Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive935

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


Agressive comments over Sciences Po page[edit]

I am copying a dispute resolution demand (argument with an IP user, alumni from the institution, only editing its web page):

Copy/pasted quoting

The Sciences Po page was a pure advertisement page. I tried to put it in an encyclopedical form and was personnaly attacked for it (saying that I carry out a personal vendetta against Science Po). The user admitted using several IP adresses.

Now, they are trying to put back the advertisement style and remove the banner. For example, they insist putting in the lede, without any source, sentences like: "Beyond its academics, Sciences Po is well known for its international outlook." "The Institute also maintains a robust sport programme and competes against other grand écoles in the Île-de-France." "Sciences Po and its innovative curriculum would inspire and serve as the model for the London School of Economics." (the article says part of the inspiration, not the model and innovative) "Almost every member of the French diplomatic corp since the Fifth Republic, and roughly half of ENA’s cohort each year are also graduates." Etc.

I tried to prevent it, but now I face strong personal attacks like being called "Lameadee the vandalist" and saying that I "hate Science Po" in a summary, saying I am a "dishonest editor", implying that I have to be a Science Po alumni to edit the page, writing things like "You're just lying at this point.", "clearly you are a vandal", "Consider this your warning." And the user implies that because he spent time on his advertisement, nobody must touch it.

I claim that there is also sexism here. I know for sure that I never wrote anywhere that I was a woman, so sentences like "she was lying about the citations she was using" or "she is a dishonest editor", is an attack on me as a woman (it’s easy to say that women lie and are dishonest). And it’s untolerable.

I tried to discuss in talk page and to tell him (them) not to personnaly attack me, but it’s getting worse.

Then, on Kudpung กุดผึ้ง advice, I filed a page protection demand, it was done. Then, because the attacks continued, I asked a protection of the talk page, which was refused (for a good reason):

Copy/pasted quoting

Semi-protection: Persistent personal attacks and insults by multiple IP users. Perhaps I was not clear on my first demand, I would like the insults to stop in talk page too (and edit summaries). --Launebee (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Declined I'm not shutting out your opponents from the discussion. And your claims of sexism are based on thin evidence. NeilN talk to me 10:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

My main claim was not sexism but strong personnal attacks 'like being called "Lameadee the vandalist" and saying that I "hate Science Po" in a summary, saying I am a "dishonest editor", writing things like "You're just lying at this point.", "clearly you are a vandal", "Consider this your warning."' And he continues to call me "a troll", a "disruptive editor" (I talked about disruptive editing, insults and sexism, but never qualified him of anything). You can understand I don’t like being countinuously publicly insulted. --Launebee (talk) 11:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I understand that and posted a note to the talk page after I declined your request. If the attacks continue, please let me or another admin know. --NeilN talk to me 11:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! --Launebee (talk) 11:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Could you just let a message on his page, for him to understand that his comments on me are not acceptable and that he would face consequences if he continues? --Launebee (talk) 11:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
This was done. --NeilN talk to me 16:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

On Kudpung กุดผึ้ง talk page, we had this discussion:

Copy/pasted quoting

":::Coming to this from RFPP, [1] I am uncomfortable with shutting out one side in a content dispute which only seems to involve two people. I will add something to the IP's talk page --NeilN talk to me 11:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I understand, but it has to stop. --Launebee (talk) 13:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)"

Dear NeilN, you asked me to tell you if it continues, it does. Despite your messabe on his talk page, the user wrote on Kudpung กุดผึ้ง talk page: "I believe him/her to be a dishonest editor and we have proof she is lying in her edits." "when someone calls her a disruptive editor and a liar (which are true for what I was responding to). Anyway I'm through with wasting my time on trolls. I regret that your time (and mine) gets wasted dealing with these kind of people." "It's so obvious this person is a troll" He keeps saying that I’m lying about the sources even though I gave him once again in talk page the newspaper articles dealing with all the "scandals". He keeps saying I’m dishonest when I say I did not understand the question "How come you deleted it anyway?", but I really didn’t.

I would like it to stop, for the third time.

I would also remind the IP user that I never qualified him personnally of anything, I just complained about the personal attacks made to me, not the user himself.

--Launebee (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@Launebee: I've popped your copy/paste quoting in a box to make it easier to read -- samtar talk or stalk 14:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Launebee, nothing urgent but for future reference you may use {{ANI-notice}} to notify an editor of an AN/I discussion so that you don't have to create a diff. Hopefully, you won't be needing it, but, it's there for reference. It's also in the big red box at the top of the page. I've gone and separated your notification from Neil's comment, just so that it's plain obvious. Thanks, Mr rnddude (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • What people are missing here is that without prejudice to whomever might be right or wrong, I had already Full protected that page to stop the nonsense. When the protection request at RFPP was made and declined, it was already protected. I worked in a university in France for 12 years and I'm staying well out of anything to do with Sciences Po. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Clarification: I declined to protect the talk page. --NeilN talk to me 15:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Samtar and Mr rnddude!

My demand concerns here the personal attacks against me, not Sciences Po page. --Launebee (talk) 18:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

This time, who claims to be another user (but has only this contribution), is attacking me on Sciences Po talk page in a civil manner, but is still attacking me (with no basis by the way). I could answer but I guess it’s pointless. Another IP would show up and a talk page is not the place for this kind of discussion. But once again, it has to stop. My editing on Sciences Po is content focused. --Launebee (talk) 08:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I don’t know if it’s considered as a personal attack, but User:SalimJah stated "Launebee's way of editing this article did not strike me as very collaborative" and "I don't think that Launebee helped reach a neutral point of view through his relatively aggressive edits".

As I told them, I improved a lot of things in the articles and added a good ranking of Sciences Po. Still, these alumni are still attacking me for preventing advertisement to be put in the article and because I talked about the huge amount of scandals extensively covered by newspapers. Actually, everyone can verify in the history, in the beginning, I just wanted to have a neutral statement about reputation in the lede, and because there had been a series of reverts about this, I created a section with sources, and little by little wrote the whole section because there was so much to be said. My edits are not "agressive", they just reflect what is in the newspapers.

And ones again, they only complain about a part of my edits, but not when I add a positive ranking of Sciences Po.

They have to stop bashing me.

--Launebee (talk) 23:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I have just seen that the IP user wrote inside my comments , and that he wrote twice that I lie (I deleted, and it’s not my job to put into form his insults). --Launebee (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The IP user inserted again his insult within my text and deleted my signature! By the way, according to him, saying twice that I lie is not personal attacks. At least, if you let him continue on insulting me, not in my text and now he’s deleting my signature! --Launebee (talk) 09:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Launebee; I'm not sure what you mean by if you let him continue on insulting me, but, I'll take a stab at responding to what I think you mean. This page is patrolled by both admins and non-admins who are considered experienced users. The balance of this is I'd say 80% non-admin to 20% admin. As a non-admin aside from comments and attempts at dialogue there's little we can do, the most damning is probably the revert button. I can't stop the editor permanently any more than you can. As soon as an admin arrives they can take proper action. I'll try keep an eye on the page and help out as much as I can. The letting them continue part, however, is something only an admin can act on. Give them rope till an admin gets here. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Your most recent edit, the one where you mention The IP user inserted again his insult within my text and deleted my signature! - I see that your sig has been removed, but, haven't been able to identify when and by whom (it was removed earlier than that comment) but their comment appears to have been inserted as a response to yours. It comes right after your signature at 14:16, 19 September 2016 (they've quoted all of your points, that may be tripping you up there). The IP could be far more tactful, the presumption that you are lying is uncivil for a start. I'll post a comment to their ip talk page. See if I'll receive a response. This is a content dispute turned dramatic (due incivility). Mr rnddude (talk) 09:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Mr rnddude Sorry for the ill-worded part of sentence then! Actually, he put it after the discussion, but then reinserted it inside my lines. You can see in history, only a boot and him made edits. Thanks! --Launebee (talk) 09:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh, you are right, he quoted all my text. I put back the insults then... --Launebee (talk) 09:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Launebee give me a couple minutes to separate out the comments, I've reverted part of your edit so that I can move around the comments. Avoid an edit-war hopefully. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Launebee, I've re-instated their comments with an indent, asked them to remove their inferences of lying, and made sure that your sig stays in place where it is. Feel free to ping me if you need anything. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much Mr rnddude! Let’s wait for the admins now :). --Launebee (talk) 10:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi there. My original comment can be found here. @Launebee: please be sure that I have nothing against you, nor your willingness to stress the fact that Sciences Po is subject to strong criticisms in the French academic landscape and has faced a number of scandals. However, anybody looking at the revision history of the Sciences Po article will recognize that the unregistered user had added a lot of factual content to the page. This content may have been framed in an overtly laudable way. There are ways to discuss that and improve the write-up. But merely and repeatedly reverting such contributions without any willingness to reach a compromise between your views and those of other editors is counterproductive: (i) it does not help the article get better, (ii) it creates animosity between contributors and drives newbies away, and (iii) it creates unnecessary work on the part of the community trying to solve what eventually becomes a personal dispute. BTW, I honestly think that your own edits were at least as biased against Sciences Po than the unregistered user's ones were biased in favor of it. As I see it, the article would have been much improved, had some middle ground been reached between both of you. This is a missed opportunity, which was the main message I wanted to convey through my talk page edit. So yes, your style of editing *was* inappropriate to me in this particular case, and I was (naively?) hoping that we could do better, also potentially trying to convince the unregistered user to come back to work on a compromise.
Unrelated comments:
- it would help bring clarity to the conversations if you could indent your talk page answers and keep conversations under a specific header focused on the associated topic.
- how would you know if I'm a Sciences Po alumni? ;) SalimJah (talk) 12:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
"I honestly think that your own edits were at least as biased against Sciences Po than the unregistered user's ones were biased in favor of it"
This whole thing of me biased against Sciences Po makes no sense. Once again, I also added in the article other stuff, like the (only) good ranking of SP by Universal.
The IP user said himself that he’s an alumnus. I did not mention you as an alumni but you are clearly biased in favor of Sciences Po by accusing me of being biased in spite of the facts. You keep saying my editing is "agressive" etc., but every information I put is sourced. You know say the other user is biased, but before, you only intervened against some my edits, that you consider to go against Sciences Po.
--Launebee (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, you did write above that "these alumni are still attacking me". Further, I am *not* attacking you, and did *not* intervene against your edits. I totally welcome your contributions and the sources you include for them. This is not the point. The point is the significant amount of content that this unregistered user added and that you repeatedly deleted without trying to reach consensus. This is not a constructive way to proceed. Reading through it, this material could have been improved upon to enhance the article. Through your reverts, you arguably nourished the animosity of this unregistered user against you (which I do *not* mean to justify, BTW). Regarding the "facts", as I see it, they do not clearly speak in favor of any of you being unbiased. But again, that's not the point. Who can safely pretend to be unbiased about any topic? The magic of Wikipedia is that (necessarily) biased people are willing to collaborate in good faith to create unbiased articles. See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view SalimJah (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I repetitively tried to have the IP user to focus on content, but it did not work.
You only intervene in defavour of content that you think can do harm to SP. You never complained about me adding a positive ranking of SP, or agreed with my propositions to delete sentences like ""its rankings in law, economics, and sociology were among the top in Europe." It’s your right to like SP, but don’t write as if you would be a middle point between me biased and the IP user. You are biased in your choices of intervention, and it’s your right, and I am not biased in any way in my editing, which is forbidden of course, and which you are writing I am.
--Launebee (talk) 17:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

It’s now SalimJah who is writing to me in an agressive way: edit summary --Launebee (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

How the hell is that aggressive? Someguy1221 (talk) 03:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
It's clearly not. Muffled Pocketed 07:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Isn’t it at least not collaborative to write in a summary edit "don’t do it or I will refer to someone else"? If he thinks I’m doing something wrong, he can tell me why, or directly refer it in the discussion here, rather than harshly making such threats, even though I did nothing wrong. --Launebee (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@Launebee: "Please keep it in place, as I'm going to refer to it in the moderation thread that you started" I don't think English is your first language. If it isn't then I suggest you read everything twice over keeping WP:AGF in mind. The sentence doesn't mean what you think it means. --NeilN talk to me 18:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I looked at this article as it stands now and as it stood before Launebee started working on it back in July (see this version. Like too many of our articles about universities, the former article was a cesspool of promotion - not a WP article at all, but a brochure for Sciences Po; as it stands now the article is still full of unsourced promotional content that belongs on the Sciences Po website (i.e. the unsourced content about the campuses and the entirely unsourced section about notable people). Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
That may be true, but this is not the topic of this thread, which deals with the alleged aggression from which Launebee suffered on the Sciences Po talk page. My claim here is that the way he managed his interactions with the IP user (i.e., massive deletion of potentially useful content and edit warring) is not a workable way to reach consensus and NPOV within articles. This is especially true when dealing with newbies who may not know the rules and need positive feedback and explanations. Otherwise they simply give-up contributing, which is not in our interest. The IP user presented sound arguments in favor of some of his edits, and looking at the revision history, my sense is that the way Launabee managed this discussion is in part responsible for the personal turn that it has taken and which he now complains about. For instance, deleting his (badly formatted) arguments from the talk page without providing explanations as to how to do things right was unlikely to be taken well. Things had already escalated at that point, and such behavior certainly didn't help. SalimJah (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@SalimJah: "massive deletion of potentially useful content": you repeat it everywhere but Jytdog is precisely saying that it’s not "useful content" but advertisement, as I keep explaining to you from the beginning.
@NeilN: You are right I have to assume good faith. But what should I do here? SalimJah has been, for several years, nearly only editing the page of SP or people linked to SP, his now repeating everywhere that I deleted "potentially useful contents" and then that I am biased against SP in my editing. He’s now giving one example of diff to make me look ill-intented even though this thing had been taken care by Mr rnddude with me. All of this because there still is huge problems of advertisement in the lede of the article, I proposed the relevant changes in talk page, but they are drowing it in a lot of text on me being bias, so that we forget the actual content of the article. I opened a dispute resolution on content, but they say it’s already taken care of here.
@NeilN:, @Mr rnddude: and @Jytdog:: Could you tell us what do you think of my propositions of editing there? It would be really appreciated. There still is a lot of things to do, but take care of the lede, especially the false claim "its rankings in law, economics, and sociology were among the top in Europe." is the most important I guess.
--Launebee (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm glad we can eventually get back to substance, Launebee. :) Just commented on your points. However, I strongly encourage you not to bite newbies in the future. SalimJah (talk) 10:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry but you are not a new user but an old single-purpose account ;). --Launebee (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I was obviously not referring to myself, but to the IP user with whom you argued about the Sciences Po page. However, I do start to find your repeated insinuations about me being biased, aggressive or not legitimate annoying. You have no evidence for it. Please stop. SalimJah (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Let me remind you that the IP user was insulting me, and that admins and volunteers told him to stop. I made no insinuation, I said it clearly: you edits are only linked to SP since several years and you are only attacking me personally on the things that are not positive for SP. --Launebee (talk) 23:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay. So it seems that we can't agree, neither on substance (see the talk page), nor on process (see above and the talk page). And now you drag me into this personal argument once again, putting my good faith and legitimacy into question. The fact that I've been editing the page in the past is no evidence that I have a personal agenda, nor is your (unfounded) claim that I'm a Sciences Po alumni. All I've been trying to do is restore a positive working atmosphere in the talk page while making some progress on the issue. You behaved in a similar way with the IP user, imposing your POV with strength while brushing the evidence he was trying to present aside (see my description of the way you managed your interactions with him above + the talk page and history of the Sciences Po article). You eventually dragged him into a personal fight with you, not the other way around, and you won by having him leave. You also claimed several times that I was attacking you personally (that's actually the very reason why I had to post here in the first place). I'm not. Pure and simple. I refuse to play this game. So, what we need now is the assessment of the extended community. Anybody out there who would be willing to review the arguments presented here as well as the discussion on the Sciences Po talk page? SalimJah (talk) 09:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
You kept and keep saying my edits in SP page were "aggressive", that I have POV and that I am biased against SP, without any proof (and you won’t find any because it’s false, and your links to the talk page proves nothing). Obviously you are not here to "restore a positive working atmosphere" but to "defend" SP.
You said yourself that "us", it’s an organisation with a SP adress, and you were working for them. It seems from there that admins already told you not to do ads for SP.
Anyway, I think this discussion can be closed, because it leads to nothing, let’s only discuss of content on the talk page. But some third opinion would be helpful indeed.
--Launebee (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Murder Cat[edit]

Reported editor indefinitely blocked for DE (non-admin closure) Muffled Pocketed 07:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Murder Cat (talk · contribs): Please see the recent contributions of this new user. They are creating lots of new user talk pages for new users with the text "Congrats, you are the most recent to make a Wikepedia account. Enjoy that for at most a few seconds before someone else joins." Seems like a sock puppet to me. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Certainly 100%-proof WP:NOTHERE.
And almost as certainly footwear focussed too.
Muffled Pocketed 07:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Blocked. Let me know if/when it reappears. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Promotional editing by User:Scholar of Record[edit]

New editor Scholar of Record (talk · contribs · block log) is editing a variety of Iowa-related pages to add links and references to the work of author Zachary Michael Jack. Some of the edits appear almost constructive at a glance [2] [3]. However, most are clearly promotional [4], [5], [6]. One edit includes an Amazon link [7]. The user has not responded to talk page messages. agtx 02:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I've warned him for a edit for another article, Mechanicsville, Iowa, for the exact same thing as mentioned earlier([8]).— JJBers (talk) 03:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Scholar of Record has posted a comment on my talk page, but it does not inspire confidence. agtx 03:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Anon. user mass deleting sourced information[edit]

I don't see vandalism or ill will, just a difference of opinion on content. If it is Steve Pulaski or someone working his behalf adding his links, that might be cause for concern at WP:COIN as they have a conflict of interest and if they do, it is up to them to register and declare it. Then there is an argument for self-promotion, ie: spam. WP:ANI just isn't the place to make that argument, as admin don't determine content. Dennis Brown - 15:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An anon user, Special:Contributions/2602:306:C5E9:B450:967:864A:ABAD:160E has been mass removing information from various articles containing information cited from Influx Magazine, claiming that it is "spam" [9] [10] [11] [12], quoting Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Influx_Magazine as reason that somehow everything that the source says is "spam".

I had tried explaining twice to the user that even if a website is not notable to be included on Wikipedia, that doesn't mean it is a non-verifiable source [13] [14].

Even if the source is deemed unverifiable and inappropriate (which IMO is far from that), I feel that the user's mass deletion is highly pointy and disruptive.

I have refrained from reverting the user's edits further than I have already as I am not sure if the edits are exempt from 3RR. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 12:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The user has also been removing sourced information from other sources: [15] Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 12:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I have explained this multiple times but this person keeps readding spam links. For years Steve Pulaski or someone associated with him has been adding spam links to his reviews to various articles. Some use a non-notable website, (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Influx_Magazine), while others just link to his message forum (like here). Here are a few of the IPs

You will notice that their ONLY submissions are these spam links. I am removing them.

1)I'm not any of those users. 2) How are these spam? Are they self-promotional? Are they plain rubbish? Look at those sources carefully, we can see the names of the people who wrote them, and at least at face value they are legit opinions. Who are you to call them spam? Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 12:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I didn't say you were any of those users. I said you kept readding what I was removing. How aren't they spam? They serve ONLY to promote Steve Pulaski which is why his name seems to need to be mentioned in every single instance. When a person adds links to their own writing, it is self-promotional. Literally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C5E9:B450:967:864A:ABAD:160E (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Can you explain HOW they were being used to promote Steve Pulaski (whoever the heck he is)? Just because the links are about one guy giving opinions on things of a wide range, from movies to Hillsong?? Have you thought of the fact that the users in question might have just quoted him as a source? The things you deleted don't even try to paint him in any greater light than just calling him the maker of these mere opinions. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 12:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Are you really this stubborn that you will ignore all evidence? The IPs that add these reviews ONLY ADD THESE REVIEWS. In what way would that lead to literally ANY interpretation other than that they are promotional additions? And for the record all of them are movies, the IPs didn't add anything to Hillsong, they spammed Hillsong: Let Hope Rise which is a film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C5E9:B450:967:864A:ABAD:160E (talk) 12:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Here are a few more Wikipedians who removed these same spam links:

You can see from the edit summaries they were labeled "non-notable", "non-noteworthy", and WP:SPS. Should you go yell at them, too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C5E9:B450:967:864A:ABAD:160E (talk) 13:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Please note that whether a source is notable is not connected to whether a source is reliable. As far as I can tell, there's no reason to not use Influx Magazine as a source. DS (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
@2602:306:.:So that means if I edit a bunch of movie articles and I paste all the sources from Roger Ebert's website, it means Roger Ebert is a spammer and is promoting himself? WP:SPS says: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. So maybe you should read [16]. Whatever "level of experience" he is, I doubt that his opinions are non-notable enough to be excluded from Wikipedia. This Steve Pulaski is not Roger Ebert, but is Steve un-notable enough to be excluded? My point is no. Yeah, I think you should yell at them too. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 13:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Barte, Carniolus and Efyeahimamarxist's edits gave reasons for their edits that may (or may not) be valid. Whatever, they have not been challenged. Beyond that, it is an irrelevance because your sole reason for deleting vast amounts of material has been challenged. The references are not spam in any shape of form because they are not promoting any product. They are just a review for which no evidence has been offered that they are unreliable. And your claim above that it is promoting the reviewer is just plain nonsense. --Elektrik Fanne 13:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

* The version of the article as it was immediately before it got deleted (minus the categories and maintenance tags) is now located [[here

(Oh bloody hell. I hit the escape key, just after I realised I'd posted the above. That would have worked in 1998.)
  • The version of the article as it was immediately before it got deleted (minus the categories and maintenance tags) is now located here. It would appear to me that this magazine/website is essentially self-published. Judge for yourself whether this is a source that should be used on Wikipedia. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 03:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Shirt58: I probably won't decide for my own self. I was referred to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard so depending on the outcome of this discussion I might choose to raise the issue with this source there. Nevertheless I am hoping for a conclusive outcome to this content dispute. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 03:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Shirt58: My main issue with the anon. is not regarding the deletion of Influx Magazine, but the anon. user mass removing sourced information coming from this source. I personally support the deletion of Influx Magazine as per GNG, but the verfiability and reliability of the sourced information is not dependent on the notability of the source subject's on Wikipedia. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 03:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Shirt58: Also all of the content that was deleted by the anon. wasn't referenced from the deleted Wikipedia article Influx Magazine, but they were referenced from the actual website of Influx. So I appreciate your effort retrieving the deleted content, but I'm not sure how helpful it will be. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 03:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Personal attack from User:Old_Lanky - "moron"[edit]

User:Old Lanky has decided to leave, but if he ever decides to return, he's warned that future unnecessary aggression (with rude names) will result in a block. User:KirksKeyKard has decided to stay (in spite of his user page notice), but is also warned that future unnecessary aggression (without rude names) will result in a block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attack from User:Old_Lanky per this diff [17]. An editor with a background of trouble, see this diff [18], that needs further resolution. KirksKeyKard (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

  • A one time use of the word "moron" might be uncivil, but it isn't grounds for sanctions as they've already indicated they "won't trouble the article again.". Single, rude comments are best ignored. What he did in 2013 has no real connection here. Dennis Brown - 15:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion, the sort of person who would send a message like this to drive another editor off the site can only be a moron. Especially as his past history strongly supports the view. For example, his attitude problem her and in numerous other edits. I have nothing else to add. Old Lanky (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
I count a second use of the word "moron"!! I recommend a one week block for User:Old Lanky to allow him to cool off. KirksKeyKard (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
A moron who can count to three! Can he make it all the way to four? Don't bother. I've just resigned from this shambolic site that gives free rein to morons (five) who know everything and understand nothing. Wikipedia is crap. No wonder it has no credibility in academic spheres or, indeed, in any sphere inhabited by intelligent people. Bye now. Old Lanky (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
You both need to cool your jets. Lanky, back off the colorful adjectives, and Kirks, your comment is no less offensive than using the word "moron", you are just putting lipstick on a pig and hiding the incivility with flowery language. I'm not blocking anyone for the above but you both need to knock it off. You aren't children. Dennis Brown - 15:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
-.- Seriously Kirks? What are you, five? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} 15:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Admins for your support. I think this last post from User:Old Lanky, see here [19], says everything that anyone needs to know. This has been a tough time for us all, but I think we have come through it stronger and wiser. KirksKeyKard (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Kirk, all this started over the single use of the word "moron" after your posted a message that was no less offensive, so from my perspective, this is a fight you started. I wouldn't be so smug if I were you. Neither of you have been shining stars of collaboration. Dennis Brown - 16:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay everyone, this fire's been put out, so there's nothing left to see here. Admins --> Please CLOSE. Thank you. KirksKeyKard (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Edit-war with jytdog over Teledermatology[edit]

I'm trying to update the teledermatology page to include two recent (2013 and 2015) studies around efficacy of teledermatology. Editor jytdog has rejected these edits without explanation. I have included the links to the peer-reviewed journal publications on the talk page: — Preceding unsigned comment added by YungCoconut (talkcontribs) 04:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @YungCoconut: This appears to be a premature escalation. It's normal to give it much more than a few hours on the article's talk page before escalating to AN/I (and WP:DRN would be a more normal escalation path for a simple content dispute, or WP:RSN for issues with sources), unless there's already a reasonably serious incident. Personally, I'd have used {{uw-ewsoft}} for a new user, rather than {{uw-3rr}}, but regardless of that, you need to use the talk page and allow time for discussion as the first step in these situations. See also: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Murph9000 (talk) 05:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
@YungCoconut: Also, it is not true that Jytdog reverted without explanation. Both his edit summaries have clear pointers to WP:MEDRS. Please carefully read the second paragraph which starts with, "Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals..." --NeilN talk to me 07:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Both should be trouted, at least, for edit warring. Jytdog especially, should be following the advice s/he throws at others, not to edit war. Both reverted at least twice, contrary to WP:EW.--Elvey(tc) 02:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Seeing that comment from an editor who only made the edit warring problem worse with their own edit warring, that sounds rather silly. The expectation should have been that after Jytdog's first revert, editors who wanted to justify inclusion needed to gain consensus for it on the talk page. I'd give YungCoconut leeway here for this incident being a new editor, but Elvey should have known better than to jump in antagonizing the situation and come back here asking for a trout. That sounds like attempted WP:HOUNDING or WP:BAITING to me.
There’s not much more Jytdog could have done differently in the face of two editors trying to reinsert disputed content without gaining talk page consensus, though this does seem to suggest more eyes are needed on Elvey’s behavior considering they’ve previously been sanctioned and has a history hounding editors.[20][21] Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editor / edit warring at Andrea Bargnani[edit]

JD20 blocked 72 as is the way of escalating blocks; thanks to Bishonen for both that cutting through the red tape and for reminding me to do what I said I was going to do. Inc. WP:SIG. (non-admin closure) Muffled Pocketed 20:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IMO, User:JoshDonaldson20 is being very disruptive and clearly edit warring at Andrea Bargnani. The content in question that JoshDonaldson20 is persisting on adding to the article has been reverted and disputed by multiple users, yet JoshDonaldson20 is determined to keep the content in the article no matter the reasons or retorts being presented to him. Myself, Sabbatino, Bagumba and IP have reverted content placed in the Andrea Bargnani article. As of now, it is 4 to 1 in favor of not having the content there, yet JoshDonaldson20 continues to re-add it. I was in a back-and-forth revert spree with JoshDonaldson20 before deciding to cease as it wasn't worth my time and I understand how disruptive and pointless editing warring is. I was going to move on from the matter until IP got involved and there is now an edit war between them. I warned JoshDonaldson20 at his talk page to stop edit warring and instead discuss the matter as it would be his duty to do so as his content is what has been disputed many times now. I invited JoshDonaldson20 to discuss as WT:NBA where I had earlier started a thread regarding the content. Nothing came of that – JoshDonaldson20 decided instead to just re-add it. This is clearly disruptive editing and blatant edit warring which has tarnished the edit history of the Andrea Bargnani article. Outside mediation is required here – perhaps a time out for JoshDonaldson20 or full protection at Andrea Bargnani? DaHuzyBru (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

It is now 5 to 1 with User:Vítor the latest to revert the content [22]. DaHuzyBru (talk) 19:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Yep, content dispute with one party edit-warring against consensus. This is for WP:ANEW. I'll close this. 19:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC) Muffled Pocketed 20:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Blocked. (Is that you again, DaHuzyBru? Please remember, it's four tildes. Anyway, you haven't closed it.) We can skip WP:ANEW for now, the bureaucracy isn't intrinsically valuable. JoshDonaldson20 has already been blocked twice for edit warring in the past few months, so I made it 72 hours this time. Bishonen | talk 20:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC).

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


Recently, I have looked over the scenario at Defunct Scout and Scout-like organizations in the United States, and I am concerned. Spshu violated WP:3RR by reverting an edit made by Frietjes to his preferred revision. This wouldn't be a major problem if it wasn't for the fact that he has already been blocked seven times for edit warring. This incident just shows that he possibly has no intention of changing.

And while discussion is under way at Talk:Defunct Scout and Scout-like organizations in the United States#IBID-type citations, Spshu has been retaliatory and a tad hostile throughout most of it.

Spshu has been around for almost ten years, which is long enough for him to understand that this kind of behavior in not acceptable. Please discuss and see what action needs to be taken. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 18:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

This might be better addressed at WP:AN3.--Cameron11598 (Talk) 18:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Already address there: existing AN3 report with a page block. Electricburst1996 is not happy with the administrator's decision to the point of question their judgement. --Spshu (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I had the option of blocking both editors or protecting the page. If both are blocked then there is no way the problem is going to get solved. If the page is protected then at least they have an opportunity for discussion. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Boomerang for Hounding by Electricburst1996[edit]

Electricburst1996 has been warned about harassing/hounding me over my block log, which all of which can be explained. He has been retaliatory about every encounter with me. He has reverted posts at AIV and talk page discussions. The first time he got me block by removing talk page discussion and not allow point that out in my defense. He then demanded an indefinite block while I was serving that block, which boomeranged on him. He purposefully started an edit war on a page that I went to get away from him, reports the matter to AIV], suppressed posts there ([23] [24]) then turned down & reveled that he did not like that I force him to discuss matters which lead no where as he won't. One administrator stated that disturbed him regarding the removal of my AIV posts. (" I don't like the pattern of removal of comments at WP:AIV by Electricburst1996.") Another administrator stated that it disturbed them that Electricburst1996 purposefully force that edit war to expressly to get me indefinitely block ("Unlike the others who were pinged, I have a rather good idea why I was chosen, and I'm not happy about it. I'm particularly concerned about this. Expecting to be blocked for one's own conduct in the hopes that the other party gets indeffed? Seriously? Electricburst1996 should re-think their approach to collaborative editing. Huon (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC) " revealed), but he continues to just pop in to issues that the only interest is to stir up other editors against me (like during this current issue)] or file 3RR reports. Canvassing for votes to get me banned (Signal_boost, [25]). If you want more, I can dig more up. I would have provided diffs but given all the moves to archive of some of the above. Also, I just want to give you a taste of what he is up to as far as hounding me as it would be just about a week by week action report. And given an admin to shoot first then not question later. Spshu (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I... have no words for this. How are you making yourself look better by bringing all this up? First, make a case as to why you SHOULDN'T be blocked, THEN make a case against me. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 19:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
No, we do not operate on the principle of "guilty until proven innocent", and it's never appropriate to make a comment like make a case as to why you SHOULDN'T be blocked. Without even looking at this dispute—although if it's only in relation to a single page, I don't see why you think protection doesn't address the issue—if I see one more crack like that out of Electricburst1996 there will be a boomerang headed your way. ANI is a dispute resolution forum, not a mechanism to punish people whom you don't feel WP:AN3 is treating harshly enough. ‑ Iridescent 20:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
@Iridescent: Would long-term behavioral issues fall under ANI? Just wanted to know before I decide to withdraw. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 20:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Possibly, depending on the circumstances, but you've given no indication of one existing. Content disputes definitely do not fall into the ANI remit, and edit-warring comes under WP:AN3 except under exceptional circumstances. To be frank, this looks suspiciously like you running to the other parent because AN3 didn't give you the answer you wanted to hear. ‑ Iridescent 20:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
@Iridescent: Well, let's say an editor who's been around for ten years doesn't have a particularly clean track record for edit warring that spans a few years (let's say three or four). What kind of standard should they be held up to? ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 20:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
To exactly the same standard as every other editor—a block log is not the Mark of Cain. Either someone is problematic or they aren't. Since the page in question was protected, has Spshu edited problematically in any way? Unless your answer to that is "yes" and you have diffs to back it up, I strongly suggest you drop the stick. ‑ Iridescent 20:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
@Iridescent: Well, he has refused to own up to the fact that he violated WP:TPO by editing another user's discussion comment, and has made incendiary remarks about other editors. Would that count, or is it past the sell-by date? ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 20:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Electricburst already attempt to recruit the two other editors over these issues (and more editors over other issues). TPO was explained repeatedly to Eburst that the other editor had in effect edited my post (I quoted them) thus that editor should have properly refactored. Eburst then violates TPO and reverts when I edit my talk page section title over the issue. The other editor involved did not want to get involved when he previous pinged them when Eburt piggy back these complaints on another editor complaining over a good faith dispute then ping/canvassed those editors involved. Neither editor felt any interests in pursuing either issue; one ever considered disruptive. Spshu (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
@Iridescent: I also dug up these talk page comments he left:
Links provided for context, interpret however you want. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 21:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
So since every diff you've provided predates your AN3 request, your answer is in fact "no". We don't do punishments here; drop the stick. ‑ Iridescent 23:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
(adding) In fact, Electricburst1996, it appears that your last block for edit warring was less than two months ago. Do you really think "look at the block log to see how unreasonable this person is" is a game you want to be playing? ‑ Iridescent 20:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
That was the one I indicated that he reported me to AIV for, removed my post at AIV, did not discuss, ran to 3RR (after AIV did not work) expecting that he would get a block in an attempt to get me permanently blocked (complaining to the admin when he did not get that). Spshu (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Can this discussion be closed? ElectricBurst hasn't responded and it's just a drop-the-stick situation. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} 15:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Requesting closure[edit]

Can we get this discussion closed? The situation has blown over, and there's no sense in taking action. Unless something more serious in nature crops up, we should put this report out of its misery. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 01:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Repetitive Hoax articles for channel Hum TV[edit]

Info.Channels (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) – is creating various Wikipedia articles that doesn't even exist, i have taged them with {{Hoax}} and warned the user but he can or may erase the tag, so i wanted to notify here. I have searched for an articles that user created, but there is not even a single source, reference or even a slightest detail on that articles and yet he claimed that these are TV series to be aired or aired on Hum TV, adding made-up articles name, stories outline and linking the articles with real actors. I have been monitoring Hum TV and its contents for quite a time and have built many TV series articles, but never had any information regarding those TV series that user created. Following are the articles that user allegedly created by giving them fake names, fake plot outlines, and linking them to real actors, that have never been a part of such productions.

Look into that issue as soon as possible. Nauriya (Rendezvous) 2:56, October 1, 2016 (UTC)

This is now being investigated at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amir'khan12. The four hoaxes you listed have been deleted, along with another nine that I found. I believe that's all of the hoaxes created by the now 18 known socks of Amir'khan12, but I can't be certain they didn't also introduce false information into existing articles. It's kind of difficult to sort through since he occasionally adds something that's true. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Editor making direct threats of physical violence[edit]

*@Bulletproof Batman: as outlined in the thread, this appears to be an attempted play on your username and not a threat of violence.
  • @SheriffIsInTown: your edit summary wasn't helpful. Plays on words are often fine but you're editing a topic are where tensions run high. It would be wiser to stick to more neutral tones.
  • Beyond that, there's nothing here (yet) that needs admin tools. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You made this edit summary Don't you dare call me a "Pakistani POV" pusher again, you will find that you are not that "Bulletproof".

I never called him a Pakistani POV pusher. I said "reverting Pakistani POV edit". He is making ridiculous excuses on his talk page, how he interpreted my username, and making false allegations that I called him POV pusher. --Bulletproof Batman (talk) 06:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

  • BoomerangI have been following the Nom's contributions ever since he popped up and went straight to an AFD. This should be a clear case of WP:BOOMERANG. The editor in question has already explained to the Nom that calling another editor "POV pusher" leads to a block/ban on wikipedia. Nom is now trying to create a mountain out of a molehill. If he does not understand the meaning of this phrase and only takes the "literal" meaning of every single English word that is said to him, he has serious competency issues. WHEN A PERSON WRITES SOMETHING IN QUOTES "" HE IS IMPLYING THAT THE LITERAL MEANING SHOULD NOT BE USED. I would like to recommend that the Nom clicks this link and goes to the definition of "bulletproof" at It will show him that this word when used in an informal setting like the internet means Informal. safe from failure; without errors or shortcomings and beyond criticism: E.G a bulletproof system; a bulletproof budget. Requesting a speedy close so that this is not turned into the "mountain" I told about earlier. TouristerMan (talk) 06:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Every verb/adjective has some informal meaning. We use the most common meaning. A username as Sheriff will use the obvious meaning. Taking his username too seriously. Bulletproof Batman (talk) 06:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I recommend that an administrator issue a firm warning against both these editors for disruptive behavior, who both need a reminder that this is a collaborative project where editors are expected to assume good faith of our colleagues. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
@User:Cullen328 I agree TouristerMan (talk) 06:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Then I assume that you will cease all disruptive editing in the future? Wonderful. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
@User:Cullen328 can you hint at my disruptive contributions? I just put in stuff about entertainment and tourism. Which edits caused disruption? (I would like to apologize beforehand if any edits were disruptive). TouristerMan (talk) 07:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
You were warned for edit warring in the past although that was 2 or so months ago and I'm not sure if this behaviour has continued. Nil Einne (talk) 07:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
@TouristerMan: That would be your defense above of an allusion to violence against another editor. I consider your comment to be overly pedantic and dismissive of a genuine concern. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
@Nil Einne no I was never warned. I do my best to stay away from controversy. I am more of a user than an editor. I edit only when I have complete sources etc. 2 months ago I had not even created an account? How can you warn someone who is not even editing? did you by any chance drop by my house and warn me mano a mano? 2 months ago I was not on wikipedia. @User:Cullen328 what defence? You said both the nom and the editor who made the statement should be warned. I said yes they should both be warned. I could have commented on this debate on the TP of Sherrif is in Town as I stalk his TP, but I thought it will be just a simple case of two editors moving on with life. But when the Nom came here I made my comment. I do not defend anyone, I speak the truth simple as that. TouristerMan (talk) 07:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
TouristerMan, why don't you accept that you had problems with my AFD votes? Bulletproof Batman (talk) 07:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Bulletproof Batman I have problems with your competency. If you do not understand what a phrase within Quotes implies. You should learn that before engaging in discussion, as this is quite common in English. TouristerMan (talk) 07:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
99.99999999999999999999999% of the people use the word "Bulletproof" in one context, while 0.000000000000001% of the times it used in another context. Wikipedia uses formal English. You are only trying to divert the issue here as Sheriff and you share the same POV. Bulletproof Batman (talk) 07:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
User:Bulletproof Batman no you are wrong. it is used quite frequently. you are telling us you are not competent in English. TouristerMan (talk) 07:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I already explained to the nom that I did not mean what he is thinking I meant. My comment was suggestive of a block under WP:ARBIPA in case he continued with his comments about my ethnicity and nothing more than that, as it is obvious you cannot shoot someone on Wikipedia and neither do I think he had literal meanings in mind when he created his username. "Bulletproof" also means "impregnable" or "invulnerable". Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

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

User:TouristerMan is blanking the articles that I have created[edit]

From the relevant policy: "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor." Its pretty clear that's what has occurred in this case. Noting the SPI but otherwise assuming good faith for a new editor: TouristerMan is warned that any further evidence of hounding will lead to a block for disruptive editing. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

He is following my edits due to above discussion. can an administrator block him please? Bulletproof Batman (talk) 07:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

1, 2, 3, 4. He never edited these articles or had any interest in those subjects. --Bulletproof Batman (talk) 07:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Bulletproof Batman Redirects have been created according to policy. An admin will close this. Goodbye TouristerMan (talk) 07:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
@TouristerMan: Absolutely; could you indicate the precise policy? And it would be rather unseemly to edit war over Drosera affinis... Muffled Pocketed 07:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
@User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi usually palaeontological species are covered in genus articles. I have seen this in a large number of articles. I search for a certain species, then I am redirected to the main(genus) article. The puposes of redirect number 1 and three cover this I assume. TouristerMan (talk) 08:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Species articles are fine, especially if they have an image and some content that unique to that species. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak yes that is why I did not edit any article that gave information unique to that species. Can you take a look and revert any changes that you do not like? TouristerMan (talk) 08:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I think he is LanguageXpert. He commented on that SPI, after this edit war on subjects where he never edited before. Bulletproof Batman (talk) 08:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Advocacy-pushing disruption over at UK Independence Party[edit]

Probably not any point in leaving this open, it should be clear to RoverTheBendInSussex that any further edit-warring or other disruption will lead to a topic-ban or block. Black Kite (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The article on the UK Independence Party (UKIP) is experiencing regular disruptive editing from User:RoverTheBendInSussex, a self-professed UKIP member. Multiple reliable sources authored by academic political scientists and published in peer-reviewed outlets testify that the party are nationalist or British nationalist in ideological orientation. User:Rover is unhappy with this, and has been edit warring over a period of ten days to remove "British nationalism"/"Nationalism" from the article infobox and replace it with either "British patriotism" or "Civic nationalism" ([26]; [27]; [28]; [29]; [30]; [31]; [32]; [33]). Despite their repeated claims to the contrary, they have provided no reliable sources to support their claim. There is a talk page consensus of other editors that "British nationalism"/"Nationalism" should be in the infobox, and Rover has not overturned this, nor gained a single editor to support their calls for change. The issue has been extensively discussed at the article talk page; the option of an RfC has been offered to User:Rover but they have ignored this and continued to edit war. Myself, User:Snowded, and User:Bondegezou [update at 19:19: and now User:Elektrik Fanne] have been reverting their edits; in my case that has probably pushed me into edit war territory, for which I apologise, but I was trying to uphold consensus. Rover's behaviour is textbook disruptive editing—refusal to "get the point", tendentious editing, acting against consensus, resisting requests for comment, and an opposition to verifiability—it's all there. Given that this has been continuing for some time now, I thought it time to get an administrator involved. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

As I recall events, User:RoverTheBendInSussex removed "nationalism", which triggered a discussion on Talk, and Rover participated in that. However, it soon became apparent that everyone else participating was happy with the tag, and Rover's evidence against didn't hold up. After a few days of debate during which the label was mostly absent from the article, I re-added the label in this edit on 16:05, 25 Sep. Rover reverted here two days later. A few hours later, having reviewed the Talk page and only seeing a stronger consensus for this label, I re-added it here. About 37 hours later, we get to today: Rover re-removed, User:Midnightblueowl re-added and Rover re-removed in short succession. So, I agree with Midnightblueowl that Rover is ignoring consensus here. Bondegezou (talk) 13:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
There haven't been a lot of people involved in the Talk discussion, as is common these days, but you can see it at Talk:UK_Independence_Party#British_Nationalism. Rover made his case, this was examined at some length, everyone else rejected the arguments, Rover got a bit ad hominem-y. Bondegezou (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • That whole talk page conversation appears to be RoverTheBendInSussex arguing against a consensus of other editors. There also seems to be an element of WP:IDHT in that he is repeating the same arguments that have previously been rejected. Coupled with the serious edit-warring and this edit, I would say a topic-ban on the article is warranted to prevent any further wasting of other editor's time. Someone who admits to being a UKIP supporter, edits the article, and then posts this edit summary "Leave editing this page to impartial individuals" is clearly not concerned with WP policies. Black Kite (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Admittedly I do have a bias on this issue, but I think that a topic ban would be a good idea. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
      • In the talk section you didn't admit you had a bias in this instance, although several comments you made did present leakage. The issue I have with this is you have ignored multiple links I have posted, you previously agreed on "civic nationalism", and then when somebody else who happens to be a Labour Party supporter pushed for "Nationalist" or "British Nationalist", you went back on your word and changed it again. It is worth noting you seem to have a special interest updating "Radical Right" politics, and extreme left wing politics, be it; Vladimir Lenin, Ken Livingstone, Karl Marx, Mao Zedong, and others of an extreme left ideology. Are you a supporter of left-wing politics, such as Jeremy Corbyn, Socialism and the UK Labour Party. If so, I question your impartiality in updating the UKIP page. [34] What you are pushing for is a not clearly definable description of UKIP. I have clearly stated facts that directly contradict the ideology of "British Nationalist" or "Nationalist". In the simplest explanation, how can UKIP be "Nationalist" if written into their Constitution is reconnection with the Commonwealth [35], and a policy of Global trade. Not to mention building partnership connections with Global nations? [36] [37] and immigration [38]. The clearest definition of Nationalism is; "a shared group feeling in the significance of a geographical and sometimes demographic region seeking independence for its culture or ethnicity that holds that group together." This description does not fit UKIP's policies or mandate. Regardless of which anti-UKIP tabloid or pro-EU/anti-UKIP academic research you post. Midnightblueowl has admitted a clear bias with regard to UKIP, and is pushing for a ban against editing the page so people of his ilk, who oppose UKIP openly can change the page status to push a negative rhetoric and vision of UKIP. Everyone who has supported this ideology on the UKIP page has been either a Labour supporter, Scottish Nationalist or Welsh Nationalist, all of whom oppose UKIP. What does a Wikipedia user have to admit before their opinion is deemed biased against a page they are adding. The SNP are defined as being Civic Nationalists whilst their supporters resort to near daily anglophobia and violence online, and have been videoed/had radio interviews expressing both verbal and physical violence against people with alternate opinions. [39]
        [44] Yet they get defined as being Civic Nationalists on their page, a status I felt fair to be added to UKIP's page. Yet UKIP, the party that has had no hand in Nationalist violence on air or in the general public are defined as being the more tribal form of Nationalism. How utterly pathetic! User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2016 (GMT)
        • It would probably be a good idea if you didn't import your arguments on the UKIP talk page to here; this is not the venue. You appear to have three problems; 1: you are accusing others of having a POV when you clearly have one yourself; 2: You are edit-warring against multiple other editors against talk page consensus; 3: Your use of sources appears to be veering into WP:SYNTH, something that has already been pointed out on the talk page. You have two choices here; either you accept the consensus that is against you here (or open an RfC, something that has already been proposed), or your editing of the page will need to be restricted in order to prevent the huge time-sink that has already occurred. Which is it to be? Black Kite (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
          • I know that this probably isn't the place but I do want to counter some of the slanderous falsities that Rover has promoted here, lest uninvolved editors mistake them for fact. "You have ignored multiple links I have posted". False. Myself and several other editors read each and every one of those links; there were five in total. In each and every case the link did not contain the information that Rover was claiming of it, and in one it actually directly contravened the information that they were claiming of it, for it made the specific claim that UKIP are nationalist. It was Rover who completely and utterly misrepresented these five sources in order to promote their own personal view of UKIP. "What you are pushing for is a not clearly definable description of UKIP". What I am "pushing for" is the use of reliable sources written by academics who have actually conducted a great deal of research into UKIP and published their findings in peer-reviewed journals. What I am also "pushing for" is the acceptance that there is a consensus on the Talk Page which should not be contravened by the unilateral actions of one editor. "Everyone who has supported this ideology on the UKIP page has been either a Labour supporter, Scottish Nationalist or Welsh Nationalist, all of whom oppose UKIP" - I have no idea where Rover plucked this one from, for it is sheer supposition; anyone who seems to disagree with Rover's behaviour is immediately accused of being a lefty with a strong anti-UKIP bias. "Midnightblueowl has admitted a clear bias with regard to UKIP". No I haven't. This is yet another blatant falsity. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
            • I wonder if the most logical action here would simply to impose a 0RR restriction on Rover. This, I think, would be the best way of proceeding without preventing him from commenting on the talk page. Black Kite (talk) 22:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
              • "False. Myself and several other editors read each and every one of those links; there were five in total. In each and every case the link did not contain the information that Rover was claiming of it, and in one it actually directly contravened the information that they were claiming of it, for it made the specific claim that UKIP are nationalist." - No. Each of those links were about Civic Nationalism. Which discussed UKIP within the context of the article about Civic Nationalism. "What I am "pushing for" is the use of reliable sources written by academics who have actually conducted a great deal of research into UKIP and published their findings in peer-reviewed journals." - I provided links by the University of Cardiff and Fabian Society. Both those links were academic reports. "I have no idea where Rover plucked this one from, for it is sheer supposition" - Try reading editors, edit histories. "Midnightblueowl has admitted a clear bias with regard to UKIP". ~ "No I haven't. This is yet another blatant falsity." - 6 hours earlier... "Admittedly I do have a bias on this issue, but I think that a topic ban would be a good idea." You have not come to a consensus, and your answer is to go over the head of a editor who doesn't make a habit of disagreeing in this manner, has been editing on Wikipedia for years and has provided plenty of counter argument to what you wish to add to the info-box. None of which you have provided a counter-argument for. Look above. You, and other editors just want to block me as I have provided a counter-argument to what you have claimed which is NOT accurate. My concern is people would use this inaccurate status to misportray UKIP as a political weapon. The status has been on Wikipedia for a day and someone has already screencaptured it to attack UKIP proving my point. [45] User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 02:16, 30 September 2016 (GMT)
                • Declaring their political allegiance to UKIP then turning around and questioning Midnightblueowl's impartiality in updating the UKIP page kind of smacks of hypocrisy doesn't it? Blackmane (talk) 07:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
                • "You, and other editors just want to block me as I have provided a counter-argument to what you have claimed which is NOT accurate." Let's get this clear - no-one wants to block you. They do, however, want you to stop your edit-warring and associated disruption on the UKIP article, which almost certainly will lead to a block or topic-ban if it continues. The choice is yours. Black Kite (talk) 10:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
    • "Each of those links were about Civic Nationalism." This is either a deliberate lie or reflects a total inability to understand the sources in question. Anyone can look at these sources: these are the two which Rover has claimed analytically describe UKIP as "civil nationalist" ([46]; [47]), and these are the three that Rover claims support their claim that UKIP adhere to an ideology of "British patriotism" ([48] [49] [50]). As anyone can see, none of these claims are substantiated by the links in question, and this is something that has been told to Rover on many occasions now. One can also see how Rover deliberately misrepresents sources with their link to a Twitter post above; they claim that "people would use this inaccurate status to misportray UKIP as a political weapon" but on the Twitter account in question, the commentary is dealing not with the "British nationalism" that Rover takes issue with, but the description of the party as "right-wing".
    • "6 hours earlier... "Admittedly I do have a bias on this issue,"" - yes, I have a bias with regard to how Rover should be sanctioned because I have been dealing with their disruptive editing for ten days now. That is a very different thing from admitting some anti-UKIP bias. Rover is again deliberately misrepresenting my words to suit their own agenda
    • As uninvolved editors should be able to see now, Rover has no intention of playing by the rules. When there is a consensus on a particular point, they insist "you have not come to a consensus". They maintain that they have provided "plenty of counter-argument" but have only done so by totally misrepresenting sources and ignoring the fact that their arguments have been consistently examined and rejected by a range of other editors. They continue to claim that the information in the article is "NOT accurate" despite the fact that said information is based squarely on the claims made by academic political scientists in the very best quality reliable sources (moreover, they have been pointed to WP:Verifiability, not truth at least twice now). They have now been offered an RfC on multiple occasions and have ignored the offer, instead continuing to insist that they are right and that editors who disagree with them are politically motivated and should desist from editing altogether. They've had multiple chances to cease their behaviour and have failed to do so. I think that the proposal of a topic ban is a good one and would welcome the involvement of administrators to put a stop to this disruptive editing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

─────────────────────────User:RoverTheBendInSussex, as I've said on the Talk page in the past, you have raised some appropriate points of nuance that I think warrant coverage in the article text (I've made suggestions where). However, you are not new to Wikipedia. You know how the project works. You can't win every argument. You will achieve more if you accepted when consensus is against you. It's not up to me, but I support User:Black Kite's suggestions for how to avoid the "time-sink". Bondegezou (talk) 10:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

In the end, this is quite a simple concept and one answer from the editor[edit]

RoverTheBendInSussex, are you going to stop edit-warring against others, and trying to claim others should not be editing, on the UKIP page? If the answer is yes, then we can close this and carry on. If the answer is no (or if you continue to do so after answering "yes"), then a topic-ban on the UKIP page or (more likely) an indefinite block per WP:NOTHERE are in order. Which is it to be? Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

  • This is all rather pathetic. I have provided clear and concise explanations as to why the edit is wrong, and doesn't match UKIP ideology. Nobody has even argued the point I have made. Now because I disagree with an inaccurate and potentially damaging edit. I am threatened with removal/blocking. My choice is thus; Put up with an inaccurate edit which I have clearly explained as being wrong citing examples of it being wrong, and comparisons to other parties showing it is wrong. Or fight my corner and be banned. No proper debate about the subject has been had. More people have made threats to me than I have tried to cause conflict, and nobody has attempted to explain the reasoning for the edit. Utterly pathetic. I encourage people to actually debate this edit on the talk page, or would that result in another barrage of threats to ban me as well? User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 01:45, 01 October 2016 (GMT)
    • You might be thinking that once you submit an argument against to the arguments of others, somehow you're right and they are wrong. Wikipedia works by agreement, and I think it's safe to say you have had no success at all with getting (almost) anyone to agree with your view on the definition of UKIP's nationalism, and also the sources which you have used to try backing up your views. Moreover, no one owns anything on Wikipedia, and some of your comments on the UKIP talk page, like calling others to "desist from editing this page" seems like you like others who disagree with your political philosophy from editing. And as mentioned above, almost no one agrees with your quoted sources and way of explaining them to qualify your views. Plus, "so people of his ilk" above (did you guys miss that?) isn't helping your case in the least bit. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 06:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
    • It is certainly not "pathetic" to request that an editor stop edit-warring and casting aspersions on others; indeed, the community shouldn't need to ask that you follow site policy. I currently don't see anything from you that says this won't continue. Black Kite (talk) 08:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Problematic behavior of user Le Grand Bleu[edit]

User:Le Grand Bleu indefinitely blocked and talk page access removed. Wikipedia:No personal attacks is one of our more serious policies and the fact that this editor on numerous occasions, and over a prolonged period of time, has failed to adhere to it in both articles and on their talk page is beyond reproach. While obviously frustrated, comments like this nearly 72 hours later demonstrate WP:IDHT. This editor has avenues available to them but their talk page will not be a venue for them to continue their patterns of personal attacks against editors. Mkdwtalk 03:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This user has been blocked about a dozen of times, including three times this year (once by myself), mainly for personal attacks. What they are doing on Wikipedia is not particularly useless but not very useful either: they find unsourced statements, mark them as unsourced, and after a while, without making any effort, remove them, often with a rude remarks [51]. Today, they got a complaint on a talk page from a user in good standing [52]. They responded like this. I noticed their response and asked them whether they realize that the comment is rude. I was told more or less to mind my own business. May be time has come for this user to have a longer Wikipedia break, a year or may be even longer.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I'm more concerned about the potential libel going on at Talk:Geely: [53]. clpo13(talk) 23:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Definitely a serious BLP problem, so I have reverted and hidden it. Moriori (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Regrettably, after reviewing this user's behavior in the time they have been on Wikipedia, I agree and support a one year ban. The user has had two three-month long blocks, and each time they have returned only to behave in the same manner. There is evidence of racial bias [54] [55], disparagement of positions the user disagrees with [56], name-calling [57] [58] [59], disparaging living subjects of articles [60], and at least one accusation that other editors are the President of Kazakhstan [61]. Frankly, I'm not convinced that this user will cease their behavior even after that time. As it stands now though, such a large portion of this user's edits are objectionable that I do not think we have another choice. agtx 23:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support one year ban per above and after looking at the notes in their block log. Le Grand Bleu does not display the temperament customary to participating in a collaborative project. These aren't just small lapses in civility where can be like "could you please be more civil? Thank you". Le Grand Bleu has demonstrated a complete inability to interact with others in a collaborative manner without responding with just downright mean and abrasive comments and bashing those he disagrees with. That is entirely contravention to working with others and building an encyclopedia. I am absolutely convinced that nothing short of a one year site ban will convince this user to engage in the community in a proactive and not combative manner. If not, then the user can always be blocked again if they come back with the same behavior. —Mythdon (talkcontribs) 23:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support indef block: With those comments above, Should we indef block the user because he's totally incompentent with this user. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I'm been doing 23:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support one year block - Moriori has already applied this block, but I'm going to add my two cents nonetheless. After reviewing this user's recent contributions to Talk:Greely and other articles in relation to Greely, and looking through this user's past blocks and history, I agree that the community has exhausted all other options, and that a one year block is the logical next step regarding a sanction to impose in order to stop the problematic behavior and the disruption that has been made. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Indef block - This user has demonstrated no respect for the project, the administrators and the content. I'd go as far to say as the user is WP:NOTHERE. -- Dane2007 talk 03:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support 1 year block a one year block is the logical step, as Oshwah has said. I don't think an indef is necessary. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support indef ban (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Community ban for User:Le Grand Bleu[edit]

It seems everyone has a different take on this situtation; but most can agree that he needs a community site ban for at least a full year. I'm not even going to go into detail about this; his block log, contributions, and the rest of this section prove anything I ever could. I do have one thing I noticed that most people don't, though: he uses being a "new user" (Yeah, that tag has been up since June 2014 and hasn't learned anything) as an excuse for all of the aforementioned BS. (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

About the time you were writing that I was blocking User:Le Grand Bleu -- for one year. Moriori (talk) 23:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
That was actually the reason I wrote this. Although I can understand if you misunderstand; I think a site ban is deserved because he has kept up with this shit for around 26 months. (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Also, massive kudos to User:Clpo13 for fixing up the Geely article a bit by adding sources, reverting him, and tagging it. (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
e/c Wow! I freely admit I know nothing about the user or their edits, but it seems to me that blocking someone for a year within 3 hours of the OP and the user has not even replied (been able to reply) to the accusations is, well, premature. DrChrissy (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I blocked him not because of the OP, but because a subsequent comment from another editor alerted me to something else. When notifying User:Le Grand Bleu that I had blocked him, I said it was for his "BLP transgression at Geely today, an edit serious enough in itself to warrant a block, especially given your block history." He can appeal the block if he wants to. Moriori (talk) 00:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Rekt! (talk) 11:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Lets not dance around the grave here and kick Le Grand Bleu while he's down :-(. As much as this user has probably caused frustration and perhaps anger, we need to be respectful and take Le Grand Bleu's feelings into account. Blocking someone for a year is not a decision that comes lightly, nor is it something should be done without serious care. If I were in Le Grand Bleu's shoes, I'd feel quite saddened, beaten, and defeated for being blocked for a full year. Making comments like this only makes things worse; we don't want to discourage this user from coming back (assuming that a one-year block is the consensus that is reached here) - we should have the attitude that we want him back! But we also want him to take time and learn from this and contribute positively and according to policy :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

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


Nothing more to do. CyberBrinda has been blocked indefinitely for persistent disruptive editing and personal attacks. Blackmane (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am very likely to need some help here as I have no idea yet what I am doing especially concerning listing "diff's". I will look into this if actually needed.
I had participated in some AFD's (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rewati Chetri and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pankhuri Gidwani and received notices of thanks from CyberBrinda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). I had made some edits, to Rewati Chetri that were maintenance (marking dead links, removing a redundant reference to the same source with the same content, and I also removed the external link to a pageant that I feel was just pageant advertising, since there was no mention of the subject. All these were done with an edit summary and I posted what I had done on the talk page.
The edits were removed so I posted more comments on the talk page and looked around. I placed an external link tag on the article to deal with it later, with an edit summary and the reasoning on the talk page. I sent a message to CyberBrinda about the incremental mobile edits to the page, with no edit summary. I received a notice of thanks from the editor. Looking into it more I found that the editor had made other like edits such as Miss Earth India, and in fact is a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account with hundreds of such edits. CyberBrinda had been warned by at least one user, and was blocked twice for disruptive editing. I added a message on the talk page concerning the things I found. I may not have done things exactly right (or right at all) but think I have been civil and trying to be informative about the issues.
The external link tag that I placed was removed and at least had an edit summary "(The External links does not violate any copyrights...)" but no discussion, in fact no discussion on anything just the thanks and edit reverts.
I am posting this discussion on the user talk page and that may get some response. I did not look to see if the blocks were related and did not know protocol as to if I should have made inquiries to the blocking admin or here since I have not done this before. I was going to send another message, and was looking at the templates, but the external link tag was removed without discussion so I know that any further discussion to the user would be a waste of my time. I feel some intervention is required as I do not know how to follow the hundreds of rapid fire masked edits (no edit summaries), that includes what looks to be 87 edits on one day on the same article, to see what is going on, but 367 edits to 5 articles (842 total edits to just a few articles), in such a short time by a somewhat new editor, causes me to wonder. Add to this the disregard of policies and guidelines, in light of receiving messages, means to me there is a problem. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 08:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I closed one of the AfDs and at that time I came across