Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive913

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

MfD of WP:Reform of Wikipedia[edit]

MfD closed as "Userfy" by Ricky81682.
Softlavender (talk) 11:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
(non-admin closure)
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.

Could I please request that several admins go through this discussion and stop the incivility and bludgeoning that is occurring in various !votes and comments by various users on both sides. I am aware that this is not the 'typical' board for this type of request, but several users may need to be brought here because of comments on the essay/proposal's talkpage and the MfD. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 02:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Also posting on WP:AN

@Drcrazy102: I have put a general note on the discussion for everyone to keep calm. I thought about closing the discussion, but that would probably cause more disruption that it solves, so I've !voted (to userfy) and suggest the MfD runs for the full 7 days. I have dropped an NPA warning on James500's talk as he seems to be making the most ad hominem comments. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. You are right that I and several others would be fine with this in user space, as the correct venue for quixotic proposals by people with - ahem - certain fixed views on content that have failed to gain consensus. Guy (Help!) 13:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Removal of Criticism section on "Existential risk from advanced artificial intelligence" page with a weak excuse[edit]

And then the WP:BOOMERANG struck for legal threats and attempted outing. - The Bushranger One ping only 12:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is still a content dispute at this point. The content has been brought to Talk:Existential_risk_from_advanced_artificial_intelligence#Criticisms and the two sourced sentences have been restored to Existential_risk_from_advanced_artificial_intelligence#Criticisms. The next steps are to continue on the talk page if there's a wish to delete that content as poorly sourced or to add more content or WP:DRR. Nevertheless, nothing more here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following administrator: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Silence who seems affiliated with less wrong / MIRI, and/or FHI (organizations that accept donations and promote Existential risks from advanced artificial intelligence) removed the ENTIRE section of criticisms with this diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Existential_risk_from_advanced_artificial_intelligence&diff=prev&oldid=703313269 What I did was to copy the Criticism section proposed in the talk section and add a few well-known objections, and mention the luddite award that Musk and Hawking recently received. There is a conflict of interest here, as curbing such criticism will help these organizations get funded more easily by the public. These organizations thrive by popularizing AI eschatology "philosophy", a series of bad arguments that masquerade as actual AI research, and have been criticized heavily by many machine learning researchers, however, they are very good at social engineering and they use every method to prevent criticism much like Scientology. Please do not let these vandals prevent criticism on a very controversial subject. They have also been adding references to their own work basically criss-crossing a lot of stuff. I didn't touch the nonsense they wrote, but removing an entire section because I said "creationists usually have a luddite bias" should not be welcome in a scientifically credible encyclopedia. Many AI researchers (including me) believe that their claims are pseudo-scientific. Please do not let them, and disallow them from destroying the section on criticisms. --Exa~enwiki (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Couple of points
  • You forgot to notify the user you've mentioned above. I've corrected this.
  • What is it your actually after. The above statement is a bit incomprehensible.
  • I've removed the misplaced ANI tags above.
Amortias (T)(C) 20:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
This looks like a content dispute to me. Exa~enwiki, even if the user you're in a dispute with is an administrator, that doesn't matter when they're just editing article content like this; you should discuss it on the talk page with them and follow the steps at WP:DR if you can't come to an understanding with them directly. WP:ANI is more for user conduct issues and people who are repeatedly violating policy, rather than arguments over the content of an article. If they've been adding references to their own work, that might raise WP:COI issues, but see WP:SELFCITE; it's allowed within reason. Even then, you'd have to show that their edits are harmful to the encyclopedia, and you'd probably be better off raising it on WP:COIN if that's the case. --Aquillion (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Exa~enwiki, this entire criticism section was unsourced original content and it should have been removed. If you can find reliable sources, representing mainstream criticism of the subject, then it might be appropriate to include these points of view in the article in proportion to their importance. But just creating a list of criticisms you (and others) have about the subject, without any referencing, is not acceptable, especially in a Criticism section. Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
So you have come here to tell us that you added unsourced tendentious personal opinion into an article, and what? You want us to c ongratulate the admin who reverted you? Consider it done. Guy (Help!) 00:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I am an old member of the AGI Society, and a somewhat well-known expert in the matter. I am repeating, these are not the opinions of a bystander or an inexpert. I am a philosopher and a computer scientist (with a PhD!), however, unlike these people I have mathematical expertise and contributions to the problem these silly claims are being made about. What you say is just a matter of saying you don't agree with the expert opinion, however, I am an AGI expert and you are not an expert on AGI. The people who keep writing this eschatology nonsense and try to censor the opinions of AGI researchers are mostly superstitious philosophers, and a few ex-AI researchers (like the somewhat old Stuart Russell who once co-wrote a textbook on narrow AI) who are being paid by them. There *is* a conflict of interest. They are trying to censor this *fact*. If you write "unsourced tendentious personal opinion" about the opinions of an actual expert, I am going to call you out. One of your pet admins has again vandalized and removed all the content I added. I am going to edit this back into form again. I am not going to let your administrator from less wrong, WHO IS BIASED, and WHO IS ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO CONSISTENTLY TRY TO CENSOR US, to vandalize and destroy criticisms that will actually make them look like the pseudo-scientists they truly are. I am also going to ask for the REAL NAME of this pet administrator called Silent, because I or the AGI Society might eventually have to sue him in US. I am going to seek legal action against this blatant censorship of scientists' opinions. Is this the pseudo-scientist known as Eliezer Yudkowsky? He has been adding a bunch of pretentious crap, making less wrong, MIRI, and Yudkowsky look important. I am not sure if you understand that a track record in wikipedia by no means allows a superstitious Scientology like cult make themselves look significant, when they are asking for donations from clueless people on the Internet, claiming they are saving the world. When all they are doing is to publish superstitious nonsense with NO SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE WHATSOEVER. My name is ERAY OZKURAL. Read some of my papers here: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=r_-Vi64AAAAJ&hl=tr AND STOP SAYING I AM WRITING UNSOURCED TENDENTIOUS PERSONAL OPINIONS. I regard your random opinions about my edit as defamation and libel. I am an expert, and Yudkowsky is not. He published one silly paper in AGI conference exploiting his years of friendship with the conference organizers. And they have used stomach turning social engineering tactics to curb criticism just like they are doing now. I ADDED MANY SOURCES. I included one of my own papers as a reference (a pop science account that is a parody of their nonsense and shows how easy it is to solve their "problems", it's published on Humanity+ magazine and arxiv, read it and try to understand it). If you disagree with that one reference, you CAN remove it. However, you can NOT vandalize my criticism. You do not have the right to! It is neither "original research", nor "uncyclopedic content", nor "unsourced tendentious personal opinion". Rather, it is an actual expert's very concise summary that you do not have the expertise to criticize. How dare you, in particular, remove the criticism citing the luddite award that Hawking and Musk, these pseudo-scientists social-engineered to parrot their opinions and fund them, received? Musk and Hawking are NOT AI Experts, and just because they are famous and/or rich: does not mean they can escape criticism. Are you going to also censor the rest of the web? You cannot do that, and AGI Society will not allow you to do that. If you are curious, many articles on the net repeat the same criticisms I wrote. Do not touch that page please. We will find and add every other relevant article of criticism written by actual machine learning experts. In particular, my dear colleagues Yann LeCun, Yoshua Bengio, Ben Goertzel, and several other high-profile machine learning researchers have offered similar criticisms. If you think we are all inexperts, we will disagree, and we will eventually see your non-profit in court. I am warning you, I will not tolerate your libel and defamation. Every criticism I wrote has been voiced by many AI/AGI experts, and they are not my personal opinion, and furthermore, I have given many interesting and informative links to information they are trying to censor by researchers who have actually talked and thought at length on their pseudo-scientific, pseudo-intellectual efforts to induce Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt among the general public for fame and fortune. Fear is easy to exploit. Inexperts like you are easy to deceive. However, let the actual experts criticize these fakes to their heart's content. Did we touch the nonsense they wrote? No. So let us edit the criticisms section as we like. This is not unlike the page about agnosticism, or creationism, which are similarly pseudo-scientific positions and/or bad philosophy/theology. Such controversial subjects usually have a criticism page. I merely copied the proposed section on the talk page, and added a few important points and references missing there. It's a completely legitimate edit! This is a *highly* controversial subject, with the objections of many seasoned machine learning experts! I do not appreciate your alignment with the agnostic/creationist philosopher Nick Bostrom, and I will not allow you to assert your inexpert opinion. Please, I beg you: mind your own business, and please do not vandalize my edits or that of any ACTUAL AGI EXPERTS. I have asked for help to make a very comprehensive criticism section from fellow researchers to counter this attempt to produce fake significance. These people have been publishing pretentious crap for years. We are only now criticizing them. I wonder if you understand how important it is to battle pseudo-science and bad creationist philosophy for the sake of AI research and the future of humanity. Thank you! Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Exa~enwiki (talk) 04:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • WP:BOOMERANG: OP is violating BLP and POV pushing with unsourced and poorly sourced nonsense. I recommend a warning and then a long block if it happens again. Bostrom is most certainly not a creationist and is on record criticizing such ideas. It seems that a few nutcases have decided to label his philosophical simulation argument as "creationist", which is tantamount to calling advanced technology "magic". I've seen some nonsense in my time, but this is just crazy. Viriditas (talk) 04:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
It is actually agnosticism, and arguably creationism. He clearly mentions in his paper that he is referring to a naturalist theogony, and a hierarchy of god and angels, which seems compatible with Christian mythology. I understand that you do not like to veer too much outside your narrow world-view. However, here is a summary of what happened there. He is an agnostic, and if you try to censor the criticism by scientists, you are helping agnostics/creationists. Who do you think you are exactly, what is your training about the matter? Just who are you? Do you have a scientific training? Are you an expert on philosophy of religion? Do you know what "theogony" means? If you don't know what theogony means, please stop with your defense of the Nick Bostrom who is trying to erect a techno/new-age version of Christianity. A post-human programmer deity, however "natural", if it designs a computer simulation that includes all of our world, well, that is actually a variant of Intelligent Design sophistry. It is an attempt to make creationism look scientific when it is not. Replace post-human programmer deity with Yehowa, the logical structure is the same. Please do not talk brashly about matters that transcend your knowledge and expertise. What is your real name? My name is Eray Ozkural, I am an AGI researcher, and a very serious analytic philosopher with expertise in philosophy of science and mind. PLEASE find me on social media, and talk to me if you have the courage. PLEASE, I commend you: do not hide behind pseudonyms and direct completely irrelevant ad hominem against my name. I know what I am talking about. And as a scientist, I do not wish to remain silent in response to another attempt at resurrecting Intelligent Design nonsense. Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Exa~enwiki (talk) 04:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Sorry to reopen this but I have blocked Exa~enwiki for legal threats and attempting to out Silence. In the middle of this edit are three sentences: "I am also going to ask for the REAL NAME of this pet administrator called Silent, because I or the AGI Society might eventually have to sue him in US. I am going to seek legal action against this blatant censorship of scientists' opinions. Is this the pseudo-scientist known as Eliezer Yudkowsky?". There are several other phrases that, while not exactly legal threats, still have a chilling effect ("...we will disagree, and we will eventually see your non-profit in court. I am warning you, I will not tolerate your libel and defamation." as an example). If Exa~enwiki retracts the legal threats then feel free to unblock them. Of course if you think I shouldn't have blocked them anyway also feel free to unblock them. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I glanced over that entirely, that's my fault. I ignored it but a block is appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Australian bush flower essences[edit]

Notification of AfDs is a courtesy, but not required by policy, and this was not recent. - The Bushranger One ping only 12:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Australian bush flower essences was recently deleted, but I was never notified that it had been nominated for deletion. Shouldn't I have been notified? - Sardaka (talk) 09:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I have just had a quick look through the deletion processes/guides and I cant find something that specifically says to notify the article creator (if that was you). I know some people do out of courtesy but I dont think it is required. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
It wasn't really that recently; it was AfDed and deleted more than 6 months ago, and you would have easily noticed the AfD notice on the article if you had had it watchlisted. Theoretically you could possibly request a userpage copy of it at WP:REFUND to try and make it wiki-worthy, but frankly it's simply not going to be notable enough for Wikipedia because it is too WP:FRINGE-y and moreover insufficiently notable by Wikipedia's standards. So if I were you I'd expend my efforts elsewhere. Softlavender (talk) 09:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Probably not, no. Especially since it was essentially an advert onto which reality-based editors had grafted a couple of sentences pointing out that the entire concept is bollocks. Guy (Help!) 11:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

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

User:267.I854.209 - disguised as IP address[edit]

Dealt with. GABHello! 22:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Yes, that's a username, 267.I854.209, disguised to look like an IP address, already a violation on account names. In addition, user has today gone through my recent edits and arbitrarily reverted 7 of them, on 7 different pages, all unrelated, in an apparent attempt to annoy me. User has also blanked his own talk page at least twice in order to remove warning posted by me and at least one other editor. Rockypedia (talk) 15:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Same user also left a link on my talk page to a 4chan message board .swf file and attempted to disguise it as a real link. Rockypedia (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Indef NOTHERE block. Katietalk 15:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Troll reverting my edits[edit]

86.187.163.250 is the latest IP of a troll with a vendetta against me. Eik Corell (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I notified the IP User of this on their talkpage. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Don't waste your time. The user does not communicate. They do this until they're banned, then they come back under a new IP. Instead, give me a hand by reverting all their edits. I sure do need the help. Eik Corell (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked this IP for disruptive editing. When an IPs only edits are to revert a single person it is pretty clear they are not new here and are using an IP to avoid edit warring blocks. If this same thing happens you can drop a note on my talk page. HighInBC 17:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

  • They're back as 86.187.162.202. Maybe someone can keep an eye on the affected articles and throw a rangeblock this way. I'll ping DVdm and ScrapIronIV since they've been on the case, knowingly or not. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
    Yup, all of those contribs have been reverted. And they are all on my Watchlist. ScrpIronIV 19:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

They're back again, this time as as 86.187.165.250. ScrpIronIV 21:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I've put in a rangeblock (86.187.160.0/21) for a few days. Fut.Perf. 22:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I am glad someone better with range blocks was able to help here. HighInBC 22:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the rangeblock and the page protects, all. Unfortunately, this one - 86.187.171.62 - has slipped back in. Only one article Blade & Soul affected, as it is the only one that was not page protected. ScrpIronIV 15:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Harassment by User:Rpo.castro[edit]

Rpo.castro has been harrassing me on my talk page by reverting my cleanups - he is aware that he shouldn't do it-, following a dispute in S.C. Braga. It's not the first time he harrasses me. He has been blocked for using multiple accounts after I reported it (I reported him for that). He also wrote once that he would not mind to vandalize S.L. Benfica. SLBedit (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Better check first here to check harrassement. This is one of its attemps of harrassing me, which I didn't have reason, again. Rpo.castro (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
You didn't put a notice on my talk. SLBedit (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
That was months ago, and doesn't excuse your behavior. You should not be reverting anything on his talk page.142.105.159.60 (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
It wasn't me who bring that discussion to here in first place. I've just copied the link from SLBedit first edit.Rpo.castro (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Rpo.castro | this edit isn't vandalism. He was blanking your entry | here . To me this looks like an edit war, in which neither party has clean hands. SLBedit is edit waring and claiming vandalism, it also looks like SLBedit is edit warring as well on the page, and is claiming WP:Footy as a reason not to use the term "Runner up", which looks like local consensus to me.
He started to remove content here with the argument "here is no such thing as runners-up in league". Then I rerverted, and I advised him to consult [1] to check. The he just reverted with no reason. This is not vandalism? At least is disruptive editing.

To his credit, SLBedit looks to have | discussed "runner up" status with WP:FOOTY here , and it looks like that topic has come up | a few | times in | the past . I'd suggest locking the page so that a consensus can be reached on that page, for that page . KoshVorlon 22:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

He only to start to discuss in WP:FOOTY, one day after he made the reversions. Not discussed first in any talk page. The issue was discussed numerous times. All whitout consensus. Its reasonable re-opening endeless times until one sides gets tired and the other wins?Rpo.castro (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I reported harassment/disruptive editing by Rpo.castro in talk page. SLBedit (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The UAE troll is back again, new range block and page-protections needed[edit]

The troll operating from dynamic IPs in the UAE and who repeatedly targets both myself and other users is back again. For previous discussions leading to extensive range blocks, see ANI discussion in January ANI discussion in November]. The same trade marks, using different UAE IPs and going after my edits, calling me a troll etc. [2], [3], [4], [5]. As we've seen both in November and January, the only thing that works tends to be semi-protection of the articles this troll targets and range blocks of the ranges he uses. @Diannaa:, it appears that his preferred range this time is 5.107.XXX. Would be good if somebody could semi-protect Punjab, Pakistan as well. The troll has been duplication a section that already exists in the article, severely misrepresented sources and messed with tags, all of it pretty "standard" vandalism. Jeppiz (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Jeppiz, has an SPI been created for this editor? I'm not sure which IP they used the most, so I can't search their archives. There should be a page somewhere where the relevant IP numbers are kept track of. Liz Read! Talk! 20:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I've blocked 5.107.13.237 and 5.107.7.39. (The range seemed a bit too big and busy to block.) The way these IPs have edited User talk:Gerua18, removing warnings and attacking you, Jeppiz, is interesting.[6] I'm thinking of blocking Gerua18 per WP:DUCK, especially considering they're disruptive anyway. Do you think it's all the same person, Jeppiz? Bishonen | talk 21:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC).
Bishonen, I don't think it's Gerua18. My impression is that Gerua18 is a new and infrequent user with an interest in the Punjab region. Perhaps with a bit of a POV, but no other problem. The IP in the UAE is more a typical troll. He (trolls are usually males) does have a tendency of targeting articles related to Christianity (to attack it) or Islam (to claim it's great) but several users already in November pointed out that this seems more done to troll, not any genuine Muslim conviction. It could be somebody genuinely hating "Christianity" (broadly construed) but it could just as likely be a troll trying to give Muslims a bad name. The very repeated attacks on DeCausa ([7]), myself ([8]) and others seem more indicative of a troll, perhaps a blocked user with whom we interacted some time in the past. If we could do something more than temporary semi-protections and IP blocks, it would of course be good. Jeppiz (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Yes, indeed it would be good, but Wikipedia is not set up to stop trolls. That's putting it mildly. I hope @Diannaa: takes a look, she's better with ranges and similar. Bishonen | talk 21:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC).
I did have a quick look when I was pinged, but since there's been no activity on Punjab, Pakistan since 16:09, I did not see the matter as urgent (and he likely has already left this range). The range is 5.107.0.0/17, which is busy, with 80 edits in the last 10 days, most of which are not from this guy. But I see this is the same range as was harrassing a user at Talk:Mia Khalifa yesterday. We don't actually have any weapons other than temporary semi-protections and IP blocks. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Liz, Bishonen and Diannaa. I originally had no idea who the sockmaster is, but Diannaa's comment above makes it almost a WP:DUCK that it is Xtremedood. What do we know about the troll in the UAE? That he is harassing users at Mia Khalifa, at articles related to Punjab, at articles related to Christianity and at articles related to Islam, as can be seen from this and previous ANI discussions about the troll. And what do know of Xtremedood? That he's an active puppet master [9] with an interest in Mia Khalifa [10], [11], in Punjab [12], [13], in Christianity [14], [15] and in Islam [16], [17]. We know the UAE troll goes after me, and I've disagreed with Xtremedood about Islam. Diannaa tells us the troll goes after Jobas and Jobas has disagreed with Xtremedood after Mia Khalifa. So we have a know sock-master, Xtremedood, with an interest in Mia Khalifa, Punjab, Christianity, Islam and disputes with Jobas and me, and we have an active IP troll with an interest in Mia Khalifa, Punjab, Christianity, Islam and disputes with Jobas and me. I don't think WP:DUCK gets any duckier than that. Jeppiz (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
The IP in the UAE used to edit and to have account's in Arabic wikipedia and Wikimedia commons, (where he used to upload Anti christian files as here). He as user Jeppiz said does have a tendency of targeting articles related to Christianity (to attack it) or Islam (to claim it's great). He used to targeting articles related to Christianity in the Arabic Wikipdia (as insulting, trying to force false information, comments hostile to Christians) where he was blocked for vandalism the Christian articles and and having more than 53 sockpuppeteers, After blcoking him in the Arabic Wikipida he began to targeting our personal talk pages (From his UAE IP) - This was in 2014-. So we had in Arabic Wikipedia trageting form the UAE IP toll.
He also was editing befor blocking him for vandalim and sock puppet in these acount or what used to called anti cross 25 and here, as we found in the arabic wikipeida was related to the UAE IP.
I feel uncertain about the relation between this IP and user:Xtremedood, for his sudden appearance and for his strong defense to the user:Xtremedood, after i brougth up the sockpuppet of user:Xtremedood and had after i had disagreed with him in Mia Kahlifa artcile, and accusing the User:Capitals00 (who had a problem recently with user:Xtremedood) having sockpuppet, which is the same accusing that user:Xtremedood did. I think it's a strange thing that this IP defend in that strong way of the user:Xtremedood and torolling after me after having issue with user.--Jobas (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

A list of the UAE troll's IPs during the last months[edit]

@Liz, Bishonen, Diannaa, Jobas, Bbb23, Ponyo, Cliftonian, Harrias, Elockid, Drmies and DeCausa, I ping you as you've been involved in this matter either as victims or admins during the past months. Liz, I'm not very good at SPIs but I put together this list of IPs Xtremedood has used to troll Wikipedia in the last nine months. I'm sure there are others, but these are all obvious ones. After Diannaa's post, I don't think anyone doubts it's Xtremedood who's the puppet master behind all these troll IPs. Jobas already told us about Xtremedood's similar behavior at Arabic Wikipedia. Then we have the trolls' and Xtremedood's shared interest in Mia Khalifa, Punjab, Christianity (to insult), Islam (to extoll) (see diffs in the post above). Four topics so random that the combination can hardly be a coincidence. If further evidence was still needed, these IP trolls have targeted in particular DeCausa, Jobas and myself (and perhaps others I don't know of), and if the shared interests between Xtremedood and the troll IPs weren't enough, then there's the fact that Xtremedood is probably the only user who has locked horns with all main "victims" of the troll IPs not only at articles but at our talk pages as well. Here's is a non-exhaustive list of the troll IPs, I hope someone can move this matter forward.

List of IPs
  • 103.10.199.149
  • 103.9.77.106
  • 104.236.132.30
  • 129.232.129.157
  • 153.207.109.188
  • 176.204.171.201
  • 176.204.179.35
  • 176.204.181.45
  • 176.204.186.17
  • 176.204.25.226
  • 176.204.27.80
  • 176.204.38.78
  • 176.204.42.122
  • 176.204.44.189
  • 176.204.45.69
  • 176.204.48.40
  • 176.204.60.56
  • 176.204.60.82
  • 178.159.10.78
  • 178.73.210.178
  • 185.65.206.157
  • 189.196.129.102
  • 192.71.213.26
  • 2.48.131.211
  • 2.48.32.105
  • 2.48.45.231
  • 2.48.52.205
  • 2.48.58.235
  • 200.122.128.152
  • 200.73.20.100
  • 200.80.48.34
  • 206.191.148.66
  • 2606:2E00:0:50:EC4:7AFF:FE55:69DE
  • 2A00:1D70:ED15:151:236:23:165:1
  • 2A03:F80:44:37:235:55:44:1
  • 2A03:F80:972:193:182:144:161:1
  • 2A03:F80:972:193:182:144:75:1
  • 31.218.179.2
  • 31.218.181.117
  • 31.219.124.159
  • 31.219.97.154
  • 45.56.155.8
  • 5.107.112.47
  • 5.107.13.237
  • 5.107.7.39
  • 5.107.72.200
  • 69.65.15.114
  • 77.247.180.147
  • 85.9.20.155
  • 86.96.39.39
  • 91.233.116.79
  • 94.58.137.75
  • 95.153.32.3
  • 92.96.139.88

Jeppiz (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Through experience in the Arabic Wikipedia, this IP creates hundreds of IP and account's. Is there a solution to stop this toll, Because the solution to blocking him, according to my opinion it is useless. He will come back and continue to the same vandalism.--Jobas (talk) 01:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
@Jeppiz: Just a passing not. I realized this IP was cursing in Arabic in the Arabic Levantine dialect (Specifically syrian), abd the IP or the blocked who used to tragic christian article in Arabic Wikipeida, through what we have know in Arabic Wikipedia (through the dialect) is from Syria, but he lives in the United Arab Emirates. I am currently unsure of conclusively link that the UAE IP here and the UAE IP who used to edit in the Arabic Wikipeida and who has hostile ideasto Christianity, and who has always sabotaging these christian articles and harassment the users who have been in trouble or disagree with him.--Jobas (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
@Jobas: Is there anything we can make an edit filter for? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 18:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes sure the UAE IP was cursing the user Jeppiz in sickening way, through experience in the Arabic Wikipedia has always used the classic insults as he it here, So @Discuss-Dubious: we can edit filter here.--Jobas (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Good, we have some good strings. You should email the mailing list with this. I'm thinking we should send them a list of his favorite articles as well.@Jobas: Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 19:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Now edit warring and trolling at WP:SPI[edit]

For your informartion, I filed an SPI here The UAE troll has now moved on to the SPI with the usual edit warring and personal insults [18], [19], [20], [21]. Rather tellingly, the UAE troll IP almost verbatim repeated the phrases Bbb23 used when blocking Xtremedood a week ago [22]. Jeppiz (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

An edit filter might be very effect in reducing the personal insults. Right now, the SPI is in the hands of the CUers who have put it on hold while they decide what might be done against the persistent troll. Liz Read! Talk! 01:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Gotta say though...editor might be on to something...Jobas and Jeppiz...Jeppiz and Jobas...Jebbis and Jopaz...there's totally something there. Don't y'all see it? Drmies (talk) 04:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Sarcasm doesn't always translate well. - The Bushranger One ping only 14:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Even if the socks aren't related to XD or G18, they are still ENT 70 ducks, and maybe he just agrees with Xtremedood. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 16:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Xtremedood[edit]

Hello, since I was mentioned a lot here, I would like to say that I have nothing to do with the IP's mentioned above. I have been stalked by IP's that both are hostile to my positions as well as seemingly supportive. I do not support such tactics and I do not have anything to do with these trolls. I request those who are operating these accounts to stop following me and I request that they adopt more civil mannerisms and behavior. I think the accusations by Jeppiz are baseless and it should be mentioned that Jeppiz, Jobas and I have an ongoing dispute here Talk:List of converts to Christianity from Islam. So I hope this is not an attempt to try and censor me so that they may post what they want in the article without disagreement from others, like myself. Xtremedood (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe the issue is that ENT 70 just happens to agree with you. These are his megaphone-duck socks.
How long does it take to get an LTA on a sockpuppeteer like this? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 20:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Admin edits my post to deliberately change the meaning[edit]

Nonadmin closure: This should have been kept closed, lest a boomerang find a new home. Tarage (talk) 09:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am requesting that a warning is given to User:JzG for his editing of my post here.[23] Jpz has clearly edited to deliberately misrepresent my meaning to other readers. I politely asked JzG to revert his edit, but he has since replied[24] refusing to do this.

JzG's edit clearly deliberately changes the entire meaning of my post. This is in violation of the Behavioural Guidelines WP:TPG which state The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission.

I also point out that my edit was intended to show the table was submitted in an ArbCom case and so it is possible that JzG has violated DS issued by ArbCom regarding this case - I would welcome advice from admins on whether this disruptive edit should be raised at AE rather than here (or perhaps simultaneously).

It is perhaps easiest to show the deliberately intended change of the meaning of my post by showing "before and after" of the table I introduced into the talk page.

BEFORE i.e. my edit

Potentially Actionable Behaviour Proposed Remedy
EDITOR
Incivility Edit warring Tag team editing Misuse of DR Forum shopping Battleground behaviour
DrChrissy (me) - Green tickY - - - - Topic ban
Kingofaces43 - Green tickY Green tickY - - Green tickY None proposed
Alexbrn - Green tickY Green tickY - - - None proposed
Yobol - Green tickY Green tickY - - Green tickY None proposed


After i.e. my edit after Jzg's edit

Potentially Actionable Behaviour Proposed Remedy
EDITOR
Incivility Edit warring Tag team editing Misuse of DR Forum shopping Battleground behaviour
DrChrissy (me) Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Topic bans (2)
Kingofaces43 - Green tickY Green tickY - - Green tickY None proposed
Alexbrn - Green tickY Green tickY - - - None proposed
Yobol - Green tickY Green tickY - - Green tickY None proposed

DrChrissy (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, I should have added the columns to show that you're also a repeat offender in WP:IDHT, Wikistalking, tendentious editing, POV-pushing, abusing process to try to gain an advantage in a content dispute, refusal to drop the WP:STICK and of course were under a topic ban already before the GMO case started. On the whole, though, I don't actually care enough to bother. Why don't you go back to writing your long essay on how to fix all the problems of Wikipedia by simply turning it into Citizendium, and appointing you as an expert? Guy (Help!) 01:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

JzG is making uncivil comments.[25][26] JzG added a WikiProject template called bull****.[27][28] See User:JzG/WikiProject Self-serving bullshit. QuackGuru (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

No need to use asterisks, Wikipedia is not censored. It was:
WikiProject Essays
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Self-serving bullshit, a concerted effort to disorganise and disrupt the purpose of Wikipedia by presenting motivated reasoning, special pleading and other fallacious nonsense in the guise of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of self-serving bullshit, visit the drama boards any day.
 ???  This page has not yet received a rating on the project's impact scale.
 
This has one enormous advantage over your moving that atrocious essay into Project space, creating large numbers of (I think now deleted) redirects and so on, in that it is at least intentionally humorous. Your essay is funny only in the blackest sense. Guy (Help!) 01:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
You also added a humor tag to the new essay. QuackGuru (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Obviously. It's very funny. Suggesting that there should be expert editors, that we should use votes instead of consensus and so on? Hilarious! Guy (Help!) 01:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
The only reason JzG added the tag is because your essay's one big joke!, Might I suggest you go and do something productive instead of writing moronic essays.... –Davey2010Talk 01:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
JzG, will you try to be civil moving forward? See Wikipedia:Reform_of_Wikipedia#Incivility. QuackGuru (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
QuackGuruPlease don't tell me you have now decided to reference your essay on ANI. Please stop, your behaviour disruptive. Mrfrobinson (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I do not propose to do anything based on that essay, it isn't worth worth a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys. Guy (Help!) 01:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
It's not about the essay. It is about your behavior.[29][30][31][32] QuackGuru (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Guy is being disruptive and trying to claim it's a joke. This is not the way an administrator should behave. I support the complaints from DrChrissy and QuackGuru. Biscuittin (talk) 01:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Looking at the information put fourth, I'm inclined to agree here. Editing someone else's message is a behavior that is widely known as discouraged. The responses (while not attacks) are condescending and do appear to be battleground-ish. JzG, you're a long-term editor and administrator and I respect all of the good work you've done. But I think you did go a little far here. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I mean, why didn't you just make another table, instead of changing his? I stay out of this particular dispute so I don't know who's zooming who, but this could have been avoided so easily by doing your own comparison. Unless, of course, the entire point was to antagonize someone. Katietalk 03:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
True enough, @Oshwah:. I am out of patience with the International Festival of Lame that is playing out at that essay. It was a parting shot before unwatching it. I am a bad man, I know. But FFS. An essay that seeks to push all kinds of changes that will never happen, with three editors, one of whom appears to be a climate change denialist, one is under two separate topic bans, one ArbCom enacted, and one who has a block log as long as your arm and numerous editing restrictions - and we're supposed to accept that the problem is everybody else. I don't think so. We need a new policy based on WP:STFUALREADY. There is nothing civil about refusing to heed consensus. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree that that JzG has no right changing DrChrissy's edit and there was little gained with that attempt at humor about the essay. The essay was taken to MFD and I've userified it so if JzG promises to leave it alone, I think the rest of us can move on. That essay has been a locust of controversy for everyone all around. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I had already unwatched it. Guy (Help!) 08:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
You and I both know full well that won't be the end of this. I think we've managed to ring fence the issue for now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that there is a risk of obsessive rebuffed POV-pushers never ever dropping the WP:STICK however obvious it is to the rest of Wikipedia that the entire essay is differently rational? Perish the thought. And your money is probably safe. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • The best thing to do would have been for DrChrissy to not post the table in the first place. That or it should have been deleted per WP:TPO as they are topic banned from GMOs and just coming off a block related to it. They should not be pursuing the battleground behavior in the GMO topics that got them topic banned by trying to relitigate the case in any fashion and pursue specific editors. They're free to discuss their own ban in appropriate forums per WP:BANEX, but discussing other editors in the topic in this fashion is another violation worse than their involvement in this recent GMO-based thread and inappropriate use of a talk page even without the ban. Ricky81682 has the short of it that it's best to just drop this with all that in mind at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think Ricky81682 meant we should drop the subject of JzG changing my edit to mislead the community, I think he meant dropping discussion about the essay.DrChrissy (talk) 13:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't see any particular problem with JzG's correction to the table. Which of the check marks do people think would not apply to DrChrissy?—Kww(talk) 13:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I am a little surprised to see support for JzG's actions. WP:TPO states "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page." (the highlighting is in the guidelines). If you require evidence that the meaning has been changed, please note that above the table I indicated that the data were from an ArbCom case. By placing "2 topic bans" in the last column (Proposed remedy), this misrepresents ArbCom - the proposed remedy was only 1 topic ban. Another example, JzG's edit placed a tick in the table indicating that evidence was presented that I was Incivil. Such evidence was not presented at the ArbCom case (nor has it been presented elsewhere). But let's not get bogged down in detail here. If people are supporting JzG's edit, they are supporting the ignoring of a behavioural guideline (WP:TPG).DrChrissy (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
So you're allowed to misrepresentt he facts, make snide attacks on other editors, and have it go unchallenged? Sorry, no. Our talk page guidelines do not give you the right to present yourself as the wronged innocent and others of being evil POV-pushers after you've been sanctioned by ArbCom and they haven't. Your wisest course is simply to remove the entire thing and walk away. Guy (Help!) 16:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Originally this complaint was closed with this comment: This is rapidly devolving into bickering. JzG is reminded that there are better ways to make your point than editing another persons content. JzG has said they have unwatched the page, I am assuming this means they won't do it again. DrChrissy is reminded that ideas that fly in the face of consensus will encounter significant criticism, and while you should not have your comments altered you should not be surprised when people object strongly.

I am tangentially involved in this issue as I participated in the MfD, if any admin, or JzG or DrChrissy finds this closure to be too involved I welcome them to reverse it. It is my opinion that nothing will be served by this staying open other than prolonging a dispute. HighInBC 16:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for re-opening. Thank you to the closing admin for disclosing they are involved and inviting this re-opening. However, I am unable to Undo the closure - possibly this needs Admin status. Would an Admin kindly reopen this thread for me please.DrChrissy (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this race, but I do think Guy's actions should not be overlooked and I've seen quite a lot of his actions like this in the past and I would not be opposed to a desysop at this point. An admin should not be acting in such a way. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Guy's actually an admin? Wait? Whaaaaat??????????? I really need to use pop-up more! --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 00:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I Have no opinion on this issue, however Dr. Chrissy I'm not sure if this needed to be copied and pasted as the original has not been archived. Since you requested it earlier I would think an admin could reopen the discussion? RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I've reopened the original request and will delete the cut and paste version. Liz Read! Talk! 20:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment by OP. I have checked the evidence presented in the ArbCom case and no evidence was presented there that I was Uncivil. By changing the Table, Jzg made it appear that such evidence had been presented. This is a falsehood. He is lying. Lying is specifically listed as being a violation of our WP:Civility policy.DrChrissy (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
OK, I recommend that someone now take this to WP:AE as this is by now a flagrant and determined breach of your topic ban. Guy (Help!) 00:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
This is a diversionary tactic you often use. When people start making accusations about you which you can not defend, you divert attention away from them, normally by attacking the complainant. I have accused you of lying - an accusation which I dislike making, but it is necessary. Do you intend to defend yourself?DrChrissy (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • JzG made another uncivil comment. JzG has a pattern of making uncivil comments. I recommend an admin open an ArbCom case otherwise this could continue. QuackGuru (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
    Not involved, but that's not an uncivil comment in the slightest. It's just an opinion. At a quick glance, I see nothing wrong with Guy's actions. Amaury (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
    @Amaury: Please could you clarify your post. Are you saying that you think there is nothing wrong with Guy editing another editor's posting to change its meaning and to tell lies about another editor.DrChrissy (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
    @QG: That is not uncivil—plain speaking is preferred. JzG is doing you a favor by pointing out that you are going the wrong way and will end up with a site ban if you continue. There is no possible system of governance that would allow the building of an encyclopedia and the satisfaction of all participants. You may be correct at Talk:Chiropractic but no one will ever know because there is too much bickering—just leave it alone for a month. Johnuniq (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • This report should be closed without action although it is a good illustration of several current problems. No one will be sanctioned for making a single edit to another person's table, particularly given JzG said the table should be restored if wanted (diff). In general, the community tolerates quite a lot of sub-optimal behavior and an issue like this is not suitable for ANI. DrChrissy is indefinitely topic banned from all GMO pages and more (WP:ARBGMO). A wikilawyer might argue that the finding allows DrChrissy to post a table about their GMO topic ban (diff), but the purpose of a topic ban is to stop disruption, and that means DrChrissy should drop the topic altogether. Johnuniq (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

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

User creating blatant hoaxes[edit]

User indef blocked by as vandalism-only account by Ymblanter.
Softlavender (talk) 12:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
(non-admin closure)
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.

Joseph Steiner (talk · contribs)

Creating nonsense about "Josephian highways" whatever those are. Needs a block. Pinguinn (🐧) 20:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Indefblocked as vandalism-only account.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I use those to get home from work, they make my life easier. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

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

User POV pushing[edit]

Reporter has been educated on investigation tactics and given best practices on dispute resolution. No further action is needed. (non-admin closure) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am relatively new in the realm of content disputes and NPOV issues, so I decided I would post here. Snarlyj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is deleting content that is critical of how minorities are treated anywhere, and also deleting info critical of China in Chinese related articles. Thank you. In veritas (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I do see editing of articles and content in similar topic areas (mostly ethnicity), but otherwise I don't see anything that strikes me as something that requires action here. His/her edits here, here, here, here, here, here,and here - all are well explained with edit summaries, and appear to be content and source-related disputes more than "POV pushing". If anything, Snarlyj should be reminded to fix content rather than simply remove it (one or two edits I saw didn't need deletion - just fixes and changes) and be ready to explain any such edits if questioned. In veritas - Were any of these deletions incorrect? Did the sources provided unambiguously support the content being removed? What are your findings regarding his/her edit summary claims? Have you attempted to seek a discussion or dispute resolution with Snarlyj? I don't see anything on the talk page of the articles (in fact, he started a discussion on one here), nor anything on his/her talk page - just one warning, then an ANI notice about this discussion. It looks like you came straight here instead of discussing your concerns with the user first. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I concur that I did not see anything especially alarming jump out at me from the contribs. GABHello! 02:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@GeneralizationsAreBad, Oshwah, and Snarlyj:Thank you for your quick response, at first it raised my suspicions because many of the statements he or she erased were negative comments towards certain groups. I realized I might have been too hasty. In the future how should I start the conversation with the user? Thank you. In veritas (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Just tlak to them on there talk page....but it does appear the new editor does not like Reza Hasmath ..not sure why..perhaps someone should ask. I can see why some would have a problem with some unnamed user removing info from an award-winning researcher. -- Moxy (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
His or her's talk page gives some reasoning In veritas (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Moxy is correct. Just express your concerns and seek a discussion regarding them. In veritas - I would investigate his edits and find out if there's legitimate concern with them before you start a dispute/discussion. He may be editing similar areas and removing similar content (a legitimate reason to "raise a brow"), but if his removals are correct and he is telling the truth, remember that good edits are good edits; a discussion may not even be needed :-). It's up to you. Either way, I find no administrator attention or action is needed at this time and this ANI thread can be closed. I'll let someone else do it. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@Oshwah:Okay, I talked to him on his discussion page and sorted things out. Next time, I will be more direct to the editor about my concerns. Thanks to everyone for the help. In veritas (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
In veritas - You're welcome :-). Please do not hesitate to leave a message on my talk page if you have questions or need assistance with anything. I'll be happy to help. Since the reporter has pursued the advice given in uniform and implied closure, I'll go ahead and close this - I don't think doing so is controversial ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Resolved

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.

IP changing cleanup and information tags[edit]

IP blocked for two weeks. m.o.p 03:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I need to leave to meet some friends for dinner, so will report this here for further review. I had spotted some odd cleanup and maintenance tag changes by 210.10.138.83 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and had begun changing back the ones I had reviewed thus far (a half dozen or so). However, it appears there are several dozen additional changes I havn't had a chance to look at yet. Could someone check these, and revert as appropriate? For now, I'm assuming good faith mistaken changes - but some additional discussion after a further review may be needed. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 01:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Straight template vandalism. They've been mass rollbacked. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 01:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
FYI this is not the first IP from Australia to perform this template stuff. It has been several months since I last saw it going on so I can't remember what the other IPs were. Thus, this is more of a "keep a lookout for more of this in the future" heads up. MarnetteD|Talk 02:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

User continued edits. Reporting to AIV. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


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

Discussion needs to be curated[edit]

No violations of Wikipedia policy have occurred at the RFC topic. Requests for administrator assistance for routine process-related matters can be made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. (non-admin closure) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We have a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities#Request_for_comment that needs to be examined by an admin. Both sides have made their cases, and perhaps somebody who is uninvolved can help bring the matter to a resolution or suggest steps to take to achieve WP:consensus. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

BeenAroundAWhile - Is there a need for administrator attention in the RFC due to behavioral issues? I don't see any problems that require administrator intervention or enforcement of policy. I think you filed this in the wrong place :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I see no disruption there. There appears to be a pretty clear consensus. However don't RfC usually run a month? In any case, request for closure is at AN, not here. John from Idegon (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
This is a normal RfC. The fact that you may not like the way its going doesn't alter that fact. The consensus seems to be clear at present; although RfCs can run for up to 30 days. If you would like to let it run for 30 days and then request that an uninvolved person close it, you can post the close-request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. If the consensus continues to unambiguously skew to "Oppose", you may want to withdraw the RfC at some point; see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Attack pages by User:His Ogreness[edit]

Issue resolved. (non-admin closure) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I can't see the content of the previously speedied articles Nate Miller (Reptilian Overlord) and Nate Miller (Reptoid) but based on the titles and the content of User:His Ogreness (which I have tagged for speedy as an attack page aimed at Nate Miller) it seems likely that the other articles were also attack pages. Since the user has no other edits the user's name appears to be another attack aimed at Nate Miller. Meters (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

FYI, in some US youth cultures, "dank" is a good thing. No doubt this guy is a troll but I wouldn't class this as an attack. His Ogreness should probably be indeff'd as a troll. John from Idegon (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)¿
And the user's been indef'ed RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Fair comment. Personally, I would consider being called a reptilian overlord and an ogre an attack. Maybe Nate Miller would feel differently. Meters (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't know, Meters. I'd rather be a reptilian overlord than a mammalian peon. Drmies (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
That's from the upcoming 2016 science fiction reboot of Paradise Lost, right? Starring Channing Tatum as Lizard Satan? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
User:Bishzilla notified. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Mammalian peon? Please, I prefer to think of myself as a "man thing," scuttling through the underbrush hiding from John Travolta in Battlefield Earth. Meters (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
'Zilla can't read deleted pages either, no longer admin. (Sadness! And frustrated curiosity!) But "Reptilian Overlord" obviously compliment as such. Please all bow down to Overlady Bishzilla. bishzilla ROARR!! 23:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC).

───────────────────────── But are you dank? John from Idegon (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Was going to close this thread, but then I saw this question. The court will await an answer ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, it's time, but the best laugh I've had for some time. Meters (talk) 07:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Urban Dictionary clarify 'Zilla is "the dankness". Now free close, little Oshwah! bishzilla ROARR!! 17:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC).

I just want to point out that the admins ought to take a long, close look at any editor who prefers to think about Battlefield Earth, for any reason. Sanctions would be appropriate, and should be severe. Now please excuse me as I go floss my brain as a result of having mentioned that travesty. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


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

'Wikihounding' by JBL[edit]

OP blocked by Bishonen as a timesink.
Guy (Help!) 23:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

'Wikihounding' by JBL

I recently read a book by George Watson, Lost Literature of Socialism. George G. Watson, MA, Fellow of the St Johns College at Cambridge since 1961. Watson, “[o]ver a period of more than half a century … published a number of books on literature, literary criticism, and political thought.” Watson’s argument is based on some interesting facts about Adolph Hitler and Friedrich Engels. I verified those facts from independent sources, and then sought to introduce those facts into two Wikipedia articles: “Nazism” and “Friedrich Engels”. In each instance, I was immediately reversed by other editors. One DanielRigal reversed my edits in “Nazism”, and one RolandR reversed my edits in the “Engels” article.

My confrontation with DanielRigal subsequently centered on the biased language in the “Nazism” article. I maintain that phrases like “Far-right themes in Nazism include the argument that superior people have a right to dominate over other people and purge society of supposed inferior elements” are not presented from a neutral point of view, because 1) it imputes that only ‘far-right’ groups hold such beliefs, and 2) all ‘far-right’ groups hold such beliefs. Those notions are blatantly false, and I provided examples that there is historical evidence that demonstrates how those notions are false. To perpetuate a falsehood is to lie.

After sending me two PMs threatening to have me barred, DanielRigal dropped out of the discussion and was replaced by one TFD. I have substantively dealt with each and every excuse TFD has used to reject any changes to the article, but I maintain that the article, as written, is biased and perpetuates misinformation, which is counter to Wikipedia’s policy of being fair and unbiased and presenting material in with neutral point of view. That is the focus of my concern with that article and with DanielRigal and TFD.

I do wish to add that both DanielRigal and TFD followed me to the Engels article and made comments on my proposed changes there. Two of three comments addressed to me by DanielRigal are on my Talk Page. In the first comment, DanielRigal threatened to have me barred for the changes I made to the “Nazism” article, and the second comment addressed edits I made to the “Engels” article – where there is no record of DanielRigal being previously involved in editorial changes to the "Engels" page.

I was surprised to receive that second threat from DanielRigal in regards to the “Engels” article, and I was disconcerted by the knowledge that I had been stalked or informed on by someone in an oppositional clique of editors. Let me be clear that I am not seeking any administrative action against DanielRigal, TFD or RolandR, I just want everyone to be aware of the interactions I’ve been dealing with these past three days.

Regarding the “Engles” article. After RolandR reversed my edits in the “Engels” article, I directly addressed his concerns with a revised edit with the changes he deemed necessary to make the edit worthy and credible. That edit was immediately reversed –out of the blue and without comment – by one User:Joel B. Lewis (JBL) who happens to be an editor that I had confrontational dealings with last year in another article. It was at this point, after JBL reversed my edit in the “Engels” article, that I received the second threat from DanielRigal to have me barred.

Another editor, FreeKnowledgeCreator, started a Talk Page on the “Engels” article entitled “Engels and the Slavs” wherein he requested that JBL explain why he reversed my edit. I joined the conversation and likewise requested justification.

I ask that everyone read JBL’s response and all of the exchanges that follow in that section.

I feel very confident that I provided ample evidence and credible citations to support my edits in both the “Nazism” article and the “Engels” article, and that a certain clique is refusing to allow my edits is doing so for partisan political reasons.

It’s evident from their posts that DanielRigal, TFD, RolandR and JBL are acting in concert and that at least one, and maybe all of them, are guilty of stalking my posts. DanielRigal and TFD comments show that they followed me from the “Nazism” article to the “Engels” article. There’s no indication that either DanielRigal or TFD were active editors of the “Engels” article before I had proposed changes to that article.

RolandR’s comment reveals that he followed me to – or was made aware of – my post to FreeKnowledgeCreator’s talk page and then wrongly accused me of violating Wikipedia policies. However, my real purpose for bringing all of this to the attention of the administrators is to report JBL for engaging in “Wikihounding.”

As reported above, JBL appeared out of the blue and immediately became confrontational in the “Engels” article, and this is notable considering the confrontational exchange we had in regards to another article last year. There’s no indication that JBL had been involved as an active editor of either the “Nazism” article or the “Engels” article before I had proposed changes to both. Yet, miraculously he suddenly appeared in both! How he knew or was made aware of my edits to those two articles is worth investigation. Subsequently, JBL has made it abundantly clear that his sole purpose for being in the “Engels” article is to prejudicially frustrate and deny my proposed changes to that article and any subsequent article I should try to edit in the future.

Let me conclude by reporting that JBL’s latest comment was to belligerently challenge me to report him.

So I did. Aspencork (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I have corrected all instances of "JDL" above, as well as adding some links so that other users can figure out who you're talking about. --JBL (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
"One link" to your page. Aspencork (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I invite everyone involved to actually read the Politifact article and determine for themselves who was 'severely' misrepresenting what the Poltifact article actually reported. Aspencork (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
This is a content dispute, and does not belong at ANI, but I will briefly reply to your posting. Wikipedia articles are supposed to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Watson was a professor of Victorian literature not an historian of Nazi Germany. His books on politics were not published by academic publishers and while they may have reached a small audience of readers, have not influenced scholarship. As you say, "[his] argument is based on some interesting facts about Adolph Hitler and Friedrich Engels." Therefore we are supposed to treat it as fringe: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." It has so little coverage, it should be ignored.
Your walls of text, failure to listen to other editors, accusations of bias, misrepresentation of sources and continuing to post the same arguments after they have been addressed, as well as arguments based on original research is tendentious and I suggest you either follow established content policies and guidelines, work to get them changed, or find another forum to promote your views.
TFD (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
This is not a mere content dispute. I was promptly besieged by an individual who stalked my posts and literally admitted that he was there to block any edits I made. Furthermore, your definition of 'fringe' is too conveniently malleable to your POV to have any legitimate meaning. When you are presented with the fact that some of your sources voice the same opinion as my source, you dismiss both and conveniently ignore both. Aspencork (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
"literally admitted that he was there to block any edits I made" - do you have a diff showing that literal admission? An accusation of "Wikihounding" is the Wikipedia equivalent of Godwin's Law. However, of course cartels of editors exist who consider that they own certain articles and hate nothing more than newcomers arriving who upset either their hitherto unchallenged control of content, or their hard-fought-for control of content, or their complacency about errors or omissions in content. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

"You are a crap editor making crap edits. As long as your edits are poorly thought out hackish attempts to push a particular point of view, I will be happy to revert them. If you were to stop making crap edits and instead were to make constructive additions to WP, I (and everyone else) would be considerably less likely to revert you. --JBL (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)"

Aspencork (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I would just like to observe that the response here shows a typical level of comprehension and responsiveness from Aspencork. Also, the actual diff (rather than a copy of what I posted) is here. --JBL (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
It is not any edits that you make other editors will revert, only ones that violate policy. BTW you wrote, "Watson's expertise trumps your predisposed, wrongheaded and biased opinion."[33] That is no way to speak to fellow editors. TFD (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It says at the top of this page, in big red letters, "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page". I await with keen anticipation Aspencork's notification on my talk page. This is purely a content debate, where several editors have explicitly opposed, or reverted, Aspencork's tendentious edits, and despite his canvassing not one has supported them. There is nothing to discuss here, the talk pages at Friedrich Engels and Nazism are sufficient. RolandR (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Apologies. Since this discussion was to be about JBL, he is the only one I informed. BTW, you really do need to read the policy on "canvassing". Contacting someone already engaged in the forum on their Talk Page is quite okay by Wiki. Aspencork (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I am cautiously optimistic that someone (perhaps, an administrator not involved in the ongoing discussions) might explain things to Aspencork in a way that will end the huge, pointless walls of text on the talkpages. --JBL (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Also, I believe that all editors mentioned in the initial complaint are now aware of it. (I notified the two who have not already commented.) --JBL (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Aspencork, as RolandR rightly points out, you had a responsibility to notify all editors you are discussing about this complaint so that they have an opportunity to respond. There are several BRIGHT notices informing you of this obligation. Also, this is an administrator's noticeboard, you are not speaking to arbitrators here and this complaint would not be an appropriate one to take to arbitration case requests. Please try to work out your differences on the article talk page and, even belatedly, post ANI notices on the user talk pages of everyone you mentioned in your initial complaint. Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Liz: As I explained above, I informed JBL because he was the one who is at the center of this discussion, and I apologize to the others for not informing them because, though mentioned, they are not the focus of my complaint. What has happened here has moved beyond the Talk Page of any single article. Author George Watson is the reason I went to the “Friedrich Engels” and “Nazism” articles. Watson is the common thread that ties me to both articles, and any outsider looking in should be able to see that. Meanwhile, in regards to most of the others mentioned here, the only visible connection between them and both of those articles is me. There’s no indication that JBL edited or posted in any area of either of those two articles before I did so; hence, it’s important to discover how he knew I posted in both places and why he found it important to become involved in two articles where he had previously never actively indicated that he was interested -- until after I was there. The only thing those two articles have in common would be his animus towards me which stems from our interaction last year. That is my reason for bringing this instance of Wikihounding before administrators. Aspencork (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Aspencork that the issue here is behavioral. I recommend anyone to look at the Engels talk page, and Aspencork's contributions to it, to see what I mean. Or check out the Planned Parenthood discussion that Drmies mentioned if you want a short version of the sort of issues that are involved. (To the extent that this is a content dispute it has been settled by a clear consensus.) --JBL (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything wrong in pointing out that the quality of someone's edits stinks. Some editors are indeed "not here to build an encyclopedia". There's nothing wrong in "hounding" these editors and asking them to either improve their work or tone it down a notch Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

It's evident from your posts that you are well informed on the subject we've discussed at length. My edits were to a subtopic already introduced: "The Magyar Struggle" by Friedrich Engels. After my original edits, I became aware that Watson wasn't the only one speaking to the overt racism and the call for the extirpation of the Slavs in that Engels article. W.O. Henderson -- already cited as a source for the Wiki article on Engels -- also noted Engels' overt racist remarks and how he advocated that the Germans and Magyars had the right to exterminate the Slavs ... concluding with: ‘And that will be a real step forward.’ I believe the subject of that Engels article should be public knowledge; whereas, you actively wish to suppress that bit of knowledge. Aspencork (talk) 02:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
There is a lot of incoherence, bordering on TL;DR, in the initial complaint here so I'll just make a few points more or less randomly.
  1. Using the standard warning templates to warn an editor who has made some seriously bad edits is not hounding, stalking or anything remotely like that.
  2. Nor is checking their contribution history to see what else they may be doing to see if it fits a bad pattern. This is a perfectly normal way to discover whether other articles also need cleaning up and also to form an opinion as to whether the editor in question is misguided on one topic, misguided on many topics or may be deliberately causing trouble.
  3. Several people all noticing an editor's bad behaviour when they blunder into a very high profile topic like Nazism (I mean it doesn't get much more high profile than that!) and make obviously poor edits is not evidence of collusion. It is exactly what is to be expected. A lot of people watch those articles. They need to be watched and this is exactly why they need to be watched.
  4. I am heartily fed up with people with axes to grind coming onto articles like Nazism, and other articles about far-right topics, and trying to censor them to hide the settled academic consensus of the far-right nature of these topics, and then acting like they are the victims when they are called out for trying to replace the historical consensus with original research, improper synthesis and fringe theories. This is happening regularly enough that I suspect that there may be some collusion in this but also I believe that in most cases the editors involved are just very misguided people who are completely divorced from any mainstream political or historical understanding. I am not able to say when/if there is such collusion and I have not accused anybody of it. I do try to assume good faith with these editors, and to explain why they are misguided, but in really blatant cases of political propaganda pushing, or when they ignore multiple warnings, I am perfectly comfortable to call this behaviour vandalism and warn accordingly. I never want to bite the head off anybody who is merely misguided, and I acknowledge that it is not always easy to tell which editors are feigning indignation and which are genuinely unsure as to what they did wrong, but I have no time to play games with those who repeatedly insert fringe nonsense into our most important articles knowing it be be invalid. That is not just an attack on Wikipedia. It is an attack on history and an insult to the memory of everybody who suffered in the events these articles cover.
For the record, I refute the unsubstantiated accusation of collusion insofar as it applies to me. I have had no communication with the people mentioned other than on publicly visible Wikipedia talk/project pages. I don't know any of them in real life or know any of their email addresses or phone numbers. I also do not believe that JBL or any of the other people mentioned have colluded with each other. I invite anybody who actually believes that there was collusion to show any evidence that they may think that they have. Absent that, I think we can dismiss the whole thing unless anybody thinks that Aspencork merits a boomerang of some sort. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
For the record, it's understandable that someone previously involved in one forum would become involved in a discussion, as you did in the "Nazism" article, and that's not the issue here. That you troubled yourself to follow me to another article and threaten me with the false accusation that I was "vandalizing" any article is quite another. Plus, JBL inexplicably showed up out of nowhere in both articles where there is no evidence that he was ever involved in editing on either subject -- until I was there. Aspencork (talk) 01:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
At the risk being accused of stalking, I took a look at User talk:Aspencork#Random Edits where he replies to an IP editor in a way that clearly demonstrates that he has decided what the "truth" is already, without having read the sources, and intends to look at the sources with a view to cherry-picking anything supports his "argument". What is our line on this sort of thing? It is legitimate to verify that the sources support the text but to do so with an prior agenda to support the insertion another "argument" seems worrying. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2016
That would be at least the third time you've visited my Talk Page, whereas, I've never scoped out what's on your page. BTW, the Fritzsche book arrived this afternoon. So far, the author is offering an interesting discussion of how Germany's nationalists and socialists worked together during WWI, since you're obviously interested in keeping yourself apprised of what I am doing. Aspencork (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I am amused by the idea that reviewing an editor's contribution history or User Talk page is in any way a misdeed. Would we be openly discussing doing this on an administrator's noticeboard if it was? I mean, we'd have to be pretty dumb to do that. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, it is amusing how you've incriminated yourself by publicly admitting that you are stalking my activities on Wikipedia. Aspencork (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Do we think that he has noticed that there is a link to his talk page in his own signature yet?
Seriously though, stalking is a very serious accusation, even if he seems to have no idea what it actually means. I can't see how we can allow this drama to continue. I regret to have to say that am now changing my mind. I now feel that a block is possibly in order. Does anybody else agree? Has anybody else even been able to read this without losing the will to live? --DanielRigal (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
The evidence stands against you. You indicted yourself when you followed me to the "Engels" article and unjustly threatened me. Subsequently, after stalking my activities yet again, you then remarked on an exchange I had with another party and tried to impute something improper about that exchange. Aspencork (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I am reading a book by Diane McWhorter, which is fascinating, although I frequently disagree with her sentence structure and, worse, I think the book is needlessly detailed. Also, I cannot find real evidence of real hounding here, and suspect that Aspencork a. loves to hear themselves talk and b. has discovered ANI as a forum for said talking. Unless Aspencork can lay out, in three sentences or less (fewer), the case for hounding, I suggest someone close this novella before it needs to be printed in multiple volumes. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
This might prick your ego, but I've never entertained any interest in who you are or what you've read, nor have I followed you to your Talk Page to scope out what it is you do to keep yourself busy ... other than seeing you make snide remarks in this thread. Aspencork (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I think it is becoming clear that Aspencork has serious problems collaborating with people within a framework that is not of his own devising and in interacting with people who do not agree with him. He cannot separate his own opinions from the general consensus on a subject. He can not tell legitimate oversight from hounding. If he was able to separate his opinions from the facts, and direct his opinions towards a personal blog and the facts here, then that would be fine. We all have opinions. Nobody has a NPOV in real life. NPOV is something we adopt here in order to be good Wikipedians. It isn't always easy and sometimes we do make mistakes but I don't believe that Aspencork understands NPOV well enough to make a reasonable attempt to adopt it. I am not sure whether his actions justify a temporary block but I do think that he would be a lot happier somewhere else where he can publish whatever he likes, as his own opinion, without us pointing out that it does not belong in an encyclopaedia. The best outcome would be for him to take his opinions elsewhere. If he can remain neutral and civil when writing about other subjects, he could still contribute to Wikipedia on those. I guess a topic ban might be appropriate. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
You're obviously fully familiar with the term "collaboration", but you're obviously not so familiar with the definitions for "neutral" or "civil" in that you wrongly advocate biased phrases in the "Nazism" article in lieu of more neutral phrases, and it was you who threatened to have me banned and leveled against me the inflammatory and false charge of "vandalism". FYI, Webster's defines "genocide" and "racism" from a truly neutral perspective, in that it doesn't identify either term as a tenet of "left-wing" or "right-wing" ideology as you so fallaciously insist. Your definitions for "opinion" and "facts" are likewise suspect, because I made no edits that I did not back up with citations from sources written by noted scholars. Aspencork (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • When I was reading through this I assumed Aspencork was simply a new user suffering from lack of clue. Instead I find they have been editing since 2013 [34]. No one can be here that long without knowing that reading a user's talk page is normal. From this I must conclude their carrying on about this is simply to prolong this thread ie to disrupt. My suggestion to Aspencork is to withdraw this farse and take their content issues to WP:DR if they feel strongly about it. If they do not, based on what I have read here, I think we are, regretfully, dealing with an editor who is incapable of working on a collaborative project. JbhTalk 19:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Blocked. Well put, Jbhunley. I have blocked the user as indeed incapable of working on a collaborative project, and for bootlessly taking up too much of other editors' time. Bishonen | talk 19:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC).

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

SlabKernan making copyright violations[edit]

IDHT
User indeffed by Diannaa. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 01:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SlabKernan appears to be adding large amounts of referenced text to articles but what is actually happening is the editor is just cutting and pasting from the references into the articles. I have reverted a few but they keep adding them back. Just take any of their edits, take a random sentence and copy it into google and you will find the original source. I have yet to find an edit by this editor that isn't a copyright violation. Emotionalllama (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Needs an immediate indef block and a nuke of all their contribs. Blackmane (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I've gone through all their contribs and issued a final warning. — Diannaa (talk) 02:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Jytdog's bullying over editing Craig J. N. de Paulo[edit]

It appears that the OP is forum shopping. As has been suggested, WP:RSN seems to be a more suitable forum for this issue. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 01:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As per endless discuss on the talk page of Craig J. N. de Paulo, and at the suggestion of another editor, I found serious sources to support the information on this article's page, which were summarily dismissed as "garbage sources" and removed eight citations, including one from the Pennsylvania Council of Churches and the Newsletter for Phenomenology. These are credible sources that support the information on this article's page. Need some help. JustTryintobeJust (talk) 13:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

If there is a dispute over suitability of a source you can ask about it at WP:RSN. I think you are at the wrong noticeboard. – Brianhe (talk) 13:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
That isn't bullying at all. -Roxy the dog™ woof 13:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
@JustTryintobeJust: You are also obliged to notify people when you report them here, which you appear to have failed to do. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Not again! Not here now! A Third Opinion was requested about this article. I removed it for two reasons. First, there were more than two editors. Second, the issue appeared to be a question about whether the individual is notable, and therefore whether the article should be deleted as not notable. Since there is a specific forum, Articles for Deletion, for deciding that issue, the lightweight procedure of Third Opinion wasn't the best approach. If there is a dispute about "garbage sources", go to RSN. If there is a question about whether the individual is notable, try WP:AFD. (By the way, see deletion outcomes about clergy. Bishops of major denominations are almost always kept.) If there are claims of bullying, support them with diffs. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Old Catholics - probably worth a punt at AFD. OC's could be argued against being a 'major' denomination. I am pretty sure there are more people who identify as Pastafarians or Jedi than OC's. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

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

(YET ANOTHER) Incident of WP:VANDALISM and WP:POV and WP:EDITWAR from FreeatlastChitchat[edit]

Consensus seems to be that there's nothing worth actioning here. Everyone go and write some articles or something. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC).
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FreeatlastChitchat has yet again created an edit war environment, not only under the guise of taking off galleries due to an on-going (note: NOT CONSENSUS) discussion re WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES on a page which has nothing to do with ethnicity, but religion (the topic unfortunately says "large populations" which is currently under debate...but nowhere does it say "religions"). He has also reverted sourced material to a WP:POV which states a figure underwent "forced conversion" when the citations say the opposite. He has had countless (and I'm not being facetious...I seriously cannot remember how many) VALID WP:ANI cases against him this last month alone. I have already requested page protection for the List_of_converts_to_Christianity_from_Islam page and I also am requesting a ban for FreeatlastChitchat from this topic, as he has exhibited disruptive behavior ACROSS Wikipedia. A quick browse of his activities will confirm this. In ALL cases, under the guise of "no ethnic galleries" he has reverted to a WP:POV which deleted sourced material and claimed unsourced "forced conversion". He never cited this change, which is a miscategorization/misrepresentation.

  1. first incident here [[35]]
  2. second incident here [[36]]
  3. third incident deleting cited sources in favor of WP:POV here [[37]]
  4. another "edit war"/case of WP:POV on yet another article I have participated/followed previously. As I have stated twice, saying shi'a "do not trust" is clearly WP:POV so I reverted to the original...but the user insists on another WP:EDITWAR [[38]]

NB: he also has what I can only assume is a "friend" if not a WP:SOCKPUPPET which follows him around and tag-teams his "work". You'll know immediately who this is.Trinacrialucente (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

"NB: he also has what I can only assume is a "friend" if not a WP:SOCKPUPPET which follows him around and tag-teams his "work". You'll know immediately who this is." Trinacrialucente, you absolutely cannot make such an unsubstantiated accusation and aspersion without experiencing a boomerang. Either name and substantiate that accusation, or strike it. Softlavender (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2002:C302:FC40:0:EC4:7AFF:FE0D:C0BDTrinacrialucente (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • 'Reply, Boomerangs should fly
  1. Other editors agree with me on this. Calling everyone who disagrees with you a sockpuppet is childish and foolish(yes sadly this is one guy going against established consensus and calling everyone a vandal)
  2. Our edits are based on wikipedia policy
  3. Neither I nor the other editors who reverted this guy have exceeded 3pr limits.

FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The current consensus is Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a gallery of images of group members (point 4 of WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES). Until that changes, the galleries in these articles should not be included. You're focusing too much on the ethnicity part. The whole basis for removing these galleries is that it's impossible to decide which individuals should represent an entire group. Galleries were most common in ethnic group articles but not confined to them. clpo13(talk) 19:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Also, could you link to the current discussion about galleries you referenced? clpo13(talk) 19:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the wording and application of this policy here. While the discussion is still on-going, there has been general agreement that the policy applies to religions as well as ethnic groups because the problems associated with such galleries are the same in both cases. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
All I see here is a clear case of WP:BOOMERANG. I've lost count of the number of times FLCC has been taken to AN/I, and quite frankly I'm sick of it. Ches (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Furthermore, Trinacrialucente, I heavily dislike your "shouty" attitude which has been made clear in the several filings against FLCC - your use of ALL CAPS makes it difficult for me to take you seriously. As I mentioned before, this isn't the first time you've done this. I think you need to drop the stick and back away from the dead horse. Ches (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
What "you are sick of" or "dislike" is irrelevant, as are any other of your personal feelings (and "shouty" isn't a word, so can't even speak to that). If you can't address the topic at hand, I suggest you move on, as you are simply giving your WP:POV and disrupting this process. Trinacrialucente (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Regarding point 4, I'm not sure why you think [Shi'a] do not trust many of the Sunni narrators and transmitters is POV, while Shi'a Muslims do not follow a consistent and reliable Hadith methodology is okay. In fact, it seems like common sense that Shi'a wouldn't trust Sunni in religious matters, considering their history. At any rate, you've also been removing a sourced paragraph in your reverts. Remember, it takes two to edit war. Hash it out on the talk page instead. clpo13(talk) 23:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • uninvolved non-admin Speedy close I'm sick and tired of all of these discussion about FCC. I see nothing blockable or worthy of ANI's time here. I've been critical of FCC at some points in time, so take my word for it when I say that there's nothing here against FCC. Removing the galleries is fine, no problem there. Removing unsourced persons in the list could be done by first tagging them, I think that would be better, but removing them outright is hardly blockable. Trinacrialucente, we often agree on content so please believe me when I say that reports like this one only hurt yourself. Please let me give you some sound advice.
    1. Never use capital letters.
    2. Never accuse someone of sockpuppetry based on one common edit.
    3. If you file cases, make them short and factual, not long and emotional.
    4. Don't file any case against FCC for the next six months. If FCC does something wrong, there are other people who will notice.
I hope some admin will close this fast before it spirals out of control once again. Nothing to see, now back away. Jeppiz (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Not this shit again. This has been like the fifth report about Freeatlastchitchat from Nov-Dec to today. I agree with Jeppiz. Everyone is tired of the same editors commenting on the same user, which proves some battleground behavior. Why can't we all move on already? This is just a waste of time. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} 01:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


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

Revoke Drummerton's access to user talk[edit]

Resolved. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 04:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

See Special:Diff/703633317. Esquivalience t 03:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked and the offending