Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive926#User:Kvng

I was told this was a more appropriate place for the request I made here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Predatory_behavior_towards_IP_users]. 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)

: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 {{huh}} 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)

:*Sure, true, but let me add that {{U|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)

:::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)

::So it is possible that {{U|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)

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

:::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)

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adjugate_matrix&diff=prev&oldid=707630033

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. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adjugate_matrix&diff=prev&oldid=707614369 User_talk:131.111.176.163 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pseudo-Goldstone_boson&diff=prev&oldid=678291879

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)

• 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)

::: 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)

::::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 {{wink}} _Pocketed 10:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

:::::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)

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

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)

::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)

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)

: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)

::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)

:"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)

::Quark, did you say? I would be more concerned about your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quark&diff=723550718&oldid=723545713 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)

: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)

::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)

: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)

: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)

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)

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∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 16:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• 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)

{{Clear}}

{{atop|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) _Pocketed 13:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
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)}}

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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies&diff=719964062&oldid=719956985 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:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016&diff=prev&oldid=719527313 "can we move on from this nonsense?"]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guy1890&diff=prev&oldid=719678682 "brand new editor with little to no prior Wikipedia edits - go push your POV on another website."]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016&diff=prev&oldid=719680069 "Wikipedia does not exist to push your own, biased Point-of-View (POV)"]

He is stalking me on other people's pages, as he [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=724428308&oldid=724428105 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:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guy1890&diff=prev&oldid=704394575 "go away IP hack editor"] in response to "Please do not attack other editors".

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016&diff=prev&oldid=717854236 "Run along [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/50.35.51.239 anomymous IP editor with no other edits to Wikipedia, ever."]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guy1890&diff=675525529&oldid=675524935 "You can go away now"]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guy1890&diff=next&oldid=651126357 "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:

1. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guy1890&diff=719678682&oldid=719660968 May 11]
2. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guy1890&diff=719928232&oldid=719928107 May 12]
3. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guy1890&diff=723759020&oldid=723592691 June 3]

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)

: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)

• {{ec}} Like, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kswikiaccount&diff=724376062&oldid=724371030 "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...? _Pocketed 13:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
• 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)
• This user is stalking and harassing me. Make him stop. Kswikiaccount (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

: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)

{{abot}}

{{atop|(non-admin closure) Probably best for all involved to close this. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 00:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)}}

: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)

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

::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)

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)

: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)

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

• 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/74.57.167.5 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)

::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)

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{archive top|status= Blocked| (non-admin closure) Editor blocked by {{u|Ritchie333}} for 48 hours --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)}}

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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWisdom89&type=revision&diff=688075454&oldid=686973213]. The user constantly ignores attempts to communicate and simply removes sections from his talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Emarroquin1995&diff=prev&oldid=724369010]. 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)

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

::Judging by the above diff and these diffs,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=724366647][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Colonies_Chris&diff=722154902&oldid=721205624][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Colonies_Chris&diff=prev&oldid=724368108] 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Colonies_Chris&diff=next&oldid=722154902 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)

:::Indeed and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Colonies_Chris&diff=prev&oldid=724520657] is beyond the pale in terms of incivility, cluelessness, and no personal attacks.  Wisdom89 ^♦talk 20:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

::::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)

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)

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

: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)

:If you are referring to edits such as these[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Appetite_for_Destruction_Tour&type=revision&diff=721685567&oldid=721585704][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diary_of_a_Madman_Tour&type=revision&diff=720851980&oldid=720403036][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mob_Rules_Tour&type=revision&diff=724341642&oldid=720786001], 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)

::Issued a 3RR warning to Emarroquin1995 for edit warring on {{article|Appetite for Destruction Tour}}.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEmarroquin1995&type=revision&diff=724535713&oldid=724529324] —Farix (t | c) 21:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

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)

{{archive bottom}}

{{Clear}}

{{archive top|reason=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)}}

I would like for an admin to take a look at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASundayclose&type=revision&diff=724540612&oldid=723736262 this] personal attack and false accusation by {{user|Jack Sebastian}}. 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)

: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)

: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)

::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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANatalie_Portman&type=revision&diff=724561125&oldid=724560935 continues here]. Sundayclose (talk) 01:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

:::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)

::::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)

: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)

::::: Since when was telling someone to fuck off a personal attack, in any case? _Pocketed 02:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

:::::: 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)

:::::::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)

::::::::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)

{{archive bottom}}

{{Clear}}

{{atop|Subject blocked for 37 hours. (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 07:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)}}

{{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)

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

::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)

::: Yep, block and close, please someone. Now get this rig outta here. _Pocketed 03:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

::::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)

:::::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 [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:The_University_of_Law's_interior.jpg 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)

{{abottom}}

{{Clear}}

{{atop|Blocked one month; breach of editing-restrictions by {{noping|MSGJ}} _Pocketed 14:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)}}

An IP editor makes [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Germanium&diff=724565144&oldid=724561697 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wtshymanski&diff=716736407&oldid=714386088 warning] and an editing block, has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Germanium&type=revision&diff=724568442&oldid=724565144 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assembly_language&diff=723590748&oldid=723288539 addition] from an IP editor. Another bad faith [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assembly_language&diff=724568918&oldid=724550608 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)

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

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

{{abot}}

{{atop|Closed means closed, per above.(non-admin closure) Montanabw^(talk) 03:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)}}

: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)

:::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)

{{abot}}

A brand spanking new editor is adding a link to [http://avisonyoung.com 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)

:The [http://www.paramountbuilding.com/ 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 [http://www.ngkf.com a link] to Newmark Grubb Knight Frank, so your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=724570162 removal of it] is what I'd call despamming. Nyttend (talk) 04:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

User [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mikequfv 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:569:BDD4:2700:F1D2:5191:2484:1E06 IP] that he used to circumvent the original block, blocked as well. (Reports are [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=720966723 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=721122311 here].) Since the original two blocks, there have been edits from other IPs ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.108.187.240 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/173.183.76.7 2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/37.211.24.248 3], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:569:BC91:7D00:D83:AB95:4EF5:4000 4], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:569:BDD4:2700:159F:D0CB:9A01:3CCD 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/142.31.10.42 this] IP. Air.light (talk) 03:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Volleyball_at_the_2016_Summer_Olympics_%E2%80%93_Men's_qualification 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Volleyball_at_the_2016_Summer_Olympics_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_qualification&diff=724210456&oldid=724207701 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)

:Defiant? Please see WP:IPHUMAN. _Pocketed 11:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

::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)

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, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Because_You_Left&action=history 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)

: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)

{{Clear}}

{{atop|result=Account blocked for a period of a week by HighInBC. (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 11:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)}}

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

: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)

::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)

{{abottom}}

{{Clear}}

{{atop|(non-admin closure) User:Soundofthesea blockedFAMASFREENODE (talk) 12:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)}}

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)

: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)

• 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)
• Truth, justice and reasonably priced love! Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC):

::* 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)

:::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)

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

:::::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)

:::::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)

:::::: {{take note}}{{u|Soundofthesea}} has been blocked for WP:NOTHERE by {{re|JamesBWatson}} --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

::::::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)

:::::::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)

::::::::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)

{{outdent|::::::::}} 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)

: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)

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{atop|Blocked indefinitely by {{noping|Nyttend}} (non-admin closure) _Pocketed 12:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)}}

:{{userlinks|Ankhsn}}

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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nefertiti&diff=724587335&oldid=724577876], this user has been doing this on the human magnetism article since September, 2015. This user has been blocked in the past in February (check their talk-page, after they were blocked they claimed that Wikipedia is racist because they are black [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ankhsn&diff=703774750&oldid=703384303]). Interestingly when I google search the name "Brenda Allison", a twitter page comes up which makes this same unfounded statement [https://twitter.com/brenda_allison1/status/734231244460969984], Ankhsn recently tried to insert details about Brenda on the Nefertiti article which matches what is discussed on this twitter [https://twitter.com/brenda_allison1]. 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)

:If you actually check this users disruptive editing since the 5 June [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nefertiti&action=history] on the Nefertiti article, I am amazed that this user was never blocked. HealthyGirl (talk) 12:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{Archive top|result=Both accounts blocked as {{confirmed}} socks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)}}

Two SPA editors {{User|Josepdavidana}} (since 19 April) and the newly-created {{User|Janajuliapuig}} have recently been contributing to this article by unexplained edits adding large chunks of copyright text, badly translated newspaper articles, and at the same time removing sourced content (and sometimes categories etc). I've now reverted 3 times today so am backing off, but perhaps an admin could have a look. PamD 15:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

{{Archive bottom}}

{{Clear}}

{{archivetop|(non-admin closure) Never mind. BMK (talk) 02:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)}}

Would someone please create for me the proper pages to nominate User:Stemoc's user page for MfD? The instructions there aren't working for me, as I seem to be stuck in a loop. The reasons are that I believe the Trump banner on the page violates WP:POLEMIC and WP:UP#Promo. Thanks, BMK (talk) 02:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

:Never mind, I managed to figure it out, but those instructions really need to be fixed. Why don't we have a script that does all that stuff for you? Commons has one to nominate images for deletion. BMK (talk) 02:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

{{archivebottom}}

{{Clear}}

{{atop|NeilN deleted that nazi's userpage, and the image has been removed from Makeamericagr8again's userpage. The MfD for User:Stemoc can be found at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Stemoc. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 03:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)}}

Can someone please block User:SwagLlama420 and remove his userpage. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

{{ping|Beyond My Ken}} You should see User:SwagLlama420... The MFD you started seems to be broken. And you forgot about User:Makeamericagr8again. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 03:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

:I have deleted SwagLlama420's user page as the references to Nazism were clearly out of line. Makeamericagr8again's page probably falls afoul of WP:NOTWEBHOST but I'd like to see discussion/a second opinion on that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

::I would suggest deletion of User:Makeamericagr8again. We generally allow limited expressions of political affiliation to be included on a userpage, unless the information is highly offensive. However, this entire userpage is a political polemic, which is not at all permissible. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

:::Also, not sure if relevant or not, but the account has made extremely limited contributions since its inception. Not counting the ones made to their own userpage I think I counted 2-3 minor contributions total. It actually appears that the account was made simply for political purposes. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

{{abot}}

I want an interaction ban imposed on {{u|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:

• Deriding my bringing Maxinquaye to featured-article status; in response to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maxinquaye&type=revision&diff=721515821&oldid=718674601 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 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMaxinquaye&type=revision&diff=721986900&oldid=720020004], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maxinquaye&diff=next&oldid=721986900], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maxinquaye&diff=next&oldid=721990716]). 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.

• Removing long-standing material (that's verified by sources in the article) from There's a Riot Goin' On ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=There%27s_a_Riot_Goin%27_On&type=revision&diff=723687886&oldid=712996226 15:47, 4 June 2016], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=There%27s_a_Riot_Goin%27_On&type=revision&diff=724707217&oldid=724155412 23:52, 10 June 2016])

• Removing a paragraph I added last month to Miles Davis ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miles_Davis&type=revision&diff=724728103&oldid=724644525 03:00, 11 June 2016] --> [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miles_Davis&type=revision&diff=724728900&oldid=724728548 03:08, 11 June 2016]); 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.

• Genre warring at Axis: Bold as Love, after I had expanded the material dealing with critical reception/genres ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis%3A_Bold_as_Love&type=revision&diff=674458554&oldid=674458261 02:04, 4 August 2015], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis:_Bold_as_Love&diff=next&oldid=674458554 17:55, 4 August 2015], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis%3A_Bold_as_Love&type=revision&diff=721988888&oldid=721423707 08:19, 25 May 2016], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis:_Bold_as_Love&diff=next&oldid=721990759 08:44, 25 May 2016])

• Dismissive comments at To Pimp a Butterfly in an RfC that resulted in my favor ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:To_Pimp_a_Butterfly&diff=next&oldid=717815203 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 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karl_Marx&diff=prev&oldid=714255493 Karl Marx], post-punk (where the editor seems to conflict with others there often[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Post-punk&diff=prev&oldid=712934145], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Post-punk&type=revision&diff=724341139&oldid=724340782], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Post-punk&type=revision&diff=710907201&oldid=710906900]), [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unknown_Pleasures&diff=prev&oldid=711337269 Unknown Pleasures], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Closer_(Joy_Division_album)&diff=prev&oldid=711337564 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 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive924#GentleCollapse16]); {{ping|Boing! said Zebedee}}, {{ping|Diannaa}}? Dan56 (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• I just suggested to {{U|Dan56}}, rather kindly I think, for a personal attack on GentleCollapse (actually, two); they're edit warring over there somewhere over something insignificant. Dan said I should look here, so here I am. It is clear to me that some of the comments that GentleCollapse made are unacceptable (like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maxinquaye&diff=next&oldid=721986900 this]--WTF?) It is also clear to me that these two feed off each other. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:To_Pimp_a_Butterfly&diff=next&oldid=717815203 Here] is GentleCollapse being a total jerk to Dan56, after Dan56 himself started pushing the point in an all-too personal way.

  This report is ancient; I think I know why no one looked at it. Dan, you've been warned about certain types of comments before, and you have a reputation as an editor who lashes out sometimes. (I don't know about your opponent: I presume nothing.) Moreover, no one wants to enforce two-way iBans, and that's the second I say that today. However, maybe that could be a solution. Or some kind of strict civility parole, where the first a-holish comment gets a block.

  You may have already left a snide remark on your talk page while I was going through these edits and typing this up; I hope you realize that I just spent fourteen minutes of my life on this. I'll end by pinging the two admins you pinged before. {{ping|Boing! said Zebedee}}, {{ping|Diannaa}}. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I am asking for an interaction ban between myself and {{U|Jytdog}}. I am asking that he not post any messages on my talk pages; my two usernames are: {{U|Bfpage}} and {{U|Barbara (WVS)}}. The second account was created to allow WikiEd and my supervisor at the University of Pittsburgh to track my edits.

Here are the messages that he has left on my talk page(s) from the most recent to the first:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=721804477&diff=prev 1.], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=665337717&diff=prev 2.], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=665212692&diff=prev 3.],

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=665108520&diff=prev 4.], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=665015863&diff=prev 5.], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=664765187&diff=prev 6.],

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=664746831&diff=prev 7.], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=664713301&diff=prev 8.], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=662600176&diff=prev 9.],

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=662474652&diff=prev 10.], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=650454705&diff=prev 11.], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=648435694&diff=prev 12.],

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=648433360&diff=prev 13.], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=648432356&diff=prev 14.], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=648268505&diff=prev 15.], and

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=648266443&diff=prev 16.] The diffs are many but a short history might be helpful. The first few interactions had to do with my editing of the Sexism article when he believed I was part of a conspiracy of men dedicated to gender parity. He questioned my motives, my gender, and other personal information that I provided to him to assure him that I really was who I said I was.

The other diffs are related to a discussion about a 3-day block placed upon me by {{U|Kevin Gorman}}. I am sure he would provide information regarding my block if he is available.

Administrator Kevin Gorman posted the following on the top of my talk page after he read the messages that were being posted by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bfpage&action=edit§ion=0&summary=/*%20top%20*/%20 Jytdog and others].

As a result of Jytdog,s discourteous, accusatory, discourteous, disruptive and contentious talk page posts, I feel he is “following me around”, hounding, and stalkingme. I feel personally attacked. His uncivility has negatively impacted my own enjoyment of editing. I believe that the unnecessary emotional distress caused by his posts has had a negative effect on the encyclopedia since it impacts my concentration in creating content. His messages and edit summaries are distracting from the work I do on building an encyclopedia. Time I could spend editing has been taken up with dealing with his distressing talk page messages.WP:HOUND.

I remain unaware of any specific communication between Jytdog and administrator Kevin Gorman because for a time I was relieved to see that the harassment had ended. Now uncivil edit summaries by Jytdog continue to increase and he is back on my talk page. Though I’ve not done the math or examined the editor interaction log, it also seems as if he shows up relatively quickly after some of my edits. I am only asking for an interaction ban where he would not be able to post on my talk page. I don’t post on his talk page anyway since I thought that might reduce the tension that exists. Thank you for your kind attention on this matter. I will contact Jytdog on his talk page.

Best Regards and thank you for your kind attention,

:   Bfpage |leave a message  18:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

:: That's a helluva lot of words. Did you expend any on notifying the parties you have mentioned...? _Pocketed 18:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

::Yes, Jytdog and Kevin Gorman were notified.   Bfpage |leave a message  19:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

:::Just for fun! I looked at all Barbara's diffs above. What I found was Jytdog giving Barbara good advice, which has clearly been ignored by Barbara. There are a number of things I could suggest, but perhaps the simplest is to ask Jytdog to not post on your talk page any further. He wont post on your talk page any further, except of course if policy requires him to. Simples. -Roxy the dog of Doom™ woof 18:44, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

::::Jytdog was asked to not post on my talk page and honored that request for a while. I would like a more formal discussion with other editors. Good advice can be supplied with different words than were used for me.   Bfpage |leave a message  19:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

As someone mentioned your post has a lot of words, and more to the point 16(!) diffs. It would help the rest of us get a handle on the situation if you distill this down to the few diffs that are most relevant (not more than 3 or 4). Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• The background. When Bfpage first arrived here, she ( and I never thought she was a man) was editing per the mens rights agenda and was hounding User:Flyer22 in icky ways like thanking people who were trashing Flyer, and was sanctioned for that, per this ANI thread. I believe the comment I made that prompted this over-reactive posting was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABfpage&type=revision&diff=721804477&oldid=721803022 this] which is self-explanatory and was reacting to a mild form (a mild form) of the kind of behavior that she were sanctioned for originally (The editor on whose page Bfpage posted is one with whom I have been in disputes with). Bfpage, if you don't want reminders, don't make trouble. You said you were going to leave that behavior behind. There is no need for any kind of i-ban; we rarely interact. There is a need for Bfpage to just knock off the baloney. Jytdog (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
• Jytdog and I differ on how to deal with certain problematic editors, such as probable sockpuppets (I'm not making any allegation here), but that's because I tend to take a blunt and direct approach, and he prefers to deal with such editors in a much more gentle manner. Because of this, I would be very surprised to find Jytdog being "discourteous, accusatory, discourteous, disruptive and contentious", since my experience is that he is always exactly the opposite. I'm going to delve into Bfpage's diffs now, and if I find that they are not clear examples of such behavior, I shall probably return with a recommendation of a WP:BOOMERANG. BMK (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

:*Well, I have laboriously gone through the 16 edits provided by Bfpage - the oldest of which dates from a year and a half ago! - and, as expected, found nothing there to back up their contention that Jytdog has been "discourteous, accusatory, discourteous, disruptive and contentious". I do see, however, evidence that Bfpage has exhibited some of these behaviors. (If I am remembering correctly, wasn't there a brouhaha a while back about this editor, who presented herself as female, but posted strongly in favor of men's rights, raising suspicion that the reported gender was a smokescreen?) If Bfpage does not want Jytdog to post on their talk pages, Jytdog should honor that ban, but then Bfpage should avoid situations in which they come into conflict with Jytdog. I don't think that a BOOMERANG for Bfpage is in order at the moment, despite the misrepresentation inherent in this report, but I do recommend that should they make another report against any editor without providing true supporting evidence, then a sanction of some sort should be levied on them. BMK (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

::*Oh, and in case it wasn't clear from the above, an I-BAN is totally unnecessary, pure overkill. BMK (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

::::Thank you for your responses and the recommendation that Jytdog not post messages to my talk page. The most recent post to my talk page was not mild. I do not consider my work with another skilled and excellent editor where we were (are) improving content to be trolling. The fact that Jytdog has had disputes with this same editor is/was unknown to me. Since I don't follow his editing, it is impossible for me to know with whom he has had conflicts. I can only know about his conflicts with other editors by checking the standing interaction bans and noticing if he has any there. My request was not to rehash old drama, but to help deflect the possibility of future drama. I already avoid situations where we come into conflict. His edits always follow mine. (no more diffs for me). I am also sensing my incredible distress and uncomfortable-ness with what I perceive as hound-like behavior to be irrelevant to those commenting here. What misrepresentation can be in the expression of how an editor has been negatively affected by the postings on their talk page? We both edit in project medicine and therefore, for my purposes alone, what would a valid 'report' look like-one that might result in sanctions such as blocking me? Certainly, this is something I would like to avoid. I would also like more time before this discussion is closed for {{U|Kevin Gorman}} and others to respond.

::::Best Regards,   Bfpage |leave a message  23:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Can we remove his TP access already? He is constantly spamming it with nonsense. TJH2018talk 23:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

:Have you notified the editor on their talk page? Check that. Nakon 23:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

::Please list this at WP:RFP. Nakon 23:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

:::I'll keep an eye on this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALeonRaper&type=revision&diff=724856012&oldid=724853861] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

::::Thanks for checking on this. Nakon 23:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

{{ping|TJH2018}} Simply remove the user's talk page from your watch list. Tiderolls 23:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I am requesting that a two-way IBAN be enacted for User:ScrapIronIV and myself. In the past few months, there has been a significant amount of conflict on both ends, and though I do not get along with ScrapIron or even like him, I do acknowledge that he, like myself, is very useful to the Wikipedian community in several ways. So, rather than asking that he be blocked, or asking that I be blocked (which would be a little ridiculous), I feel an interaction ban is necessary to stop the conflict between us. I consider the main problem to be that he has recently (and remotely) reverted my edits without a clear reason why, other than that I made them. He also made this change[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lord_Laitinen/Kenosha_Gallery&oldid=724260174] in my userspace earlier today, which I found to be highly contentious, unnecessary, and ridiculous. Since when do users need to source personal information about themselves or where they live? As if I would cite a source revealing my home address on a public level... So, in summary, I ask for this not to win a conflict or defeat an enemy, in fact, I cite peace as my main reason. I no longer want to be involved in conflicts while trying to edit my userspace or the mainspace with any users, and I feel that this action, originally recommended by User:Ian.thomson, is necessary. Thank you, and happy editing. ~Lord Laitinen~ (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

:I'd say I suggested rather than recommended. I will note that both of them could spend all day trying to dig up dirt on each other but I haven't really seen enough to go "ok, that's it, I'm blocking one of you" (though I have not cared to sift through the mounds that both could dig up). I'm not really gonna discuss this much more than what I just said because of exams (starting another one right now). Ian.thomson (talk) 08:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

::I restored this from the archive because the situation was not yet resolved. I ask that nobody tries to archive it again until a response is given. Thank you, and happy editing! ~Lord Laitinen~ (talk) 00:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• {{ping|Lord Laitinen}} You know, the admin corps are extremely bad at enforcing mutual IBANs. Many IBAN-violations are so blurry that if ScrapIronIV violated it and you reported them, you would potentially face sanctions for the action of reporting them. If one were imposed, chances are that either (a) neither of you is being intentionally disruptive, and all you needed was to be sternly told to go your separate ways, so the IBAN was unnecessary, or (b) whichever one of you is intentionally antagonizing the other will find some way to game the system and violate the IBAN without actually doing so in a manner that will bring sanctions down on them, at least in the short term. Unless the dispute between the two of you has caused the community an unbelievable amount of hassle, I think imposing an IBAN would be a bad idea in general, and requesting one for yourself is not going to end well. If ScrapIronIV and you are both amenable to staying the hell away from each other, then you should just do that; if one of you wants an IBAN and the other does not, then in my experience this means that the one who wants the IBAN intends to use the IBAN as protection against sanctions for disruptive editing. I am not implying that the latter is the case, mind you; I would need to hear your response to the advice I am giving you, and ScrapIronIV's opinion on the matter, first. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

:::I was acting as if one was imposed already. I did not mention or "stalk" the editor in question, until I did the former here on this page. The user reverted an edit I made in my userspace, which bothered me, but as long as I am able to keep reverting him myself, I suppose an IBAN is unnecessary. I hope the IBAN policy can be re-written in the future to make it more effective. Thanks, anyway. ~Lord Laitinen~ (talk) 03:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

::::Then you should wait for this thread, which is already too bloated for any serious outside input, to get archived, see if the problem continues, and if it does then request a one-way sanction against them. Please always bear in mind this simple rule: IBANs suck, and unless you have a really, really good reason for doing so, never request that one be placed on you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

::::Wait, don't wait. Just re-archive it yourself, since you removed it from the archive and the only one to respond since was me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Couple of thoughts. User:ScrapIronIV, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lord_Laitinen/Kenosha_Gallery&diff=prev&oldid=724260174 this edit] to Lord Laitinen's userspace is just petty and disruptive, and in my view if you do something like that again your should get blocked to prevent further disruption. Do you hear that this was very bad judgement on your part? And User:Lord Laitinen I do not see the value to the community of the userbox that ScrapIronIV vandalized, and I question the wisdom of posting that level of personal information about yourself in Wikipedia. You should take that down as userpages are not a personal webhosts per WP:USERPAGE and if I were you I would have that revdelled to protect your privacy. Jytdog (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

{{ping|Jytdog|ScrapIronIV}} I agree about removing that user sub-page, and will request to have it deleted soon. It does not really serve a purpose anymore, as anyone can see the photos in the Kenosha article. However, it was still wrong for the user in question to have committed a bad faith edit, which I can confidently say I have never intentionally and thoughtfully done Wikipedia at any time. I ask that you leave me be (I shall do the same), and if not, I will ask Jytdog to ban or block you. I mean not to threaten or coerce you to "attack" me further, I am simply telling you that I am sick of being bothered and bullied by you, and will not stand for it any longer. I truly hope this conflict ends here today, and after a 24-hour response period passes, I will re-archive this entry. Thank you, happy editing, go with God. ~Lord Laitinen~ (talk) 23:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

:That's great that you will get rid of that page. Per your promise to disengage from the other user, it does you no good to be referring to what they did. You brought it here now let us deal with it. The best thing for each of you and the community is to steer clear of each other. Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

::I concur, and I thank you once again. I will be in touch if any serious situation arises. ~Lord Laitinen~ (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

{{archive top|1=Not an immediately helpful usertalk comment, but not a legal threat. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)}}

This IP, User talk:119.224.85.251 has made this edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boho,_County_Fermanagh&diff=prev&oldid=724749446] 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: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheCoffeeAddict&diff=prev&oldid=724751940]. TheCoffeeAddict talk|contribs 07:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

: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)

:A "strongly worded letter" is not a euphemism for a legal threat. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StronglyWordedLetter

:It is a trope that means something like: "I can't really do anything about it except express my displeasure".

:Example:

:Hooligan: "I am gonna kick ur face in!"

:Nerd: "If you touch me, I will... ehm... send you a Strongly Worded Letter!"

:This phrase has turned into a meme. [https://memegenerator.net/instance/63903844] [https://memegenerator.net/instance/20415612] [http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/36i02a] [http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/35kn8e] [https://memegenerator.net/instance/58868667] [https://imgflip.com/i/yhi1d]

:If you do receive a legal threat then please report it here so the IP can be blocked per WP:NLT, but for now I think this can be closed.

:The Quixotic Potato (talk) 13:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

For the last 24 hours this article has been repeatedly vandalised by a series of IPs and red-linked SPAs to produce [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marcus_%26_Martinus&oldid=724904132 this nonsense], which is arguably also a serious BLP violation in addition to being a blatant hoax. It needs more eyes. Voceditenore (talk) 08:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

:Or semi protection. That should work equally well, don't you think? :) TomStar81 (Talk) 09:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

::Thank you, Tom! I wasn't sure how long the vandalism had to go on for to list it at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and thought this might be faster. And... it was :) Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Voceditenore}} Your welcome. Also, as an FYI, you can post at the request for page protection page as soon as it becomes obvious that this is not a case of drive by vandalism. Alternatively, you can post here as well to get a quicker reaction if its warranted. Since this is a biography articles the rules are a little different owing to the need to protect the article from potentially damaging information, so we admins have a somewhat free-er hand when playing to protect these articles. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

{{archive top|1=Withdrawn. Ajraddatz (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)}}

Hi all. Over the last couple of days, BMK has directed incredibly uncivil and attacking comments at me both on enwiki and meta. Most recently here at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Stemoc, where he states that I do not have the necessary abilities to form a coherent opinion and that I am incompetent (more on meta at m:Grants talk:IdeaLab/Stop feeding the trolls). I would like this to stop; while I am used to being attacked by long-term trolls and the like, such as an edit to my userpage today by this account, I generally prefer to be able to participate in regular discussions without such treatment. To be clear: I am not concerned with the fact that he disagrees with me, nor that he obviously plans to oppose my steward confirmation in 2017 - those confirmations only register opinions on how I perform as a steward, and he has provided no evidence regarding any sub-standard performance by myself in that role. But I would like him to at least someone follow WP:CIVIL when he is directing comments towards me.

This is not new behaviour for him either. A quick look through his contributions shows many comments that lack basic decorum and civility, directed at any number of other editors. I can post further diffs if needed, but I expect this is well-known. I also don't want him blocked, because he does a lot of good content work and I'm not trying to stop that. But I would prefer it if I could participate in future discussions without unfounded attacks on my competence and character. Of course, if he has any actual evidence of misuse of my steward bit, I would be glad to hear it. Ajraddatz (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• This looks like a squabble to me. Ajraddatz, when you cast aspersions on call a very long-term and very experienced editor a "glorified troll", especially if you are or aspire to be a WMF admin/functionary/official, you're going to get blowback in the form of disagreement and probably a squabble. That's what this is. There's no policy against squabbles and I don't see this as incivility or personal attacks. Softlavender (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC); edited 02:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• :I have never called him a glorified troll. I have asked that he keep his comments civil. Further, a personal attack is defined as "Making of an abusive remark on or relating to somebody's person instead of providing evidence" according to wiktionary:personal attack; that is clearly what is happening here. Ajraddatz (talk) 02:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

:::"{{xt|I have never called him a glorified troll.}}" I misread that, then (and have corrected my statement now). This still looks like a run-of-the-mill [reactive] squabble to me rather than incivility or personal attacks. Softlavender (talk) 02:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

:::: Well, perhaps I need to re-evaluate my role in it then. Thanks for the opinion, and I am withdrawing this. Ajraddatz (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• The first shot was fired by Ajraddatz: "{{tq|This seems like harassment of Stemoc by BMK, after Stemoc called him a troll on AN a couple of days ago.}}" (diff). Ajraddatz then added the clueless "keep per above obviously" for this revision of User:Stemoc. It looks like the MfD has been derailed, but for the future there is a difference between a user expressing support for something and the page in question. It is obvious polemic, although people seem to think it is in support of Trump whereas I would have regarded it as a parody. At any rate, it is not reasonable to assert that BMK performed harassment then complain at ANI about pushback. Johnuniq (talk) 02:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• : It does look like that. Stemoc called him a troll, he responds by nominating Stemoc's userpage for deletion. But you're right that I am not sure, so I said that it looks like it. Ajraddatz (talk) 02:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

{{atop|Vote (X) for Change, as is his custom, has long moved on to using other IP addresses. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)}}

:{{IPuser|86.28.195.109}}. See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change. Could someone do the honours? Thanks. Incidentally, is ANI the best place for this sort of report? It's not obvious vandalism, so AIV seems inappropriate. Tevildo (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

What does this person do? Change calendar related stuff? TheDwellerCamp (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

::On the reference desks, formal trolling in the old USENET sense - that is, posting deliberately provocative and inaccurate material with the intention of causing a disturbance. Tevildo (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

:::I was answering the question. I believe that's the point of the refdesk? I can't help you don't like the answer. 86.28.195.109 (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

:Will someone actually do an IP check?! I am not a sock. Just because the reported presumably disagrees ideologically with me, is not reason for a block. 86.28.195.109 (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|Blocked by NeilN as the editor is WP:NOTHERE. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)}}

User:Alif kha has been making personal attacks at {{u|CAPTAIN RAJU}}'s page. Please block. Special:Contributions/Alif_kha. I don't know if Revdel is needed in this case. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

:Blocked per WP:NOTHERE. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{archive top|This is going nowhere fast, and certainly not yielding anything productive. All parties are reminded that civility is expected from everyone. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 21:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)}}

This administrator keeps [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&diff=724832140&oldid=724832078 warring] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&diff=724831988&oldid=724831873 with] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&diff=724831723&oldid=724831561 Calidum] to show his superiority to others. He changed from "posted" to "pull blurb" over and over; he [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&diff=724826798&oldid=724826550 reverted] one of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&diff=724824547&oldid=724824496 my edits]. Or maybe the fault is Calidum, but TRM is also responsible. --George Ho (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

:Nothing to do with "superiority" just English language. It is typical to post notices at ITN in the heading to garner attention. Calidum has misunderstood that, as has Ho. Move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• Boomerang for bringing this frivolous complaint to ANI. Absolutely no proof of edit warring here.--WaltCip (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

:: What about [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&diff=724831561&oldid=724831009][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&diff=724831873&oldid=724831723][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&diff=724832078&oldid=724831988]? Frivolous? --George Ho (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• :Second frivolous complaint in quick succession. I'm close to lodging a real complaint. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

:{{Ping|The Rambling Man|Calidum}} Knock it off with the edit warring. Both of you are experienced editors and should know better. Calidum, stop making [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&diff=724832184&oldid=724832140 personal attacks]. That's uncalled for. {{Ping|WaltCip}} George Ho provided diffs with his [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=724832636&oldid=724830996#The_Rambling_Man.27s_warring_with_editors.2C_including_Calidum initial report]. Let's not inflame the situation. Mike V • Talk 21:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

::Seriously, just find a hobby you lot. This is nothing, I couldn't care less that Calidum called me a dick, I couldn't care less that he doesn't understand how ITN headers work. However, I could care that Ho keeps on keeping on until he thinks he can get me and that's too much. Time to stop Georgie boy, I'm sick of it. If you continue, I'll see you back here for a ban. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

:: Don't worry, Mike V; the issue is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&diff=724832335&oldid=724832184 probably resolved]. Nevertheless, that doesn't leave both off the hook yet, does it? George Ho (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

:::No, George, that's right, keep sniffing for blood. What is your purpose here? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

And please, when someone can be bothered to action this, please go to ITN and assess consensus on the Gordie posting which now has a strong consensus to pull, I mean Really Strong. Thanks all, bar Ho. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of the merit of the complaint, an accused is hardly the most objective judge of it. Defending oneself is one thing. Using bullying, intimidation, threats, and insult-just-short-of-personal-attack is quite another. I strongly object to these tactics, and to the community's tolerance (and even encouragement) of them. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

: About whom are you talking, Mandruss: me or TRM? George Ho (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

::TRM. Sorry, I thought that was obvious enough. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

:::I second with Mandruss. All of these attacks are immature and childish. Feeling compelled to reply to every comment Ho makes is clearly a child's work at play. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

:::: So will there be action against TRM, is admonishment enough, or can we do nothing about it? George Ho (talk) 23:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

:::::TRM is probably within the letter of policy and behavioral guidelines, so no sanction is likely. He has been around long enough to know exactly where the line is and what he can probably get away with. Many, many editors know the difference between the letter and the spirit, that acceptable behavior cannot be fully legislated any more than morality can be. It would be significant progress if more of them spoke up in situations like this, rather than staying silent for any of a number of reasons. Without that, TRM and others can continue to believe that a majority of the community supports their behavior. People need to take a stand, or they are just as much to blame for the results as the offenders themselves. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

::::::I mean, it crosses the line with civility and is has inched away the line of personal attacks, but considering everyone loses their cool I don't think a sanction is necessary. Unless this kind of behavior has happened before which should be addressed in my opinion, it's best we let this thread go as it is and wait. Ho, I would consider ignoring all comments by TRM. Don't provoke him of making more attacks like this. Just let him be as it will all go back to him. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 00:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

::::::: There have been complaints about him, Mirela: January 2014 discussion, another January 2014 discussion December 2014 (somehow resolved(?) after very short block), discussion that went nowhere, failed proposal on him, August 2014 discussion, etc. But I'll post my past conflicts with him. George Ho (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

::::::::In fairness, since you mentioned my ID here, the end of the three-way IBAN was graciously initiated by TRM, and we have had few troubles since the IBAN was lifted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

::::::::: In fairness, too, he and I were okay with each other at Wikipedia:Peer review/Sam and Diane/archive2. Somehow, I didn't see how his behavior later then goes... erratic maybe? George Ho (talk) 01:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

::::::::::I don't understand it either. Real-life stresses bleeding into Wikipedia work, maybe? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

:: {{outdent|8}} I tried a complaint about him, which failed because I was accused of making a "drama" out of it. George Ho (talk) 01:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

:::Now hold on. It failed as "Not something requiring admin tools." The closer never mentioned drama.. Moriori (talk) 02:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

:: BTW, I don't know whether I was "disruptive" when he scolded me for making numerous nominations at ITN without contributing to articles much. Also, he called my attempts to quit Wikipedia an unhelpful "pseudo-quit" because I didn't quit soon enough. About my quitting... that's a long story. George Ho (talk) 01:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

:::Gosh, I didn't think it was that bad. Something must be done. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

::::Gosh, no. Sick and tired of being dragged to drama boards for inconsequential bust-ups that don't impact anyone or anything apart from giving certain individuals ammo to go on the blood lust. Whatever. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• TRM has been becoming very testy at ITN in the last few months. It's not to a point of anything that admins can enforce (it would have been a RFCU issue but that's gone) and the current situation should be a trout, but this is getting very commonplace there that makes it extremely hostile (particularly when it comes to stories with a potential national bias or favoring) and I feel that if this same pattern starts happening, something needs to be done if it should happen again. --MASEM (t) 00:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• As an aside, I have pulled the article from ITN and have posted it to RD. Thanks, Nakon 00:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Is there any evidence that the viewing public would actually care about this little tempest? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• I haven't seen any viewer pushback, but it's important that we follow policy in these instances so that we can avoid any accusations of impropriety in editorial concerns. Nakon 00:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• More specifically, do you imagine that anyone outside the list of editors on that page really care? And you know what? You could fix this by getting rid of the "blurb" concept altogether and simply link to the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• I, as well as the rest of the regular ITN admins, have nothing against the posting of the subject. ITN admins are, by definition, neutral. If they have any stake in the articles, they must recuse all administrative actions regarding the subject. However, the posting to ITN must be submitted in regard to established policies. If a contributor supported the inclusion of the article, they must not include the article into ITN. This is a basic tenet of consensus on the project. I'm not in a position to suggest article view stats. Nakon 01:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Additionally, the "blurb" content can be reviewed by submitting a request on the ITN talk page. Thanks, Nakon 01:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• It all depends on how badly you would like to curb the bickering, which is usually either about notability, of course; and about whether to "blurb" or not, which serves no useful purpose, unless you think the perpetual arguments about it are useful. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Geez, can TRM get along with anybody? Seems like there's a "TRM causing problems" thread every few weeks, each time with a different editor. pbp 02:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

:: If everybody's having similar problems with TRM, shall we take this to ARBCOM again? He's been the subject of one case before; we can make him the subject of another case again. What do you say? George Ho (talk) 02:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

:::I say that, as one of the two parties involved in this complaint, and as the target of TRM's abusive behavior, you can't be objective here, and therefore not a good person to be making such a suggestion. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

:::To clarify, as I gather you're multilingual, I'm not saying you're a bad person because you made the suggestion. Sometimes the language is inadequate to the task. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

:::George - as someone with enormous experience of your behaviour, and history, I just want to say this: No, drop it. It's not important, and if it is someone else will address it. Dropping the stick, remember? You're on a bad path here. Begoon ^talk 14:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Can we please conclude this, or advance it to the joke forum so I can decide whether I need to retire (permanently, of course) or not? I really can't take the harassment from Ho any longer, I may need to take extra-Wikipedia actions. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

:If you're threatening to take "extra-Wikipedia actions", maybe you should retire, or at least cool your jets for awhile. I'm also dismayed that you don't take repeated claims to be more civil more seriously. pbp 19:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

::You're the kid from Simple, right? You have an agenda as long as my arm and my leg to get me. I have no time for you. Please stick to the programme (program). I'm utterly dismayed that you (like one of the worms I've mentioned at ITN) turn up out of nowhere to hawk here at ANI, like a drama monger. Good for you, if that's what turns you on. I prefer to keep improving Wikipedia, and sometimes that demands actions that some people dislike. I would say I'm sorry about that, but I'm not. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

:::There are ways that you could get as much done while being a lot more civil, and I am dismayed that you fail to realize it, even though I am hardly the first person to tell you that. A textbook example: there was no reason at all to call me a "kid". And since you bring up Simple Wikipedia, you also displayed a lack of cooperation and an arrogance there too that I tried to break you of, but you persisted, and now you're even worse here. You can't pawn this off on me or Ho or the myriad of other people whom you have disagreed with. A large chunk of the responsibility for the situation you find yourself in now rests solely with you. pbp 20:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

::::I have no idea why you're here or why you're contributing to this thread. If you wish to drag it all back to issues you had with your inability to edit collegiately at Simple Wikipedia, that's fine, although a little odd. I left that project with ten times the amount of quality content I found it. And you were blocked, several times, right? As for here, I have no "situation" at all. If you et al wish to pursue an agenda, please do so, but be advised that ANI isn't the appropriate venue, nor is the truly sad "she said he said" approach taken here. And for what it's worth, the original issue here has been resolved, in alignment with my edits. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

{{Clear}}

{{archivetop|1=Don't get so fixated on "rules" that it blinds you to objections and don't use AN/I to try to punish the other side of a content dispute. Some of the material removed was sourced and other editors did ask for smaller edits to better distinguish what was sourced, and the response of the OP instead was edit warring. Does not seem to be a new editor, so the complaints about driving away new editors ring hollow. Don't use BLP policy as a shield for edit warring; the motivation was not protecting against unsourced contentious material but rather [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bobby_Farnham&diff=prev&oldid=723735440 disrespect for the article subject]. Fences&Windows 08:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)}}

...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)

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

::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)

:::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)

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)

::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)

:::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)

• {{ec}} Am I the only one that sees that this IP was edit warring, removing well sourced material?

::1. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bobby_Farnham&diff=724399985&oldid=724361938]

::2. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bobby_Farnham&diff=724358292&oldid=721369713]

::3. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bobby_Farnham&diff=724518404&oldid=724402095]

:with {{yo|Athomeinkobe}} adding the Coup de grâce to the edit war

::4. here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bobby_Farnham&diff=724553838&oldid=724551119]? Toddst1 (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

::: 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)

:::: 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)

:::::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)

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)

:: Looks to me like you ( ip: 47.55.192.66 ) were [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bobby_Farnham&diff=next&oldid=724358292 | 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)

:::Nobody else feels the need to close this as a content dispute? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

{{archivebottom}}

{{archive top|status= Blocked| (non-admin closure) IP blocked by {{u|C.Fred}} for 31 hours for Edit Warring --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 03:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)}}

• {{article links|Stop Islamization of America}}
• {{user links|2a02:a442:3456:0:5453:8e5a:f119:44d}}

Having difficulty with a POV-pushing IP editor at Stop Islamization of America. User started by removing sourced labels from the lead (extremist, Islamophobic, etc.) in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stop_Islamization_of_America&type=revision&diff=724998373&oldid=724943660 these edits]. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stop_Islamization_of_America&diff=724998505&oldid=724998373 reverted], and the IP [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stop_Islamization_of_America&diff=724998708&oldid=724998505 re-reverted]. IP changes section header from "Ideology" (as covered by RS) to Criticisms [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stop_Islamization_of_America&diff=724998806&oldid=724998708 here]. I again [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stop_Islamization_of_America&diff=724998972&oldid=724998806 reverted] for removal of sourced material with POV intent. IP made a string of edits after discussion on my user talk page ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stop_Islamization_of_America&type=revision&diff=725003058&oldid=724998972]) which we're altogether unconstructive. I made a partial revert [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stop_Islamization_of_America&type=revision&diff=725004517&oldid=725003058 here] (revert Criticism section header; added ISIL abbreviation; remove Facebook sentence and ref as it is not verified and does not conform with WP:SPS). I also started discussion on the article talk page regarding group's self-description ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AStop_Islamization_of_America&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=725004839&oldid=724951047]). IP editor made recent revert [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stop_Islamization_of_America&type=revision&diff=725006235&oldid=725004517 here], which also included an unsourced block of text about the group's views.

Meanwhile, on my user talk page, the IP called me "personally invested" because I'm a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EvergreenFir&diff=724999085&oldid=724927996 Muslim] (later corrected to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EvergreenFir&diff=724999085&oldid=724927996 conservative Leftist]) and asked me to "put your personal feelings aside and try to keep Wikipedia as NPOV as possible." User confirmed decision that I'm a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EvergreenFir&diff=725000463&oldid=724999432 conservative Leftist] and later called me a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EvergreenFir&diff=725006649&oldid=725001128 vandal].

Since it's not "clear vandalism", AIV seemed inappropriate. So here I am posting on ANI. Given the number of reverts, I will also be notifying the editor about 3RR. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

While typing this, more occurred. {{U|C.Fred}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stop_Islamization_of_America&diff=725007256&oldid=725006235 reverted] the IP editor. IP editor [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stop_Islamization_of_America&diff=725007635&oldid=725007256 reverted] again and made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stop_Islamization_of_America&type=revision&diff=725007866&oldid=725007635 more edits]. Refers to C.Fred and I as vandals again and comments on "PC academia" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stop_Islamization_of_America&diff=725008861&oldid=725004839 here]. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

:I tried to correct a very POV first paragraph ('extremist', 'islamophobic') with a more NPOV version.

:Criticism of SIOA's ideology was labeled 'Ideology'. So I added a section 'Ideology' with a concise NPOV description of SIOA's ideology and moved the original 'Ideology' contents to 'Criticism'. Added the group's website as source.

:In this, I was hindered by user User:EvergreenFir, who was deleting my content repeatedly and trying to impose his POV version. By lack of a better word, I choose 'vandalism'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A442:3456:0:5453:8E5A:F119:44D (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

::The organization's self-description hardly qualifies as neutral. —C.Fred (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

:::WP:SPS are fine if attributed. The problem is that the IP editor doesn't understand that NPOV means neutrally describing sources with due weight. Instead they think it means describing the topic neutrally, which in this case means using the language/terms of an Islamophobic group themselves and whitewashing them. Wikipedia describes what WP:RS say, preferably WP:SECONDARY ones. It does not try to cast an organization in a specific light. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

::::{{U|TracyMcClark}} reverted the IP again [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stop_Islamization_of_America&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=725009352&oldid=725007866 here]. Any reversions by the IP after this are clear edit warring violations. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

:::::It is quoted as such: a self-description. The opinions of scholars, also, are quoted as such. As such, it is way more NPOV this way. You call SIOA Islamophobic. That indicates a very biased opinion about SIOA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A442:3456:0:5453:8E5A:F119:44D (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• IP Blocked for 31 hours for edit warring. Clear violation of 3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

::Thank you {{U|C.Fred}}. For the record, IP editor added POV statements [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stop_Islamization_of_America&type=revision&diff=725013110&oldid=725009352 here] which ClueBot reverted. They then undid Tracy's edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stop_Islamization_of_America&diff=725013167&oldid=725013117 here], which C.Fred reverted. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

:::...What the hell is a conservative leftist?142.105.159.60 (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

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)

::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 {{diff2|713403263|claimed to be}} the son of the article subject. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

::::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 {{diff2|698273489|here}} (in January 2016) and {{diff2|724530733|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)

::::P.S. - I am also the editor who {{diff2|698271479|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)

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

• WP:BOOMERANG Give him some time to cool off.142.105.159.60 (talk) 02:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

:::This dispute has been ongoing (in slow motion, and with the OP using various IPs) since August 2013. "Some time to cool off" will not resolve the issue. General Ization ^Talk 12:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

{{atop|status=No action|The consensus is that no administrative action is needed here. The discussion of PROD policy belongs at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion, and the rest of the discussion here is rapidly starting to generate more heat than light. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)}}

I had prodded an article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solutions_for_Dreamers&oldid=723867003 here], and literally three hours before it was due to expire, it was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solutions_for_Dreamers&type=revision&diff=724949032&oldid=723917525 deprodded] by User:Kvng. Normally, I wouldn't care too much, but he has a series of edits that are nothing but last-minute deprods or removals of expired prods contrary to policy. Articles are unnecessarily having to go to AfD because of the actions of this editor (who maintains a running list of articles on his page that he has deprodded). I think the user's zeal is coming ahead of adherence to policy and adequate review of the articles prior to deprod. I went through only the June deprods and found the following situations:

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Croptracker&diff=prev&oldid=724951210 Deprod]. 4.5 hours to go. Not that the nom matters, but DGG prodded this, and he's generally very lenient (in my view) about retaining content, and certainly has a grasp of notability policy.
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Girls%27_Generation-SHY&type=revision&diff=724950619&oldid=723882194 Deprod], five hours to go, went to AfD.
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Granny_hair_trend&type=revision&diff=724950474&oldid=723810372 This prod] was removed 5 hours after expiration.
• As was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kings_County_Democratic_County_Committee&type=revision&diff=724949602&oldid=723820534 this one], 3 hours after.
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USTExchange&type=revision&diff=724948693&oldid=723894756 Five hours remaining], unsourced since October of 2012.
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amazon_Simple_Email_Service&type=revision&diff=724809996&oldid=723465995 Prod expired], said it should be merged in edit comment, didn't execute the redirect.
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Initiative_for_Global_Access_to_Medicines&type=revision&diff=724809627&oldid=723537077 Expired prod removed], article sent to AfD.
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foamy_Ed&type=revision&diff=724428972&oldid=723326101 Removed prod], five hours to go]. Claimed "controversial due to sources" when there were all of two, and the band certainly didn't meet WP:NBAND.
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeff_Fuchs&type=revision&diff=724428925&oldid=723331584 Removed prod], five hours to go. Prodder indicated that there was heavy COI, and whether or not that is the case, perusal of the sources shows a lot of reliance on WP:SPS and non-independent sources.
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DXJR&type=revision&diff=724427919&oldid=723286967 Removed expired prod], article unsourced since 2011.
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zachary_Bogue&type=revision&diff=724427827&oldid=723394218 Removed prod, four hours left], claimed notability, but it's actually a really good case of WP:NOTINHERITED, as the subject is Marissa Mayer's husband, and all the sources are from articles about her.
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malayan_Hymn&type=revision&diff=723931712&oldid=722952902 One day left], no explanation given, sent ot AfD by Lemongirl, another editor who has a good grasp of policy.
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malayan_Hymn&type=revision&diff=723931712&oldid=722952902 Removed expired PROD], article has been unsourced since 2007.
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bushnell_Airport&type=revision&diff=724951363&oldid=723812134 Removed expired PROD], said to consider merge in edit comment, did nothing.

Discussions have been had several times on his talk page, all instigated by different editors:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kvng#Lots_of_deprods_with_almost_no_improvements
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kvng#DEPROD_rationale
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kvng#Please_stop
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kvng#ExpoMarketing
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kvng#Please_stop_2
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kvng#Team_H2politO_deprodding

and in every case those editors have taken issue with the indiscriminate deprodding going on. So it isn't just me, and it isn't a new or small issue.

My list above was limited to deprods in the first 12 days of June - I didn't go back further, but this should be enough to indicate the extent of the issue. There were 15 articles on the list, but only 2 were unambiguously good removals (and were deprodded well in advance of the PROD deadline). Personal views aside, the role of a deprod patroller is to act in accordance with policy, not execute drive-by removals on every article he looks at, which is exactly what is happening here. The extent of the patrol contribs shows there is not a single article which the user actually patrolled that did not have its prod removed. Policy states that when a PROD has expired, the article should be deleted, not kept. Therefore, I would like this user removed from PROD patrolling, and his deprods reviewed, because he clearly cannot edit within the confines of policy. MSJapan (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

:This is the policy: Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion#Objecting. What part is being broken? Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

::The instances where no explanation was given contravenes #1. Also, don't minimize the problem by claiming it's restricted to a subsection of policy. There is no reason to de-tag a completed PROD - at that point it is in the administrators' court. Moreover, a lot of the issue is timing; this is not being done on day 1, 2, 3 or even 4; it's being done at T minus 5 hours or less, or after the prod has expired, in addition to the poor rationales. MSJapan (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

:My WP:PRODPATROLLING has been discussed at length at Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion#Deprod_criticisms. What specific policy is it that you believe I have violated? I was not aware that there was anything prohibiting or discouraging deprodding after 7 days. ~Kvng (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

:* Well, can you explain why you de-prodded Malayan Hymn with no rationale for doing so - an article that was not only unsourced but had been for nine years? Or DXJR - still unsourced. There are other examples above. De-prodding unsourced articles with no reason just creates work for everyone else. I would at least expect a detailed rationale for doing so, "probably notable" and similar is not enough. Laura Jamieson (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

:::I have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMalayan_Hymn&type=revision&diff=724967984&oldid=724952652 added my reason to the talk page]. There is actually no obligation to provide a reason when deprodding though it is my personal policy to always do so. Sorry about the omission. Please feel free to contact me on my talk page or contribute to the discussion I linked to above with any other concerns. ~Kvng (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

:::: No, there's no obligation to - but if you're de-prodding something that is very possibly non-notable, or is unsourced, it's a really good idea. Here's another example - Pokemon Plush Community. Obviously non-notable, unsourced web forum. Your rationale was "potentially controversial immediate prod of new article not meeting speedy deletion criteria". It actually could have been speedy deleted, and it should have been. I appreciate that a lot of your deprods are redirects of non-notable music articles (quite correct too) but it does appear you need to be more careful. Laura Jamieson (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

:::::With regards to Pokemon Plush Community, you might find useful background at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol#Prompt_prods_of_new_pages_by_new_editors. I felt it potentially controversial to WP:BITE with a PROD within minutes of article creation. To my surprise, I've since learned that there is a clear consensus at WP:NPP this is routine and accepted practice. You won't see me doing any more deprodding using that rationale. ~Kvng (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

::::It's fairly standard for people to look at Prods at the last minute: for one thing, the obvious place to start is the top of the list, & for another, that's when it's urgent to contest anything that one wishes to contest. It would however be nice if we had an automatic way of notify people their Prod has been removed, so they can decide if they want to go the AfD. The individual Prod logs are helpful, but if one does a lot, that makes another place to check -- I know I rarely have a chance to check mine. DGG ( talk ) 19:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC) .

:::::Why not watchlist your proposed deletions? ~Kvng (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

::::::Or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?namespace=0&tagfilter=&target=User%3ADGG%2FPROD+log&title=Special%3ARecentChangesLinked PROD log related changes] (prod-specific watchlist, basically) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

If I decided to remove all prod tags as soon as they were added to articles, I don't think saying "but WP:PROD doesn't require an explanation" would be sufficient to protect me from sanction. So it's not true that there cannot be any objection to problematic deprodding. After all, for prod to do what it was intended to do, it has to be a functional process. Now, I'm not saying at all that Kvng's behavior is even close to such an extreme, but the many complaints/objections/concerns should beg the question of at what point intervention makes sense? If Kvng is the only time this has come up, it might make sense to hash out here at ANI, but it might also make sense to take this as an impetus to add something to WP:PROD including a line about e.g. "community confidence in an editor's judgment with regard to [proposed] deletion" or "a pattern of deprods the community finds to be excessive or indiscriminate" or the like. There seems to be strong consensus for a low bar to deprodding (myself included), so it would have to be very careful wording indeed, but would need to allow for intervention, too. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

And in yet another instance of policy ignorance, Kvng is now trying to incorporate [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FSolutions_for_Dreamers&type=revision&diff=724979480&oldid=724977817 talk page discussion] started as a result of the AfD notice into an AfD, by pointing to the talk page of the paid editor who created the article and who is now blocked. MSJapan (talk) 21:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

:Happy to learn. I was trying to be helpful. I didn't realize a paid editor was involved. ~Kvng (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree strongly with the comments of User:Rhododendrites in that we need to hash this out as a policy matter.

I can see that we have here an editor who dislikes proposed deletion. There has been a recent discussion at New Page Patrol talk in which User:Kvng objected to the prompt PRODding of submissions by new editors, arguing that this was biting the newcomers. Kvng preferred to tag proddable submissions by new editors with smiley faces, give them welcome messages, and offer gentle encouragement. No one objected to welcoming them. There were questions about the impact of leaving the proddable articles in mainspace. This discussion resulted in a suggestion that inadequate new articles be moved to draft space. This was discussed at the Idea Lab and at the Articles for Creation talk page, and there was pushback at both. However, it now appears that Kvng dislikes PRODs in general. Aside from the merits (about which there was argument) against prompt prodding of submissions by new editors, it appears that they don’t like proposed deletion.

There is no rule against a single editor removing a PROD tag a few hours before it is scheduled to expire. PROD is intended for uncontroversial deletions, and PROD tag may, in accordance with the letter of the law, be removed for any reason or for no reason, the removal of the tag being itself evidence of controversy. That is, the conduct in question is consistent with the letter of the law. The questions are whether this editor is pushing the letter of the law in a way that violates the spirit of the law, and whether it is appropriate in Wikipedia to sanction an editor for conduct that is within the letter of the law. (Ignore All Rules is normally used to justify an action that advances the encyclopedia, not to sanction an editor.)

I would like to hear an explanation from Kvng, but, at the same time, I don’t think that there is a wrong that justifies administrative action, and so I would also like to hear an explanation of why Kvng’s behavior should be sanctioned.

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

:I think it is unfair to accuse me of blanket dislike of PROD. I dislike the use of PROD for potentially controversial deletions including cases where there is a reasonable alternative to deletion. I have significant WP:AFD experience so I think I have a good feel for what "potentially controversial" means. I believe WP:PRODPATROL serves an important function and apparently I am the most active member of this semi-active project. I don't believe I am violating either the spirit or letter of PROD policy. Before deprodding I do a careful review. I always have a specific reason for deprodding. In certain cases, I do make improvements to the articles I deprod but with a couple of dozen of these to review per day, my ability to do that is somewhat limited. I have listened to and been responsive to complaints and have changed my behavior in response to consensus and reasonable and specific requests. I do dislike the way new editors are WP:BITEN by PROD at WP:NPP but there is a consensus otherwise regarding this behavior and I respect that. ~Kvng (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

:Of the 15 cases I noted above, 7 of them were removals of expired prods. That is almost half of the entire list. I don't feel like going through the 500+ articles on Kvng's deprod list, but considering there are 400 deprodded articles in a two-month span, if 200 of those are expired prods, that is not inconsiderable. I would also note that of the three deprods in February 2016, 2 were deleted at AfD subsequently. The third should have been sent, but wasn't until I just did, so that won't count yet. The rest of the monthly lists also exhibit several subsequent AfD deletions, which also shows that the deprod was not appropriate.

:As there is nothing in the PROD policy that explicitly permits removal of expired PRODS by non-admins, this is definitely a process violation. I've PRODded plenty of things here, and only once prior to this incident (in a decade of editing) have I ever run into an editor removing expired PRODs. I might simply be lucky, but the template precludes tthe behavior if one reads it. Wikilawyering that it's not explicitly stated doesn't make it permissible.

:If, as you say, "Kvng doesn't like PROD", then Kvng is not an appropriate neutral reviewer. Therefore, he should not be patrolling PRODs, and I don't think he is simply going to stop because he is asked. Six discussions on his talk page and one on the PROD talk (as linked above) in the span of a month or so failed to cause either an acknowledgement of the problem (as seen by multiple parties), or a change in the behavior (as evidenced by its continuance). Therefore, it would seem that sanctions are necessary to cause the change, since as presented, this is textbook "what is ANI for?".

:Perhaps most importantly, this pattern of behavior renders the entire PROD process irrelevant, and as a process meant to lighten the load at AfD (especially since participation there is significantly lower than in the past), PROD has to work. It is a fairly fundamental part of Wikipedia's functioning, and editors cannot be permitted to interfere with that unilaterally. MSJapan (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

::For anyone interested, I do keep open records of what I have deprodded, whether it subsequently goes to AfD and the result there. My assessment is that I deprod about a quarter of the proposals I review. The vast majority of my deprods to not go to AfD. Of those that do, a good percentage are kept and WP:SNOW deletes happen only in the rare cases where I find I was mistaken (and I promptly contribute a Delete !vote). ~Kvng (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

:As an example of a further part of the problem, in the case of Ali Ahmad Fayyad, Kvng provided three sources on the talk page, two of which were to HighBeam (and thus not accessible to anyone without access), and placed none of them into the article. While it is not necessary for a deprodder to improve an article, when he or she is one of the few who has access to a source and bases their decision on that, it should be incumbent on the deprodder to add the material to back up the decision, especially because no one else can assess the source. What's to stop anyone from pasting a random set of paywall links into any article talk to "assert its notability"? MSJapan (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

::Many others have requested that I improve the articles that I deprod. Given the number of PRODs I review, I do not consider this a reasonable request. The compromise I agreed to was that if I deprod based on sources I find, that I add them to the article or the article's talk page. I am not aware of any issue using HighBeam sourcing. If you want access to the full content, visit the WP:LIBRARY and sign up for your own free account. ~Kvng (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

:::Your provision of Highbeam links was in violation of the required citation format at WP:Highbeam, particularly, no bare URLS, and provide original citations. You simply cannot expect other people to chase after your citations by requesting access. MSJapan (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

:: {{ec}} Based on the extensive discussion at WT:NPP with this editor I have the uncomfortable feeling this was POINTY behavior. If no one else had objected to the prods and they DePRODed with no explanation and no intention to go back and handle the problems with those articles then a simple, clear statement not to do so any more should be enough. If they continue this behavior then sanctions are in order. Jbh^Talk 22:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

:::I wanted to see WP:NPP behavior more in line with my reading of NPP policy, specifically WP:BITE, WP:BEFORE. It took discussion for me to understand how NPP really works and I would prefer things were different and I did try to make a case for changing. The consensus is clear and I respect that and I thank you for your patience. A batch of deprods of flawed articles from new editors may have looked WP:POINTY but that was before the NPP discussions. I am truly concerned about WP:BITE and do try to avoid the lure of theory and other pointy behavior. I have been on WP a long time and have a clean record. Please extend some good faith to me. ~Kvng (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

::::If the bulk of these were from before the discussion we had at NPP then I do apologize. However, after that discussion I would think that you should have a firmer understanding of why articles are PRODDed at NPP and would not then go on to do dePRODs which undercut that quality control purpose about which consensus was clear. Jbh^Talk 23:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

::{{ec}} Response to User:Kvng - above you wrote that you object to the use of PROD for potentially controversial deletions. The reason why PRODs sit for a while, is exactly to give people who actually care about the article time to contest it; this was carefully thought out by the community. What we the community has decided is that a PROD that has expired without being contested exactly means that deletion is not controversial. So that is not a valid basis for removing an expired PROD - will you please confirm that you won't remove them anymore? As to your removing PRODs when they are still pending, are you hearing the feedback that your judgement is off here? Jytdog (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

:::I don't think we have the right stakeholders here. I've started a discussion on this at Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion#Deprod_after_7_days ~Kvng (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

::::User:Kvng your behavior is under discussion here and your removing expired PRODs is definitely outside the boundaries of acceptable behavior here, and the feedback you are getting is that your judgement is off. Again, will you agree to stop removing expired PRODs and do you hear the feedback you are getting? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

:::::I don't see the harm in deprodding expired proposals. There's potential good in that it relieves some administrative backlog evaluating these proposals - remember administrators are supposed to evaluate, not just delete expired PRODS. Anyway, there's no clear policy statement about this so I have opened a discussion to resolve this and will happily adhere to whatever is worked out there. ~Kvng (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

::(big edit conflict -- typed this up an hour ago but didn't save) {{tq|I think I have a good feel for what "potentially controversial" means}} - But you have several other editors challenging you on this now. Reaffirming your own self-confidence doesn't instill confidence in others (just the opposite).

::I have only one example that's ready-to-mind because it was the one I was involved with: ExpoMarketing. I spent time analyzing the sources, looking for others, etc. before prodding, then you decided it was controversial because it looked like it cited sources (they were all press releases/primary) and because of the existence of ghits. Granted, you went on to !vote delete at the subsequent AfD, but clearly it just wasted both of our time for it to have to go through AfD.

::I'll reiterate that I don't think there's a sanction needed here, but it would behoove you, I think, to consider that you may have a looser definition of "controversial" than others. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

:::Yes, I make mistakes but I try to correct quickly if it is clear that I am wrong. Sorry that I wasted your time. There has actually been at least one case where I cast an initial delete !vote on an article I deproded and the AfD result turns out to be keep. The extra steps and checks and balances can be useful. ~Kvng (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Close with no action taken: There's no policy or guideline to prevent Kvng from doing what he's doing, and most of the complaint seems to be coming from a single editor who just doesn't like it. {{ping|MSJapan}}, perhaps you should ask that WP:PROD be reworded to discourage removal of expired PRODs. pbp 22:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

::Strongly disagree; I am heading toward making proposing sanctions, depending on how Kvng responds. Jytdog (talk) 23:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

:::Indeed. Looks like 5-6 people raising objections in this thread alone (nevermind the others). Granted, some of us have said sanctions probably aren't needed, but it's obviously not one editor who "just doesn't like it". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

As a result of the discussion Kvng opened on PROD, I have the following, from the third paragraph of the PROD page: "A nominated article is marked for at least seven days; if nobody objects, it is considered by an uninvolved admin, who reviews the article and may delete it or may remove the PROD tag." KVNG is not an ininvolved admin, so he should not be removing those tags, period. By doing so, he is violating a clearly stated policy, and as a PROD patroller, he should know the policy. He does not. MSJapan (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

:I don't see anything you quoted prohibiting removal of the tag after 7 days. To be clear, I don't make a habit of this. It happened recently because I was away from WP for a few days. Instead of trying to nail me, please join the new discussion I have started to try improve/clarify the policy. It shouldn't take long. ~Kvng (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

::(ec) - I have to doubt your interpretation, MSJapan. WP:DEPROD does not lack clarity & suggests anyone can remove the tag. Perhaps you might continue reading below P3. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

:::I did, so let me drop another line in here. Step 3 of the prod process states: "The article is first checked and then deleted by an administrator seven days after nomination (or any time after seven days that an administrator reviews the article). It may be undeleted upon request. If the reviewing administrator does not agree with the deletion they may remove the PROD tag instead of deleting the article." Emphasis mine, but the policy requires an admin review after seven days have passed, not unilateral removal because an admin hasn't reviewed it yet. MSJapan (talk) 23:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

::::It would be overly WP:BUREAU to say that for the first 7 days anyone can remove a prod, then between day 7 and review by an admin, only an admin can remove it, but then once deleted, anyone can request a WP:REFUND if they object after deletion. Basically the 7 days is to give time for objections, if anyone objects, even after deletion, the prod is cancelled, and the article must be send to AfD before deletion. An admin backlog just means there is more time to object before the initial deletion. Monty₈₄₅ 23:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is not about someone violating policy, but a disagreement with the policy. I think that rather than ANI this would be better resolved by proposing a change to policy to address the perceived flaws. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 23:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

:I have started that discussion. ~Kvng (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• The number of bluelinks under User:Kvng/Deprod demonstrates that USer:Kvng deprods are justified. The gist of the complaint here reads to me as a complaint asserting that if the Prod patrollers can't keep up with the Prodders than the Prod patrollers should shut up. No. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

:* I disagree. Everything I listed was bluelinked, some of it should have been deleted, and some of what was not deleted is unsourced for almost a decade. The existence of bluelinks might actually be a really good indicator that no one is bothering with those articles, and that they should have been left to be deleted. Also, you seem to be insinuating that the prodders are deletionists and the prod patrollers are inclusionists who exist to exclusively rescue articles from being prodded. That's not what prod patrollers do, by your own rules. Prod patrollers are supposed to assess articles, not wage war against the deletionists for the sake of keeping unencyclopedic material on the encyclopedia because it exists. Perhaps a rephrase is in order? MSJapan (talk) 00:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

:::Editor neglect is not a valid reason for deletion. It is true that a good proportion of the bluelinks in my prod log are now redirects. Some of this is my own doing as I do a lot of bold redirects and merges as part of my patrolling activities. This is something that prodders need to consider doing WP:BEFORE proposing for deletion. ~Kvng (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

{{archive top|result=withdrawn, not getting consensus Jytdog (talk) 02:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)}}

• I propose that Kvng be TBANed from removing PROD tags for one month which should be enough time to get clarify on the policy. Their refusal to acknowledge a) the feedback from the community that their judgement in removing PRODs is not good and b) that removing expired PROD tags frustrates the process and to acknowledge the feedback from the community that their judgement in removing PRODs is not good means that they should not be PROD patrolling; this is going to cause continued disruption if they continue to do it. They can of course participate in discussions about changing PROD. If after they return their de-PRODs are again found problematic the TBAN can be made permanent. Jytdog (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC))

:Oppose- The PROD policy specifically allows anyone to remove the PROD as long is it is present. See the third paragraph of the policy where it says, "The first objection kills the PROD, and anyone may object as long as the PROD tag is present." -- GB fan 00:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

:Oppose. Get the policy sorted out. It's not clear to me that Kvng has broken either the spirit or letter of current policy. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

:Oppose at least for now. In my opinion Kvng is complying with WP:PROD policy. A prod can be challenged/removed at any time, and there is no obligation under policy to fix an article after challenging a prod. Based on Kvng's prod challenge log, (which is a great practice) we can see that a substantial majority of the challenges don't end up with deletion, though a fair number do end up getting redirected. Since Kvng is clearly acting in good faith, and even inviting scrutiny, I oppose any topic ban. If we want to change policy to create additional obligations when challenging a prod, or want to add additional obligations specifically for prolific prod challengers, that would be fine, but until then, I think Kvng is on the right side of existing policy. Monty₈₄₅ 00:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

:Support - Step 3 of the PROD procedure states plainly that after 7 days, an uninvolved admin must review the article to decide whether to delete it, and the template itself states clearly that an article may be deleted after seven days if the PROD has been in place that long. To claim that, as a PROD patroller, one is not aware of how the process works or what the templates say is problematic, and indicates an inability to exercise judgment on the use of the tools. MSJapan (talk) 00:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

:: And the third paragraph of the lead says "The first objection kills the PROD, and anyone may object as long as the PROD tag is present." The instructions do not have every nuance of the process. Anyone can remove the PROD at any time even if it has expired. -- GB fan 00:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

::(ec)You appear to be selectively quoting, and misquoting, a section of WP:PROD. Clearly views on 'the process' differ, and Kvng can be forgiven for taking a different view than you do. These, and especially your off-colour Highbeam comments, above, suggest you have an animus towards Kvng which I find unhelpful. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - those of you opposing here are not taking into account the (formerly) second and really key part of the reasoning - namely that their judgement has been found sorely wanting here. Flipping the order above to make that more clear. Jytdog (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

::Kind of you to tell us what we're not taking into account. tbh, I'm finding MSJapan's judgement more concerning that Kvng's. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

::I can see an argument to be made that when a frequent prod challenger wants to challenge a prod, that they should fix any deletion worthy problems with the article. It may be reasonable for us to ask that Kvng take more steps to fix the articles when challenging prods in light of the frequency with which they do so. (I'm somewhat on the fence on that question) However as policy does not require this, I don't think it is reasonable for us to place such a restriction unless we come to a consensus and then that consensus is not respected. Based on what I'm seeing so far, I have no reason to believe Kvng wouldn't respect it, and so per WP:AGF any type of actual restriction would be premature. Monty₈₄₅ 01:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: Per Monty845. pbp 00:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose This is the first, as far as I know, that the matter has been brought to to Kvng and there is ambiguity in the PROD rules. I hope they do take on board that dePRODs should have articulable reasons and I would request that they at least notify the editor who originally placed the PROD in case they have not watch listed it. This will guarentee at lease someone will consider whether the article needs to go to AfD.

  In addition I would like to thank {{u|Kvng}} for keeping a dePROD log. That is a good way to be able to track judgement over time and is also a great way to allow others to review your dePRODS. I wish more editors would do things like that. Jbh^Talk 01:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose I have not seen it demonstrated that this is called for. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 02:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

I think we're losing sight of the fact that what is at issue is editorial judgment. In an attempt to get back to focusing on that, I'm going to provide two more examples in addition to the diffs provided above.

Kvng deprodded Activity centre in March 2016. It was well within the 7-day period, but the deprod reason was "numerous incoming wikilinks indicate potential notability. poor sourcing is not a valid reason to delete." [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Activity_centre&diff=prev&oldid=712746158|diff] I would like to have Kvng address on what basis incoming wikilinks assert notability.

Anyhow, I went through the article, and I AfDed it. Here's why: First of all, it was odd that the article was focused on Melbourne, Australia. Second of all, there were inconsistencies in the citations, which were a mix of wikied reflist-type stuff and bulleted citations. For that reason, someone templated it with the "unclear cites" template a few years ago. Long story short, there are a number of"[3]" notations inline. They are followed by wikied refs. However, none of the wikied refs are in the reflist, and nothing in the bulleted reflist is cited in the article. So it's an unsourced article that's a wall of text - someone was generous and claimed it was a citation format problem. Now, rf mismatch like that usually happens when somebody cuts and pastes directly from a source, but doesn't take the citations (usually a webpage or electronic thesis). I wasn't able to find the original, but that may be for several reasons. I then looked at the article history. It was heavily edited by an IP. I then looked at the creator's talk page and contribs. The author in question had had several articles speedied, and had received several warnings. In short, there were a lot of flags to show that this was not a good article, and one that should not have been deprodded, if due care had been taken.

But some might say that I "picked something from before the NPP discussion, and Kvng learned from it. Well, let's jump to May 28, 2016. Kvng deprodded Harry Rosman and the deprod reason was "WP:DEPROD consider merge to The_Purple_Gang#Cleaners_and_Dyers_War"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Rosman&type=revision&diff=722434113&oldid=721433214 (diff)]. Not only did Kvng not redirect it, the subject isn't named in the target, so if he had, it would have gone to RfD. The subject, by the way, is a textbook WP:BLP1E - he was a witness in the Purple gang trial, and that's all we know about him.

These articles are not improving the encyclopedia. One is copyvio, and one is based on a single news article. There is no real reason why an editor (such as myself) should need to spend the time to write an AfD nom to assess the issues in these articles, send it to AfD, wait at least a week for a response (if consensus is reached - I had an article out for a month with no consensus) while other editors go over it, have clerks take the time to relist if necessary, and finally have an admin delete it when it was basically set to be gone already with a minimum of effort. There may be another 200 or more articles just like this at a low estimate, built up over five months. The rest of the interaction with Kvng has gotten so far as to rewrite policy to condone his actions, and meanwhile, he's refusing to acknowledge the multitude of complaints noted not only as the convo diffs, but also as brought up in this ANI. MSJapan (talk) 04:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

:{{ping|MSJapan}} If anybody's off-track or off-base, it's you. The failure of the above proposal to sanction Kvng should have suggested to you to drop the matter entirely. But instead you're bludgeoning us with a wall of text. We get that you don't like his de-proddings. But we're not as upset about it as you are. pbp 04:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

:I'd be happy to respond to your concerns about specific DEPRODS but I don't think this is the right place. How about Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion#Deprod_criticisms? ~Kvng (talk) 05:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

::The WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT you exhibit all over the talk page there makes it a pointless endeavor. Other editors have told you what I am telling you, and all you do is ratilnalize it away and do what you want. I'm not concerned with one or two deprods - I'm concerned about the fact that despite the various complaints made, talk threads opened, and everything else, between those two deprods, that you are still behaving in May and June the same way you were in March before those discussions took place. You have shown that you have not heeded the complaints of others by changing your behavior, and moreover, you would rather rewrite policy to condone it because it's "easier". The problem is that what you are doing is affecting core processes in this project, and that makes it a community problem. MSJapan (talk) 05:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

:::I beleive I have been quite responsive and thoughtful about this

:::*I have rejected the requests to simply stop patrolling.

:::*I have rejected the requests to improve all articles I deprod.

:::*I have accepted the requests to always provide a deprod reason.

:::*I have accepted the request to provide links if derod is based on a search I've done.

:::*I have accepted the request to not deprod prompt deletion of good-faith but unpromising articles by new editors.

:::*I have accepted the request to boldly redirect unpromising articles with an obvious parent.

:::*I have accepted the request to not use incoming link count as a measure of potential notability (the example you give above is from back in March).

:::*I have kept open records of my deprod activity so I and others can assess what I'm doing and and I can improve my own performance.

:::I have also engaged openly in discussion about these activities and have attempted to improve policy where I find friction. Please do not accuse me of bad faith or disruptive editing. ~Kvng (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

:Both of the DEPRODS you mention here are good. I don't necessarily agree that multiple incoming links means the subject is notable, but I do see it as a possibility that it is controversial, so use of PROD is inappropriate. Suggesting that an article could be merged rather than deleted is appropriate and that makes use of PROD inappropriate. There is no lapse in judgement with these two DEPRODS. -- GB fan 11:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

::I won't comment on the first DEPROD, but I will on the second. If the article could be merged into another article without being deleted then why did Kvng not do so. Instead they DePRODed an article and left it for somebody else to someday come in an clear up the mess. I honestly don't think that its sufficient to just leave that task for somebody else to handle someday, especially if that somebody doesn't see the note on the talk page and just takes that article to AfD. I don't think any sanction is necessary against Kvng, that would be overkill by a long shot, especially since Kvng seems to be working in good faith. But I do think that the PROD policy needs an update. Just because it used to work, doesn't mean that it still does, status quo just isn't going to work. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

:::It would have been better if Kvng had performed the merge and redirect, I don't disagree with that. But since this discussion is about Kvng's editorial judgement, neither one of these two indicate any problems with their judgement. -- GB fan 11:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• OK, let me get this straight. Someone tags an article for PROD. It goes 7 days with no one removing the tag. Then, once it's expired but (critically) before an admin reviews it, Kvng comes along and deprods it, sometimes improving it in the process or adding refs or whatever. Some of these removals are justified, as SmokeyJoe indicates above - they end up being useful and policy-compliant articles. Now are we seriously arguing that we should actually delete valid content (that could be restored instantly on request at WP:REFUND) because our overworked and understaffed admin corps didn't get to the expired prod before Kvng did? In what way, precisely, does that improve the project? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

:*That is exactly what is being proposed here at at WT:PROD. The proposal is to have admins take at least two actions, delete and undelete. At least one is also saying these refunded articles should be moved to draft space so that would take a third admin action of either moving without redirect or deleting the redirect after the move. -- GB fan 13:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

::*Thanks for pointing out that discussion. Since we're adding workload for no benefit, perhaps we should also make a log of PRODs removed and deleted and undeleted, then put it somewhere that no one will read, code up some bots to keep it up to date, and have them ping the noticeboard when someone has the infernal gall to actually improve a fucking article rather than delete it. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

:::*So, we're only going to take into account admin workload are we? nobody cares about the (significant) workload dumped on the volunteers that now have to go from PROD to AfD and take hours/days/weeks of several peoples time (per AfD) because a multitude of PROD worthy articles are being DePRODed for no reason (not necessarily by one person, and not necessarily always, but most definitely on occasion). I have been involved in a couple AfD discussions, and they take hours and days to be resolved, occasionally even weeks. I re-iterate, Kvng has done nothing wrong here, they are acting according to what they believe is correct and are doing so by following policy. They've even expressed that they'd be willing to follow any changes to the policy and also mentioned that they already take further than necessary steps when dealing with DePRODing articles. Now, I am not an admin, but as far as I am aware, the time it takes to delete and undelete an article is considerably less than it takes to go from PROD (7 days at least) to AfD (Hours if SNOW, Days if mildly controversial but not SNOW, and about a week+ if controversial). Am I missing something here? in all seriousness, am I actually missing something here or are the above complaints legitimately ridiculous (mine included from this post). Mr rnddude (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

:::::yep PRODland is a CFWOT where upside down logic remains supreme. Jytdog (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Note: FWIW, User:MSJapan has announced his retirement as a result of fallout from this ANI, and from comments made by me and Kvng on AfDs he has started on PRODs Kvng declined. pbp 19:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

:*Just to set the record straight, I've retired because of your vote comment [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FAli_Ahmad_Fayyad&type=revision&diff=725095292&oldid=725087772 here] on this AfD and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MSJapan&oldid=725116891|followup here]. In short, I'm not going to volunteer my time to contribute to be contrib stalked with personal attacks on AfDs combined with obviously biased tag team voting especially when the one uninvolved editor who votes on the AfD [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ali_Ahmad_Fayyad&diff=next&oldid=725123989 agrees with my assessment] and then, be met with outright bullying on my talk page with someone telling me what I'm allowed to do and not do here on Wikipedia or they're going to continue to harass my contribs. If the wrods alone aren't proof, run an edit compare; ever since Purplebackpack interjected himself into this thread from the TRM one above (where he was also accused of causing trouble), he's been following me all over Wikipedia, with absolutely no edit interactions before that point. In short, if I'm going to be followed everywhere, tag-team voted against with personal attacks just to contest AfDs, and then basically get told "leave this guy alone, and I'll leave you alone", that is not how this project works. It's a waste of my time to attempt to improve the encyclopedia when people are purposely sabotaging processes and bullying people to get their own way, so I'm not doing it anymore. It's that simple. MSJapan (talk) 02:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• ::{{ping|MSJapan}} Don't try to make out like you're the victim in this. You've spilled more ink damning Kvng in this subthread alone than I've wasted on you on the entire project. You followed Kvng around to a helluvalot more places than I've followed you. Seriously, dude, you are one of the thinnest-skinned, hypocritical people I know on this project. pbp 02:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

{{nao}} I feel the need to comment since I had one of my PRODs removed by Kvng with reasons I think insufficient (an AfD runs [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Spina_CMS here]).

Not really unbiased, but considering my recommendation goes against my bias...

Some red herrings here:

1. About removing expired PRODs - I wonder where it is written that this should not be done. I cannot find it in WP:PROD or elsewhere. If you want my opinion, it should be possible - the aim of PROD is to get uncontroversial deletions out of the way. The 7-days limit is to avoid a limbo of "will be deleted articles" while giving reasonable time for objections, not a magic number; if an objection comes 1 or 10 days after the deadline, it is still an objection. (Whether the objection turns out to be relevant or not is immaterial, we are talking about the timescales of the process.)
2. About "deprods like crazy" - well, I did not check the stats provided above, but 200 deprods/month does not seem such a high number to me. Assuming generous numbers of 5 min of investigation per prod (remember, this is not AfD, you just check obvious shortcomings)and a 10% deprod rate, it means a bit more than 16h/month - if Kvng spends a good fraction of their WP time doing prod patrol, it looks totally reasonable.

The only potentially actionable is issue would be disruptive editing in the form of massive incorrect prod-removal. While I feel that some of Kvng's deprods are a waste of time, I see that as a genuine disagreement with the philosophy of PROD, in particular the uncontroversial bit.

For instance if unnotable productX is created by User:productXsmaker (a common sight at page patrol), it is likely that the creator objects to the PROD, even if they do not remove the tag within seven days. My view in such a case is that prodding gives a chance to avoid the hassle of AfD even if it means shortcircuiting the newbies, because none familiar with the guidelines would !vote to keep; another view is that such a nomination is controversial from the start and hence should not be prodded.

Barring evidence from a former discussion or guideline page or whatever in favour of the former view, and former mention(s) of that to Kvng, I see no reason to sanction them. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

:Agreed. I used to be a regular prod patroller and have deprodded hundreds too. Some of my deprods would get deleted at AfD, but that wasn't proof my deprod was wrong - prod is only for uncontroversial deletion and like Kvng I would deprod when I thought there was a chance it would survive an AfD or have a suitable merge target. I would improve some but not all the articles I deprodded. Deprodding after 7 days is also not an issue. Prod is meant to be light touch - easy come, easy go - and Kvng has agreed to give a rationale, so move on. Fences&Windows 19:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Forget technical rules; disruption is disruption. However, it's disruptive only if the articles are not prod-able. Nominate them at AfD, if nearly all of them are deleted, we can conclude that Kvng's views on notability or whatever are so off kilter that the community can request he refrain from engaging in Prod's and de-Prodding. If a significant number are kept, he's within bounds. If the OP wants to bolster the objection, send the 400 to afd and let's see whether your, or Kvng's, views on notability are correct. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

::I would consider deprodding to make a point to be disruptive and what {{u|Fences and windows}} describes gets close to that. I may have crossed the line a couple times as I was learning how to patrol. I think it best, as advised at WP:PRODPATROL, to avoid the lure of theory. ~Kvng (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

:::You're insinuating I deprodded articles to disruptively prove a point, on the basis of zero evidence. I can't believe you're making an accusation like that in the middle of a debate in which you're being accused of exactly that. I've struck my comment, AN/I can hang you out to dry for all I care. Fences&Windows 22:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

::::I believe you are reading WP:PROD policy correctly and would prevail in a policy debate. But I've received clear feedback that deprodding just because deletion is potentially controversial is not productive. Deprods should be potentially controversial and have a snowball's chance of surviving AfD. It is my impression that there are some mismatches between deletion policy and behavior and a consensus of editors is comfortable with that. ~Kvng (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

:::::Fences and windows, I do not believe that Kvng was accusing you of intentional disruption. Merely commenting that others in this AN/I thread have found that having articles you DePROD going to AfD to be disruptive. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{archive top|(non-admin closure) IP blocked for 1 year by {{u|Tide rolls}}. --Elektrik Fanne 16:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)}}

{{userlinks|64.121.83.151}} Is removing a large amounts of well-sourced LGBT content with little or no justification. Seems like I don't like it Blocked five times previously for up to one year.

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=725037026 Tiffany Darwish] Removed unverified info sourced by two references that don't exist
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=19th_GLAAD_Media_Awards&type=revision&diff=725033876&oldid=725033645 19th GLAAD Media Awards] Removed article with pro-LGBT bias
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Societal_attitudes_toward_homosexuality&type=revision&diff=725032482&oldid=721279549 Societal attitudes toward homosexuality] removed section, written with obvious bias
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_R._Bradley&type=revision&diff=725032225&oldid=720472754 John R. Bradley] Removal of book: Saudi Arabia Exposed: Inside a Kingdom in Crisis
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_rights_in_Ghana&type=revision&diff=724597873&oldid=720129434 LGBT rights in Ghana] Removal of source and content
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_R._King&type=revision&diff=724572975&oldid=724409390 William R. King] Removal of sources and content
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Buchanan&type=revision&diff=724572758&oldid=724535780 James Buchanan] Removal of sources and content
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irreligion_in_Saudi_Arabia&action=history Irreligion in Saudi Arabia] Addition of weasel words.
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia&type=revision&diff=723070121&oldid=723008999 LGBT rights in Saudi Arabia] removed unsourced info Also removed sources - edit warrign
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_in_the_Middle_East&type=revision&diff=723372716&oldid=723024267 LGBT in the Middle East] Removed LGBT book from further reading section
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religion_in_Saudi_Arabia&type=revision&diff=723071227&oldid=720602644 Religion in Saudi Arabia] Added weasel words.

Many more as well. Jim1138 (talk) 05:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Agree; one glance at their contributions shows they are a disruptive SPA removing valid cited information. Has a sizeable block log already. Needs a longterm (at least one year) soft block. Softlavender (talk) 05:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

In Tiffany Darwish the mention of LGBT support was only sourced with two sources that no longer work. In LGBT in the Middle East, 19th Glad Media Awards, LGBT right in Saudi Arabia, and John R. Bradley that was a mistake on my part as I thought they went against Wikipedia: Point of View. Today after you told me to reread it I realized that they didn't actually go against the policy and I admit that was a misunderstanding on my part. For James Buchanan and William R King I was also mistaken in removing it but I thought that since it was debatable whether they were LGBT whether or not those sources should be included. Especially since James Buchanan was asexual so I thought the quote about him wanting female company without an actual relationship could have been related to him referring to his asexuality. I believe this was a misunderstanding from how I misunderstood the rules but I think this is a learning experience for me. I would hope you'd give me a warning as I am trying to make edits in good faith and unlike the past I have good intentions. 64.121.83.151 (talk) 05:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Please see my explanation before making a full and fair decision 64.121.83.151 (talk) 05:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

:"{{xt|I would hope you'd give me a warning}}" ... Jim1138 gave you three warnings before filing this ANI. Rather than take heed, you proceeded to argue with him instead. It's obvious from your repeated and longterm behavior over the past two years that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I wasn't arguing I was trying to understand why it was wrong and to add reasoning why I made the edits I made. I'm here to learn and try to be better at this. I am here to make good edits.64.121.83.151 (talk) 06:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

This is obviously still the blocked User:Jacobkennedy. Just block for block evasion and be done with it.--Atlan (talk) 08:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• User:Jacobkennedy has previously [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJacobkennedy&type=revision&diff=621606413&oldid=599799923 even posted an unblock appeal using this IP]. No SPI needed here. Laura Jamieson (talk) 11:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

::Also a static IP address so a long (or indefinite) block can be applied with no collateral damage. --Elektrik Fanne 11:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

{{archive top|(non-admin closure) IP blocked by {{u|HighInBC}} for 6 months. --Elektrik Fanne 16:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)}}

IP account 23.17.170.70 has made several edits which have been reverted as vandalism. These have consisted largely of inserting large and apparently irrelevant numbers of parentheses around words and names, which is reminiscent of the recent antisemitic practice of placing triple parentheses around names of people believed to be Jewish, in order to target them for harassment . See in particular [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karl_Marx&diff=725062082&oldid=724884758 this edit], in which such parentheses were placed around the names of, among others, Baruch Spinoza, Karl Marx and David Ricardo, but not others such as Adam Smith, Voltaire or Robespierre. There can be little doubt that the intention here was to mark out and stigmatise Jews, and it is essential that Wikipedia takes steps to prevent this without delay, in order to prevent this usage spreading over the whole project. Could anyone develop a filter to prevent such edits? And the IP responsible for this apparent first usage here should be sanctioned to prevent any more such dog-whistle racism. RolandR (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

:I've blocked the IP for one week. (The conduct is worth an indef, but it appears to be a dynamic IP.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

:Also someone might want to explain to the IP that Wikipedia's easy to use categories and lists provides far more opportunities for Jew-tagging biographies. Of course they might get upset when they realise editors have been at it for years. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

::My reading of the contribution history was that it was not a dynamic IP. Going back to their first edit it is the same pro-aryan nonsense. Based on that I have made it a 6 month block. See their first edit from August 2015: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caspian_Sea&diff=prev&oldid=674959172]. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 15:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

:::No objection to that change. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

:::Confirmed that the IP address is static. --Elektrik Fanne 16:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

{{archive top|status= Blocked| (non-admin closure) {{u|Arihant733}} was blocked by {{u|HighInBC}} for WP:NLT --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)}}

Legal threats:

• {{diff2|725119662}}
• {{diff2|725119380}}
• {{diff2|725118782}}

{{u|Arihant733}} Says that they are the 'legal heir' to the subject. If they want to discuss their concerns they should do it here. They should be aware of WP:LEGAL which states that {{xt|If you post a legal threat on Wikipedia, you are likely to be blocked.}} -NottNott|talk 18:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

:I have blocked the account for making legal threats. However I think the content they were removing should be scrutinized to make sure it is up to our standards. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 18:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

A Manual of Style discussion regarding transgender people is currently being brigaded by [https://np.reddit.com/r/GenderCritical/comments/4nfu6x/urgent_wikipedia_wants_to_erase_the_birth_names/ 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)

• 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. _Pocketed 13:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
• 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)
• It would be ironic if {{u|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)
• No, the irony is in the creating of accounts for extraneous purposes. And there you have it. _Pocketed 17:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
• 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)

::Rather than trying to play whack-a-mole by reverting and blocking the new accounts, simply place a prominent note about the situation to alert the closing admin/editor to it. !Votes by newly registered SPAs should be disregarded in any numeric assessments of consensus. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

::That being said, if any of the new accounts do engage in "doxxing, harassing, and making threats of violence", this should be dealt with by immediate blocking and rev-del of the offending edits, and by notifying emergency@wikimedia.org should the situation be sufficiently extreme to warrant it. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment using an IP or a throw-away unlinked second account is becoming far too common. If there's something you object to, and cannot say so yourself because of whatever, then hope someone else objects to it (one person's objection rarely is sufficient for consensus, especially on an RfC). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

{{archive top|Fgf10 is formally topic banned from ITN/C. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)}}

An unconventional request? True, but it is necessary. I would like to request any administrator to topic ban me from ITN discussions. It is clear the new RD criteria are being pushed through without serious consultation or discussion and I want no part of it. Therefore I request to be banned from the ITN candidates page (WP:ITN/C), to formally show I am ceasing to help out with that part of the project. Fgf10 (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

:Feel free to consider yourself "blocked" if that's what you want. The only person who will enforce this is you, however. Jonathunder (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

::I fully intent to do that, but I am formally requesting a WP:TBAN for myself for ITN/C. I do not believe this violates any rules? Fgf10 (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

{{atop|result=User indef-blocked by Floquenbeam and talk page access revoked. (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)}}

A [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADarkside_Of_Aquarius&type=revision&diff=725150130&oldid=725149186 blocked user has gone off]. I think removing talk page access and hiding the offending slurs would be beneficial. Many thanks.- MrX 21:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

:{{re|MrX}} Might want to link the user's name? But yeah, indef and remove access imho. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

::I was just doing that when you created an edit conflict. {{smiley}}- MrX 21:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

:::"Just according to keikaku". Mwhahaha. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to leave this for {{U|NeilN}} to decide. The user reverted, probably realizing what an ass they were making of themselves. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• I usually ignore attacks directed at me in the heat of the moment or otherwise. Bit concerned at the implied transphobia but hopefully we won't see any more of that.--NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• We won't, because I've reblocked indef with talk page access removed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

{{abottom}}

{{Clear}}

{{archive top|result=Blocked 6 months SQL^{Query me!} 03:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC) }}

This IP has, amongst other disruptive behaviors, persistently recreated articles that have been deleted by Afd (most of which were replaced by Redirects). The most recent 10 examples (excluding repeats/edit warring): [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Young_(longevity_claims_researcher)&diff=prev&oldid=724906996], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frieda_Szwillus&diff=prev&oldid=724715470], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gertrud_Henze_(supercentenarian)&diff=prev&oldid=724715244], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nijiro_Tokuda&diff=prev&oldid=724714793], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anna_Ringier&diff=prev&oldid=724714712], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mary_Christian&diff=prev&oldid=724714422], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shitsu_Nakano&diff=prev&oldid=724714284], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yasu_Akino&diff=prev&oldid=724714197], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luce_Maced&diff=prev&oldid=724714097], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catherine_Hagel&diff=prev&oldid=724713347]. This editor is an SPA in the field of Longevity which is subject to AE and has been warned as such. The editor has also been previously blocked for evading a previous block. It is possible that they are a topic-banned editor. Apologies to Admins if this should be more appropriately dealt with under AE but the specific behavior of mass restoration of redirected articles seemed to me to be better dealt with here. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

:I restored the majority of them because they DIDN'T go to AfD. --104.56.23.57 (talk) 10:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Note the IP is almost certainly the block-evading User:DN-boards1 (or one of his predecessors). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Horrifico/Archive especially the most recent filing of 30 April 2016. See also 104.56.23.57's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3A104.56.23.57 block log]. Surely these should be mass reverted to the redirects they were instead of the time-wasting bureaucracy that is resulting in things like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Ringier. Voceditenore (talk) 10:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• There is a connection with Dn-boards1. I am his sister! This is meatpuppetry happening, not sockpuppetry. 104.56.23.57 (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

:: {{ec}} Well, that makes it perfectly acceptable then! WP:SISTER must apply eh ;) _Pocketed 10:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

::: That doesn't apply here, though. I am indeed a separate person from DN-boards1 - and a female, at that, not a male...104.56.23.57 (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

:::Are you now? I strongly suggest you read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Meatpuppetry and Wikipedia:PROXYING. Paging Bbb23 who did the most recent checkuser and block. Voceditenore (talk) 10:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked. 6 months. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Looks like both sockpuppetry, block evasion and meatpuppetry Flow234 (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Just so people know, the IP is another of the longevity crazies. EEng 13:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

:Wow, I thought that had quietened down a lot for a while. Let's hope that this isn't the start of yet another one of those shitfights. Blackmane (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

::It never dies. EEng 15:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

:::You can check out any time you like, but... {{wink}} _Pocketed 15:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

::::Wikipedia being open to all, if you work on building the encyclopedia for any length of time, you have the possibility of attracting your own personal stalker who considers pretty much anything you do a personal affront, and who considers it their sacred duty to "expose" the person they fixate on. It's really quite pathetic, but for some reason they just can't quite seem to figure out why no one else sees their actions as heroic. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

{{od|4}} For any of these articles that haven't gotten a keep vote at AfD I'd support reverting them to redirects and speedy closing the AfDs as needed. For any that do have a vote there's no harm in letting the process run, but maximum efficiency in tamping down one one of the fanboys in the horde of longevity acolytes leads to less wasted time for everyone. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

:I'd love to see them all speedily restored to redirects if possible to save the time of having to wait a week or so. I redirected them myself (with the majority being over a year ago) and the redirects remained unchallenged until this IP address found them in my editing history. But I understand if the ones with 'Keep' votes need to wait the week. CommanderLinx (talk) 04:52, 13 Jun e 2016 (UTC)

::Concur with Blade and the Commander. Rolling everything back to the way they were before this latest campaign seems to me the best outcome. Letting the afd's where !votes have been cast play out might be necessary, but it's a little galling to have to keep replowing the same fields because of bad behavior by a recurrung miscreant. David in DC (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

{{Clear}}

{{archive top|Blocked. The point of WP:NLT is that people don't get to have a trump card of "do this or a lawsuit will occur", regardless of whether it's the person who arguably claim they will sue or they claim someone else will sue. Either way, it ruins any semblance or normal discussion if you can walk around to every discussion and say "name it this way or Wikipedia will be sued". And anyone who would be stupid enough to start a lawsuit over the Wikipedia naming of a page deserves the mockery that will follow. I have no idea what legal theory, defamatory or a trademark violation or whatever other idea people have in mind, that would not result in it backfiring and making the filer look foolish but either way, that's not a reason to decide an article name. WP:OFFICE actions do exist and Wikipedia can and has decided that article names is not something that creates legal liability. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC) .... and subsequently unblocked by {{u|Boing! said Zebedee}} after reading WP:NLT and agreeing to withdraw any threat. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)}}

Please see Talk:University of British Columbia Faculty of Law#Requested move 29 May 2016 for some edits that concern me, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_British_Columbia_Faculty_of_Law&diff=prev&oldid=724016442 this diff probably the best] to show my concern. I do not believe that they warrant a block as a legal threat, but they raise some of the same issues IMO. Not sure how to best address it. Andrewa (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• It is an implied legal threat. If they want Wiki legal to get involved, that implies an impetus to engage in legal action. Appropriate steps should be taken until the so-called legal dispute is resolved.--WaltCip (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Borderline IMO, and note that later in the discussion they deny any legal threat. But I do not think we can permit this sort of argument. It has the chilling effect of a legal threat. Is there a less serious censure than a block which might be applied? Andrewa (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• It's not serious. At all. If they're chilling the entire remark should be collapsed as disruptive, not because it's a legal threat. The entire purpose of those kinds of complaints is to force an escalation to some higher authority, because the editor is presuming we have that kind of hierarchy (we don't) and that he or she is only dealing with peons at that discussion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

::::I've dropped a note on their talk page explaining some basic concepts - hopefully that's the end of it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

:::::I just want to reassure Andrewa that you were absolutely right to raise this here, but I agree with the others that there isn't a legal threat (although it's pretty close). It's fair to say that the user is engaging in disruptive editing and we should continue to keep an eye on that. WaggersTALK 14:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

::::::Thank you. The disruption is not just the borderline legal threat, the tone of the editing has a broader WP:OWN flavour to it, IMO. Fortunately its main target here is a very experienced and cool-headed contributor. But if it were directed at a newbie it would be very sad, and if a newbie were to take it as an example of the sort of discussion we want and do likewise, sadder still. The contributor has been here for some years and should know better, IMO. Andrewa (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Not to do directly with the "legal threats" issue—but is it still the case, as I was told years ago, that a redirect carries as much "Google juice" as an article name itself? If so, should this be pointed out on the article talkpage? Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

:If so, that is a very important point. It takes the force out of the argument; Perhaps even completely negates it. Even the possibility of it being the case throws the onus of proof back on the contributor making these allegations of legal consequences, IMO.

:And it makes sense to me. Google have been sometimes a bit cagey about revealing algorithms, so it may not be possible to tell definitively. But from what I do know of them, it seems to be 100% accurate. Andrewa (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• The possible legal threat comes from an editor claiming that how Wikipedia names an article could have major effects on the school's branding. And you're taking that at face value? What notable school is so fragile to suggest that whatever Wikipedia names the article on the school matters one whit? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Good points and well put. The issue I brought here has been addressed IMO (thanks all) but should the wider issues of the possible impacts of Wikipedia article naming be pursued in a more appropriate forum? Where? Andrewa (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

A quick FYI: In a Game Grumps YouTube episode that was uploaded today,[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tTF771OBsU&feature=youtu.be&t=6m46s] one of the presenters made the comment "I wish I had my own Wikipedia page" - as a result, there was a sudden influx of editors at {{la|Dan Avidan}} and {{la|Leigh Daniel Avidan}}, as well as having some related editing at {{la|Ninja Sex Party}}.

Bringing this up here so a few additional editors can scan through the pages and add them to their watchlists. While some of the editors appear to be acting in good faith to try to create a viable page (although still lacking third-party refs), there's also a significant amount of vandalism that already resulted in semi-protection on at least one of those pages. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

:Based on the article I'd say the subject is non-notable I've tagged the Dan Avidan Article as CSD A7--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

::And the CSD was removed so sent to AFD --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

::: Resolved then? Until of course we get reliable sources about the YouTube video itself asking for an article to be created and the subsequent deletion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

{{Archive top|Fishy move has been sucessfully completed. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)}}

History made - probably the first-ever WP:Page mover botched move on Wikipedia! An admin needs to delete Reactions to 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting and move Draft:Move/Reactions to 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting there after a botched WP:PM/C#4 round-robin move reverting two previous undiscussed moves which went against the MOS.

Seems a {{trout}} is in order :) Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 13:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

:{{ping|Satellizer}} If you simply want the primary page name to be Reactions to 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, 'tis done. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

::{{re|Ritchie333|Satellizer}} Seems like all the members of :Category:Reactions to terrorist attacks have the format "Reactions to the xxx terrorist attack" when the base page name is "xxx terrorist attack". I've moved it to Reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting. I hope the page move isn't controversial. Regards, Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

:::Fine by me. I think this is probably what Satellizer actually wanted, but it wasn't obvious from the original post. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

::::Epicgenius' title is correct (Reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting). To clarify, my original request was not for moving the actual article itself but for moving a redirect with edit history which redirects there over another (accidentally created) redirect. Apologies for any misunderstanding. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 14:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

:::::No problem. Looks like everything here is all good. (And I've also had some page mover mistakes too – you aren't the first one {{u|Satellizer}}. {{=)}}) Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

this user stumbled upon the page upon patrolling for things to edit. noting the violation of WP:SIZE (refer to article talk page), created seperate articles for the sections and moved them, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Masters_of_the_Universe_characters&diff=723524756&oldid=723524468|diff in here]. it went unopposed and agreed on until the time the revert wars began (see subsequent revisions with edit summaries). requesting admin intervention.ping User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi User:TheDwellerCampFAMASFREENODE (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

:Now there's a coincidence! _Pocketed 16:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

:So the OP has been around for about 2 weeks (if that). Within five days of being here, started this RFA (!) and likes to threaten other users [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Masters_of_the_Universe_characters&diff=prev&oldid=724790227 with ANI]. Not bad for a "new" editor. On an unrelated note, I think there's a boomerang in my sock. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

::Does the ping substitute the required ANI notice? TheDwellerCamp (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

:::No it doesn't. I concur that FAMASFREENODE is probably not a new user. His or her frankly strange manner of speech ("This user" in place of a first person reference, use of formal grammar in all situations) strikes me as geared towards avoiding speaker attribution efforts given its such an artificial manner of speaking. Whether that's relevant is another matter entirely. In any event there's a WP:ANEW thread on this editor as well. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Mendaliv}} {{ping|FAMASFREENODE}} I agree. The use of "This user" is very odd, and he/she is clearly a sock of some other user. The user in question seems oddly good with Wikipedia policy, (That's not a indication of sockpuppetry), and seems very disruptive (Combined with the first statement, we seem to have a sock). Take that boomerang out of your sock, Lugnuts, you are going to need it. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 17:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

::::Irony here being that {{U|TheDwellerCamp}} is a freshly blocked sock. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 17:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

:::: Agreed, but I still don't trust FAMASFREENODE. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

:::::The fun never stops on ANI... GAB^gab 18:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

:::::This comment in particular looks fairly suspect, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FFAMASFREENODE&type=revision&diff=723044243&oldid=723044157 here's the link. Some users are very good at editing Wikipedia when they joined (I read the polices for a month before I joined, and got 2 different messages from people asking if I was a sock), but if someone was good at editing Wikipedia from the beginning, why would they file an RfA? It's not adding up. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• IF FAMASFREENODE is a sock (and I concur with the analysis above that raises suspicions), then its purpose is clearly trolling - no sock files an RfA without an intent to disrupt. Considering the report made here by another sock, could this be two puppetmasters competing with each other? BMK (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
• I agree with these findings. Knowledge of concepts such as WP:SIZE and WP:SPLIT, as well as submitting an RFA so early make me suspicious that there's sockpuppetry going on here. Omni Flames (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
• {{u|Winterysteppe}} isn't a typical sockmaster, he was a good editor who tried to fight his wiki-addiction by getting blocked, and makes socks to get his fix. ansh666 04:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Sorry, that sounds fairly run-of-the-mill to me, with the single except of getting blocked deliberately. I believe mamy puppetmasters have Wiki-addictions they can't control, and that some percentage of those were good editors at some point. Look at Kumioko. I don;t really care why one takes the step into the dark side, once you're there, experience indicates that there's very little chance of successfully coming back, even granted that the community is willing to extend the chance. BMK (talk) 04:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

::::This user is still waiting to be notified that there is a discussion taking place about him. :) _Pocketed 08:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• If FAMASFREENODE is a sock, might the RfA be a nice high profile way to appear a new editor, and so the RfA would be camouflage? EdChem (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

{{ping|EdChem}} Yes. It would be a clever way to camouflage a sock. But, it probably backfired, as it shows that the user in question had a clear understanding of WP policy, but is editing disruptively. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

{{ping|Nakon}} Any progress in determining if FAMASFREENODE is a sock? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

:Unfortunately - and I perceive this as a flaw in our security system - CUs generally require an account to check the proposed sock against. There have been numerous situations where experienced editors have recognized the behavior of a new editor as being extremely sock-like, but because they cannot identify which puppetmaster the sock is controlled by, nothing is done. Behavioral evidence ("it quacks like a duck") will be accepted in the most obvious of cases, but not in all of them. It is my belief that the project would be much better served if the "no fishing expeditions" rule was done away with, and also my understanding that some other language Wikipedias have been able to do so, withotu conflcit with the privacy policies of the WMF. I think (and this is only a personal opinion) that the libertarian roots of Wikipedia may be somewhat stronger here then they are elsewhere in the Wikimedia empire. BMK (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• I've blocked them since their overall editing has been problematic enough to warrant one, especially given the sockpuppetry concerns, which I think are valid. Can someone take a look at this closure they did and either re-open it or re-close it? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

:*It will need to be done by an admin. Or re-opened for a few more days. Consensus was shfting/heavily leaning towards changing the block to indef - and Fam had closed/archived it based on their already being blocked for a week. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• I'll reopen it. It'll be my first time doing it, so if I make a mistake please correct! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Looks fine to me {{(:}} Omni Flames (talk) 10:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

{{archive top|result=Blocked 48h. If they restart - report to WP:AIV please. SQL^{Query me!} 03:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC) }}

{{userlinks|MarioSonicU}} is doing a sneaky form of vandalism, changing release dates on video game articles, either deleting the source and putting in a new, unsupported release date, or just changing the release itself, whether there's a source or not. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=QuackShot&diff=prev&oldid=725094926 Here] is one example, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=X-Men:_Gamesmaster%27s_Legacy&diff=prev&oldid=725094233 here] is another. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NFL_%2795&diff=prev&oldid=724162943 This edit summary] leads me to believe they're may be purposely trying to hide their vandalism, too. Eik Corell (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

{{Clear}}

{{archive top|status=Blocked|(non-admin closure) {{u|SpacemanSpiff}} blocked {{u|Lawyerdvrao}} indefinately for "Disruptive editing including advertising and promotion, sock puppetry" and blocked {{u|Dr d v rao}} as a sock puppet of {{u| Lawyerdvrao}} --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 19:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)}}

Note the accounts User:Lawyerdvrao and User:Dr d v rao. For both the accounts, the only activity is writing articles about themself, at two titles D.V. Rao and Dr d v rao (page history). All edits, naturally, advertising himself. The guy needs to be blocked. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

:For the discussion on the deletion of the page User:Lawyerdvrao created, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D.V. Rao. -- Gestrid (talk) 03:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

:Agreed. The guy has become a nuisance to deal with. While that alone is not enough to block someone, I believe the self-promotion (on two accounts and two articles, nonetheless) is enough. You'll also notice an IP address from India editing D.V. Rao. I believe that is their IP address, so that might need to be blocked, too. -- Gestrid (talk) 03:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

::Why are the two accounts? Whatever else may happen, one of them should be indeffed. BMK (talk) 04:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

:::SPI filed here. Jytdog (talk) 05:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Both have been blocked indefinitely, the master for advertising, promotion and sockpuppetry, and the other as a sock. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

{{Clear}}

{{archive top|Blocked two of the IPs for two weeks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)}}

The blocked user {{u|Lagoset}} (which has an also blocked sock puppetry, {{u|Fivestarts}}) seems to be evading his blockade with (at least) these three ips: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/147.84.145.193 147.84.145.193] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/217.197.27.145 217.197.27.145] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/217.197.27.214 217.197.27.214]. He continues doing the same things: copyright violations, including promotional pages, unreliable sources, massive and/or unrelated links on the See also section, etc. e.g., [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Transport_Forum&diff=prev&oldid=725202306] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lithium-ion_battery&diff=prev&oldid=725201309] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electric_bus&diff=prev&oldid=725201772] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electric_bus&diff=prev&oldid=725201772] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_Media_Lab&diff=prev&oldid=725177594] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Domestic_robot&diff=prev&oldid=725148453] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cycling_advocacy&diff=prev&oldid=725177372] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pot_farming&diff=prev&oldid=725177138] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_enhancement&diff=prev&oldid=725147776] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Powered_exoskeleton&diff=prev&oldid=725147345] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aquaponics&diff=prev&oldid=725145772] Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 09:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked {{IP|147.84.145.193}} for copyright violation
• Blocked {{IP|217.197.27.145}} for spam links
• {{IP|217.197.27.214}} has not been used for some time so left it.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

{{Clear}}

{{archive top|status= Deleted| (non-admin closure) File deleted by {{u|HighInBC}} --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 18:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)}}

Hello. I have uploaded the coat of arms of the Cheadle Hulme School for the article (Cheadle Hulme School.svg) that I have extracted from the logo of the school, but after a discussion with somebody from the Communications department of this school I think this image is a copyright violation because it is an incomplete version of the logo (derivate work). Can an administrator delete it? I will try to trace the coat of arms myself. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaphaelQS (talk • contribs) 16:24, 14 June 2016‎

:The logo in question is :File:Cheadle_Hulme_School.svg. I'm unsure whether or not this specific file would indeed be protected under copyright (and if so, if we'd have a fair-use claim) so I have not myself deleted the image. May well be deletable under the grounds that the uploader requested deletion, though. --Yamla (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

::Since the author is requesting deletion I have gone ahead and done that. At the time it was not being used on any page. If it was an incomplete version of the logo then it is not ideal for the encyclopedia. RaphaelQS should know that we can use copyrighted images if we use them in a fair use capacity so a low resolution duplicate of the logo is permissible in the appropriate article(s). HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 17:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

{{Clear}}

{{archive top|result=Deleted SQL^{Query me!} 03:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)}}

and arrived at this talk page, which has no article. Talk:Julia L. Jackson. I am hoping that someone there knows what to do about it, and will do it. Thanks, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

:Deleted. IPs can't create articles, so sometimes they create a talkpage instead. Acroterion (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

{{archive top|reason=Community consensus has been that editors can ban others from their talk page. There is nothing here which will result in admin action or sanction. (non-admin closure) Jbh^Talk 23:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)}}

Dear Beyond My Ken,

I thank you for your many contributions to Wikipedia, including in the article space and in working to resolve disputes and conflicts and deal with other editors.

Regarding User talk:Anomalocaris#Please be aware..., since you wrote,

:Please do not reply on my talk page as, of this time, you are banned from posting comments on my talk page, unless, of course, you are required to by Wikipedia policy.... Please note that this ban also applies to pinging me.

this is the only way I know of to respond.

Since 16 May 2016, I have edited at least 50 articles relating to or linking to Murder, Inc. As part of this campaign, at 20:27, 30 May 2016, I {{diff|Flatiron Building|722901414|prev|edited}} Flatiron Building with edit summary {{use mdy dates}}; Murder, Inc.; logical quotes; dashes; The New York Times; The Wall Street Journal; The Washington Post; spaced initials; ins space after period. (I should have added nonbreaking space before unit abbrev (m).) An hour later, at 21:29, 30 May 2016, you {{diff|Flatiron Building|722910859|prev|edited}} the same article with summary spaced not app here, removing the space between pp. and the page number in six places. A day later, at 17:19, 31 May 2016, I {{diff|Flatiron Building|723044265|prev|reverted you}} with summary All examples at Wikipedia:Citing sources show space between "p." or "pp." and the page number. Four hours later, at 21:20, 31 May 2016, you {{diff|Flatiron Building|723077229|prev|reverted me}} with edit summary better before.

Fifteen minutes later, at 21:35, 31 May 2016, after my one and only reversion of Flatiron Building, you posted at User_talk:Anomalocaris#Please take note... something that purports to justify your removal of the spaces and warned me against edit warring, which was unnecessary because I had not edit warred in this episode, and my edit history shows that I scrupulously avoid edit warring. Except for blatant vandalism, my practice for many years has been that I never revert more than once.

Half an hour later, at 22:12, 31 May 2016, Alansohn {{diff|Flatiron Building|723084132|prev|reverted you}} in Flatiron Building with edit summary rv chg; looks better with the space *AND* complies with Wikipedia:Citing sources.

A day later, at 08:28, 1 June 2016, I responded on your talk page to your post on my talk page, at {{oldid|User talk:Beyond My Ken#Please take note...|723145315|User talk:Beyond My Ken#Please take note...}}. I referenced Wikipedia sources and discussed what Ignore all rules does and does not mean. I agreed with you that edit warring is bad and pointed out that I hadn't done it. I showed that Wikipedia:Citing sources calls for the space. I showed that among the most-read articles on Wikipedia, of the eight that I examined, seven had page number references, and all seven standardize on this space. Two hours later, at 10:46, 1 June 2016, you removed my comment on your talk page (which, of course, you had the right to do) with edit summary b.s (which shows contempt for my well-researched, well-considered comment, for dispute resolution based on precedent and the research thereof, and for civil comment in general).

Your contempt for de jure and de facto Wikipedia standards aroused my curiosity and I looked at your edit history. I looked at John Randel Jr. and at 16:20, 1 June 2016, I {{diff|John Randel Jr.|723197351|prev|edited it}} with summary dashes; avoid en dash after "from"; comma after city, state; space after period; spaced initials. All of these changes are consistent with WP:MOS, The Chicago Manual of Style and other major style books, and the tireless efforts of many other editors here at Wikipedia. You could have thanked me. You could have ignored me. Instead, an hour later, at 17:31, 1 June 2016, you {{diff|John Randel Jr.|723206515|prev|reverted me}} with summary Undid revision 723197351 by Anomalocaris (talk) following another editor around is defined as WP:HARRASSMENT (your redlink). This edit was harmful to Wikipedia by reintroducing style errors that another editor had carefully removed.

Eleven minutes later, at 17:42, 1 June 2016, you posted to my talk page at User talk:Anomalocaris#Please be aware... a message referencing WP:HARASSMENT and the definition of Wikihounding. None of this was relevant to my recent work, because I had and I have no interest or intent in creating irritation, annoyance or distress to anyone, certainly not to you. You are mistaken, we never had a dispute over Flatiron; I've never edited that article, but I did edit Flatiron Building. You wrote, "it is extremely difficult for me to see your recent edit to [John Randel Jr.], making the same kinds of changes you made to [Flatiron{{sic}}], which I objected to, as anything but a deliberate attempt at Wikihounding."

BMK, whatever happened to WP:Assume Good Faith? How in any way was your work at John Randel Jr. harmed by dashes; avoid en dash after "from"; comma after city, state; space after period; spaced initials? I deserved a little love and appreciation, not threats of administrative adjudication.

And a minute later, at 17:43, 1 June 2016, you unilaterally closed off further discussion with a ban on my communicating with you except when required to by Wikipedia policy. This is very troubling, because it aborts normal dispute resolution, yet you employ the stratagem of a unilateral user talk page ban coupled with a pinging ban so frequently that you have canned the text at User:Beyond_My_Ken/code#Banning from talk page. At 01:45, 28 March 2016, on a ridiculous pretext, you posted it at User_talk:Ceoil, which led to Ceoil filing here at AN/I the same day. The two of you hashed it out there and you withdrew your talk page ban against Ceoil, and soon you were friends again. I take no position on the original dispute between the two of you, but your 28 March talk page ban of Ceoil was ludicrous, and so was your 1 June talk page ban of me. User talk page bans leads to hours of unproductive effort that could rather be devoted to improving Wikipedia articles, and to unnecessary traffic here at AN/I. They raise complex policy questions that I hope Wikipedia shall never have further reason to discuss.

If someone harasses you on your talk page, ask them to stop. If they don't stop harassing you, that's what AN/I is for. Please use that or some other dispute resolution process. Please cease and desist from your use of a unilateral user talk page ban, with or without a pinging ban.

Also, you have recurring lack of civility. Whatever the provocation, this {{diff|The Cloisters|712392684|prev|intercourse intercourse edit summary}} is not how we communicate at Wikipedia, and your recent {{diff|User talk:100.36.22.158|724086753|prev|posting to new IP user's talk page}} wrongly implies that the Wikipedia community uses Mafia-style enforcement. We shouldn't even joke about this. Please communicate like the great encyclopedia editor that you are, and avoid profanity or gangland threats, even in jest.

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• Um, before we go any further, just what is an "intercourse intercourse edit summary"? Seems like there's always something new to learn about Wikipedia. EEng 20:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

::It seems I've been doing this whole thing wrong for years now... UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

:::It's creepy to think some editors are allowed to oversight the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyFxXdqtGNk edit summaries while they're being intercoursed]. EEng 20:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

::EEng: To answer your question, just click {{diff|The Cloisters|712392684|prev|intercourse intercourse edit summary}} and see for yourself. I hope you agree that the edit summary there is not appropriate for Wikipedia. —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• What administrative action are you requesting here? There does not appear to be an ongoing issue of disruption - indeed, BMK has specifically disengaged from whatever dispute exists by asking that you stop contacting them. So please give us a tl;dr version of the outcome you're seeking on this noticeboard. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• TL;DR needed This just reads like a complaint to BMK, who told you not to bother him on his user talk page. While I take a dim view of most WP:KEEPOFF demands, this is decidedly the wrong way to escalate whatever complaint you have with BMK that you find yourself unable to directly talk to him about. I'm not going to say I don't see a request for admin action here because, honestly, I gave up after the first few paragraphs... rather, I'd request you point us to what you're asking for. This is a mess, and I don't blame BMK for not wanting something like this on his user talk page. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

::UltraExactZZ: The "ongoing issue" is that BMK claimed WP:Ownership of content, including but not limited to John Randel Jr., and set forth rules for what editing I am and am not allowed to do, and warned me on my talk page, to intimidate me against editing pages BMK has edited. Then BMK stifled any further discussion with a user talk page ban and ping ban. You call it "disengagement"; I call it a violation of WP:OWN, intimidation, and incivility. For the outcome I seek, keep reading.

::Mendaliv: Thank you for the pointer to WP:KEEPOFF. It says much that is apropos here:

:::"Often, the request comes seemingly without warning, almost as a shot across the bow. While it is usually clear that you and the other editor are not getting along, an open-ended "go away!" can come as a surprise."

::::That's exactly what happened, except that even the not getting along aspect came as a surprise. I posted a polite message to BMK's talk page and Wham!

:::"It may be the case that the demand to keep off could be used as evidence of unreasonableness or incivility. This might especially be true if such demands are made often, made rapidly after a first encounter with an editor, or made in response to actions that cannot objectively reasonably be considered offensive."

::::That's one of the points I made in the first place. BMK resorts to "the demand" so often that it's canned at User:Beyond_My_Ken/code#Banning from talk page for opening as needed. Among the many times BMK used it was against Ceoil, who responded by filing here at AN/I the same day; the parties made up, but whatever dispute existed between them could have been solved with much less effort by Ceoil and the AN/I community if MBK hadn't made "the demand". In my case, BMK made "the demand" rapidly after a first encounter, and in response to action(s) that I do not believe can reasonably be considered offensive.

::Mendaliv, do you really believe that {{oldid|User talk:Beyond My Ken#Please take note...|723145315|User talk:Beyond My Ken#Please take note...}} was so terribly inappropriate for BMK's talk page, in response to his posting on my talk page attempting to justify his reversion of my by-the-book edit? —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

::UltraExactZZ: The outcome that I desire is

::# Either BMK withdraw the ban against me, or BMK withdraw threats against me for making edits like {{diff|John Randel Jr.|723197351|prev|this one}}, or an official declaration here that such threats are without merit.

::# BMK agrees not to use the talk page ban (with or without a ping ban) as a shot across the bow, or an official recommendation here to this effect.

::# BMK agrees not to use the talk page ban (with or without a ping ban) rapidly after a first encounter or in response to non-offensive postings, or an official recommendation here to this effect.

::#* WP:Assume good faith is part of determining if something is offensive or not.

::# BMK agrees to avoid incivility manifested in the {{diff|The Cloisters|712392684|prev|intercourse intercourse edit summary}} and the {{diff|User talk:100.36.22.158|724086753|prev|profanity and gangland threats}} on a IP user talk page, or an official recommendation here to this effect. —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• BMK regularly "bans" people in that fashion. It's just a peacock moment. Ignore and do something else. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

:I propose closing this thread as unactionable. BMK is more or less perfectly within his rights to request that others not post to his user talk page, or ping him, and to the best of my knowledge he doesn't even have to necessarily provide any specific reason to do so. If there are other venues at which discussion could take place, such as the talk page of an article, it can and under such circumstances preferably should take place there. I cannot see what if anything can really be accomplished by this thread here. John Carter (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

::Close it. BMK has done nothing really wrong here. The first three points above are invalid, and the profanity was not directed at anyone (except "the facts") so point four is also invalid. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

{{Clear}}

{{atop|squealing tires, right before the abyss... nonadmin closure. The matter seems to have resolved itself. No admin action required. Kleuske (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)}}

Another editor (Esplace) continues to remove sourced text from the above-referenced article. I have warned him/her about NPOV and 3RR and to seek consensus but I am not sure is he/she will stop. The editor and I both are at 2RR at this moment. I would appreciate it if someone could take a look and get an idea b/c I don't really understand what the editor is complaining about. Quis separabit? 01:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

:The section on Mixon is specifically problematic. out of the 4 external links, 3 are dead. "On the other hand, many black Oaklanders, as well as those belonging to other racial groups, seemed largely opposed to such sentiments" This statement mentions racial characteristics which seem 1. out of line. Why not residents or citizens if the link provides such information. 2. "Many" is nonspecific enough to need little verification while still maintaining an illegitimate weight. In other words, what is "many"? The next sentence " a clear majority of those who regularly campaign against abuses of police power also rejected any attempt to attach legitimacy to Mixon's murder rampage" contains the term "a clear majority" which is not clear. It also talks about his murder rampage, a crime for which he was never convicted. In my attempt to explain this, the edit was undone and the other editor gave me a warning for vandalism, which was not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esplace (talk • contribs) 01:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

::Ok... Point by point...

::*Two dead links were found and replaced by references to the WayBack Machine (archive.org). This is a very useful website and I suggest you acqaint yourself with it.

::*People who are dead are not posthumously convicted. Your observation that "he was never convicted" is a bit silly. The man was dead.

::*Just stating "I'm removing the Mixon events again as the links are dead and it violates the NPOV policy." is not "explaining", though you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Uhuru_Movement&diff=prev&oldid=725176756 did] voice your objections later.

::*Removing an entire section (which is well sourced) is not the way to go. Removing it once is not that bad (WP:BRD), repeating that is definitely a bad move.

::*This page is about editor behavior, not the actual content of pages. Your (Esplace) behavior is far from impeccable, but since you stopped short of 3RR and 1RR does not apply, a warning should suffice.

::Conclusion: This is mainly a content dispute and stopped short of an actual edit war. Fortunately. Kleuske (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

:::1. Noted. I saw that some of the links were fixed after all of this happened.

:::2. You may think it's a bit silly, but murder is a criminal charge. Calling someone a murderer after they are dead without charges being leveled is a bias. Murder cannot be justified, but under American law sometimes killing can be. If we are to maintain neutrality, being aware of biased language is important. This is probably a content issue, but being called silly for paying attention to language is a bit insulting, however.

:::3. Which is why I didn't revert back to removing all of the content. My second revision was to try to bring the paragraph into line with acceptable policies by removing the more egregious sections about community support which weren't supported in the links provided. Is removing content that is not supported by the supporting material disallowed until someone happens to come across the page and agree? Esplace (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

::::I'm not going to argue content here. That's what the talk page is for. Kleuske (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{archive top|reason=Done by {{noping|Samtar}} (non-admin closure) Jbh^Talk 02:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)}}

I'm not sure if I'm posting in the right place. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 8#Category:Online retail companies by country was closed with consensus to rename, but :Category:Online retail companies of Canada was not moved to :Category:Online retailers of Canada. – nyuszika7h (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

:{{done}} I've had a look at the discussion and have moved the category, leaving a redirect -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 21:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

{{Clear}}

{{archive top|reason=Obvious vandalism-only account is obvious. Indeffed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)}}

A recent user has the username User:Icutmywrists99. Inspection of their edits suggests that they are probably the same user that is behind other accounts with offensive usernames that have also edited the River Esk, North Yorkshire article, but I thought I'd bring it to attention here because of the policy regarding suicide threats. -- The Anome (talk) 08:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

{{Clear}}

{{archivetop|User in question indeffed as a Jaredgk2008 sock. (non-admin closure) GAB^gab 14:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)}}

{{User|Monchimarketts}}, after making practically no edits since creating their account in February, has over the last 24 hours made over 500 edits, practically all of which are adding pointless or spurious words to articles. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_Pan_American_Combined_Events_Championships&diff=prev&oldid=725367710] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyriaque_Rivieyran&diff=prev&oldid=725367649] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tempelherrenhaus,_Weimar&diff=prev&oldid=725367619]. A number are actually wrong, making sentences ungrammatical [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Dillon_(merchant)&diff=prev&oldid=725366369] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sixten_Franz%C3%A9n&diff=prev&oldid=725366718], or change words to numbers against MOS [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SM_U-34_(Germany)&diff=prev&oldid=725367023]. They're certainly not, apart from a very few, useful edits. It occurs to me that this is probably an account trying to circumvent 30/500 protection without being too obvious? Also, might this be worth looking at in terms of some sort of mass rollback? Laura Jamieson (talk) 09:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

: Yep, it's in order to be an Extended Confirmed user on Hank Goldberg, which has been caned by socking recently and recently had its protection level increased. _Pocketed 09:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

:: I think you're probably right; however they have now stopped their editing spree so let's just wait and see what, if anything, happens next. I would say anyone deliberately making silly edits to meet 30/500 is basically disrupting the project to hat-collect and should be blocked. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

:::: I've looked at quite a few and they are definitely disruptive, reducing the standard of the writing. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

::: I would say that the edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hank_Goldberg&type=revision&diff=725368015&oldid=724723399] they did finally make to Hank Goldberg after reaching 500 edits is worth a block on its own. Laura Jamieson (talk) 09:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

::::Yes exactly. The / A point is, that that was the article the account was established for in the first place. There's a whole sock farm in that history- can someone do the honours at WP:SPI please. _Pocketed 12:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

:::::Given the work involved by editors in removing some of the stupid edits this user has made, I suggest a final warning is in order, if people think a block is not in order. This is to allow prior warned and swift action to prevent additional problems if the same behaviour quickly starts up again. Additionally, the gaming in order to get the extra Extended Confirmed User status, mentioned above, could be reasonably resisted in so far as it might be that they should not be swarded to this editor, or, if it awarded automatically, it could be removed on the grounds of gaming the system, and to give a message to prevent gaming by others in a similar way.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocked initially as WP:NOTHERE then realized it's very likely a sock of Jaredgk2008. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

{{archivebottom}}

{{Clear}}

{{archive top|reason=Indeffed by {{u|Floquenbeam}}. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 19:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)}}

An IP has been making many random talk pages, with a couple words. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/92.40.65.89 here]. Can an admin check it out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePlatypusofDoom (talk • contribs) 19:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

{{Clear}}

{{archive top|Floydian is urged to heed the consensus that Muhammad Ali should be referred to on-wiki by that name. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:42, 17 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? Laura Jamieson (talk) 03:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

: Urban dictionary - "wahmbulance" - when someone is crying over something stupid, you tell them that you are calling one of these[http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wahmbulance] DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:14, 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. Bus stop (talk) 03:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

:: 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)

:::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)

• 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. {{U|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)

: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)

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). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

:Xenophobia and racism is founded upon deliberate an vexatious ignorism. I'm sick and tired of the argument that labels you with these traits/terms just because a statement you've made might offend someone. Muhammad Ali (did I spell it right, someone ridicule me if I did not) is Cassius Clay and Cassius Clay is Muhammad Ali. My use of either name has absolutely no influence on any state of affairs. Hence, my reference to white liberal guilt; the idea that we should censor any idea, concept or opinion that could possibly upset someone, even when that person will not and can not ever witness said "offensive" statement themselves. I am parodying stereotypes myself; the difference is that I am not a member of the culture being sarcastically stereotyped. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

{{hat|Shall we hat the off-topic discussion of a good faith but reverted close? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)}}

FAMASFREENODE, I seriously doubt that Drmies or Ritchie333 would agree with this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=724776477&oldid=724776399 "not even an issue"] close (now reversed). Civility incidents described as racism and xenophobia are very definitely issues, even if they don't result in any sanction. Non-admin closures should be non-controversial and include a balanced summary. Looking at your talk page, it looks like you are keen to prove yourself to be sysop-worthy after your recent NOTNOW RfA, but closures like this one won't help. EdChem (talk) 12:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)Added diff of close EdChem (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

:I agree that "not even an issue" is not a non-controversial non-admin close, and have reverted it. I offer no opinion on the dispute. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

:::{{ec}} {{reply|Boing! said Zebedee}} It's not the first time he has made a close that had to undone, and with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=724156745 exactly the same edit summary]. _Pocketed 13:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

::::Noted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

{{ping|Boing! said Zebedee|EdChem}}referral by birthname is not any integral part of racism. the defendant user mentioned that factFAMASFREENODE (talk) 12:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

:That's not for you to decide - when you close an ANI report it should only reflect the consensus that has been determined, not your personal judgment. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

:This user notes the fact that the revision displayed by {{u|Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi}} is one reverted with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=724156745 praise towards this user.]FAMASFREENODE (talk) 13:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

::Yes, well. That user should recognise that I was assuming good faith and phrasing it gently, kindly even, in the knowledge that you were probably trying to help. If I had possessed the knowledge then that I possess now (that you had put yourself forward for an RFA after just five days here?), then I assure you my form of words would probably have been very different. Cheers, _Pocketed 13:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

{{hab}}

• A response from User:Floydian that you are hearing this would allow this to be closed. The essence of CIVIL (as difficult as it is to enforce) is [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_jerk don't be a jerk] and do things that just create friction and get in the way of the work here, and Floydian you are definitely creating unnecessary friction, and doing it on the hot-button issue of race. This is not about PC, it is about professionalism. Are you hearing this? Jytdog (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
• That user called me a troll there, after I agreed with him on the Howe nomination. I can only figure that he's trying to stir up trouble, and the OP here took the bait. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
• I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFloydian&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=724792774&oldid=724732512 fired] a shot across their bows. Will be happy to enact a block for any repetition. --John (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
• {{small|A stern warning across the bow? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)}}
• I haven't been on since this event took place. There was absolutely zero bad or racist intention in my reference to Muhammad Ali as Cassius Clay, as both names are equally familiar to me; I wasn't aware how contentious it was, figuring it akin to Cat Stevens/Yusaf Islam. FWIW, I like to stir the pot; usually net good results of it. After 13 years here, block threats provide comic relief to my day. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 02:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

::Jeez, Floydian, if you prance around with an attitude of "you can't catch me, I'm unblockable" then you run the risk of an admin rising to the bait and blocking you. Stop stirring the pot and do something useful. For example, it looks like David Gilmour is not too far off taking to GA. In future, I would choose your battles more carefully. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

:::No, it's not that I'm saying I'm unblockable nor is it meant to come across as snarky attitude. I'm simply disillusioned at the politicking that has come to plague many processes here (ITN being a notable one), so I just don't care if I'm blocked; it wouldn't be punitive. As for doing useful stuff, I have two A-class nominations and a Good/Featured topic on the way in a few weeks. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

::::That's good stuff. I personally can't think of a situation where I'd want to block you, but I'm not like other admins. In my experience, when you get your head stuck into a good GA improvement the noticeboards just fade into the distance. I'm still beavering away at User:Ritchie333/Monopoly myself. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

:::::I don't think it should matter if someone made a passing reference, including in edit summary, to Muhammad Ali as Cassius Clay. This apparently began with one reference to "Clay" by Floydian, seen [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&diff=prev&oldid=724720034 here.] Another editor responded, saying "referring to Ali by his former name is pretty offensive".[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AIn_the_news%2FCandidates&type=revision&diff=724720471&oldid=724720034] Is it "pretty offensive"? I think that comment is slightly over the top. Bus stop (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Vin_Jaune.jpg

::::::What boggles me, is whom did I offend? That user? Ali? Ali's family? Every Muslim convert ever? To BaseballBugs, I meant that more as a tongue-in-cheek poke to what you said; the bane of the lack of tone on the internet. I am a Devil's Advocate, and I have no problem debating against a person who shares my point-of-view if only to bring unspoken points to the discussion. As I stated, this is part of my persona, and I will not change that... nor have I over the past decade. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

::::::::::::With respect to the image at right, see WP:WHINING. EEng 22:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

:::::::I think the problem is not that you offended someone, but how you reacted afterwards. You could have done nothing else and ignored it (my recommendation), but instead you said "call the wahmbulance". Now, that's slightly better than "[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R1h2Df3Nrc Fuck you, fuck you and fuck you ... who's next?]" but not by much. Drmies' point in particular is you didn't seem to either realise or care that you caused offence, and just came across as naive or ignorant. Anyway, I'll tell you again - if you want to say "fuck you" to anyone who doesn't align with your way of working, you do it at your own risk, and just - you know - lighten up a bit. I think anything else you post to this thread is going to cause more harm than good and make it more likely someone like {{u|John}} is going to hit "block". As the old saying goes, you've really gotta drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

:::::::: I applaud you Ritchie for your excellent comment here when you said "I think the problem is not that you offended someone, but how you reacted afterwards.", we can sense that Floydian indeed like to stir the plot and accuse others of White guilt, seems rampant with people like him hold on Conservative or right wing values. I think he knows how offensive he is but he is using this for no other reason than to start a conflict. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

::::::::I agree with Ritchie333. "I wasn't aware how contentious it was, figuring it akin to Cat Stevens/Yusaf Islam" is probably fine in this instance. But you had lots of options on how to handle things once it was made clear it was contentious and the way you did handle it was a fairly bad one. If for some reason you couldn't just ignore it, it's not unresonable for you to learn a bit about it. Just reading the article would quickly tell you that it's not a Yusuf Islam situation. Nil Einne (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

:::::::::Part of the blame for the kerfuffle lies with the editor saying that "...referring to Ali by his former name is pretty offensive."[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AIn_the_news%2FCandidates&type=revision&diff=724720471&oldid=724720034] That is an opinion, it is stated with too much forcefulness, and "pretty offensive" is terminology of emotions, consequently it is inflammatory. Another response might have been less emotional and more cerebral. A more intellectual response might have included a quote and attributed it to a source: "In 1964, the boxing legend who told the world he was 'The Greatest' changed his name to Mohammad Ali, dubbing his former alias, Cassius Clay, 'my slave name'".[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/muhammad-ali-death-cassius-clay-why-did-he-change-his-name-nation-of-islam-a7065256.html] Thanks to {{u|Drmies}} for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=724736096&oldid=724734691 pointing this out] earlier in this thread. Bus stop (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• All said, I'll aim to retreat towards editing articles and avoid noticeboards that irk me, as my tone gets out of hand. Fair point, however: my (partially) conservative views are amongst a minority on here, and still deserve due-consideration. And with all due respect, can some attention be payed to the longstanding crapshow that goes on between a half-dozen or so users (not naming names) at WP:ITN/C? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 04:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• I recently learned the term deadnaming (see the quotation pulldowns for context) in relation to Ali and also to transgender people. Yes, it's frequently done to give offense on purpose, and that's probably why Floydian's post set people off, even though it apparently wasn't his intention. It sounds like he's aware of the issue now and can be more attuned to it going forward, so I think this thread can be closed. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 23:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• Original use of "Clay" name by Floydian was gratuitous, not to say it would be inappropriate in the article. Quite the contrary. That merits a tsk tsk. A sound slap on the wrist for polemic use of edit summaries is also called for. Seriously, that shouldn't ever cross one's mind after they've lived in the WP neighborhood for a year. Knock it the fuck off. The end. Carrite (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

:* Yeah, exactly. I'm still a little concerned that Floydian describes his xenophobia as "my conservative views are a minority on here", but given Donald Trump, nothing surprises me from that continent these days. Laura Jamieson (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

{{Clear}}

{{archive top|result=Let's close this (not sure what's still being discussed): as {{U|Carrite}} said, we don't jump from a week to indef that quickly. If user returns to the same behavior, it'll be taken care of then. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)}}

It is about {{diff|User talk:Tgeorgescu|723220208|719680972}} where I have been accused of edit warring and of supporting racism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: User:Adasegogisdi has also broken 3RR at Jesus. StAnselm (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

This is true. We have a small group of editors, namely {{diff|User talk:Tgeorgescu|723220208|719680972}} 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)

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)

• 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)

::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? StAnselm (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

:*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)

:::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)

::::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)

:::::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)

:::::::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)

::::::{{ping|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)

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

The Bible is the primary source. And the Bible scholars they are using are obviously white racists and ignorant of the text.

[https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Isaiah%2053%3A2|"Isaiah 53:2"] and [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+1%3A15&version=KJV|"Jesus has bronze skin"]. And there are secondary sources available: [http://www.upci.org/about/about-oneness-pentecostalism|"UPCI"] and [https://www.namb.net/apologetics/oneness-pentecostalism|"namb.net"]-Adasegogisdi (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

: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)

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

::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)

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

::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)

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

:::: 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)

::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)

:::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)

• propose an indefinite block for:
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAdasegogisdi&type=revision&diff=723223728&oldid=723223286 their unblock request]: {{tq|White supremacist editors User talk:StAnselm and User talk:Tgeorgescu are upholding their views on Jesus and forbidding debate}} which followed
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:StAnselm&diff=prev&oldid=723220753 this] warning to StAnselm and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATgeorgescu&type=revision&diff=723221057&oldid=719680972 the same] to Tgeorgescu:{{tq|Please stop upholding a racist viewpoint on a major article. [http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/insisting-jesus-was-white-is-bad-history-and-bad-theology/282310/ "Atlantic"] Discuss on the relevant talk page}} and
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=723221846 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)

• {{nonadmin}} Agreed. WP:CIR issues wrt WP:RS ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cascadia_subduction_zone&diff=next&oldid=721276177], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus&diff=prev&oldid=723040751]) 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

::::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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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. StAnselm (talk) 02:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

::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)

• 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)
• 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus_Christ_the_Father&oldid=722738777 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)
• After [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAdasegogisdi&type=revision&diff=724355679&oldid=724355059 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)
• Yes, given the behaviour has continued after the block, I have switched to supporting an indef block as well. StAnselm (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
• I'm also switching to indef: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adasegogisdi&diff=prev&oldid=724355679 "American racism"], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jesus&diff=prev&oldid=724352078 "Christ's ethnicity is clearly stated in the Bible, and should not be distorted by white fools who hate blacks"], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus&diff=prev&oldid=723220351 "Editors not discussing racist bias"], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus&diff=prev&oldid=723218276 "This racism is unacceptable"], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=723221846 "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"], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tgeorgescu&diff=prev&oldid=723220120 "Please stop upholding a racist viewpoint on a major article".] Enough already. GAB^gab 15:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
• Ban GAB said it above me, "Enough already." --Adam in MO Talk 16:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

:Reluctant Support. The continuing accusations of racism that are based on nothing more than a preference for a particular image in the article (a preference that can be explained much more easily through means other than white supremacism) show a user who is either only here to pick a fight, or who doesn't understand what we expect in terms of collegiality. This is a shame, because alternative viewpoints on Jesus Christ and other articles would be very much welcomed. Reluctantly support a ban because I don't see anything coming out of this person's presence other than continued disruption, but I would also hope that at some point that ban can be lifted if the user can demonstrate an understanding of concepts such as WP:AGF. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC).

• Note: I've reopened this because it was an improper close by {{u|FAMASFREENODE}}, who I've since blocked. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

::Good block. I'm surprised it took so long TBH! Can we have a sweepstake on how long it is before talkpage access is revoked? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

:::*A new (and now blocked for their username) user has posted on their talk page, so I'm curious as to whether or not that's the editor evading a block. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

::::*Given the amount of apparent block evasion going on there, it might be worth opening an SPI to see if there's any disruption happening elsewhere. But that's getting off the topic of this particular thread. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC).

• Propose a week- long block (but not a weaker one!). And, pace to {{u|Jytdog}} for the logic of his opening nomination, which I agree with. I think, as someone said, this is bad behaviour, and yes it is almost certainly intentional; but as a relatively new user, it could still be explained by the editor being unused to the demands we make of collegialty (if he's come form toxic environments such as FB debating pages, then this is a totally diferent one. As such, whilst agreeing with the motivation of Jytdog's proposal, suggest than Indef is too severe at this point. A week's block, however, will have the combined effect (hopefully) of removing him from the arena (for both his and WP's benefit- no opportunity to 'make' trouble or for us to imagine it) temporarilly, whilst providing him with enough WP:ROPE for a return to Jytdog's original proposal to be the only logical step for the community. _Pocketed 10:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• :The user us already on a one week block, due to expire tomorrow, so what are you actually proposing we do now? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

:::Right. I should withdraw that badly thought-out proposal and propose to make no other proposals that involve blocking for a week those currently blocked for a week. _Pocketed 14:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

:::: :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

A lot of the early Depictions of Muhammad also look like a white guy. Was that "racist" also? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

{{archive top|reason=Open proxy and disruptively-behaving IPs have been blocked by Malcolmxl5, further problems will be handled accordingly. Looks like this one is finished. (non-admin closure) Montanabw^(talk) 02:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)}}

I feel more eyes would be beneficial to our article Rothschild family - there seems to be a history of veiled (and not-so-veiled) conspiracy theory type additions by IPs. Not sure if it approaches the threshold for semi-protection, so I thought I'd raise it here for your input. DuncanHill (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• I've blocked IP 31.208.7.22 per the local policy against open proxies. It's on the EFnet RBL database as an open proxy and has previously been blocked by ProcseeBot as an open proxy. This doesn't relate to the Rothschild family article though I realise this IP has been editwarring some content into the article. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

:*{{IPuser|91.211.125.85}} appears to be the same person as {{IPuser|31.208.7.22}} judging by their contributions, some of which appear to me to be blatantly racist. DuncanHill (talk) 18:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

:* Excuse me, how is clearly stating the involvement of Muslims in the first world racist? Are you upset that you don't understand the banking system, and how debt must be originated/tied to purchases/hard goods? You're not even qualified to discuss immigration policy and how it's changed, coincidentally, with all the "wars" that have happened lately. There is no racism in any of my statements, contrary to what you may claim. You sound like Tom Perkins, the man who I linked in the discussion, who is a recipient of money from the Royal Bank of Canada, when he said the attack on rich people is equivalent to the holocaust. So please, tell me, where is the racism? None. In fact, one could argue using the holocaust as a way to deflect the criticisms of rich people is racist. Everything I stated in the page was fact.

:* You've reverted edits without justification. Where is your comment on why the Rothschild Rockefeller connection has been removed? Why haven't you discussed how you've failed to justify its removal when I produced an article that definitively states it is at least fifty years (original reversion was on the basis that there was no longstanding relationship, and that the current source that was supporting it did not state a time frame).

::*Further, you ignored the FACT that the Rockefeller family name was in the infobox for YEARS and only RECENTLY (when initially reverted by a muslim, check the log and look at the IP's edit history) was contested. It was then re-inserted with a proper source, which was removed by User:Johnbod (who has a conflict of interest, see edit history full of Rothschild related articles. I suspect his job/position at the Royal Society brings him into contact with these people)

:::* User:DuncanHill then initially reverted the newest insertion, even though Johnbod's first two reversions (one for the FT.com article, another for the first telegraph article that is not the same as the one being used now) were fair based on his original argumeent (which was, again: articles did not state any duration of relationship and thus did not justify retaining infobox field). User:DuncanHill has not answered as to what is missing in the most recent insertion, because there is nothing to argue. It conclusively states fifty years, and they are trying to revert based upon a discussion that has not moved since I provided the most conclusive evidence (instead they've tried to call me names). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.211.125.85 (talk) 18:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• The IP 91.211.125.85 has been blocked by Floquenbeam for one month. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

::Floquenbeam, I'd like to also call attention to these two difs [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rothschild_family&diff=725484413&oldid=725482426] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rothschild_family&diff=725601358&oldid=725596519] which show that 31.208.7.22 and 91.211.125.85 are likely the same person (thus sockpuppeting, meaning they should BOTH be banned for 6 months, not just 91) as well as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:142.105.159.60&diff=725605504&oldid=725596729 this dif] by a 3rd IP, whish should warrant a block whether its the same guy or not.142.105.159.60 (talk) 21:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

:::When we block an open proxy, the user is not the intended target so it's not sockpuppetry as such here. 91.211.125.85 however was blocked for disruptive behaviour so using another IP will be straightforward block evasion. 142.105.159.60 45.40.143.57 I've blocked as another open proxy. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

::::Ummm, I haven't been blocked...142.105.159.60 (talk) 04:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

:::::Sorry, I meant 45.40.143.57. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

{{archive top|Closing per J Milburn's final comments below. In his words, this thread is as resolved as it's going to be, and other more useful discussions may be taking place elsewhere.

I am, however, concerned by the stress and unhappiness created by what should have been a routine noticeboard discussion. This obviously is far from the only example of that problem, and I am convinced that the functioning of ANI needs to improve, but how to bring that about is also a discussion for someplace else. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)}}

After I nominated an article at FAC, {{user|Checkingfax}} made a number of large-scale (semi-?)automated edits to the article. This [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=An_Introduction_to_Animals_and_Political_Theory&type=revision&diff=725057396&oldid=724948948 introduced] a number of problems, including changing the citation style without discussion (compare [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=An_Introduction_to_Animals_and_Political_Theory&oldid=724948948#Bibliography my] version to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=An_Introduction_to_Animals_and_Political_Theory&oldid=725302258#Bibliography Checkingfax's]), which is contrary to WP:CITEVAR. Due to the problematic nature of these changes, I reverted them. Checkingfax [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=An_Introduction_to_Animals_and_Political_Theory&type=revision&diff=725109745&oldid=725107357 reverted] me (subsequently introducing a variety of other problems to the article), assuring me on my talk page that we were on the same page. This led to a long and frustrating discussion on my talk page; I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJ_Milburn&type=revision&diff=725111079&oldid=725110411 repeatedly] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJ_Milburn&type=revision&diff=725218597&oldid=725183444 explained] that the user had changed my citation style. This they repeatedly denied; it became clear that they simply did not know what a citation style is. A [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJ_Milburn&type=revision&diff=725278795&oldid=725266980 choice quote]: "There are basically two kinds of citation styles: plain-text or template style. Changing from one to the requires consensus. One style should be used throughout." The user was not keen to listen, and eventually [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJ_Milburn&type=revision&diff=725295459&oldid=725286232 declared] that they were disengaging. The user then received firm warnings about respect for WP:CITEVAR from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:J_Milburn&diff=prev&oldid=725299053 me] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Checkingfax&diff=prev&oldid=725299258 twice]) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJ_Milburn&type=revision&diff=725314898&oldid=725314593 from another administrator]. Given that the user had failed to provide any reasons for their edits and was (at that time) refusing to engage, I then reverted to the original citation style. Despite the warnings they had received, Checkingfax has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=An_Introduction_to_Animals_and_Political_Theory&type=revision&diff=725348299&oldid=725307244 once again] tried to force their preferred citation style into the article (and again introducing other problems), even mysteriously citing WP:CITEVAR in their edit summary. This stands on the article at the time of writing. I am at this stage very frustrated, having wasted many hours of my time on this problem (and delayed making changes to the article in line with the comments of FAC reviewers). As such, I am requesting a block; Checkingfax's actions are clearly contrary to WP:CITEVAR, WP:IDHT, WP:EW and, perhaps, given the introduction of many errors unrelated to citation format and a lack of understanding of what a "citation style" is, WP:COMPETENCE. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• Frankly, I have been there, done that and got the T-shirt. My advice is this - millions of people read Wikipedia day in, day out, possibly including your family, friends and co-workers. Almost all of these do not give a flying toss about citation formats, they want to find factually correct information that is well presented. [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WarGames The only winning move at FAC is not to play] and I can think of at least 2 or 3 reviews where things like citation and template formatting have reared their ugly heads and thought "this is not worth my time", walking away from it. I don't think a block is going to get consensus unless Checkingfax has a mad civility meltdown on this thread, so I'm not tempted to do that, plus he does so much work in article space I find it difficult to assess whether or not such a block would be a net negative for the project. Plus blocking Checkingfax won't actually help you get the article passed through FAC. All that said, I'm going to drop a note on his talk telling him to lighten up a bit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• Thanks for your thoughts. First: While I appreciate that my experience isn't a typical one, I assure you that lots of my friends and colleagues have very strong opinions on citation formatting! More seriously, though: I do not know whether blocking Checkingfax will help with the FAC; that's not my motivation. What I do know is that it will (at least in the short term) stop his/her edit warring, and perhaps hammer home that their actions are problematic (something the user has done her/his best to ignore so far). I agree that, in the grand scheme of things, citation formatting really isn't that big a deal, but we have a problem when someone who literally doesn't know what a citation style is has taken it upon themselves to review citation formatting at FAC and make large-scale, script-assisted edits to citations. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• I have reverted the most recent edit and am about to drop a note on their talkpage. Since at least *two* editors disagree with their citation changes they will now need to seek consensus on the talkpage to make said changes. Suggest this is closed until said discussion is had. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• Thanks. I note that, in accordance with both WP:CITEVAR and WP:BRD, the user was already obliged to seek consensus or at least engage in discussion. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:J_Milburn&oldid=725299053#Do_not_panic There was discussion], but it wasn't exactly productive. My takehome message was that Checkingfax did not know what a citation style was, and that he had no interest in learning. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• I agree with this observation that you posted to CF, visible on your talk page: "{{xt|I have tried to explain why you are mistaken. You have now chosen to disengage on the grounds that I am not being "collaborative" or "civil", and that I am "belittling" you. This, of course, is untrue; you are clearly very uncomfortable with being told that you are mistaken, and would rather make vague accusations of wrongdoing.}}" I've seen this happen with this editor, even when an admin, and in this case two admins, try to explain policy or guidelines to him. CF does a lot of rapid automated or semi-automated editing but apparently not a lot of content work so there are many policies and guidelines he is unfamiliar with, and I've seen him get defensive and reactive and edit-war instead of trying to understand the relevant policies or guidelines when he is apprised of them. WP:CITEVAR is very clear in that citation styles are not to be changed without discussion and consensus on the article talk page: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." Since I see no such discussion or consensus on the talk page or FAR, and on the contrary everyone including the article reviewers and another admin are backing you up, it should be time for CF to receive a directive to back off, and a warning that if they do not they will be blocked. In my opinion you should restore your preferences as they originally were, and move forward. If there is blowback from CF, then he should be blocked at that point. But I think he should probably be given the opportunity, now that this is at ANI, to voluntarily stand down and desist before a block happens. Softlavender (talk) 10:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

:*The first thing I found on Checkingfax's talk page of note was Talk:Planned Parenthood/GA1 - that really doesn't sound like somebody who does "not a lot of content work" if you ask me. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

::*I would be interested to here {{u|Softlavender}}'s definition of "a lot of content work"... Of CF's contribs, nearly 15,000 edits (60%) are in article space. FYI, etc. _Pocketed 10:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

:::::::{{u|Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi}}, you might want to review WP:NOTHERE. EEng 12:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

:::*I believe they are referring to Checkingfax's editing which tends to the gnome/semi-automated fixes than to actual content creation. Both are in article space but the 'content creators' tend to get picky about the distinction ;) (This is not to suggest their work is not needed or useful, a large amount of times I see them they are adding/fixing refs, a very valuable task. However in this case they are dicking around with citations expressly against CITEVAR) Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

:::Yes, automated and semi-automated edits to article space; not a lot of content creation. Softlavender (talk) 10:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

:::@Ritchie: If you check the amount and nature of his edits to the article [https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py?name=Checkingfax&page=Planned_Parenthood&server=enwiki&max=], you'll see it is not content work. He has added less than 8.5% of the text of the article (mostly citation text, etc.) [https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-articleinfo/?article=Planned_Parenthood&project=en.wikipedia.org], and most of his edits are of the automated and semi-automated technical type -- filling out refs, disambiguating, etc. Softlavender (talk) 10:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

:If I had the sysop right, I'd look at the situation, see edit warring, block all edit warriors, and move on. There is a well developed, adequately documented dispute resolution path, this is no doubt known to both editors, and nobody used it. And I don't buy the idea that behavior standards should be lower for high contributors. Didn't when I started three years ago, don't now, probably never will. So no RfA in my future. 2¢ ―Mandruss ☎ 10:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

:::Support ...{{u|Mandruss}}'s RfA {{wink}} _Pocketed 10:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

::::Mandruss, if you think that I have engaged in edit warring, I'd be interested to hear why. As was explained in my initial post: Due to the errors it introduced, I reverted (in accordance with the BRD cycle) the user's initial changes. I was then reverted; as explained, I then engaged in a very long and frustrating discussion with the user on my talk page. The user said that they were disengaging. Given that they had not provided a reason for changing the citation format, and given the guidelines over at WP:CITEVAR, I changed the citation style back to my preferred version. The user then changed it back, citing, of all things, WP:CITEVAR. Where do you believe I have gone wrong, here? Or was that not what you meant by "both" editors? Josh Milburn (talk) 10:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

:::::Again, my views appear to be inconsistent with the prevailing community views on this, but here's how I look at it. CF's first re-revert started the EW. At that point you could have sought consensus somewhere, but instead you engaged in a mostly one-on-one battle with CF. Then, eventually, you "then reverted to the original citation style", in violation of WP:EW "'but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring' is no defense." Thus you participated in the EW. In my warped view. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

::::::"At that point you could have sought consensus somewhere" Please tell me what I should have done. Start a request for comment? "Hi everyone; I'm starting this request for comment to make sure that WP:CITEVAR applies. A user has changed the citation style in this article; now, discussion with them has failed. They've illustrated that they don't know what a citation style is, and denied that they are changing it, and now said that they're not going to engage any further. Can I please get consensus to change it back?" I'm sorry if that comes across as sarcastic; I'm genuinely not sure what it is that you're suggesting. I stretched my ability to assume good faith as far as it can go; I gave the user a chance to explain why they had changed my citation style, and then, when they displayed their ignorance of the issues at stake and said that they were disengaging, I reverted- in accordance with WP:CITEVAR, which is the relevant guideline here. And you think I should be blocked for that? Should [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=An_Introduction_to_Animals_and_Political_Theory&type=revision&diff=725386981&oldid=725348299 Only in death] also be blocked? Josh Milburn (talk) 11:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

:::::::The first choice would ordinarily be the article talk page, but it looks like that wasn't an option due to low interest in the article. The next step in my opinion would be to review WP:DR, which would lead you to its section, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Resolving content disputes with outside help. Multiple options there. But neither the FAR page nor your user talk page seem like good places to seek consensus, since they both lack the necessary quorum for it. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

:::::::: Violating WP:CITEVAR (and also creating new errors thereby) isn't a content issue, since formats aren't content. So I don't think WP:DR would have been appropriate. I do agree that keeping all of the discussion on the article's talk page would have been and is always the best policy, even if it seems "cluttery" (it needn't have been on the FAR page, it could have been right on the article talk). Softlavender (talk) 11:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

:::::::::Considering that Wikipedia:Citing sources is a content guideline, I don't see how violating CITEVAR is not a content issue. In any case, every content dispute is about someone claiming that someone else is in violation of some policy or guideline. The purpose of DR is to determine whether that assertion is true or false. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

:::::::::{{ec}} At one point should I have gone to the dispute resolution page, please? When Checkingfax first made a mess of the article? When (s)he reverted my revert? When (s)he started a thread on my talk page assuring me that (s)he could explain (and, to be clear, it was the other user who chose to start the discussion there, not me)? When it became clear that (s)he didn't know what (s)he was talking about? When (s)he claimed he was not interested in discussing it further? Or some other time? And at what point should I have been blocked, please? I am left feeling that your expectations are unrealistic. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

:::::::::::Look, I've already stated that my views are probably inconsistent with the community's. That means they are irrelevant. I expected to make the one little drive-by comment and be done. I apologize for wasting time and space. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

::{{ec}} What or which "well developed, adequately documented dispute resolution path" are you talking about here? We have two guidelines, WP:CITEVAR and WP:BRD, both of which were repeatedly violated in spite of repeated explanations and discussions and examples of the problems being created. Softlavender (talk) 10:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

:::My reply above might partly answer your question. The main thing is failure to use the tool called consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

::::Mandruss, I don't think you've looked (or looked closely) at the extensive discussion on the FAR page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/An_Introduction_to_Animals_and_Political_Theory/archive1&redirect=no#Comments_by_Checkingfax] and on JM's talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J_Milburn#Do_not_panic], which JR immediately engaged in after CF's re-revert. Those lengthy discussions were in my view attempts to seek consensus on JM's part, and CF seemingly kept changing his intentions about whether he was in agreement or not or what the facts were or what the nature of the issue was. (Ideally, all of these discussion should have been on the article's talk, and this is a good example of why content discussion should not occur on user talkpages, but even so, JM did in my mind attempt discussion and consensus.) Softlavender (talk) 11:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's my problem. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Animal_Rights_Without_Liberation&diff=725218867&oldid=725152892 This edit] from Josh is similar to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leicester_Square&diff=686483660&oldid=686399412 one of mine] where I lost my temper a bit with someone who I thought was doing hit and run editing. The subtle, but important difference, is my edit summary ("if I thought adding a dot would make a SHORTENED footnote easier to type I'd have done it myself") is referring to the content (albeit in a not very civil manner), while yours ("Your "cleaning" and "fixes" have already made a mess of one article, you can stay away from others") is directly about the editor. That makes it difficult to come down one side or the other when considering any administrative action, as it has to be fair to all sides. Blocking everybody is one way of being fair, but the problem with doing it to established editors is you end up with a big stink kicked up from third parties (indeed, I would say the problem is the reverse of what Mandruss says - it's not that we have lower standards for established editors, it's rather you can more often kick a newbie punitively and get away with it!) A 24 hour full-protect and talk page notice (recent example) is one way of doing it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

:The user, while I was explaining (or doing my best to explain) why their scripts were problematic, decided to apply their scripts to a related article. That's a display of poor judgement at best, downright provocation at worst. I found error after error in their script assisted edits in other articles; I thought it was fair to assume that there were going to be errors in that one too. My comment were indeed directed at the editor, but I think they were quite reasonable; someone messing up articles with sloppy scripts shouldn't be applying those same sloppy scripts to other articles; especially not when they are at that time engaged in discussion about how sloppy their editing is. Your suggestion that I could be blocked or that the article could be protected is utterly ludicrous, and an illustration of why I hate these noticeboards so much. I am reaching out (in desperation) for assistance in dealing with an incompetent and disruptive editor. I'm getting some help- I appreciate the revert and the warnings left on the user's talk page. But I also have a variety of people talking about blocking me for edit warring and making jokes about supporting each other at RfA because they'd be willing to block me. This is not a productive environment. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

:@Ritchie: You're singling out one edit summary, but this situation consists of dozens of edits and lengthy discussions and repeated denial of the situation/facts/guidelines. I don't think one edit summary outweighs that. You've been comparing this situation to your own experience but in this case I think you need to step back and just look at the longterm disruption instead of "what would Ritchie do [or have done]?" Softlavender (talk) 11:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

::I appreciate there has been frustration over this, probably from both sides, and it's something I emphasise with as it's easy to get frustrated when you have put a lot of work into an article only to find somebody make changes you don't think are particularly required. However, in my view, Josh has come across a little too confrontational; above he's taken exception to being blocked, when I've not said that (I said a block would be unhelpful). ANI isn't "requests for punishment", it's a way of getting administrators to look at conduct disputes and see if they can resolve them so people can get back to work. (alright, it's actually closer to the Slough of Despond, but one can dream...) Anyway, Checkingfax has been told about this thread and I'm awaiting a response; we'll see what happens when he replies. Patience. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

:::"I appreciate there has been frustration over this, probably from both sides". Yes. The difference is that the other party has displayed ignorance of the issues at stake and an unwillingness to follow the guidelines. "[C]hanges you don't think are particularly required" is something of an understatement when it comes to the edits they have made to the articles I have written. And do you seriously think I am behaving inappropriately by "[taking] exception to being blocked"? I suspect you'd take exception to me saying that you should be blocked, too. (And please don't try to wriggle out of it. You raised the possibility of blocking me, even if only to reject it. And you're not the only one in this thread who's done so.) Josh Milburn (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

::::Rightyho, this isn't getting anyone anywhere. Edit warring took place, misused edit summaries happened, and dispute resolution wasn't sought before this drama board was used. Time to step back, everyone. Let Checkingfax have an opportunity to contribute to this thread. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

:::::Why is everyone pretending that this is some kind of content dispute that needed a thirty-page RfC to determine? This is a disruptive and incompetent editor. I am out. I am done. I will not comment here further unless addressed directly. It's clear that there is no chance of anything resembling resolution. I'm sorry I asked for help. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

::::::Well. That seems overly harsh; although it does indicate why you perhaps did not get the 'help' you wanted. _Pocketed 12:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

:::::::And it is incredibly lopsided to bring this directly to ANI and expect a block to be dished out to someone who hasn't edited for nearly six hours. That's called a punitive block as, right now, Checkingfax is neither harming Wikipedia nor had a chance to engage in this thread. It looks wise for Josh to leave it alone for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

::::::Resolutions do not always mean the resolution you want. Actually I think Rambling Man described this thread aptly as "Drama Board". What is up drama board nation, I'm your host Keller Keemstar, let's get rooooight into the news... honestly if even one person has a chuckle at that then I have done my duty. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

:This is another sad and sorry case where the onus has fallen on the reverter to justify his revert, instead of being on the newcomer to justify his edit that caused the dispute. This is a failing of Wikipedia that leads to great frustration. The 3RR rule is weighted entirely against the protector of longstanding content - he reverts first, so he reaches 3RR before the newcomer who made the edit. The way it's set up is an abomination. Akld guy (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

::Except that neither editor involved is exactly a newcomer, both of the editors involved here are experienced editors and ought to know the policies that they're applying. Besides, no point beating the dead horse, especially given that the horse is not even around. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Disagreeing with some of the comments above, I think J Milburn was well-justified in posting to this page. That said, I agree that there isn't much more to say until we hear from Checkingfax. I ask Checkingfax to respond not just to the issue regarding this specific article, but to the more general question of how he deals with articles that employ a permissible citation style that is not the one he prefers, and whether there are issues with his scripts that would warrant adjusting them. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

:Agreed, NYB. WP:CITEVAR is a clear guideline here, regardless of some other's feelings about citation styles. People here may disagree with it, but it's still a guideline that should usually be followed. I'm disappointed in some editors here for not seeming to recognize that. As such, {{u|J Milburn}} was completely justified in reverting Checkingfax—who I might remind you came onto the pages of his own volition and started editing disruptively. So talking about J's edit warring, {{u|Mandruss}}, may be true but it's hardly the point.

:{{u|Ritchie333}}, calling J "confrontational" is like the pot calling the kettle black, given your entrance into this discussion (which was very needlessly combative). Also, Checkingfax is in no way, shape, or form a newcomer.

:{{u|The Rambling Man}}, you've clearly missed the large amount of discussion between these two editors on this topic. While I appreciate the desire to follow policy for policy's sake and have the discussion on the article's talk page, it's pretty silly to dismiss the dispute resolution already attempted by J (he certainly followed WP:BRD). Of course, the amusing thing is that Checkingfax is violating an approved guideline, and we're telling a clearly frustrated J to go to dispute resolution. Like both sides have legitimate points. Which they don't. WP:CITEVAR, again.

:ANI is supposed to be a place to tackle editorial disputes. Whether or not J should have asked for a block, don't shoot the messenger for bringing a legitimate dispute here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

::What I most objected to was the request to block another editor when (a) he wasn't editing (b) he wasn't given a chance to respond here. If there's a long history beyond that already noted by Josh above, then I'm sorry to have missed it, but simply popping up here to ask for a block doesn't feel appropriate until all parties have had a chance to respond. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

::(ec) "ANI is supposed to be a place to tackle editorial disputes" - sorry, it isn't - that's WP:DRN or talk pages. As Checkingfax was not committing obvious vandalism or BLP violations (or any of the other things that WP:3RR exempts from), then all behaviour should be looked at. I'm sorry you feel we're having a go, we're just trying to work out who has done what and work out how to close this down gracefully. (And what TRM said). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Ritchie333}} Fine, then say that next time {{redacted}}. This may come as a shock, but there's a lot of pages around here and we can't all be expected to know which one is perfectly applicable to our particular situation. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

::::Ed, while you have the chance, at the very least retract the personal attack from your comment. Also, as has been repeatedly said, wait for Checkinfax to respond. All these comments are redundant and don't help to solve the dispute (like at all). Mr rnddude (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

::::(ec) If you're referring to "Almost all of these do not give a flying toss about citation formats", I think you've misunderstood what I was getting at; I was merely sympathising with J's situation, having been in the same boat myself, and suggesting that edit-warring over citation templates wasn't worth worrying about. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

:::::My apologies if I misread your comment, {{u|Ritchie333}}. I'll redact my comment above. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• Propose temporary thread closure: nothing is likely to be done until CF arrives, and now we can sit back and watch two admins scrap it out {{wink}} I suggest this as a far more dignified stance for us all. Striking out as seemed to have a certain soporific affect, intentionally or otherwise... _Pocketed 15:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• I haven't read all of the above. Josh nominated an article for FAC (which can be a nerve-wracking, time-consuming process) and Checkingfax arrived and started changing his citation style over his objections. That's a violation of WP:CITEVAR and of standard practice at FAC. Checkingfax then went to another article Josh had written and did the same. So that needs to stop. I can't see a need for a block, but I hope Checkingfax will agree not to do this kind of thing in future. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

::{{reply|SlimVirgin}} If {{u|Checkingfax}} could poke his head in here right now at his earliest convenience, as a demonstration to the community that he recognises its concern, that would probably be a start. _Pocketed 16:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

{{u|J Milburn|Josh Milburn's}} Featured Article promotion request for Alasdair Cochrane's textbook is moving along quickly. All the reviewers are engaging collaboratively with Josh to that end. A lot of red herrings have been brought up in this discussion. This report is a distraction to Josh that he does not need.

[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=An_Introduction_to_Animals_and_Political_Theory&type=revision&diff=725057396&oldid=724948948 This] edit which Josh shotgun reverted introduced no "problems" nor did it change any citation styles. Neither did [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Animal_Rights_Without_Liberation&diff=prev&oldid=725152892 this] one in another article that Josh shotgun reverted. "Shotgun" refers to wholesale reverting rather than reverting objectionable edits discretely. There was no engagement from Josh prior to either of the shotgun reverts. Administrator, Wikipedia Blogmaster, former Signpost Editor-in-Chief and Wikipedia editor {{u|The ed17}} shotgun reverted [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Animal_Rights_Without_Liberation&diff=prev&oldid=725152892 the second one again] citing BRD in his edit summary which is ironic because he was reverting a reverted edit without discussing it with me and he still has not. I went to his talk page immediately to discuss the reversion but he has not responded to me. He has offered no reason to justify the revert. I have never had any contact ever with Ed on Wikipedia and I am not sure why he became fixated on this nor why he has not been willing to discuss this with me (in spite of his BRD edit summary request).

As an essay, WP:BRD carries no obligation to follow it, and there are numerous counter-essays using it. In spite of that, I went right to Josh's and Ed's pages to discuss my revert or theirs.

The Bibliography of An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory, the main article at the root of this AN/I, has 22 references. 21 of them are in citation template style and one of them is in plain text style. I pointed that out to Josh at the FA review and left him to fix it which he did not. He said it was throwing an error. After some time passed I figured out a way to remedy it and harmonize the citation style but I used the {{tlx|cite book}} citation template (like the 3 other Garner books) instead of the {{tlx|cite journal}} citation template (which was more germane) and Josh reverted it instead of simply changing the word book to journal.

The 2nd bullet point of WP:CITEVAR guides us to stay with templates consistently if templates are in use which they were by 21:1.

When I went back in to change book to journal in that one bullet item I made a blunder and edited from an old page version. That fact is impossible, AFAIK, to glean from the Diff of my most recent edit. Even in its imperfection it did not cause any problems or change any styles. It just needed to be cleaned up and still does. My only intention in that edit was to edit that one reference and here we are.

Josh is under a lot of stress and I am sorry to have exacerbated it with the above mentioned blunder.

The way the Bibliography metadata is currently formatted does not allow usable COinS parsing of the metadata. No change in citation style is needed; only tweaking the parameters.

I am here to build an encyclopedia and look forward to getting back to putting my shoulder to the wheel. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

:WP:COinS ability to parse metadata from the article is not relevant to changing another person's citation style. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

::{{ec}} The claims that Checkingfax makes are transparently incorrect. Checkingfax's initial edit, which (s)he claims in the post above "introduced no 'problems' nor did it change any citation styles", clearly changed the citation style in the article (it also introduced other problems, but that's not the point of this thread). Compare the bibliography [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=An_Introduction_to_Animals_and_Political_Theory&oldid=724948948#Bibliography before] the user's edits to the bibliography [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=An_Introduction_to_Animals_and_Political_Theory&oldid=725057396#Bibliography after] the user's edits. I have explained this to the user multiple times (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJ_Milburn&type=revision&diff=725218597&oldid=725183444 here], for instance). They point blank refuse (or are unable) to get the point. I hope this is illustrative those in this thread of why I have found this situation so frustrating. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• These kinds of disputes are why people think Wikipedia is ridiculous. I suggest that:
• if User:J Milburn defends their behavior at that article one more time, they receive a 24 hour block.
• User:Checkingfax should weigh in here and acknowledge they made a big mess of things. If they don't recommend I 24 hour block for them. Jytdog (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC))

:::Can I point out the double-standard I'm facing here, please? I have received quite considerable criticism for calling for a block of a disruptive and incompetent editor. Yet others are apparently free to land in this thread and throw all kinds of shade at me, and call for a block for me for laughably spurious reasons. Not only that, but others will then joke about supporting them at RfA. Why do I have to tolerate this? Josh Milburn (talk) 22:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• I propose a 24 hour block for J Milburn for an inability to STFU and listen to the community, more nicely described in WP:IDHT. Jytdog (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• {{ping|Jytdog}} That's a completely unhelpful suggestion. In general, you are making far too many references to blocking. I suggest that you leave this discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• +1. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

::::::WIthdrawn. Nothing is going to break here as long as people are not listening and insisting What I Did What Was Perfect. But withdrawn and feedback heard. Jytdog (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

2¢ - I don't think it really matters that much who was right (or, perhaps more accurately, the degree to which JM was right, or whether JM could've edited rather than reverted). Differences of opinion were had, mistakes were made and acknowledged. The core of the problem is just WP:BRD. Yes, it's an essay, but based on a model that has pretty broad consensus. During an FAC, that pretty broad consensus should be considered even consensusier. If you make edits to an article at FAC (doesn't really matter if they're all that "Bold") and someone working on the page Reverts, then take it to the talk page and talk about it until consensus consensusizes. Doesn't seem like any action needs to be taken unless edit warring continues. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

:::I wish mistakes were acknowledged. Checkingfax is still posting to various places making the same insistences that (s)he has been making all along and displaying the same shocking levels of incompetence. Check out [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Checkingfax&diff=prev&oldid=725492139 this] post, for example, made just after I went to bed last night. Still showing the same ignorance of what a citation style is, and still insisting that her/his actions were legitimate. (S)He has learnt and acknowledged nothing. I've learnt a lot about Wikipedia, and I've acknowledged my mistake in hoping for anything productive to come out of this board; unless that's what you're referring to, I think you have a too-optimistic view of what has been achieved here. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

::::Josh Milburn, Checkingfax does not acknowledge mistakes, and he routinely indulges in self-justification and misrepresentation of guidelines and policies. So do not expect him to acknowledge any error, mistake, guideline violation, etc. Your goal was to stop him from disrupting and changing the article and your other articles. This has apparently succeeded, and there are eyes on the article now. I suggest you stop tracking CF's edits, and let this thread be closed. Softlavender (talk) 10:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

:All this dispute seems to be over Josh Milburn's insistance on calling "using the cite templates badly" a style. These templates, when used properly, produce Citation Style 1, probably the most common citation style on Wikipedia. But "used properly" includes splitting out author names into separate first and last name parameters. This produces a consistent style, usable metadata, the ability to link to the citations by the harv series of templates, familiarity for readers, and a consistently designed author name ordering that is unambiguous to read. Instead, Milburn thinks that using these templates with the {{para|authors}} parameter, with authors formatted in a mishmash of forward and reversed orderings and with commas used both to separate parts of some names and to separate names from each other, is a separate style that should be protected. At least, that is the only difference I noticed in the comparison he posted at the top of this thread. This is WP:LAME and I have no sympathy for Milburn's position. If gnomes want to go through cleaning up Citation Style 1 templates so that they generate proper Citation Style 1 references, they should be left free to do so. That's not changing the style, it's just good gnomery. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

::You are misrepresenting my position. I don't care about whether I am using the citation template "right". I care about how my citation looks. That's what a citation style is. That's what the other user changed; "lame" or not, they edit warred with me despite WP:CITEVAR, despite repeated explanations and despite their wilful and continuing ignorance of the issues at stake. Are you seriously suggesting that because I'm not using the citation templates "right", my citation style does not warrant protection by WP:CITEVAR? And people are allowed to edit war with me all they want? What policy is this based on, please? Josh Milburn (talk) 07:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

:::{{ping|David Eppstein}} Let's just be crystal clear about this. Let's say you come along to an article and there is one citation. There are no templates, because this is a utopic world in which nobody cares about templates. That one reference is formatted like this: "Smith, John and Jane Jones (2000). Stuff. Oxford: Oxford University Press." As a good Wikipedian, you know that you can't change citation styles. But you can be a good gnome. Pop quiz: are you allowed to change the one reference to "Smith, John; Jones, Jane (2000). Stuff. Oxford: Oxford University Press."? Because I'd say that that (which is what Checkingfax did to the article in question) would be changing the citation style. But you've just called that "not changing the style ... just good gnomery". No doubt people will want to tell me that this post misses the point or is combative or something (and five points to the first person who comes up with a reason to block me for it...) but it really is this simple. Templates or no templates (and if it really helps, any gnome is welcome to remove the citation templates altogether provided they leave my citation template intact) another user has arrived at an article I've written, changed the citation template and then edit warred with me to keep their preferred version, all the while displaying real ignorance. I've come to AN/I for help, and faced all kinds of criticism and abuse and had calls for me to be blocked. What do you think I should have done? Given the other user a barnstar for their gnome work? Josh Milburn (talk) 08:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I think I can explain what David Eppstein is talking about, and also why J is getting upset about it. The reason we like to use author1=, author2= (and, optionally, in combination with authorlink1, authorlink2...) is it means some nice bits of metadata can be parsed easily from an article and re-used elsewhere, as David says. The problem with this is relating to the [http://www.joelonsoftware.com/uibook/fog0000000249.html difference between a program model and a user model]. The essay I've just linked to explains the context, but in short, David is asking J to change his user model (editing Wikipedia as free text) to match the program model (structured text with a context-free grammar for the lexers and parsers for templates). This is a remarkably hard thing to do for human beings, especially when they do stuff in their spare time for a voluntary project (if this were not the case, command line interfaces would still be widely used as they were in the early 1980s and graphical user interfaces wouldn't have been seen as revolutionary as they really were). So it's small wonder that J is getting frustrated.

The alternative, is of course to change the program model to match the user model, and I'm certain that if Google threw a couple of talented software engineers at this, they would come up with a way of parsing metadata out of articles without requiring the basic user editing model to change. It might not be an easy parsing algorithm, but computer software is quite amenable to changing its behaviour if you reprogram it, without complaining too much. However, we can't work with what we want, we have to go with what we're give, and I think it's fair comment to say that the technical bar for WMF staff does not match Google's.

tl;dr - you're both right in your own way, this argument is going nowhere except to remind people to watch out for edit-warring. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

:I note that WP:CITEVAR specifically encourages, "{{tq|Fixing errors in citation coding, including incorrectly used template parameters, and <ref> markup problems: an improvement because it helps the citations to be parsed correctly}}." It goes on to clarify the meaning of citation style as "{{tq|major citation styles, e.g. parenthetical and <ref> tags, or replacing the preferred style of one academic discipline with another's}}." I'm no expert in this area of policy, but I'm struggling to see J Milburn's understanding of it in quite such black-and-white terms as he obviously does; I think the changes at the core of this dispute are at least arguably in line with the guideline. Neither editor seems to have particularly covered themselves in glory in the way this dispute has been carried out. I'd suggest Checkingfax go and make a coherent, polite argument for why his improvements are improvements, not violations of policy and appropriate at this stage of FAR, and that J Milburn consider that someone else's edits to the article may actually be an improvement. GoldenRing (talk) 11:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• Maybe this is a stupid question but {{ping|J Milburn}} are you using a standard well known style, to some purpose, or is this just your personal aesthetic preference? I really could see no significant differences between the two samples you gave and I would be inclined to say use the citation method which allows the project to be improved by being able to obtain and use metadata. Jbh^Talk 12:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

::I did try and discuss peripheral matters yesterday with {{ping|J Milburn}} but he deigned not to reply {{tongue}} _Pocketed 12:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

:::I just looked at a selection of my Intl. Relations and Pol. Theory books and they indeed do use Smith, John and Jane Doe style for multiple authors. I do, however, think that, as this article is for use on Wikipedia, it would be best for the project that Josh show some flexibility to use the templates in such a way that allows data scraping. Jbh^Talk 19:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

::::My view is that when an article contains a statement (maybe on the talk page, or perhaps in an HTML comment) that it uses a certain well-known stye that is in use in many articles and/or the outside world, editors should follow the style manual or other instructions associated with that style (for example, APA style or The Chicago Manual of Style). The appropriate manual or instructions may also be implied if the article adheres much more closely to one well-known style than any other. In the case of the cite family of templates, they form a well-known style with instructions at "Help talk:Citation Style 1" and the documentation pages of each template. Making an article adhere more closely to the manual or instructions for the well-known style is not a violation of CITEVAR.

::::That does leave open the possibility of a sub-style, where some detail that is not specified in the style manual is made consistent within an article. For example, the instructions for the citation templates leaves some flexibility about whether an institutional author should be listed in the template as the author or the publisher. But I believe the instructions are clear that it is preferable to list multiple individuals with the {{para|firstn}} and {{para|lastn}} parameters rather than listing them all together with one {{para|author}} parameter. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I am of the view that this issue is as resolved as it's going to be. Other users have taken up discussion with Checkingfax about possible problems with her/his scripts, edits and conduct at FAC. I am optimistic that these will be productive. I have no intention to engage with the user further. Some final comments from me: 1) I appreciate people (or, at least, those who have made an effort to look into the issue) having taken the time to comment in this thread. 2) I can concede that I was over-hasty in calling for a block. 3) I have decided that I will avoid using citation templates in the future. 4) I have found this thread and associated discussions incredibly stressful. I hope I do not have reason to come here again. 5) My sincere apologies to anyone who asked me a direct question that I have not here answered. If there are any issues outstanding, colleagues and friends are always welcome on my talk page. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

----

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