me you did not notice the more than one different IPs from the same area all hacking at the same page in barely technically competent terms. In science matters, it is not true that misconceptions are plain "mere differences of opinion".

In the same breath, I would invite the self-summoned jury to also consider the pitiful erosion of perfectly good articles by lack of adequate patrolling against anonymous swarms of IPs, impossible to address and to investigate. A well-meaning experienced editor may simply observe the undeniable extent of the erosion and suggest workable countermeasures against this critical vulnerability, instead of obsessing on civility aspects. The fact is that pages ignored by page watchers for two months collapse into washed-out sandcastles by largely clueless IP sniping and either take enormous effort to restore, or else the watchers shrug them off and drop them off their watchlist. (Students at sites such as PE Exchange then execrate the low-quality "garbage of Wikipedia" which had, of course, seen better days.) I strongly believe you should also consider this serious and central issue of protection in the same breath as manners, and not walk away from it as somebody else's business... "let them fix it". Citing WP policy pages and endless discussions do not fix crises.Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 11:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of the wikipedia research is very clear. Most edits by IPs are good edits. Most good edits come from IP editors. You are wrong. Your attitude sucks and has driven away some good editors. Your behaviour is problematic; you need to change. If you really want to continue to push IP editors to get an account (and you shouldn't, because 5 pillars and because they way you've gone about it so far is pointy and disruptive) you shoud read eg this: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/05/16/anonymous-editor-acquisition/ DanBCDanBC (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

outing someone to illustrate why they should make an account, is like setting fire to someone's house to illustrate why they should have bought a sprinkler system. well, it isn't exactly the same, but I'm sure you get my point. Yes, IPs can jump into wikipedia and cause chaos, however it takes an IP about 30 seconds to make an account, and they are still just as capable of causing just as much chaos. It's frustrating. I don't really like the idea of "an encyclopedia that anyone can edit" - I'd prefer a trust system in which it would take a user months to gain the sort of access required to make edits. But we don't have that. We have this. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be sure, we have this. However, I hope the irony might not be lost on you that WP has all these anti-sockpuppet measures for registered users, but any mention that one is noticing or correlating locations on IPs is thought to be bad form. You must have seen the jubilant mischief perpetrated through that loophole, now, haven't you? Are you inviting me to illustrate? My pleas for help in the last 10 years for protection against it have fallen on sluggish ears, so I have long since given up on those. Pardon the monotony, but I would like to re-center the issue on practical prevention of the flood of unprovable and possibly unwitting damage: the "open whiteboard effect". Talk pages are there for a reason. I disagree that a registered user causing chaos is no more accountable than a bevy of swirling IPs, though. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or alternatively, you could accept that this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and stop harrassing IP's to register. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Harassing"? Phew! Maybe hectoring to discuss first, a WP policy. IPs have long realized that messing around is fun and with no consequences. Leave stacks of markers on a public library table. Did it occur to you why scientists snort when they hear WP and send one to Scholarpedia, instead? Do you see IPs represented in talk pages? That's your solution to the central question I'm posing? Let anonymous and unresponsive IPs trash all they can without practical redress mechanisms? (Just take a look at the edit history of Quark: you think "whack-a-mole is fun and business as usual?) Routinely request dozens of page protections? Unintentionally you may be all but arguing for benign neglect of systematic degradation of articles. I insist on my challenge to you: How is one to protect technical pages from "playful" IP degradation without an army of patrollers --- who clearly fail in their job quite badly, at least in the technical pages of WP. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quark, did you say? I would be more concerned about your edit that reintroduced vandalism into the article after an IP removed it. Another IP has since removed it. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right on this one; but, of course, it illustrates my chaos of "whack-a-mole" I brought to your attention: I slipped a version in my revert, but, judging from the June 3 activity of the page, you do appreciate one's frustration. I would not like you to lose sight of the central point I am making here, however, that, if consensus is the central pillar of WP, how do you achieve consensus with anonymous figures in the night who will not talk to you?. I'm still waiting for an answer, rather than perorations on the rights of IPs. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 13:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the IPs to contribute constructively in Wikipedia, then you should have treated them nicely. Your attitude is disruptive and concerning. The problem with you is that you assume bad faith before assuming good faith. Outing IPs is not a valid reason for IPs to register in Wikipedia. It is their choice, not yours. I think Cuzkatzimhut must be topic banned + access to Twinkle revoked (if that's possible), to prevent this user from driving away more potentially constructive editors (which includes all IPs of course). IPs do not want to talk to you because they know that it will just be a waste of time for them. They already knew that you were hostile towards IPs. Pokéfan95 (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two small points. IPs do not talk to me, or you or anyone. If they do not use the Talk page, they throw their bricks in the night and nobody can talk to them. "Outing" is a silly hyperbole: I divulged public information, which WP provides to all and everyone uses. I have correlated malefactors hounding the same pages, from the same areas, though. I have not "outed" them, but considered their actions suitably. I do not assume bath faith automatically. But if you witness the depredations on important pages by the same characters that we encounter on technical pages and you advise for ignoring or coddling their bad behavior, so be it. Remember, though, you are advocating banning etc, for a registered account. If I were 200 IPs without an exact record of 10 years service, we would not be having this conversation. Before censorious rants try answering the central question I keep posing and reposing. What do you do? 23:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)Cuzkatzimhut (talk)

Plenty of IP's talk to people all the time. You are clearly naming their locations in order to chill/intimidate them into registering. Wikipedia has already determined that IP's can edit and that is a valid choice for them. This is a non-discussion. If you dont like having to deal with the occasional drive-by vandal, you are free to go to scholarpedia. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said IPs should not edit. This is a canard you created by strenuous cherry-picking of my record. They should, however, stick to the same WP rules that registered editors do, and discuss their actions, not with me, but with all editors. Many do. We are discussing the ones that aggressively don't. I'm not in the business of intimidation---is anyone on this self-assembled crowd? IPs should be as accountable as anyone else: they are not a protected species. In fact, WP is encouraging them to register. I would beg you, however, to go back and look into why I barked to the people I did, and what recourse I had at the time. It is the question I keep asking, but nobody here dares face. And, no, we are not dealing with "occasional drive-by vandals", we are dealing with massive and routine rambunctious vandalism. If you feel you can get volunteers to reverse it by the thousands, why haven't you? Why do you rely on my likes? Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly with what is Cuzkatzimhut being charged with, and what would be the appropriate consequences?

I see that one editor is above suggesting a topic ban. It is so downright stupid that my wristwatch just stopped.

Falling back on general hubbub about the merits of IP users is not going to do any good for the articles that are involved in this discussion. The fact that IP users on average improve WP articles does not mean that they improve all science articles. They don't, by far. The articles at most risk are the articles that I suspect Cuzkatzimhut's has on his/hers watchlist (probably mathematical physics related ones). Some of these benefit from IP edits, some don't. The "popular ones", like Quantum mechanics, decidedly do not. Others, highly technical ones, like Lie algebra extension do the few times they are edited, because they are sought up by experts only. Articles in more pure mathematics do not suffer badly from the same problem. The difference is that there seems to be a 10 to 1 mathematician to mathematical physicist ratio. The mathematicians take turns reverting bad IP edits.

The above paragraph highlights the prevailing situation for the articles involved here. You have a one to many ratio of competent editors to incompetent editors. I am much less concerned with some IP's feelings getting hurt for being reverted than concerned about the articles. And, face it, it is the revert itself that hurts. Nobody likes being told they are wrong (even when they are). That same person just cannot feel personally offended by being told why he/she is wrong. This thread actually proves me wrong. The OP does feel offended enough to "punish" a competent editor. Wow! No! Really, this IP is just hurt for being reverted, just like anyone else, and is after revenge - not like anyone else.

Now it is suggested by some that all accounts, including non-accounts, are to be treated equal. Guess what? They are!. If you make a bad edit as a named user, you'll be reverted – sometimes in a rather derogatory fashion. If just a fraction of the, shall we say "sharply formulated", edit summaries I have encountered directed to named editors would have made it to the admin noticeboard, then I'd be gone, whether I'd be the "victim" or not. The problem would not the "sharply formulated" edit summaries, it would be the intolerable habit of bringing minuscule near-nonsense issues to the admin noticeboard that would be the problem.

If any user is feeling that proper discussion cannot be made in the edit summary, and that simply leaving the comment field empty is too weak, then I support that editor in formulating things sharply. It may deter the IP from making further bad edits. This is good. We aren't interested in the bad future edits. We are interested in future good edits. Sharp reverts prevent the bad future edits and encourage the good future edits. YohanN7 (talk) 12:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for arriving late. (My own laptop has died so I have to use other computers when possible/allowed). I really don't understand why the IP says "I've got better things to do with my life than wiki-lawyering". Well why make such a fuss here then (of all places)? Cuzkatzimhut is not a random idiot editor like me, but a reputable expert in the articles he edits. Nothing he does is offensive or destructive. His dialogue may seem unusual (even to me), but it is not "rude". A number of other editors (some IPs, some registered users) have before taken Cuz as offensive exactly as the above IP has done here. If you can't tolerate his language/behavior you have a very low threshold. All this silly "political correctness" and "treating each other nicely" is never going to happen. If anyone thinks of it, there should be NO topic ban on Cuz, we're lacking valuable editors and some have been driven away just because they were impolite. This pointless thread should be closed a.s.a.p. M ∧Ŝ c²ħε И_τlk 16:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any extensive history of Cuzkatzimhut reverting IP edits. It would help if the OP gave some diffs. There are some low quality posts on Talk:Observer effect (physics) from User: 24.63.50.134 and I can understand if Cuzkatzimhut got frustrated with them. But, it's best to stay civil in these situations. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cambalachero – bias and vandalism

Hello. I would just like to inform you that the user Cambalachero has repeatedly, and by multiple users, been accused of POV pushing and vandalizing articles, particularly ones related to Kirchnerism, such as the pages Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, and Public image of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. Both Cambalachero and Jetstreamer have participated in the use of uncyclopedic language. One of the best examples of what I would describe as such would be Public image of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner#Political image, which contains, for example:

"The Kirchnerite administration used its aligned media and the communication outlets of the state for advocacy of the figures of both Cristina Kirchner and the previous president, her husband Néstor Kirchner. This advocacy, which describes the Kirchners as leaders of a revolution, is usually called the "Relato K" (Spanish: K narrative). The political life is described as a conflict between good and evil, in a manner similar to religious faith." The last claim, in particular, is a really strange addition to what is, after all, an encyclopedia, especially when it's unsourced.

Cambalachero has previously come with statements such as:

"The supporters of the Kirchners are proud of their blind loyalty to their leaders"

"... I will ignore the fact that you claim in your user page to be a socialist, a political movement that is well known for harboring authoritarians and populists"

"... They do not have conflicts of interest with Kirchner, it's Kirchner who has a conflict with everyone and everything that does not bow to her in absolute obedience."

Such views are perfectly fine to hold – the problem is that Cambalachero is unable to keep his views out of his articles. Should someone like that really be allowed to remain the main contributor to articles about Kirchner? While the user has made great contributions to many articles here on Wikipedia, and has proven to be experienced and resourceful, his influence on Argentinian politics articles simply isn't good for anything. I have asked for both third opinions and peer reviews, which caused the reviewing user to label sections of Public image of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner as non-neutral.

Simply taking a brief look at the edit history of any of the articles mentioned unveils endless edit-warring and lengthy discussions, which I frankly think are clearly solely due to Cambalachero and Jetstreamer's inability to write factually and non-biased. I do not hold much knowledge about Kirchner or Argentine politics in general, and I've never participated much on Argentine politics articles; I am just asking – begging – for some attention to the unserious nature of Cambalachero and these articles, and some form of sanction to make it stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Μαρκος Δ (talk • contribs) 19:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How come in Argentina the wives are always getting into the act? E Eng 06:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, the content issue. According to Μαρκος Δ own admission just above, he does not hold much knowledge about Argentine politics. I have improved the articles of Raúl Alfonsín and Adolfo Rodríguez Saá to good article, Carlos Menem, Fernando de la Rúa and Eduardo Duhalde are awaiting reviews, and, although they are not ready yet, I'm the editor with the most edits of Néstor Kirchner, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and Mauricio Macri (note that those are all the presidents of Argentina from 1983 to date, regardless of political alignment). So yes, I do hold some knowledge about Argentine politics. For those who don't, Cristina Kirchner was the president of Argentina from 2007 to 2015, and her style is similar to that of the Venezuelan Hugo Chávez. The thing described in the paragraph cited (which is referenced) is not a new phenomenon: it's a system of propaganda built around a cult of personality. I know, it's not pleasing for her supporters to say it that way, but that's what it is, that is what we are talking about here. In any case, the article is fully referenced, and I can provide any clarification required.

Now, let's see the user behavior here. The user makes a huge page blanking, I reverted it, and we head to the talk page. Common WP:BRD so far. Here, in just the second message, he accuses me of having an agenda, and here, the third one, he is already threatening with asking for moderation. Yes, I got carried away by the accusation and made a sarcastic one about his userbox that identifies him as a socialist; it was a mistake. He blanked the article again, and here he asked me to leave it that way so that he could write an alternative version and then discuss it. I told him that in those cases it is better to write the alternative in a sandbox, and we left it that way. His last edit on the matter was on May 16. I left the article with the blanking in place. As you can see in the article history, the discussion ceased until May 24. You can see in his contributions that he made absolutely no edits to create an alternative article since that point for many days, so I re-added the content a week later. A week later. He can't say I was impatient with him. It is only in June 2 that he finally makes the so promised sandbox version. We discussed about it, as I thought that the use of the word "alleged" was incorrect. He headed directly to peer review (misused, but I thought that if I pointed it he wouldn't take it well) and third opinion. He deleted my comment from the peer review page, claiming that I should not be commenting there. Robert McClenon provided his third opinion, and pointed that the use of the word "propaganda" may be problematic. Although I still thought that we should call a spade a spade, I removed the words "propaganda" and "cult of personality" from the article, as a middle ground compromise. I also incorporated the only meaningful content of the sandbox into the article, giving due credit, as it didn't really contradict anything already written (I only changed the title "Approval ratings and popular support" to the more neutral "opinion polls").

Happy ending? Issue solved? Not at all. Here he keeps calling me on having an agenda, and here he accuses me of whatever for trying to find a compromise. He also said that one of the authors was not reliable because of a quotation that he had read somewhere, and deleted all the references to the author, without discussing it first. He also did so at the main article. He deleted many other references in the process, including Mary O'Grady from the Wall Street Journal because of being right-wing. Yes, you have read well, he considers the Wall Street Journal an unreliable source. Here he accuses the user Jetstreamer of not allowing the neutral point of view (as he reverted his removal), and here he edit wars with him over my comment at the peer review page. Here he tries to recruit the user Sushilover2000 to the discussion (surely because he's visible at the previous discussions in Talk:Cristina Fernández de Kirchner), and mentions that he plans to canvass even more people. He also mentions the comment of Robert McClenon as a support to his point, fully ignoring that I had already acknowledged it and edited the problematic word out (and he knows that). Here he said that this last comment "was a plea for technical assistance" because he could not find where to ask for moderator help; read the post yourselves and decide if that is what it is.

I know, my comment about him being a socialist was wrong, and will not happen again. If you think that something else I did in this discussion was wrong, please tell me so I will try to see it fixed. Cambalachero (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cambalachero, what caused you to compare Cristina Kirchner with Chávez?

Looking at the public image article, it looks like a pure 'hatchet job', full of trivial 'jibes' and lacking any pretence of NPOV, despite being largely a WP:BLP, btw, there is no such English word as 'Slangs', the word cannot be plural and is possibly the wrong word, if the article is going to devote a whole, WP:OR, section to criticising her Spanish, it should try at least to get the English right. I concur with Μαρκος Δ, whoever wrote most of that article seems unable to leave their political prejudices at home. Pincrete (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ps Check out WP:APPNOTE, contacting editors who have contributed to prior discussion is explicitly NOT canvassing. You might wish to strike those comments. Pincrete (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kswikiaccount

(non-admin closure) I'm taking up the OPs suggestion and closing. Discuss the content dispute on the talk page. No case has been built sufficient to support admin actions at this time. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am having a bit of a dispute with Kswikiaccount (talk · contribs) over at Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016. The prior version of the article was this: [9], this was modified by an IP here [10] which I reverted but later tried to add a more NPOV tone here. [11]. A bit later Kswikiaccount made an edit on the talk-page [12] calling myself, and @JFG: out saying "I have a hard time assuming good faith". Before a discussion could begin on the matter the article was reverted [13] back to a version that pre-ceded JFG's edit claiming a consensus was in place. I then reverted the editor who reverted me back (1RR prevents me from going further) again claiming that a consensus was in place when there wasn't. [14] I am a bit stuck now on what to do... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion would be to take it to DRN --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 22:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue at hand though is establishing a consensus before edits are made so it involves multiple editors for a solution. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What administrative action is requested here? SQL ^{Query me!} 23:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

kswikiaccount response

Immediately there is evidence this editor has lied. I am quoted as saying "I have a hard time assuming good faith". As in, he quotes me as having said exactly those words. I went to the linked page, did a search using ctrl+f to copy paste what Knowledgekid87 quoted, and chrome found 0 instances. I did a search for "assuming good faith" and these are the only 4 hits I get at 4:10 pm PST:

"I'm trying really hard to keep assuming good faith, there has been a lot of 'mistakes' on this article." by me at 19:52, 8 June
"you even said above that you had a hard time "assuming good faith" I mean what is up with that?" by him at 21:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
"I am assuming good faith, which is why I am asking you if there is some bias on your part" by me at 21:17, 8 June 2016
"No you are not assuming good faith. You are being passive-aggressive" by him at 21:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

In 2 you can see he asks me "you had a hard time "assuming good faith" I mean what is up with that?" at 21:13 even though I had already answered him before at 19:52 in 1 and even at 21:04 when I stated "Your behavior is very strange to me because you seem to be throwing a bunch of guidelines at me with the intention to get me not to edit the page." Clearly knowledgekid87 is having some issues. I'm not sure what those issues are though, which is why I asked him instead of, like him, making assumptions and wild accusations.

So basically the evidence points to me attempting to assume good faith, not making accusations against him, asking him questions, and him doing the opposite of me.

"Before a discussion could begin on the matter the article was reverted"

Knowledgekid87 is trying to portray it this way:

He does not need consensus to change the page from its original state to an altered state, BUT I need permission to edit the page to how it was originally a few hours ago before he made edits on the page.
I am the one breaking the 1RR when I edited his edit, even though his edit did not revert mine, but (he claims) my edit of him violates 1RR. But he is, somehow, not breaking the 1RR when he edits my edit of him.

Ok. Now let's look at his own evidence. He claims that I had broken the 1RR, he has currently put his argument that I did not seek consensus aside for the moment while focusing on the 1RR. He has six pieces of evidence to try and prove that I broke the 1RR:

The first piece of evidence in his post is labelled as 1, which could be confusing because he calls it "prior version of the article" but links a diff. It would make more sense to link not the diff, but the original page showing the bottom right bar labelled "Additional delegate votes needed for nomination" because this was the original page.
The second piece of evidence shows some random IP stating a fact. JFG had edited the page to say that Bernie Sanders has, and I quote by copy/pasting, "No more path to nomination", which is actually incorrect as I explained so simply in my post to the Talk Page. BTW I posted in the talk page before altering the actual page.
The third piece of evidence labelled as 3 in his post tries to show that he added an NPOV by changing "No path to nomination" to "No path to nomination with pledged delegates", which is either a) incorrect because I think he is trying to say "no path to nomination with current unpledged delegates", which is correct assuming that the future is predicted, but I think wikipedia tries not to predict the future or b) factually incorrect, because "with pledged delegates" even Hillary Clinton does not have a path to nomination since they will both need the unpledged delegates to get over the hump to nomination.
The 4th piece of evidence I have already responded to in the beginning, but i would like to add that knowledgekid87 has been extremely hostile towards me and his brief interaction with me has left me physically, emotionally, and psychologically exhausted. What is worse is that I have already told him to take his hostile behavior down when I said, "this interaction has left me physically, emotionally, and psychologically exhausted." Also notice how even though I explicitly stated "I am assuming good faith" he goes on to say in his next edit that "No you are not assuming good faith. You are being passive-aggressive".
The 5th piece of evidence in his post is a link showing me changing the page back to its original state with the following statement from knowledgekid87 stating that the I did the "edit claiming a consensus was in place", but I actually never stated consensus was in place, in fact, if anyone sees where I claim this please tell me because my edit was made with the following comment "Please avoid changing Bernie Sanders Delegate Votes Needed until getting the go ahead on the Talk Page".
His sixth piece of evidence is him showing me changing his revert of my edit. Notice how his edit was made with the following comment, and I am copy/pasting the quote, "Please don't mess up the layout". He states this because if you look at the previous state of the page, you will find that there was a formatting error which made the page unreadable. I had fixed the error, assuming he was speaking about the error. So there was no error anymore and I restated my comment, not to knowledgekid87 because I assumed his problem was with the formatting.

This is where knowledgekid87's good faith comes into the picture.

Initially at 20:12, 8 June 2016 he reverts my edit and says "you get a consensus here THEN you change the article". Which as I stated above is nonsensical, because if this is true then what is his dispute with me? He is one of the people that violated this rule by not seeking consensus when they changed the article from its original state, which is shown in his first confusing piece of evidence which shows a diff instead of the actual state of the page.

So I respond to him slightly confused, "Great, feel free to follow your own advice. You changed the article before getting consensus."

Then his next responses switch from me having to Seek Consensus to 1RR, which again is nonsensical because he violated the 1RR when he initially reverted my edit which fixed my "mess up [of] the layout" which was an edit of him editing the page to remove its original state.

Now as I did here, I want to ask again, is there a reason he is trying to keep me from editing the page? Many of his edits are strange to me, like this factually incorrect statement "Sanders math-wise has no chance of winning the nomination" or the other ones linked above where he claims NPOV while making statements that are false such as this one saying Bernie Sanders has "No path to nomination" or the strange flip flopping (from get consensus to 1RR) and, what looks like to me, Gaming The System in the Talk page and now here in the Dispute Resolution to keep me from editing the page. Kswikiaccount (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Kswikiaccount had not been given the discretionary sanctions notice for WP:ARBAP2; I remedied that little problem. 1RR is not nonsensical here. I'm sorely tempted to lock the page until this wording issue is resolved. Stop reverting each other and start working to settle this. Katie^talk 02:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A few users are dominating the page. I think the page needs outside help to fix it. There are two sides on it and they've been in the middle of a battle for months now. I don't think telling either side to work together is going to help, except maybe get me and 2 other users to simply leave the page alone to people that have been making irresponsible edits. I think the worst thing wikipedia could do is leave it to consensus because me and 2 or 3 other users keep suggesting people add information while we are harassed by a few of the 5-10 users that keep deleting and altering certain information. Everyone is getting frustrated. I think the best thing we can do is have someone watch over the page to encourage the responsible addition of information.

If you look at the page right now, without consensus the page says "Mathematically eliminated". That is insane because I prove in the talk page that "mathematically" it is still possible for Sanders to get elected. Kswikiaccount (talk) 03:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you kindly say who is "dominating" the page? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is another one of your edits where you are blaming a user: [15]. You need to focus on content not the editor. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw I would like to withdraw this thread if I can, a discussion on a possible solution is taking place on the disputed article's talk-page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this should be withdrawn. I would like someone to go over what happened so I can know who was doing what. Was I actually violating NPOV, Consensus, 1RR, and harassing users, or was knowledgekid87 Gaming the System, advancing an NPOV, violating 1RR while claiming I was the one violating it, and badgering me? I've been left exhausted in every way by his, in my opinion, hostile interaction with me, and it is not the first time I've been harassed this way, but it is the first time I didn't just stop using wikipedia when it happened. Kswikiaccount (talk) 04:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my diffs that I provided, had a proper discussion had started sooner none of this would have happened. At this point I think it would be in the best interest of everyone to move on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have previously asked for some administrative attention to close some of the discussions on Talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016, which is apparently the talk page for the article in question here.

I now ask that at least one administrator monitor this page (which is under discretionary sanctions) to put a stop to any disruptive editing practices that may have occurred on these pages recently.

The user initially under question here has recently stated on several another user's talk pages that: "Don't argue with them, just revert their edits and make them send it to arbitration." & "I'm in the middle of a dispute resolution with one of those nutjobs." (apparently in relation to this AN/I thread here). Guy1890 (talk) 05:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's good that knowledgekid has removed his comment requesting the withdrawal. Here is him violating the 1RR multiple times in a 24 hour period, not including his revert of my edit:

I am requesting a ban for this user as it says in the discretionary sanctions. Kswikiaccount (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it states: "Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)." Some of the IP edits here were in the wrong such as one saying that Sanders was "eliminated" while others removed a good bit of content. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I quote "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below for exemptions." and "The one-revert rule is analogous to the three-revert rule as described above, with the words "more than three reverts" replaced by "more than one revert"." from WP:1RR. I've simply quoted the wiki policy. Kswikiaccount (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I will narrow your diffs down to 4 since it is past 24 hours. This edit here: [16] was against WP:NPOV, this edit here [17] was reverting vandalism in the form of blanking content, the others were un-discussed changes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are your 1RR violations:

[18]
[19]

This is after you made the edit as an IP here: [20]. You never took the issue to the talk-page per WP:BRD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is Ks dragging another editor into this: [21]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does this above post not count as harassment? He is stalking me on other pages. Also what is his complaint? Is he saying that it is ok for users that are not me to be breaking the 1RR that he quoted to me multiple times, and even posted on my user talk page? Do I need to create a separate section on this board or do I need to go to the edit warring section? Kswikiaccount (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

David Gaither (artist)

The copyright template is in place.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

I initially reported this article at the COI noticeboard; another editor subsequently blanked part of it and reported the piece as a copyright violation. Since then several WP:SPA accounts have edited, always removing the copyright template. I'm not aware that the concerns have been resolved by an administrator, so I restore the template, warn the most recent account, and a few days later a new one pops up and we re-enact the dance. Assistance will be appreciated. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 11:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Experiencing Harassment and Stalking at the hands of User:Guy1890

OP wants Admin to "Make [another editor] stop"; Admin not willing to be made "a laughing stock on this board." There being no other requests or suggestions towards alternative resolution- case closed. (non-admin closure) _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, closed by me who is an admin and completely uninvolved, if you don't accept the original close. We are not going to give someone "a 30 to 90 day ban" just because you've had an argument with them. ‑ Iridescent 16:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Guy1890 has been harassing me for weeks now despite multiple requests on his talk page to tone his behavior down. This is a Conduct Issue and it has not been resolved even after multiple third parties took part in it. I think this user would benefit from a 30 to 90 day ban to take a short vacation from the site to cool off, and a discussion given to him by a neutral wikipedia administrator on his behavior.

He has a long history of incivility.

A sample of his incivility towards me:

"can we move on from this nonsense?"

"brand new editor with little to no prior Wikipedia edits - go push your POV on another website."

"Wikipedia does not exist to push your own, biased Point-of-View (POV)"

He is stalking me on other people's pages, as he points out here when he quotes me on the user page of an editor he has never posted to, but somehow he ended up on that page and quoted me posting on it.

A sample of his incivility towards others:

"go away IP hack editor" in response to "Please do not attack other editors".

"Run along [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/50.35.51.239 anomymous IP editor with no other edits to Wikipedia, ever."

"You can go away now"

"LOL...in other words, an editor like yourself that has a history of edit warring & Wiki-gamesmanship isn't qualified to be sorting anything like this mess"

I have warned the user 3 times in the past on his page:

I tried to keep this as short and easy to read as possible. I can't keep editing on wikipedia if you don't stop this person from harassing me. Kswikiaccount (talk) 12:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at the diffs, and while Guy has been a little blunt and mildly gruff, I don't think there's much I would do at this stage other than get his side of the story (I see he has been notified of this thread) and see what I would do from that - if I made any sanctions for "go away" I'd be a laughing stock on this board. The only two comments I would make, which I have made before, is that facts and claims are what are reliable (or not), and saying "'x' is a reliable source" (or not) is usually not very helpful unless it's qualified with which fact is under contention. Secondly, the Democrat primaries have been all over the news for months, so it is not particularly surprising to see brand new editors come along and chip their 2c into how the article should look. I personally think telling somebody who's being incivil to politely stop being incivil is like pouring gasoline on a fire, myself. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Like, "Or is it everyone else that is at fault except you, the god?". Does seem as if a) you are pushing a certain non-neutral PoV, and that b) You are either breaching or almost breaching editting restrictions as a commonplace. Just FYI. On edit: and retaliatory for this thread above, which, while opened by another editor, also involved you 'against' Guy1980...? _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this marks the second user that this person has taken issue with in less than 24 hours, I agree with Fortuna that there is some POV pushing going on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This user is stalking and harassing me. Make him stop. Kswikiaccount (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why a non admin user that offered on opinion and then closed this discussion even though it explicitly states "Do not close discussions in which you have offered an opinion".

Unresolved

Kswikiaccount (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

(non-admin closure) Probably best for all involved to close this. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 00:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's not an argument, this editors is stalking me, and now a second user is stalking me on the site. Why am I being mocked? How is this is not being taken seriously? I knew you had a problem with sexism, but this is bad. Kswikiaccount (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity Kswikiaccount, how do you get "sexism" out of anything above? ‑ Iridescent 21:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You say you've been harassed "for weeks". "Weeks" (less than 5) is the total amount of time you've been here. That suggests you've got some things to learn. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yay, Wikipedia again making a mockery of human decency. Stop explaaaaaaining away sexism with giggles and snorts. No wonder women don't want anything to do with this place if even the most blatantly obvious bigotry gets explained away and excused. 24.244.29.47 (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, can you actually point out an example of sexism in anything above? As the closer of the thread, I went through every diff linked, and while I can see some snappiness I certainly can't see anything I'd remotely consider sexist; indeed, as best I can tell not a single editor above either discloses their gender or mentions (or even alludes to) anyone else's at any point, other than User:Kswikiaccount assuming User:Guy1890 is a "he". ‑ Iridescent 22:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that 24.244.29.47 (talk · contribs) has a grand total of 4 edits - all of them useless. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd like to first thank whomever closed the above thread for doing so. There has unfortunately been a lot of POV-pushing on the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 page and its talk page for a while (probably too long) now, and the OP of this thread (who has edited under at least a few IP addresses, including this one, besides the one used to make this OP) has unfortunately been one of a few editors poorly attempting to do some of that POV-pushing. I've not seen anyone "harassing", "stalking", or "mocking" the user that posted this OP, but what I have seen is this same editor edit-warring and making a fair amount of disruptive edits...many of which were highlighted above in an AN/I thread that I recently posted in. Obviously, this thread here is a (failed) attempt at retaliation for me "daring" to post in that thread. I am, in fact, male BTW, but this has nothing at all to do with "sexism". Guy1890 (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that this should be closed, and everyone move on (something that has been tried more than once now). If that isn't a viable option though I would recommend at the very least that Kswikiaccount listen to the advice of other editors who are trying to help. It isn't just me who is seeing a pattern develop. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Mad Hatter continuing controversial splits without discussion

There is absolutely nothing going on here that requires administrator intervention; I find it hard to envisage something which is more obviously a content dispute. Swpb, if you really feel "under what circumstances should bibliographies be split from the articles on their authors" is a matter which can't be resolved by consensus, start an RFC and publicise it at the appropriate wikiprojects. You've both been on Wikipedia for a decade, and ought to by now know that running to ANI demanding that the other party be banned is unlikely to get you the desired result. ‑ Iridescent 19:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

A previous ANI on this matter did not reach a conclusion (see previous ANI here: two supports for a ban, and one oppose that chastised the practice). The editor in question has recently resumed the practice, with no change in pattern (see [22]/[23], [24]/[25]). I ask for ~~an indefinite ban~~ a six month ban on page splits by this editor. (I think an indefinite ban is easily justified, but six months is more likely to get support.) —swpb^T 14:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC) To editors KoshVorlon, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Cullen328:[reply]

Yikes, isn't that a bit harsh, considering how short and inconclusive the last discussion was? Can you break it down a bit more to let us know why the splits are so bad they're topic ban worthy? Sergecross73 msg me 14:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not harsh at all. The splits (several detailed in the last ANI) are in direct opposition to the explicit guidance of WP:SPLIT (no one disagrees with that), and therefore require consensus prior to action. The editor here has been warned many, many times to seek such consensus, and still refuses to do so. I don't see how anything less than a ban can be justified at this point. —swpb^T 14:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide some difs then? To some scenarios where there was an active consensus not to do a split, and then we went out and did it anyways then? The only evidence you've submitted is to a discussion with very little discussion at all, let alone any real resolution. I'm not defending him, I have no idea if the splits are warranted or not, I just don't see the difs to warrant any action yet. Sergecross73 msg me 17:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've given numerous diffs of the offending edits. I'm not sure how the lack of response to the last ANI is relevant in any way. And the point is that there is no attempt to find consensus - MH doesn't ask for consensus, wait, and then act when there has been no complaint; he acts before asking, when he is obligated to seek a consensus, whether one emerges or not. There is nothing so urgent about these splits that he can't wait for input; he just doesn't care to seek input, despite warnings from quite a few people. IAR isn't an invitation to anarchy; it's a privilege, and one that MH has continued to abuse. He should not be allowed to continue. —swpb^T 17:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking for difs proving he's doing the splits, I can see pretty easily what he's doing, I'm asking for proof that he's actively editing against a consensus and/or warning regarding this. If you can't provide that, then all you've got here is a content dispute you should hash out on article and WikiProject talk pages. Sergecross73 msg me 18:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really need me to paste all the warnings he's gotten? Plainly, he's editing against the general consensus about when splits are called for; as for acting against a consensus that is specific to an article, you're introducing a standard that does not apply. The correct standard is this: 2) MH is clearly obligated to start discussions, whether they result in a consensus or not; 2) MH does not do this. Given 1 and 2, there is violation of the community-wide consensus on behavior. Given the repetition, there is need for enforcement. —swpb^T 18:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like you to start linking to something. Your case so far is "I don't like how he's splitting articles. Here's some times he did it. Here's a time we discussed it with no resolution. Now ban him from this." With the dif's you've provided so far, it looks like you're trying to solve a content dispute with a topic ban. Sergecross73 msg me 18:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replace "I" with "the consensus of the community" and you'd have something accurate. It's been well-known and constantly reaffirmed consensus for years that, if there is any chance of a split being seen as controversial, the splitter is obligated to attempt to get a consensus first; do you deny that? —swpb^T 18:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this, but "the chance of it being seen as controversial" is a very subjective measure. It could be made much more clear if he had been warned/blocked over this before, or if there were some RFC that occurred saying don't split an article, and then he went and did it anyways. Look, feel free to keep arguing, but you should know by now that we don't enact something as serious as a topic ban on someone with as weak of a case as you've built here. I find it highly unlikely that you'll come up with a consensus for a topic band with such poor documentation of the issue. Sergecross73 msg me 18:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you can be so confident in the outcome when so few people have commented (seriously—for all the text, it's just been you, me, MH, and one other person), and you're still ignoring the fact that he has been warned plenty, but even if there's no action this time, there will be eventually; I don't believe MH takes any of this seriously, and I'd put money that we'll be back here until the need for action can't be ignored. —swpb^T 19:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Hello, my name is Chavdar Likov. I am qualified librarian and I have been working on Wikipedia for 15 years. I am also pursuing Masters in "Electronic Content" and "Creative Writing". I have made such splits for Peter Hamilton, Gregory Benford, Kim Stanley Robinson, Robert Jordan, David Eddings, Robert Salvatore just to name of few. I saw there are huge bibliographies and section-trimmed articles and empty categories like Fantasy and Science Fiction and decided to fill them up with author bibliography-splits. I also did considering work on Historical fiction with honorable editors User:Sadads and User:Rwood128 on it. We also splitted the historical pointing article List of historical fiction by time period and configured the template. I am working here for 15 years and no one makes discussions, and User:Taeyebaar collaborates and make good stuff working on Space opera as I am great fan of these genres and I even intend a doctorate on literary theory. What I do is split these articles when there are bigger section-filled bibliographies and put them in the seperate categories. That's it. My David Gemmel, Stephen R. Donaldson and Anne McCaffrey, however after 2 years no one comments, I am patroled, reverted and threatened with ban. I don't understand why. swpb, you can easily look on my history and you can go and revert the all universe, but for these 3, you are threatening me with ban, waiting for 10 days, since no one is showing up and we have empty categories and huge bibliographies. Start a lengthy discussions on which probably no one will answer because for 2 years, there is no attention on the article. I go and split the bibliography and make redirect with filling Category:Fantasy bibliographies. Half of the bibliographies there are from my redirects, swpb. If that is such a crime - ok, ban me if you want. But I wanted to make contribution with simple redirects and rearrangements of the articles.

Kindest regards to all administrators: Chavdar LikovThe Mad Hatter (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. "Needing to fill categories" is a complete nonsense argument.

2. How would you know whether your split requests would get a response, since you never even start the discussion? You are obligated to start a discussion and wait a reasonable time before going forward, whether you think anyone is watching or not. You've been told that many times. If you can't learn that simple fact, then yes, you should lose your right to do any splits at all. —swpb^T 18:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One is not obligated to discuss before splitting. You seem to be labouring under a misapprehension, swpb. It may well be by a very large margin the most sensible approach - not least after wading into a stylistic battle such as this. But it is not obligatary, and so it is not a 'simple fact' and The Mad Hatter's inability to learn it is, thus, neither here nor there. I think the possibility must exist that you can thrash your differences out with Mad Hatter by discussion; I think the probability that you'll get an action-ban sanction here is vanishingly small. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... really? Bibliographies are certainly non-controversal splits -- they are actually very good ways to separate different types of information about an author -- their life and commentary about them, and their work. I think swpb is overreacting and overapplying process without acknowledge WP:IAR (note that WP:SPLIT is a recommendation, not a guideline), for something that historically has had little or no controversy -- just challenges a personal preference on how the articles shoudl be composed. From an admin/community perspective: swpb brings no evidence of trying to resolve this with WP:AGF. From my topical expertise: It looks like a personal gripe, and from someone who also has both Digital humanities, literature and libraries backgrounds: seems to be one that directly challenges best practices in sharing information about authors's works. Hope my feedback helps, Sadads (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I AGF'd when I first encountered MH—you can dig through his talk page if you want. That assumption of good faith was quickly erased by MH's attitude, and that erasure has been reinforced at every encounter since. I'm no longer obligated to assume good faith, when I can witness bad faith, including personal attacks and blatant canvassing. WP:SPLIT is an information page, and is required to reflect consensus, as the template says; it's not just one person's preference, as you suggest. Finally, IAR isn't an invitation to anarchy; it's a privilege, and one that MH has continued to abuse. —swpb^T 18:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, you reverted my edits and continue to do so, when I am finding hard to find many projects to edit and you are patroling me, threatining me with ban, me, a librarian by profession and there was no discussions, after I was bold, and I never made personal attacks, I just told you that with this attitude of yours, I don't wanna colaborate with you, as I have colaborated with Sadads, Rwood128 and Taeyebaar, because I find it offensive to work with some one who is only patroling me, like you, posting threats to be cut off from editing, when I have experience with editing, blaming that I didn't raised discussion on sleep talk pages, just picking from first catch that I am controversial blasting vandal, that is only looking to disrupt Wikipedia, posting twice that I should be banned, and making personal attacks against me. Why are you treating me so elementary claiming that I am making controversial moves? I really don't wanna work with you. I made these kinds of splits countless times, and it is easier and better and we have Fantasy and Sci-Fi categories and these section-trimmed pages of David Gemmel, Stephen R. Donaldson, Marion Zimmer Bradley and Anne McCaffrey became too big. That is all. What is so hard to apprehend and understand? Why it is so controversial for these particular 4 authors? Since we have seperate categories for their bibliographies with users stating other topic bibliographies are around this size. Why the move is such a vandal thing by your eyes? Robert Jordan, Gregory Benford, Peter F. Hamilton, David Eddings, R.A. Salvatore, Kim Stanley Robinson, Tamora Pierce, Roger Zelazny, E. E. Smith, Frederik Pohl, Simon R. Green, Stephen Baxter, Glen Cook. With Taeyebaar we made the splits and work on high fantasy and during the last half-an-year, you don't raise objection, now you are hitting. Why? Why didn't you call up earlier? Half an year you don't raise objection, but now you put me on front pages. Why? I have no other comment.

Kindest regards:The Mad Hatter (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't attack me? So "rogue editor" and "roguish and obviously destructive" don't ring a bell? Or did you forget? Trust me, if I'd been aware of your behavior earlier, I'd have done something about it earlier; are you really trying to argue that I should have gone back and reverted every split you've ever done from before I noticed you? —swpb^T 18:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chavdar Likov: Bibliographies and special pages in special categories like Fantasy and Sci-Fi and splitting them as was told to you is considered not so controversial edit and as a professional librarian I can tell you it is the most recommended way to show information in Wikipedia. That's all. I don't understand why you are so poisonous and so bashing and blaming and putting me in front of pages and shaming me, while you roguishily reverted 4 of these edits, when I have done around 15 of those splits, when they are not considered so controversial, when no one is talking on talk pages, and as Sadads explained to you, I can do it, there are thousands of such categories, so I think there is nothing to be ashamed off and really, it is something personal that you should spit out. Regards:The Mad Hatter (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you seriously just use the words "poisonous" and "rouguishily" (sp.) not an hour after claiming that you don't make personal attacks? Unbelievable. —swpb^T 19:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As my name was mentioned, I've taken a look at this. As far as I can see swpb has made a very poor case. However, perhaps The Mad Hatter should give advanced warning of his intentions, even if numerous previous edits were uncontested, and also avoid inflammatory language. Rwood128 (talk) 19:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If that's what happens from this, I'll be happy. I just don't believe that is what will happen. I don't know how anyone who has looked at the history can. —swpb^T 20:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Emarroquin1995 reverting improvements to multiple articles

BLOCKED

(non-admin closure) Editor blocked by Ritchie333 for 48 hours --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've recently made a number of gnoming changes to various articles to bring the formatting closer to the guidance in WP:MOS and fix a few minor errors. User:Emarroquin1995 has taken violent objection to these changes where they affect articles he has contributed to (User_talk:Colonies_Chris/Archive/2016/May#Trolling_.26_Unnecessary_Edits), and he has repeatedly reverted them. I've explained in detail the reason for these changes on his talk page (User_talk:Emarroquin1995#General_improvements); he deleted my explanation and accused me at WP:RVAN of vandalism; this accusation was immediately rejected (see history of Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism for 8 June at 21:04). He has also reverted User:Wisdom89's reinstatement of my changes to one article (see history of Mob_Rules_Tour). I warned him that if he reverted my edits again I would take action against him, so here I am. Can someone please make clear to him that repeated reversions and hysterical accusations of vandalism are not acceptable behaviour? Colonies Chris (talk)

Just a comment since I've become involved in this scuffle. This goes beyond being merely a content dispute or edit warring, the user has exhibited a rather disharmonious and nasty attitude towards editors who attempt to amend his edits. This can be exemplified by my interactions with this user back in October 2015 [26]. The user constantly ignores attempts to communicate and simply removes sections from his talk page [27]. That's his prerogative, but this coupled with their refusal to use edit summaries makes collaboration nearly impossible. Does this require current admin intervention? Doubtful, but at the very least the user needs to be warned about this sort of behavior. Wisdom89 ^♦talk 16:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've also gone ahead and notified User:Emarroquin1995 of this discussion. Wisdom89 ^♦talk 16:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the above diff and these diffs,[28][29][30] Emarroquin1995 has a very severe problem with both civility and assuming good faith towards another editor who is simply following WP:OVERLINK. There is also clear signs of WP:OWNERSHIP with comments like this one. Would suggest a strong warning by an administrator about civility and that edits he disagrees with are not vandalism. I don't think a warning from a non-admin would be impactful. —Farix (t | c) 19:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed and [31] is beyond the pale in terms of incivility, cluelessness, and no personal attacks. Wisdom89 ^♦talk 20:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE, and violating WP:CIVIL. A strong (level 4) warning by an admin, making it clear that he will be blocked if he continues this, might work. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 21:06, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Farix, I wasn't doing anything wrong. They reported me just to spite me. I've been on Wikipedia for a long time, and I haven't had any problem with anybody Wikipedia ever except with Wisdom & Colonies Chris, and this whole thing started because Colonies Chris made unnecessary edits, which he claims are general improvements, and he couldn't sound more arrogant saying that itself, but I really don't see how they're since he deleted links to other Wikipedia pages like for cities, countries, etc. that didn't need to be deleted, & I don't see why it wouldn't hurt just to keep them. Overall, I've seen his edits, and they're completely unnecessary, after he edited them the first, I just reverted it. No problem. Plus, the only reason why I found out about it is because I went to go edit the pages myself just to correct some misinformation as well as to add information that wasn't already there, then all of a sudden, I see the pages are different, and that, when I went to go edit them, I ended up getting into that edit conflict, so that's how I found out about the problem. Then all of sudden, the next day, I see that they went back to the way he had edited to them, and then I went to go revert it again, and then the day after that, I saw they were different again, and it just kept going on & on. Then I found it was Colonies Chris that was doing, and quite frankly, it was getting really annoying, so I told him that he needed to stop otherwise I'll have him reported, so then I put them back to the way they were before, and they were like that for a week. Nothing happened. Then after a week, I saw that they had been edited to the liking of Colonies Chris, so I reported him for vandalism and I let him know that he was reported on his talk page. Then all of a sudden, I get messages & notifications saying I've been reported & that basically I'm the problem because I'm apparently trolling him, even though he's trolling me if anything, considering weirdly enough, he's only doing on pages that I either created or contributed to. I've never had this type of "edit-warring" problem with anybody except for him. Then I also saw that this Wisdom guy went along with Colonies Chris trying to further valid his report just to get rid out of spite. I'll admit since I have nothing to hide, I've had a previous run-in with Wisdom since I had created some Rush tour pages & I was still in the middle of creating some & then he tried to have my pages deleted since he claimed they were unnotable & that they had been previously deleted so they apparently no right to be on Wikipedia, so the. I told him, he can contest to the pages all he wants, but that he doesn't speak for all of Wikipedia, and he even challenged me by asking why I thought the pages the pages should stay, & believe me, I gave my reasons on the talk page & not to blow my own horn, but they were valid reasons. Furthermore, I told Wisdom if he didn't like the pages, that should've just left them alone & if he didn't like them, then that's his problem, not mine, and it wasn't like I was trying to hurt anybody. I just wanted to create these pages for the fans, which I'm still doing. However, he didn't listen, and he deleted the pages anyway, since he's ignorant. Now he's trying to get back at me for whatever the reason. I don't know I'm not him, and it doesn't make any sense considering he won that battle since it wouldn't revert the deletions, and that information has been long lost & I'm still trying to find what's been lost. Overall, I haven't had any problem with anybody else on Wikipedia except with those 2 immature little punks, and I'm not trying to be insulting. I'm just being honest, and quite honestly, I have 0 respect & tolerance for jerks who go ahead & do whatever they want even if it means messing with other people's stuff. To be even more honest, & again, not trying to blow my own horn or anything, but I'm a nice, respectful, civilized person who doesn't want to hurt anybody, who wants to be left alone, & just keeps to himself, but when it comes to people like Wisdom & Colonies Chris, I'm not going to nice & respectful towards them & it's people who make my job of being nice & respectful. Like I said before, I don't like bullies &/or scumbags who think & act like they could do whatever they want, even if it means being a jerk to other people like me in general, but in this case, I especially don't like the ones who think & act like it's okay to vandalize other people's stuff. Overall, I told them multiple times to leave me alone, & they refuse, so please help me by keeping these guys away from me, and seriously, I'm not the problem, they are. I know it's 2 against 1, which doesn't look good for me, but again, I wouldn't make any of this stuff up, & why would I? So please help me.

Wow... that's a lot of ampersands. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 21:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also the largest wall of text that I've seen in a couple weeks. WP:WALLS. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 21:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, your wall of text merely bolsters the points already made in this thread and does little to help your case. My advice to you is to quit making long laborious posts that cry foul and think long and hard about whether you actually have the temperament to edit Wikipedia. Wisdom89 ^♦talk 21:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to edits such as these[32][33][34], they are clearly within the bounds of editing AND follows guidelines, such as WP:OVERLINK, WP:NOPIPE, and WP:MOS. However, your own comments show that you believe that you "own" these articles and can dictate which guidelines apply. On top of that, you personally attacked Colonies Chris, erroneously called his edits vandalism when they were clearly not, and generally acted in a hostile manner from the very beginning. This behavior is completely unacceptable on Wikipedia. —Farix (t | c) 21:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All I see is "revert", "revert", "revert". I've given them 48 hours to calm down and take in what WP:AGF means Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

user:Mateothehistorian

As the fella says, no action required. And please don't treat a last resort as a first. (non-admin closure) _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

That editor seems to be reverting everything made by others today.

I see he was blocked for disruptive editing on 20 April.
I see had only 65 edits the last year (including 5 today). Alice Zhang Mengping (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My first gut feeling is to give the user the benefit of the doubt. The reported user reverted edits made by 213.205.198.194 thinking that the edits were vandalism. I'd just message the user and either ask what the deal is, and/or let them know to review Wikipedia's guide on vandalism. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say, did you even bother trying to talk to the user before dragging them to ANI? Please at least put in some effort before running to ANI. I request this be closed as non-actionable. --Tarage (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

multiple editors are theatening to block me...

...for following the rules. The guidelines clearly state that unsourced material can be deleted immediately, which is all I did. See the edits here. I have done absolutely nothing to warrant a block and I'm not at all happy with this treatment. User:Toddst1 and User:Hirolovesswords are the two issuing the inappropriate warnings. 47.55.192.66 (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The info seems to be pretty well sourced now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is always best to try to find reliable sources and add them in support of unsourced content. It is best to remove content only when reliable sources cannot be found. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An exception would be made for contentious material. In this case, it was fairly unremarkable stuff but unsourced. The OP's real complaint seemed to be too much detailed info about this "goon", and he might have a point, but that's another matter for the talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To the 47 IP: You were not "following the rules". WP:Verifiability says: "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." (emphasis added). Not must but may. If you think the material is blatantly false, then by all means delete it, but if you aren't sure, check for sources, or mark the material with a "citation needed" tag. ({{cn|date=June 2016}}) Deleting material which is probably accurate simply because it is unsourced is not a benefit to the encyclopedia. BMK (talk) 02:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced material that is contentious or potentially defamatory can and should be removed. Like for example if it said, "His hobbies include running over squirrels." But there was nothing like that in the article, nothing defamatory. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. Per WP:BLP, all contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately, "whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable." It doesn't have to be defamatory or even negative. The next argument, of course, is what "contentious" means. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Am I the only one that sees that this IP was edit warring, removing well sourced material?

1. [36]

2. [37]

3. [38]

with @Athomeinkobe: adding the Coup de grâce to the edit war

4. here [39]? Toddst1 (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. I removed unsourced material and attempted to move the sourced content to a new section. Are you one of those editors who sees an IP and immediately assumes bad faith? 47.55.192.66 (talk) 12:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is this: my edit summaries were clear, yet they were completely and repeatedly disregarded by these editors. I made it crystal clear that I was abiding by what the guidelines state and I made it clear I wasn't interested in the conflict that was quickly and inexplicably building. A veteran editor has a responsibility to read an edit summary and join the pre-existing discussion before reverting and issuing threats to block. There needs to be accountability. I have never done anything resembling "unconstructive editing" and that can be easily verified. I played by the rules and received threats as a result, and that's the problem I have. I don't care about the article or the content anymore. Do these editors even have the authority to follow through on their threats to block? Pretty sure they don't. They assume bad faith, target people who edit anonymously, and issue inappropriate warnings. This is why newcomers quickly learn to avoid editing Wikipedia. These editors need to be censured at the very least. 47.55.192.66 (talk) 12:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion does not take place in edit summaries. Editors do not get blocked "for following the rules." Conflict does not "inexplicably" build. Editors are under no obligation to discuss their edits prior to execution. What you keep describing as threats are templated warnings; I see no evidence of their misuse. Tiderolls 13:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple editors thought your (the OP's) edits were not constructive, yet you persisted. Your edit summaries weren't sufficient to explain your actions to these editors and instead of engaging on the article talk page, you barked at the individual editors on their talk pages. That will not work well going forward. Toddst1 (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like you ( ip: 47.55.192.66 ) were | removing sourced information. For example, that first paragraph you removed was sourced to the two sources named, sorry, I'm not buying it. KoshVorlon 15:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User Jack Sebastian

As Boris said, sometimes people get irritated and say stuff they probably shouldn't. Editor got annoyed, shot his mouth off, calmed down and apologised. Film at 11. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would like for an admin to take a look at this personal attack and false accusation by Jack Sebastian (talk · contribs). For the backstory, you can see Talk:Natalie Portman#RfC: Is the language biased?, followed immediately by a second RfC after the first one didn't go his way. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 01:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The comment was borne out of Sundayclose wiki-stalking me to another person's talk page where I asked for advice on how to recraft an RfC (the person being asked was the RfC closer). Getting followed around by someone who you know doesn't like you is downright fucking creepy, and by someone with an ax to grind is doubly so. If Sundayclose is going to be upset at my language, perhaps the user might try avoiding replying to my edits in pages where they don't need to. In short, Sundayclose needs to stop adding all the drama-queen nonsense. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I'd point out the factual errors of Sundayclose's assessment of the RfC and its follow-up, but - as has been noted here ad infinitum - this area isn't for content issues. It bore mentioning so that folk weren't swayed by the semantic game the user just tried - though (s)he's certainly worked his/her ass off to muddy the waters at the RfC. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message on the same editor's talk page where Jack Sebastian left a comment because that editor closed the RfC we were both involved in. If leaving one message on one talk page where Jack Sebastian commented is "wikistalking", I'm guilty as charged. In any event, there's also the issue of Jack telling me to fuck off. And the baiting for an argument with personal attacks continues here. Sundayclose (talk) 01:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now, knowing that they can check such things, are you actually claiming that you do not watchlist my page or visit my edits? A simple yes or no will suffice. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, even though there is no policy against watching talk pages or watching others' edits, and it happens quite often on Wikipedia. There is, however, a policy against personal attacks. Sundayclose (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sundayclose, you know what wiki-stalking is, right? Because I am getting the impression (from your response) that you might not be actually aware of what that entails. Following my edits is fine, until you attack me through them. You and I don't like each other. You know this. So why provoke a negative response? I asked you to stop stalking me. Instead of respecting my clearly stated wishes, your immediate response is ignore that request, run here, and demonstrate more passive aggressive behavior. You cannot expect the rest of us to be oblivious to your little game. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since when was telling someone to fuck off a personal attack, in any case? _Muffled ^Pocketed 02:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It ain't. It's a crude way of saying "Get out of my sight." It's perhaps uncivil, depending on the provocation it's said in response to, but it's not a personal attack. Neither would "Your edit is fucking useless", where "fucking" is used as an intensifier. "You're a fuckwad" would be a personal attack. BMK (talk) 02:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was crude, and I let my temper at being hounded get the better of me. It wasn't an article; it was someone's talk page, and the comment they were responding had nothing to to do with them. They just "happened" to be around and posted a snipey little snippet. Maybe I should have just let it go, but my annoyance at the user's manipulative behaviorI got under my skin a bit. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sometimes people get irritated and say stuff they probably shouldn't. Neither of you is exactly covering yourself in glory here, so how about you agree to just drop it and move along before things get worse? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Persistent Disruptive Promotional Editing at University of Law by User:Legrepunalycou

Subject blocked for 37 hours. (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 07:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Moved from WP:AN

This user has continued to add promotional material to this article, going against talk page consensus and reaching the point of disruptive editing. Reaganomics88 (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have corrected the OP's failure to notify Legrepunalycou as is required. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the set up at the user's main page is the info about the University of Law. I'd estimate that most if not all of the edits are with regards to the school. It seems to be an single-purpose account, and I am not seeing the required neutrality necessary. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, block and close, please someone. Now get this rig outta here. _Muffled ^Pocketed 03:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 37 hours (it will expire at 5PM British Summer Time, if I calculated correctly) with explanation at the user's talk. Reaganomics88, please remember to provide diffs or other evidence in the future; WP:WIAPA specifies that this kind of allegation, made without evidence, is considered a personal attack. On a more mundane level, it's easier for reviewing admins to block someone if the evidence is just one click away, so you're more likely to get a quick response that way. Nyttend (talk) 04:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Nyttend. We need more eyes on this article. This is becoming a massive pain. The current editor under consideration is but the latest of many similar ones. This article is one of a suite of articles on for-profit education businesses owned by Global University Systems and on the personnel of its various institutions. Apart from Global University Systems, which I created to make clear the obfuscation which the company perpetrates concerning which institutions it actually owns and controls (as opposed to "educational partners"), they have all been created and/or heavily edited by editors with a clear conflict of interest. Sometimes declared (2 editors), but far more often undeclared but blindingly obvious from the content and pattern of editing and slips like this one on Commons. There is also a considerable history of sockpuppetry related to this suite of articles and more background at the multi-editor discussion at Talk:London College of Contemporary Arts (owned by the same company). In a word, ugh. Voceditenore (talk) 07:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Is this promotional?

A brand spanking new editor is adding a link to Avison Young, the leasing agent for the building 1501 Broadway, to the external links section of the article. I believe that this is promotional, since it does not provide our readers with any additional information about the subject, thus violating both WP:PROMO and WP:EL. The editor persists in restoring the edit to the article. Am I wrong in my estimation of the quality of this link? BMK (talk) 03:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The front page of the building's website has a section talking about Avison Young, so it's not "mere" spam. Lacking an official website for the building, I would say that we should include Avison Young, since it's apparently the owner's website, but WP:ELMINOFFICIAL reminds us that multiple official websites shouldn't be included unless all of them provide unique and important-to-the-reader information, and since Avison Young is focused on leasing space and doesn't provide much other information, it's probably not helpful. So basically, I'd say that it's more of a mundane thing, an item that could be included but probably should be excluded. However, I don't understand the point of having a link to Newmark Grubb Knight Frank, so your removal of it is what I'd call despamming. Nyttend (talk) 04:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page blocked & tagged edits removed for no reason. (T._P._Lahane)

T. P. Lahane has been bocked by: User:Diannaa

Everything that was removed from the page was tagged & sourced from newspaper articles. No reason was given for the block. Does she/he down wikipedia ?

Please remove this block. And let truth & justice prevail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soundofthesea (talk • contribs) 09:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please inform users you report here, as it states at the top of the page - I've done this for you now -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 09:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Diannaa did not "block" anything, she simply removed some content that violated copyright, which is perfectly correct. Please read Wikipedia:Copyright violations, and in future try approaching the person in question in a civil manner before coming here to launch attacks on their integrity. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Truth, justice and reasonably priced love! Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC):[reply]

Just 2 lines of the entire page were cut & pasted from a newspaper called "Mumbai Mirror". And they have been removed. If anything else looks questionable I humbly request User:Diannaa to talk with me before taking unilateral steps. I am a reasonable guy who has a masters degree in logic. Please see this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqJzHNl5OEM User:Soundofthesea

As you've been told by multiple users and admins, the content removed violated copyright, the edits are NOT from a neutral POV and the source given was not reliable. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The edit history of that page is appalling. I don't think I've ever seen an article with that many revdels before. Blackmane (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Every edit except 4 from April 7 on has been revdelled. That's just insane. GAB^gab 16:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the page history of Diana, Princess of Wales and see how many revdeled edits are there (Every edit from 14 April 2012 to 31 January 2016 is revdeled because of copyright violations). —MRD2014 T C 17:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GAB, what are you saying is "insane"? The fact that someone keeps coming back and repeatedly making the copyright infringements despite knowing that they will just be reverted? Or the fact that an administrator removed the copyright infringing content from public view? If you mean the first of those, then I agree, but there are a lot of insane people who spend a lot of time doing pointless things on Wikipedia. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note:Soundofthesea has been blocked for WP:NOTHERE by @JamesBWatson: --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see another possible misunderstanding of how revision deletion works - so for clarity, revision deletion does not remove content. The copyright infringements were removed manually as a normal edit, and then every revision that contained those infringements was hidden from view - from the revision that first contained them to the final revision before they were removed. Any changes made in those revisions which were not part of the copyright violations have not been removed and are still in the current revision. As an example, I could choose any article and rev-delete every single past revision, and that would not remove a single word from the current article. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But would that mean that an editor could not see who had made a particular change in an article, and when? RolandR (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - the past revisions could not be compared to see what change was made and when. If it is only the content that needs to be hidden, then the editor and edit summary (including the section name if applicable) would still be visible, so that might provide some clue. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unsuprisingly there is socking, webhost/proxy use etc. at play here. I've semi-protected the article for a couple of weeks. Not sure if the most recent edit (which I reverted) has the same copyvio issues, someone more familiar with the history may want to check. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply]

It was identical to one of the sections removed from previously hidden revisions, so I've done the same again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A defiant IP!

Hi there. some days ago, I had an argument in Volleyball at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Men's qualification with two other guys about adding some pictures. finally [an admin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dennis_Brown] engaged the argument and blocked the article and ordered us to talk about the pictures. So I started a polling in the talk page and invited the two others to make an agreement. At the end of the polling two of us admitted to add two of the pictures, but the IP threated to remove the pictures (against order of the admin to act on result of polling).

Unfortunately, the admin is on vacation and can't help us. So I ask you to make a decision about the IP and our pictures. Thank you.Sarbaze naja (talk) 11:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Defiant? Please see WP:IPHUMAN. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the page.

The dispute appears to have started with an objection to there only being images of the Iran team.
Two editors (Sarbaze naja and 94.155.238.11) started edit warring.
Sarbaze naja asked for semi-protection and was shot down because it was clearly a content dispute ( Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Rolling archive#Volleyball at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Men's qualification ).
Sarbaze naja reported 94.155.238.11 at 3RRNB. This resulted in page protection and warnings to both ( Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive318#User:94.155.238.11 reported by User:Sarbaze naja (Result:Full Protection ) ).
Sarbaze naja then presenting a "here are seven images (Iran vs. France, Iran vs. Japan, Iran vs. Poland, Iran vs. Venezuela, Iran vs. China, Iran vs. Canada, and Iran vs. Australia) please pick the best two" question and got one one response by GAV80 (who previously said on the 3RRNB "This gallery not needed on that page. Only User:Sarbaze naja wants to add gallery, all other users from that page don't want it.") picking his favorite two.
Then we had a threat by 94.155.238.11 to edit war some more.
And finally we have Sarbaze naja running to ANI.

So we have two editors who are willing to edit war to get their way, one of whom tries to get admins to support his side in a clear content dispute, and really no substantive discussion on the article talk page about whether there should be images at all and whether they should all be of the Iran team. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another defiant IP!

Unrelated (but fitting the title) there is some IP that for years and years has been engaged in one hell of a Lamest Edit War, that ranges back to 2011 regarding the Lost episode "Because You Left". By its very definition the IP's number floats, but the last ones have been consistent. Don't know what to do, given the page was already semi-protected once exactly to stop this stupid behavior. igordebraga ≠ 17:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this has been going on for five years, indefinite semi-protection is called for. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A hate group is attempting to brigade an RfC

A Manual of Style discussion regarding transgender people is currently being brigaded by an off-site hate group encouraging people to create accounts to "vote support". This group has been actively involved in doxxing, harassing, and making threats of violence against trans people in the past, and they need to be cut off from attempting to use Wikipedia to further their agenda. MarleneSwift (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Noting, in passing, the pure unsullied and unalloyed irony of the fact that your own account was registered... on 10 June 2016 at 13:24. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Because my main account is linked to my real-life identity. My employer is listed on my main account's user page for crying out loud, and I don't want them getting death threats from this group. This group has targeted their opponents in real life before. Also bear in mind that I'm not !voting or offering my opinion in any way on the discussion. MarleneSwift (talk) 13:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be ironic if MarleneSwift issued a support/oppose !vote in the discussion, as that would be engaging in the practice he/she is expressing concern about. That is not the case, as far as I can see. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, the irony is in the creating of accounts for extraneous purposes. And there you have it. _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem with this report; if someone is scared enough to start a new account to notify us of what could well be a legitimate concern, we should thank them. I hope it's hot air in that thread. Drmies (talk) 04:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wtshymanski reverting good faith IP edits - again

Blocked one month; breach of editing-restrictions by MSGJ _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

An IP editor makes this good faith edit to the article Germanium. I have to assume that it is a good faith edit because although no edit summary was left, the deleted claim is not mentioned in the provided reference.

Wtshymanski, in spite of a recent warning and an editing block, has reverted the edit in violation of his editing restriction (not to revert any edits from IP address editors).

In another equally recent example. A good faith addition from an IP editor. Another bad faith reversion from Wtshymanski.

Not only are these a violation of that restriction, but they must count as an unambiguous defiance of his editing restriction and the very ethos of Wikipedia (the encyclopedia anyone can edit). If these continued harrassments of IP address editors are not someone who is WP:NOTHERE to co-operate in building an encyclopedia then what is? 85.255.232.219 (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restriction for Wtshymanski is logged here if anyone wants to know. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have reblocked, escalating the duration from the previous block — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

What are admins going to do when the block expires and the behaviour continues? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=653436768#Editor_routinely_reverting_contributions_from_IP_address_editors. DanBCDanBC (talk) 09:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The threatened action is for applying blocks of increasing duration. At some point, patience will be lost and an indefinite block will be applied. My personal view, for what it is worth, is that as this is the second block for violating the editing restriction is that the indefinite block should be applied at the next violation. After all, as I stated above, it is an unambiguous statement of having no intention of complying or of allowing IP address editors to make their contributions. 212.183.140.6 (talk) 11:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User circumventing block again

User Mikequfv was blocked for his disruptive editing last month. He broke his first block and then, as a result, had his block length increased to "indefinite" and had the IP that he used to circumvent the original block, blocked as well. (Reports are here and here.) Since the original two blocks, there have been edits from other IPs (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) that match his style of editing and thus seem to be him. Today there has been a renewed effort to push his changes on articles where he's previously made attempts that were reverted, at Victoria, BC and Arica with this IP. Air.light (talk) 03:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikequfv. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Censorship

An editor by the name of General Ization is arbitrarily deleting my posts on an untrue article on Laszlo Csatary. He is not allowing me to respond to a challenge of proof. This is a biased and racist move on the part of General Ization. He obviously has something against Laszlo Csatary and his family and knows little or nothing about the situation. The article is defamatory and untrue and should be removed from Wikipedia. It lacks journalistic integrity and is equal to tabloid trash. Get generalization off this article please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.150.36.88 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 10 June 2016‎

The edits that were removed do not have any sources to back up their content. This is something that will require being discussed on the talk page of the article. Also, claiming the user has something again the subject, and especially calling them racist is a personal attack and should not be done. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness to the IP, there are sources - and they are already listed in the article, but not presented in the way the IP wants them to be presented.

The IP seems to want the article to state unequivocally that the subject is innocent of all crime; their argument being that the Budapest higher court suspended his case on 8 July 2013 (already stated and sourced in the "War-crimes indictment", but currently qualified showing reasons they were suspended), and because a book was published in 2014 that claims he was not physically located where the crimes were committed (the book is also already presented and sourced in the "War-crimes indictment", stating the claim made in it by the author). The IP also appears to have a conflict of interest in the article, as they have claimed to be the son of the article subject. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has not notified General Ization of this filing, so I have done so. GAB^gab 00:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even though Generalizations Are Bad, GAB? BMK (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we ought to expunge all generalizations from the article. GAB^gab 00:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification, GAB. Barek has accurately stated the basic history of this case, with the remainder available on the IP's Talk page. The IP has repeatedly engaged in the behavior described at WP:IDHT, in addition to personal attacks, legal threats and claims of censorship. I have considered that I could leave his statements in place on the article's Talk page, but each time they would require the same explanation in reply which I have provided here (in January 2016) and here (last night). The IP's repeated posting of the same claim -- that the self-published book already cited in the article proves that Csatary is innocent, and hence the article should state unequivocally that he is innocent -- is, of course, a violation of WP:NPOV, among other policies, and contributes nothing to the improvement of the article. General Ization ^Talk 00:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - I am also the editor who located and contributed the citation that now exists in the article concerning the book, after the IP repeatedly inserted the claim without any source. General Ization ^Talk 00:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request consideration of WP:ABAN. General Ization ^Talk 03:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Compromised account

Account blocked for a period of a week by HighInBC. (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 11:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Maybe the account In Citer has been compromised. He has recently made bizarre edits and received a warning from Doug Weller. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little surprised that this was given a warning instead of a block. The user continued being disruptive after the warning and I have given a 1 week block which I think was generous. I see no reason to think the account is compromised, this sort of hateful speech seems to be in fashion. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 00:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I should have blocked at once. It was his clean block record that deterred me. At the time I hadn't seen his statement of article ownership either. I did tell him that he might be banned from articles dealing with religion, which could be done as a requirement for an unblock from an indefinite block. 06:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)

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

GentleCollapse16

I want an interaction ban imposed on GentleCollapse16. He keeps going to articles I contribute significantly to or have before and absolutely shitting on my contributions. This has been on-going for a while and I have no idea how it got started or how back it goes, but these are just a few recent examples of the editor's belligerence and hostility toward me:

Removing long-standing material (that's verified by sources in the article) from There's a Riot Goin' On (15:47, 4 June 2016, 23:52, 10 June 2016)

Removing a paragraph I added last month to Miles Davis (03:00, 11 June 2016 --> 03:08, 11 June 2016) I want this edit reverted; the burden is on the editor to take it to the talk page and discuss it, especially if part of his rationale is an attack toward me and comes off the heels of me reverting a recent edit of theirs at the first article listed in this post.

Deriding my bringing Maxinquaye to featured-article status; in response to a recent addition to the article, he posted comments at the article's talk page, in the section of an archived RfC, deriding my contributions and attacking me ([40], [41], [42]). The RfC that was meant to address a past complaint of his has expired and been considered "obsolete" in its closing, yet the editor has not moved on.

Genre warring at Axis: Bold as Love, after I had expanded the material dealing with critical reception/genres (02:04, 4 August 2015, 17:55, 4 August 2015, 08:19, 25 May 2016, 08:44, 25 May 2016)

Dismissive comments at To Pimp a Butterfly in an RfC that resulted in my favor (29 April 2016

Going through the editor's history, I noticed they've had similar attitudes and made similarly dismissive accusations toward other editors/contributions while asserting the superiority of their own revisions (Karl Marx, post-punk (where the editor seems to conflict with others there often[43], [44], [45]), Unknown Pleasures, Closer (Joy Division album)

Just to note, I reported a previous incident instigated by the editor at ANI and nothing was done in response to it ([46]) Dan56 (talk) 03:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline racism and trolling by experienced editor

(non-admin closure) not even an issueFAMASFREENODE (talk) 11:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

At Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates, User:Floydian felt the need to refer to Muhammad Ali by his original name [47]. When called out on this by one user ([48]), his response was this, with the edit summary "Praise Allah, I don't care". On being pulled up again, his seond response was "White liberal guilt alert" with the edit summary "Call the waahmbulance". Since no editor at the page is managing to convey to Floydian how unpleasant his behaviour is in a collaborative encylopedia, perhaps an admin could provide a friendly word? Laura Jamieson (talk) 03:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this should be considered actionable except insofar as what I see as misuse of edit summary. That is just my opinion. I can accept that other opinions could be as valid as mine. Bus stop (talk) 03:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm not suggesting a block, just perhaps that someone should provide some sort of clue as to the correct method of interacting with others, since said clue appears absent. Laura Jamieson (talk) 04:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In a sense, it takes two to tango. Once the statement "referring to Ali by his former name is pretty offensive" is made, a response becomes likely. Bus stop (talk) 04:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's sweet. Longtime editors should know better. "I've never made any attempt to conform to political correctness nor to avoid offending someone" sounds all manly but is just ignorant; the one offended is Ali, who (duh) changed his name for well-known reasons. Using his birth name, which Ali of course called his "slave name", is typically done by white folk who still can't handle a black man being not just a good boxer but also an outspoken critic of the racism of his time. I don't know if it's straight-up racism, but it's a kind of race baiting. Floydian, it's been a few decades since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for instance--get over it. And, eh, what's wrong with avoiding offending other people? Isn't that one of the bases of civilized society? Drmies (talk) 04:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If his father's namesake Cassius Marcellus Clay (politician) were around, he might be a little sad that Clay abandoned his birth name, but would likely be mightily impressed by the changes that Ali helped to bring about. As to racism or offensiveness, it's really just silliness. If he were talking about George Burns, he wouldn't likely insist on calling him Nathan Birnbaum. But those names were both essentially "stage names" - and in America, at least, you can call yourself whatever you want to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophobia and racism is founded on ignorance. I hope Floydian now realises his incivility and will now be dropping the argument. Of course, he could just be recalling the barbershop scene from Coming to America (though Eddie Murphy can get away with it as he's parodying stereotypes). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

IP's promotion of "Freddy Maguire"

This IP, User talk:119.224.85.251 has made this edit [49] about Freddy Maguire. However, after reverting his edit, this IP seems to have said on my user talk saying I will receive a "strongly worded letter", which seems to be a euphemism for a legal threat. This is the diff of the message on my talk page: [50]. TheCoffeeAddict talk|contribs 07:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have dropped a note on their talk page, telling them they are editing in the wrong place and will have better luck submitting via WP:AFC. I don't fancy their chances of creating something that doesn't get deleted per A7 / G11, but it will at least stop them getting blocked. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Allison

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

This user has a long history of trying to create an article Brenda Allison (it has been deleted loads of times on Wikipedia because she is not notable). All this user does is add the name Brenda Allison to articles, or add information about this person on the articles Human magnetism and Nefertiti.

As of June 2016, this is still going on [51], this user has been doing this on the human magnetism article since September, 2015. This user has been blocked in the past (check their talk-page, after they were blocked they claimed that Wikipedia is racist because they are black [52]). Interestingly when I google search the name "Brenda Allison", a twitter page comes up which makes this same unfounded statement [53], Ankhsn recently tried to insert details about Brenda on the Nefertiti article which matches what is discussed on this twitter [54]. This user is here to promote herself, not build an encyclopedia. Given the fact they seem to have had countless warnings I am just interested if an admin will look into this or not. HealthyGirl (talk) 11:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 575: / Line 575: @@
 == Borderline racism and trolling by experienced editor ==
+{{atop|{{nac}} not even an issue[[User:FAMASFREENODE|FAMASFREENODE]] ([[User talk:FAMASFREENODE|talk]]) 11:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)}}
 At [[Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates]], [[User:Floydian]] felt the need to refer to Muhammad Ali by his original name [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&diff=prev&oldid=724720034].  When called out on this by one user ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AIn_the_news%2FCandidates&type=revision&diff=724720471&oldid=724720034]), his response was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AIn_the_news%2FCandidates&type=revision&diff=724721760&oldid=724721524 this], with the edit summary "Praise Allah, I don't care".  On being pulled up again, his seond response was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AIn_the_news%2FCandidates&type=revision&diff=724729310&oldid=724727409 "White liberal guilt alert"] with the edit summary "Call the waahmbulance".  Since no editor at the page is managing to convey to Floydian how unpleasant his behaviour is in a collaborative encylopedia, perhaps an admin could provide a friendly word? [[User talk:LauraJamieson|Laura Jamieson (talk)]] 03:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 :I don't think this should be considered actionable except insofar as what I see as misuse of edit summary. That is just my opinion. I can accept that other opinions could be as valid as mine. [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] ([[User talk:Bus stop|talk]]) 03:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
@@ Line 585: / Line 585: @@
 Xenophobia and racism is founded on ignorance. I hope {{u|Floydian}} now realises his incivility and will now be dropping the argument. Of course, he could just be recalling the barbershop scene from ''[[Coming to America]]'' (though [[Eddie Murphy]] can get away with it as he's parodying stereotypes). [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 07:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
+{{abot}}
 == IP's promotion of "Freddy Maguire" ==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards