Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by VanishedUser sdu8asdasd (talk | contribs) at 09:23, 28 July 2015 (→Lukeno94 - out of hand?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    CFCF Not Here on E-cigs

    CFCF(User talk:CFCF, CFCF) Has recently made several controversial edits, reverts and moves on pages related to e-cigarettes whilst refusing to engage in consensus building. These pages are subject to General Sanctions

    here he re-reverts material that was disputed back into the article despite discussion on the talk page relevant to it that he was not involved in claiming established consensus.

    here he hatted a discussion relevant to that controversial material he had added in where he was being asked to justify the inclusion of some material but he did not engage in it.

    here he accuses me and/or S Marshal of vandalism for removing content which did not have consensus for inclusion and was being discussed at the talk page when reverting & here he accuses me of vandalism again. (I freely admit here I was slow edit warring however it didn't come close to vandalism, it was a content dispute that I was handling badly and have been sanctioned for). I posted to his talk page to ask him not to accuse me of vandalism when I was not doing that

    and here he 1 click archives it without response. I Reposted a request that he engage in discussion to build consensus
    and here he 1 click archives without response

    here he admits that he finds discussions to seek consensus unproductive and so reverts without contributing or considering them.

    here he re-introduced a controversial claim with a long discussion on the talk page which had not found consensus and in which he had not participated.

    here Despite an ongoing discussion which CFCF had not participated in at the talk page CFCF moved the article from Chemicals in Electronic Cigarette Aerosol to Electronic Cigarette Aerosol. here CFCF had added a "Redirect you may have meant" tag to Cigarette smoke with no discussion. It had been reverted and he re-introduced without taking it to the talk page.

    here When I posted to his talk page about the above he 1click archived it immediately.

    here The part about being designed to appeal to 11 year olds we had reached consensus to remove, the later sentences, Quack Guru had Boldly Added, S Marshal Reverted because it was controversial. CFCF re-introduced without discussion

    I could go further but this is already long enough and covers just the last week.

    I know this isn't a major issue but I feel CFCF has earned at the least warning in an area of general sanctions because this pattern of behaviour is not conducive to consensus building in a topic which, touch wood, has calmed down somewhat recently from a prior battleground and is in some ways being productively edited. I know S Marshall has been frustrated by some of CFCF's edits and they show that CFCF has little or no interest in working collaboratively in this topic area per WP:NOTHERE.SPACKlick (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    CFCF has made good edits to various e-cig pages. This should be closed immediately. QuackGuru (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This looks very much like abusing process to attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute. Admins take a bit of a dim view of that. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no intention of gaining an advantage in a content dispute. My desire in this would be for CFCF to engage in the collaborative process so consensus can be reached on the disputed content but nobody can force that. The issue I have is that when discussion is on-going and the nuance of consensus is being reached, whether in the direction I initially wanted or not, CFCF makes driveby reverts without reference to that discussion or any of the consensus and kicks the process back a notch. Hence why I've asked for a warning or a prod and not any form of ban/block/Tban/Iban that would limit CFCF's contributions.SPACKlick (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The e-cig pages have greatly improved as a direct result of CFCF's edits. That's what the evidence shows. QuackGuru (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I see nothing in CFCF's edits needing sanctions. I agree with Guy. Cloudjpk (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Guy. CFCF's edits seem quite reasonable. This appears to be a content dispute and not sanctionable. Ping me with {{u|Jim1138}} and sign "~~~~" or message me on my talk page. 03:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    [Some of] The edits would be reasonable if they responded to consensus but CFCF actively ignores consensus, ignores ongoing discussions, When he adds information and is reverted he immediately reverts back and ignores all discussion about the inclusion. Whether or not the content of his edits is good, and I won't weigh in on that here because there is content dispute, the lack of collaborative effort is a clear example of NOTHERE. SPACKlick (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Once again I'd appreciate it if someone could restore order on that page. I certainly don't think all of CFCF's recent edits have been 100% helpful, but he's far from the only offender and what's actually needed is a large injection of clue.—S Marshall T/C 21:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Of Note CFCF again included without consensus. There is a discussion about this hatnote on the talk page. 4 editors see the hatnote as outside policy 1 has made an argument for it. CFCF claims to have made his point on the talk page. His one post on the talk page is No, you're wrong. WP:HATNOTE. How are these not WP:NOTHERE edits? SPACKlick (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I disagreed. See diff. QuackGuru (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Off Topic about QuackGuru
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Do you think your edit improved the page? How about me? Do you think my edits improved the page? Don't massage anything. I want your unfiltered opinion. QuackGuru (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that edit improved the page, yes. Since you ask for my unfiltered opinion, I think your influence on the encyclopaedia as a whole is a net positive because you're relentless in dealing with bad faith editors and highly active, but I also think you have poor encyclopaedic judgment and you often don't understand words in the same way I do. I think CFCF is reverting good edits and bad edits alike and he can't tell the difference. I think the best editor at work on that page is Johnbod and I wish he could get a word in edgeways. And I think AN/I is an extremely bad place to have this conversation because AN/I only ever solves simple problems, i.e. the ones where you can point to a clear policy violation using diffs. You can't come to AN/I saying "CFCF has bad judgment" and expect anything positive to happen as a result.—S Marshall T/C 22:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you want me topic banned or "just reined in"? See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive886#QuackGuru_and_Electronic_cigarette.
    Rather than delete relevant text I consolidated two sentences to improve the readability. If you look at my previous edit I changed the word "abuse" to "addiction" to clarify the wording. The known unknowns cited to a MEDRS review is good information, especially when it is about young people. QuackGuru (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I know this was directed at S Marshall but IMO reined in, specifically passed through a copy editor. Most of the sources you find have good information and most of the information you want to add is good information to add. It's just how it's incorporated and where its incorporated that's usually where I end up with objections. If you could work closely with a strong writer who can keep things readable and increase the information transfer in the article, your net benefit on the encyclopedia would be significantly greater.SPACKlick (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • SPACKlick is pretty much a WP:SPA for e-cig topics per their contribs. The topic seems to draw such editors or turn otherwise useful editors astray. SPA warns about situations where there is "...evidence that a user is also editing to add promotional, advocative, or non-neutral approaches, or has a personal or emotional interest in the area of focus, possibly with limited interest in pure editing for its own sake....") On their userpage SPACKlick makes their advocacy position on e-cigs very clear (which is very "pro"): here. In my view SPACKlick should be trouted for bringing this groundless case, and should be warned to broaden their editing at WP, with a topicban per WP:NOTHERE, per SPA, riding on their failure to broaden their scope of editing. Jytdog (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Once Again CFCF added a controversial hatnote without engaging in discussion, where the discussion was ongoing, where the bulk of discussion was not in favour of the edit. Likewise CFCF has repeatedly reverted inclusions by S Marshall without discussing it but not reverted the same or near identical inclusions when written by QuackGuru as discussed by S Marshall in this post on the talk page. Whether or not I am sanctioned per the below discussion. I would appreciate if someone could cast eyes and a decision over CFCF's interaction with the page which I feel is pretty clearly not in the benefit of either consensus and collaborative editing at the article or the encyclopeida's aims as a whole. SPACKlick (talk) 13:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    A brand new account reverted the change. Before that an IP reverted the change without an edit summary. QuackGuru (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As Quack points out another editor removed it after my above comment and CFCF immediately re-instated claiming consensus on the talk page. This is now bordering on Edit Warring Surely? It's ridiculous. Thats 4 reversions 1234 of the same hatnote with only 1 comment of non-engagement on a talk page where 4 editors (not including two who have removed the hatnote) have disagreed with inclusion. SPACKlick (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The new account only made one edit to Wikipedia so far. The IP made four edits to Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    CFCF again added the hatnote, calling its removal vandalism. Still has not engaged on the talk page, the discussion still not having come to consensus. That's 3 reversions in 25.5 hours. walking right along the line of an edit war. SPACKlick (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The new account might be a throwaway account. The IP is from Germany. The editor from Germany was banned and indef blocked. Reverting a banned editor is not a revert. QuackGuru (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect DaleCurrie is a throwaway account but it's misleading to link to Fergus there Quack, because while they are banned they haven't been shown to make either of these edits, if there's concern you want SPI. By the way CFCF doesn't just do this on e-cig pages. he reverted me on Domestic violence for a formatting fix pointing to a consensus on the talk page. The formatting hadn't been discussed even once on the talk page. I'm rounding on the conclusion that CFCF has a problem with certain editors and fails to follow AGF.SPACKlick (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The 89 IP is back. The IP numbers change but it still begins with 89. The previous edit was this by the 89 IP. The 89 IP made yet another comment. QuackGuru (talk) 00:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The 89 IP made this comment. QuackGuru (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed Boomerang topic ban for SPACKlick

    Per comment above by User:Jytdog, I propose a topic ban from the e-cig pages for User:SPACKlick. Cloudjpk (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Cloudjpg: Are you proposing a topicban for yourself too? Your edit count shows a "bizzarro-sock" of SPACKlick and not one with a longstanding edit history.--TMCk (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This proposal is based on a fallacious and hypocritical comment by User:Jytdog, which itself seems a good justification for BOOMERANG. If SPACKlick can be considered a SPA, Jytdog should be as well.
    Spacklick's top edited pages:

    94 Electronic cigarette 56 Monty Hall problem 34 Roger Moore 28 List of Durham University people 26 Orthodox Presbyterian Church 25 Sean Connery 24 Electronic cigarette aerosol 24 Safety of electronic cigarettes 23 Top Gear (2002 TV series) 18 St Cuthbert's Society, Durham 17 George Lazenby 16 List of Old Boys of The Scots College (Sydney) 14 Zoe Quinn 11 Trial of Oscar Pistorius 11 College of St Hild and St Bede, Durham

    Jytdog's:

    675 Genetically modified food controversies 584 Monsanto 327 Genetically modified food 319 Glyphosate 220 Genetically modified crops 159 Genetically modified organism 155 Organic farming 139 GlaxoSmithKline 137 Electroconvulsive therapy 128 ZMapp 124 Organic food 108 A2 milk 99 Séralini affair 99 Novartis 98 Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms

    SPACKlick is surprisingly the only editor to speak out against CFCF's unsupportable redirect from "Electronic Cigarette Aerosol" to "Cigarette smoke". A read of the resulting talk page section (where QuackGuru seems to speak for CFCF, who is absent) should have uninvolved observers questioning why it is SPACKlick who is being portrayed as the problem. petrarchan47คุก 22:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Petra you are so dependable! As I wrote above, per contribs. The bulk of my editing on GMO stuff was mid-2012- mid-2013, with spikes when anti-GMO advocates come around, or back around as the case may be, and yes that has been an enormous amount of work. If you look through the past couple years, the edit count would look very different than the totals you present there.
    Getting back to the topic, if you actually look at SPACKlick's contribs in the past year or so, he has indeed become pretty much a SPA for e-cigs; those articles cause people to obsess and e-cig topics keep causing trouble. My recommendation is above. Jytdog (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Of my last 500 edits, a quick and dirty analysis says that 60% are e-cigarette related (if there's a tool for better temporal analysis I'd appreciate the link), including talk page edits and user talk edits. but that may have missed some of them. If we go to the 500 edits before that, very few of them are e-cigarette related. It comes and it goes. And I won't deny e-cigarettes has been my focus recently, just s monty hall was for a while. I come and go from the project with certain dense posting periods. I still monitor a lot of RFC's and where I feel I can contribute, do so. I had hoped to get started on a long project in project tree of life but real life got in the way and another stellar editor had done the majority of the legwork prior to my return. I edit where my interest is at the time. E-cigs has been a focus for a long set of editing bursts because it still has major problems and I haven't yet found a tack that leads to productive improvement although progress has been made. SPACKlick (talk) 01:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That User:SPACKlick finds the diffs listed concerning is I agree a concern in itself. Some time away from the article may due SPACKlick good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Of note, In all but one of the diffs I've posted above I have attempted, however (un)successfuly, to point out that my issue isn't the content of the edit but the context of the edit being ignoring, over riding or avoiding discussion between editors attempting to hash out consensus. The one I don't point to avoiding ongoing discussions relating to consensus is where he avoided BRD on a potentially controversial addition by unreverting his own edit. I also pointed out that this wasn't a major issue but it is an issue of disengagement from the process and the sort of behaviour I thought the general sanctions were supposed to nip in the bud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPACKlick (talk • contribs) 21:42, 8 July 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

    General sanctions are failing

    General sanctions on e-cigarettes aren't working because it's so hard to attract the attention of an uninvolved administrator. The only participant in this discussion who might remotely count as an "uninvolved administrator" is JzG and he's only contributed one sentence. Everyone else is divided along party lines. What's actually needed here is a referee; but I can fully understand why a previously uninvolved person would shy away from such an entrenched situation with such a lot of history.—S Marshall T/C 07:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Since this thread has attracted so little attention from uninvolved administrators, it should be archived without result.—S Marshall T/C 22:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I can try to referee if you think it would help, but I strongly suspect that my long-standing support for WP:MEDRS and opposition to pro-CAM edits will not sit well with the group that makes up the pro-ecig side of this war. In the absence of uninvolved admins, and given the clear need for some firm action, I guess arbitration may be the only option. Guy (Help!) 14:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I certainly do think it would help. It shouldn't be necessary to go to arbitration over this; that's like going to A&E with a hangnail. I don't think I could produce diffs that would be of much interest to arbcom.—S Marshall T/C 15:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. User:Georgewilliamherbert, please review the current atmosphere at the e-cig pages. I am not aware of "the extra eyeballs on the subject".
    • S Marshall is well aware of the sanctions. In your edit summary you wrote "tag-teaming".[9] You claimed "Consensus can change, and it will. I learned this when I got broad consensus to change the first paragraph of this article in many ways, and then started an RfC to discover that changes in the population of this talk page meant my consensus was no longer there. Wikipedia's a waiting game, QG. A quick look at your block log tells me there are pretty good odds that you won't be active on this talk page forever, and when you're gone it will be possible to make the fixes you're preventing. Don't get me wrong, QG, I do think you're a net positive to Wikipedia despite the fact that I find you very frustrating to deal with. I've argued in many discussions before that you should not be blocked, just reined in. My views in that respect have not changed."[10]
    • S Marshall, so why do you want me "reined in"?
    • Both SPACKlick and S Marshall deleted a 2014 MEDRS compliant review from the Addiction section recently. The 2014 review is relevant to the section, especially since it is concerning youth. QuackGuru (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Pretty sure E-cigs is going to need to go to ArbCom, since editors are reporting that GS are not working, and since there are or have been so many SPAs editing the e-cig articles. I propose that someone start to draft an ArbCom request proposal -- but it obviously shouldn't be drafted by QuackGuru or by one of the SPAs or virtual SPAs, past or present. I don't know that there is anyone editing the articles who is completely neutral about the topic, but perhaps Doc James might be willing to, as he has in the past edited on the subject, but has remained decidedly quiet when related subjects come up on ArbCom or ANI. If he or someone of his ilk would draft and post an ArbCom request, however brief, others could chime in on ArbCom with their opinions. Just a thought. Softlavender (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Will take a look in a two weeks as off to Wikimania. I am sure that some would view me as far from neutral. Especially those who continue send me hate mail regarding the topic. User:S Marshall has done some good work condensing the prose. QG adds generally well supported text. The discussion on the talk page get more snarky than it should be at times. Would be good if many of those involved would work more on other pages but of course we cannot mandate that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right. Someone reverting with a misleading editsummary to re-introduce utter unscientific fringe nonsense -- I sure don't have much (or any) confidence in them. Even less when the same supposed to be a scientist. But go for it anyways. It doesn't matter who is filing.--TMCk (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion on the talk page showed the restored text is well sourced. For example, see Talk:Electronic_cigarette_aerosol/Archive_1#Re_introduction_again. QuackGuru (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have started reviewing pages; I tagged one more with the talk page "under DS" notice. Still getting a feeling for how the conversations are going. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I recommend you check the archives too. See Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 24 and see Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 25. QuackGuru (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Georgewilliamherbert: Are you still looking into it and intend to comment? Just wondering since it's been a while and problems on those pages have been "abandoned" before several times. Thanks.--TMCk (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but had other things I am working on as well. They're all watchlisted now and I am still reading histories. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I agree with Softlavender that e-cigs proabably needs to go to ArbCom at this point. After following the topic from afar, but purposely avoiding actually being involved from articles aside from RSN, my main concern is advocacy and (relatively) civil-POV pushing that's degenerating the topic into the state it's in now. ArbCom could cut both ways though and end up hindering editors who overall are trying to push back against these problems too and just lock the articles down into the state they're in now. Seeing this ANI with unfortunately nothing that appears actionable (it should probably be closed soon), how often it comes up here, and how many editors that have just given up on it, ArbCom seems to be the only thing left. Kingofaces43 (talk)
    • There are two things stopping me opening an ArbCom case. The first is that there's nothing blatant I can point to. There are lots of problems each of which is individually small but annoying, adding up to a great big annoying ball of sludge. I've got to say that the majority of editors from WP:MEDRS treat me like a POV-pushing industry shill to be closed down with the minimum effort, and I've been unable to make any substantive edits stick or to educate them in any article-building technique more advanced than "find a factlet in a reliable source, cite it and shove it in the article". The idea that competent editing involves removing text seems to be some kind of heresy... but what I can't do is provide diffs of the kind of smoking gun breach of the rules that'll solve it. The closest I can get is the inappropriate use of twinkle's anti-vandalism tools to deal with good faith edits by editors in good standing, inappropriate refusal to use the talk page, and some apparent language comprehension difficulties. I'm reluctant to go to Arbcom waving those diffs and demanding action.

      The second is the triviality of it all. I've been involved in much more complex and difficult disputes on Wikipedia that are about challenging real world issues. This is nothing. It's so petty and pathetic to get hung up on whether the statistics are in the lede or just in the body text... like I said above, if I opened an Arbcom case I'd feel like I was calling an ambulance for a hangnail. Can't a sysop just step in and tell it like it is?—S Marshall T/C 19:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • All of those are serious distortions of what happened, QuackGuru. However, even if they were accurate, it would still be inappropriate to bring details of the content dispute to AN/I.—S Marshall T/C 20:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it is accurate to come to the conclusion that editors disagreed with at least some of your proposals. For example, it appeared you proposed deleting well sourced content but editors disagreed. You also proposed moving the stats to the reference section. It is not an improvement moving the stats out of the frequency section. See Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 25#Proposal to streamline. You claimed "It would be helpful QuackGuru if you could please be less obstructive."[13] Your said "Can I ask you, is English your native language?"[14] This is not focusing on article content. QuackGuru (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I've tried to have a moderating effect on some of these discussions (e.g. by going on hours-long sourcing sprees to see what the actual ground-truth is in the reliable sources, and cutting through this-side-vs-that-side invective, as at Talk:Electronic cigarette aerosol. While I have an opinion on the RM on that page, I have no other developed opinion on anything to do with e-cigs. I'm not familiar with every detail in this particular sub-dispute, above), but on the same talk page I just linked to (but now archived here, CFCF engaged in tendentious and WP:ICANTHEARYOU, irrational nonsense that is indicative of serious WP:COMPETENCE problems with regard to basics like what disambiguation hatnotes are for (hint: they are not "see also" sections), and a my-way-or-else attitude to conceptually tying e-cigarettes to tobacco smoke. On the other hand, his lead detractor SPACKlick is also exhibiting similar tendentiousness and ICANTHEARYOU patterns, as are several others, especially in persistent belief that WP:COMMONNAME topples all other possible concerns (even when the desired common-name topic is directly misleading and has POV problems because it is marketing language), and a similar position that WP:MEDRS cannot possibly apply to a nicotine delivery device simply because it's "recreational", even when the article is about the biochemical output of the device. In actually reality, it's entirely reasonable, as I believe QuackGuru has maintained, that MEDRS might apply to Electronic cigarette aerosol and to any med/bio-chem claims at Electronic cigarette and other subarticles, but not to other kinds of material in it/them, e.g. about "vaping" subculture, marketing, legislation, etc. Having no dog in the various fights about e-cigs and their great value or terrible effects or whatever, I find the level of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior bewildering and alarming.

      I do think these disputes, as a class, should go to WP:RFARB, because a) it's clear that that this is otherwise going to be a continual war between e-cig WP:ADVOCACY boosters and their WP:GREATWRONGS outlawing proponents; and b) even accidentally wandering into one of these morasses, as I did in responding to a routine WP:RM notice, is a terribly unpleasant, hostile experience for editors who are not thrilling in their part in the ongoing WP:FACTIONalized gladiatorial combat on this topic. When it comes to a three-with conflict between "e-cigs are great!", "e-cigs are a menace!", and "Wikipedia policies apply regardless of your stance on that", I think we know where consensus actually resides.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      PS: I note above SPACKlick making BIG ALL-CAPS POINTS to exclude material because it wasn't quite medical enough for his liking (and he was wrong about that point; particle size is entirely relevant in that context). Meanwhile, when it suits his aims and convenience, he argues in the face of all reason against applying MEDRS. Does not compute; more to the point, it smacks of WP:GAMING.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      • Earlier this year I made a 16,000 plus edit. Some editors did not like that. I continued to add a ton of new sources to the article. I created Cloud-chasing (electronic cigarette), Electronic cigarette aerosol, and Vape shop. After I created the Electronic cigarette aerosol article things got a bit heated.
      • As for the hatnote I think I did help resolve the issue. I added to the lede "The e-cigarette vapor resembles cigarette smoke.[1]" See Electronic cigarette aerosol#cite ref-Cheng2014 1-1. User:SMcCandlish, this did go to arbcom previously. They tried to topic ban me. QuackGuru (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Understood. I'm skeptical that anyone will be pilloried over adding sources and sourced material (unless it's WP:BOLLOCKS which I don't detect in that big edit), nor about disagreements over which data is put where in the article, unless someone's being a flaming WP:JERKs about it. There's a much more meaningful problem here, a campaign to keep genuinely reliable sources out of these articles, to push a POV against scientific coverage and treat this solely as a "lifestyle and culture" topic. There's a countervailing campaign to demonize the topic, and to spin primary sourced, largely preliminary data and a studies from journals as if there were a uniform, secondary-sourced view, and it's original research to combine them all into a "why e-cigs are the devil" message that steers readers to a conclusion. Both of these – exclusion of and misuse of pertinent, reliable sources – are wrong under policy. One might think they'd kind of cancel each other out, but it's not happening, just turning into a perpetual flamewar.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Both of these editors have been duking it out in multiple Balkan-related articles. The Balkans are under discretionary sanctions as per WP:ARBMAC. Both users are aware of this: [15] [16]. Both users have been previously blocked for edit-warring, and are well aware of the rules there. Rolandi+ is just coming off of a block and Alexikoua has been blocked multiple times.

    One of many examples of their warring is Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus.

    Other examples with some recent edit warring include:

    Both users have placed warnings on each others' talk pages but appear fairly oblivious that the warnings apply to themselves as well: Rolandi+ placing on Alexikoua: [24] [25] Alexikoua placing on Rolandi+: [26] [27]

    Also note that Alexikoua went to several articles that Rolandi+ edited in a short period of time and reverted everything he did, which is possibly WP:HOUND. He clearly was singling out Rolandi+, at the very least: [28] [29] [30].

    While both users are being fairly careful to avoid violating the 3RR, it is clear they they are engaging in disruptive behavior, and they're well aware of the rules given their respective block logs. It's getting to the point where a topic ban may be necessary. ~ RobTalk 16:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    On each case I initiate a discussion on the correspondent talkpage and I'm very carefull when to remove specific parts in case they are either poorly cited or not cited at all. For example in Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus, I'm still waiting for Rolandi's talkpage participation but there is still no response [[31]]. On the other hand Rolandi's talkpage is full of warnings from multiple users (I count at least 4). Also comments such a this one [[32]] from a recent ani filled again him by another user, reveal an edit-warring nature.
    About Rob's comments I have to add that my last blog was 2+ years ago (May '13), thus it's a bit unfair to neglect that fact, in addition that this is the first report against me from that time. Alexikoua (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The OP paints a very simplistic picture, which shows sloppiness and a lack of understanding of the topic and issues involved. Rolandi+ is in conflict with multiple editors, due to his falsification of sources, dishonesty, and incivility. He has repeatedly falsified sources, edit-warred over unsourced material, made stuff up and refuses to get the point. At Illyrians, he has falsified a source that makes the opposite of the claim he is pushing in the article [33] [34]. He edit-warred over this, made accusations of sockpuppetry, and is extremely rude in the talkpage [35]. He was blocked for edit-warring at Illyrians, and he is now resuming right where he left off [36], using low quality sources. This, after he was blocked 36 hours for breaching 3RR at two different articles in the same day [37]. He is also falsifying sources at Vlachs [38], and edit-warring over there as well. Here he falsifies one source [39] (the author states that the Italian census numbers are exaggerated, but he omits that and enters the number using Wikipedia's own voice) and removes another high quality source (Meyer) for no good reason, without even mentioning it in the edit summary. When he can't find even low quality sources to falsify, he just makes stuff up [40]. When a fellow Albanian editor mildly criticized one of the highly nationalistic, low quality sources he tried to use, Rolandi removed that user's talkpage comments from the talkpage [41]. To top it all off, he is extremely rude and refuses to get the point: [42] [43] [44] (referring to Greek editors as "penguins") [45], [46] (taunting a Serbian user about being bombed by NATO), [47] [48], [49], [50], [51]. Here is is taunting another user to "please" revert [52]. It's really not hard to find diffs of this user's disruptive behavior. Just go to any talkpage he has participated and they as plentiful as fish in the sea. This user has exactly ZERO positive contributions to wikipedia, has major WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. His talkpage is nothing but a graveyard of warnings by multiple users of all kinds of backgrounds [53]. Even in Japan-related topics he is making trouble [54], for which he was warned. Alexikoua has repeatedly tried to engage him in article talkpages and on his own talkpage, to no avail. It is impossible to reason with this user. He is here to here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS [55] (Greek sources cannot be trusted because "it made genocide,killed and stole albanians") and nothing will get in the way of that. This is in stark contrast to Alexikoua, who has kept a clean record for the last two years now, has created dozens of articles and DYKs, and is always civil and amenable to reason in talkpage discussions. Athenean (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This is an unfair report regarding Alexikoua. Rolandi+ has exhibited WP:BATTLE behaviour including removing a fellow-Albanian editor's comments for not agreeing with him for which he was subsequently warned on his talkpage by an admin. Here after his block for edit-warring expired he tells the blocking admin: Actually I have been busy for some days so the block wasn't any problem for me. He has also exhibited bravura when reported at 3RRN challenging me to report him even as he had two, yes two, 3RR reports pending against him at 3RRN. In addition his talkpage is full of warnings regarding his falsification of sources and other disruption. Alexikoua's edits are a factor of stability in the Balkans, a troubled area of Wikipedia. There is simply no comparison between the two editors. The OP is completely misguided in his unfair comments regarding Alexikoua. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    Hi , There are many cases of edit warring between us.It's true!I hope this will not happen in the future. As for "Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus" case I tried to explain him twice at his talk page that he couldn't delete others' edits and references only to add the greek hypothesis.It's normal to include all the hypothesis about Thomaeus' origin.Also he can't delete well-established informations that have been there since a long time. As for "Illyrians" case,I had corrected my edits.My last deleted edits made it clear that Illyrians may be the ancestors of Albanians.(I didn't make it a fact,just a hypothesis).Alexikoua thinks that the Albanian hypothesis doesn't need te be included there,but the Vlach hypothesis yes. As for "Greater Albania" I stoped my edit waring and I have discussed that with Athenean at my talk page.I will discuss that at the article's talkpage soon as I haven't enough time now. I hope that there will not be any need for this noticeboard in the future.However it is important the fact that Alexikoua has a habit to delete almost all my Albanian related edits within 24 hours.If you see my edit history,the majority of my edits have been deleted by Alexikoua within a short time.He doesn't try to talk to me or discuss together. In our recent edit warrings another user is included.Athenean has the same habit as Alexikoua to undo the majority of my edits. As I said ,we need to be more carefull in the future and stop edit warring.However,it is important for Alexikoua not to delete almost all my edits.If he thinks I have made disruptive edits in the future,he can try talking to me or to involve other users or an administrator for help. As for my past mistakes I have been blocked for 36 hours before some days so Athenean doesn't need to mention them here. I don't actually know why these three users contribute at the same pages at the same time.I think it is a kind of sockpuppetery or collaboration. Rolandi+ (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    As for Japan related article,the warning was a mistake.Go and ask that editor.It not the only time I got warnings that were a mistake.See my warnings history and the involved users' talk pages please . As for the Vlach case ,as you can see,I hadn't falsificated any reference,just go and see .The warning editor falsificated the references.This story is explained but Athenean doesn't mention this fact.As for Italian census case I explained to Athenean what I meant with that reference at my talk page.But Athenean doesn't mention my explanation because the only thing he wants is my block.As for "Baku spirit" case,why don't you go and se the KSFT's talk page.I suggest to these three users to open as many noticeboard cases as possible ,there is no problem for me. Rolandi+ (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This case is only about me and Alexikoua.There was another ANI involving me before some days and these three editors commented against me.Isn't this a collaboration?You can easily note that there are many cases where these three users edit at the same pages at the same time .Isn't this some kind of strange collaboration or even sockpuppetery?Rolandi+ (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The topics you are editing have been the target of sockpuppetry, edit-warring disruption, falsification of sources and personal attacks by editors advancing low quality, nationalist-based edits. You seem to be doing most of these things so don't complain when other editors clean up after you. Also if you have evidence of sockpuppetry don't try to weasel your insinuations into the discussion. Either open a sockpuppet investigation against the editors you suspect or stop your personal attacks. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You are making personal attacks here,I am just defending myself.If you have sth against me,open another case.Also an unregistred user undid my edits at Thomaeus by claiming that my edits are " propaganda & false information".This is strange.He explains this by saying "(WP:V, WP:RS)and Jacques & 'scholars' from the Hoxha era are very unreliable sources".Who is this user in the reality?Strange.Rolandi+ (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You are making personal attacks here,: Can you specify by giving a diff which part of my comments were a "personal attack"? Who is this user in the reality?Strange. Why are you asking me? If you have any questions about a user you can open an SPI to find out. Finally, do not ask other editors to intervene making false claims against editors who comment here because it is considered canvassing and uncivil. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's a simple fact: Alexikoua has reverted the edits of Rolandi+ repeatedly and across multiple pages in short periods of time. Edit-warring is not excused by correctness. That's the only additional thing I'll say. This statement is not influenced in anyway by Rolandi's comments on my talk page; I was watching this discussion already, and would have commented this way when I had returned no matter what. I do agree with the point about WP:CANVASS, though. ~ RobTalk 22:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    From what I can tell, Alexikoua has not exceeded 2 reverts in a 24 hour period in any article. This is in contrast to Rolandi who has breached 3RR at least twice in the last few days. You seem to be painting the users with the same brush. That is incorrect. There is one user who has made countless valuable contributions to Wikipedia, and one who hasn't. There is one user who has engaged in ethnic baiting, and one who hasn't. There is one user who falsifies sources, and one who hasn't. There is one user who has been blocked recently for multiple breaches of 3RR and one user who has maintained a spotless record for the last two years. Athenean (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Your accusations of WP:HOUND and excessive edit-warring against Alexikoua do not stand up to scrutiny. If I look at his contribs of the last 7 days (i.e. since Rolandi's block expired), he has reverted Rolandi a total of two times at Greater Albania, once at Illyrians, three times at Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus, and once at Kara Mahmud Pasha. This is over a period of 7 days, and not taking into account that Rolandi was POV-pushing, falsifying sources, being incivil, and was reverted by several other users (because he was POV-pushing and falsifying source), not just Alexikoua. Athenean (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I had not seen the HOUND allegations of the OP against Alexikoua. That betrays a total lack of understanding of the MO of the SPAs and socks in this area of the Balkans. Once an SPA is bent on changing the nationality to Albanian of many historical figures they do it across multiple articles and they do it by falsifying sources and enforce it through edit-warring. To follow such an SPA through multiple articles to correct their falsification of sources is good and standard practice not WP:HOUND. I don't doubt the good intentions of the OP but they are severely misguided and betray a total ignorance of the operating methods of the SPAs in this subject area. I am also concerned that despite the available evidence of widespread disruption by the Rolandi+ SPA the OP seems bent on insisting on treating Alexikoua's proper edits as somehow problematic. Such behaviour is not constructive. To gain a proper understanding of the nationalist-based disruption in this area one has to check SPI archives such as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Malbin210/Archive and related cases as seen in the archive and also check the sockpuppet userpages and contributions. For example, one of the socks had tried to convert the origin of George Washington's mother to Albanian. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Firstly you said that I haven't made any valuable contribution here.Then you mention "nationalism" ,Malbin210 and related cases.It is obvious now,the only problem for you is the fact that there are some Albanian editors contributing to Wikipedia.You don't want Albanain editors to contribute to Wikipedia.This is the only problem here.Rolandi+ (talk) 09:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    What part of edit-warring disruption and falsification of sources did you not understand? Don't try to use the ethnicity of editors as a red herring against me, especially when you yourself removed a fellow-Albanian editor's comments because he didn't agree with you. Resnjari, whose opinion you reverted because he didn't agree with you, is also Albanian and he has my respect. This has nothing to do with ethnicity and you know that very well. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 09:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The previous ANI regarding Rolandi+ was initiated by me, but it apparently ended in no result. I don't think it's necessary for me to present the user's incorrectness – he's been warned countless times. It's strange that he is allowed to continue this disruptive behaviour. Alexikoua shows none of Rolandi+'s manners (has always been civil, etc.) and I fail to see why Alexikoua is mentioned as a subject in this ANI. --Zoupan 10:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    As for Resnjari,I have talked to him.I deleted his comment because we weren't talking about chams in greece.Why don't you mention this fact?Zoupan says it's strange that I am allowed to contribute to Wikipedia.It's very strange in fact.Why doesn't Zoupan mention his falsification of sources as he did for example at Kosovo serbs?Why?How it's possible that these users undo all my edits (including Zoupan)?Why?Why do Alexikoua,Dr.K and Athenean delete all references that say the a X famous person or ethnic minority has albanian origin?How is it possible?Why don't you see their edit's history.Don't believe in our words...just go and control our edit's history.Alexikoua is very civil because after he deletes others' work and references ,he asks his collaborators for help.Before some days there was another ANI where I was involved.It was opened by Dr.K,while Athenean and Alexikoua commented against me.How is it possible that when I don't have the same ideas with Alexikoua,Athenean and Dr.K come and delete my work?How is it possible?It's unfair that the work of the Albanian editors is always undone by these three editors.How is it possible that all references introduced by Albanian editors(or by other editors who add the so-called pro albanian references)are "nationalism","unreliable","propaganda" and "manifesto"?It's unfair because Wikipedia has to be neutral.Look for example at Thomaeus article,I explained Alexikoua that he couldn't delete the well-established infos only to add the greek hypothesis.The right thing to do there is to include all the hypothesis about Thomaeus' origin.If you can't control these users,why don't you delete all the Albanian related articles,so they will not be vandalised anymore? Rolandi+ (talk) 11:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Also see at the "Greater Albania" talk page.These users put a map showing the presence of Albanians in the neighbour countries .Why don't they agree to put the map of "Greater Albania" there? Because they don't like it?Alexikoua says it is created by Albanian users?And what does it mean?Note the fact that Alexikoua uses greek politicans as references (for example at Souliotes)That article is about Greater Albania and not about the presence of Albanians in the neighbour countries.Everyone knows that the Greater Albania map is the map introduced by League of Prizren.Actually ,this is RACISM.Rolandi+ (talk) 12:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Alexikoua,Dr.K and Athenean delete my references and edits .They say that my references are POV (Even when the reference is a non-Albanian/non-greek well-known scholar).On the other hand they use greek politicans as references. I can't even use the talk page,because the only thing they say is that my references are always "POV" and "manifesto".How is it possible that all my references are unreliable?Isn't this strange?Look at other Albanian editors.Their work is always undone by these three users because their references are always,but always "unraliable" and "POV".How is it possible?Rolandi+ (talk) 12:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Rolandi: To name an example, it's kinda weird to insist on adding citations such as this: [[56]], which claims that the Wars of Alexander the Great were fought by Albanians [[57]]. Even an editor who is not involved in historical articles will find it POV and unreliable. It's also not a case of ethnic conflict, as I've worked together with several editors that share the same national background with you.Alexikoua (talk) 12:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Why did Athenean lie?He said that I falsified sources at "Baku spirit".My warning there was a mistake.Why don't you go and ask the warning editor?Also note he didn't warned me for falsification. Athenean said I had falsified the source at "Vlachs".Why don't you go at the Vlach's editing history and see the truth?Why don't you see what the book used as reference says in reality?Also Zoupan said there is a problem with me at "Vlachs".Which is the problem?Zoupan don't know how to lie! Athenean said I falsified the sources at "Illyrians".Where is the falsification there?My edit there said that according to some scholars Illyrians are the ancestors of Albanians (this means that it's a theory,I didn't make it a fact). Athenean said that I falsified the source at the "Greater Albania".I explained him that we had to introduce both greek and italian figures to make the article neutral,why didn't he mention this fact?Because the only thing Athenean wants is to lie about me. As I said the use of the Talk page with these users is useless as the only thing that these three users say is that others' references are always,but always "nationalism","POV" ,"propaganda" and "manifesto".It's not my fault that these three users always say that my references are "propaganda" and "POV". Also,Alexikoua,why do you mention only the case of Wars of Alexander?Why don't you mention all the cases where you have undone others' edits claiming their references are "POV" and "nationalism" and "propaganda"?Rolandi+ (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It's very easy.There is so many edit warring between us because these three editors always,but always undo my edits .The talk page is useless because the only thing they do is to claim the others' references are always,but always "unacceptable","POV","nationalism","propaganda","manifesto","unreliable".I can't use the dispute noticeboards for hundreads articles,because it is ridiculous.The only thing to do is to prevent these three users from vandalizing Wikipedia,especially albania-related articles.I am sure that if these three users stop deleting other's edits and references only because they don't like them,there will not be any edit warring/problem at albanian related articles anymore.Also I suggest you to help editors about Balkans-related articles (for ex. if their references are reliable/POV etc).Rolandi+ (talk) 13:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Alexikoua doesn't agree to put the map of the Greater Albania at the "Greater Albania" article.He firstly said the the current map is detailed,but it's not the map of Greater Albania (the original map is based on the map of the League of Prizren ).Then he claimed that these maps are the the same,but they aren't.He said that we can't put the map of the Greater Albania there because "I am eager to see a map that paints everything in red" (meaning that I am a nationalist and maybe I have irridenstist ideas) while the national colours of Albania are the red AND THE BLACK.He doesn't agree because he doesn't like the map,this is the problem with these editors,they don't agree with others only because they want to control Wikipedia.Note that the current map shows Albanians in Albania and neighboring countries,not the Greater Albania based on the maps of the League of Prizren.Rolandi+ (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The Balkans are subject to discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBMAC. Arbitration Enforcement may be a more efficient way of dealing with conduct issues than this noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    To Robert McClenon. About time this happened. More attention needs to be paid because to many shenanigans having been going on and some Albanian editors have been intimidated and i include myself in this as being as such. Few Albanian editors have been engaging with Wikipedia recently because of such things and some editors of a non-Albanian heritage seem to be making changes in articles without even discussing it. I call to your attention the article Aoös whose name was changed by Greek editors (such as user User:Hwasus > [[58]] without consensus (and due to Albanian editors no longer continuing for a while) while in previous discussions about a name change was resolved that Vjosa stays as the page's name ([[59]]). Who would i go to regarding this very serious matter.Resnjari (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Alexikoua deleted many informations at Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus,including the references that said that he Thomaeus might have been of Albanian origin,saying that "widely established international scholarship tend to disagree with what was written inside Albania during the People's Republic regime".Where did he learn that Thomaeus' albanian origin hypothesis is fabricated during the communist period in Albania?Also he deleted Jacque who isn't albanian.This is only racism and this is a big problem.Seriously this is ridiculous.Rolandi+ (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    To Rolandi, some Albanian sources from the communist period are tainted because they were ideologically driven and or forced by Enver to produce material that has many problems. For a list of academics who managed to go against the communist regime and produce good research like Eqrem Cabej see book "Pipa, Arshi (1989). The politics of language in socialist Albania. East European Monographs. As for non Albanian western sources state Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus was a Greek. This is possible as during the time Nicholas was born there were some Greeks (merchants and so on) in Durres, as it was a coastal port and international city (its also had Albanians). See Robert Elsie article page 3 ([60]. The stuff on numbers in the Cham Albanian article, the Topulli stuff is resolved. Send me on my talk page the stuff from researcher Nazarko (he is a good source -full inline citation though and source). I'll work something out regarding Idromeno on that basis.Resnjari (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Resnjari.you said that western sources state that Thomaeus was greek.And Jacque,isn't he a western source?I am not saying that Thomaeus wasn't greek,I am saying that he might have been albanian (hypothesis).Also where did you learn that the Albanian hypothesis was fabricated by the Communist Albanians?The fact that many albanian scholars ideologically were driven and or forced by Enver Hoxha to produce material that has many problems doesn't mean that the albanian hypothesis was fabricated by them.See also sources like Jacque.Alexikoua deleted many infos that were there since a long time and added the greek hypothesis.The right thing to do is to include all hypothesis.Rolandi+ (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • "Comment": Rolandi+ is proving to be a problem editor on a number of articles surrounding the Balkans. I suggest that he/she is an aggressive editor who's WP:NOTHERE. Leaving missives such as this on my talk page is not appreciated when I have read through the sources he/she has used to introduce changes to content on Vlachs. The user has WP:CHERRYPICKING sources addressing a variety of complex issues and academic evaluation in order create WP:SYNTH. I made the mistake of allowing the user enough WP:ROPE to continue refactoring the same content, for which I take responsibility: I made the wrong call. As the "Vlachs" article falls under the general scope of WP:ARBMAC, I agree with Robert McClenon that this is something to be dealt with via WP:ARB. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In my limited observation, there is a great deal of battleground editing and quarreling about articles about the Balkan region. One reason is of course that the Balkan region has too many times been a real battleground, including being the origin of World War One, which killed fifteen million people. ArbCom was prudent in putting the Balkans under discretionary sanctions as an area that the community does not deal with effectively at noticeboards such as this one. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're aware that most of my editing is in the area I know, being Eastern Europe. Being a glutton for punishment, I like to keep my hand in on other contentious areas where I don't have any doubts as to my neutrality. ArbCom is, unfortunately, an extremely arduous process for those who are involved in working through complaints (and my sympathies are extended to them) as there's a tendency for involved users to continue their battles there rather than follow the processes. Unfortunately, the end product is that problem editors keep getting out of being sanctioned by the skin of their teeth, only to keep their heads down for a period of time and resume when they're confident that enough time has elapsed for prior behavioural problems to have been forgotten. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Irina Harpy,why don't you mention the fact that the discussion (and the problem) between us started because you changed (falsified) the citation at the reference.See here what the source says.Another user deleted your falsifications and explained everything.Why don't you mention this fact?Why?I agree that Balkans related articles are almost all problematic and vandalised but this doesn't mean you can LIE!Rolandi+ (talk) 08:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Iryna Harpy Rolandi just needs some more practice. One just needs to have a in depth discussion about things and too tone it down a bit. At the moment it seems i am the only one doing engaging with him without resorting to name calling and so on. I value Rolandi wanting to contribute; it’s just he has to be more cautious about certain sources or how the source is used in general. There are few Albanian editors these days on Wikipedia. Things have become dormant and some editors of non-Albanian heritage have taken it upon themselves to do for example article name changes (like the Vjosa example i cited) without community consultation or to call POV anything a editor might want to undertake in adding to an article (even when the source/s is peer reviewed and very credible) (see: Talk:Cham Albanians). I have had these issues multiple times now (in the end my edits have gone through almost in their entirety) but it has taken too much time, energy and effort which though was done in good faith. There were cases were even my cognitive abilities where questioned which was quite offensive. (See article Talk:Greek Muslims). What you might call "quarreling" i have an issue because not all editors are equal. Some who have privileges are editors from a background who may have less than polite views regarding people of Albanian heritage. There should be non-Balkan editors adjudicating certain articles so those who have those privileges don't abuse them or intimidate editors who insist on change (the later must make their case though). Merit and content based on Wikipedia policy should be the outcome everyone conducts themselves upon. More oversight is needed or absent that the removal of privileges (auto patrol etc) of some editors for those engaging in such behavior so as to make it a level playing field. Wikipedia is a democratic forum, it should not be a place where Greek editors have privileges over Albanian ones or vice versa.Resnjari (talk) 09:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The user makes up his own rules, again, and again.--Zoupan 16:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Why don't you mention the fact that there is a consensus at the talk page?Why?Why do you want to delete informations +add others without consensus?Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolandi+ (talk • contribs) 17:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I fail to see a concensus in the talkpage. Can't understand what you really mean.Alexikoua (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no concensus about our recent edits,so they have to all to be deleted until a consensus.I said that at talk page,you commented but you did't said no.Zoupan and Alexikoua agree with the fact that my edits (and others made by other non-albanian editors) have to be deleted until consesnus (note that the edits of some other non-albanian editors have been there since a long time but you deleted them because you don't like them).But you don't agree with the fact that your recent edits have to be deleted until a consesnus too (as some of them are clear vandalism). You always,but always (just see your editing's history) delete others' edits and references.Strange.You always delete albanian's editors edits but you don't know what to say.Alexikoua deleted my edits at "Kara Mahmud Pasha" saying "rv poorly cited (you have been advised how to do that properly without false ISBNs)".Actually there wasn't any ISBN there.He LIED. This is what some specific users :Alexikoua,Zoupan,Dr.K ,Athenean do,they just destroy others' work,especially the work of Albanian editors. Note:It's the second time that unregistred users delete my work.After the habit of those four user to delete my edits was introduced here,some unregistred users are undoing my edits.STRANGE!Rolandi+ (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    After the habit of those four user to delete my edits was introduced here,some unregistred users are undoing my edits.STRANGE!: Actually your insinuation is not strange at all. That was the favourite MO of blocked sock Bonender: Are you a sock puppet account of Alexikoua ? Cause i will seek investigation cf. Malbin210's SPI. Strange indeed. Isn't it? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Also here you accuse Athenean of being Alexikoua's sock: disruptive editing by Alexikoua's sock,maybe needs reporting Funny that. Very similar phraseology to Bonender's. Really funny stuff, ain't it? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 06:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The real fun is that you claim that people that doesn't have the same ideas with you are socks.Why don't you go and see how many contributions you have deleted by claiming that others are sock...hundreads...thousands.How is possible that you edit at the same article at the same time?Rolandi+ (talk) 09:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Block Rolandi+ and move on I'm amazed at the lack of action and long discussions. This in an incredibly simple matter that does not need to take up anyone's time. Rolandi+ is definitely guilty of multiple policy violations as clearly demonstrated in the discussion. No other user appears to have done anything wrong. I suggest an admin just closes this discussion with a suitable block for Rolandi+. When a situation is this clear, there is no need for all the drama currently taking place.Jeppiz (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    As I see Roland had already reflected on his wrong doing, which I fail to see on Alexikoua, and what is more outrages I see that people fail to understand the subtle difference of personal offences and arguments. Roland is being offended here and still is argumenting his positions. Resnjari is right, there are very few Albanian in Wiki, which is being 'taken over' from sources provided from our neighbors (as in the Vjosa case as he/she mentions). This to be honest shouldn't be normal and not fair. This is almost supression due to numbers. Wiki should be a place of consensus, harmony and inclusions, not the place where biggest actors surpress the smallest. QTeuta (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)QTeuta[reply]

    Edit warring on Albanians

    There is now an edit war going on at this article between User:Rolandi+ and User:SilentResident. See article history. I've notified SilentResident. Rolandi+ is already party to this discussion. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've notified SilentResident about discretionary sanctions, as he does not appear to have ever been notified in the past. ~ RobTalk 21:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I deeply apologize for the 3-revert rule, I just tried to revert the POV edits by the user Rolandi+. Feel free to check the page's history Albania. Again, my apologies if I broke the 3-revert rules, this was not my intention. --SilentResident (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    When Rolandi+ insisted on his POV edits on Albanians and refused to provide any reliable sources for his edits in the appropriate talk page, even after 3 reverts, I realized that I had no other option but to ask politely for a moderator's attention on the issue, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Unsourced_POV_edits_on_population_figures I didn't had any bad intentions, I just tried to prevent POV edits on the page. My apologies. --SilentResident (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Discretionary sanctions warnings should not be given on the basis of a single edit-warring incident on a single article. That's why we have the 3RR rule. Only when the editing causes disruption in more than one Balkans-related article and there is a pattern of disruptive editing in multiple Balkans-related articles a DS warning should be issued. SilentResident does not qualify for a DS warning under these criteria. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This has become ludicrous. Reverting edits by a DE does not merit sanction warnings. As noted by Dr. K, Rolandi+ has established a NOTHERE editing pattern and is oblivious to BRD to the point of being pure BATTLEGROUND. DS warnings for GF editors (particularly where they are obviously aware of the existence of the DS) smacks of punitive action inferring that the editor is acting in bad faith. Surely there is a point at which Wikipedia sysops should review the nature of incidents and not shift the onus to the reverter while ignoring the BURDEN on the contributor to back up their content changes/additions with cite checked RS (nor allow for non-sysops to play the blame game by using DS warnings to be used as badges of shame). This can only be construed as rewarding bad faith editing on some obscure point of POV righteousness. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A DS notification is just that - a notification. As the template itself states, it is not an implication of any wrongdoing, but merely a notification. If he plans to continue editing in that area, it's something he should be aware of. I meant nothing more by it than that. I agree that my warning did not meet Dr.K's criteria, but those criteria are not part of any actual policy that I've been able to find. ~ RobTalk 01:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A DS notification is just that - a notification. As the template itself states, it is not an implication of any wrongdoing, but merely a notification.: That does not mean that one should proceed with notification overkill or notify in the absence of good grounds for a notification. A DS is designed to warn about disruption in the Balkans area. An edit-warring dispute in a single Balkans article does not equal disruption in the Balkans area. Good judgment is needed when using Arbcom instruments. You will not find this requirement in any policy but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    DS notification is not a sanction. It's notification that special policy applies, for editors working in a topic area that have done something that merited attention. That something may or may not have been actionable but attracted attention.
    We had prior arguments over whether it was a hostile action or abusive to DS notify someone, and the consensus was that involved parties should not under that circumstance but others' doing so was not a problem. Was there something specific here that was a problem?... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you George. I have seen the prior debates and I understand the arguments. Having said that, I think a notification to an editor who has not exhibited disruptive behaviour in the area of the Balkans is not necessary. A single article in the Balkans area is not the area of the Balkans. Here we have Rolandi+, an edit-warring champion in the area of the Balkans edit-warring, as is his custom, with an editor who has no record of disruptive behaviour in the Balkans area. I think it is an overkill to give the latter a DS warning absent any evidence that his behaviour is going to spread to at least one more Balkans article. I think using discretion in such cases is a good idea. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    He was engaging in behavior that could easily lead to a report to WP:AN3 if it continued. Had that occurred, an admin would have almost certainly brought up the discretionary sanctions (if only to mention them). I'm of the opinion that an editor should not first hear about discretionary sanctions when they're being talked about on a noticeboard. They should know what they're getting into before they engage in any behavior that is borderline, as they may choose not to engage in that behavior if they're aware of the discretionary sanctions. Keep in mind that, on the flip side, an editor that is editing positively in a contentious area subject to discretionary sanctions will want to know about them so they can respond appropriately to disruptive editors if necessary. Knowledge is power, etc etc ~ RobTalk 03:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]

    It is somehow speculative to assume that an admin at 3RRN will issue DS warnings to the parties but even if s/he does I don't see the problem with being informed at the noticeboard. I think it is preferable to see the warning at the noticeboard than being slapped with it at one's talkpage. There are also other ways to inform editors about DS without slapping them with a formal notice. Knowledge is power and other such slogans are ok but being slapped with a DS notice on their talkpage is intimidating to some editors never mind the disclaimers and associated slogans. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Echoing Dr. K's sentiments, the problem is that I would consider the notification as being a bad judgement call on behalf of BU Rob13. While experienced editors are aware of the fact that, technically, it isn't an accusation of wrongful editing behaviour, such warnings should be issued bearing in mind the context (it takes two to tango, but substantiating who's leading the dance is of primary concern). In this instance, the new contributor did not receive the same warning to at least meet with a sense of parity, whereas it was directed at a more experienced editor who was reverting badly sourced, POV content whereas the other party (whose amendments to the content actually carry the BURDEN) was not following through discussions per BRD. The new contributor has already been previously blocked, harrassed non-partisan editors and cast WP:ASPERSIONS as to the nature of their editing, and is treating Wikipedia articles surrounding Albanian issues as a BATTLEGROUND. I'll admit to the fact that I've already been worn down by the opponent by trying to comply with AGF, this courtesy has not been extended to any editors attempting to communicate with Rolandi+ (see the section on my talk page + the diffs outlining multiple examples of harassment of other editors in this thread, not simply this subsection).
    While I'm not condemning BU Rob13 for posting the DS notification, at the very least a reciprocal alert should have also been posted on Rolandi+'s talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point Iryna, but I did that some weeks ago as soon as I realised we were faced with yet another edit-warring champion in the Balkans area. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 06:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Propose topic ban of Rolandi+

    Just a few days ago, Rolandi posted this, saying (and I quote) "As I said ,we need to be more carefull in the future and stop edit warring.". Yet today he racked up 3 reverts at Albanians, no problem. Is there anyone here who still believes a word this user says? He has lost all credibility in my opinion. Any more warnings are a waste of time, he will make all the right noises to avoid punishment and then as soon as he thinks no one is looking he will revert to form (no pun intended). I am thus proposing that he be topic banned from Balkan related articles, broadly construed. Proposed. Athenean (talk) 05:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • "Support". While I would be reticent to support a general block against Rolandi+ (as has been suggested in the earlier thread), if the user is genuinely committed to being HERE, s/he needs to familiarise themselves with WP:PG by working on articles outside of the contentious ones directly and indirectly involving Albania. Throwing themselves into the deep end of an area they have partisan alliances to without any experience in moderating their behaviour is bound to be distressing for both the user and regular editors. At some point in the future, after demonstrably positive input, the topic ban could be reviewed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Irina Harpy,all the problem here is that I said you that I will report you because you sent me a false warning and because you falsificated the reference at Vlachs.This is tha all the problem.Why don't you go and see what really happened at Albanians?Why?That editor and me used the talk page and I explained him his mistakes.Also,my edits aren't reverts of his edits (except one only after we talk at the talk page),but improvements of his recent work.Go and see to believe it.So don't try to LIE AGAIN.Rolandi+ (talk) 09:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Also go and see what SilentResident did at Albanians.Milliyet says that 500 thousand have consciousness of their Albanian origin while there are 1.3 mln albanians in turkey.This is POV .It means he isn't neutral and then the problem is me.The only problem is that some editors delete informations (not always added by me ,for example at Albanians ) claiming that the references aren't reliable.When the reference is a well known scholar,the problem is the user who deletes it.Also I didn't make edit-warring,I improved some informations (some of them were added by SilentResident) and reverted his edits only one time .
    Also ,after this ANI was created and some Greek editors were involved on it,how is it possible that some other greek editors started deleting well established informations about Albanians?No, this isn't a problem,the problem strangely is only me! Rolandi+ (talk) 09:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Also SilentResident doesn't need to LIE.He said he deleted my POV,but the informations that he deleted without any clear explanation and without concensus are there since a long time.Those informations weren't added by me.SO HE LIED AGAIN AS HE DID ABOUT MILLIYET REFERENCE.AND THEN THE PROBLEM IS ME!!!!You are very neutral!Rolandi+ (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support topic ban Rolandi+ has shown beyond any doubt they are WP:NOTHERE, and continues to violate several policies. The continued comments by Rolandi+ inthis thread further show the user is unwilling to hear and continues to insist the problem is everybody else. Broad topic ban only solution.Jeppiz (talk) 10:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Rolandi+, you have just attacked me and called me a liar. This is very sad and unfortunate of your part. I have expected that, like how I am trying to be polite with you, I could have enjoyed a minimum level of reciprocity in my politeness to you. I wish you could show some maturity at least, because Wikipedia is not a playground where we fight with other Wiki users, nor it is a bar where we accuse them of blatant lies. While you speak with accusations and insults, I speak with logic. While you are resorting to edit wars with other users, reverts and insults, I have at least tried asking for your cooperation in bringing more sources for citation. I have nothing against you, and it only saddens me that Wikipedia is overshadowed by people of your kind whose the actions disrupt the peaceful environment and cooperation with other users. I am very sad, and I am sorry. --SilentResident (talk) 10:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And dear community, because I am involved in this unfortunate tension with Rolandi+, I don't think I am eligible in taking position regarding Rolandi's ban suggestion. (so I won't be voicing pro-banning or against banning him, and will stay neutral).--SilentResident (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Strongly Oppose': My preference is that further discussion is had with Rolandi. When i have done so how certain sources or numbers may be an issue, he has taken it on board and relented (for example the Cham Albanian page or the Tomasso article). Some editors here who are advocating for a ban have in the past referred to certain proposed changes with peer reviewed material i have done as "POV" (while after backing off when i invoked Wikipedia policy and so on and in the end have gone through. They have also shown to be very selective with Wikipedia policy or even to the point of making it up to prevent peer reviewed material going into an article. For more see: Talk:Souliotes) and have said things such as questioning my cognitive abilities which was very offensive (For more see Talk:Greek Muslims). I do not trust some editors’ motives in this instance for banning Rolandi, due in part to my experiences with them. There are many Greek and Serbian editors, but so few Albanian ones these days. I call for outside adjudication regarding the matter so trust and good faith can be restored and some articles that are in need of a fix up to be done as such with peer reviewed material and free of intimidation and personal attacks as i have experienced repeatedly for a select number of editors here now going after Rolandi. Outside intervention is needed so as to prevent any ganging up like activity from occurring.Resnjari (talk) 10:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    SilentResident,your words are very beautifull.Why don't you go and see what did you do at Albanians article?Why?Also keep in mind that I do not intend to offend anyone,I said that you lied because you really lied.And your words (your lies about what really happened at Albanians )may send me to a block.Rolandi+ (talk) 10:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Alexioua and me have made edit warring (Alexikoua has made edit warring at hundreads and thousands other cases about Balkans related articles ,more than me) so Athenean proposed topic ban ONLY for me.Interesting!Rolandi+ (talk) 11:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to report Rolandi for trying to blakcmail me now, in the Talk: Albanians, he threatened me twice: "So revert your edits about the albanians in turkey,or I will report you after that ANI" and "I may be blocked for this topic,but this doesn't mean that I can't report you for your vandalism.So go and delete your edits about albanians in turkey". He is basically threatening me that if I don't undo his reverted POV edits, I will get reported! Please, any help? --SilentResident (talk) 11:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes,go and read Wikipedia's rules about the use of concensus when you want to delete well-established informations.I am involved at this ANI now,after that I will report your falsification of sources (see what Milliyet really says about the number of albanians in Turkey).I also will report you for your lies (you said that you deleted my POV,while they weren't added by me ) and for your vandalism (you deleted well -established referenced infos without concensus ).Rolandi+ (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support topic ban. I tried explaining to him the importance of having reliable facts and sources in Wikipedia's articles, and especially in the sensitive ones related to the Balkan region. This person however is pushing things off edge by trying to blackmail the me and accuse the others! I agree with Jeppiz and the people above, this user should be banned, at least from the Balkan-related articles. --SilentResident (talk) 12:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This ANI is about Alexikoua and me,but the discussion here is only about me.who are discussing?athenean,zoupan and dr.k who have deleted almost all my work and edits (and many other's edits,just see their history ).also,i had said to irina harpy and silentresident that i will report them,so thay came here talking against me!this isn't fair.why isn't there any problem with alexikoua's edit warring ?why?he has deleted many others' work and edits (not only albanian editors )only by saying "manifesto","nationalism""propaganda" etc. This isn't fair and it's sure this will not end here.if neended,i will try contacting wikipedia for the fact that the discussion here is only about me.you can ban me,but this will not end so easily. This is not a thread,i am just saying what is going to happen.this is ridiculous,the discussion here is made only by some editors that don't have the moral right to discuss here,for the only reason they have been accused from me for several things.on the other hand,alexikoua isn't mentioned on this discussion. Also note that I haven't made edit warring since that ANI.The only one is at Albanians where SilentResident deleted many infos (with a part I agree,with some no ),I tried to explain him the Wikipedia's rules (I would send him a warning but I am at this ANI now ).This isn't my fault.Anyways I will be more carefull in the future and I will solve problem at Albanians at ANI .Rolandi+ (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • To be frank, Rolandi+ has made no contribution (or "work"). A topic ban would possibly stop his disruptive editing if he decides to change his ways, and give him a chance to contribute. If he then continues his behaviour which we've seen thus far, definitely block as per WP:NOTHERE.--Zoupan 00:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Zoupan,you said I have made no contribution....where did you learn that?Go see my editing history (all my editings at balkans ralated articles and balkans non-related articles ) and then come and talk here. As I said: This ANI is about Alexikoua and me,but the discussion here is only about me.who are discussing?athenean,zoupan and dr.k who have deleted almost all my work and edits (and many other's edits,just see their history ).also,i had said to irina harpy and silentresident that i will report them,so thay came here talking against me!this isn't fair.why isn't there any problem with alexikoua's edit warring ?why?he has deleted many others' work and edits (not only albanian editors )only by saying "manifesto","nationalism""propaganda" etc. This isn't fair and it's sure this will not end here.If neended,i will try contacting wikipedia for the fact that the discussion here is only about me.you can ban me,but this will not end so easily. This is not a thread,i am just saying what is going to happen.this is ridiculous,the discussion here is made only by some editors that don't have the moral right to discuss here,for the only reason they have been accused from me for several things.on the other hand,alexikoua isn't mentioned on this discussion. Also note that I haven't made edit warring since that ANI.The only one is at Albanians where SilentResident deleted many infos not added by me (with a part I agree,with some no ),I tried to explain him the Wikipedia's rules (I would send him a warning but I am at this ANI now ).This isn't my fault.Anyways I will be more carefull in the future and I will solve problem the at Albanians at ANI .Rolandi+ (talk) 08:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Zoupan i am very concerned that you have inferred that Rolandi "has made no contribution (or "work")". He has contributed to many other non-Balkan articles and his edits have stayed. Only an administrator can make that call. The issue is with Balkan related material. My advice to you Rolandi is use google books and scholar if you do not have access to a university database of journal articles and academic books. Believe me you will save yourself a lot of trouble. Look for Western peer reviewed material that has done work in the field and do google the author to make sure their work does not have creditability issues or they as a academic. Then do as you will. I have been going through your Balkan related edits and they have been challenged on a variety of matters, a sizable amount with due reason. I understand where you are coming from as an Albanian. But be cautious. I do not want you to get banned. Going through the archive of some of the articles and their talk pages just very recently, a picture is emerging that it is a select few who have engaged in making editing for Albanian editors quite difficult. Nothing has been done about that, yet you are making yourself the focus of attention and giving them the justification to continue with such forms of intimidation while making them getting away with it. There are editors in here who have abused their privileges. The focus needs to be upon them, not you. I urge you most emphatically as one Albanian to another or as a brother to brother to reflect carefully and take into consideration what i have written and how to go about editing controversial topics. There are few Albanian editors and their numbers have shrunk here already and continues to do so. Don't allow yourself to be another in that line. Be aware its difficult for us like editors of other backgrounds like the Palestinians, Turks, African Americans and so on who also have low numbers contributing and have issues in having their voice heard. Its harder for us because this is after all a Western platform. Don't forget that. Take care Rolandi. Resnjari (talk) 09:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    As for Resnjari's advice for me,I totally agree and I will be more carefull in the future.Rolandi+ (talk) 09:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Personally, I disagree with Resnjari that Rolandi+'s behavior is really affecting the rest of the Albanian editors negatively or positively. At least not for me. I don't know if Rolandi is Albanian or not, and that little matters. My unpleasant encounter with Rolandi+ does not affect in any way my attitude towards other Albanians. I have met other editors, of other ethnicities and their behavior can not (and should not) be compared to that of Rolandi+, and so, it is logical that here in the Administrator noticeboard, the matter is not the ethnicity of a person, but his behavior and attitude. Rolandi+ is subject for his indimitative attitude. Of course this in no way this means that the other Albanian editors of Wikipedia could be affected or related to Rolandi's case in any way, just because of his ethnicity. And this should not be allowed to happen. Wikipedia should and must encourage the and contribution of all the people regardless of ethnicity. --SilentResident (talk) 12:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Like i have said in the past, an in depth discussion free of diatribe with Rolandi will go a long way to solving these issues. How is it that after i have engaged with Rolandi that he has desisted regarding certain articles, while the rest of you continue with the path you have taken regarding him ? It has created a situation where all positions have hardened and no progress has occurred. I never said anything about Rolandi’s behavior affecting Albanian editors. But I definitely want him around. There are so few Albanian editors around and he has a passion for doing the editing task and patrolling pages. It’s just how he has gone about it that is the issue and needs refinement. You say you have had a unpleasant encounter with Rolandi, I have more than a few more than a few with Athenean who has even questioned my cognitive abilities (what the heck does that have to do with editing the article!) and called my peer reviewed edits and proposed changes better suited to a “blog” and even called changes regarding articles relating to Albanians “irrelevant”. And yet I have extended in a spirit of good will to him even after all of that to only engage with the material (and to do no personal attacks) and all he has done is repeatedly continued with such mannerisms. Alexikoua on the other hand (part from saying POV, POV, POV to my proposed edits based on peer reviewed sources in the talk page as a first reaction) has even made up Wikipedia policy in order in an attempt to restrict peer reviewed sources from going into a article (like the Albanian name of the Souliots) saying that a “10% threshold” was needed without providing any proof (It went through in the end, but not without much problems by other editors also). What am I to make of that then especially, for example, when Alexikoua has numerous privileges and undoing edits? All my edits are based on sources of the highest quality. I can vouch for all and albeit one (due to “original research reasons”), all have gone through. But how much stuff did I have to write to argue for the inclusion of those edits in the talk page because I was accused of POV pushing – and these are for edits I have proposed in the talk page. I have not edited them even into the article yet!) It has become an absurdity frankly! Also if did place these issues on the Administrator notice board who would act upon it anyway? It would be me pitted against people who have privileges. The system is not balanced and is currently two tiered. Because of this, my trust in the system is very minimal at the moment. It is on this basis also that I distrust this campaign against Rolandi. Yes Rolandi needs to clean up his act, but it’s a no to any form of a ban.Resnjari (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Strongly oppose:(see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sulmuesi, user has been indef blocked as a sockpuppetAlexikoua (talk) 20:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)) I admit to have not read in depth the technical arguments in the articles and the full details the case with Rolandi+ and Alexikou. Nevertheless, I can clearly see that in relations to challenging articles related to Albania, the other editors belong to countries that openly disagree with the most Albanian-promoted version of histories, e.g. Greek, Serbian, Russian (all supportive of pro-slavic, pro-orthodox christian and anti-albanian theses). I find it equally disturbing that the users with common views opposing the Albanian vision of history, unite to ban an Albanian editor. I have the impression that this has nothing to do with Rolandi+ (despite his flamboyant temperament), since similar heated attitudes are exhibited by most other editors. Then, how do we solve the disputes? Easy, create an anti-Albanian majority and kick the Albanian out. While it might have worked in the past, it is not fair. Admins should be careful to not punish editors from the tiny nation of Albania, only because the opposing pro-slavic pro-orthodox sides (Greeks, Serbian, Macedonian, Russian) are more numerous. In my opinion, this anti-Albanian discriminating behavior is not fair and should stop. OppositeGradient (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    OppositeGradient, that is a comment without any merit, and it violates WP:NPA. There is no anti-Albanian conspiracy here. Personally, I don't think I've ever edited an article even remotely related to anything Albanian, I'm neither pro-Albanian or anti-Albanian. Your whole argument seem to be nationalistic (we shouldn't ban Rolandi+ because he is Albanian as well as there's an anti-Albanian conspiracy at play). At ANI, we should not care one way or another. Bad conduct is bad conduct regardless of a user's nationality. The fact of the matter is that Rolandi+ has violated Wikipedia policies time and time again, and continues to violate them despite several warnings. Everything else is irrelevant.Jeppiz (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ethnicity-based arguments are the silliest form of discourse and do not belong anywhere and especially on Wikipedia. Same goes for ethnicity-based conspiracies which are an even worse form of argument. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Jeppiz due to my experience with certain editors, saying that the Albanian factor is not present in their persistence regarding making editing difficult POV is very questionable. In my experience as I have mentioned repeatedly in previous posts now, I can cite many examples to the contrary. And it is some of those same editors now also going after Rolandi. Makes on wonder. Dr. K, it no conspiracy. Ask Athenean, why my cognitive abilities (or of any interest to him) were questioned or why Albanians are “irrelevant” in an article that relates about Albanians (e.g. Northern Epirus? The ethnic issue here is at play for some editors in how they view those changes done by editors who they don’t like. How else does one interpret their interest about a person's cognitive abilities, making up Wikipedia policy and saying Albanians are irreverent? Resnjari (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Jeppiz, you can be characterized as an Exception that proves the rule :) Please note that I mentioned well-known attitudes toward Albanians, instead conspiracies focus on non-evident facts. In fact, the question is whether the other editors oppose the Albanian guy i) because they had a full disagreement on the respective topic, or ii) because they blindly respect Wikipedia rules. Stated otherwise, those editors would be credible if they would find his behavior disruptive despite agreeing with him. Let me further iterate, Rolandi+ is not significantly more combatant than for instance Alexikou, right (plus minus the same style)? Then, why do the 'neutral' editors above not raise a flag on Alexikou as well? The only explanation is because they publicly share his opinions on the articles under concern. Jeppiz, it is very easy to blame a person without seeing the big picture. Perhaps you and I would also lose our cool if several editors gang against us because of our opinions (not behaviors). For instance, he mentions that his reliable sources are mistreated and ignored to the point of driving him mad. Analyzing those behaviors is highly important for the quality Wikipedia. For this reason I think we should not selectively punish Rolandi+. Instead we should all work together on trying to break the existing 'gang-style' lobbying in Albania-related articles. Meanwhile I advise Rolandi+ and all editors involved in heated discussions to cool down a bit and let go. OppositeGradient (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Rolandi+ is not significantly more combatant than for instance Alexikou, right (plus minus the same style)? Then, why do the 'neutral' editors above not raise a flag on Alexikou as well? This betrays a total lack of understanding of the content that Rolandi+ is pushing in this area. Calling Alexikoua "combantant" shows no understanding of the disruptive MO of Rolandi who is pushing his POV through falsification of sources and OR. But we have been through these points in multiple fora as well as in this report, so I am not sure why you seem oblivious to them. Alexikoua has been editing this area for years and is an expert in this subject area. He is a very knowledgeable and moderate editor who has reached consensus with many Albanian editors before. He has also faithfully countered wave after wave of relentless and disuptive socks over the years defending Wikipedia from socks who wanted to convert many historical figures to Albanian including George Washington's mother Mary Ball Washington. Alexikoua should be congratulated for his tireless efforts through the years defending Wikipedia's policies not unfairly criticised haughtily from those who have no idea of the relevant article content. That he has a problem with Rolandi+ is indicative of Rolandi's POV-push problems. You are welcome to your opinion obviously but if you do not understand or investigate more deeply the parameters of this discussion you should not accuse Alexikoua for no good reason. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My friend, please do not tell me you think Alexikou is a hero :) The way I see it is two combatant editors showing similar attitudes. The only difference is that most editors commenting here have a history of disagreeing with Rolandi+, which makes the credibility of his inquisition questionable. OppositeGradient (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not patronise me when you address me. I don't know you at all, let alone consider you my friend. I will not repeat myself but I will just reiterate one point: You are completely unaware of the content issues involved so offering your opinion on a content issue you have no idea about is not constructive. And yes, Alexikoua has been defending the content policies of Wikipedia, a fact that completely escapes you because you have no idea of the content involved. But I said that before. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note everybody, "OppositeGradient" is a sock of User:Sulmues, one of the most disruptive editors to plague the Balkans topic areas [61]. He always thought in ethnic "terms" and that disruptive Albanian editors should not be banned no matter how disruptive just becaue "it's not fair". Athenean (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Athenean: I suspect that you're correct, and that a WP:SPI is in order. The similarities in MO (language, battleground, personal, harass, etc.) are distinctive. OppositeGradient is currently operating in the same manner on the current Kosovo RfC. S/he has admitted to being this IP, but has been active there as this, this, and this IP at the least. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    "Alexikoua should be congratulated for his tireless efforts". Yep so then why does such an editor then try to make up Wikipedia policy. A selective "moderate editor who has reached consensus with many Albanian editors before". That is open to interpretation. Not all would agree. Resnjari (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    Support topic ban. Editor clearly disobeys rules and consensus and gathers support from regular crowd of POV pushers. Naphtha Termix (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to clarify, do you mean Rolandi+ alone, or both editors involved in the combative discussions are responsible for the heat? By the way, who are the regular crowd of POV pushers supporting Rolandi+? I am particularly interested, since Rolandi+ is being 'attacked' by most editors expressing opinions here. OppositeGradient (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You for one. Naphtha Termix (talk) 04:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Really, I am a "regular crowd POV pusher"??? :) Ok, Mr. POV-dreamer, if you would be thinking before you typeset, you would realize I was not part of any article discussions involving Rolandi+. How can I be POV if I was not participating at any discussion (for your records in contrast to most editors here opposing him). Thanks for the dose of morning smile :). That closes it from my side. OppositeGradient (talk) 06:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said I will be more carefull in the future .Rolandi+ (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I Strongly Oppose any ban on Rolandi, in light of all things cited in my above comments.Resnjari (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You have already given your vote above, so please strike out this second vote. --T*U (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added the word comment to the above sentence. However I strongly oppose any ban on Rolandi for the reasons i have outlined and due to the editor involved in calling for such a thing.Resnjari (talk) 07:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The last thing to say is that I will be more carefull in the future .Rolandi+ (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban for Rolandi+, but oppose general block. I agree with Resnjari that Rolandi+ shows signs of willingness to learn how Wikipedia works, but the edit history in Balkan-related pages shows that the editor will need to learn how to edit in a NPOV way. After a period of, say, half a year or one year, Rolandi+ will have the chance to show ability to follow Wikipedia guidelines (and possibly also will be able to learn punctuation rules) and may then apply for lifting of the topic ban, which I will support if the general edit history shows improvement. On another note, I will strongly lift my voice against all arguments above that are based on nationality. Being Albanian, Greek, Bulgarian, Siamese or whatever has no relevance to this discussion. --T*U (talk) 23:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also oppose an outright ban, he is willing to learn the rules and can edit constructively. Maybe three months will be enough to make him stop and think, I am sure after that he will be very welcome on those articles. Naphtha Termix (talk) 04:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding Rolandi, subscribe to some of the journal databases that Wikipedia is offering access to. Francis and Taylor has much stuff that relates to humanities type material that involves Balkan topics. As for TU-nor's comment that "I will strongly lift my voice against all arguments above that are based on nationality. Being Albanian, Greek, Bulgarian, Siamese or whatever has no relevance to this discussion." I will most strongly lift my voice and disagree with that view due to the following. I have shown evidence to the contrary and can do so even more. All things come into play because some editors reason's for claiming POV or refusing peer reviewed sources and data in an article have been based not on Wikipedia policy but other 'reasons'. These same editors are the same ones most adamant in wanting to ban Rolandi. All things must be considered because they are selective when using Wikipedia policy and sometimes have tried to make up Wikipedia policy. If you want more evidence and exact words (+editors involved) and were its all located i am more than happy and willing to have that discussion here (i was not aware of this process before till a few days a go). Again i say, no ban of Rolandi for the reasons outlined.Resnjari (talk) 07:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I read the Wikipedia's rules recently (carefully ) and I guarantee I have learned how to edit in a NPOV way.Also,you can see my recent constructive contributions in Balkans-related articles and in Balkans non related articles.So the best thing to do is to give me another chance.I know I have made many edit warring in the past but this will not happen in the future and I am sure for that.

    I have read the Wikipedia's rules carefully and I will be more carefull in the future.

    The right thing to do isn't to block me for some time,but to give me a "golden chance" and to patrol carefully all Balkan related articles.Rolandi+ (talk) 08:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I want you to not just patrol, but edit too, but to do it right. There are so few Albanian editors already and intimidation on other pages has occurred by editors seeking a ban for you. You getting banned will stifle a dwindling Albanian voice so limited at the moment. No ban. Wikipedia is a democratic forum, a ban of this nature will further curtail freedom of expression. A censure or something along those lines with a final warning that if it occurs again, it will be a ban for Rolandi. But no ban at this moment.Resnjari (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban for a specific period of time (up to a year). I have only glanced at this discussion, but the edits I have seen from Rolandi from my watchlist (particularly at Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus) betray both a POV-ish attitude and a general WP:IDHT mentality. Regarding Alexikoua, as others have said, counting reverts is not the fairest way to apportion blame when dealing with such cases. I am however in favour of giving at least one more chance to people, and prepared for now to accept the argument that this is due to inexperience, and that there is remorse and will for improvement. Thus I would strongly recommend that during this ban period, Rolandi engage in article-writing in other areas and topics, so that he can a) gather experience about how things are done here and b) demonstrate his competence in constructive article-writing away from contentious topics. This should be sufficient to determine if he is a WP:SPA or WP:HERE... I also advise Rolandi to seek out a WP:MENTOR if he is serious about contributing constructively. Constantine ✍ 13:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Resnjari.The best thing isn't my block topic,but to give me my last chance.I have made many contructive contributions the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles .If I will do any other edit warring or any other bad thing like that,just ban me forever.
    I read the Wikipedia's rules recently (carefully) and I will not make bad things anymore.I think I don't need to learn anymore,if I continue making edit warring or anything else,just ban me forever.
    Also note that I have made many contributions that aren't related with Balkans articles,so I don't need time to learn or to demonstrate my competence (I have read Wikipedi's rules recently and I have done many contructive editings the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles ).I am using the talk page now ,as you can see in my recent history,I am not and will not make edit warring or anything else in the future.The only thing I need is a last chance,not a topic block.Rolandi+ (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    But you already said that, haven't you? And as soon as you thought no one was looking, you went and racked up 3 reverts over at Albanians in the blink of an eye. Why should anyone believe you at this point? Athenean (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    To Athenean,firstly,I knew that someone was looking me at Albanians.I know how Wikipedia works.
    Secondly,when talking about my recent constructive contributions,I am talking about my construcive contributions after the Albanian case.Also we found concensus at Albanians.Also note that after the Albanian case I read the Wikipedia's rules carefully and now I know what is edit warring and why we need to use the talk page to make constructive contributions.
    Thirdly ,I can say to the administrators.:The best thing isn't my block topic,but to give me my last chance.I have made many contructive contributions the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles .If I will do any other edit warring or any other bad thing like that,just ban me forever.
    I read the Wikipedia's rules recently (carefully) and I will not make bad things anymore.I think I don't need to learn anymore,if I continue making edit warring or anything else,just ban me forever.
    Also note that I have made many contributions that aren't related with Balkans articles,so I don't need time to learn or to demonstrate my competence (I have read Wikipedi's rules recently and I have done many contructive editings the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles ).I am using the talk page now ,as you can see in my recent history,I am not and will not make edit warring or anything else in the future.The only thing I need is a last chance,not a topic block.Rolandi+ (talk) 07:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Athenean, don't go accusing Rolandi. I just checked and he has not done any edits very recently on the Albanians page. I am the last editor to have made a contribution and a significant one [[62]]. Frankly Athenean you need to stop your behavior of accusations toward other editors. With me, you have questioned by cognitive faculties (very offensive), referred to Albanians as "irrelevant" in the Northern Epirus article (on the talk page) which is about a territory within the sovereign borders of Albania with a substantial Albanian population and you have referred to my proposed edits (all from peer reviewed western sources and importantly academics of Greek background) there in the talk page as "fit" for a "blog", not Wikipedia. You also said that you would not allow me to undertake any changes to articles, or by condescendingly referring to me as "its you" and "i thought it was you". These are but are few of your memorable comments after i have repeatedly stretched out a hand of good will to discuss and edit (like at the Talk:Greek Muslims or the Talk:Northern Epirus. Don't intimidate and or bully. Wikipedia is a democratic forum. Moreover I was not properly aware of this administrators board for incidents, but if you continue, and i say this to Alexikoua also who made up policy (a so called 10% threshold to try a prevent peer reviewed material going into the Souliots article, See: Talk:Souliotes) which is a no no in Wikipedia, i will lodge complaints against you both. Like i have said to you many times (by having to quote at length Wikipedia policy) Athenean stick to the content, not the person. Also, a FINAL warning to Rolandi will suffice with some short probationary period, but definitely no ban especially since those calling for it are less than innocent and their motives more than suspect (as i have outlined in the above posts). Resnjari (talk) 09:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I can perfectly understand most non-Balkan editors, who do not see how a majority of Greek/Slavic editors try to impose their version of history in most Albanian-related articles. I also dreamed of a world (and encyclopedia) where nationality is not important. Yet, all of us involved with any Albanian-related topic know this is not real. We cannot pretend that this situation is simply a random group of Greek/Slavic editors with randomly same opinion on Greek/Serbian-Albanian relations, all randomly start attacking a randomly Albanian editor who randomly happen to disagree to randomly all of them in randomly all disputed articles under consideration. Sure, the whole story is a random coincidence and has nothing to do with nationalistic views on history. If you think there is no difference between the ideal world and the Balkan reality, then I think this incident is destined to be misjudged. OppositeGradient (talk) 13:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Its why we need more outside oversight at times keep an eye on the editing process. There are those within Wikipedia who would object to material entering a article not its merit, but because it might go against a world view. For example the article Turco-Albanians was created by non-Albanian editors with southern Balkan heritage. It was created without any mention that the term has mostly pejorative connotations. Many editors who "contributed" and patrolled the article were against additions to that article or concerns of Albanian editors. Now because Albanian editors had either no access or were unaware of sources to make sure the article had no racism, those who patrolled (have a look at the page history bit of the article: Turco-Albanians: Revision history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turco-Albanians&action=history ) made things very difficult to get change there. Now i have made the changes there but it was not without its issues. Its because of this article that at first i was really annoyed, (its like having the article on the "n" word saying that its a friendly ethnographic term used by white people for African Americans) and overacted as Wikipedia says it does not promote racism. There also was a lot of POV on the Cham Albanians page (such as the unsubstantiated claim of Chams being involved in the deportation of Ioannina's Jews. It had a citation tag on there for more than two years). I found the source from where that had been copied and pasted. A Karl Savich article on the website Serbianna, a problematic website for one and two all the sources he had cited not one mentioned anything about it, and i checked them all !). Change was only done after a exhaustive process and accusations of POV. All my edits based on peer previewed material went through, but one for "original research" reasons. Currently i am in the process of editing the Northern Epirus article. As it stands now i have identified numerous issues of POV pushing and unsubstantiated claims made in there (as outlined in the talk page :[Talk:Northern Epirus]) and it reads more like a propaganda piece for the Greek Northern Epirote lobby than a encyclopedia article showing neutrality and balance. I have not even added my edits (based on peer reviewed material with inline citations and also mainly from Greek academics !) and into the article first, but on the talk page and invited editors to make comments on the content. So far, Athenean has come out with, no, no, no (to paraphrase his comments) and i have not even done the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle because i want everyone's constructive input, while Alexikoua had to be convinced that a article about a geographical place in Albania that has substantial numbers of Albanians which the literature on Northern Epirus states had to be included (see: Talk:Northern Epirus). It was not without its issues as at first, as i was again accused of POV pushing, then some edits i have made using peer reviewed material on other pages (about for example the remaining Albanian speaking presence in the Epirus article) and agreed to by those editors where in a way explained to me that they could be deleted if i persisted with these changes and only after exhaustively citing Wikipedia policy was a somewhat "normal" discussion started with Athenean's comments once in a while of no, no, no. But never a why, why, why, when asked. I urge non-Balkan oversight and outside intervention during the editing process of that article and to make sure that the discussion is had primarily on the content and that no intimidation occurs. I urge this of the administrators and others too of a non-Balkan background as there are also few Albanian editors and a fake consensus could also occur to block certain peer reviewed material relevant to the article going in.Resnjari (talk) 14:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OppositeGradient, your passionate arguments in favour of a Slavo-Greek conspiracy would be much more believable (aside from the fact that one would have to completely ignore that Greek and Slavic nationalism don't make good bedfellows) if the case were actually precipitated by some anti-Albanian cabal ganging up on a poor blameless Albanian user, and not by the latter behaving in a typical tendentious manner that we all are sadly too familiar with. This thread was not started by Greeks nor Slavs, and complaining about cabals and secret agendas is always the last refuge of someone with no case and no arguments. The problem is Rolandi's behaviour and disruptive pattern of editing, which has caused this whole bruhaha. Of course other Balkan users will get involved, because Rolandi edits in Balkan-related articles, and pushing a particular POV he is bound to get in conflict not with German, Chinese, or American users, but with Greeks, Serbs, etc. i.e. with people who care about these articles. If his edits were more thought-out, if he provided decent sources, if he respected the WP:BRD rule, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Resnjari, I have seen you being engaged in page-long content disputes with Alexikoua and Athenean, but you are not reported at ANI. Why? Because you do not behave in a hot-headed manner, and argue on the basis of sources. I too would like to see more Albanian editors active at WP, but not if that means that we have to tolerate nationalistic hogwash POVs and edit-wars. Complaining about ethnic-based profiling and then arguing that a user should be cut more slack than usual because there are too few of his nationality around is a weird line of argument. I am willing to allow a period for Rolandi to shape up and matters to calm down, but with the provisional topic ban. Why? Because I've been here long enough to know that if he is WP:HERE to do serious work, then he will persist through this period and come out better from it. Without the ban, we'll in all likelihood be here again a month from now. Constantine ✍ 17:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You said:"Without the ban, we'll in all likelihood be here again a month from now."Why are you so sure ?

    I can say to the administrators:The best thing isn't my block topic,but to give me my last chance.I have made many contructive contributions the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles .If I will do any other edit warring or any other bad thing like that,just ban me forever. I read the Wikipedia's rules recently (carefully) and I will not make bad things anymore.I think I don't need to learn anymore,if I continue making edit warring or anything else,just ban me forever. Also note that I have made many contributions that aren't related with Balkans articles,so I don't need time to learn or to demonstrate my competence (I have read Wikipedia's rules recently and I have done many contructive editings the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles ).I am using the talk page now ,as you can see in my recent history,I am not and will not make edit warring or anything else in the future.The only thing I need is a last chance,not a topic block.Rolandi+ (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Constantine, the issue with Rolandi is no one here attempted to calm him down by properly showing the error of his ways that went beyond policy. I engaged with him in a manner, which lets be frank about it, has now stabilized the situation and he has but all ceased his previous activity. That is what dispute resolution is all about, while others kept fanning the flames. For example he deleted a comment of mine. So, i then placed another comment and explained what he was doing was out of whack regarding the material. I didn't go all paternalistic with him. He is an equal. No one is above or below and i stand by that. In general Rolandi will have to do much reading before editing some Balkan topics (like i said to him he should subscribe to the Francis and Taylor database, many good humanities journal articles there if he has no access to university stuff). He is in need of a last warning, that i agree, but no ban. I still think that a ban is not the way to go, due in part to some editors own behavior as i have pointed out. Athenean, has all but refused to engage with peer reviewed material that i put up as proposals, (not even in the article itself, but the talk page and has been disruptive when a consensus has been reached with an editor on the matter !) I have repeatedly urged him to engage in the discussion in good faith.) and has been very dismissive also (apart from his colourful commentary that has nothing to do with the article). Alexikoua also at one point made up policy (which is a Wikipedia no no) to try and prevent a peer reviewed source going into the Souliotes article which he as a editor with privileges should know better and so on (Will Alexikoua get a warning for doing that? I wonder). POVs occur when the material is in question. Why do i get repeated accusations and dismissiveness? Its not always Albanian editors engaged in POV pushing or edit wars. It also comes from the other side. I have given examples already to that effect, especially with regard to Athenean. To date all my sources have been of the highest quality (all peer reviewed) and so have my edits (yes at times the wording needs refinement, that's why in good faith i have asked for engagement and input in the talk page, not POV accusations which i still get), yet i still have to deal with these shenanigans. If Rolandi gets a (topic) ban than these others should too as they have intimidated people and violated Wikipedia policy. If Rolandi stuffs up again and we are all in here in a month as you say, then a ban is what he will get. But for now no. A definite, clear and final warning will do.Resnjari (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Diff of Rolandi+ removing warnings and discussions regarding his behaviour. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. I do not see If Rolandi gets a (topic) ban than these others should too as realistic.--Zoupan 00:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes he has been warned. As i am not aware previously as to who could give out such warnings (i thought it was only the administrators who could), Rolandi got caught out, while these other editors have been getting away with such behavior. All should get a warning and be reminded that they solely stick to examining the material and editing and not focus on the person. The others are in need of a warning by the administrators also. One cannot defend Alexikoua's making up policy regarding that "a 10% threshold" was need so a peer reviewed source could go into an article. Or in another article that if certain peer reviewed edits are sought for there, that other previously peer reviewed material (agreed to also by Alexikoua) would be subject to deletion. Zoupan how is that defensible, especially since Alexikoua has many privileges that other editors don't ? I have also outlined Athenean's behavior which is consistent and has bordered on and been sometimes outright offensive. No ban, only a final warning for Rolandi. If Rolandi gets a topic ban or whatever the others too + warnings. Administrators need to take these serious issues that i have outlined into account. Wikipedia is a place meant to be one free of intimidation or bullying and that goes for all. Stick to the policy and peer reviewed material ! Resnjari (talk) 07:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I am saying this again ( all editors can go to verify my recent constructive contribution).

    I can say to the administrators:The best thing isn't my block topic,but to give me my last chance.I have made many contructive contributions the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles .If I will do any other edit warring or any other bad thing like that,just ban me forever. I read the Wikipedia's rules recently (carefully) and I will not make bad things anymore.I think I don't need to learn anymore,if I continue making edit warring or anything else,just ban me forever. Also note that I have made many contributions that aren't related with Balkans articles,so I don't need time to learn or to demonstrate my competence (I have read Wikipedia's rules recently and I have done many contructive editings the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles ).I am using the talk page now ,as you can see in my recent history,I am not and will not make edit warring or anything else in the future.The only thing I need is a last chance,not a topic block.Rolandi+ (talk) 08:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    He is still not ready.--Zoupan 16:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Really Zoupan?Why don't you go to the talk page and see?In addition,I have been busy today,but in the coming days I will give new arguments to you.In fact ,if someone calls Losha an Albanian tribe,it means they are Albanians.I don't delete your references Zoupan,but strangely you delete all my references.You don't give any explanation.However,don't worry,maybe the next ANI will be for your latest edits and your lack of neutrality,especially when talking about Albanian-related articles.

    Why don't you go and see how you delete my edits and reference without saying sth?Why?

    In fact,you don't have any moral right to talk against me for the only reason that I have accused you in the past for several things and many other editors know that fact.Also we have had many conflicts in the past and now you came here as you don't like my edits.Why don't you go and explain me when deleting my work in the future,as I am sure you will delete my work and references in the future!

    Also,after I added the version that says he was Albanian,I deleted the part that said "Albanian historians consider him Albanian" because then it was irrelevant (after saying that he was Albanian).I explained this ,but you don't mention this fact.Why?In fact,it's not the first time that you delete references that say that a notable person born/living in Albania is Albanian,only saying that it is a demonym.Why?Because you don't know what the neutrality is.

    Also this user deleted my referenced edits here [63] without any clear explanation.Why?Because it says that Malakas might have been an Albanian tribe.

    Also he deleted my edits here [64] without any explanation.Why?Because it gave the birth name of St.Angelina,which is an Albanian name. Rolandi+ (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    In all seriousness, even if we were to dismiss doubts as to Rolandi+'s good faith, the user lacks WP:COMPETENCE. This thread is going to be archived while s/he is making messes of articles. Any English language text that is grammatically correct is being recognised almost immediately as being WP:COPYVIO... and that's only including articles that are being watched. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact I am working with it.Also,how can you Irina Harpy talk about WP:COMPETENCE,when you modified the source at Vlachs and then sent me a warning?I said you that I would report you and then you came here and voted pro my block!In fact, I found it difficult to adjust with Wikipedia's rules,but now I am in the right way.Also,I would like to thank T*U who adviced me about some easily adjustable problems!
    I am saying this again ( all editors can go to verify my recent constructive contribution).
    I can say to the administrators:The best thing isn't my block topic,but to give me my last chance.I have made many contructive contributions the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles .If I will do any other edit warring or any other bad thing like that,just ban me forever. I read the Wikipedia's rules recently (carefully) and I will not make bad things anymore.I think I don't need to learn anymore,if I continue making edit warring or anything else,just ban me forever. Also note that I have made many contributions that aren't related with Balkans articles,so I don't need time to learn or to demonstrate my competence (I have read Wikipedia's rules recently and I have done many contructive editings the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles ).I am using the talk page now ,as you can see in my recent history,I am not and will not make edit warring or anything else in the future.The only thing I need is a last chance,not a topic block.Rolandi+ (talk) 07:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to make this clear, Rolandi+: you're stating that you're ok with being banned if you ever edit war again on any article? Jeppiz (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Jeppiz,I have been involved in edit warring in the past,but I have realised that edit warring isn't the best solution.In fact,it's not a solution.As I said,ban me if I edit war again.Rolandi+ (talk) 10:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    You stated "give me my last chance" earlier, but obviously do not understand the opportunity you are given here, having in the meantime continued unconstructive editing and still trying to blame others for your own mistakes.--Zoupan 08:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Really Zoupan?Everyone can see that I am in the right way finally.Also, you need to have an explanation before deleting other's referenced work in the future.Rolandi+ (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Rolandi, your Malakasi reference is ok. you need to read up on doing Wikipedia citations though. John Fines book (1994) does come after Hammond's and Ducellier's and they are not the only medaevil expert's regarding the Balkans. Fine does refer to the Malakasi as Albanians. Various Western scholars have different views on the Malakasi's ethnic heritage so all should be covered. As for the Angelina Arianti matter, though yes she is Albanian, her Albanian name is covered in the footnote. She is a eminent figure for the Serbs and not Albanians in general, so having the name in the lead is not needed. Zoupan, Roland's edits are improving and were done in good faith. The sources he used were good this time. All i can say to Rolandi though is to look at the citation manual on wikipedia. Though the relevant information is covered, they can be done a bit better (no pg instead p and pp for page/s etc). Resnjari (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hammond clearly explains in several pages that the "Albanian" migrations into Greece in the 14th century included Albanians and Vlachs (They were called "Albanians" by Cantacuzenus, because they had come in a geographical sense from the area which he called "Albania"). He is cherrypicking one word and, deliberately or not, refuses to understand context, despite several replies which explain this. Removal of "Vlachs" at Spata family (comment: pg.59 says albanians overran...... without mentioning vlachs), he thus insists that only the sentence in p. 59 should be taken literally, which actually is Hammond's transcription of Cantacuzenus (In 1358 the Albanians overran Epirus, Acarnania and Aetolia, and ...); comment at Malakasi "Yes,now you are claiming that I am doing cherry-picking.In fact no.It will be added as it is what the reference says.". The user has now spread one matter over three article talk pages, saying that "it will be" as he wants. This comment speaks for itself.--Zoupan 16:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Firstly, Zoupan don't call me "ignorant" anymore.Secondly,why don't you mention the fact that you continue deleting my edits without any clear explanation? In fact,I don't have said "it will be" as I want.We have talked at the talk page!As I said,the fact that Cantacuzenus called Vlachs "Albanians" doesn't mean that all Albanians in Epirus are or may be Vlachs as you claim.Hammond says that "In 1358 the Albanians overran Epirus, Acarnania and Aetolia, and established two principalities under their leaders, John Spatas (shpate in Albanian meaning a sword) and Peter Leosas (/fos in Albanian meaning a pockmark)".Why doesn't he says "Albanians and Vlachs"?When Hammond cites Cantacuzenis about Vlachs,he clearly says "Vlachs" and not "Albanians".You are saying that saying "Vlach" (Hammond's transcription of Cantacuzenus) Hammond means Vlachs,while saying "Albanian" he means Albanians and Vlachs together.Interesting!Rolandi+ (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I seriously have no interest in explaining basics to this user again and again. He simply doesn't grasp English to the needed extent for understanding scholarly material and context, and my very clear explanations.--Zoupan 17:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The fact that we don't have the same idea doesn't mean that I don't grasp English.In fact,if someone takes a look at Zoupan's history,realises that this is what he says to the majority of editors.Zoupan thinks that he is the only one who grasps English.Rolandi+ (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't be silly.--Zoupan 18:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Competence and civility issues with Koala15

    My latest encounter with Koala15 was on the Ted 2 page, where I fixed a fairly simple grammatical error [65] and was blankly reverted on sight [66]. I reverted back with the summary "Unexplained" [67] and he kept edit warring with the summary "Go home, your [sic] drunk" [68]. This happened again, until General Ization issued an EW warning on my talk page, and a civility warning [69] on Koala15's page. Koala15 repeatedly refused to apologize or even acknowledge that he was edit warring, dismissing General Ization with sentences such as "Have a sense of humor" and "There is no need for you to get so worked up over this", assuring him that he matter had been resolved, when in fact, it was not - and still is not. I explained very clearly on my talk page why I performed said edit, which prompted Koala15 to respond with a guideline that directly contradicts his edit - which I also explained. However, he refuses to "get it", while writing replies on the grammar level of a twelve year old - which I extensively tried to explain within the same discussion, examples being seeing him "use patently incorrect expressions like "more clearer", open a sentence with "hence", miss punctuation, or consistently not capitalize "I" as in first person", not to mention his first reply to me via edit summary: "Go home, your drunk".

    A quick look on Koala15's talk page will reveal that he has been taunting other editors for a while, in an abrasive and unapologetic manner. A few select examples: User talk:Koala15#Reversions... [70], User talk:Koala15#July 2015 [71], User talk:Koala15#No [72], User talk:Koala15#Redirecting [73]. Another example of insisting on edit warring and being rude is here. I would like to finish this nuisance on the Ted 2 page and move on, but I would like to ensure that he doesn't spite revert me again. Please take care of this matter. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be about this at all. Thank you very much. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 20:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Well i tried to work with you, but you don't seem to wanna work with me. Most of the things you are linking from my talk page are simple misunderstandings. And i don't think you can report anyone for a 'lack of competence". Koala15 (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    How ironic... you have just given another dismissive and offensive reply. You are either not realizing it or deliberately insulting me, and neither case is welcome on Wikipedia. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 21:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have had my own run-ins with Koala15, which can be seen at Talk:Penguins of Madagascar and Penguins of Madagascar. Koala15 had initially participated in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR over a copyedit tag about the article with a reason saying "And i do think an IP's suggestion is less valid, cause the majority of them are vandals.". Not all IPs are vandals. Some contribute with no issues at all. I find that comment uncivil and rather a POV statement. They persistently removed the tag until they reached 3 reverts. They stayed quiet on the article, but they removed it again but this time with reasons but not valid ones. There was still WP:Consensus going on in the talk page, which Koala15 dismissed. Instead of participating in WP:Discussion and ask for opinions, they removed the template again. I reverted them, stating that they weren't the user who added the template and to remove it from a user who disagreed with it in the beginning is very questionable. They started edit warring, making 5 reverts within a span of 12 hours, I believe. If they reached the 6th revert, I was going to report them. My warnings can be seen on the user's talk page and PfM's talk page. In terms of Koala15, I do think they make good edits and they help the community, but my only concern is the way they act. Upon disagreements they edit war and so on, it seems. I do agree that saying a user is drunk is uncivil as much as saying to a user they need help. It seems they have had run-ins with other people, excluding me, EauZenCashHaveIt and General Ization. I would suggest a warning about continuing disruptive editing but I'm not sure. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 21:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Well i apologize, i shouldn't have removed those maintenance templates without asking. And i don't think its fair to say i participated in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Koala15 (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Per one of the bullets, "An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental." You removed the template with this reasoning: "Uhm, yeah no." which certainly counts as you saying it's unnecessary without valid reasons and follows on of the statements "I can see nothing wrong with the article and there is no need to change anything at all." which you've given the impression (not even at this point) since the beginning and on the talk page. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 22:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, it was time they cleaned their talk page (no offense, Koala15). It was so long, over 200 posts. They kept some stuff, so I don't think it would really matter since it's their talk page. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 22:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The timing though... anyway, I've said too much already. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 22:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Koala15 care to respond? Azealia911 talk 10:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well its easy to take my quotes out of context and try to me make me look bad, but in the context of the conversation they were more or less facts. Either way you seem like a good editor, it just took you a while to fully understand the guidelines. Which is fine, it took me a while when i first joined Wikipedia. Koala15 (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh Koala15, you really are being serious aren't you? You're not even trolling, sigh. I guess that means no chance of an apology for being rude and condescending? (the latter of which is ironically displayed in your most recent reply). Azealia911 talk 17:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well its definitely not my intention to be "rude and condescending" that's just how I talk. I think its really a matter of how you choose to interpret my words. In the future, i will try to be more thoughtful with my reply's since it bothers everyone so much. Now hopefully we can put this whole thing behind us and move on. Koala15 (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, we can't... at least not while you maintain these dismissive and unapologetic replies. Each and every one of those reinforces the incompetence claim. You've been told the same thing by everyone here: apologize, show genuine regret, and we will move on. Your telling everyone to move on while sarcastically dismissing every concern raised on this page is nothing short of offensive. Notice that it's you who keeps brushing off every opportunity to make things right. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 23:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I second EauZenCashHaveIt's comments, completely accurate. Koala15, your replies just demonstrate what everyone here is trying to tell you, you just seem to not be hearing us, replying with the behavior and tone that landed you here. Back handed comments like "Either way you seem like a good editor, it just took you a while to fully understand the guidelines" don't do anything but frustrate me, and "I think its really a matter of how you choose to interpret my words" is absurd, so it's our fault for getting offended at what you say? "i will try to be more thoughtful with my reply's since it bothers everyone so much" you say, acting as if we're burdening you with actually being...nice?! Maybe take responsibility for your actions, genuinely apologize (which you have yet to do) and maybe then we can move on. Azealia911 talk 18:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought i did apologize. But yes i apologize if i offended anyone, that was definitely not my intention. Hopefully we can move on now. Koala15 (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for apologising Koala15, yep, that's all I needed, take care. Azealia911 talk 19:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    jeez a bit hypocritical to talk about incivility when you're saying he has the grammar of a 12 year old. and why would you care about grammar on the internet anyway? poli 19:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I was wondering when the usual devil's advocate would make their appearance. This is an encyclopedia, grammar is a basic requirement here. And most importantly: while Azealia may or may not have gotten their apology, the general issue is still unresolved. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 19:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    obsessing over grammar is so pretentious. i promise you're not smarter than anyone else here so chill. poli 22:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you like your name to be added to the report? EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 00:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • EauZenCashHaveIt, what exactly are you looking to happen? Koala15 has apologized and said that they will be more thoughtful with their conduct. I say leave it, we've given them the rope, its their choice to hang themselves with more rudeness, land back here, and ultimately be blocked, or lasso their next edits with both hands (yes, that is literally the only analogy I could think of for positive things to do with rope). What else would you propose? Azealia911 talk 19:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Azealia911: I am looking for a more permanent solution than an obviously insincere apology with no indication of any behavioral change. But hey, if there are no takers then I guess we both have better things to do than bark up that tree. If you are satisfied then I won't say anything, at least until something new happens. Sadly, I have a feeling I am not mistaken. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 19:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    EauZenCashHaveIt I can also see us returning here, but that's up to Koala15. If required, bring it back here and I'll be the first to recommend implications. Azealia911 talk 16:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Christ, didn't take them long, I really did think they'd be more considerate. General Ization what do you suggest doing? Azealia911 talk 18:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't know. I know I spent more time than I could really afford to trying to explain to them why this is a problem on their Talk page and here, and what mostly comes back is from the editor is I didn't hear that. I really think it's a competence issue. General Ization Talk 18:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely seems like the case, considering their edits aren't specific to one or one set of pages, perhaps a short term block would be appropriate. Azealia911 talk 19:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, i make mistakes like everyone else, Jeez, i didn't realize my every edit would be under a microscope. Its also strange that you have my talk page watchlisted. Koala15 (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone whose edits cause them to be brought to this page will find their subsequent edits to be "under a microscope" for some period of time, especially while the case is unresolved. Most at least make an effort to not engage in the same behaviors during that time. And it's not strange at all – your Talk page was placed on my watch list when you and I discussed the matter above. General Ization Talk 21:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It was my bad, i didn't know what the statute of limitations was on page a split discussion that had no responses. I realized it was a mistake after i did it. I will refrain from making edits like that in the future. I go on Wikipedia for fun, and i'm not here to start trouble or anything like that. I'm gonna try to stay out of things like this and mind my own business. Koala15 (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the template was just placed this month (and says so within the template as any reader sees it), you might reasonably have assumed it had not expired; if you were unsure, you could click the Discuss link and ask. Your "No need for a discussion" comment linked above shows either a lack of understanding or contempt for editing processes here, not confusion over an expiration date. General Ization Talk 21:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Since Koala15 has decided to play possum, I am asking the patrolling admins to make the appropriate decision here. This discussion cannot simply vanish as stale. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 20:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm definitely seeing Koala15's edits as problematic after going through the diffs. No specific action has been proposed yet, but there may be some lingering hope Koala can improve. My first thought was to just close this with the closer stating that if this kind of issue happens again, that would expedite a block by linking back to that decision. A short term block could be used instead of essentially a warning, but both would take a WP:ROPE approach. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pudist and conspiracy theories [Needs Admin Attention]

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

    Users edits in just the past two months include:

    User has some other edits demonstrating potential usefulness elsewhere, but their edits relating to conspiracy theories run in the complete opposite direction of WP:NPOV. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You do realize you cannot ping a board here? not unless you post a message there about x subject. Otherwise, pinging boards does not work. Pinging serves for pinging users only. Callmemirela {Talk} ♑ 02:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I do realize that. I was using the term in the more general sense, meaning to alert. Which I did in fact do. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an obvious WP:NOTHERE block. Blackmane (talk) 02:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure. This editor has been around for a while and some of their older work doesn't look especially controversial. But after a long break they are suddenly on a fringe conspiracy theories kick and definitely engaging in disruptive behavior. Perhaps a broad topic ban including any conspiracy related topics might be in order. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Topic ban relating to conspiracy theories was what I was thinking as well. Perhaps something along the lines of "anything that List of conspiracy theories discusses and any pages in Category:Conspiracy_theories or its subcategories," just to prevent any possibility of the claim "I didn't know that was a conspiracy theory." Ian.thomson (talk) 04:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what to make of this editor yet. Sometimes it takes new people time to get the hang of working with others. Incidentally, the rant was copied from the blog of James H. Fetzer. - Location (talk) 04:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He's been around since 2006. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He/she averages around 10 to 12 edits a year. Perhaps "inexperienced" would have been a better way to describe him/her. - Location (talk) 05:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have been engaged in a dispute with User:SportsEditor518 (his talk page) (and various IPs of the same editor, including Special:Contributions/2001:8003:4406:9F01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F andSpecial:Contributions/2001:8003:4610:BF01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F) on the article Interstate matches in Australian rules football. It has been mainly a content dispute, with the two of us having different views on the popularity of the concept in the state of Victoria. My version states that interstate football was not popular in Victoria; his version states that it is. I'm not here to dispute the content; I'm here to report disruptive/obstinate behaviour by SportsEditor518 which is precluding any conclusion.

    The dispute played out through moderated dispute resolution here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_119#Interstate_matches_in_Australian_rules_football. This dispute resolution ground to a halt when SportsEditor518 simply stopped responding at the dispute page; but he is still monitoring the page in question, reverting any efforts to remove his unreferenced views, and making no efforts to engage in discussion proactively. There is an ongoing pattern of uncollaborative behaviour which, while it mostly seems well-intentioned, is proving disruptive; and therefore I am at a loss to understand where to go next other than to report SportsEditor518 (and his IPs) for edit warring, and also more generally on competence is required grounds. Specifically:

    • He has continued to push his POV in the article that interstate football was very popular in Victoria, without providing any supporting references. The attempts at sourcing that he has provided have either a WP:SYNTH based on his interpretation of crowd numbers, or extremely generic references which don't really support the point (examples: [75] [76]) The dispute resolution volunteer moderator and I have both tried to explain the shortcomings of his references to him, and to educate him on the policies, but he has proven unable or unwilling to accept them. (You can see in this diff [77] that he still has a steadfast belief in the admissibility of his own synthesised conclusion).
    • During the dispute resolution process, he went for two long unexplained absences which led to the volunteer moderator and I concluding he had lost interest in the dispute – only for him to re-emerge and begin reverting me or adding the disputed content again within a day of my making the edits to the article. (These diffs are the sudden re-emergences after long absences: [78] [79] – the timestamps make sense in the context of the dispute resolution page highlighted above) He has never given an explanation or apology for or even an acknowledgement of his absences. In the more recent case, he simply reverted the content and made no other attempt to continue discussion on the matter despite being fully aware that I disputed the content. This most recent response to my talk page [80] is particularly insulting, and suggests he may be trying to game the system by claiming the dispute is unresolved when it was his own recalcitrance that led to the lack of resolution.
    • He seems to have, and be unaware of, his own biases on the subject. He's shown on a couple of occasions ([81] [82]) that he views supporting interstate football as an inherently positive act, and therefore that my suggesting Victoria did not support interstate football is somehow an attack on Victoria's character – rather than simply a description of the state's tastes and preferences. It's clouding his judgement to view the references objectively.
    • Finally, he is unaware of his own shortcomings as a writer. On a couple of occasions I have made purely style- and grammar-based edits without removing his content ([83] [84]], only to have them reverted with an edit summary to the effect of "mine says it better" (which I think the diffs clearly demonstrate is not true). I did raise this issue with him, but it was not well received [85]. Once again, I think WP:CIR is relevant here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspirex (talk • contribs) 10:16, 23 July 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
    comment I was the DRN volunteer for this dispute. The dispute started out with both parties appearing to be willing to discuss and find compromise. Unfortunately SportsEditor518 did fail to return to the discussion for a long period on two occasions. The first time, after a week's silence, we closed the discussion, believing their absence from both the discussion and from continuing to edit the article signalled that they had decided not to dispute the issue further, and Aspirex began editing on the disputed section again. SportsEditor518 immediately started editing the section, so we pulled the discussion from the archives and reopened it. SportsEditor518 returned briefly to the discussion, promising to respond the following day, and we waited this time nearly two weeks but they never did. We finally closed the discussion as failed. I have to agree with Aspirex that what started as a content dispute has become, unfortunately, a behavior issue. valereee (talk) 11:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Having watched this dispute at the dispute resolution noticeboard as User:Valereee tried to mediate it, I have to agree with the OP and the moderator, at least if the IPs are SportsEditor518. If the IPs are SportsEditor518, then we have a pattern of attempting to provide synthesis amounting to original research, and of using dispute resolution to stall rather than to collaborate. SportsEditor518 replied and discussed briefly, then went into radio silence, then became active again, and then went into radio silence again. This is an intermittently tendentious editor who is disrupting the dispute resolution process. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic-Ban on SportsEditor518 from Football

    A topic-ban on SportsEditor518 is recommended from articles on Australian rules football. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support as proponent. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I think that's overkill. As far as I know, he hasn't caused any problems other places, just one section of one article, one particular tiny point that he feels extremely passionate about, possibly to the point it's almost a COI for him. He's a new user, and he found an assertion that he violently disagrees with on an emotional level. He just needs to stop editing that one article until he learns more about Wikipedia. If he's topic banned from Australian rules football, you might as well just block him, I think it's all he edits at this point. valereee (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I am willing to strike my recommendation on two conditions. They need to agree, first, to take part in collaborative discussion of editing, rather than pushing changes through, and, second, to edit only from their account and not from IPs. The problem at this point is that SportsEditor518 hasn't recognized that their editing behavior is problematic and that they should follow Wikipedia practices and guidelines. (The two disappearances are also problematic, but a rule that forbids editors from going off-line and coming back is not reasonable.) At this point we are waiting for a response from User:SportsEditor518. If they agree to improve their editing behavior, I will strike my recommendation. If not, not, because another period of silence is not agreement to stop the intermittent disruption. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Alternate proposal Again, he's new -- at least to using a user name -- and one of the issues we had was that he doesn't edit every day or even every week. He hasn't edited logged in since July 11, so he possibly hasn't seen the messages to his username. He needs to be pinged at both 2001:8003:4406:9f01:223:32ff:fe9e:4b9f and 2001:8003:4610:BF01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F; I've also put the notice on both those pages. What I would support would be putting a block on both IPs, which would force him to log in and see that he has messages. valereee (talk) 09:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Article ban on SportsEditor518 for Interstate matches in Australian rules football

    Okay, the 4406 IP edited today. I think we can assume this user is ignoring us. I suggest a block on both IPs, an article ban for SportsEditor518 on Interstate matches in Australian rules football and that Aspirex resume editing that article. valereee (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Adrian2526 and article creation

    "Please this is miss universe 2015 page but since it was blocked i just decided to put this one" about sums up this editor's attitude. Edit warring to keep the 2015 in the 2016 article, creation of Miss World 2017 when the 2016 edition hasn't occurred yet, and not a lot of hearing of the issues raised. [86], [87] --NeilN talk to me 20:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    And now there's an IP (who I blocked about five days ago) adding links to Adrian2526's to draft article. [88] Quack, quack. --NeilN talk to me 21:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Miss World 2017 has been tagged for speedy deletion. Miss Universe 2017 has been proposed for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Miss World 2017 has since been redirected to Miss World. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) - Adrian2526 just restarted the Miss World 2017 article and recreated the Miss Universe 2016 article despite being asked to stop. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    S/he was just final-warned. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 23:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The topics and style of editing bear similarities to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrdhimas. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I just deleted Miss World Universe 2016 and Miss World Universe Editions/Titleholders for being blatant hoaxes. The first article was a made up pageant containing contestants from both Miss World and Miss Universe. The second article was even worse in that it listed supposed titleholders for contestants who articles don't exist or appear to not even have won their home country pageants. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hounding by GregJackP

    GregJackP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    Background

    I've had relatively little interaction with GregJackP until about the last month. I recently made an edit at an article which GregJackP reverted. I generally edit agricultural topics and have been watching the article for awhile now. Prior to this, I only had two previous interactions with this editor here, and here while I stayed out of the content dispute at this same page because of the incivility I saw towards another editor in a past content dispute. This current discussion originally should have been a straightforward mundane content discussion (should a picture be included or not). Instead, the issues with GregJackP's behavior can be mainly seen at the relatively short talk page discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bowman_v._Monsanto_Co.#Picture_of_justice. I started off very civil (and throughout the conversation) asking why GregJackP thought the image should remain. Instead, I was met with refusal to engage in basic dialogue about the content (what purpose is the picture serving?), immediately calling my edit harassment in the edit summary, and some strange ownership behavior all summarized pretty well in this diff. Trying to ask for at least some dialogue just resulted in a dismissive, "Get consensus if you want it removed." [89]

    Hounding and vandalism

    So, we've got some really prickly and uncivil behavior from GregJackP, but what they said and did next is what brings me here because of purposeful disruption: "When it is someone that hasn't edited bug articles, but starts a dispute over the three photos of the same bug? I'm not going to do that, because I'm not an asshole, but I'm not going to look favorably on answering BS questions about a photo. . ."[90] Not much later, they followed me to a insect GA nominee I've been responding to suggested edits on and did exactly that.[91]. GregJackP has never edited the page and it is not in their normal topic area at all. This coupled with their previous statement demonstrates obvious WP:HOUNDING. GregJackP's edits summaries in the first hounding diff and a repeat [92] are very closely paraphrased from my own comments from attempted discussion[93] for further pointiness. This also amounts to vandalism of a page and WP:POINTY behavior by trying to disrupt a page to prove a point.

    Always being met with incivility by this user when I always approach them civilly coupled with blatant hounding seems to show their behavior isn't going to be better on its own. GregJackP was blocked by GorillaWarfare for continued harassment and personal attacks back in January (unblock appeal by Quadell)[94]. A temp block might be suitable until it's clear this won't continue to be a problem. However, I'm fine with someone just getting the point across to them that the behavior is not acceptable as long as the immediate incivility stops on pages where our interests overlap (apparently patents relating to agriculture) and pointy hounding stops on pages where they do not. I don't think an interaction ban should be necessary quite yet.

    It would also be nice if someone undid the hounding edit on the emerald ash borer page since my removals are reverted each time. All this because I wanted to talk about if a picture of a judge was really needed. . . Kingofaces43 (talk) 09:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)I should also stress that GregJackP claimed I was trying to derail the GA process at the Bowman v. Monsanto Co. article (I firmly rejected that attempt at bad faith [95]). Now after purposely following me to the emerald ash borer article, GregJackP has managed to partially cause the GA review to fail due to instability. [96]. Action is needed from the community when disruptive editing to this degree is occurring as I've never seen anything this blatant before. Kingofaces43 (talk) 12:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I protected emerald ash borer for 24 hours due to edit warring before realising that this issue had been brought here (and closed my good article review of the article). Any administrator has my permission to remove, extend or shorten this protection as appropriate. I have no opinion on the claims of hounding at this time. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah this doesn't look good. Kingofaces43 was bold and removed a pic on the Bowman article. GregJackP reverted and then discussion happened (and continues to happen). GregJackP went to the EAB article was bold and removed three pics (and started discussion). Kingofaces43 reverted and GregJackP reverted again. It doesn't look good when you head to another article you've never edited and initate conflict there with someone you are in conflict with elsewhere. 24.236.232.136 (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for summarizing that nicely. I don't think I'd describe GregJackP's edit on the ash borer page exactly as bold though as that insinuates a good-faith edit. The context here shows a more disruptive intent as vandalism, not to mention one of the edit summaries saying he removed a picture because he claims the picture was of an elm tree and not an ash. That's original research at best, but context from the Bowman article doesn't really show this as a best case scenario. WP:SNEAKY describes this vandalism best in addition to WP:POINTY.Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like your unwarranted removal of an image at the Bowman v. Monsanto Co. article precipitated this little kerfluffle.[97] Further, it looks like you and Jytdog are both harassing GregJackP (and by extension another user named PraeceptorIP) on the article talk page for no reason other than because "Monsanto" is part of the article name. Because you and Jytdog seem to disrupt every article where the word "Monsanto" appears, have you considered voluntarily withdrawing from any and all Monsanto-related topics? Viriditas (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Viriditas, Could you please provide some diffs showing us how they harrased GregJackP?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Happy Attack Dog (talk • contribs) 21:28, 24 July 2015‎
    This has already been discussed here. Jytdog agreed to drop the stick and move on. However, Kingofaces43 showed up just less than a month later to start up the hounding again. Anyone can look at the stats and see what's going on here. The problem is not GregJackP. Viriditas (talk) 00:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we're in Australia again... Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    How exactly is boomerang relevant to Viridtas' comment? It's very apparent they are blowing hot air here if one reads the actual diffs I provided. Are you suggesting a boomerang for Viriditas instead? It's not entirely clear. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I was never involved in the ANI you just mentioned. I also wasn't involved in whatever dispute Jytdog and GregJackP were involved in, and only had a few notes of caution as things were pretty much wrapped up by the time I got back from vacation and was catching up [98]. I know you are not fond of Jytdog, but this is not a soapbox for that as we had next to no interaction in this instance. Anyone who reads the diffs and links to conversations I provided should be able to see pretty clearly that I was being civil in response to some pretty poor behavior, and the various claims Viriditas has made so far are readily dismissed by reading the various links I originally provided. They actually document all of my interactions with GregJackP, which shows just how quickly they resorted to this behavior. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am seeing roughly equal levels of unconstructive behavior from GregJackP, Jytdog, and Kingofaces43. It is evident that after the July 12/13 ANI Viriditas linked to above the stick was not totally dropped and that Kingofaces is now playing ball as well.
    Kingofaces43, you are not "being pretty civil in response to some pretty poor behavior". That's what Viriditas and Erpert were suggesting. One can argue "But he's being worse!" back and forth a bunch, but the nature and extent on all three parties are similar.
    I am simultaneously concerned about multiway multiparty novel synthesis and you and Jytdog apparently deciding to ignore an informal style standard for court cases despite being told repeatedly.
    When you come to ANI with unclean hands they're going to get looked at. GregJackP, you clearly need to tone it down as well, but Jytdog and Kingofaces43, you have brought attention to yourselves here and it's not looking all that good. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Georgewilliamherbert, you're right, I shouldn't have reacted the way I did. I had not gone back to GMO-type articles and if you look at my last 500 edits, they are almost all in the legal article arena (with a few outliers). I guess I just got frustrated with Jytdog coming back to WT:LAW to argue on citation style (and then OR/Synth) when all of the seasoned editors in that field are telling him that he is wrong. Then, to top it off, Kingofaces43 shows up at an article where he has never made a single edit, where the page has been nominated for GA (over a month ago), when the last substantive edit had been over a month ago, and when the photo in question had been in the article since late June ([99]). It looked to me that he was intentionally trying to screw up the GA nomination, especially after he ignored my comment that all of the SCOTUS FAs and 2/3rds of the GAs have pictures of the justice who wrote the majority opinion. So I let him bait me and I shouldn't have.
    Look, all I want to do is to work on my legal articles. I create good content and I've tried to stay out of the hot areas like Climate Change and the like. I like PraeceptorIP, and am in awe of his knowledge and expertise, so I try to help him out on articles he's working on (formatting, he doesn't need help on the material itself). If they would just go back to their GMO area and leave me alone on legal articles, everything would be great.
    I shouldn't have let him get to me, shouldn't have let the baiting work, but I can't change the past, just try to do better in the future. GregJackP Boomer! 06:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The bad-faith assumptions you're expounding here explain a lot of the improper behavior. Baiting is a serious accusation, but one you've entirely manufactured yourself. This is all based on one single edit that I thought a picture wasn't need in an article and you went off the deep end attacking me for suggesting it. There should have been no assumption of baiting in that whatsoever. Engaging in such conspiracies when one is trying to engage in WP:BRD in good faith with you is what was disruptive here. If that can stop, any interaction we have in the future should be civil. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Georgewilliamherbert, could you specifically link to what you're seeing as unconstructive on my part? I summarized my interactions with Greg in a recent comment below which should show that I had been been approaching them extremely civilly throughout. The diffs and overall talk sections should speak for themselves. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Time for a two-way interaction ban and/or some carefully targeted topic bans? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If someone really wanted to impose an interaction-ban, there can be evidence for a one-way interaction ban against GregJackP (though I wouldn't intend to interact directly with them anyways). If someone actually reads the diffs on 'my interactions with this user, there is no evidence for an interaction ban. I've been extremely civil responding to the various attacks, so it seems sort of silly to impose a two-way ban. Others are trying to interject some larger and separate dispute into this with another editor as a proxy. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Since there's been some confusion and people bringing up an entirely different dispute between other editors, here's a timeline of my actual interactions with GregJackP:

    1. I had the Bowman page on my watchlist and had been catching up on various content disputes occurring there. I noticed GregJackP had been edit warring that day, so I left them a friendly reminder about 3RR so they didn't cross it.[100] Some discussion occurred over how many reverts actually occurred, but the the goal was just to caution them in good faith, not some sort of punishment.
    2. I later went to leave a note at a talk page of another editor on the page about expert editors. Another editor which GregJackP has been heavily involved with, Jytdog, had already posted a very similar note, so I left my comment in that section.[101] That was as close as I ever came to interacting with Jytdog there. GregJackP attacked me there too even though I made it very clear I wanted no part in whatever dispute they were having at the time. [102][103]
    3. I had no interaction with the page or users there for about a month. An ANI apparently occurred where GregJackP and Jytdog came up, which is what other editors commenting here have been mentioning, and some are trying to create the idea I was involved in all that drama.
    4. I'm looking over the Bowman article a few days ago and think a picture isn't needed. It seemed uncontroversial, so I deleted it per WP:BRD expecting someone to revert and discuss if they felt strongly about it.[104]
    5. GregJackP went of the rails pretty quickly in the discussion (calling my edit harassment in one edit summary)as I tried to ask him what purpose the picture was serving. [105]. I kept trying to redirect him to be civil and simply answer my question so we could resolve it, but they just kept resorting to some conspiracy of being attacked.
    6. It took another editor to actually address my question at the end of the section to actually reach the purpose of the discussion, while GregJackP resorted to sniping in it.

    Those are all my interactions with GregJackP up to the hounding at the ash borer page. There's no reason for GregJackP to react as he did to my edit or initial question. The hounding aspect is described in my original post above of deleting pictures with a disruptive purpose at an article I was putting under GA review. Claims that I'm resorting to the same behavior as GregJackP are unsubstantiated in my interactions listed above. I encourage folks to actually look at my edits and interactions before jumping to claims that I've been embroiled in some larger dispute with GregJackP that resulted in this incident. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    --Guy Macon (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And this[106] appears to be the start of where things really went off the rails. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    To expand a bit on the above, I think Jytdog has been trying to pick a fight with GregJackP for a long time, On reflection, I haven't seen enough evidence to support this conclusion --Guy Macon (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC) that GregJackP 's responses to Jytdog haven't been perfect but neither are they over the top, that Kingofaces jumped in a started behaving the same way Jytdog was acting, and in particular jumping into a legal artice (GregJackP's main area of interest) and picking a fight, and that suddenly GregJackP and Kingofaces found themselves in a nasty dispute in an area where Kingofaces considers himself to be an expert. That last bit is only a small part of the overall problem, and by no means the start of it, but in my opinion it is where things really went off the rails.[reply]
    So far the consensus at ANI seems to be that all three of these editors have been part of the problem. It seems to me that GregJackP's contribution to the problem is smaller, but I may be biased because I have a favorable view towards him. The key here is that GregJackP admits that he reacted poorly and was wrong to do so, while Jytdog appears to be dedicated to continuing to battle. I am not sure about Kingofaces; I suspect that he is a good-faith editor who allowed himself to get sucked into a fight. I am hoping that he too will admit that he behaved poorly and that he and GregJackP can shakes hands. apologize, and try to avoid this sort of conflict in the future.
    On a related note, I think someone with more knowledge on the topic than I have should look into possible problems in articles relating to Monsanto. I have no idea if anyone is misbehaving, but some of the comments are troubling. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Guy Macon, some of the troubling comments are coming from a set of editors casting aspersions about me without evidence backing the claims up. It's extremely difficult to take claims at face value others have been making about my intent at least because of that. Jytdog isn't even involved in this particular dispute at all, so why he keeps being brought up is beyond me unless others are just trying to perpetuate whatever dispute was happening there. This is amounting to a witch hunt because I made an edit GregJackP disagreed with and I also happen to overlap with Jytdog in agricultural topics we both independently follow. With all that in mind, and since I've known you to be pretty even handed in comments in the past, could you tell me what specific comments caused you to say I was "behaving the same way Jytdog" or anything else that was interpreted as problematic? I included diffs or links to series of comments for all my interactions in this case because they should show very clearly there was no misbehavior on my part all when read in context. I'm quite happy to respond to critiques of my comments in a pointed manner for clarification. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Bigger picture

    There's much more to this than Kingofaces43 is disclosing, and there's a reason other editors have linked his behavior with disputes involving Jytdog.

    Here is what took place on the Bowman v. Monsanto Co.:

    June 20 - June 22
    • Jytdog edit wars to insert his POV info that was not supported by his source: [107] [108], [109].
    June 21
    • During the course of a major rewrite of the article, GregJackP added the uncontroversial picture of Justice Kagan to the article: [110]
    June 22
    • Kingofaces43 templates GregJackP on his talk page for edit warring on the Bowman article [111], even though GregJackP had only 2 reverts while Jytdog had 3 (see above). Kingofaces43 had never edited on either the article or the article's talk page. Note that the picture of Justice Kagan was already in the article, and Kingofaces43 did not raise any question or objection to it.
    • Jytdog chastises PraeceptorIP about his edits on Bowman, and continues to push his POV to support his continuous reverting to include faulty info. [112]. Within 6 minutes, Kingofaces43 shows up on Praeceptor's talk page to support Jytdog, even though Kingofaces43 had never edited the article or engaged in discussion on the talk page: [113]
    • Jytdog says he's dropping the issue on the talk page: [114]
    • GregJackP nominates Bowman for GA [115].
    June 23-July 23
    • There are no substantive edits on Bowman and the article becomes stable, awaiting GA review [116].
    July 23
    • Kingofaces43 removes the picture of Justice Kagan from the article, having never before edited the article or its talk page, and after a month without any substantive edits to Bowman.[117]
    • GregJackP explained the inclusion of the picture as soon as he reverted the removal in a civil manner: [118]. Another editor joined the discussion as well supporting Greg's position [119], yet Kingofaces43 tenaciously continued to argue and would not accept reasoned discussion [120], [121], [122], [123], [124]
    • It is interesting to note that King's removal of the uncontroversial picture came right on the heels of another of Jytdog's unwarranted and failed content disputes with GregJackP and Praeceptor here [125] and here [126],

    This is not the first time editors have had problems with Jytdog and Kingofaces43 being acting in tandem in what appears to be bullying and canvassing, all the while claiming to be acting civilly: [127], [128],[129], [130]

    GregJackP, no doubt, engaged in some uncivil dialogue in the course of these disputes, and he has acknowledged his inappropriate response to Kingofaces43. But if you consider the bigger picture, it does look like Kingofaces' removal of the picture on Greg's GAN was not innocent - it does look like Kingofaces was making a deliberately controversial edit to retaliate for a past dispute (i.e. Kingofaces was baiting GregJackP).Minor4th 19:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't yet had time to look through all the history of this, but I've previously edited with Jytdog and Kingofaces on some content disputes involving Monsanto, and my past experience has been that Jytdog, in particular, has been pretty scrupulous about WP:NPOV with respect to content in this subject area, and that anything having to do with Monsanto tends to be a magnet for "Monsanto-is-evil" POV-pushing. I hasten to add that I do not know whether there was such pushing in this case, nor do I know about the level of civility in the present dispute, but when I see "Jytdog edit wars to insert his POV", my immediate reaction is to want to hear the other side of the argument. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What User:Tryptofish, who is not an administrator but should be one, says, is absolutely correct. There are a few subjects on which rational discourse is not possible, because there is an already established point of view that will stop at nothing. There are a few editors who are so certain that Monsanto is evil that they know, beyond knowledge, that no editor can agree with an edit that removes "anti-Monsanto" content on policy grounds, and that any removal of "anti-Monsanto" edits must be based on ownership of Monsanto stock. Some editors really do assume bad faith by any editor who will make any edit that removes "anti-Monsanto" edits on grounds of conflict of interest. Can we really agree not to make idle accusations of COI, and just talk about Monsanto? If so, good. If not, you have about two months to do your name-calling before the Arbcom kicks in discretionary sanctions. Anyway, please try to be civil, even though I know that all of you, on both sides, will be uncivil and will engage in pointless complaints. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The edits in question were not really a Monsanto / anti-Monsanto issue, but dealt with the issue of patent law on the issue of "making" and whether the information appeared in a law review article to support it. The information wasn't in the article, and multiple legal editors pointed that out. I don't think that any POV on the good-Monsanto or evil-Monsanto was involved, on either side of the dispute. GregJackP Boomer! 03:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no desire to comment on this thread, as I have been trying to steer clear of GregJackP per Tryptofish's useful advice to both of us. I will say the following two things. 1) I don't know what motivated Kingofaces to remove the picture from the Bowman article: I have not participated in that discussion as I don't care if the picture of the judge is there or not. 2) Regardless of what motivated Kingofaces' removal, it is very clear that GregJackP's interference on the Emerald Ash Borer article was just ugly retaliatory behavior, and all the counterattacking distraction doesn't change that. Jytdog (talk) 00:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just an observation. Showing up at WT:LAW to raise issues on Bluebook and issues already settled at the talkpage of In re Alappat sure seems to be a sign that he's not "trying to steer clear" of me. I haven't gone to WP:COIN, GMO, or any of the areas that I know Jytdog edits in, and would have thought that if he was trying to steer clear, he would have done the same for my preferred subject areas. And I've already stated that I should not have responded to the obvious baiting of Kingofaces43. I'll not comment on the remarkable coincidence that Minor4h pointed out, that Kingofaces43 seems to act in tandem with Jytdog. GregJackP Boomer! 01:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Bringing it to WP:LAW was exactly an effort to steer clear of you; you are not identical with articles related to law nor with issues I deal with regularly. I won't be responding further to you here, as I would prefer to keep steering clear of you. Jytdog (talk) 02:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Bringing it to WP:LAW would be like me camping out on WP:COIN - a surefire way to come into contact. You know that. GregJackP Boomer! 03:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have been editing articles about IP law for a long time. As far as I can GregJackP had almost no interest in IP law before his fixation on me. As near as I can tell, he is the one sticking to me; I am not following him around. I would just as soon never cross paths with the guy again. And I have not seen GregJackP show an iota of interest in COI so his showing up at COIN and other COI matters would be yet more following me around. I deeply regret ever getting involved in the Black Elk article, which I landed on via a posting at RSN. Can't turn back time but I can turn away - and have turned away - from a bad relationship. The question is, can GregJackP? Jytdog (talk) 04:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Minor4th, you just made some very serious WP:ASPERSIONS about me, please do not misrepresent my comments. I very clearly stated here when I first commented on anything related to the Bowman article that I came there independently[131] and did was not interested in whatever was going on with Jytdog and GregJackP.[132] For anyone actually reading my comments, that should have completely skewered any conspiracy theory that I'm somehow involved in whatever happened with Jytdog. I wasn't there for the bulk of content disputes, and I haven't even read the recent ANIs or other disputes you mentioned involving the two editors. I came to the article as a completely uninvolved editor, and editors trying to continue whatever spat was going on with Jytdog by attacking me simply because I piggybacked on a comment when I said I was already planning to make it separately at first is highly inappropriate. Trying here to drag me into whatever larger dispute was going on involving Jytdog is even worse.
    This still boils down to me checking back on the article after the disputes settled down and thinking a picture wasn't needed. GregJackP reverted it, I tried to ask what purpose it was serving for the article, and he blew up. There is no reasonable way to claim I was misbehaving there and there is no way to paint it as me retaliating for some set of disputes I wasn't even aware of until you posted them. That was far from a controversial edit or comments on my part if you look at the actual sequence of events.[133][134][135] Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    While all of this has been tremendous fun, can we get someone to close this? I would rather be working on creating, expanding, or improving articles. GregJackP Boomer! 01:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    That seems a bit premature considering we don't have any resolution on your behavior, even with your comment above saying you shouldn't have done what you did while going on to cast aspersions saying I was baiting you. That bad-faith attitude is a huge problem and disruption. The hounding wasn't excusable even if you mistakenly thought I was part of some secret cabal and completely missed comments that should have dispelled that for you ages ago. Is that all going to stop if I interact with you in the future? I've been approaching you civilly from day one. I only expect civility in return and have always tried to respond civilly to you even when you weren't to me. I can understand to a degree if you let frustration from other separate editor interactions bleed over into the brief interactions we've had, but I'd really recommend trying harder to keep such things separate in the future. I did not come here for a block or ban even though you partially derailed a GA review as you mistakenly claimed I was trying to do. I was just here to get that behavior to stop. If you can agree to stop that problematic behavior in the future, then I see no reason why this shouldn't be closed. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you'll just agree to stop baiting people on articles that you have never edited, along with agreeing to stop acting in concert with Jytdog, I think we can resolve this. Or we can continue and go into more depth about your problematic behavior. Do you really want to do that? Several here have already indicated that they want to apply a WP:BOOMERANG to your report, your actions, etc. I, on the other hand, would rather get back to editing. Why don't we just do that? GregJackP Boomer! 03:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a precarious way to handle an olive branch, but sure. Considering though that I never baited you or worked in concert with Jytdog at the article, I have no problem assuring that I also have no intention of doing so in the future either. I don't bait people and I work independently even when editors frequent similar topics as myself. You do appear to think I did, but that's part of the assuming bad-faith issue I was asking you address. Ignoring the misstep above, can I expect what I asked of you? Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Kingofaces43, I fully support Minor4th's interpretation of the diffs. That multiple people who have little to no contact with each other interpret the data in the same way and come to the same conclusions should tell you something. From where I stand, you continued disrupting the Bowman v. Monsanto Co. article in the wake of Jytdog's departure. Given the connecting evidence offered by Minor4th linking you with Jytdog, this appears open and shut. Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Our previous interactions have been rocky at best Viriditas, but this insistence is amounting to lying about an editors comments in clear violation of WP:NPA. Please refrain from that. I made it abundantly clear in the diffs and straight from the horse's mouth what my intentions were. The diff Minor4th included even show I stated I came there independently and wasn't interested in the drama between Jytdog and GregJackP if one actually reads my comment. If I had put my comment to PraceptorIP in it's own section as I originally intended before I saw a similar section already open or even posted my comment earlier in the day (should've cut my vacation short by another hour apparently), there would have been absolutely no question. That's as close as I ever got to interacting with Jytdog. As for the actual issue at hand this was far from a controversial or disruptive edit, especially when one is assuming good faith. I know I was when I made that edit at least. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Interactions between Kingofaces43 and Jytdog. Note that there are 42 edits on the same pages that are within 15 minutes of each other, and 79 within 2 hours of the other. If you look at the edits, on the very first page (Monsanto) you are supporting Jytdog's position on archiving [136] even though you had not participated in the discussion. That pretty much matches what Viriditas said earlier. Jytdog makes a proposal on HFCS and 6 minutes later you are there with a support [137]. At Organic Food, it took a whole 11 minutes for you to show support for Jytdog's proposal [138]. I could go on and on. So for you to claim that you don't interact with Jytdog is just false. Drop the stick, let's go back to editing. GregJackP Boomer! 04:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As stated previsouly, our topic areas overlap in agriculture. Considering that I often get short breaks in the day where I'll hop on Wikipedia, of course there are going to be a few times when I see a very recent update on my watchlist I respond to that happens to be his. I react quickly to other editors too when I have a bit of time. It's called having articles on your watchlist, so again, please refrain from casting aspersions. As I've mentioned, I don't care what your obsession is over Jytdog here, but leave me out of it and stop trying to pull me into that larger dispute. I've already pointed out to you that one post coincided at the same time as one of his, but there was no interaction going on at Bowman. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • A note for those claiming I somehow came to the Bowman article due to Jytdog (which is still completely tangential here). I clearly summarized in one of my first interactions with the topic on a user's talk page that I came there independently, "I was actually going to pop over here to say the same thing. I'm just catching up on my watchlist after some time away."[139] GregJackP was already alerted to this [140] well before this current dispute and that I wanted nothing to do with whatever spat GregJackP and Jytdog were having.[141] I've iterated this a few times here already, but since this is clearly from the horse's mouth both now and in my original interactions, can we at least cease with the distraction from whatever other disputes GregJackP has been in? Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that people don't believe you, based on the evidence in the diffs and your history of showing up to support Jytdog. Again, I encourage you to drop this and let's all get back to editing. GregJackP Boomer! 05:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've asked you, please drop the stick on continuing these false accusations. You're only continuing the cycle every time I've civilly asked you to stop. In this venue especially, I'm going to set the record straight if someone is misrepresenting me. The diffs clearly show my intent in the series of edits as I explained it, that I was there independently, and that there wasn't wrongdoing on my part if one actually reads my comments thoroughly. I even stated all that outright well before this ANI even started. If after all that someone chooses to assume bad faith, we might as well delete WP:AGF and let everyone assume bad faith for whatever dispute they want. As I've asked before, please just stop the attacks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Kingofaces43, you claim that this has nothing to do with Jytdog, but you placed a warning about edit warring on GregJackP's talk page (but not Jytdog's) concerning a page on which GregJackP and Jytdog were interacting.[142][143] Two days later you removed a picture of supreme court justice Elena Kagan from that page -- a page you had never edited before.[144][145] This was followed by GregJackP removing some pictures from Emerald ash borer, the two of you edit warring, and the page being protected. [146][147][148][149][150][151]

    Concerning the merits of the warning, my count on that page is

    • [152] GregJackP: original edit.
    • [153] Jytdog reverts: 1RR
    • [154] GregJackP reverts: 1RR
    • [155] Jytdog reverts: 2RR
    • [156] Minor4th reverts" 1RR

    So you gave a warning for edit warring to an editor who was at 1RR, didn't give it to the editor who was at 2RR, and a couple of days later engaged in a real edit war on another page. I don't consider that to be helpful.

    Nor do I consider GregJackP's behavior to be helpful. He edit warred on Emerald ash borer too. Also, after you removed the picture from Bowman v. Monsanto Co. in a clear case of hounding, he removed several pictures from Emerald ash borer in a clear case of hounding you right back. The only question is who is going to admit that they lost their cool and behaved poorly and who will ignore the first rule of holes and claim innocence. GregJackP has alreasdy admitted that he behaved poorly and made a commitment to not do it again. Your responses sound like you believe that your behavior was correct and that you would do it again. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'll have to say a lot of those comments about me are way off base. Let's start with the edit waring template. If you actually read what I wrote in that overall conversation [157], I did not place a template on Jytdog's page because they had previously stated they were done at the page. A warning would have served no purpose unless they started editing again, in which case I would have left a warning there myself just the same (I almost did until I saw his comment saying he was leaving). I count the original edit as a revert too (there is some variation in what people think on that), but I made it clear I posted it, "as a good faith reminder"[158] and not as some sort of punishment. I generally welcome such reminders [159] and make my intent clear for others when I post them. It also looks like only looked at edits on June 22 instead of edits in the 24 hours period going into June 21. Edit warring was occurring regardless of how one counts reverts and that was the take home message to be wary about since things were looking precarious from an uninvolved editor just starting to catch up on edits I'd missed. The breakdown of different ways people consider "reverts" is also in the edit warring talk page discussion where I made it clear I wasn't trying to pin GregJackP down for a certain number of reverts, but just as a previously uninvolved editor asking for caution about edit warring.
    • I'm not sure where you get the idea that I removed the picture two days later. The edit warring template was a full month before I made the picture edit, not two days (June vs. July confusion maybe). Part of the reason I didn't even look at the article during the in-between time was because I didn't want to be involved in whatever tussle was going on at the time after seeing how GregJackP came after me, so I came back at a later date instead when things had settled looking at what I myself thought of the article for improvements. That some have manufactured this idea that I had other intents is problematic, but when I reiterated time and again what my actual intentions were, that point should have been a closed book as far as any scrutiny on why I was editing the article.
    • Again, there's no case for claiming I was ever hounding GregJackP. It's clear now he does not react well to my presence there (and I hope that changes in the future), but that's quite opposite to me hounding someone. When I edited the article a full month after my brief interaction with him, I approached the article edit and conversation civilly. It's starting to be clear from this his responses here that bad faith was assumed (i.e., baiting) when I've explicitly stated I was approaching the whole thing with good faith.
    • My edits on the emerald ash borer page were removal of vandalism and do not count as edit warring as they are not reverts per WP:NOT3RR for reverting obvious vandalism. There's no question hounding was occurring there in order to deliberately disrupt an article to prove a point. That very squarely fits the definition of WP:VANDAL. That can be discussed more if you want since that's why I originally came here in the first place. I stopped removing it when it was apparent the hounding was going to continue, and came here instead.
    • As for GregJackP, they have continued to make baiting accusations even though they have been told I never intended any such thing, so that commitment was chopped up pretty quickly. I've still been civilly extending that olive branch to them in this conversation and simply asking for the bad-faith attitude to stop. That's never been rescinded either. I'm commenting on my behavior because people are making accusations about my intent that I have shown to be completely false straight from the horses mouth. It's a simple case of bad faith being and ignoring my comments stating what my actual intent was, and I'm just asking for that to stop. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Break for convenience

    Sigh. I would much rather just get back to editing. I've admitted that I overreacted to what appeared to be baiting by you and you said that you are not interested in sanctions. So what is the purpose in this anymore? Unless you are lying about the desire for sanctions, why not just close this and go back to editing. Instead, we're still here. OK, as to your latest misinformation.

    • Jytdog stated that he was leaving the page and leaving it alone - so why was there a need to place an EW template? And to misstate the number of reverts as four, instead of two? It seems as if this was acting in concert with Jytdog, especially since you did not (and have never) templated him.
    • I'm sure Guy Macon just misread June & July, it happens, but it does not negate the fact that you removed a photo from an article that you had never edited or commented on while it was nominated for GA. This, as I'm sure Guy remembers, is oddly reminiscent of what Jytdog did in the discussion on Bad Elk v. United States, by filing for a GA reassessment as a way to force his view on the other editors. So we have a pattern of interfering with good articles, first by Jytdog, then by Kingofaces43.
    • You did not approach the discussion civilly, but with a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. When I reverted, I explained, civilly, that in the legal article field (and an article about a SCOTUS case is first and foremost a legal article), all of the FAs and 2/3rds of the GAs had pictures of the SCOTUS justice who wrote the opinion. Instead of accepting that, you brought up WP:WEIGHT, which doesn't even apply to the issue, and continued to argue. This shows very clearly that you appeared to be baiting and interfering with the GA nomination process.
    • You keep bringing up that you have said that you did everything correctly, that people should take your word over the evidence provided by others in the form of diffs, etc. I'm sorry, but it's clear that a majority of the commenters here do not believe what you are saying. They see the same pattern that I see. If you don't want people to believe that you and Jytdog act in concert, then don't act in concert with him.
    • At this point, it is equally troubling that you can't understand why all of these editors are coming to same the conclusion, that it looks like you were baiting or acting in concert with Jytdog, even if you were not. The actions have that appearance that you and Jytdog were acting in concert and even if it is an astronomical coincidence, you can't seem to acknowledge how reasonable editors can view the evidence in that light. At this point, you may want to consider reading WP:1AM, it has good advice in it.

    Finally, you say that you want this to stop—that's in your control. I have said repeatedly that I want to get past my overreaction to what looked like baiting, forget about this, and go back to editing. In other words, for this to stop and this thread to be closed. All it will take for that to happen is for you to drop the WP:STICK, we know how you feel already. Just drop it and go back to editing insect articles, and let me work on legal articles. GregJackP Boomer! 21:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I indicated sanctions likely would not be needed because I was hoping you would stop these issues related to your assumption of bad faith. That appears to still be occurring in your post above, which is only spurring this on further. You're still at this point misrepresenting my comments considering your assertions should have been completely dispelled before this ANI even started by simply reading my comments. At the end of the day, consensus is not determined by votes, but the substance of what's behind them. Considering the diffs explicitly dispel the various assertions about me pretty handily, those aspersions are not going to stick. What I am concerned about is that you are ignoring comments that should have completely separated me from whatever spat you had with Jytdog or even an independent thought of bad-faith. It's the bad-faith I want to see stop if I run across you in crop patent related articles in the future as we both can be considered WP:EXPERTS there.
    I'm not going to try to further the content dispute, but I will address the mischaracterizations (again) of my comments you bulleted. I said on your talk page that the number of reverts you had could be considered 4, but I considered 3 to be pretty solid, but not really 2. That wasn't the take home message though as you had already been made aware there. As I stated before, I have no idea what other disputes you've been in with Jytdog, and you've been made aware of that already. With that, you already should have known that my removal of the picture had nothing to do with whatever those disputes were considering I have my reasoning for it. When you refused to address the reason why I thought it should be removed and instead made a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, I civilly kept asking you what purpose the image actually served with no response on that front. You only needed to give actual reasons for including it happened with another editor here. I may not have agreed with that example entirely, but it easily could have been discussed civilly.
    So, we're at the point that even though you're saying you acted poorly, you're still continuing some of these bad-faith assumptions. Only when one assumes bad-faith can one get a different read on my comments initially, which is why I was very careful to make sure my comments were crafted to avoid such thoughts. I acknowledge you thought I was baiting you even with all the comments I made that should have told you otherwise. That was one of the problems I wanted addressed here though. Will bad-faith assumptions and focusing on the contributor so much rather than content not occur if I interact with you in the future? If that is a yes without any sniping, then there's no need to continue the conversation here any further as all my concerns would be alleviated at this time. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh. OK, I thought I have been clear, but apparently not. I do not believe you. I believe what the diffs and behavioral evidence show, which is also what a number of other editors think, and that is that you were baiting. I believe that the removal of the picture was intended to bait. I reacted poorly to your baiting. Now, unless you are lying about seeking sanctions, as it seems more and more that you dragging this out to get sanctions, it would be better to move on and go back to editing.
    I will also note that the "content not the contributor" line is one we hear from Jytdog on a regular basis too. Yet you drug us here over a contributor issue. You don't get to bring someone to ANI, talk about all of their issues, and not have your own issues addressed in return.
    Finally, I really don't care what you want addressed. I admitted that I overreacted to your baiting. Unless you are lying about sanctions, drop the stick and go back to editing. GregJackP Boomer! 02:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm dubious of the suggestion that Jytdog and Kingofaces43 are really coordinating what they do, as opposed to having overlapping content interests. I've looked a bit more at some links that Guy Macon provided earlier in this discussion, and I'd like to repeat two of them here: [160] and [161]. A feature of the analyser is that it shows, in blue, which editor was editing a given page first, and the two links seem to me to show rather clearly that the trend has been that GregJackP has arrived at most of these pages after either Jytdog or Kingofaces43, not the other way around. But more specifically at the Bowman v. Monsanto page and talk page, the sequence is Jytdog first, GregJackP second, and Kingofaces43 third. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, I showed up to Bowman after Jytdog. If you look at this analysis of Bowman v. Monsanto, Jytdog removed an edit by PraeceptorIP, an acknowledged expert in the field of intellectual property law. Praeceptor asked me to look at the article here, because Jytdog was harassing him over COI editing (where there was none), and did not understand that explanatory notes can be included in reference footnotes (this has subsequently been cleared up with Jytdog). After looking at the article, the case opinion, and the secondary sources, it was clear that the article could be improved to a good article, and I made extensive edits to the article. In addition, five different editors agreed on the legal material included in the article, and Jytdog accepted the consensus on June 22, here.
    If you look at the history in the analyzer between the three of us, you'll see that Praeceptor made the first edit to In re Alappat and Jytdog followed him there to harass him on non-existant COI. The same thing happened at In re Bilski.
    The actual first contact I ever had with Jytdog however was on Plummer v. State (analyser) and Bad Elk v. United States (analyser). Both of these articles were firmly in the legal area and not in the area that Jytdog typically edits in.
    I hope that explains the timeline a little better for you. It was after some of the harassment of Praeceptor by Jytdog that you advised him about Javert. It was after we both agreed to step away that he shows up at WP:LAW. Both of us have areas that we could have done better, but it is incorrect to state that I followed him around. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 00:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Tryptofish. It's been mentioned before, but just to reiterate on my being the third editor, the article had already been on my watchlist before GregJackP started editing there, and I likely would have made a comment or two of my own volition in previous discussions if I hadn't been generally offline and not not really paying attention to articles on my watchlist as much. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I too am dubious that Jytdog and Kingofaces43 are really coordinating what they do. I don't think Jytdog would stand for it. In my opinion, Jytdog is a fighter -- sometimes too much of a fighter -- but not the kind of person who sneakily breaks the rules. Whether you agree with him or not, he is open about his actions and motives, and I think he want's what is best for the encyclopedia. On the other hand, I am dubious about the two of them just having overlapping content interests. I think the examples of Kingofaces43 supporting Jytdog are too big of a coincidence. If i had to guess, I would guess that Kingofaces43 is supporting Jytdog without Jytdog's prior knowledge or approval (although, like anyone, he naturally welcomes any support). I just don't see any evidence against Jytdog here. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Guy Macon, I can understand that doubt, I would have it myself if not for way too many coincidences in their history:
    • Jytdog adds a source (a press release from Elsevier, which is odd considering how Jytdog talks about WP:RS) to an article here. Seven minutes later, Kingofaces43 adds the exact same press release to the article, here. Both of them got the release at the same time and decided to add it to the same article? Without any sort of coordination?
    • Going through Kingofaces43's contributions, there does not appear to be another instance in two years where he has removed a photo from an article, yet he decides to remove a photo from a GA nominated article? And as you know, one of Jytdog's first moves in the Bad Elk dispute was to call for a GA review on the article. Coincidence?
    • Kingofaces43 has a history of issuing warnings only on one side of a dispute, always the side that is opposed to Jytdog's position. See [162] (no warning to other party, who had 3RR); [163] (no warning to other parties, who had just as many reverts); [164] (no warning to Jytdog, who had more reverts), and so on. It just happens that Kingofaces issues warnings to people who oppose Jytdog? Really?
    • Kingofaces43 is telling people not to "cast aspersions" on Jytdog's talk page [165].
    Guy, I could go on and on with examples, but I believe that I have good reason to believe that they are coordinating this. Even if they are not, I am still convinced that this was baiting, perhaps as you opine, just from Kingofaces43 desire to support Jytdog. In any event, this has gone on long enough. Someone needs to close it and we can go back to creating articles. GregJackP Boomer! 06:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    GregJackP you are not steering clear of me but instead are steering harder into me. As I said I have no idea why Kingofaces removed the picture and i don't care. Arguments about images are generally preference-based and lead to emotional arguments and I just don't care. But removing the picture doesn't "support me". I have no war with you for Kingofaces to be my ally in. The BATTLEGROUND is all in your head - you are pursuing me - I don't want to be anywhere near you in WP. The fantasy of "allies" and "sides" goes along with the BATTLEGROUND mentality; I ~could~ make the same arguments you are making about you and Minor4h, and stronger ones. I have no desire to do that nor to interact with you at all
    I will say here, that I think that Kingofaces used bad judgement in removing the picture, especially as he was aware of the charged context. It wasn't worth arguing about and I am sure that in retrospect he realizes that a shitstorm was likely to ensue and it wasn't worth whatever improvement he thought removing it might create in the poisoned atmosphere. That is the reality of WP. Both GregJackP and Kingofaces used poor judgement and everybody seems to agree on that; GregJackP's behavior was arguably worse for being clearly retaliatory - Kingofaces at least had some reason for what he did as he described at the Talk page (a weak, preference-based reason, as most arguments about images are), but it was still, in my view, bad judgement and not worth it. And an RfC probably would have gone GregJackP's way, as pictures of justices who write opinions are common in articles about decisions.
    Guy Macon, your comment here is wrong. I have no desire to pick fights with GregJackP. The interaction at Black Elk/Plummer started at RSN and I had no experience with the editors involved before that. That did go badly but the articles were improved at the end of the day. I acknowledged my part in that going badly, and I have moved on. GregJackP has done neither. Much later, he then started pursuing me over issues around PraeceptorIP's editing. And now this which is essentially a continuation of his grudge against me by proxy. I do not pursue him nor pick fights with him. As I wrote above, I am unhappy to have ever encountered GregJackP and I do not seek him out. He is fixed on me. Not vice versa. I am not seeking action on this, at this time, as I am hoping that GregJackP will just heed Tryptofish's advice and steer clear of me, finally, as I have been him.
    And the source GregJackP characterizes as a "press release" was indeed a press release - from a journal announcing retraction of a paper which was a huge event in the Seralini affair and the content it was used to support was closely based on it. Not PROMO. Nobody involved in those articles, which were highly contested, objected to its inclusion and his bringing that up as he did, is just more ugly cherry-picking battleground crap.
    Really GregJackP your grudge against me is taking you way too far and you are digging yourself a nasty little hole. For pete's sake. Let go of the grudge already.
    And the way to end this thread is to just stop posting here already. But based on your history, you need to have WP:THELASTWORD and will continue making arguments, and then beg for a close, yet again. Prove me wrong. The same advice to you Kingofaces - GregJackP has acknowledged he acted badly and nobody thinks your edit on the Bowman article was good judgement. Jytdog (talk) 14:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the following three facts: [1] I have carefully researched the interactions between Kingofaces43 and GregJackP but have only briefly glanced at the interactions between Jytdog and GregJackP, [2] I have a high opinion of Jytdog in general -- even where we have disagreed about content or his behavior I can see that he does good work and wants what is best for the encyclopedia, and [3] Jytdog's reasoned argument that I was wrong in my evaluation, I am going to retract and ammend what I said earlier about Jytdog as follows:
    I retract my earlier comment about picking fights. I see no evidence from this thread that Jytdog misbehaved in any way, and I specifically reject the assertion that he colluded with another editor. I am going to strike certain comments of mine after I post this. While I do think that the evidence shows Kingofaces supporting Jytdog, I don't believe that Jytdog did anything other than treat said support the way any Wikipedia editor would treat someone who supports his position. If anyone thinks Jytdog misbehaved, they are free to open up an ANI case with specific diffs showing the alleged misbehavior, and I will be happy to analyses the evidence at that time. To Jytdog, I am sorry that I came to a hasty conclusion that, as I look back on it, was not based upon the evidence. I apologize for that. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That was amazingly gracious and nuanced, Guy - rare qualities to find at ANI. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    +1. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone carefully through all of the replies since my last comment, above. I agree with what Guy Macon said just above me here. And I've looked carefully at the evidence that GregJackP provided in response to what I said. As for the edit interactions at Bowman between Jytdog and PraeceptorIP, what I'm seeing is Jytdog taking an interest in Monsanto-related controversies, an area where he has long been interested (and helpful), and his objections to PraeceptorIP's edits seem to center on the latter's additions of footnotes to the page, in which the footnotes express subjective views about the page content. It's something where reasonable editors can disagree, but Jytdog's preference against the footnotes does not seem out of line to me. (GregJackP also seems to indicate that Jytdog did not push for some of this, when talk page discussion did not agree with him, something that is not consistent with fighting over a POV.) The edits at Bad Elk and at Plummer seem to me to be following related content through related pages, rather than following any editor. As for the Elsevier press release at the Seralini page (a page that I, too, have edited, and has been a page where Jytdog has contributed a lot), the first edit, by Jytdog, does not include a "page name" parameter in the citation, but the next edit, right after, by Kingofaces43, does include "a page name=". That shows me that Kingofaces43 did not copy it from Jytdog, but did copy it from somewhere else on Wikipedia. I think I'm seeing what may be some sloppiness on Kingofaces43's part, and I think I'm seeing GregJackP appear to attribute bad motives to edits that may not really have had such motives. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ll agree in an ambivalent fashion that I could be considered sloppy in the actual part of the dispute I’ve been involved in. On one end, I’m pretty adamant about assuming good-faith on my part. That good faith leads into assuming other editors are doing the same. That appears to be what caught me off guard about GregJackP’s actions. On the other end, I apparently set off some drama with GregJackP because of their previous disputes that I had not followed at all at other articles, ANI, etc. I came in unassuming, but it’s looking like I maybe should have followed the drama more instead. When it comes to the ideal of good-faith, we shouldn’t have to be worried that, but just simply focus on content. That apparently did not work in this situation, which I think is part of a larger systematic problem here that really concerns me. I guess reality dictates otherwise though.
    As I’ve mentioned before though, I’m really just looking for the bad-faith attitude to stop as well as the hounding that occurred. That’s why I don’t think sanctions are needed if it’s made clear it will stop. The bad-faith is still occurring though looking at recent comments (still claiming baiting), so it looks like it’s not getting through. No one has proposed the need for sanctions at this point either, so I’m willing to let this incident be with the warning that sanctions will need to be considered if this continues to be a problem in future interactions. Does that sound like a decent resolution to everyone? Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it sounds reasonable to me, pending what others here might have to say, and I thank you for offering a peaceful resolution. In case it wasn't clear enough from my previous remark, please let me make it clear that "sloppiness" is not in any way an ANI matter, just a matter for fixing with subsequent edits. I hope that, next, we can hear that that the bad-faith assumptions will stop. This entire dispute strikes me as one that does not require sanctions against anyone, but just a return to editing with less perception of adversary camps. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    SMH, I guess the proposals that we move on and go back to editing earlier didn't constitute a "peaceful resolution" even though I called for it no less than eight times in the discussion above. But when Kingofaces43 finally accepts that idea, it's a "peaceful resolution?" I'm done with the hypocrisy here. I'm going back to working on articles and if you want to continue to discuss it, do it without me. GregJackP Boomer! 00:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]

    User:Whyedithere and personal attacks

    Whyedithere has made this edit to his user page under the heading Wikipedia Users that Suck. The content, particularly these other morons that edit wikipedia don't get that they can stick their advice up their ..., is clearly a personal attack so I reverted and left a warning on his talk page but he has reverted both. There's very little point in me, or any other non-admin, reverting and/or warning again because he simply doesn't take any notice of warnings. Whyedithere was recently blocked for three days for edit-warring and this was only his 5th edit after coming off the block. The attack is obviously retaliation for the involvement of Drmargi, AlexTheWhovian and me in that block and he has previously had some rather negative interactions with Swarm. The content will probably be removed in a few days anyway, as there is now stronger evidence that Whyedithere is a sock of Andrewwikiedit and I'm currently drafting another SPI case, but that's no excuse for ignoring this issue now. Editors have no right to create content specifically aimed at attacking other editors. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverted and warned. GiantSnowman 09:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He's reverted the headings, along with a little pontification about freedom of speech. Like too many people, he doesn't understand that the American right to freedom of speech is not unlimited, and it's certainly not a license to insult without consequence. --Drmargi (talk) 00:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    SN: I know there's no guideline against warning someone about possibly being blocked, but is there a guideline about non-admins threatening to block someone? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Erpert I don't think they, Whyedithere, is threatening to block anybody. It looks to me as if he is saying that he has to go along with AussieLegend or AussieLegend will block him. Not to say that AussieLegend actually said that. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I certainly didn't. Whyedithere is probably misreading one of the warning templates left on his talk page (or the talk pages of his previous accounts) that say (roughly) "if you continue to do this you can/may be blocked". --AussieLegend (✉) 15:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Alexiulian25 and page creations

    Hi, I wanted to inform about User:Alexiulian25 who has a history of creating many bad unsourced article (about 50 or so on the same day) so all of his creations was moved to drafts. Now that his drafts has been declined he has ignored the drafts (blank them) and copy and paste them into mainspace anyway which is highly disruptive (a block needed?). For example Draft:Dermata Cluj declined twice (see diff) but he now created Dermata Cluj anyway. Same for Draft:CSM Suceava also declined twice, but now created anyway CSM Suceava. Can some admin take a look at this editor please? Qed237 (talk) 13:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Same for other articles like declined Draft:Mureşul Târgu Mureş created at Mureşul Târgu Mureş. Qed237 (talk) 13:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Alexiulian25 (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)It is nothing wrong with my articles. it has references and good information. not so many because they are old teams with low data avaible. If you do not accept my drafts how do you want to develope the encyclopedia. I m here to develope the encyclopedia but some people do not like because is less information, but they do not understand that I chose that subject to create it and write at least something about it. It is better less then nothing. I just choose subject in "red" without a page and create them.Thank you.[reply]

    • Alexiulian25, you cannot simply create a page that has been declined at Draft stage. Please have a look at what the declining editor said about the article and attempt to fix those problems. I am sure that for all 3 of the articles I have just deleted, the draft versions could be made into something that passes our notability guidelines if these are professional football clubs. Black Kite (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just my opinion but I do not agree that "something" is always better than "nothing".--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your understanding, and if you have time can you check this 2 drafts articles to see if they are worth for the main page? My reference is a book which is write at the reference list. I also have Copa del Rey Topscorers and Copa del Rey Topscorers by Season nominated for deletion, why? if the articles was approved before and verified.Alexiulian25 (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Alexiulian25 (talk) 14:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)If it is a subject you can not find references, or just 1 - 2 references, and I also have a book where I get the information and translate it, what can be wrong with this. I wrote about subjects you can not find easy on the internet. That makes wikipedia encyclopedy better. No ? And if I write "something", other one can help and improve it, so it make it better then no one add "nothing". For articles like this is ok less information I think. what is the problem if is not a proper long page ??[reply]

    This is not the right place to discuss that. When your drafts were declined, it is very clear: If you require extra help, please ask a question on the Articles for creation help desk, ask the reviewer that declined your submission, or get help at our live help chat from experienced editors. Please take a look at one of your declined drafts and click on the relevant links there to access those resources. WaggersTALK 14:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Black Kite, Sphilbrick, and Waggers: He just recreated Mureşul Târgu Mureş again and does not show any understanding. Enough for a block? Qed237 (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps I'm a softie, but I think that's the right approach when an editor is trying to improve the place and may simply not be following all of our many rules. I see that the recent article created is virtually the same as a draft, but I do not see that the draft was rejected. If the editor creates an article in main space that is virtually identical to a rejected draft, I would support a block. I would also suggest that given the editor's lack of understanding of our notability rules, that the editor to be asked to start new articles in draft space until such time as there is evidence that the editor understands the rules.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sphilbrick: The draft Draft:Mureşul Târgu Mureş was declined here and here but still he has created the article not only once, but twice. Qed237 (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Alexiulian25 Please put your signature at the end of your comment not the beginning. When at the beginning it looks like you are addressing that person. I agree that there is value in creating a very limited article and looking for help from others. When Wikipedia started this was acceptable in main space, but that is no longer the case. Start such an article in draft space, then go to the appropriate wiki project and enlist the help of others to make it suitable for inclusion in main space. References do not have to be online. While online references are easier to access, reliable sources in the form of books and hard copy newspapers and magazines are quite acceptable.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with this user is that they would rather create 50 articles with 1-2 references (some of which are just pointless lists), rather than make 5 articles, each with 10 sources. There's no point the user submitting them for review if they're going to just ignore the reviews. None of their articles seem to be definitely notable either. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Could someone please delete Mureşul Târgu Mureş now as the Draft:Mureşul Târgu Mureş has been declined twice and article deleted in the past? Qed237 (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see any reason to speedy delete it, and another admin has declined a speedy. Wile editors are strongly advised to heed the advise of AFC reviewers, there is no rule preventing anyone including the creator, from moving a draft to mainspace at any time. I don't know enough about Romanian football to know if "Division A" is a top-level league or not. If it is, this passes notability criteria, if not WP:AFD is at hand. DES (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Nor is creating stubs or moving pages from draft to mainspace, even after an AfC decline, a valid reason to block a good faith editor, adn i see no indications of bad faith or vandalism here. DES (talk) 00:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Bad faith is debatable (the editor is very much aware of this discussion so knows full well that their actions are questionable at least). But they're certainly not vandalism. As DES said above, it the subjects meet notability criteria there's no reason for there not to be an article there. Personally, I agree with the editor that "something is better than nothing" (provided the subject is notable) and not with User:Sphilbrick's assertion that it's no longer acceptable to create stubs in mainspace; if it wasn't for that italic text at the bottom of an article one day encouraging me to add to it, I probably would never have started editing Wikipedia. Stubs are hooks that pull new editors in, and that's a good thing.
    In this particular case though, the editor seems to be submitting drafts for review then putting them into mainspace regardless of the outcome, which is just wasting other people's time; it's disruptive editing and does need to be stopped. WaggersTALK 07:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Waggers I think you misunderstood my point, so I'll clarify in case someone else made the same inference. I'm not opposed to stubs. A very short article, with an assertion of notability, and a citation to a reliable source is an acceptable start. That isn't what happened here. An editor created a number of "articles" which didn't even meet our minimal standards of notability. That isn't an example of something being better than nothing it's worse than nothing.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Odd account creation pattern

    In looking at edit filter 527 this morning, I discovered that over 200 accounts have been created starting with "User:Twanitk" (User:Twanitk1, User:Twanitk2, up to today's User:Twanitk277) since March of this year. None of them have any edits. Is this something we should be concerned about? NawlinWiki (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't think of any valid reason for anyone to have made this number of clearly linked accounts. It looks a lot like it might be the creation of a farm of sleeper accounts. Are there provisions for mass-blocking of large numbers of accounts? -- The Anome (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting. Our current policies and guidelines don't give us any guidance, because they look like ducks but haven't quacked yet. Checkuser won't help, because checkuser only relies on what duckpond the ducks swim in, and they aren't swimming yet. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    They are up to User:Twanitk279 now. See this listing. I don't think we need precedent or explicit policy, or for these accounts to be misused in an attack, for this to be recognized as a bad thing. -- The Anome (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Has anyone checked to see if these accounts are related to an educational project of some sort? BMK (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I see now that's unlikely, considering some of the accounts were created months ago. If it was an educational program, they should have been used by now. I say nuke them all from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. BMK (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't disagree they could be blocked without there being anything explicitly forbidding this behaviour, but it's IMO worth approaching them to see if they have any good explaination. The links above to their usernames should probably have notified them, but that doesn't always work. So I've left a message to the original unnumbered accounts, 279 and the not yet created 280. Neither 279 or unnumbered have emails. There are perhaps two or three related reasons I can think of why someone may those this if they aren't up to something malicious, but I won't mention them here for WP:BEANS reasons. Nil Einne (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne: Your choice to create #280 and leave a comment there - very clever! Kudos to you. BMK (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Should this be on the user page as well as the user talk page? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh – that was my thought was well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
     Done BMK (talk) 09:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Affinion Group

    Asking for help, rather than starting an edit war. Looks like a lot of promotional content being added here, without objective sources. We're not a repository for services offered by companies. 2601:188:0:ABE6:B53D:47CE:83E6:3C5F (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I am just using a 10K to fill out information on a private company. All of the information I have comes from the 10K which is the most reliable source I can find on this company given their limited and outdated online presence. If I could have assistance on how to word articles in a better way, I would be most grateful. I tried to remove information that you found to be promotional - Surgenski
    So the main question then is whether this company is even notable enough to warrant a page. I don't think ANI is an appropriate venue for this sort of thing. Djonesuk (talk) 21:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This was a the reinstatement of content I removed: [166]. It appears that much of this either copied or closely paraphrased an SEC 10k report. It raises a flag when a new account gets so deeply involved in an article on a private company, and a lot of the edits consist of the addition of promotional material. For the record, the article was very promotional before, as well. 2601:188:0:ABE6:B53D:47CE:83E6:3C5F (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The article says this company has annual revenue of $1.2 billion. That suggests notability, though it may still not be easy to find sources. (I found nothing for the name Affinion in the Wall Street Journal). The company's services may be offered under a multitude of names that might have to be separately checked. Though they seem to be privately held, they do publish detailed financial statements, and this should be acceptable as evidence of the size of the company. Reuters said they tried to IPO in 2007 but I can't tell what happened as a result. Their 10K says they are a holding company and all business is conducted by their subsidiaries. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Revenue has nothing to do with notability - which is defined as significant coverage in secondary sources. There seems to be some misunderstanding that if a company is large enough (by some definition) it qualifies for an article but that's just not true. There must be deep, independent coverage in reliable sources. Djonesuk (talk) 10:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit war on MOSNUM

    Can we get an admin to poke their head in at WP:MOSNUM? (Disclosure: I made a single revert.) Involved users include @Fnagaton, EEng, Glider87, Dondervogel 2, and Arthur Rubin:. I'll make the talk page round shortly. --Izno (talk) 02:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I think I only made one revert also. I agree there is a problem. As I see it, the question revolves around the text "are rarely used, even in technical articles", referring to IEC prefixes. EEng and Dondervogel want it removed, and Fnagaton and Glider87 want it retained. I don't think it necessary in the guideline (as long as it is recognized as consensus at the time), but I don't yet see consensus for its removal. In addition, Dondervogel is accusing Glider87 of being a sock. Of whom, I have no idea.
    The other 4 parties named all have 3 reverts within a 12 hour period, although I think they have all avoided violating 3RR. I was going to make an ANI AN3 report, but I haven't figured out how to paste the diffs on my smartphone. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Re-proposing_removal. All editors who had participated in the thread were pinged for the final proposal of removing this text; after four days, three editors (counting me) agreed to the change and none made any argument in opposition it, so the change was made. Considering that (as established during the discussion) the text proposed for removal was originally added with no discussion at all, that certainly seems like adequate consensus to me. Two days later Glider (who literally hadn't edited in two years) showed up to disagree, and Fnagaton showed up again after a week's silence, and since then they've been crying "no consensus" instead of starting a new discussion, if they care to. EEng (talk) 02:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    How is this an AN/I matter, if everyone's avoided 3RR (and if they hadn't EWN would be the proper venue)? Looks like a policy dispute, which should be discussed on the policy talk page, and nobody should "make the rounds" WP:canvassing people? Or am I missing something? BMK (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:EW is enforceable against persons who have made less than 3 reverts in 24 hours if they are, well, edit warring. Which is plainly what's occurring (in tag teams, no less!). Especially, I imagine, in an area with WP:DS. I agree it's a policy dispute, but it seems to have destabilized the guideline-proper. Either some protection or some trouts (or stronger) are needed. --Izno (talk) 04:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As for whether this should be here or at EWN, I picked this one simply because it came to mind first. I'm happy to move the post around, but that seems bureaucratic at this time. --Izno (talk) 04:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to watch exactly what you're saying. A group of editors who hold the same opinion is only a "tag team" if they are coordinating their efforts. If you have some evidence of this, you should present it here. If not, you should withdraw that quite serious accusation. My suggestion is that the page be fully protected until a consensus can be reached on the talk page. BMK (talk) 05:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Shrug. It's not worth arguing with you when I've achieved my goal here. So stricken. --Izno (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like edit warring to me. I'd say full protection for 24–48 hours couldn't hurt... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Fully protected for 24 hours - involved editors need to resolve the issue on the talk page.  Philg88 ♦talk 07:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we need to start topic banning editors who edit war on MOS pages. It is a perennial source of weapons-grade lameness. Guy (Help!) 12:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The MOS is under under discretionary sanctions, but I don't know if anyone alerted the people in the edit war. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: Totally unaware of this discussion, I got tired of the pointless fighting over how to editorialize, and just removed the editorializing. There is no need for MOS to make any claims about frequency of use, much less in specific fields, especially when whether the "even in technical fields" part is a moving target and of indeterminate accuracy over time. We have a "rule", and the consensus for it is documented in miles of talk page archives about this perennial "should be use 'gibibytes'" debate (in which I'm neutral). That's sufficient, without extraneous rationalizing. MOS is a guideline, not a book on changing language usage in technical writing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Foreign relations of South Korea

    Can someone check the edits of User:Scottish12345678 to the above article. This user is continually changing countries listed as Asian (e.g. Turkemnistan) and placing them in the Europe section. Denisarona (talk) 04:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Scottish12345678 looks to me like an SPA with singular focus on "Foreign relations of [country]" articles – several Talk page warnings this month on various "Foreign relations of [country]" articles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) :Looks to me as if Scottish12345678 is editing in good faith but perhaps as a relatively new user is a little unsure what they're doing. Talk page dialogue is probably the best way to resolve this, but Scottish12345678 needs to engage with the community.  Philg88 ♦talk 06:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Similar edits are also being made by User:Irish12345678. Denisarona (talk) 11:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Same type of editing going on by 180.189.88.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who went all over Wikipedia editing the foreign relations of other countries (some with useless copyvio) about South Korea from news articles on the Korean MOFA. I had to clean up several of their edits. This seems like it could possibly be COI editing. Elspamo4 (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Examples of useless copyvio: [167], [168], [169], [170], [171]. I'm not sure if this would qualify as copyvio but the content is copy-pasted word for word from the references he provides. The editing is virtually identical to the two other users. Elspamo4 (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've raised my concerns about this user, and Irish12345678, on this page (see below), regarding their edits on Foreign relations of South Korea. Sorry, didn't realise that this discussion was already on-going. Basically they're inserting massive overlinking, grammatical nonsense, reverting any attempt to fix, and ignoring any attempts to communicate. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor Irish12345678 / Scottish12345678‎ and overlinking

    The editors Scottish12345678‎ and Irish12345678 are heavily editing the Foreign relations of South Korea article. While the substance of these edits are positive, there are a number of problems.

    • Massive overlinking. This article now has links on every mention of every country, including through redirects. Other common terms are linked on every mention. The weight of these make editing the article increasingly difficult.
    • Scottish12345678‎ and Irish12345678 are possibly not native speakers. Some sentences don't make any grammatical sense.
    • No edit summaries on any edits.
    • I suspect Scottish12345678‎ and Irish12345678 are the same editor. Same articles, exact same edits.
    • I have attempted to fix issues with the article, only to have them reverted.
    • Any attempt to communicate with the editor(s) about their edits are ignored.

    --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this a duplicate of a section above, also complaining that those two editors are making bad edits to the same article? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Has a sock-puppet investigation been filed? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, sorry. Didn't realise discussion had already been started. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see evidence of an SPI report being filed yet, no. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd blocked this user for 24 hours before I saw this ANI to stem the flow of copyright violating articles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    As a follow-up, I really do think an SPI case is warranted here, though I don't necessarily have the time to file it (at least, not over the next 24–36 hours...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've just blocked the "Irish" account as an obvious alternate account of the "Scottish" one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Nanak Shah Fakir

    Kulvinder Singh 17:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC) (talk)

    Both of you are involved in an edit war. Consider this the formal warning for both of you. I will not block now, as you've both just been warned, but if you continue, either of you, a block may be forthcoming. Even if you are factually correct, it does not excuse poor behavior, and blocks are handed out for behavioral violations rather than factual issues. Believing yourself to be correct does not excuse you from following Wikipedia norms, so please use the talk page to work out your differences. --Jayron32 18:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    HOUNDING by Elvey

    Sorry to bother you all. I cannot figure Elvey out. but he/she has taken a disliking to me and from time to time comes around behind me and argues against whatever I am trying to do. I have been putting up with it, but now he has started making a mess with a new editor who has a COI.

    June 13: filed a COIN case naming me as an editor with a COI over Kaiser Permanente (where he has been hounding a disclosed representative of that company on the Talk page here and later here) and then refused twice here and here to make a case that I had a COI, or even to acknowledge that by listing my name in the posting, he had raised a concern about possible COI for me on that article. Incompetent, BATTLEGROUND behavior.

    June 17: Followed me to articles he had never edited here (that one having to do with an editor working on the article about himself - so a COI issue) and here arguing against me randomly. I warned him to stop here.

    July 8: Elvey went back to it here, seemingly randomly reverting my removal of content added by a blocked user, Nuklear and edit warred over that, and didn't stop until an uninvolved, chemical-savvy admin, Edgar181, explained to Elvey why Nuklear was blocked and that the content Nuklear added had an error in it anyway, and that my cleanup after Nuklear was OK with him. I gave Elvey a 2nd warning here about that.

    Yesterday, a new instance. Doc James and Alexbrn and I are having a difficult but salvageable set of discussions with a new editor, ColumbiaLion212, with a disclosed COI who I advised not to edit the article directly, and who has made the newbie mistake of accusing us of a COI since we are disagreeing with him, but then Elvey showed up at ColumbiaLion's talk page and actually told ColumbiaLion that "Given the concerns you raise above (about other people's COI), I think it may be quite appropriate for you to continue to edit the article directly." This is not only incompetent and wrong but it is pure BATTLEGROUND baloney. I warned Elvey to back off here and they just came right back with more incompetent, BATTLEGROUND nonsense. I don't know if we are going to be able to get things back on track with ColumbiaLion after this bumbling.

    long narrative version of ColumbiaLion story
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    As you can see from their contribs, an editor named ColumbiaLion212 showed up at the Cranial electrotherapy stimulation article after first going to the Fisher Wallace Laboratories article (a company that makes CES devices and has HQ in New York City - note the user name - 212 is the area code for NYC and Columbia University's mascot is a lion), and started edit warring to add content promotional about these devices. I opened a discussion with ColumbiaLion212 about COI in Wikipedia, and they eventually disclosed that they work for a company that makes CES devices. So in this dif I informed them that they had a COI and asked them not to edit directly but rather work things out on Talk, and make proposals there.

    In the meantime, ColumbiaLion212 had kept trying to work on the article (although I had advised them to take a pause while we worked out COI issues) and unfortunately went over the top and decided that the other editors there must have a COI (this happens with new editors, unfortunately) and were acting in a conspiracy to keep "good" information about CES out of WP, and left COI messages and warnings to the editors who had worked on that page in the last year, Doc James here, SandyGeorgia here, Alexbrn here, and me here. ColumbiaLion212 received a warning against doing that from Acroterion who is otherwise uninvolved here.

    That was difficult but salvageable (things with COI editors sometimes derail but I am ~usually~ able to work with people to get things back on track) but then Elvey showed up at ColumbiaLion's talk page and actually told ColumbiaLion that "Given the concerns you raise above (about other people's COI), I think it may be quite appropriate for you to continue to edit the article directly." This is not only incompetent and wrong but it is pure BATTLEGROUND baloney. I warned Elvey to back off here and they just came right back with more incompetent, BATTLEGROUND nonsense. I don't know if we are going to be able to get things back on track with ColumbiaLion after this bumbling.

    I would like Elvey to be topic banned from discussing COI in Wikipedia (he is not competent to deal with editors with a COI as his behavior on Kaiser Permanente and ColumbiaLion's talk page show) and I would like a one way topic ban with regard to me since his HOUNDING of me is disrupting my work here and is harming WP. Jytdog (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)Please impose a long cool-off block on Jytdog.[reply]

    Response from Elvey

    I twice responded to this editor's talk page accusations of HOUNDING: "Thank you for linking to that policy. In fact WP:HOUNDING#NOT says: '[T]racking a user's contributions for policy violations' 'is not harassment if the claims are presented civilly' '; the contribution logs exist for editorial and behavioral oversight. Unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly.'." I ask that WP:HOUNDING#NOT be enforced. diff.

    I don't even think there's a need for me to dredge up diffs showing his worst behavior because his diffs supposedly showing me at my worst actually make him look bad. But let me respond to each assertion:

    1. His assertion re. June 13 seems to be a lie: He must know I never said he had a COI WRT Kaiser because we've reminded him so multiple times - the diffs Jytdog provided show me pointing this out and he's been told I did no such thing repeatedly not only by me but by others as well (diff) (admin User:SlimVirgin). To continue to spread this blatant falsehood here is blatant BATTLEGROUND obsessiveness.

    2. Re June 17: Take a look at the 2 edits he's pissed off about and links to, where I told users he bullied, "You may continue to make appropriate edits directly to the article, Clockback, which the WP:COI guideline definitely allows, but discourages." and, "Way to follow WP:DR, be constructive and civil, SageRad." Were they good edits? I think so. Was this hounding? I already responded to that accusation on my talk page (excerpt above). That bullying is a violation of WP:BULLY policy, which Jytdog has been repeatedly chastised for, including by at least one highly trusted administrator entrusted to use powerful mops and broomsticks with care: User:Risker.

    3. Re July 8: Look at the edit history and you'll see that his edit war accusation should BOOMERANG. He edit warred; I followed standard DR.

    4. Re. "Yesterday", I was directed to review Jytdog's edits by another editor, and when I did so, I was troubled and responded appropriately, as the diffs Jytdog has provided show.

    5. He grossly misrepresents when he says ColumbiaLion212 "finally" disclosed working for a company that makes CES devices; User:ColumbiaLion212 did so a day after being asked - with his very next edit - his 9th edit on Wikipedia!

    6. Jytdog sees what he wants to see in our CoI policy; he says here that he believes that the "very strongly discouraged" in "Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing." is actually a "cannot". I suggest he be blocked until he is no longer delusional about what the CoI policy actually is, because he has disclosed, and demonstrated that it is his intent to attempt to enforce a nonexistent policy.--Elvey(t•c) 03:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    As you usual Elvey makes a garble of things. In my interactions with editors who declare a COI, I never say "cannot" and you will not find any diffs where I did. Editors with a COI are strongly discouraged, and the dif he points to shows that I understand that very well. Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    6b. Sorry but here you are telling the respectable subject of a BLP that the COI policy does not allow him to directly edit his BLP. Re your comment about #6: I provided a diff, in which he indeed says "cannot" (without the quotes). And the rest of diff does show him expressing the opinion that I described. If there's a more clear and concise way to express that Jytdog says here that he believes that the "very strongly discouraged" in "Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing." is actually a "cannot", I'm all ears. I note that you have not responded regarding #1, 2, 3, 4 or 5! --Elvey(t•c) 05:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not responding to you point by point because most of what you write is incoherent. Others will be able to see that. Jytdog (talk) 06:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's one way to dodge scrutiny. Snowded says my writing is perfectly coherent, so no he was not able to see that. Based on that, I would ask that any interaction ban apply to Jytdog, rather than be one-way on me. Jytdog is saying I should be banned because of the behavior defended in #1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, and yet Jytdog refuses to discuss it. That's not reasonable or fair. I've launched a solid defense of 1-6. Yet Jytdog demands I self-impose a ban for the behavior addressed in 1-6. --Elvey(t•c) 16:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    no, i have asked the community to do this. if you just agree it will save a lot of drama but you are apparently unwilling. so on we go. Jytdog (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I note, again, that you have not responded regarding #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6b. Snowded says my writing is perfectly coherent. You have made no specific requests for clarification. Your refusing to respond is disruptive; respond or retract your campaign, Jytdog.--Elvey(t•c) 02:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    Canvassing

    When opening this case, Jytdog notified no fewer than three admins and two other users who take his extremeist view of COI and I ask that any comments from the canvassed users be disregarded and that our policy on canvassing be enforced with the requested block. A WP:Sham consensus may be the result of such canvassing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvey (talk • contribs) 03:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC} ) signed this additional bit of mess-making by ElveyJytdog (talk) 05:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you aware that when naming an editor in a post at ANI, you are meant to notify them? That is not canvassing. Alexbrn (talk) 07:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Snowded: Why did you add a canvassing template to my comment? I was not canvassed. Please strike or provide some justification. Alexbrn (talk) 07:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, what are you talking about? ----Snowded TALK 07:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies Snowded, got my diffs in a twist: it was Elvey who added it, so - to Elvy: Why did you add a canvassing template to my comment? I was not canvassed. Please strike or provide some justification. Alexbrn (talk) 07:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's not canvassing, then the rule against canvassing has a giant loophole. Pinging users surely accomplishes what other forms of canvassing accomplish. But if you and Jytdog want to defend that use of the loophole, I won't fight you. The canvassing tag has been removed. --Elvey(t•c) 16:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey of responses to proposal to sanction

    WP:BOOMERANG 172.56.18.107 (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:WHY ? Acroterion (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    172.56.18.107 has been blocked with an expiry time of 1 week for abusing multiple accounts. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Block user Elvey. The accusations in the COIN charge are vague, unsupported, and unhelpful. I have tried to follow this editor's diatribes without success. @Elvey: This discussion and my investigations make it appear that you are incompetent to edit here. Please correct me by providing one or more specific edits where user Jytdog has gone astray, and how you think that they have gone astray. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    After looking at Elvey's response (try following #6, for example), I reiterate my request that Elvey be blocked temporarily and in addition banned from COI topics indefinitely. Editor does not seem to be competent to have these conversations. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support COI topic ban I haven't seen WP:COIN recently, but an example of clueless COI enthusiasm is here. If there are other similar examples a topic ban is required because blundering around like that could tip the balance for some editors and make them retire. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ugh. Normally I'd be quite supportive of attempts to root out COI, but the discussion that Elvey has initiated with regards to Doc James and Jytdog that have been linked to here have an unpleasant whiff of McCarthyism about them. It's not serious enough to warrant a topic ban yet in my view, but at the same time it's neither helpful or appropriate to have self-appointed COI cops wandering around demanding to know if someone is or has been a member of the COI Party. It very well could turn into a topic ban or other sanctions unless Elvey moderates their approach in the future, and that would be unfortunate. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Lankiveil to be clear, the reason I asked for the topic ban from COI is Elvey's incompetent interference in ongoing COI management efforts, as with ColumbiaLion212 (which was especially bad), and his interactions with the declared conflicted editor at KaiserPermanente where he abused the Talk page with soapboxing accusations. As you can see Elvey is only pushing harder here; he does not appear to be corrigible. Jytdog (talk) 04:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Lankiveil - Re. "self-appointed COI cops wandering around demanding to know if someone is or has [a COI]" - Are you not aware that Jytdog has been going around, bullying a great many users, demanding to know if they have a COI? Need more diffs? I've already provided some. --Elvey(t•c) 05:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Elvey, asking about someone's relationship is not demanding. Jytdog (talk) 05:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support COI topic ban ColumbiaLion212 had gone off the rails badly but was being managed, but then Elvey came storming to their Talk page, apparently in furtherance of some kind of feud with Jytdog, and actually encouraged them to continue their COI-tainted editing. Elvey has not responded to questions about this and show no sign of getting a clue about how bad it was, so I believe a block is necessary as a preventative measure. Alexbrn (talk) 05:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps 172.56.18.107 is the same user that set up https://twitter.com/IndustryLapdog/with_replies! Wasn't me. --Elvey(t•c) 03:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support one-way interaction ban between Elvey and Jytdog, and COI topic ban for Elvey. His arguments here make it pretty plain that he is engaging in motivated reasoning and that this has led him to a view of COI which leads to his making - ahem - unhelpful comments. I think six months should be sufficient. Guy (Help!) 12:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose While Jytdog is annoyed with the other editor (who, AFAICT, made no accusations of COI about Jytdog per se), the behaviour does not, IMO, rise to the level where sanctions are called for at all. The tendency to ask for sanctions when there is a reasonable disagreement is all too common on Wikipedia at this point. I note Snowded's reasoning below. Collect (talk) 12:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I don't often agree with Collect ;-) but in this case I do. I suggest both editors reflect a little and try and find a way to see value in the others comments before we move to sanctions. ----Snowded TALK 12:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - IMHO, seeking sanctions on another editor is the wrong way to go. But, if both individuals can't get along? then a 2-way IBAN would be best for them. GoodDay (talk) 12:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    To those opposing. This is about Elvey's behavior. Elvey is hounding me, not vice versa. And in the course of Elvey's hounding, Elvey inserted himself into a discussion with a new editor with a COI that was already going off the rails, and pushed it over a cliff. It is the damage to other editors and to the overall effort to manage COI in WP that led me here. Jytdog (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The best route here for you, would be to ignore Elvey. If Elvey were to follow you around, while you're ignoring him/her? then he/she would be viewed as harrassing you. GoodDay (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I do - I don't go fight about every harassing edit Elvey makes. But when Elvey inserts him/herself into a discussion as they did with ColumbiaLion and as they did at KaiserPermanente, they make a mess of things that cannot be ignored. Their incompetent actions on COI issues are what I am really after here. I want the one-way ban because that is what apparently drove these bumbling "interventions", and they are already fixed on me and this posting will only make that worse. Jytdog (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Claiming you've never followed me around is hogwash. The new editor hasn't been pushed off the rails; he's been scared off by Jytdog. Hasn't been back. WP:BITE, WP:BULLY etc, in action. You chased him off like a good guard dog. --Elvey(t•c) 17:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never followed you around and you have zero diffs to prove that. More nonsense. Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support either a COI topic ban of Elvey per Johnuniq and/or a one-way interaction ban of Elvey regarding Jytdog per Guy. I think that the discussion has gotten considerably off-track, but I also think that the ways in which it has gotten off-track support the appropriateness of some restrictions. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is one or the other, I would choose topic banning from COI, as that is the most damaging to the community.Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    We know you'd like that, but we're trying to determine what's equitable and practical, not what gives the complainant what he most wants.  :-/  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Tryptofish, if I've misrepresented policy, I'd really like to know how, because I don't want to do that. The only way they've been able to suggest I've misrepresented policy has been to misrepresent what I've said, and then reach false conclusions based on false evidence - which your 'per Guy' suggests has worked. Guy grossly misrepresented my positions and then accused me of having those bad opinions, and refused to address the misrepresentations. What the hell is OK about that? If I've pointed out a true policy that you don't want what you see as the wrong people to know about, I've, reluctantly, offered to stop doing so under the terms below, at #Proposal. Please consider endorsing it. --Elvey(t•c) 02:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Just several days ago User:GregJackP and User:Minor4th said here that Jytdog should be banned from COI areas. User:Viriditas chimed in, "Jytdog seem to disrupt every article where the word "Monsanto" appears, have you considered voluntarily withdrawing from any and all Monsanto-related topics?" --Elvey(t•c) 02:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Risker recently said of Jytdog, "I worry a great deal about the really shoddy way we treat the subjects of our biographical material." I do too. Right after the shoddy treatment Jytdog gave Clockback, a subject of our biographical material, and NEVER APOLOGIZED FOR, I responded with factually correct information, which no one is disputing, but some here nevertheless want to ban me for. What the hell kind of respect for the subjects of BLP is that? --Elvey(t•c) 02:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't drag me into this - I'm not saying anything about Jytdog, one way or another. We resolved our issue. GregJackP Boomer! 04:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Someone had a concern" isn't very helpful. I'd like to hear from those four editors or have specific pointers to the discussions of what they think the alleged issues with Jytdog are. Never mind, I found it. Jytdog having any COI-patrolling and civility issues of his own would not magically make Elvey's actions okey-dokey, but we may be looking at a mutual interaction ban, even a mutual topic ban or other action; Upate:I don't see a mutual issue. ANI is not a forum for one side to "win" with quicker and craftier argumentation or a bigger enourage. I'm not convinced a long topic ban is needed here, though, for anyone. If an editor has WP:COMPETENCE problems (which Elvey clearly does with regard to at least COI, CIVIL, and CANVASS interpretation), this is generally resolved with experience, which they cannot gain if barred from the area in which they need to develop better competence. If there's an interaction ban, set a time limit, like 6 months. Long-term ones are too easily gamed, are onerous, and usually don't serve any purpose but cementing a dispute forever instead of letting it naturally come to a "why were we even fighting?'" WP:DGAF realization, and become by-gones. Permanent topic bans are rarely useful except with regard to actual soapboxing POV-pushers, or "great wrongs" battlegrounders, and just serve to create martyrs-in-their-own-minds among editors who mean well but are "differently clued" at the moment. I do agree that the COIN filing by Elvey of vague, unsupported-aspersion casting should not go unaddressed, probably with a 3-month COI topic ban, regardless of other matters and outcomes.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Updated. 05:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks SMcCandlish I was recently brought to Arbcom (case was dismissed) and at the same time to ANI (no action) over my COI activities. Elvey is having a field day quoting stuff from those events. I took a week off from dealing with COI issues to get feedback as advised at Arbcom and got some good feedback, which I've been reflecting on; I still have still not fully gone back to my former levels of COI work as I am still considering some things. Elvey keeps quoting stuff from those stale (and older) cases as though it is hot news.
    The problem with Elvey's involvement in COI matters is that he is "intervening" in ongoing interactions with new editors who have or may have a COI (which are often delicate and require respect and diplomacy) and writing frankly incompetent things. Sometimes harassing the conflicted editors, and sometimes harassing me and encouraging bad behavior by the conflicted editor. There is no sense to it. This is really bad with new editors, especially, who are trying to learn how WP works, under pressure from their COI.
    Anyway, I recognize that the community will do as it will. But working on live COI issues is not a training ground. Nothing will prevent Elvey from reading COI actions and getting their head on straight, and asking for an indef to be lifted when they can show they understand things better. But I need to stop responding to things here - have written too much already. Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood. I'm interested in due diligence. Not every dogpile indicates consensus, but often bandwagon mentality, and every argument has at least two sides. Just because ArbCom or ANI previously didn't act on something doesn't mean it's not relevant, since patterns emerge over time. But I have no interest in fishing for one with regard to you; I just asked for clarification of what complaints others had raised (and it was the BITE one that caught my eye, not a COI one, but I treat all claims of wiki-wrongdoing with skepticism).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Reviewed Risker's and related material, saw GregJackP's disavowal of a current dispute, and don't see a major issue. The two arbs who made the point to you that COI and paid editing are more distinct that you seemed to think at that time, probably got that point across (that was much earlier in the month), and I don't see evidence they didn't. Absent a showing of really recent issues in this regard, or of newbie-biting that's also recent, I'm satisfied there's no boomerang of any kind here, but hope the message was absorbed, to get COI/PAID policy understanding in synch with the community's if you're going to be helping new editors who have conflicts of interest.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Recommendation: Elvey should be subject to a one-way interaction-ban from Jytdog, and a topic-ban from COI-related discussions and processes, for 3-6 months (concurrent) in both cases; long enough to learn these ropes and re-examine his approach. More than 1 year would be counterproductive and patently punitive at this stage. I'm particularly concerned about the aggressive nature of Elvey's approach to all this, especially the aspersion casting at WP:COIN, which can, as someone else said, "tip the balance" and drive incoming editors away. Because of the BLP connection, we have to be especially careful in this area. The sarcastic, lecturing tone of Elvey's responses here is not a good sign. WP:COMMONSENSE escape valve: Elvey should be able to report what he is sure is a glaringly obvious, unmistakable COI problem, to an admin, who could determine whether it required further investigation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    What is our CoI policy actually?

    Jytdog sees what he wants to see in our CoI policy; he says here that he believes that the "very strongly discouraged" in "Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing." "is actually a cannot". I suggest he be blocked until he is no longer delusional about what the CoI policy actually is, because he has disclosed, and demonstrated that it is his intent to attempt to enforce a nonexistent policy.

    Jytdog was ***roundly critized by two longtime arbitrators for his extreme interpretations of our CoI policy and treatment of User:Snowded - none other than User:Risker, who is sick of him and User:Newyorkbrad.

    The diff above shows that:

    Risker told Jytdog, "The ToU doesn't say what you think it says." at 10:02 am, 13 June 2015 (UTC−7)

    User:Snowded told Jytdog his "absolutist interpretation of what is a guideline not policy does not help." I wish Jytdog would listen or be given some quiet time to think about it.

    Risker told Jytdog, "Conflict of interest is not the same thing as paid editing. If you cannot understand that, you need to stop working in this area. Paid editing is things like Elance or other SEO organizations who specifically write for pay, or the PR department of a company. Conflict of interest is not the same thing. Again, if you insist that the two things are identical, which is exactly what you were doing in the edit I reverted, then you need to stop working in this area, because you misunderstand the basic premise." at 12:51 pm, 14 June 2015 (UTC−7)

    I wish Jytdog would listen.

    User:Newyorkbrad told Jytdog: "Let me see if I can help a bit here, because there is a widespread tendency to interpret the COI issue and related guidelines in a simplistic way, which is increasingly unhelpful for everyone. I'm a partner in a law firm. The firm is not notable enough for an Wikipedia article, but suppose I were at a larger firm and we had one. If I were to edit the article about my law firm, I would have a "conflict of interest" (the significance of which could be minor or major depending on the nature of the edits). However, I would not be a "paid editor," because my firm pays me to practice law, not to edit Wikipedia. Is everyone in agreement so far?" at 11:10 am, 13 June 2015 (UTC−7)

    I wish Jytdog would listen.

    But Risker doesn't expect Jytdog to listen; I see a need for admin action is proven by this comment and driven home by Jytdog's actions leading up to this ANI dispute: "Thank you for your illustration, NYB. I am afraid, however, that it falls on deaf ears (referring to Jytdog's ears) for those who imagine themselves pure as the driven snow." at 12:56 pm, 13 June 2015 (UTC−7)

    I wish Jytdog would listen.

    "Jytdog I strongly suggest stepping away from COI issues until you have taken on board the community's concerns (expressed well by Risker) regarding your editing in the area, if you don't then I would not be surprised to see a topic ban proposed at AN/I." -User:Thryduulf at 3:33 am, 12 July 2015 (UTC−7)

    I wish Jytdog would listen or be given some quiet time to think about it, or made to heed this. Said topic ban is hereby proposed - probably where Jytdog got the idea to propose the same ban for me!

    --Elvey(t•c) 03:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Within the range of views that exist within WP -- which range from very strong opposition to editors with a COI even being part of the community, to opposition to dealing with COI at all and just focusing on content -- I have a moderate interpretation of COI - and above all a view centered on talking with people about what we all care about - namely good content. Additionally, we don't have a COI policy at all. We have a COI guideline. Elvey's post from its header on, is an incoherent ramble, cherry picked from various discussions, and a demonstration of what I mean about their lack of competence to discuss these things. Jytdog (talk) 05:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Elvey would you please add difs to your quotes above? I checked Risker's contribs and they made no comment at 12:56 pm, 13 June 2015. And, by the way, I took my time out as suggested at the Arbcom case that was declined with no action, and got some very helpful feedback. Jytdog (talk) 05:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've put a few asterisks next to a diff that provides what you requested, Jytdog. (And times are UTC−7.) Here it is again, since you're having trouble finding it:


    Jytdog was ***roundly critized by two longtime arbitrators for his extreme interpretations of our CoI policy and treatment of User:Snowded - none other than User:Risker, who is sick of him and User:Newyorkbrad.--Elvey(t•c) 06:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The harder you twist, the worse you look. The "sick of him" is especially ugly, as what Risker was sick of what Atsme and I going back and forth. What would be useful would be if you would promise to stop following me around, and stay away from COI issues, which you are making a mess of. Jytdog (talk) 08:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

    OK, if there's a consensus that I need to

    1. stop informing users who are told not to edit articles because they have a COI the truth - that the COI policy guideline only discourages users with a COI from editing but does not forbid it and
    2. Stop informing users that if it applies to them, they must comply with the ToU clauses requiring disclosure of FCoI, then I will stop doing so.

    If you think I should to stop doing that, or shouldn't, please indicate that below. But please also explain WHY I should or shouldn't stop doing so (optional). --Elvey(t•c) 06:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have already indicated it above. I can tell you from long personal experience of handling emails at OTRS, and as an admin for nearly ten years now, that your advice to these users is profoundly unhelpful and the most likely outcome of their following your advice is that they will end up blocked or banned. Guy (Help!) 12:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, so Guy is on record saying that users (this user at least) must not inform users who are told not to edit articles because they have a COI the truth - that the COI guideline only discourages users with a COI from editing but does not forbid it and users (this user at least) must not inform users that if it applies to them, they must comply with the ToU clauses requiring disclosure of FCoI. I hear you when you say that this true advice is nonetheless profoundly unhelpful. Anyone else agree? User:Jytdog? Say so here and I'll stop. --Elvey(t•c) 16:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That is mostly incorrect and incoherent, Elvey. I don't tell people not to edit articles; I ask them not to.
    And there are lots of perspectives in the community about how the ToU applies to editors with a COI. Some interpret the ToU as applying only narrowly to say freelancers who are literally paid to edit or create WP articles, and would not apply the ToU to a company employee writing about their company of their own volition. Others interpret the application of the ToU more broadly. Also, the ToU only requires disclosure - it says nothing about editing WP articles. Your discussion is all confused, and you are trying to draw lines through that stew. It can't be done. So I cannot affirm or deny what you write.
    I will say that your emphasizing what people with a COI can do (which is not clear in WP) instead of what they should do (which is clearly described in the COI guideline), is a destructive thing.
    And what is profoundly unhelpful is your fiercely bringing your confused ideas and your beef with me (whatever that is) into ongoing discussions with editors who have or may have a COI. What I have asked for, is for you to say away from me, and stay out of COI issues. Will you agree to do those two things? Jytdog (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I expect your behavior won't change, despite what Risker, Newyorkbrad and a dozen other folks have told you, so yes, I propose we avoid each other. I've offered the proposal in this section as a solution. Clearly there's lots of feedback for both of us here and on the huge thread on Risker's talk page on how we could improve our approach to COI issues. I intend to change my behavior accordingly, and you have said that you will too. Progress, I dare say? --Elvey(t•c) 17:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No progress. Your ideas still appear to be as confused as they were before and you have not acknowledged once here that you have made a hash of things in your pursuit of me. And again - you are following me around; if you stop doing that and let go, you will not find me in front of you anymore. I don't want to interact with you; the fixation is yours. And nothing new has been to said to me here about COI, nor have I said anything new. Everything you have brought here about me is stale and dealt with already. Please just agree to stay away from me and from COI issues. Jytdog (talk) 02:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment from sort of involved editor

    Interesting. I agree with Jytdog that Elvey is cherry picking (although he is not incoherent) and I am also strongly of the opinion that Jytdog has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. However I don't think Jytog has a moderate interpretation of COI. He has an assertive/bureaucratic approach to COI not a conversational one and acts (not just in my case) as if the guideline is policy. In the incident which gave rise to the above an article about a framework I created was subject to attack by a commercial rival. After a couple of rounds I (recognising my involvement) took the matter the Administrators Notice Board and an independent admin gave the offending editor an 'only warning' and the issue appeared resolved. Jytdog then arrived and the situation escalated for some time with multiple notices, postings, warnings and the like. In effect a guideline was acted on as if it was policy.

    Based on that experience and monitoring other COI notices by Jytog and others, I've been meaning to write up a suggested guideline for the COI notice board when I get time. But given this has been brought up I think there are a few points that it would be useful to discuss:

    1. Any editor getting involved in issuing a COI notice needs to make a very clear distinction between a 'paid' editor and one who has an interest in a page. There is a radical difference between getting the odd lecture or consultancy fee and being employed to directly edit Wikipedia.
    2. The COI notices used tend to take a all editors with any COI however remote are all sinners' approach which can have a chilling effect. We could do with two different notices: One for those paid and the other for those with some interest. In fact templating should be discouraged in the latter case
    3. It is clear that in respect of an academic framework the creator of that framework is also a subject matter expert. Any notice should make that clear. Asserting that an editor in this situation should not edit the article (per Jytdog) is not policy and should not be asserted as such
    4. In general any editor taking a COI monitoring role should exercise care not to (i) inflame a conflict and (ii) not to come across as a bureaucratic enforcement agent. In this case Jytdog could have acknowledged that I had not taken part in an edit war, despite the posting of a false statement, but had brought in a neutral admin pretty quickly. I asked him if he thought I had made any edits against policy and got no reply. I'm an experienced enough editor not to have taken offence but I can think of a few academic colleagues, not familiar with some the 'guideline bureaucracy culture' in some parts of Wikipedia might have taken it differently.

    So regardless of the cherry picking and/or Jytdog's accusation of incoherent rambling (not helpful) there is an issue for the community here. ----Snowded TALK 06:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This discussion belongs at WPT:COIN or WPT:COI not here. The issue is the editor's conduct towards each other, not the minutia of what the technical grounds of a policy are or are not. And we have a policy that no one really follows and there's little support for, then it's time for the policy to reflect reality not the other way around. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And at some stage I will move a more elaborate version of it there, but the comment was relevant in so far as it reflects a wider problem that undiscriminating COI enforcement can create. As to your comments on policy and reality, the solution to that is not the current COI practice which needs more development - then it might be possible for it to become policy. ----Snowded TALK 07:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Snowded Thanks for your remarks! The policy issues that came into play in our interaction were WP:NLT, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:BLPCOI (BLP applies to talk pages too) all related to your real world disputes with the other editor, that the two of you carried into WP. I have only run across a few (maybe three) situations where two editors, each with such clear COIs of their own, also were in conflict in the RW and carried that into WP. That is not a common situation - a double COI in a way (your own, and the conflict with the other editor, and the same for the other editor) - and my interactions with editors with potential or already-declared conflicts generally do not get near so intense; those three policy issues generally don't come into them. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 09:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you just further illustrate the point I was trying to make Jytdog. There was a RW conflict, what you failed to realise was that I had responded to the wikipedia conflict by pulling in a neutral admin to avoid escalation. You then arrived and created the conditions that allowed an unnecessary conflict to escalate. My points above about handling different types of COI was meant to try and prevent that sort of thing. It was made worse by your subsequent attempt (the Elvey extracts above) to challenge my right to even talk about the issue. Fortunately you were overruled by two former arbcom members. You continue to see COI as black and white rather than understanding the difference between paid editing and legitimate interest even subject matter expertise. Until you engage with the issue of the manner of your interactions you are going to end up in more conflicts. I can see that Elvey's behaviour is problematic, but so is yours. ----Snowded TALK 12:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Snowded, this is where COI issues get so difficult - even now you still seem unclear on your own COI. You have academic claims of ownership of the concept, you founded a company based on the concept and serve as CSO of that company and make money lecturing about it etc (direct financial interests) and you have an external conflict with another editor who has a competing company. If only the first were at play, our interactions would have been very, very different. As I wrote above, having two editors in conflict here in WP each with their own COIs and in RW conflicts with each other is rare, and you still don't seem to recognize how locked-in to that conflict you were. Also, I never challenged your right to talk about it - I thought you should disclose that you had a COI in articles you write about, when you posted at WT:COI. Risker disagreed with how I expressed that. Also, my views on COI are laid out on my Userpage and what you will find there, is very far from black and white. Finally, I highly value subject matter expertise in WP, in line with the wider WP community. Our very valuable essay on WP:EXPERT welcomes experts, and warns experts not to use WP as a platform to promote their own ideas and publications. That is how I treat experts as well, when that is the only issue. Look at my interactions with User:Gjboyle on their talk page, for example. The picture you are painting of me is not accurate. It is very much shaped by our difficult interaction which I have acknowledged I could have handled better. Jytdog (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I fully understand the exact nature of my interest in that article and the nature of the conflict. I go out of my way never to do a primary edit on either of the two articles I am associated with so the idea I am using wikipedia as a platform to promote my ideas is a nonsense. I have a framework which has revived multiple awards and citations therefore I have an interest in that article. I didn't found a company based on that concept, its one framework and our main focus is software. You've been told that but you don't listen. The fact that you refuse to see any different between that and a paid editor remains problematic. The fact that your response to any editor who disagrees with you on something is to tell them they don't understand their own position when you have at best surface knowledge is a problem. What you fail to see is that your attitude and method of engagement is a PART of the problem. So whatever your intentions you are creating problems. In the case it question it was your intervention that caused the conflict and you still can't see that. Now this is probably not going anywhere so having made the point I will leave it. I hope when I bring proposals on this to the COI notice board we can find a way to work together ----Snowded TALK 14:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Snowded. I did take a break from COI work per the advice at arbcom, and I did get valuable feedback on my talk page. I have heard, that I can come across too stridently. I have heard that. And we will probably continue to disagree about what happened at Cynefin article; I do acknowledge that I got too harsh there and was part of the problem; that is why I apologized. And as I wrote at Risker's page, there is a difference between paid editing and other forms of COI. Paid editing is a subset of COI which in turn is a subset of advocacy, and it is advocacy that shows up in bad WP content. The ToU apply only to paid editing. So please don't misrepresent me. I also ask you to reconsider your !vote above. Whatever you think about me, Elvey's behavior has been very out of line. Jytdog (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (Belated requests: Jytdog, stop attacking Snowded here. It's derailing the discussion. Snowded, don't feel the need to defend yourself here.) Jytdog says above, "I have heard, that I can come across too stridently. I have heard that." I am happy to hear that. However this diff and the interactions Snowded points to suggest the behavior hasn't improved. That recent threatening of a new user with an indefinite ban like that appears to be calculated to maximize Chilling Effects. That's why I got involved. But apparently, consensus is building (as shown by the support votes here) that those chilling effects are just dandy and I'm not to interfere. --Elvey(t•c) 17:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He isn't attacking we have a difference of opinion. I seriously suggest you just back off for a bit. At the moment a few of us think that this should just be left and there is no need for an interaction ban or a topic ban. I still think that but if you get into a Battleground mentality some sort of restriction will be needed. Per my suggestion on your talk page I think you should just stop for a bit and ping me or another editor if you something is wrong and we can look at it. ----Snowded TALK 18:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ban from all COI-related discussions for Elvey. This is an issue of WP:CIVIL and WP:OUTING policy not COI. Elvey doesn't care about the COI policy, and just seems to use the COI policy as an excuse to lord it over people that have identified themselves in some way. If the dispute is about WP:COI policy, then the discussion belongs as that talk page not at ANI (or at WPT:COIN). Arguments about policy here aren't going to go anywhere. Here, we can discuss your individual ability to respond to potential COI issues and how in particular you act with each person you have concerns about. The problem is Elvey seems to use potential COI issues as an excuse to attack people. If you can't be civil with potential issues, then you'll be stopped to prevent extra work for the rest of us. This comment is less about COI issue and is based someone using their ability to know a person's identity to make a snide off-topic uncivil remark. There was no discussion about drug pricing, not even something that the representative brought up, just an excuse for Elvey for start a fight. This discussion is basically the same as WP:OUTING people to win fights. Frankly, Elvey is getting close to WP:OUTING issues and I think an outright indefinite block may be needed if the editor insists on just hunting around for fights. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The issue User:Snowded raised and you seem to want to pretend doesn't exist, Ricky, is that of Jytdog's uncivil behavior toward me, Snowded and many others. Don't try to hand wave it away as off topic for ANI. Holy shit! There are 113 mentions of Jytdog's name on this page, and only half of them are in this ("HOUNDING by Elvey") section. Jytdog seems to live here.--Elvey(t•c) 07:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Snowded, I extracted the relevant comments from a single conversation. If that's cherry picking, then I picked cherries.

    Yes, he acts as if it's policy that an editor must not edit an article if they have a CoI. There is no such policy. But that's not all. There's no such guideline EITHER! There's been a HUGE push to get the COI guideline changed to say that an editor must not edit an article if they have a CoI - there have been 4 huge, formal RfC campaigns. But they didn't succeed. I voted for 'em. But it's dishonest to go around deceiving people into believing CoI says what it'd say if one of those campaigns had been successful. so I don't do it.

    1. Yes! I mistook one for the other recently, but unlike some users, I'm willing to recognize my mistakes.
    2. Yes! I recently proposed a new template just for when a FCoI disclosure notice is not adequate.
    3. Absolutely!
    4. Yes, I tried to do that when I approached DocJames, and he was entirely cordial in response (though perhaps he's infallibly cordial). I still got attacked here for doing so. Refusing to address the concerns I've raised other than to dismiss them as "incoherent" is not in accord with policy, which requires that users respond when reasonable concerns are raised.

    Thanks for piping up. --Elvey(t•c) 07:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    No, I do not behave as though it is policy. Most people, when approached respectfully and informed about the COI guideline and its advice, are happy to comply. Which has been a really pleasant part of the doing the COI work. Even editors with a COI understand that if WP lacks integrity, the public will stop trusting it, and it will become useless for people to learn anything about whatever their external interest is. Jytdog (talk) 09:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I genuinely don't think you intent to behave as if it was policy, but having looked at your interactions not only in my case but others I think you come across that way. Fast templating, assertive statements without qualification; threats of ANI referral; all create that impression. Your call if you want to listen to that or not. ----Snowded TALK 12:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Snowded, I tell people I will bring them to ANI when they violate policy and I have some actual case to make here. I have not told anyone I would bring them to ANI for a COI issue per se. I never assert that someone actually has a COI unless they have already disclosed it. I do make assertions about behavior and editing that are always 100% supportable. I do ask questions. I do ask people to follow the COI guideline. I did get way too hot with you and with Atsme, for sure, for different reasons. I apologized to both of you. I did push too hard there. Jytdog (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK thanks for the acknowledgement it gives a way forward. I would suggest that saying that if someone doesn't do what you want you will take them to ANI and that you have a successful track record is probably an intervention of LAST resort. Better to explore understanding of what has happened and policy before jumping to the threat :-) ----Snowded TALK 14:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Your sarcasm is not helping Snowded. Elvey, I'm not particularly concerned about any incivility towards you. I'm concerned about you attacking other editors out of the blue under the justification of "good intentions" to advocate for the COI policy. Again, I look at the Kaiser talk page post and see someone who seems out to find a fight to win. Everything else falls from that. Are you capable of offering a moderate incremental discussion (namely, if you think there's a problem (a) post a discussion on the article in question; (b) bring it up at COI; or (c) at the very least communicate to the people you accuse without presuming their guilt ahead of time) or is it just "let me do what I can or else I can do nothing at all"? WP:OUTING is a policy too and I've never felt that harassing individuals to protect us from some hypothetical COI is a long-term solution. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Policy status

    Elvey is right that the COI guideline is a guideline not a policy. It offers guidance for users on how to edit a subject in which they have a vested interest. He is wrong, however, to assert that ti does not have the force of policy. In fact, the COI guideline exists to help people avoid a global site ban from all WMF websites. The WMF Terms of Use say:

    These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

    — Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use

    Obviously there is scope for Elvey to wikilawyer about the precise meaning of compensation, but policies are interpreted using Clue, not weaselly lawyer speak. Anyone who edits in a way that may result in personal gain, or who edits Wikipedia on their employer's dollar (i.e. while at work) risks falling foul of this bright line rule.

    The guideline has another very important purpose.

    Any company or individual who edits Wikipedia with an undisclosed conflict of interest, risks substantial reputational damage. We have seen this already with the congressional editing scandal.

    I wrote the boilerplate guidance to company representatives at OTRS, I also wrote the guidance to BLP subjects, and both of them make the same point: in order to protect your reputation and preserve your rights to edit, we strongly recommend that you follow the COI guidelines, which are designed to ensure transparency and facilitate engagement with the Wikipedia community to ensure rapid resolution of issues you might have with an article.

    It's there for a reason. Elvey clearly does not understand that reason. Perhaps, having read this, he might. Guy (Help!) 12:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    So, in short, no, he still doesn't. I reiterate my support for a restriction. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd promise to stop asserting the foolishness you say I'm asserting, and so forth, but it would be very much like promising to stop beating my wife. You insist on grossly misrepresenting my position. What part of "I agree, users should follow the COI guidelines" do you not understand? That was and remains my stated position. Please stop mislabeling opinions that aren't mine. Shame on you for that. I'm a human being. Have you no shame?--Elvey(t•c) 02:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Jytog, you said last month, "Risker expressed objections and I took feedback on board and have adjusted how I operate." so how have you done that. I see no change, specifically: Risker told Jytdog, "The ToU doesn't say what you think it says." at 10:02 am, 13 June 2015 (UTC−7) HOW has your understanding of what the ToU says changed?--Elvey(t•c) 02:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    Go to WP:COI for any further discussion. This tangent is not going anywhere. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    COI needs updating or clarification

    I'd recommend ya'll go to WP:COI, as it is the core of the above disagreements. GoodDay (talk) 12:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:COI is clear enough, the issue is Elvey's idiosyncratic interpretation of it. Guy (Help!) 12:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The core of this ANI thread is Elvey's unacceptable behavior. Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If my interpretation is idiosyncratic, why is Risker getting on Jytdog's case about his misinterpretation? GoodDay is right - WP:COI is NOT clear enough. All these arguments are very strong evidence of that. If I'm wrong for telling people the truth about what WP:COI says, then surely that's damn good evidence that WP:COI needs to change to say that Paid advocates must not engage in direct article editing. Unfortunately attempts to change it to say that have failed, and attempts to get ArbCom to help (by others; I haven't tried) have fallen flat. Right, User:Coretheapple? --Elvey(t•c) 17:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, not accurate. It is not clear what Risker's current stance on me is. Risker expressed objections and I took feedback on board and have adjusted how I operate. Please stop bringing up stale issues. And your confusion and your hounding and disruptive behavior, does not mean there is a problem with the guideline. Jytdog (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:COI should be put up for WP:MFD. Writing for Wikipedia is analogous to how scientists contribute to review articles, you must base everything on reliable sources, you cannot do original research. Your peers will check if what you write is up to standards. Now, in some less reliable discipines like e.g. medical science, you do have a problem with COI, authors are required to declare them in articles. But Wikipedia is much more like a hard science discipline like physics than a softer science like medicine. Count Iblis (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "WP:COI should be put up for WP:MFD." Poppycock. If anything it should be stiffened and made policy. BMK (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Which would mean that anonymous editing would have to end, editors would have to submit their CV's the WMF as part of a formal application to become editor here. Admins would have access to the submitted documents to check if the editors are sticking to the COI policy. Count Iblis (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, there's no correlation between "stiffening COI" and IP editing having to end, that's pretty much a straw man, nor do any of the other dire results you predict follow in any logical way from the premise - it's all pretty much hyperbole, innit?. However I will say frankly that the project would be much better off if IP editing had been ended many years ago, since its downside far out weighs its upside, and it's mostly still here for political/philosophical reasons that have no relevance to the reality of life in the trenches. BMK (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I would end IP editing as well for similar reasons. It means people can too readily hide an interest. But it is also the case that in many articles enforcement of the COI as interpreted by most of its enthusiasts would mean that subject matter experts were confined to requesting changes to articles from patrolling COI bureaucrats which would be equally disruptive. Banning ALL paid editing, restricting University projects to drafts that would then be reviewed would all be more helpful activities. Key is to stop the one size fits all COI approach currently being practiced and advocated. ----Snowded TALK 05:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Community sanction proposal - Community Patience Exhausted by Elvey

    Proposed:

    Elvey has exhausted the patience of the community and is topic banned from COI, broadly construed. This sanction may be appealed to the community in six months.

    Kwamikagami: personal attacks, incivility, and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior at Talk:Tagalog

    NO ACTION
    Accusation of hypocrisy withdrawn. Discussion, which should remain civil, is ongoing at the Talk:Tagalog page. There is nothing to be gained by further dialog here.  Philg88 ♦talk 06:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Kwamikagami has been engaging in personal attacks and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior in a move request he started at Talk:Tagalog. The most egregious personal attack is this, but incivility and battleground behavior has been par for the course,[172][173] including in his RM proposal.[174] This is besides the fact that he started this move request immediately after the last one closed, and after move warring. I asked him to remove the personal attack, at least,[175] but he just doubled down on it.[176] Someone needs to step in.--Cúchullain t/c 18:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I was advised to start a new move request to reverse the original one, which was closed with little input and violates both consensus and WP guidelines, and is opposed by all linguists who have commenetd. Now that I have gone through the proper channels, Cúchullain objects that I'm being disruptive. He is being a hypocrite: not just a 'heads I win, tails you lose' mentality for following process, but he's demanding levels of evidence that were never required for the original move. Perhaps what I should have done was have ANI review the original move. — kwami (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You were advised to go through the proper channels rather than move warring, which is what you did before. Now you've started an RM in the most disruptive way possible: opening it immediately after the last one closed while attacking and antagonizing people who disagree with you. This needs to stop, now.--Cúchullain t/c 18:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you talking about? I was advised to go through proper channels, so I did. Now you're attacking me for going through proper channels. Can't you see how that makes you a hypocrite? And who are these "people" that I'm attacking, beside calling you out? You're an admin -- if the proper way to address a badly closed move was to have it reviewed at ANI, then you should have said so, but I was told to open a new move request, and that is what I did. — kwami (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You're seriously making more personal attacks in an ANI report addressing your personal attacks? And you seriously don't see what is wrong with your combative behavior in the discussion?--Cúchullain t/c 18:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Objecting to obnoxious behaviour is not a personal attack. I did inadvertently make one, when I called you a hypocrite, and that I retracted. You've had several impolite things to say about me -- does that make you guilty as well? It's your behaviour that's inappropriate, not you as a person. That's an important distinction to make, or no-one would be able to criticize anyone's behaviour without it being a "personal attack", and you would not be able to file this complaint without being sanctioned yourself.
    Also, others on the discussion page have called you out on being a hypocrite while avoiding the word. I'm not the only one who has a problem with you behaving in bad faith.[177][178] — kwami (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not use personal attacks in response to this report, it does not help your case and makes you look disruptive. As far as Cuchullain's behavior, I will look over it and see what needs to be done. --wL<speak·check> 19:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    From the first your behavior has been unacceptably uncivil and disruptive, and it continues even here at ANI. You need to step back, either voluntarily or otherwise.--Cúchullain t/c 19:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He redacted his attack. And I'll assume he won't bring another one up. If all else fails in regards to the page move, I recommend a possible request for comment, but I would respect the result of the previous one, as consensus usually doesn't change so soon, and a quick re-list may be seen as illustrating a point. --wL<speak·check> 20:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm unclear which consensus you are referring to in the previous comment, WikiLeon--the long-standing consensus that respects WP:NCLANG and the opinions of actual linguists, or the recent one that neither respects WP:NCLANG nor includes any linguists because the bot used to initiate it failed to list it at WP:LANG. Every linguist on the current RM supports the move back to the previous, long-standing and compliant consensus. --Taivo (talk) 01:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lord knows I don't always agree with Kwamikagami, and I would really love to know how one officially gets listed as a linguist here, but this complaint is quite tendentious, and brining the matter to ANI because Cuchullain thinks Tagalog is special and the Tagalog language convention should not be applied as it is with every other language article I watch is simply puerile. This complaint should be closed and the move Tagalog > Tagalog language should be made forthwith. μηδείς (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    The Inbetweeners infobox

    And that is that. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 22:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi, the infobox on the page The Inbetweeners has been vandalised, but it didn't happen in a recent edit. I don't really have the time or know how to find where the damage was done, or to undo it, so I thought I would post a notice here. I'm sorry if it's the wrong place, I'm not really a Wikipedia editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.120.209 (talk) 21:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Reverted to last good version, thanks for reporting this. Sam Walton (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Can someone review the half dozen open protected page requests at Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films

    Resolved. The full protection has expired. Non admins can now address the concerns. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Can someone review the half dozen open protected page edit requests at Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films? the fanboys are having apoplectic fits that the daily box office numbers have not been updated. Thanks! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    And over the languages of a particular film. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    As much as I will hate the eventual outrage that will follow, I did it myself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Tom991

    (non-admin closure) Seems to be handled for the time being.
    Godsy talk 06:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Tom991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On Worcester Fire Department:. User has repeatedly been disruptive. Despite attempts to assume good faith, the user constantly feels attacked and "fights back":

    • [179]
    • [180]
    • [181]
    • [[182]] (An additional case which involved a different user that Tom991 left a message for)

    Most recently the user made an unexplained content removal which I reverted with a clear edit summary.([183]) The user immediate undid my reversion and accused me of harassment. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • From a quick glance at their talk page, they've been warned for the addition of unsourced content, not using edit summaries, and disruptive editing. They could definitely use some general guidance on normal editing procedures, policies, and perhaps civility.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Need guidance from Check Users

    To the extent this was a legitimate question to begin with, which is dubious, there's nothing left to discuss here. This forum is not a checkuser school.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I found some IP vandals whose IPs were very very similar to my IP range. Now if that user opens account, we will have same IP addresses or range. Is there any way, so that I can avoid being wrongly blocked. I do hope Check User tools are advanced. For two days, I was not able to open my Wikipedia account as the entire range was blocked for two weeks by some administrator/check user. The block is going to be lifted tomorrow.

    My plan is that I will not delete my browsing history and cookies which will let CU know I am not him/her. But sometimes I will have to clear my browser cache. Right now I am commenting from a Net café, as my ISP is not allowed to edit Wikipedia. I was reading about sockpuppetry pages. If he is my neighbor and use the IP range for vandalism, then there must be some way prove we are different Human beings.--5.150.254.79 (talk) 11:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    To paraphrase Smith & Dale's old joke, "Doctor, I get mistaken for a vandal when I edit logged out!" "Well don't edit logged out then!" What are you going to do if you get hit by another collateral rangeblock? Anyway, how do we know you're not just a vandal lying to us? We don't! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Why don't you create an account? If so, an IP block won't affect you. Now that your IP address isn't blocked, you should, among other things, be able to create an account. Since the IP range has been blocked, you may want to create an account from another ISP. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert McClenon (talk) Someone in that Cybercafe must have done something. I had to walk 10 minutes to reach another place. the question is not about changing ISP, If there is a vandal using the same Ip range, how to convince the Check Users that I am not him. VampireHunters (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears that you did succeed in creating an account, at least if you are the former 5.150.254.79. So the question is now whether the range is hard-blocked or soft-blocked, and usually an IP range is soft-blocked so that registered editors in good standing can use it. In that case, you no longer have a CheckUser issue. What the CheckUser did was to find that the 5.150.254 range was being used for block evasion, and they blocked it, but a soft block doesn't apply to registered users. Can a CheckUser verify that what I am saying is correct? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Jazz Stewart

    So been extending good faith to this editor for a couple months now, most recently [about a week ago]. I've attempted to engage this editor previously [185], article talk page, their talkpage again and finally today. UNtil today there has been no response to me but their responses to other editors have been Hahaha. LOL, Nt again U FUFF!!! OMG, SPARE ME.. really, i ddnt knw, thnx 4 infrmg me BTW, LOL, you (DMLS), Is that true? OMG... . Today after reverting some things they decided to template me for WP:OWN issues and then after that a diva, it was partially my error because the source had been updated to show Boston University which has been a problem in the past but also restored problematic edits as well such as films that haven't completed filming yet despite instructions not to do so in the editing box. I was asked for a source [[186]] which I provided, they objected and I found another source [[187]] but was met with [bad faith accusations]. I'm thinking there are language WP:COMPETENCE issues, an inability to collaborate and the time has come for a longer term block or a topic ban from the subject. A short example of language competence issues can be this [188], I directly state it wasn't likely they were a sock [189] however part of the behaviors that we are seeing are reminiscent of a banned User:Smauritius which is what Krimuk was asking. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I still think Hell in the Bucket is rationalizing the facts here. He is the one who is not cooperating with. The issue here is about the supporting role in a male dominated film. Kapoor played the lead female. Hell in The Bucket who had listed it here, i simply reverted it because i found it dubious. When i had asked about source, he presented himself with these [[190]] and [[191]]. Both are explicit content in different websites. He did not provide the reliable source to prove his cause. When i had asked in the talk page he refused to cooperate and filed an ANI on baseless reasons. Again there are not any source of her to play supporting role. Despite, persistent rejection about my contribution by Hell, i had never engaged in any edit war. On the contrary i had represented another version again and again. Just view the source it is clearly stated that Sonam Kapoor disagreed Shraddha Kapoor's lead role in film Haider. This is the only thing that i just want to clear out with Hell but he does not want. JazzStewart मला चर्चा? 16:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are saying that multiple editors who have expressed concern with your editing habits are all wrong. I count at least five User:Krimuk90, User:Prymshbmg, User:KoshVorlon, the blocking admin User:EdJohnston and myself are all wrong? That's a lot of long term editors for all of us to be wrong. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    When you guys had intervened did i argued or engaged in any particular edit war. No, i didn't. The only thing i had done is improving myself in a different version right. I am not lying Hell. Because somehow i felt that you guys were right. The most recent incident is about the ABCD 2 box office collection and now it is about the supporting role. You are actually the one who are taking thing too personal. JazzStewart मला चर्चा? 17:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's pretty clear that this isn't about one incident but a collection of behaviors. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, unveil yourself with explicit and dept evidence as you are accusing. Which collection of behaviors are you talking about? JazzStewart मला चर्चा? 17:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's documented above and in detail on your talkpage. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hell, i highly believe that, when you are complaining something, you should complain with a vicious experience that you had went through. Not by dragging another conversation of another user and trying to use this against me to support your cause. If you are indicating about the shorthand phrases such as (Nt again U FUFF!!! OMG, SPARE ME.. really, i ddnt knw, thnx 4 infrmg me BTW, LOL, you (DMLS), Is that true? OMG,) let me tell you that the following users who i had exercised with they did not have any issue, so what care you so much. And also if you find all these things malicious, why you have not intervene before. JazzStewart मला चर्चा? 17:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not an accurate statement, here is one example [[192]]. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Again explicit yourself. What atrocious behavior do you found in the act? JazzStewart मला चर्चा? 17:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to let the editors here and admin draw their own conclusions. I've stated why and honestly your responses here only support the premise. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think i should do the same thing. By the way, don't take anything too personal. Thank you. JazzStewart मला चर्चा? 17:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This is where the issue arrives, there are positive things that JS brings to the table and some of these things can just be growing pains as an editor. I am hesitant on a long term block, the topic ban temporarily seems to be the best option but I'd also recommend that maybe a mentorship happen. I've looked and there is some possibility this is Smaritius, if it is even with the ban I've seen enough positive moves that they should ask for reinstatement under those terms and resume editing. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]

    OK I have now had the chance to look into this now. Jazz, if I'm honest, the comments you are making on your talk page are coming across as trolling and it did come across as a bit uncoperative because you have only recently started responding to Hell's comments. You have previously been blocked for edit warring and there comes a time when we have to question competency to edit the encyclopaedia. At the moment, I agree with Hell, that you would benefit from some mentorship and that you should be topic banned until whoever decides to mentor you decides that you can edit competently.--5 albert square (talk) 22:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Removing TfD discussion template

    And that takes care of that... (non-admin closure) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Question: Should the TfD deletion discussion template stay on the template for the duration of the TfD like it does for AfDs? See Template:Doctor Who episode list history, where the template has been removed. Thanks.. JMHamo (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    AlexTheWhovian (talk · contribs) has self reverted now, but I would still like to know if the discussion template should stay for the duration of the TfD? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently something that you can easily post on a user's wall is now worthy of an ANI report. The more you know, the more you know. Alex|The|Whovian 16:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's nothing personal against you AlexTheWhovian. I don't know who is right in this instance... JMHamo (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not uncommon that the notice is removed after a week has passed with prominent templates. The TfD notice is an eyesore. Alakzi (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't it possible to use "<noinclude> ... </noinclude>" around the template so it stays there for notification but doesn't show in transclusions? Mr Potto (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It is. Alakzi (talk) 21:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Works for me. Implemented. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Editing restrictions

    After agreement between the three editors, the editing restrictions between The Rambling Man, Baseball Bugs, and Medeis are removed by community consensus. KrakatoaKatie 03:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello all. I'm currently under an edit restriction with Baseball Bugs and Medeis. I have requested advice from Arbcom on the best way to seek to relieve the restrictions, and I have finally been redirected back to the community to decide. My proposal is clear: I would like all editing restrictions between the three of us to be removed. I have undergone some scrutiny lately, rightly so, and both Baseball Bugs and Medeis have acted towards me with a level of courteous respect that I have found humbling. Baseball Bugs, not long ago, asked for the restrictions between he and I to be removed, and I reacted negatively. As per advice from Arbcom, this is a community matter, and as per the edit restriction, I can't communicate directly with Baseball Bugs or Medeis, so I have to take any request here. To my counter-restricted, I would offer an apology for any upset I have caused over the past few years. To the community who sanctioned the restriction, I can only offer a guarantee that from my perspective things will never get as heated or as counter-productive as they did prior to the restriction. Thanks for your time and energy in advance. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note that I have not notified Baseball Bugs or Medeis of this discussion in advance, I hope they take it in the same good faith that they have afforded me in their generous comments over the past few weeks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support removing restrictions-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If all three parties request the lifting of restrictions, then they should be lifted. If there is one hold-out, then no. --Pete (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, if Medeis agrees as well, removing this WP:IBAN is a no brainer. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If Medeis does not agree then only the interaction bans involving Medeis should remain in force. Count Iblis (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - I would be very happy to have this restriction lifted. I am convinced that it is no longer needed. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support assuming Medeis is not opposed to it. -- KTC (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, I see no reason to oppose the lifting between Bugs and TRM. Pending a respons from Medeis, no reason to oppose the lifting of that one either. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, and I would advice all 3 to defect from the Ref Desk to StackExchange, as you can see from my contributions there, it's a much more productive place than the Ref Desks here, you don't have all these negative interactions between users going on that provoke all these problems that we see on the Ref Desk here. Once editors don't get along somewhere they are likely to fight with each other elsewhere too. So, it's perhaps best to just close down the Ref Desks. Count Iblis (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    support due to passage of time if nothing else. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support for both if and only if both agree. As Bugs has agreed, the ban should be lifted IRT him. If Medeis does not agree, or does not comment here, then that ban should remain in effect. BMK (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    About SPT

    This incident was talked here a couple of weeks ago. It is about an edit-war at Standard Penetration Test. With BMK'help, Argyriou and I were supposed to discuss the matter at the talk page. I left my comments. He replied once and again deleted my writing, and he has not responded after that. I have tried my best to be civil. I mailed him to answer my replies; I promised him that I would edit my writings if he gives me valid reasons so I asked him to put back my writing. I have no intention to start another edit-war so I left my deleted writing as is.
    I checked Wikipedia:Consensus. It says "Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions. Consensus cannot always be assumed simply because editors stop responding to talk page discussions in which they have already participated."
    I believe my comments in the talk page is fairly reasonable. His unwillingness to have a healthy discussion seems to be self-explanatory to me. I have been under suspicion that for some reason - and that is not based on neutral point of view nor fairness - Argyriou does not want my writings and PWRI source link to be exposed to the public, and I think it is safe to say that is the case. To me his action has been vandalism and taking my advantage. Since this incident has been talked here, I felt this is the proper place to ask for gurus' guidance. Thank you. Yoshi123Yoshi (talk) 00:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    As far as I can see, there is no edit war at this time, and therefore no need for admin action, just an ordinary content dispute. You think you're right, Argyou thinks you're wrong. If you and Argyiou cannot reach a consensus, then, as I suggested earlier, you should avail yourself of one of the various WP:Dispute resolution mechanisms and go from there. BMK (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Against my advice, rather than seeking out dispute resolution, you have once again tried to force your material into the Standard penetration test article, when you know that another editor is firmly opposed to it. This kind of behavior is why I originally reported you here as an POV-pushing single purpose account. If your behavior continues, I wouldn;t be at all surprised if an admin decides to block you for WP:tendentious editing. BMK (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Original AN/I report is here BMK (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yoshi continues to add his SPA bullshit to the Standard Penetration Test article, degrading the usefulness of the article. I have attempted to point out to him why his stupid shit is stupid, and I've had it. Someone block him. Argyriou (talk) 03:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:45.49.33.171

    The aforementioned user was blocked for 2½ days for telling Discospinster to go 'fuck herself' for changing his edits on the Ghostbusters article. You'd think that would present ample reason to not do the very same thing less than a week later on another user's page].. Yet this special little snowflake has again created a toxic environment for editing. I posted on the anon's page, thinking that their comment on Darkknight2149's page was a single occurrence. It was not. This is clearly a pattern.
    We have tried the carrot. We have tried the stick. Might we now try the hammer? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    What Jack Sabastian just said is indeed correct. While I wasn't aware of the Ghostbusters incident until now, essentially what had happened with the more recent incident was that the anonymous user was angry that I reverted a random, unsourced claim he/she made to Mad Hatter (comics). Rather than responding rationally or productively, the user decided to verbally harass and threaten me. Darkknight2149 (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Last message to Darknight2149 is unacceptable – Admins, please nuke this IP from orbit, and consider revdel'ing as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    "Gotten" by Acroterion – 3 months block. Haven't checked on the revdels yet... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Nuked and revdel'd. This appears to be a relatively static IP, so the duration is extended to match the offense. Acroterion (talk) 02:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Acroterion I think this should also be revdeled. Supdiop (Talk🔹Contribs) 02:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (Repinging Acroterion, as Supdiop's ping likely didn't go through – @Acroterion:) If that happens, it'll be the first time an entry of mine will have been revdeled... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of curiosity, under what conditions are comments 'revdeled'? I would totally understand if it was a matter of hate/racist speech or outing someone's ID, but do ass-clownish commentary qualify? Not knowing what the special little snowflake said, I've can't actually judge. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case, there was a hypothetical threat of violence. Blackmane (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for the clarification, Blackmane. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Political Bias of User:Cailil

    Cailil, often an admin within the The Troubles dispute has once again taken one political position over another. He has recently threatened to ban and block me once again here yet has sought to ignore the users who have provoked and harassed me. I had presented evidence of users harrassing me over a number of months here, yet he has ignored their efforts. To note that User:Scolaire had taken to [ANI] a number of weeks ago in an attempt to have me blocked, conveniently leaving out a few items from the timeline. No action was taken. I wish for an uninvolved admin to review the actions taken by other users and the actions taken by myself and ask yourself why Cailil is only warning me with a block?Dubs boy (talk) 03:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Dubs boy, you are off to a wrong start. You forgot to notify the admin of this thread per regulations here. I have done so for you. Remember this next time. Callmemirela {Talk} ♑ 03:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I just did.Dubs boy (talk) 03:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I just seen your edit. Give a guy a chance.Dubs boy (talk) 03:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    * Does this need to go to the ARBCOM board? It won't be pretty though. Dubs boy, is it possible for you to believe that Cailil legitimately believes you weren't being harassed? Do you have a response for the contention that you decided to re-insert clearly trolling comments by other users (that isn't the other side did it first)? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Just one small clarification: you will see from Dubs boy's link that I did not come to AN/I "in an attempt to have him blocked", I came to ask that he be asked to stop harassing me. Minor difference. Scolaire (talk) 11:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Bullshit. Scolaire omitted a number of key events at ANI in an attempt to have me blocked. Foul play.Dubs boy (talk) 13:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This all started 10 months ago. Cailil gave me a warning for calling User:HighKing a sock. For the record, HighKing is a sock. So I received a warning for calling a spade, a spade. Fair enough.

    I assumed that if someone were to act in the same manor towards me that a similar warning would be brought on them. I raised 3 edits from Murry1975(a user who frequently collaborates with HighKing on Troubles disputes) calling me a sock. So I raised these issues with Cailil here but no action was taken. Surely Murry1975 was in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS? Why was I warned but not Murry1975?

    At this point I thought that my warning must have been a token gesture. Fast forward a number of months and forgetting this warning, I did make reference to HighKing’s socking past at Talk:Derry. He subsequently reported me to Cailil. Cailil contacted Ricky81682 seeking advice and claiming that I was in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS using these edits as evidence:

    1. [193],[194]– I made the mistake of thinking that HighKing was topic banned from The Troubles but in actual fact it is British Isles. The 2 though are intrinsically link so understandable why I got them mixed up. That is not casting aspersions. HighKing is topic banned.
    2. [195] – I made reference to HighKing socking past. He hasn’t edited in 3 months yet turns up out of the blue to aid his friend Scolaire in an attempt to have me blocked. I just thought it was odd.
    3. [196] – a response to Scolaire claiming how many Unionist and Nationalist editors there were. Surely that is WP:ASPERSIONS in itself?

    If these are in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS then I would of thought Cailil would also need to speak to User:Bastun about these comments, a user who has been linked with HighKing in the past

    This coupled with attempts by U:Scolaire, assisted by HighKing to have me blocked by skewing the evidence. Thankfully no action was taken against me but having presented evidence on Scolaire, no action was taken against him. I just need to know if everyone but me is immune in The Troubles area? If you are to ban me then you will also have to ban Bastun, Murry1975 and Scolaire. Though Murry1975 has not been seen since receiving a warning for removing comments at an SPI.

    I just want to know why the rules of Wikipedia only apply to me despite instances of users taking the same action as myself?Dubs boy (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk about your actions rather than focusing on the actions of others for the moment. The battleground mentality of what the "other side" is receiving is not helping your cause. I'm split on whether you honestly care about the name at Derry or just keep arguing it to try to get the other side riled up enough so they get blocked and you can dance on their grave or something. Is arguing about the number of ANI notices really going to get someone to change the name of the article? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The "other side" isn't receiving anything, not a single warning so thats a non issue. My point is that if Cailil is to warn me or ban me then he must also warn or ban those who have taken the same actions as myself. That is just not happening. Remember that I raised this notice at ANI because I felt like I was being unfarely treated. If I and those who have acted in the same manor are blocked then there will be no grave dancing because both sides will have been dealt with in the same way.
    As for arguing over the number of ANI notices. Yes, it was worth arguing because it goes against WP:ASPERSIONS, when Scolaire sought to discredit my position by highlighting an unrelated ANI notice at the Talk:Derry page, however did not do the same with this notice because it was "personal". I call bullshit.Dubs boy (talk) 05:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The name convention of Londonderry is important to me on a personal level. The current convention goes against 1 of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia. But neutrality has been ignored for too long and anyone daren't question the naming convention or face being beat with the auld WP:CONSENSUS or WP:COMMONNAME stick.Dubs boy (talk) 05:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Pointing out there's a discussion isn't an aspersion issue but nevertheless, I collapsed that particular line of argument. Otherwise, the "I'm the only neutral person in the universe" routine isn't assuming good faith. I'm hoping the ban will get you to drop it but if you can't, you'll end up blocked and we'll move on because most people in the last decade have not thought one ounce about the title of that article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban for Dubs Boy

    • Better yet, WP:BOOMERANG this let's cut to the chase. Propose topic banning Dubs boy from the article Derry. The editor's main conduct for close to six weeks is arguing at Talk:Derry about changing the name of the article starting with this snark. Let's try to see if we can avoid a full TROUBLE ban in place of a single article. If the editor is incapable of that, well, we are where we are. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Pincrete, There was a reason for removing that comment. It was deemed a personal attack given that it was unrelated to the topic. Notice that Scolaire did not raise the previous ANi notice at Talk:Derry, so why then did he feel the need to mention this one other than to discredit me? Its foul play, is what it is.Dubs boy (talk) 20:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing a valid notice is disruptive, repeating the act when politely asked not to, doubly so, but that is only today. The discusion on talk goes round and round in circles with spurious invalidations of every other editor's opinion, the equine quadruped is terminally inactive, its sufferings are over.Pincrete (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Pincrete, It was me who brought this notice to ANI, not Scolaire, and it was not as the result of Talk:Derry. This was a personal matter so for Scolaire to add this issue to Talk:Derry is clearly an attempt to discredit me. Scolaire tried to have me banned at ANI. His attempts failed and he made no reference of it at Talk:Derry. I've asked him [why] he did this but I already know the answer.Dubs boy (talk) 21:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As Scolaire says above, there was no request to have you topic banned, but this is not the place, I, found the removal disruptive when done once, unforgivable when repeated.Pincrete (talk) 06:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the page is move-protected so DB can't page move war. My point was about the conduct at the Talk:Derry page move discussions (DB has done some small editing on the page itself) because the vast majority of the edits have either been at the talk page about moving the page or at with Cailil about Talk:Derry. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin rights abuse

    Frivolous accusation of wrongdoing. Vincenzo should learn to work more constructively with others instead of making ridiculous accusations against others he disagrees with. The Dissident Aggressor 19:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Admin Shirt58 is controversial about my opinion in the matters of title spelling The Mackintosh Man or The MacKintosh Man. He uses his admin rights to decline speedy deletion of The MacKintosh Man-redirect, uses most strangest justifications for his declines - some of them have nothing to do with the movie or the contents of the movie article(s) (e.g. raincoat trademarks). After that he re-edited again with sources weaker than the movie itself but still he is not taking part in the discussion of the content. Thus he is part of the controversy, but he is not going into discussion but is still using his admin rights to make edits and thus taking decisions in this matter. If he is part of a controversy with another user he has not the right to use his admin rights to overrule another user - especially after he is not taking part in the content's discussion. This disqualifies himself for the use of his admin rights and also as an admin he has not the right to reign over other users but he is behaving like this to make his edits the ones that are used for the article(s). This is an abuse of his admin rights. VINCENZO1492 04:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You're going to have to provide diffs as evidence of an abuse of admin privileges. Blackmane (talk) 05:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Since removing a speedy tag is not something only admins are allowed to do, there is no admin abuse here. In any case, I have declined a speedy deletion of the The MacKintosh Man redirect since the page move is not uncontested. Please start a move request at Talk:The Mackintosh Man, so that others can weigh in and the consensus judged by an uninvoled editor/admin. Abecedare (talk) 05:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've posted to the page giving a bit of what Shirt58 might have meant by his edits, plus I've given Vincenzo a warning about assuming good faith. His tone here and on the other pages really comes fairly close to being an ad hominem attack from my point of view. Plus I have to say that his tone doesn't really invite discussion, as it comes across more like he just wants to be right and that disagreeing is an abuse of the system. Vincenzo, please assume more good faith in the future since jumping automatically to accusations of abuse and ANI can be seen as disruptive. In my personal experience people who escalate things like this so quickly and post in the way you have are not the type that really last long on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had a think about this, and I can see how I could have handled it better.
    The page move required an administrator. Is declining to take an administrative action an administrative action? I don't think that's really relevant: answering that question won't move anywhere further towards a solution. Let's say it is, if just to get that out of the way.
    In considering the requested move, I had a look through the article and the sources and decided that "Mackintosh" was in fact the correct word (like the garment). You could look at the poster, I guess - where it is Mackintosh - but what the reliable secondary sources say is what Wikipedia goes by. IMDb and YouTube may call it "The MacKintosh Man". Roger Ebert however calls it "The Mackintosh Man". That reference is obviously be preferred.
    Now I didn't explain this, nor did I go to the article's talk page for further discussion. Instead, being someone who tends to do things rather than talk about doing things, I added some references in reliable secondary sources for the spelling "Mackintosh". Does that me WP:INVOLVED? I think it was a reasonable course of action. Maybe someone else disagrees, and a third person has an different opinion again. Will that resolve whether the word should be "Mackintosh" or "MacKintosh"? No, it doesn't.
    What will resolve it is discussion on the talk page about reliable secondary sources. And I should have explained that it the first place.
    And also, why did I pick such a silly username? --Shirt58 (talk) 09:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I'm missing something here, but why should what is obviously a reasonable redirect be deleted anyway, whether speedily or otherwise? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The G6 was requested to perform a move. Vincenzo1492, anyone can dispute a move (or decline a speedy -- except of course the author), in this case Shirt58 did and that's not an abuse of admin rights or editorial rights. When a move is disputed, the right thing to do is to open a move discussion and see where that takes you. —SpacemanSpiff 15:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Tyler Gonzalez reverting maintenance tags.

    Blocked. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 16:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I'm having a problem with Tyler Gonzalez when it comes to Lana (wrestling). Tyler has added "wrestler" as one of the occupations she has, but I don't see anything that shows her as a wrestler, officially, and he hasn't cited any reliable source that says she is. After reverting twice, I added a {{disputed-inline}} template over the passage that she's a wrestler and explained my issue on Talk:Lana (wrestling)#Is Lana a wrestler?. Without replying, he reverts that as well. I see his actions as disruptive, but I don't want to edit war over this. What needs to be done? --wL<speak·check> 05:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have tried my best. I only managed to revert twice, and I don't want to reach 3RR. I have managed an edit warring template for newcomers and in the process of adding the 3RR template. Callmemirela {Talk} ♑ 06:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please post this to WP:3RR/N and point out this ANI report. --wL<speak·check> 06:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    More than happy. Will update with link once it's been posted. Callmemirela {Talk} ♑ 06:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I count 4 reverts by User:Tyler Gonzalez on the {{disputed-inline}} tag thing alone (if they revert my most recent Reviewing revision, they'll be at 5), so WP:ANEW is definitely "ripe" by now... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. You're welcome (: Callmemirela {Talk} ♑ 06:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User talk:Kushcomputer

    After being blocked, Talk page access revoked for posting advertisements by Yunshui. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    They are still posting adverts on their user talk page after being blocked. Methinks they should be restricted from it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Methinks so as well. TP access revoked. Yunshui 雲水 11:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Admin help needed blocking a sock farm

    See also: Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard § Block_a_bunch_of_sleepers.2C_please.2C_and_is_there_a_CU_in_the_house.3F

    {{checkuser needed}}

    Copied from WP:AN: All the accounts welcomed here by User:Can you please provide me with a username. Thank you. are socks of the "Not a massive fan" IP vandal, all created on 21 June 2015 (I assume; I only checked the creation log date for a few, but of course they were) and ready to be autoconfirmed by ten back-and-forth edits the moment the vandal wants to edit a semiprotected page, such as this and this today. Does somebody have access to a script or tool that would simplify blocking all these sleepers, please? Also, presumably there may be more, from another date and welcomed by "somebody else". Might a CU look for them, please? Bishonen | talk 22:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

    Well, I have to go to bed, and I don't know how to take this further. I just called for a CU on IRC, to no avail. But note also that there's no CU needed to identify that long list as socks of a single individual: — follow my links and you'll see what I mean. Follow this fellow to Acroterion's page for instance, and look at the history of User talk:The Caledonian Sleeper. I'm hoping any script-savvy person (where are you, Writ Keeper?) can do the blocking. There are so many socks that I at least, am not up for blocking them by hand. Maybe a few admins want to pitch in as a collaborative effort? Bishonen | talk 02:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    Blocked the first twenty-one ("Like fresh" through "Simba s simba"), but don't have time for the rest. Nyttend (talk) 02:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Copied from WP:AN by: Doug Weller (talk) 11:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked more of them, but I have to leave for a while. -- GB fan 12:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Done a few. —SpacemanSpiff 14:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus isn't a sock. Doug Weller (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of these are not socks - the few that had edits look like normal edits. I've blocked a couple more based on the usernames. CU help is definitely needed here, especially to review Nyttend's blocks. Thanks! NawlinWiki (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of these blocks look wrong - of the 188 accounts created in approximately 30 minutes 178 were welcomed (180 in total: two of the first three welcomes were of User:Belkibirseyyazarım and User:Simba s simba, accounts created a few minutes later although before the welcomes started. Peter James (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
     Checking... This will take a while. Mike V • Talk 01:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
     Completed The vast majority of the accounts listed here appear to be Red X Unrelated. The user manually mass-messaged a number of accounts that were created around the same time. (See here) The accounts I've found to be  Confirmed are:
    • Group 1:
    The Caledonian Sleeper (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    Uberly good driving (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    The Jewke of Wellington (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    331 seats and a CU scalp (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    God, Emperor of Smell (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    Hard at work in the first class lounge at Euston (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    • Group 2:
    Am I a sock puppet? (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    Can you please provide me with a username. Thank you. (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    @Nyttend, GB fan, and SpacemanSpiff: Could you assist in unblocking the unrelated accounts? Thanks, Mike V • Talk 02:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Reverted the mistakes I've made. —SpacemanSpiff 03:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone has the capability of doing so, can we get a report as to how many of the non-sockpuppet accounts have edited since their creation? Absent any explanation - such as the creation of accounts to prevent the spoofing of a current account, or alternate accounts to be used in non-secure situations - I don't quite understand why accounts would be created and then not used, or the need for more than one or at most two active accounts. Is it some kind of sport or competition to create as many accounts as possible? I'd really like to know what percentage of accounts created are used and which ones lie fallow, and then perhaps the account creation limit (which I believe is now five or six) might be adjusted in some way to take this data into, well, account. Can accounts which are not used be auto-blocked after a certain time, much as admin are auto-desysoped after not editing for a set period? I'm not sure what the advantage to the project is of carrying large numbers of open but unused accounts. BMK (talk) 04:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Never used" (even once)? Or not used for a long time?... I could see the utility of locking down accounts in the former category. But locking down long-dormant accounts just seems wrong short a preexisting policy on the matter, or a community discussion on the matter in the absence of that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not quite getting what you're asking. At this point I'm using the specific circumstances of Bishonen's report to float a trial balloon about auto-blocking long-unused accounts, the period of time, obviously, to be determined by a policy discussion. Clearly an account which has never edited is one that hasn't edited for that period of time, so I don't see any significant differentiation between them. Perhaps the period of time for compleletly unused accounts should be significantly shorter than that for used but fallow accounts, which at least showed on interest in editing, but that's about it. As I said, I see no value in carrying lots of open accounts that have no interest in contributing. BMK (talk) 04:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry; I misunderstood what was going on. From the original request at WP:AN, I thought that [whoever the identifier was] had conclusively identified them all as socks, and that he would have blocked them all if their sheer number weren't rather overwhelming. Feel free to unblock any or all of them if you deem it wise. I can't myself; it's midnight here, and I've been up since 4AM and driven several hundred miles...I should have gone to bed quite a while ago :-) Nyttend (talk) 05:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ditto. User:Nawlinwiki, you unblocked one I blocked but left the block template. Looking at my block log, a number of the accounts I've blocked no longer show up, which seems wrong to me. Is there really no way to find out who I blocked even if they've been unblocked? I unblocked one and both the block and the unblock show up, so I assume it isn't because they've been unblocked that they don't show up. Doug Weller (talk) 07:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Atlantacity - edit warring, incivility, sock puppetry, BLP violations

    I have blocked indef per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bmwz3hm. EdJohnston (talk) 02:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Willem Buiter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Heleen Mees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Atlantacity has had a great weekend. Reported for edit warring on Willem Buiter, here (closed as stale). SPI report seems to indicate a sock pupper of the disruptive editor Bmwz3hm (currently indefinitely banned) (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bmwz3hm). And ignoring clear concensus at Talk:Willem Buiter#Heleen Mees that her additions violated WP:BLPCRIME, returned to revert war again to restore her contributions [197]. And adding a further BLP violation, with allegations in the talk page [198]. Responded to a polite message on her talk page with outright incivility [199].

    Request revdel on the talk page to remove the accusations made there.

    Mandruss and Fyddlestix have tried to explain politely about why Atlantacity needs to back off but they are receiving outright hostility in response. At SPI EdJohnston recommended an indefinite block for disruptive editing. Bringing it here for community discussion. WCMemail 16:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    So far, I've blocked for one week and most recent posts to Talk:Willem Buiter have been revdel'd, just off the edit warring alone. I reopened this to get some feedback on what EdJohnston and others withing SPI would have to say about having the block last longer. --wL<speak·check> 17:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    amazing stories wiki page has information leading to infringing content

    Sirs,

    I am the owner of trademarks for Amazing Stories, the name of the world's first science fiction magazine.

    Earlier today I discovered publications on Amazon and Ebay that infringe my trademark(s). The listings on Amazon had a link to the wikipedia page for Amazing Stories.

    Upon visiting the page, I discovered that portions of the entry and the links section at relatively recently been altered in a manner that made is seem to the reader that the entity referring to itself as the "Amazing Stories Library" was a legitimate publisher of reprints of material from the magazine.

    Much of the material they are publishing is in the public domain. However, the brand name - Amazing Stories - is not.

    I have edited the wikipedia page to delete the references to the infringing material - both the name "Amazing Stories Library" and the link to infringing reprint material.

    Given the lengths to which these individuals have gone (website registered under domain by proxy, facebook page using the name, the wiki entry, their products on Amazon, B&N, Ebay, etc), strongly suspect that they will attempt to change the entry back to their original edits. (The individual who made the changes is registered with a url which is unresolvable, btw)

    I would like to know what procedures wikipedia has in place for handling trademark infringement within its pages so that I may more properly monitor and report such violations in as efficient a manner as possible,

    My trademark registration number is 4,237,952 for "AMAZING STORIES" (for electronic and print publication classes.)

    Please note: I am not objecting to the use of the public domain fiction or artwork that is reproduced by "Amazing Stories Library" - only their infringing use of the name "Amazing Stories" and their use of the wikipedia page information and links to infringing materials.

    Thank you. I look forward to hearing from you.

    Sincerely,

    Steve Davidson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabidchihauhau (talk • contribs) 17:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Steve. The content in question was added on 10th June and is certainly a spam link. The line was inappropriate and removing it was the right thing to do. As for your further additions, they were unsourced so I've reverted those too. Please add sources if you're going to expand the article. Sam Walton (talk) 17:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Jack DeMattos again

    I brought the case of Jack DeMattos (talk · contribs) to the attention of this board several weeks ago, and several users had various interactions that appeared to be heading in the right direction, but DeMattos' editing still fails to conform to Wikipedia standards, and when others step in to attempt to address the issues, he simply reverts their (my) efforts with belligerent comments to boot. DeMattos is clearly a well-versed editor in the areas he has chosen to edit, but he appears unwilling to accept the help of other editors in bringing his florid writing style into Wikipedia standards. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • WikiDan61's efforts to clean up Charles E. "Charlie" Bassett are commendable and may reflect some impatience with Jack's editorial largess, having thrown some parts of the baby out with the bath water. Unfortunately Jack Demattos, a new editor, is a long-time writer and has chosen to take edits to his work on WP very personally. He apparently regards the copy edit hat notes as "insulting" as seen here and here. I and others have repeatedly and patiently encouraged him to study WP guidelines, but he doesn't seem to have done that yet. I have spent considerable time attempting to educate him about the challenges and opportunities of WP editorial work, but he doesn't yet appear to taken heed. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 20:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    An anon on a date-changing kick

    178.174.253.26 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been making minor date modifications on dozens of articles for the past several months. The changes aren't obvious vandalism, but the few I spot-checked were, so far as I can tell, capricious. But some kind of clean-up is probably needed. Choor monster (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I think they've all been fixed now. The early edits were changes to sports statistics, which I didn't validate. Someone else familiar with sports would probably have to look into that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Unexplained deletions

    Hello, I noticed that an ip address User:2602:306:CE98:1510:4CEF:D74C:D98C:4A0E is constantly deleting content saying that it is incorrect or inappropriate. He has been at it for so long that it is getting hard for me not to wonder what is going on. I left a message at his talk page asking him why he thinks all of the deleted content is unnecessary, but he has not responded. 2602:306:3357:BA0:2950:755B:767B:5B3C (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverted - some of the edits were clearly vandalism. Peter James (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing: 188.78.134.205

    S/he shows single purpose editing, trying to add their ideas wherever s/he sees fit, but sometimes seems to be disruption for the sake of disruption (a way of wasting my time), like here. Repeats continually the need for references but does not add them, like here, or startling claims. They removed fully valid verification when they did not like it. Despite their eventual participation in discussion, shows no consensus building, and it is plagued with accusatory and incoherent language, sticking to their point and failing to listen to the arguments provided by other editors.
    The pages affected have been protected by bot, but as it happens that has established the IP's reverted last version in a number of articles while they were being discussed on the talk page, which appears to me a kind of reward for disruption, since protection affects all editors alike. The latest IP editor will feel free to act again on August 3, when the ban to edit those articles is lifted. I request a clear indefinite block on 188.78.134.205 and, if possible, its sockpuppets, to avoid further disruption to the WP. Iñaki LL (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (Remarks) I think that it is Iñaki who has an agenda and adds Basque origins (such in the case of Banu Qasi which I reverted) without references. By the way, I am not the IP. The IP's reversions were correct. --Maragm (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    No references?
    Basque kingdom of Navarre;
    • Possessing the Land: Aragon's Expansion Into Islam's Ebro Frontier Under Alfonso the Battler:1104-1134, by Clay Stalls, page 12.[200]
    • The Settlement of Disputes in Early Medieval Europe, by Wendy Davies, Paul Fouracre, Cambridge University Press, page 97.[201]
    • World Monarchies and Dynasties, by John Middleton, page 95.[202]
    • Spain: An Oxford Archaeological Guide, by Roger Collins, page 31.[203]
    Inigo Arista a Basque;
    • Muslim Spain and Portugal: A Political History of Al-Andalus, by Hugh Kennedy, page 61.[204]
    • R.L. Trask, The History of Basque, page 14, "In about 824 a certain Inigo Arista in turn otherthrew the last trappings of Frankish hegemony and founded the tiny Kingdom of Pamplona. Inigo, like most of the population of Navarre was a Basque."[205]
    • A History of Medieval Spain, by Joseph F. O'Callaghan, page 107.[206]
    • Conquerors, Brides, and Concubines, by Simon Barton, page 26.[207]
    • The Encyclopaedia Britannica: A Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, Volume 25, page 541.[208]
    According to this source, Basque was the "lingua navarorrum", but not used in a written or official capacity;
    • Basque Sociolinguistics: Language, Society, and Culture, by Estibaliz Amorrortu, page 14.[209]
    Maybe the IP and Maragm should do a better job of researching, instead of making accusations based on their own personal opinions. I will stick with the facts I have listed above. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Listen, IP 188.78.134.205 (or should I say Maragm?), I did not bring the issue here about references, whatever you have add them on the right place and the right statement, refuting the main statement, that the king was a Basque, period. The problem is as follows, not only did Kansas Bear add loads of references on the talk page, but I added myself one fully valid inline citation and you replaced it gratuitously. You are wasting my time and that of other good editors big time, contribute what you need to contribute, and do it as smooth as possible. You engaged in blatant vandalism in Corruption in Navarre, adding an incongruous explanation line, since you removed loads of content you did not like. I demand a rapid executive measure, I do not have time to engage in a long discussion that will last days, since that is the disruptive editor's aim, to cause frustration. I demand an executive measure over an IP tracking disruptively my edits, non-responsive to anything, and not collaborating. Maybe the vandalism resource is the right place, the IP has been warned by now. Iñaki LL (talk) 06:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    LGBT rights in Croatia - update

    USER BLOCKED
    User indef blocked at SPI for Socking by Bbb23. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    After a repeated warning, I am afraid that user SDINO has continued abusing his powers. He has, as I have anticipated in the past, continued mistranslating parts of the article to match his views on LGBT rights. For example, a "march for equality", as it was the official name, he has translated as a "march for same-sex marriage", because he believes equality should not exist. He has been warned on a talk page that he shouldn't mistranslating to fit his own views, but that has not resulted in anything, as he immediately put it back to what he thinks it's right. This is a second attack on this article from a declared anti-LGBT rights user, and I fear we will have more in the past. Thank you 11raccoon1 (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Sdino (talk · contribs) has been blocked as a sock puppet by Bbb23. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Lukeno94 - out of hand?

    Re: Lukeno94 (talk · contribs) and WT:CARS now seems to consist of an entire page of otherwise unrelated editors all angry at Luke's substantial and hotly contested recent major edits to car-related articles. He's even got Eddaido and I agreeing with each other, which is unknown.

    Also collecting warnings for warning other disagreeing users as "vandals" User_talk:Lukeno94#Reminder

    One of these changes is a single-handed, and opposed, blank and redirect of a 20k article, the Corvette leaf spring. He claims the content has been "merged", yet 20k has vanished and it hasn't gone anywhere. Four days later after a whole bunch of ructions on other articles and adverse comment here, he "merged" the content to other Corvette individual model articles: e.g. Chevrolet Corvette (C1), adding a minimal 200 bytes or so to each one. He hasn't edited the Chevrolet Corvette overall article at all. This is no sort of merge.

    The several Chevrolet Corvette articles were then the subject of a 5RR edit war with Shelbychevette (talk · contribs), a much less experienced editor by whose name we might assume some familiarity with the subject matter. Despite some pretty symmetrical edit-warring, over edits at Luke's instigation, only that editor was blocked.

    I raise this now though because no editor, even me, should have to be described as a "pathological liar" by another. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Look, this report is confusing. You're pointing to pages of discussions at WPT:CARS and going back and forth about a half dozen issues and some stuff on a particular page and personal insults and onward. I can't figure out in the 150k talk page what particular issues are going on as I can't seem to figure to out what is consensus and what is discussion that's not consensus or what. It seems like you people need to come up with a plan that's more than "blank or not blank or whatever and have an argument at WPT:CARS" on its own. Here's what I'm going to do: staying on the singular issue of the leaf spring, there's a consensus at that page to have another discussion about a merger/redirect/whatever. I'll close it and start an RFC for merger at Talk:Corvette leaf spring (something away from WPT:CARS so that it can be kept in a place that's actually useful if people refer to it later. The argument seems to be whether Luke conducted a merger or a deletion in another name which I don't care about, if someone thinks the content is usable, they can take on the onus of the merger. I'm not listing it for AFD but I'll put that an option in the RFC so that someone can do that if they really think the article shouldn't be here at all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, the discussion is at Talk:Corvette_leaf_spring#RfC:_Should_this_page_remain_or_be_merged_away.3F. Ok, my view is that Lukeno94 brought up the matter at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles#Performance_Corvette_articles, got tepid but legitimate support to merge the contents, waited a week and then made a redirect under the good-faith belief that anything usable was merged/could be later merged. There was a dispute about that, a new subsection about that particular article's merger which more individuals piped in that they thought the article was itself notable or could be better merged (doesn't matter, the contents can be merged later even) but that more discussion was needed and so I think a proper RFC with a formal discussion was needed. If someone legitimately believes deletion is better warranted than a merger proposal (with an actual harder deadline than an RFC gives) then they can list it at AFD and shut down the RFC. At the rest, I'm not looking over the various tens of thousands of text to figure out what your issues are. As to the name-calling, it's inappropriate and uncivil but I personally am not blocking it for that at the moment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would not have called Andy Dingley a pathological liar if it wasn't so clear that he was one. In almost every single discussion he's responded to me in, his responses have varied from obvious misdirections and misrepresentations to obvious lies. For example, any time any reverts happen, he always includes the very first edit as somehow being a revert - that's an obvious misrepresentation. Somehow, a selective merge and redirect counts as blanking an article altogether with no merging or redirecting. I'm pretty much done with Wikipedia now, because liars like Andy Dingley are allowed to roam around freely, stalk other editors (don't claim you didn't - you edited one article that was well outside of the usual areas we edit mere hours after I did, and it wasn't one that you would've come across any other way. That article is Black Square (painting) for anyone interested) and generally make every single discussion into a toxic shitslinging contest - most of which he starts, by the way. Dingley has had a grudge against me for a year, and he tries everything he can to kick me off the project simply because he doesn't like me. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User is threatening to shut down Wikipedia

    WP:RBI, user blocked. Nakon 04:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    At Talk:Giginotodon, a user, User:Brian dorchak, claims to have the ability to shut down Wikipedia and threatens to use it if his page is deleted. Gparyani (talk) 03:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see WP:RBI. Nothing more to be done here, the user is blocked. Nakon 03:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Back as User:Brian Dorchak Is Back; blocked as well. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If the next one is User:Brian Dorchak, This Time It's Personal! I move for a site ban... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Useless and unsourced edits by The Sheikh001

    On July 6, 2015, user @Livelikemusic: reported @The Sheikh001: for making repeated edits of unsourced info. Nothing was done because, at that point in time, LLM had been the only one to warn the other user on their talk page. That wasn't true because, although not a "warning," per se, another user named @NottNott: had certainly questioned TheSheik001's editing on the same page (Days of Our Lives cast members). I added to that conversation that TheSheikh001 is also adding odd info and then self-reverting. Since that inital report, in the last 3 weeks, TheShiekh001 has continued this bizarre behaviour with these further examples:

    Is it not possible for something to be done? He or she does not listen to anything said to him or her whether by edit history or direct talk page messages. Thanks in advance.Cebr1979 (talk) 08:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=673443093"