Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive899

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:E.M.Gregory again[edit]

Coming here to avoid 3RR. As a result of a dispute on Matthew C. Whitaker, I have been keeping an eye on User:E.M.Gregory's contribs. He started 2015 Ikea murders for political reasons only per the edit comment). He supported this political view with sources from Breitbart. I knew these were not RS, but tried to stay uninvolved - I notified the Sweden Wikiproject to keep an eye on the article here. They did so, and some cleanup was done, including the addition of failed verification templates on all the sources in the Impact section (the "political part" which is the article creator's claimed focus) at the time. EM Gregory has removed those templates twice and left the sources they are tied to in the article. I restored the templates once, but I'm not going to editwar about it.

In the interests of disclosure, substantial errors were found and corrected on the aforementioned Whitaker article by myself and others, as evidenced by the Talk page, where I and others have documented several and I would note that there was no engagement by E.M.Gregory on the article talk until the initial matter was brought to ANI as the the result of a PA towards me. There is also a pattern: aside from the massive puffery removed on the Whitaker article, another sourcing error was found on another article, apparently due to a typo (because "Whitney" and "Bingham" are very close together on the keyboard, I guess). These "mistakes" seem to be far too prevalent, including what the initial PA was claimed to be. I'd note that I have also been accused of POV-pushing on illegal immigration, which is an issue I don't even edit. The intermediate diff showing the strikeout of a comment disregarding consensus is pretty interesting, too.

However, if that is, instead, the focus of EM Gregory's editing (aside from combating supposed "academic injustice" via Whitaker), that is a problem if not done fairly. The editing pattern is damaging to the encyclopedia (like moving an article during AfD), and the unwillingness to assume responsibility for the "mistakes" and errors (instead claiming "accidents", "wikihounding" and "SPAs") is a detriment to collegial editing. I'd take an interaction ban if this were indeed a personal issue on my part, but it isn't; EMG's editing pattern (and the IDIDNTHEARTHAT associated with it) is damaging to the encyclopedia, and it's simply not an isolated problem anymore, because it's cropping up on every article he edits. MSJapan (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Frankly I am fed up with User:MSJapan's persistent WIKIHOUNDING. This editor has been WIKIHOUNDING me since I made a simple editing error the week before last, for which I swiftly apologized, and has repeatedly stated that s/he would be glad if I left Wikipedia. I believe that her/his goal is to chase me off Wikipedia. At first, I thought the WIKIHOUNDING was a mere overreaction and have refrained form bringing this to ANI. I hate the aggression on Wikipedia. Today the editor's language leads me to suspect a POV motive. Or, perhaps, a nervous breakdown. Whatever MSJapan's editor's motives, his/her behavior is an overreaction to any actual errors I have committed. Certainly, however, MSJapan's approach is an excellent way to convince rational people to avoid editing Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Then stop editing contrary to policy. You keep adding sources to articles that do not support the statements you want to make. Wikipedia is not a place for your original research, and you don't understand that. Nobody should have go around cleaning up your messes because you didn't do youe due diligence. You don't start a bio article to do nothing but write about scandals, and you don't start an event article to talk about politics. You especially don't remove "verification failed" templates from sources. Respond to issues instead of making ad hominem attacks. Actually, when someone disputes your sources, you need to engage in discussion, not just revert "because it's sourced." Your problem is that you think your opinions trump policies and procedures, and they don't. In short, act like a good contributor, and perhaps people will treat you like one. Until that time, you need to deal with the consequences of your editing behavior. On another note to the admins, have I not provided enough diffs to show the pattern of behavior and lack of engagement to resolve the problem? MSJapan (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
If more diffs are needed, this was my removal for clear synth, the talk diff where I explained such, and a wholesale reversion of the edit, despite the talk thread being opened. That's the behavioral point - I made an edit in accordance with policy, explained why on talk in accordance with policy, and was reverted rather than engaged on talk. The substance of the edit is not at question here in this thread.
I'd also note that this AfD diff on an article EMG is a good indicator as well; the user thinks that writing a BLP focusing on a perpetrator is OK even when it is substantially about the event, and feels that following policies in such cases is "against consensus." The same went for the substantive version of Matthew C. Whitaker before any other editors got involved - a BLP with little to no BLP. There is a similar sourcing discussion on EMG's page here, and prod after prod after prod. EMG has refactored comments at least twice, and has a copyvio notice. I would note that a university bio was OK as a source for David_Mikics (who "automatically passed PROF" on that source), thought a "self-referenced description was OK" on Susya for an NGO, but a uni bio was "unsourced hagiography" on Matthew C. Whitaker. Again, this isn't content, it's editing conduct. When the source suits his purpose, it's OK, and when it doesn't, it isn't, no matter what.
Wikihounding seems to be a common fallback when someone disagrees with his editing and he can't get his way. He did that to Auslondoner after previously having falsely accused him of abusing SPEEDY and canvassing. He also goes after editors who tag his work as if they're in the wrong for tagging unsourced and single source articles. No one is responsible for the EMG's lack of competence other than him, and he's clearly not willing to accept that. MSJapan (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • This series of edits by E.M.Gregory violates NPOV by exaggerating the connection between the IKEA murders and the rise of Sweden's anti-immigration politics. E.M.Gregory's sentence, "The attack is said to have contributed to producing a major uptick in support for the Sweden Democrats Party, which pledges to limit immigration," falsely portrays the two sources, both of which only mention the IKEA murders as a recent element rather than as a major influence. Challenged on this point, E.M.Gregory expanded the problem, adding a source written before the murders (!!) as well as an opinion piece from the UK which fails to describe the IKEA murders as having a major influence on the popularity of the Sweden Democrats Party. This looks like political advocacy to me, not encyclopedic writing. I'm seeing poor work by E.M.Gregory, not hounding by MSJapan. Binksternet (talk) 18:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Here's a statement directly from E.M.Gregory that shows exactly why there's an editing conduct issue: [1]. MSJapan (talk) 20:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
    • And apparently he's attacking other users as well, later apologies aside: [2] MSJapan (talk) 22:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, if a problem has been identified, can we please have some actual disciplinary action on top of the problem identification? The user's behavior is getting ridiculous, to the point of effectively inventing things to change. It's actually a minor improvement for once, but the behavior around it negates the whole thing, as the change was made only as a way to attack me (not to improve the content). This should not be the level that it takes to get a minor positive contribution out of the user, either. Said user, by the way, despite being notified of the ANI, hasn't actually addressed anything stated herein (of which there is a substantial pattern illustrated by diffs in several articles, talk pages, and AfDs) other than to accuse me of POV editing and mental instability. I consistently address content, and he consistently addresses me, not the content. Maybe I simply haven't been clear in what I wish to be done, so here it is: The shoddy disruptive POV editing all over Wikipedia and the personal attacks in response to content edits from this user need to stop, by sanction if necessary. MSJapan (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

And some NPA [3]. MSJapan (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
which the user attempted to refactor out of the discussion, removing another editor's comment as well: [4] MSJapan (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Still more disruptive behavior:

It is becoming apparent that when E.M.Gregory does not get his way, he edits disruptively, pushes back against editors who do not agree with him, and generally causes a problem. For that reason, I'm retitling this ANI, as this has really gone well beyond one article. There are too many issues across the contribs at this point to call this isolated or personal. I've found at least three other editors he has caused problems with at this point. By ignoring this, his behavior is being validated. MSJapan (talk) 06:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Note — As a heads up, I've added {{Ds/alert}}s to editors involved with the BLPs and warned E.M.Gregory (talk · contribs) about a clear personal attack. To be fair, I do understand why he would feel he was being followed around, but clearly random accusations on talk pages or AfDs is not the proper place to go about dealing with the issue. --slakrtalk / 08:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • EMG has removed all of the failed verification tags from the Al-Bazi article, and I have notified slakr, as well as provided full support [5] as I also did in a briefer format in the AfD already. That's a clear violation of the sanctions, so I'm placing it here for documentation purposes. I will also note in the AfD diff, he states my claims are unsupported, but does not address any of them, relying on attacking the editor instead of engaging with the information. MSJapan (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • And perhaps a solid WP:COMPETENCE issue here, because in ten years at Wikipedia I've never seen these policies used to support exactly their opposite position by anyone who'd actually read them. MSJapan (talk) 23:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

User interactions with AusLondonder[edit]

I've mentioned these before, but I'm going to drop them into a subsection to see if Auslondonder wishes to participate in this discussion, because there's a lot of interaction between them, too.

  • [6] - where EMG falsely accuses AusLondonder of CSDing
  • [7] - where EMG goes from lightly reprimanding AusLondonder to notify editors from the previous AfD, and then accuses AusLondonder of violating canvassing by doing so
  • [8] - EMG then returns with the wikihounding accusation MSJapan (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment having had a brief look at some of the articles created/edited by EMG, over and above the quality/misuse of sources, tag removing and general uncooperativeness referred to above. The articles seem to be written in a very WP:Coatrack manner, in which the main purpose of the article is to link immigration and criminality. Some of the articles currently at AfD, might well pass, but need major cleanups. If MSJapan and others have been obliged to follow this editor to ensure reasonable standards of sourcing and neutrality, they are doing us all a favour, not 'wikihounding'. Pincrete (talk) 08:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Firstly, I am perplexed why no admin is replying to this matter or addressing the concerns. I have had some difficult experiences with E. M. Gregory in the past. My perspective is that this editor seems to seek to seek to pursue a political agenda on Wikipedia to a significant extent. This relates mostly to Islam/immigration and related topics (and in the past LGBT issues). This includes misuse and misinterpretation of sources and continual false allegations against other editors. While E. M. Gregory has made some helpful contributions, they also fail to follow some behavioural and editing guidelines. My response to his false allegations against me was fairly robust, as we have clashed in the past when I nominated an article relating to a book about gay "conversion therapy", resulting in false accusations of bad faith and agenda-pushing. AusLondonder (talk) 09:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Auslondoner's record of bring articles the political implications of which he does not like to AFD is remarkable. Trying to remember ever "tangling" or even editing an article on LGBT issues, I came upon his AFD for a book: The Myth of Islamic Tolerance. Cannot find/recall what LGBT -related AFD I might have met him on. More recently, he simultaneously attempted to speedy SeaGlass Carousel and brought to AFD 2012 Paros (Greece) rape and 2003 Route 60 Hamas ambush. The problem is that he does not seem to perform WP:BEFORE, before he nominated articles. Moreover, the sort of reasons he gives for deletion "An encyclopaedia cannot cover every rape committed even if it is *gasp* committed by an "illegal" immigrant." are not exactly policy driven.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
    I feel, as I have felt since MSJapan started this, that while it is true that I have made mistakes since I began editing regularly earlier this year, I have in general been a responsible editor. I also suppose that all editors make mistakes. What is intense and inappropriate about MSJapan is not only combing thorough months of edits to fine errors, but saving them up like a magpie to bring here, why not just fix the things? the intensity comes in articles like Douglas Al-Bazi, an article I found at AFD and sourced. I'm not saying that it's perfect, merely that MSJapan's description of it both at the AFD and, particularly, at the [[User talk:slakrs talk page to be almost inexplicable. Unless, of course, his goal is to drive me form Wikipedia, and the only reason for trying to drive me away that I can imagine is that she does not want articles about Christian refugees from ISIS on wikipedia. Perhaps this is not political, whatever the motivation, I do feel that I am undeserving of the language and animosity directed at me by MSJapan, and that both MSJapan (who repeatedly has expressed a desire to drive me off Wikipedia) and AusLondne To me, it feels as though they are working in combination to drive me away form Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I have in fact never stated such a position, and I see that EMG has not provided diffs to illustrate that. Meanwhile, I have provided plenty of diffs illustrating that EMG is not a responsible editor. Too many of his articles are written with an agenda in mind, and when confronted, he attacks the editor. The reason EMG finds my explanation "inexplicable" is dumbfounding to me, because I read every source EMG added to the article to try to find the statement he was citing to the source. In no case were those statements there; period. Therefore, it is likely that COATRACKing via Google is what is happening - Google the subject, add every source that his name is in - there's no other way that we could get to the situation that material clearly from a BBC radio program only was being sourced elsewhere. That is not responsible editing.
A similar thing happened here, where my source-based explanation was met with personal response, and in fact has nothing to do with the article's topic. The same thing happened on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shooting of Danny Gonen - the pushback against the editors, not the sources: "the nom didn't do BEFORE", "Assertion is false" etc, not "the source says." MSJapan (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
The reason for the personal pushback seems to be an agenda of wanting these articles on Wikipedia, often for what appears to be ulterior motives. 2003 Route 60 Hamas ambush was created on August 16, and then he basically walked away from the article. It was prodded two weeks later, and that's when the issues started. Every time someone said something in the AfD, EMG went an COATRACKed a bunch of sources in to the article. This is the same thing he did with Matthew C. Whitaker, and several creation edit summaries illustrates this creation/expansion pattern:
2003 Route 60 Hamas ambush - edit summary on creation diff "article on 2003 Hamas terror shooting, back in the news due to successful lawsuit against bank that transferred funds to Hamas" - CLEARLY not notable as a standalone event, but being written as such. Created the article in one edit, left it alone until it was prodded two weeks later
Matthew C. Whitaker - Started the article July 14 during coverage, worked on it for about 2 days, then went away from it until it was tagged as undue August 2. EMG removed tags without discussion, and then didn't touch the article again until it was edited August 19.
[Seaglass Carousel creation diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SeaGlass_Carousel&action=history] - "new article on new carousel, sourcing goes back yrs. , coverage likely to be intense when it opens next week - let them source it to Wikipedia" This is simply inappropriate use of the encyclopedia
There wouldn't be so much evidence if this wasn't such a widespread problem, and I have probably not gone back more than a month or so of editing (maybe six weeks by now?), except in a few cases, because the point is that this is a long-term problem iwith this editor, not a personal issue limited to interactions with one or two editors. MSJapan (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I apologize for my levity at SeaGlass Carousel. The carousel is a big deal, artistically and in terms of coverage. I made a joke because I started the article just before the official opening. I happened to see it at night when the lights were on, the crew was running trials. I was totally take by it. So I wrote the little article. I write when something moves me. My first edit was about a terrorist attack. Mateu Morral. I find these things appalling, what ever the politics of the perpetrator. I suspect that a great many more of the old-time old anarchist and communist terror attacks could support articles than have them now. Often I am moved by a book, or an artist. I recently began several articles (mere stubs) about the cast of a show I saw: ((Hamilton (musical)]] and loved. I was not aware that there was a rule against starting an article and leaving it brief, in the assumption that it will grow. I have been under the impression that this is how Wikipedia functions. I often add just a bit to an article. Say, a reference, or a small fact. Sometimes I start an article in the belief that others, who know more about the topic, will sooner or later come and add to it. this seems to happen. But I have certainly been under the impression that if an incident of terrorism is widely covered by major media outlets, then an article is appropriate. This is true even of a great many such incidents where noone dies. (for example, 2014 Dijon attack, 2006 UNC SUV attack. I remember these incidents vividly, perhaps because I am familiar with the locations where they took place, but I heard about them on the national news at the time they ocurred. To me, MSJapan appears to be setting up a set of requirements for keeping an article on the 2003 Route 60 Hamas ambush that don't exist and/or are not applied to other, somewhat parallel incidents in which civilians are targeted by terrorists. In a broader sense, I do not find his descriptions of my work accurate, or his attitude constructive. I had, as I have stated elsewhere, decided that if I ignored him instead of engaging with him, that he would forget me. Since he has not, I respond here and throw myself on the fairmindedness of editors reading this.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

───────────────────────── You "ignore me" insofar as you revert edits out of hand, and refuse to engage in discussion until I bring things here, despite my posting on talk pages and AfDs consistently, documenting all my changes for the record. Meanwhile, you very much don't ignore me when your reversion edit summaries are all some form of "MSJapan is wrong/untruthful/makes unsupported statements", and yet you can't point to where the information you say is in the source, is actually in the source. I would also point out that I have never once made a personal attack against you, and have confined my statements entirely to dealing with sources. You, on the other hand, have accused me (so far) of: being an article topic, POV editing, having a COI, being "mentally unstable", and "having a nervous breakdown." It takes several other editors making the same changes I make and document for them to stick. Three other editors have indicated problems just in this thread, and two of them have never interacted with you. How big does the problem need to get? MSJapan (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Deliberate rewording and coatracking: here. The phrase from Al Monitor reads Whenever groups of Jewish extremists enter, the women begin to chant Islamic verses. If the Jewish groups are seen attempting to pray, the women shout the Islamic religious phrase of Allahu Akbar (God is Great). EMG has changed it to "Israelis", and the source he adds says "where they would study Quran and disrupt the increasingly frequent visits by religious Jews to the site, with shouts of Allahu Akbar (God is Great) and physical assaults." Neutrality aside, "Israelis" are not the same as either "religious Jews" or "Jewish extremists" and that is not an accurate representation of the sources. The fact that this is a new article that EMG is editing reinforces the point that this is an editing problem, not a content dispute. I personally don't care what the content is, as long as it reflects the sources, and it does not. MSJapan (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


Reformat of information[edit]

I am condensing the information in hopes that less text will encourage input.

AfD issues[edit]

Personal attacks/Accusations against other editors[edit]

POV editing[edit]

  • Notability tagging on Arabian Business magazine, an article we've had since 2008.
  • Per the edit comment, article created to talk about nonexistent political fallout.
  • Addition of failed verification templates by uninvolved editors removed twice.
  • 2003 Route 60 Hamas ambush - edit summary on creation diff "article on 2003 Hamas terror shooting, back in the news due to successful lawsuit against bank that transferred funds to Hamas" - CLEARLY not notable as a standalone event, but being written as such. Created the article in one edit, left it alone until it was prodded two weeks later.
  • Combating supposed "academic injustice" via the Matthew C. Whitaker article.
  • This AfD diff where EMG justifies writing an event article solely to focus on the perp.
  • Seaglass Carousel creation diff - "new article on new carousel, sourcing goes back yrs. , coverage likely to be intense when it opens next week - let them source it to Wikipedia"

Source issues[edit]

Suggested course of action[edit]

Editing restrictions should be imposed:

  • Oversight of EMG's edits by a mentor to ensure sources support claims made, without exception.
  • If possible, requirement of approval of edits by a mentor who will do due diligence to verify those sources.
  • Required and enforced engagement with others' concerns with edits, especially with new articles and edits in the Israel-Palestine area.
  • EMG may not revert edits permitted without consensus on talk page.
  • Zero tolerance of PA in all interactions with editors.

Lack of acceptance of these measures will lead to suspension of editing privileges via timeban. Continued violations should lead to an outright block. MSJapan (talk) 05:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Continued victim playing and WP:ICANTHEARYOU by User:Mhhossein[edit]

The blind are prosecuting the blind here. It is clear that Mhhossein is an editor with a particular and strong POV; no one denies that, nor is it in doubt that Mhhossein has, at various times, been particularly hard of hearing. It is clear also that Anders Feder is going to far in their commentary, verging on if not regularly crossing the boundary of personal attack. Having said that, not every comment "on editor not on content" is a personal attack. Feder is encouraged to stay on the right side of NPA; Mhhossein is likewise encouraged to being less disruptive. Both editors are hereby warned that they will run into a block if they persist. Drmies (talk) 03:58, 10 October 2015 (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.

Over several days, Mhhossein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been engaged in disruptive victim playing and refusal to get the point in Talk:Nuclear weapon#RfC: Section about Ali Khamenei's views. He requested that I open a report here, so as to settle the issue.[12] The user was also asked by VQuakr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) to stop the behavior.[13] I previously had requested intervention against his refusal to respect WP:BURDEN here.--Anders Feder (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

While there has been tension elsewhere between the two editors, I don't really see what the problem is. The RfC was closed by Anders Feder with everyone's agreement (as far as I can see). (Technically, the initiator of the RfC should not close it, but since everyone agreed, it is ok here, WP:IAR). It was reopened due to a misunderstanding: it was closed while Mhhossein was writing his comment simultaneously (explanation here). The rest is some back-and-forth over politeness, but since everyone agrees over the content, so I do not see what is to be achieved by fighting over this. My suggestion is to simply accept that it was a misunderstanding and bury the hatchet here. Kingsindian  14:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment by Mhhossein: First of all I really don't know the reason why Anders Feder wishes to increase the tensions by opening unnecessary topics here. However, he made the opportunity for me to have some explanations on this and I was not really willing to take him here in spite of his background.
    • Nuclear Weapon talk page: I opened a topic on the "Islamic views" on nuclear weapon, and for the beginning I wrote a summary of Khamenei's fatwa regarding nuclear weapons, considering that the section will develop later by other users and other viewpoints will be added from other scholars other than khamaneie. Unfortunately, Anders Feder apparently assumed my bad faith and opened a misleading RFC. In fact, he asked "Should the article include a section devoted to Ali Khamenei's views on nuclear weapons, and if so, should it be titled "Islamic views"? while he could easily write: "Should the article include a section on "Islamic view" and should the section include khamenei's view?. The way he opened the RFC made almost every one think that a section is going to be devoted to Khamenei (read the comments) while it was not the fact . Anyway, almost every one agreed on having a section on "Islamic views" or "religious views", and Feder acted in a manner as if there's no consensus. He got angry and had some impolite comments and I asked him to be cool. He said that the section has the due problem and I answered (my previous comment) if there was a due problem why he had opened a RFC for inclusion? As Kingsindian said, I explained how I was writing my comment simultaneously when the RFC was being closed.
    • Warning by VQuakr: He made a strange warning on my talk page and I answered why the warning really did not apply there.
  • Mhhossein (talk) 04:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing "strange" at all about VQuakr's message to you. It was completely warranted and evidence that the on-going disruption is being caused by you and no one else, and is not, as Kingsindian erroneously and counter-productively characterizes it, "tension between editors". The sole source of disruption is you, and it will continue across Wikipedia until admin action is taken against you, as I correctly predicted in the previous ANI.
Your other claims are obviously false as anyone can see from the talk page.--Anders Feder (talk) 05:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
His message was just strange to my eyes and it simply could have been not strange to yours! As it seems you believe that all what I said was wrong while all what you say is right. If you are sure that I'm the sole source of the problems, be cool because the admins know what to do by theme selves and don't need us to tell them what to do. Mhhossein (talk) 06:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
If you want to pretend that you are cool, no one has required you to respond. Admins often do not know what to do with tendentious editors like you until they become aware of the amount of disruption you are causing. That is the whole point of ANI.--Anders Feder (talk) 07:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Another Comment by Mhhossein: Pinging @Sa.vakilian: as I had consulted him regarding personal attacks by Andres Feder. More about Andres Feder:
    • Andres Feder hounding me: On some pages, he appears just after I edit them. He even does the same on the talk pages. His edit in Nuclear weapons is an example. Assuming his good faith, he is trying to enhance the encyclopedia, but how can one call these edits anything but harassment ([14]-[15]-[16]?) and I had asked him to stop hounding me two times (one time on his talk page (which was removed by him) and one time on an article talk page where he had hounded me).
    • Andres personal attack over several months: There's a long list of personal attacks by Andres Feder:
1- here, this editor, Andres Feder, insisted on insulting religion by repeating the phrase "degenerate religious thinking", and here by referring to “all religious fiction” and saying that "all religious texts are fictional", even when I told him that Wikipedia does not care what our beliefs are. He further insulted me by saying, "You can believe in whatever figments of imagination you want!", after which I warned him and asked him to respect the beliefs of others.
2- He always pretends that I am upset because of the policies, but I try to respect the policies and his behavior has irritated me.
-Me: "This is the last time you are insulting my beliefs, I respect yours so please respect mine."[17]
- Editor: "If these policies cause you offence, you are free to set up your own wiki and use any sources you want there". [18]
-Me: "Of course We are not talking about the policies. The policies are highly required for maintaining an encyclopedia. This is you who causes offense to one's beliefs."
[19]
3- The editor tries to use insulting sentences and examples even when we are discussing something else. When I asked "Lightbreather" to guide me on this, Feder came in and said " Not to support the Iranian dictatorship or any other church-state".[20]
Or here he used this example which is in fact an insult to Khomeini:
"According to Ayatollah Khomeini, God likes sick-minded and deranged forms of punishment"[21]
4-I tried to solve the problem through his talk page, but he made more attacks and removed exchanges [22]
There he said, "you expect me to respect someone who everyone knows was a deranged madman?" (referring to the Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini).
5- He was given another request to be polite, but he removed that message, too:
[23]
6- Some other insults are here: [24]-[25]-[26]. Mhhossein (talk) 08:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
When bad-faith editors fill Wikipedia with Iranian state propaganda, good-faith editors will naturally show up to remove it. If that is what you think "hounding" is, then "hounding" is completely fundamental to the way Wikipedia works: contrary to what you believe, Wikipedia is not the place to promote your favorite totalitarian regimes. (And please point me to the policy that prohibits "insulting" "Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini". Maybe you are confusing the policies that apply on Wikipedia with the anti-democratic authoritarian laws that apply in your own country, according to which so-called insults against the "Supreme Leader" is punishable with nothing less barbaric than death?)--Anders Feder (talk) 10:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I know Mhhossein and Anders Feder very well and participate in many discussions with them. Andres is right when he says "Wikipedia is not the place to promote ... ", but I think he does not pay attention to WP:FAITH. He is suspicious about the other editors who have different viewpoints like Mhhossein, thus discusses in a way that looks arrogant and offensive.--Seyyed(t-c) 11:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Please pay attention to WP:FAITH2. AGF does not mean that everyone on Wikipedia actually is in good faith, or that one must assume it when the contrary has been clearly demonstrated.--Anders Feder (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm looking over some of those links, and I'm missing an important element: where these "personal" attacks are against Mhhossein. Anders Feder is certainly insulting towards the government of Iran and Ayatollah Khomeini, but as he correctly states, there is no Wikipedia guideline or policy requiring him to be nice to either on talk pages, except in so far as his edits on relevant articles must reflect NPOV. Nor does him editing some of the same articles as Mhhossein constitute "hounding."

That being said, Anders Feder is being unnecessarily caustic towards Mhhossein, and he ought to start practicing more civility before people push for an interaction ban. Ravenswing 11:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

In the absence of administrator action against Mhhossein, unambiguous language is unfortunately the only language he understands. The moment he stops promoting his personal politico-religious causes on Wikipedia, I will not even need to interact with him.--Anders Feder (talk) 11:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
@Anders Feder: It is ok to disagree, even vehemently, with sourcing - but I fail to understand comments like "Sayyid Mahdi Modarresi is no more a professional than a dancer in the adult entertainment industry is a professional". For example, I don't go around calling Israel a "ethnocratic colonial imperial warmonger state", even though I have a POV and edit a lot in WP:ARBPIA. There is no need to use such caustic language, especially when talking about religious beliefs, which people are very touchy about, when you can simply make the point that the source is not WP:RS. I see your actions otherwise as mostly right in insisting on WP:RS. I see Mhhossein as in the wrong in this particular instance, but willing to improve. You are of course not forced to respond to everything which the other user says: if you are running out of patience/time, simply tell them to open an RfC/RSN discussion as I did here: Talk:Quds_Day#Sentence_from_Chicago_Monitor. Kingsindian  11:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
There is indeed no need for any one user to do anything on Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not compulsory. There is no law or policy preventing us all from leaning back and letting trolls and POV-pushers take over. However, that is not my point. I have not implied that there is.--Anders Feder (talk) 12:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
@Anders Feder: I am sorry that you don't see that comparing a religious figure to a dancer in the sex industry is gratuitous and unnecessary. It is of course important to push back against religious POV-pushers etc., but there is no reason to be gratuitously offensive in doing so. (This is irrelevant of whether Mhhossein actually is such an editor: certainly no case of him being one has been made here). I see mostly good faith disagreements on the talk page, in this instance you are correct about WP:RS and so on. Kingsindian  12:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Of course it isn't necessary for you, since you aren't one trying to do the pushing. It's trivial to sit sanctimoniously perched and tell others how "gratuitous and unnecessary" their actions are. It is another matter to actually do something to push back against religious POV-pushers etc.--Anders Feder (talk) 12:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
@Anders Feder: Indeed, I have no experience whatsoever in contentious topic areas. This is why I choose to edit in WP:ARBPIA, which is free from trolls, POV-pushers, racists and sockpuppets. More seriously, every editor in this thread has flagged your caustic and unnecessary comments, while appreciating your work in trying to uphold WP:RS. You would do well to heed their advice. This is my last comment on this matter. Kingsindian  12:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
@Anders Feder: Can you prove your accusations? You would, if you could! Mhhossein (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Please be polite and respect the etiquette. Your overuse of exclamation marks amount to shouting, and does not make you seem more intelligent. I am happy to respond to anyone asks a normal question.--Anders Feder (talk) 13:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
As I said, they were needed uses! Mhhossein (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I shall remember that the next time you engage in victim-playing over something I said. Thanks.--Anders Feder (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Ravenswing: Thanks for your intervention. Did you check the links like those in item #1? there he said "degenerate religious thinking" and "all religious texts are fictional", "You can believe in whatever figments of imagination you want!" I would never talk about one's belief in such a place and he should learn to respect others view point. Even if those statements are right, they should be stated in related articles using reliable sources, as I have told him before. Thank you again. Mhhossein (talk) 11:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Kingsindian:Thanks for your intervention. I would even more thankful if you could tell me how I was wrong? Mhhossein (talk) 11:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
As I told before in my talk page, focusing on the religious or political issues and trying to judge them with caustic language instead of discussion about improving the article is the main reason of controversy. --Seyyed(t-c) 12:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
No, the sole reason of controversy is repeated attempts to promote religious and political agendas on Wikipedia despite innumerous reminders that this is direct violation of policy. Without these promotional efforts, no interaction would be required. And what's worse, those efforts damage real, mainspace content, whereas the kerfuffle regarding talk page commentary is mainly a sideshow.--Anders Feder (talk) 12:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
@Anders Feder: Do you accuse him for WP:POVPUSH!!! Do you have evidence for it?--Seyyed(t-c) 12:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
In the words of Mhhossein, please "be polite and respect the etiquette" - unneeded overuse of exclamation marks is considered shouting.--Anders Feder (talk) 12:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but your case was the needed use of exclamation because as you see almost every one flagged your caustic and unnecessary comments. Mhhossein (talk) 13:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I was going to ask the same question. From this discussion it seems to me that User:Anders Feder confuses including a neutrally worded, well-sourced section on a mainstream religious viewpoint with promoting that viewpoint. Regarding the RfC itself, User:Mhhossein will have seen the "Edit conflict" message when trying to save his changes, and should therefore not have reopened the discussion; that said, as was mentioned above, arguably Anders Feder should not have closed his own RfC and with hindsight it seems the discussion wasn't entirely over.
I don't see any need for punitive Admin action against either user. I suggest the RfC stays open for now and that a request for admin closure is logged at WP:AN in a couple of days' time. WaggersTALK 12:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
There is no confusion. Assigning undue importance to a single aspect of a subject while masquerading it as a "neutrally worded, well-sourced section" is a well-known method of tendentious editing.--Anders Feder (talk) 12:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Waggers: I think the discussion is some thing beyond a RFC. One may be confused why he has opened a topic in this board. Andres Feder's harsh language disturbs the atmosphere and hinders reaching a consensus. As he is stuck in a systemic bias he can't accept a disagreement and instead expresses himself using uncivil statements (lots of them presented above). Most of the editors here asked him to practice civility but he ignores to get that. I'm asking you to prosecute the case of his being impolite, hounding and personal attacks. Also he should prove his accusations of POV pushing if there's a case. He considers everything published in Iran as propaganda and every one who holds a viewpoint in support of Iran to have a neutral text is promoting propaganda. I noticed his bias in my first encounter with him last year and I told him that. You can follow this section to get the point. At the beginning of the discussion he said "Yes, people on a crusade to promote their religion on Wikipedia unfortunately often indulge in edit warring because they are unable to have their propaganda included under regular standards of reliability and neutrality, as if being disruptive would somehow make them seem more convincing." Mhhossein (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Please drop the ridiculous references to civility since you obviously are incapable of being civil yourself.[27] It is just an attempt on your part to distract attention from your tendentious editing in mainspace. The only thing that disturbs the atmosphere and hinders consensus is your political and religious agendas - I have done nothing in the RfC to hinder consensus. On the contrary, I proposed a close on what seemed to be the agreed outcome, but you—not me—instead continued arguing. As for the reliability of state-controlled media in Iran, see the closing comment at the top of this RfC.--Anders Feder (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree with pretty much everything Kingsindian has written here (especially his advice to Anders Feder). While Mhhossein does clearly push his own POV to an extent it's on a relatively lowkey level (the whole adding a section on Khamenei to the nuclear weapons article was over the top though). If Mhhossein was topic banned for POV pushing we'd have to ban pretty much every single other person editing in the topic area too. Brustopher (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
@Brustopher: I just found it necessary to remind you that per WP:POVPUSH, "POV-pushing is a term used on Wikipedia to describe the aggressive presentation of a particular point of view in an article, particularly when used to denote the undue presentation of minor or fringe ideas," and also "calling someone a "POV-pusher" is uncivil and pejorative, and even characterizing edits as POV-pushing should be done cautiously." Remember that "editing a POV in an article that corresponds with one's own personal beliefs is not necessarily POV-pushing." Did I aggressively tried to present a particular POV? How? Please read my "Nuclear Weapon talk page" comment. Thanks. Mhhossein (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Gah, too much nesting. Anyway ... in response to Mhhossein's comment to me, yes, I did see those links. Once again, I remind you that while being disrespectful towards your faith or nation might be uncivil (depending on the context), it does not constitute an actionable personal attack on you, and is not a prima facie violation of Wikipedia policies or guidelines.

    To Anders Feder ... eeesh, you're just digging yourself deeper here. Were Mhhossein a paid agent, here solely to push the nasty, nasty views of the Iranian government (sarcasm flag up), the situation wouldn't warrant your repeated language. If you think he's posting objectionably, open a RfC. What you don't get to do is claim -- as you did to me -- that his postings somehow exempts you from the civility rules. You're starting to sound like someone who would warrant an interaction ban. Ravenswing 17:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Really? Then so be it - I am not going to pretend that tendentiousness is acceptable to avoid some phony ban.--Anders Feder (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Quite aside from that it's darkly amusing that someone complaining about tendentiousness feels the need to rebut every statement anyone makes, you're still bound by WP:CIVIL, however much you believe that Mhhossein is some great evil who needs to be stopped at all costs. I'd take a peek at WP:BOOMERANG in your shoes. Ravenswing 01:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
It's darkly amusing how certain people operating on these boards thinks there is some profound truth in threatening to shoot the messenger. A user who have now been blocked thrice pointed me to the same essay to inhibit me from reporting him just a week ago.[28] Seems its some kind of magic word that people invoke when they lack anything substantive to say.--Anders Feder (talk) 05:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Anders Feder, we do have something substantive to say, and we have said it. The problem is, you're not listening. I agree with you that WP:WEIGHT is important, but you need to understand that WP:CIVIL is just as important, if not more so. If you're not prepared to tone down your rhetoric we need to address that problem. WaggersTALK 07:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
You are saying WP:CIVIL in talk space may be more important than content in mainspace being encyclopedic? Maybe I just do not belong in this community then - too bad.--Anders Feder (talk) 07:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Whether content is "encyclopedic" or not is often quite subjective, and you can't be wearing blinkers so thick as to not realize that there are those who disagree with your take on things, or -- we would hope -- that disagreeing with you is not by definition sinister or suspect. WP:CIVIL, by contrast, is a policy of Wikipedia which all editors are required to follow. If you are unable (or unwilling) to follow its provisions, then you're dead on the money: you don't belong here. Ravenswing 09:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Then block me, or ask someone else to.--Anders Feder (talk) 10:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I said I will not comment more, but since this seems to be spiraling out of control, I should say something (A wise man once said: "there are no winners at WP:ANI, only survivors"). Anyone who knows me (of course nobody does here, not their fault) knows that I am in general not in favour of WP:CIVILity arguments (see here for an example), since they are often bogus. However, civility is important, and Anders Feder gives no reason why he insists on using incivil language gratuitously. See the exchange here, for instance. Note that Sa.vakilian also disagreed with Mhhossein about whether the source is WP:RS, but it was policy based, with no gratuitous remarks such as "God likes sick-minded and deranged forms of punishment ref Ayatollah Khomeini /ref" by Anders Feder. From the focus of Anders Feder's work, I see in many places that his judgement and work are good, but this kind of behaviour does nobody any favours, least of all himself. If Anders Feder's record and work were not good, my judgement about his behaviour would be much harsher, precisely because I think that content is what matters ultimately. Kingsindian  10:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, Mhhossein's behavior continues unfazed.[29]--Anders Feder (talk) 07:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Alright, I'm looking at it. What policy do you claim those two statements violate? Ravenswing 09:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Where have I claimed that those two statements "violate" any policy?--Anders Feder (talk) 10:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
This is the admin notice board for serious incidents, not the "I don't like the tone of his voice" board. If you're posting those diffs here, you're claiming that those are objectionable statements in violation of policy. If you're not claiming that they constitute policy violations, then you're wasting our time. So ... Ravenswing 10:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Am I really? According to what authority?--Anders Feder (talk) 11:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Anders Feder: Are you referring to a policy being violated? Mhhossein (talk) 11:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I am referring to the same as VQuakr: [30]. Do you need a policy to see that badgering is contrary to consensus-building?--Anders Feder (talk) 11:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
No need to explain it here. I already did it. Mhhossein (talk) 12:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Already did what?--Anders Feder (talk) 12:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Solutions[edit]

Honestly, this is looking like a WP:BOOMERANG case to me; I've seen far more by way of objectionable postings and tendentious behavior from Anders Feder than from Mhhossein. I'm therefore proposing that Anders Feder be placed under an interaction ban with Mhhossein, and that at worst Mhhossein be cautioned to rein in the rhetoric and practice more civility in his own postings. Ravenswing 10:47, 10 September 2015 (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.

Dutch Schultz and Arnold Rothstein[edit]

Hello. An IP user (or two) has umabiguously stated their "Jewish conspiracy" paranoia and is making edits to downplay or erase the Jewish history/ethnicity of two organized crime figures. The edits, while seemingly random and nonetheless absurd, are exceeded by the IP's(s') insistence. Best illustrated at Talk:Dutch_Schultz#Dutch_Schultz.27s_Judaism and on my Talk Page.

They started with edits like this and this by 50.174.10.195 and are now being made by 4.35.70.123.

Seems pretty clearcut and agenda-heavy to me. JesseRafe (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense. Stop creating and putting words in other people's mouths like "Jewish conspiracy." Where did I say "Jewish conspiracy."? You are inflaming the tension by creating words and sentences. I'm open to compromise. You are being absolutist. No change, all revert, back to 100% same. I'm open to change. I'm offering a solution, you are not offering anything. I disagree with your content on that article. Work with me, change it a little bit and move on. This complaining, whining, bringing up Jewish conspiracy is nonsense and waste of time. Reference for your future edits. 4.35.70.123 (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
You may not have said "Jewish conspiracy", but when you suggest a group of Jewish editors is working together and further allege a specific editor is part of that group,[31] I think "Jewish conspiracy" is a fair description. —C.Fred (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
No one said anything about "Jewish conspiracy" until "Jewish conspiracy" was brought up on this page. 4.35.70.123 (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
The comment I linked was made two hours before this ANI case was opened. —C.Fred (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Also worth noting this editor's (on however many IPs they may be using) systematic approach to making unsourced name-changes as well as de-linking or de-emphasizing an article's subject's Judaism, cf: Isaac Steinberg diff using both the 4... and 50... IPs mentioned here. To say nothing of whatever he or she may continue to write on my Talk Page. JesseRafe (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Work with me and get 50-50%. I'm willing to compromise, but this blank revert by your part is not clicking with me. I'm making good faith edits. I'm trying to make the intro readable than "German-Jewish-American" Simplify the article and move on. 4.35.70.123 (talk) 18:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't and never has said that. Your true motivations are evident.JesseRafe (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Cut down the "Jewish" talk by about 50% on that article. Let's make a change that is different from your total blank revert and my edit. So in other words, the change will be different from the previous version and different from my edit. This "Jewish" talk on that page is making it just very unreadable and uncomfortable to read honestly. The article is really becoming not about Dutch Schultz himself, but about being Jewish and how Jewish he was, which he was not. 4.35.70.123 (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
"Jewish talk" is making you "uncomfortable"? I think we found the problem and the source in the same place... JesseRafe (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Gross insult of deceased person[edit]

Done, semi-protected. --Randykitty (talk) 09:23, 13 September 2015 (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.

See diff. Please block right-away. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Cursing is not a vandalism or an insult. It is merely an invocation to God. All what i did is that i asked God to curse the soul of that person.--151.249.119.27 (talk) 07:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Could someone please close this per WP:DFTT? John from Idegon (talk) 08:06, 13 September 2015 (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.

(Apologies for my edit summary) Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 12:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Skamecrazy123 (Moved)[edit]

No admin action needed. All parties are reminded to look carefully before reverting vandalism. In actuality, it might be someone else's correction of vandalism. If you slip up on this, your action could lead to the world's strangest revert war. EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2015 (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.

Comment - @203.173.186.163: Moved to the correct place. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I can't leave a msg on the User:Skamecrazy123 talk page. Some of the recent reverts being done by the editor are wrong and are unexplained. 203.173.186.163 (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

It's protected from vandals. And what exactly were you adding to the articles that I reverted, hmm?--Skamecrazy123 (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
In one case I fixed a link that you broke and for the email client article I cleaned it up a bit. 203.173.186.163 (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Why didn't you explain that in the edit summary, instead of wasting my time dragging me here? It didn't look like you were cleaning it up at all, hence the revert. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I explained one of my reasons in a hidden comment in the edit (which you should have noticed), and the rest of it should have been obvious. To say it is wasting your time is a spurious argument. I could say that you are wasting my time. Also, the quality of your edits had to be raised. If I saw two problematic edits in such a short space of time in=t calls into question all of you other edits. 203.173.186.163 (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
This is another bad edit from Skamecrazy123. 203.173.186.163 (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
And the editor is not very collegial. 203.173.186.163 (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Another recent poor quality edit. 203.173.186.163 (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
That's hilarious. Seriously, I am laughing my ass off here. Thanks for the laugh. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 20:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't see what is funny. 203.173.186.163 (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
This whole farce. I'm out. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 20:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't see it as farcical at all. I am just trying to sort it out. 203.173.186.163 (talk) 20:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Good for you. Let me know how it works out for you. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
But I cannot do that since I cannot edit your talk page. 203.173.186.163 (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
If you cant edit another users page it is possible to start a section on the articles talk page then add this {{u|EditorsName}} to the post. Just replace EditorsName with the name of the editor and sign it with ~~~~. This will only work on a new post, you cant add it later. They will be notified of the post. AlbinoFerret 22:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

There are some questionable edits here, but mistakes happen. The only problem I see is Skamecrazy123's attitude toward an editor raising a concern. I urge them to assume good faith and take comments in the spirit they're given, but no action is needed here. ~ RobTalk 23:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Skamecrazy needs to be a little more careful in their vandalism fighting. In at least 2 of the edits sequences I looked at, he reverted obvious vandalism, but by doing so restored previous vandalism, which should have been removed as well. BMK (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

You could always use {{ping}} on the talkpage of an article to begin a discussion with a user whose page you cannot edit. To be honest though, I think I might have made this edit and this edit. IDK about this. I would suggest Skamecrazy123 check the recent history of the page to be sure that there is nothing left over that you didn't miss. It is an easy thing to do. These edits are WP:NOTVAND. Per Rob, WP:AGF may be a bit lacking but no action is currently needed. -- Orduin Discuss 23:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@BU Rob13:@Orduin: My whole editing history got called into question for a couple of mistakes (hence the attitude). Where is the assumption of good faith there? I will take BMKs advice to heart though. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 09:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Suggest we close this, nothing is going to happen here. -- Orduin Discuss 17:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Unjust bans on fallacious grounds[edit]

Done here. Dennis Brown is sentenced to patrolling AIV for a week --NeilN talk to me 19:40, 13 September 2015 (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've been banned for two weeks, now extended to three. I made edits to Microwave auditory effect and because there was disagreement about them, some in my favor, some against, User:Dennis Brown has now blocked my IP address and is accusing me of meat puppetry i.e. other users agreeing with the edits, and ban evasions, i.e. other users agreeing with the edits. The grounds for this ban and extension are completely fallacious and have no foundation in truth. 75.137.124.104 (talk) i.e. User:Baphy93 19:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Any admin want to block for the admittance of socking as this IP??? Murry1975 (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
The IPs have been adding ludicrous sources to promote fringe theories. This is edit-warring, block evasion and clear sockpuppetry. Block. GABHello! 19:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I blocked the IP myself. As for my crimes, I welcome a full review of my actions and I will accept whatever the community feels is appropriate. Dennis Brown - 19:36, 13 September 2015 (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.

BiH failing to disclose paid edits[edit]

BiH blocked indefinitely until the community is satisfied. Users may wish to review the articles in question and apply CSD tags or delete as needed. Chillum 00:55, 14 September 2015 (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.

BiH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been asked repeatedly to disclose which articles they've been paid to edit but four months after it was first raised at COIN and an SPI (no confirmed socks) they have still not disclosed and have continued to add promotional and copyrighted material e.g. at Draft:Canada’s_Ecofiscal_Commission. There is already a consensus on their talk page to block indefinitely, at least until they comply with the ToU, but I would like some fresh eyes as we have all been involved in tidying up the mess. SmartSE (talk) 14:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I will definitely need more time to do the complete list. I will do the latest projects today as they are fresh in my memory. For those COI users mentioned on my talk page, I have no idea who they are. I will update my COI list with the format agreed on my talk page. --BiH (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Agree that an indef block is appropriate until they complete their disclosure. It has been well over a month that BiH has been saying they will do this, and they are making other edits in the meantime. Jytdog (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Please see User:BiH#COI. I really have some personal struggles that keep taking my time, but I will definitely complete the disclosure ASAP. I came fully honest with the community and I would really appreciate some understanding. I will need more time to do the full list, but what I had in memory and my logs is out now. I hope some good faith is shown. --BiH (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
If not an indefinite block, at the bare minimum there should be a topic ban from all Wikipedia pages except his user page until he has completed the list. The amount of editors' time he has taken up in trying to get him to comply with the ToU is inexcusable. This editor has created 140 articles, of which at least 75% are pretty obvious paid editing candidates. Voceditenore (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Indef block. The editor claims they don't have all the details in their emails to fully disclose. We've been trying to get full disclosure for a year. Widefox; talk 17:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Block until all COIs are disclosed, and then a topic ban on any articles directly related to those COIs. That is the only way that this user's edits will ever be acceptable. Keeps saying "I'll do it", but in the meantime just keeps making edits. The feet dragging and clearly promotional edits are not filling me with confidence that the editor is here to be anything more than a shill, so removing the ability to be a shill will be a true test of their value as an editor. And it even one undisclosed COI edit is found, he's out. To be blunt, I'd rather just outright ban anyone found to be paid editing for good, as using Wikipedia to promote a company is against both the ToU and the fundamental spirit of the project. oknazevad (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Indef blocked. We don't have to tolerate this indefinitely with its attempts to stall the inevitable. Recommend also procedurally deleting all articles per G11. Purely promotional and obviously a case of someone 'mistakenly' believing that Wikipedia is another LinkedIn, not understanding the difference between an Encyclopedia and a commercial networking site or the Yellow Pages. Whether it is part of the Orangemoody paid spamming campaign or not, Wikipedia cannot be allowed to be used for profit in this way at the abuse of the voluntary unpaid time that dedicated users spend building this encyclopedia which in spite of some biographies and articles about some companies, was never intended to be an additional business networking platform and a source of income for those who think they can game the system.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Indef until full disclosure - Article scan be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. BMK (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Resolved. Note that Kudpung says "blocked", not "block". Nyttend (talk) 22:14, 13 September 2015 (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.

Article creation needs to be blocked[edit]

This appears to be resolved. Chillum 00:49, 14 September 2015 (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.

Can administrators find out who created the same page on 26 July?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suvrat_raj&action=edit&redlink=1

-- Action Hero Shoot! 16:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

  • (Non-administrator comment) This probably belongs at WP:RFPP, where you can ask for the page to be creation protected. Everymorning (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Probably not a candidate for WP:SALTing until one more bad version is created. Bringing it here was fine, however, as I was able to tell that the two people that created both accounts were the same person. (admin access required to know that) The first was blocked for WP:HERE and the second was a sock, now blocked. Dennis Brown - 18:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
That's the main reason why i came here-Dennis Brown's last comment. Close this thread after tagging them as sockpuppet. Most likely he will create Suvrat Raj and Subhrat Raj or Subhrat raj with new socks. Thanks. Action Hero Shoot! 00:46, 14 September 2015 (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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xsonu_kumar&diff=680867267&oldid=680783520 Action Hero Shoot! 00:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

User repeatedly recreating article deleted at AfD[edit]

C.Fred has deleted the article (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:35, 13 September 2015 (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.

User:MrMojoRisin71 has ignored the decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herbert Hinzie Kersten. After the AfD this editor recreated it, then after that was deletd created Herbert H. Kersten which was also speed deleted. Today he recreated "Herbert H. Kersten" as Herbert H Kersten - without the full stop, and again reinserted him into [{Georgia Guidestones]] as their creator.[32] This seems to be his main purpose. User:Tokyogirl79 blocked the editor for 72 hours at some point during this (the editor's second block). Doug Weller (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Why hasn't Herbert H Kersten been speedied yet? BethNaught (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Done. Verified it's the same content and deleted it G4. —C.Fred (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2015 (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.

Arkon on Weatherman articles[edit]

Arkon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has just appeared on, and begun edit warring the descriptor "terrorist" into,[33][34][35][36][37] two related articles, Bill Ayers and Weather Underground. Their dismissive tone on removing my two cautions,[38][39] and continuing to edit war after those cautions, are a break-down of editing process. I bring this here rather than the BLP notice board, page protection, or an edit war report, because this article space has a particular issue with this kind of WP:BATTLE approach to the WP:TERRORIST label. Many accounts have been blocked and banned here. If you look at the historic RfC on the matter at Talk:Weather Underground Organization/Terrorism RfC, the three main proponents were all blocked as socks. So this needs some extra oversight as a result. Content disputes we can handle just fine on the talk page; incorrigible edit warring to call a well known figure a terrorist needs some attention. Incidentally, although it's important to quickly revert these sorts of inappropriate edits once or twice while giving appropriate requests and if necessary cautions, to bring content matters to the talk page, I'm not going to do that any further now that Arkon has made it clear they will simply edit war any attempt to keep the status quo. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 00:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Check my contribs in the last 24 hours for any necessary response. Feeling awfully Australian in here. Arkon (talk) 00:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
The deceptive editing of the WU article (stating things don't exist there, that do, then editing to remove them), and then strange comment formatting here (changing my ident to a lower level after a subsequent response, then claiming it was an add (after a response no the less), is enlightening. Arkon (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea what this editor is ranting about. This is a simple matter that shouldn't get off track. Best not to bluster into high conflict topic areas in WP:BATTLE mode with an unyielding determination to edit war. If so, collaboration comes to a complete halt and we need help to end the jam. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
You don't recall your edit to the WU [40] to remove the terrorist descriptor after you said that such a thing didn't exist [41]? That's rough. Arkon (talk) 01:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I have provided a reference on the Bill Ayers article supporting the claim that the Weatherman group was a terrorist entity. I'm sorry to say it took three attempts because there was a mandatory underscore preceding the 012904 in the url and I made a typo or two. Akld guy (talk) 01:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Have done the same on the Weather Underground article. Akld guy (talk) 02:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Much appreciated, though not sure it's necessary cause those refs were in the body. Either way, it's an improvement if it stops things like the above. Arkon (talk) 02:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Yep. I'm thinking he/she is closely aligned with the people or entities in the articles, and therefore has WP:COI. Should never have been brought here. Akld guy (talk) 02:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
(ecX4) Akld guy, what gives with the bizarre accusations? And Arkon, what's with the accusations of lying? If you want to discuss content in good faith you'll have to start, on the article talk page, respecting that there has been both a local and global consensus about the terrorism label for about seven years, and also a policy against edit warring. You may wish to question or challenge consensus, which is your right, but that consensus did take into account all of the arguments and sources you appear to be presenting. Working in collaboration rather than reflexively slinging accusations to defend bad editing practice is also a must. If you're having trouble understanding what I am saying, you might just try asking me instead of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. But back to the point, if I or another editor restore the long term consensus version that doesn't call people terrorists will you respect that and bring any concerns or proposals up on the talk page? If yes, we're done here. If no, you're vowing to edit war and we need administrative help. Your call. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I have no problem understanding you, we've known each other a while (or at least I remember our previous interactions). What actually matters is the content, which you seem to be trying to argue here. I warned you of the futility of that. You're just wrong and need to be wary of the boomerang. Arkon (talk) 02:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
No boomerang, don't be ridiculous. Sorry, I don't remember our earlier interactions but I'm sure you're a fine upstanding editor and I hope we had good spirits, I get along with nearly everyone here. Regarding content, I'm asking for help with your little editing hiccup here, not the substance of what it regards. By the BRD approach, and almost any other constructive way of dealing with these things, the burden is on you to make a proposal, explain why, and convince the community. And especially not to try to win content arguments by edit warring, particularly where there are strong BLP concerns. The arguments have already been made, hundreds of thousands if not millions of bytes of them by dozens of editors, available one or two clicks away on the article talk pages and archives. Some of the viewpoints in the RfC are very thoughtful and convincing, despite all the socking and process games. If you want to discuss on the article talk page, other editors and I can certainly respond to specific points. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
[42] Arkon (talk) 03:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
And I responded in detail[43] while cautioning you about edit warring, but you continued edit warring, so here we are. Again, if I or another editor restore the status quo version of these articles that omits the terrorism label, will you revert them again or will you wait for the outcome of the discussion? - Wikidemon (talk) 04:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
@Wikidemon: Look, the FBI classifies the movement a terrorist one, and I added their url as a reference. There's no question but that it's a reliable source. If you and others want to debate on the Talk page that living individuals have seen the error of their ways during the past 40 years, go ahead, I agree that they have but don't expect me to be sympathetic to your latter-day revisionism. It was terrorism then and the passage of time cannot change that. Akld guy (talk) 05:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
The FBI does no such thing, but any discussion about that particular web page as a source can be had (and has, at length) on the article talk pages. I'm not asking you to take any particular point of view about who is a terrorist, only that editors not edit war to enforce theirs. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • This is not a reasonable debate. Articles should not take a position on whether people are terrorists nor should they summarily attach labels of "terrorist" just because the application of that label can be reliably sourced. These guidelines exist for a reason, people. Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden are textbook examples on the correct approach to this. Swarm 06:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
    The edit was not labeling the person as a terrorist. It was correctly labeling the organization, which is done similarly to the Al Qaeda article you reference. So yes, this isn't a reasonable debate. Arkon (talk) 13:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
This seems to be a content dispute, but can you explain precisely what part of the Al Qaeda article you're referring to which is similar to the example shown here where Weather Underground is simply labelled a terrorist organisation in wiki voice [44]?

I had a look through the entire article by searching for terror. Ignoring direct quotes, there are plenty of mentions of terrorist attacks, terrorist plots, terrorist acts, terrorism convictions etc. As well as various organisations and countries labelling it is a terrorist group. What I can't find is where we did anything similar and label it as a terrorist organisation in wiki voice. Probably the closest is "Al-Qaeda decided to step in and assumed control of around 80% of the terrorist cells in Bosnia in late 1995" and perhaps "U.S-led efforts to eradicate the sources of terrorist financing" (although this seems to more be referring to them as financing terrorism rather than them being financed as a terrorist group). There were also "terror outfit's latest advance into India" and "primary source of funding of Sunni terrorist groups worldwide was Saudi Arabia", but both of these can be read as the views of the people quoted, even if the wording wasn't a direct quote.

In any case, the situation in the Al Qaeda article aside, if there was a previous RFC and an attempted change was rejected, it would probably be best for a new RFC.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh it's definitely a content dispute. I was speaking of this part:
"It has been designated as a terrorist group by the United Nations Security Council, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the European Union, the United States, Russia, India, and various other countries (see below)."
The wording wasn't exactly the same, but I'd certainly be happy with using that page as a template for a solution. Quibbles over that don't bother me, the correct descriptor for the group is the point. Arkon (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
That's an extremely different wording. One is fine in the article on the group is factual since it's only saying what other significan entities have called the group. The other is far more problematic since it's calling the group a terrorist group point blank. Nil Einne (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Actually our article already says "The FBI, on its website, describes the organization as having been a "domestic terrorist group", but no longer an active concern" so what you're saying you need to add is already there. Whether or not this belongs in the WP:LEAD would have to be discussed on the article talk page, probably with an RFC if this was dealt with in the previous RFC. Nil Einne (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
BTW, if you don't see why the wordings are very different and that this matters, that's a problem. In itself I wouldn't say it's something for ANI, but if you've been edit warring over it, that is quite concerning. Nil Einne (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes I know, my edit was to the lead, and I opened a section on talk. Kinda preaching to the choir here. As to the wording, that's part of the edit process, as I said I am happy to mimic the AQ article. Are you reading my responses? Arkon (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes I am and you're making me more and more concerned. You shouldn't be editing articles where it comes up, particularly not BLPs, if you don't understand the difference between the two wordings. You particularly shouldn't be edit warring. Opening up a discussion on the talk page is not an excuse for edit warring. Discussion does not require edit warring. If you don't learn quick, I would support a topic ban. Nil Einne (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Good lord. Now I'm concerned. Where in the world are you getting the idea that I "don't understand the difference between the two wordings". I've explicitly stated the opposite, what, 3 times now? Arkon (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Where did you do so? The first thing you said here when I brought up the fundamental difference between the Al Qaeda article you were comparing this to, was:

The wording wasn't exactly the same, but I'd certainly be happy with using that page as a template for a solution. Quibbles over that don't bother me, the correct descriptor for the group is the point.

Where you basically told me you didn't understand the difference. You seemed to think it was only a minor quibble over wording that "doesn't bother" you, when it's actually fundamentally different and completely non comparable (despite being brought up by you as an example). One was potentially a serious NPOV problem, the other provided it was factual, would not be (at least in the article, not necessarily in the lead). And if you understood this fundamental difference between the two wordings, why were you trying to add the other wording earlier without apparently having anything close to sufficient sourcing?
Nil Einne (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Wow, that's terribly bad reading between the lines. I've been agreeing with you for the last 20 minutes, make the edit with your suggested wording and you have my support. You act like I was editing out the attribution. Leave the poor mind reading to the carnivals please. Arkon (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Nil Einne observes: Actually our article already says "The FBI, on its website, describes the organization as having been a "domestic terrorist group", but no longer an active concern" so what you're saying you need to add is already there. Whether or not this belongs in the WP:LEAD would have to be discussed on the article talk page, probably with an RFC if this was dealt with in the previous RFC.
Arkon suggests: ...make the edit with your suggested wording and you have my support.
Yeah, Arkon definitely isn't hearing Nil Einne. Does that help? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Nil has stated that the correct way to make that edit (to the lead, btw, which should summarize the body which you just pasted), would be to attribute it. I agree with that. If they were to make that edit, yes I would support it. It's gonna be funny to read 50 different groups/magazines/papers/books that label them as such, but if that's the way it's gotta be. Does that help? Arkon (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Incorrect. Nil didn't state that. While Nil Einne did point out to you the difference between an assertion of fact and an attributed assertion, he also clarified "(at least in the article, not necessarily in the lead)", and rather than offer to suggest lede paragraph wording for you, the suggestion was for you to make your case as to why it should be in the lede. Is that a little less confusing? I'll be happy to try again and again if you need me to. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah, so apparently now you think it shouldn't be attributed in the lead? Or you think Nil said that? Or are just taking out of context pieces of sentences and framing them in the manner you wish? Or are you just trying to derail this into something other than the disagreement over inclusion of well sourced material that exists in the body of the article? Either way, I have no wish to follow you down this rabbit hole that has nothing to do with aligning said articles with WP:LEAD. Arkon (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
This is a behavioral report asking for administrator attention regarding edit warring on a high-conflict article, that you are responding to with content claims and reckless accusations about other editors' motives. If it is going off track, that is your own doing. All you have to do on the behavioral end is to promise you do not intend to further edit war, and hopefully keep that promise. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
^ This right there. A complete lack of awareness of the fact that they were on the other side of these edits. This is the IDHT behavior that summarizes this situation. Arkon (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
What on earth are you possibly talking about? You hit 3RR trying to call a living person a terrorist. I cautioned you not to do that and took it here rather than reverting as a last resort, when you made it clear you would not leave the articles in their stable version. Two editors reverted you and five or six editors and a bot have reverted similar edits in the past. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I did 3 reverts, yup. How many did you do again? Also, that's a lie that I tried to call a living person a terrorist. I was following WP:LEAD. So yeah, again ^ this right here. You should be ashamed. Arkon (talk) 22:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I have carefully followed procedure here, so blowing smoke will not help you. You did 5 reverts across 2 articles, after I urged you to stop. I reverted the first three of these, and another editor reverted the final two. If it hadn't been us it would have been someone else. This is the fourth time you have accused me of lying by the way, which is rather offensive and its own behavioral problem. I can't tell if you believe your own rhetoric, but you need to cool down and stop playing games. You wanted to call Bill Ayers the leader of a former terrorist organization in the first sentence of the lede of his bio article. I've never heard of the head of a terrorist organization not being a terrorist, but again you go off track. You're done edit warring, right? - Wikidemon (talk) 22:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Nope, that's first time I called you a liar, and it was a lie and continues to be. I supplied diffs for facts(that is the other times I called you a "liar" according to you) above [45], which you don't dispute btw, cause you can't. You were deceptive, and now you are ramping that up with disparaging remarks that are patently false. I correctly labeled an organization, which is labeled as such in their article (in the lede and body, until you removed the lede). Your behavior has veered from funny into unacceptable. Arkon (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Okay, five or six times now, depending on whether calling me a liar twice in one comment counts as one or two. For seven years consensus has run against calling the organization or its members terrorists and the articles were mostly stable on that point. Other editors have corrected you about that history and I had to demonstrate it to you[46]] after you refused to check. Look, that's neither here nor there. You're having a meltdown. Refusing to admit you're wrong is hard, and nobody is asking for that. Just please stop edit warring, and now that you've started lobbing accusations against me and other editors, cut that out too. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
To be clear, I'm not going to add anything to the article. As I already mentioned I'm not sure the wording belongs in the lead. That's a content dispute you should discuss that in an appropriate RFC. The lead summarises the article but whether description of WU as a domestic terrorist organisation on the FBI website is significant enough for the lead will need to be established. By definition, a summary will always miss a number of stuff. For a long article, it's going to miss a lot.

Even if you were to start an RFC, I don't care enough to get involved. What I am concerned about is your apparent inaibility to understand that the wordings are fundamentally different and why this matters. It matters because you therefore made a major error in edit warring to preserve the other wording which could easily violate NPOV would need very strong sourcing support it. You can call it reading between the lines if you want but when asked for justification, you pointed to an article which did not use this problematic wording. When I pointed this out in the first instance, I hoped that you would understand and at a minimum undertake to be far more careful in the future. But instead all I see is a continued fuss over the content dispute.

This is a big deal particularly when you are messing with articles where BLP come up. If you still think I'm reading between the lines, I assume this means you have an explanation as to how you made such an error even though you did understand the wordings are not comparable. You're welcome to provide it. In the absence of that, I can only go by what was actually said here and as mentioned you've said nothing to indicate you understand the problem or more importantly, are unlikely to repeat it. Hence why I'm seriously pondering whether to propose a topic ban on editing BLPs which unlike a content dispute, is something for ANI.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

  • I agree that this is not a reasonable debate, and the efforts to edit-war the label into the lede sentence contravenes multiple Wikipedia policies. As noted above, the label insertion goes against long-standing consensus developed after multiple discussions and wide RfC input. Consensus can change, or at least be revisited, but that is to be done on the article Talk pages — not with the 'Undo' button on the article(s). The repeated insertion of the label in Wikipedia's voice violates WP:NPOV as well as WP:LABEL, the erroneous "There's no question but that it's a reliable source" notwithstanding — that source is only reliable for the opinions of that source. Also erroneous is the argument that the contentious and disputed label was only being attached to an organization, not a person; that organization is a very small group of identified individuals, and therefore subject to the extended sourcing requirements and considerations of our BLP policies. The information about how the organization has been perceived and described by different sources is already present in the article. The attempt to morph that disputed description into a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice in the article lede will require serious discussion and a strong argument to reverse community consensus. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
    I'd certainly be interested in the conversation if you brought your BLP concerns up at the correct noticeboards. Arkon (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
    When I have BLP concerns, I do indeed bring them up at the correct noticeboards. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
    Sweet, shoot me a link when you open one if you please. Arkon (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
    If I open one, of course. But it is far more likely any comment by me on BLP matters related to this issue will be in the form of a response. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Any way to conclude this?[edit]

  • The only thing to resolve here is avoiding edit wars in some difficult article space. I think this is degenerating into mud slinging I really don't like being called a liar when asking for help. If anybody's up to it can we resolve this? I would hope just an admonition not to edit war (I've already said I won't) and not to call other editors names or other WP:BATTLE approaches to resolving conflicts? If it flares up again we can always re-open. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
    This should definitely be closed, however your deceptive editing [47] should at least be addressed. I'll let the personal attacks and casting of aspersions slide for now. Arkon (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, I let that, your second accusation that I was lying, slide along with the first. I thought it best, then as now, not to let you drag the discussion off the subject of your edit warring by making retaliatory accusations against me and other editors. The solution to an edit warring problem is usually to stop edit warring, not to accuse people of lying. In case anyone is daft enough to take that seriously, I've dropped an explanation of it on the article talk page, where you repeat the accusation.[48]
  • Arkon, quit trying to reverse the topic. Your behavior has been consistently uncivil and combative and you're obviously either unable or unwilling to accept or even acknowledge the other editors' concerns about why imposing the label as you're trying to do is inappropriate, regardless of the citations. The problem here is obviously entirely rooted in your apparent unwillingness to acknowledge the difference between an article saying "X is a terrorist organization" and "X is considered to be a terrorist organization by Y and Z" and your refusal to civilly discuss the issue with editors who are opposed to implementing the former, in line with fundamental policies and practices. By all means, if you want to add the contested label "terrorist" you may attempt to do so through civil discussion, consensus-building and dispute resolution, but if you continue down this current path you're likely to end up blocked sooner rather than later. Swarm 06:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Captcha[edit]

Can anyone successfully create a new account on Wikipedia? The CAPTCHA appears to be broken, though that may just be my computer.

I wanted to have a look at how we introduce new users nowadays - I've been a member long enough I haven't seen any of the new stuff. Thought the best way forwards, since the Wikipedia Adventure thing seems to post a lot of stuff was to make a new account, then ask for it to be deleted afterwards. I wasn't expecting a major bug. 86.149.118.126 (talk) 02:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The CAPTCHA seems to work fine for me. If you're still having issues with it, you can request an account be created for you by following this guide. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 02:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Resolved

Joseph A. Spadaro[edit]

I just blocked Joseph A. Spadaro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for WP:NPA per this edit, as part of looking into a WP:BLPN discussion in which it became apparent that he was trolling with a BLP violation. Looking at his history, he has form. I wonder if a longer block or perhaps an editing restriction might be in order? Guy (Help!) 13:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

What editing restriction do you think would be appropriate? He was clearly trolling the ref desk (a popular target for trolls, SPI anyone?) so maybe a ban from the ref desk for six months? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Given the user's overall contributions, the block length seems about right for the trolling, misrepresentation, and personal attacks. What I see at the reference desk is a lot of forum talk and some trolling. I think an indefinite ban from the reference desk might be a good idea, but would defer to the folks who actually spend time there. - MrX 15:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Of all the contributors to the RefDesks, Joseph is the least likely troll possible. The diff Guy used to justify the block was simply an angry response to some very stupid comments that appear to me to have been designed to wind him up. DuncanHill (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I would also observe that Guy forgot to post a block notice on Joseph's talk page, and also "forgot" to tell him that he was opening a discussion about him here. As it says in bloody great big letters on the edit screen "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You may use Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. to do so." DuncanHill (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
If you read Guy's post to JAS' talk page, you will notice that it includes a block notice and a mention of discussing him on admin noticeboards. This is just WP:DTTR. —Kusma (t·c) 16:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
One real block in five years? Hardly a "history". Leave it at a week and see what happens once that block expires. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
But the first one was indefinite for harassment and incivility and at least one was for BLP violations, which would likely have got him blocked this time had it not been for the expletive-ridden outburst getting there first. I see a distinct lack of ability to cope with even quite mild pushback. Guy (Help!) 19:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
But the first one was more than seven years ago. And was lifted in 12hrs. I'd like to see more about the first one rather than making a sweeping statement of "well he was blocked indefinitly for harassment and incivility..." Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • JAS posted at least twice on different ref desks regarding the Hillary Clinton email controversy: see user's talk for some links on the current issue, and August 2015 for a computing question. The latter includes the poster's opinion that "A question posted on a help desk does not have a limited scope." A minimum resolution would involve the user agreeing to not use pages on Wikipedia to "discuss" Clinton until the current election cycle is over. Johnuniq (talk) 10:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I have found that Spadaro often engages in very tedious discussions about the exact nuances of the usage of specific words. But this is the first time I can think of that he's gone ballastic. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I went through some of his contributions there, what you are kindly calling 'very tedious discussions' I would call 'no one is that pedantic, its trolling'. I see a lot of time and effort of other people being wasted for no good outcome. Can you think of a plus-point to *not* banning him from the ref desk? (Not rhetorical, I am actually finding it hard to think of one.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Looking at his block log, there's certainly a pattern. I also ran across Joseph Spadaro (talk · contribs), a sock account, although I don't think it was active during the main account's blocks. Also, his last block prior to December 2014 was in 2010. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Renewed hostilities by Doc9871, after warning at ANI last month[edit]

This is a followup to my previous ANI report about this user for personal attacks and threats to harass, at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive895#Threats, aspersion-casting, etc. by Doc9871, which closed without action in the expectation that the behavior would stop: "The problem has been solved for now. Doc9871 has been warned, has accepted the warning, and has agreed not to continue. If this recurs we can come back here. --John (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)". It has recurred after a short break.

Immediate background: Some but not all of this relates to previous disputation regarding the essay that was formerly at WP:Don't feed the divas, presently at Wikipedia:Don't be high maintenance (a title not everyone is happy with, either, for related reasons). My reading of the close at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 11#Wikipedia:Diva is that the consensus to mark these titles and shortcuts as historical and soft-redir them, because "diva" is a [mostly] gendered insult, and was felt to be offensive, is a consensus against these terms being used henceforth or "advertised" with active shortcuts; both the discussion and the close make this clear. (This overturned a previous close to delete them all entirely.) I noticed th