Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive918

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Move/combine Babble back to Babble.com[edit]

Page move and history merge handled by Malcolmxl5 (non-admin closure) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:33, 28 March 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 need to merge the history of pages "Babble.com" and new "Babble" to rejoin "Babble.com" and make page "Babble" a dab-page. The Internet blog website Babble.com was blanked/copied during 2014 (dif563) to hijack the redirect "Babble" (re Tower of Babel), but the notability is more like a disambiguation page, rather than grandstanding for one company, to also list "Babble (company)" inside page "Babble" as another meaning of the word. I think scholars refer "babble" to the Tower, and no way show exclusively a trendy website. // There is already page "Babble (disambiguation)" so easiest to redirect "Babble" there after merge to "Babble.com". -Wikid77 (talk) 13:36/13:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

OK Wikid77, the history merge is done with the content at Babble.com. Can we leave it to you to sort out the dab page? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
PS Better to move the dab page to Babble and leave Babble (disambiguation) as a redirect per WP:DABNAME, "The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself, provided there is no primary topic for that term." --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:44, 27 March 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:Tobystso6222[edit]

RESOLVED
(Non-admin closure) Since this was less of a complaint and more of a query, I have received my answer.--MaranoFan (talk) 11:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This user, who briefly sockpuppeted as User:A567e, seems to have taken a username change as Eqwdasf. I, however, couldn't find any record of this at WP:Changing username. Can someone confirm if this is legitimate, or he is just trying to avoid being identified by his sock record?--MaranoFan (talk) 09:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
(Non-admin comment) Seems to be legitimate - as contribution histories have been merged so must have had administrator approval. Also, please remember you must notify anyone you're discussing here, without exception. I'll do so now. Mike1901 (talk) 09:55, 29 March 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.

67.5.192.83 and personal attack[edit]

(non-admin closure) IP blocked, edits revdelled. GABHello! 14:46, 29 March 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 feel the second sentence of this comment merits a block. The background is here and at Talk:Terry Bean, where this IP, nearby IPs, and a procession of SPAs (one blocked twice for their comments at User talk:Lurie2 but writing in the same style as the IP) have made similar comments. Perhaps a range-block might be in order, the article page has already been semi-protected. MPS1992 (talk) 06:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Block, revdel, forget. --QEDK (TC) 07:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
This guy, and others acting together, have acted to obstruct editing to the article Terry Bean. I would be happy to discuss all this further, but my experience is that this article is controlled by a group of people who are trying to minimize the significance of a child-rape charge against Terry Bean. Further, and most importantly, is that MPS1992 is complaining about content on MY OWN talk page. He needs to notice that since it is on MY OWN talk page, it does not need to follow a specific rule. I will quote the exception to the specific rule, and section −
"Discussion of behavior in an appropriate forum, (e.g. user's talk page or Wikipedia noticeboard) does not in itself constitute a personal attack."
I will continue to defend this issue. 67.5.192.83 (talk) 07:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Editor blocked for 24 hours in the hope that the IP address will change by then. I'll revdel the actual edits. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:15, 29 March 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.

CorenSearchBot throws false copyvio allegations[edit]

RESOLVED
(non-admin closure) Mirror added to whitelist, category cleaned out. --QEDK (TC) 07:06, 29 March 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.

Dear admins, please stop User:CorenSearchBot from comparing new articles with the Wikipedia clone https://www.newikis.com/en, thereby throwing a substantial count of false positives, alleging a copyright violation where there isn't any. I already notified Coren a few days ago, but there was no response, nor was the bug fixed. Thanks, PanchoS (talk) 05:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Someone who knows RegEx can just add it here. The page also needs to be semi-protected. --QEDK (TC) 05:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Added to list. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, everybody. I'm not going to remove the badges from the U.S. election stubs I created, but maybe someone else would take a look at Category:Possible copyright violations, and sort them out. Thanks, PanchoS (talk) 05:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Done, and I've checked CorenSearchBot's deleted contribs for matching tags back to January 2015. There were a handful of articles speedied as copyvios of this mirror, but none solely for that; most were also G4s. —Cryptic 06:14, 29 March 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.

Front Page Goof[edit]

Not an ANI relevant issue, other venues have been pointed to. Sam Walton (talk) 08:49, 29 March 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 isn't an incident, but due to a lack of a better place, I think this will get the most eyeballs (and be quickly fixed) here.

On the front page, in the "In The News" section, one of the blurbs currently reads In rowing, Cambridge win the 162nd Boat Race and Oxford win the 71st Women's Boat Race. It should be "wins", not "win". Trouts for whoever wrote that. - NeutralhomerTalk • 04:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, helpings of wet fish are served to those editors who do not recognize 'headline' style Face-wink.svg Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 04:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Maybe it's proper English in British English, but American English, that ain't right. :) - NeutralhomerTalk • 05:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The better place is WP:ERRORS. But this case is an WP:ENGVAR issue - Comparison of American and British English#Formal and notional agreement. —Cryptic 05:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what's the issue because it read fine to me. --QEDK (TC) 07:08, 29 March 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.

Mass attack at PartyNextDoor[edit]

Users warned, page protected. If further disruption occurs, follow WP:WARN with escalating warnings and if necessary report to WP:AIV (non-admin closure) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:45, 29 March 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 accounts (and likley the same person) are vandalizing this page:

I am requesting that these accounts be indefinitely blocked (all are clearly WP:NOTHERE and are obvious vandalism-only accounts anyways). Thanks! 172.56.39.87 (talk) 01:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected (simultaneously with Ian.thomson!) Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I've tried to restore your protection time. I can force myself to imagine that Newuser1524 might just be a new user who isn't familiar with WP:BLP yet, but since they added similar claims to the other three (who are definitely part of an attack)... Dunno. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Do you think it would be safe for you to indef-block the 3 accounts in order to prevent further abuse? 172.56.39.87 (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
They've all got warnings now. If they continue, they'll get further warnings and eventually blocks. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:46, 29 March 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.

Please ban and hide outrageous comments[edit]

IPs blocked, including range block. Likely socks of long term abuse editor. Edits revdelled. HJMitchell suggests using WP:OS in future. (non-admin closure) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:51, 28 March 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.

Please ban the IP 2606:6000:fd07:e900:5553:91c0:e6f:d3a who's not only violating ARBPIA but posts extremely violent, racist and highly appropriate personal insults in edit summaries [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Jeppiz (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

See this edit. It should probably be hidden. The IP6 editor is from a familiar range, who likes to repeat his edit many times within a short time frame. See my talkpage history for example. The usual measure is to temporarily protect the article. Although I think we should indef block that range, usual reluctance to block IPs not withstanding. Debresser (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Debresser, that IP range should probably be indeffed. This is the stuff that makes Wikipedia as a whole look bad, when racist propaganda and incitement is allowed to be put forward. Jeppiz (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Here's one that should also be taken care of. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AB%27Tselem&type=revision&diff=712385599 . I wonder if this is a previously banned user. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Now that you mention it... Debresser (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
The IP geolocates to Virginia, FWIW. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
These qualify for revision deletion. Jeppiz I think it's best in the future to either message an active admin directly or ask for one here without posting the diffs, especially ones as abhorrent as these. Let's ping an active admin and a few willing do handle these requests - DoRD, Malcolmxl5, Doug Weller, BethNaught EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

This same racist troll is back immediately with a new IP [8]. Jeppiz (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if an admin could hide this [9] and also this [10]. (I realize the latter was acting in good intentions, but it repeats the very harsh personal insult at me in the edit summary so I'd want both those edits taken out.) Jeppiz (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
And this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADebresser&type=revision&diff=712389334 Sir Joseph (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I blocked the entire /64 range (the typical number of IPv6 addresses allocated to each customer of this ISP) and am looking at more edits that will need hiding. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Good! Although... This edit was made by a IP4 address: 186.91.234.38. Debresser (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
@DoRD: Much appreciated! I see some are blocked as LTA. Is there an SPI page or anything we should direct future incidents to? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
The IPv4 is an open proxy. It looks like User:JarlaxleArtemis. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
And we have more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/201.7.216.85. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 20:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
That one is blocked as an open proxy now. Apologies for the block warring, zzuuzz. :\ ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Also, for what it's worth, I didn't see any accounts on any of the IPs. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Got the ping. All looks to be in hand, I think. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

A few admins are familiar with this kind of abuse and know how to deal with it most effectively. If you're not familiar with it, your best bet might be to contact the oversight team. (Somebody did in relation to this, and I've suppressed some of the more ... colourful edit summaries). ANI threads like this, although started with only the best of intentions, tend to draw more attention to these things. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

See this edit for his latest incarnation. Also, I strongly disagree with Mitchell. Can there be any reason not to point out at WP:ANI that Wikipedia is suffering from a vandal? Debresser (talk) 23:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, actually: this is what the guy *wants*.Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 00:31, 29 March 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.

Disruptive sock-puppet is back[edit]

(non-admin closure) User already blocked by Widr for 31 hours. That was quick, which only confirms my point. Now how about some administrative attention at EWNB? Thanks - theWOLFchild 10:54, 28 March 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.

103.56.240.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), likely a sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nsmutte, posted this fake report to EWNB. Since admins don't seem to bother showing up there anymore, I figured I might as well post this here, since this is where so many admins regularly hang-out. There have been previous fake reports such as this, however this one conveniently includes links to some of those previous fake reports. - theWOLFchild 10:36, 28 March 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:Qudghks2020[edit]

Closing as "last warning given". Getting a bit stale and no edits from user in question. User was given a final warning by Heytherehowsitgoin. Should behavior continue, recommend that user per reported to WP:AIV and in that report you point to this discussion (may be in archives). Pinging C.Fred might help too. (non-admin closure) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:21, 28 March 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.

Career vandal who specialises in blanking, misinformation, and alteration of cited text. Edit history speaks for itself,[11] as does his history of cautions, warnings and general notes for misbehaviour.[12]

An indefinite block seems relevant as this user is clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. B. Mastino (talk) 04:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @B. Mastino: can you please provide some example diffs? Their edit history from today doesn't appear to be clear vandalism to me. Though I see C.Fred did warn them today. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
This one is a perfect summary of his whole modus operandi: [13]. Here's a mean-spirited removal of an in-source note: [14]. Here's an example of his typical blanking without cause: [15]. Sure, there might be a few "good faith" edits in there to conceal his trolling agenda, but myself and others have now dedicated too much time to reverting his "work". B. Mastino (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. And I agree this is problematic behavior. Wonder if C.Fred has any comments? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I also talked about the user on WikiProject Professional wrestling talk page and was going to do the same until you beat me to it. The user is a constant vandal to wrestling articles, including Alberto Del Rio where he constantly replaces info with original research. [16][17][18] (adding in completely false, unsourced moves and names). He also reposts his created articles that were deleted per AfD multiple times (warnings seen on his talk page). "Hey there! How's it goin'?" 19:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I see from your discussion at WP:PW that it's not only you and I who've observed Qudghks2020's endless trolling; another user pointed out his "steadfastly inserting false information".[19] B. Mastino (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Wow. I had only seen the recent edits, but looking at his edit history, it looks like he's been making a lot of these same types of edits for going on nine months. Definitely he needs more than a 31-hour block if it happens again; since he's just now on a first final warning (as far as I can see), I hate to jump straight to a block without the proverbial "one last chance". However, I'm not optimistic that he'll suddenly straighten up. I'm not ready to block, but I wouldn't stand in the way of another administrator who thought it was time to hand one out. —C.Fred (talk) 20:05, 26 March 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.

Numerous edits promoting Mr. Jwala Sharma and the Asian society of Safety Engineers[edit]

I've been tracking an IP-hopping vandal that makes promotional edits to articles related to safety, inserting sentences and paragraphs that begin with "As per Mr. jwala Sharma (Asian society of Safety Engineers)", and then continue to restate points already in the article, state the obvious, or are copyvios. None of the edits cite any sources other than Mr. Sharma himself. These edits are usually accompanies by an edit summary that same something like "upgraded" or "upgradations". This appears to be a concerted effort to promote Mr. Sharma and the ASSE. I have found over 160 almost 200 such edits from the following IPs:

Extended content

I have submitted an edit filter request for "jwala sharma", but I'm not optimistic about that happening soon since Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested is backlogged by several months. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 14:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

If edit filters are impractical, how about page protection? How many pages are we talking about? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Here's a partial list or 40+ affected articles, but they keep finding new articles to add him to. Anything in Category:Safety and its subcategories seems to be fair game. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 17:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Extended content
I've just blocked a couple that were active in the last two and a half hour or so. Strange how they are switching between IPv4 and IPv6 addresses and even overlapping with them. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I believe one of those IPs just deleted content from here just now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
So they have. Geolocates to Navi Mumbai (Ghansoli) like the other IPv6 addresses but a different /64 range from yesterday. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
I found a couple more IPs: 27.58.157.103 and 27.58.140.243. These don't seem to numerically fit the pattern, but they're also from India (Gujarat). I also added four more articles, which shows that a reactive semiprotect of affected articles probably won't be enough. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 04:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
And 27.58.14.37, which I've blocked. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I added this to the edit filter, so that should be the end of this. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Collusion, Intimidation and ad hominem attacks at Stephen Sizer[edit]

I am of the opinion that users Keith-264, Hillbillyholiday and John have been colluding in an attempt to intimidate me so that they can undermine factual material in this article which is properly referenced and sourced in order to promote their own agenda.

  • The problems started after Keith-264 deleted much of the lead paragraph on the specious grounds that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately pls take to talk page". This was after Philip Cross had already pointed out to him "That policy applies to unsourced material, not from an RS like the Times.". [20]
  • I subsequently restored and edited the deleted data adding additional references. The paragraph was once again deleted by Keith-264 with this comment "Undid revision 711029654 by Clivel 0 (talk) pls discuss on talk page for consensus"
  • In an attempt to discredit the sources, Keith-264 then posted on the talk page:
    "Again please discuss the allegation of antisemitism here, given the gravity of the allegation and its effects. Please also not that newspaper articles and other ephemera are not always of sufficient reliability and should be used with caution. Please make sure that the lead reflects the article, not drive-by edits." [21]
  • Nomoskedasticity then correctly pointed out:
    There's nothing wrong with the newspapers being used; your implication that they are "ephemera" ("newspapers and other ephemera") is bizarre. Since the article discusses these issues, the lead should reflect it in that respect."
    To which Keith-264 responded in a threatening manner:
    "Please stick to the point, the lead contained a serious allegation that can have dire consequences to the individual. There is a discussion in the body of the article but that was not reflected in the lead. Please also remember WP:Civil"
  • At about the same time, without posting a notice as required on Talk:Stephen Sizer Keith-264 simultaneously opened a parallel discussion on WP:BLPN [22].
  • The conversation then went back and forth simultaneously on both Talk:Stephen Sizer and on WP:BLPN, I was initially unaware of the latter discussion as despite my name being mentioned in the discussion by Keith-264 I was not pinged as he had not include '[User: ]', he updated this some days later when at the same time he also posted the notice on Talk:Stephen Sizer.
  • During this time Collect entered the conversation largely supporting Keith-264 who then falsely claimed:
    "especially since the sources purporting to support it have been debunked by Collect".
    Keith-264 then threatened me:
    "Either you echo the main body of the article or you are threatening to return potentially-libellous material without referring to the denials and rebuttals in the main body, which is soapboxing. Yet again you assume bad faith but I will read your edits carefully, if they reflect the article by being a summary description of the controversy, rather than potentially-libellous smears I will be satisfied. Please note that I will not do your job for you by adding balance to unbalanced edits, you are responsible for your edits, not me" [23]
    It should be noted that at this point Keith-264 had only deleted material and had not attempted to add any material.
  • Keith-264 then repeated the same threat on WP:BLPN to which I responded:
    "Contrary to your assertion, there is no evidence that User:Collect has debunked anything. The sources you removed - articles from both The Independent and the Telegraph, as well as countless other news articles are explicit in their agreement that Sizer promoted antisemitic conspiracy theories. This is a matter of record, nothing to debunk. And in-itself, promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories is antisemetic. I will re-add the facts as they are documented in the source material. YOU arbitrarily removed these facts, if you consider the facts unbalanced, then it is not MY job to provide what you consider balance, that is YOUR job - you do it, but DO not delete the factual sourced material just because you do not like it"
    Which he followed up with an implied threat: "WP:NPOV, WP:OR, Association fallacy, ad hominem Keith-264 (talk)"
    followed by an ad hominem attack:
    "If you want to collect accusations and treat them as definitive, you're sliding into guilt by association, unless you give equal weight to denials and counter-accusations. Your insinuation about Collect's motives is reprehensible and fails to assume good faith, I suggest you apologise." [24]
  • For three days the lead paragraph remained essentially bereft of content, and despite having deleted it Keith-264 had made no attempt to try and provide alternate text. I then inserted what I considered to be an accurate account of the controversy surrounding Stephen Sizer complete with source references.[25] this was almost immediately deleted by Keith-264 who again offered no alternative text, so once again left an almost completely void lead paragraph. I restored my deleted text, which once again was deleted by Keith-264.
  • Without any prior input to the conversation, Hillbillyholiday entered the fray with a blatant and uncalled for threat [26].
  • As Keith-264 was making no effort to add any content, but only intent on removing content, I filed a WP:AN/EW and correctly notified Keith-264 on his talk page. He responded with a threat on WP:BLPN [27]
  • Nomoskedasticity then added a replacement paragraph which although likely to be less contentious than my text, still reflected reality.[28]
  • Both Keith-264 and Collect made some modifications to the text by removing anything they considered contentious, Collect added a partial quote taken from one of the references. Being a partial quote, it gave completely the wrong impression. [29]
  • I completed the quote and added some of the controversial material in accordance with the sources. [30].
  • Hillbillyholiday then removed the quote completely, along with other controversial material. [31]
  • Hillbillyholiday and I went back and forth a few times, at which point I requested that the page be locked and I started a new section on the Talk:Stephen Sizer page to try and reach some sort of consensus on the lead paragraph. [32]
  • I subsequently added a list of five points that I thought could be discussed in order to try and reach consensus prior to us making any attempt at the actual wording. [33].
  • Rather than accepting the genuine attempt by myself at trying to reach consensus, this was instead followed up by a number of personal attacks by Keith-264 [34] [35] [36] [37]
    And Hillbillyholiday enlisting John to intimidate me on my talk page by railing against a perfectly rational change I had previously added to Stephen Sizer. [38]

Clivel 0 (talk) 09:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I reject the allegations above as baseless slurs by a vexatious editor and request a ruling from a disinterested admin to end this vendetta once and for all. Keith-264 (talk) 09:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Collect, Keith, and I have merely been trying to follow BLP policies.
What really needs attention here are the actions of three editors who think it is acceptable to write Sizer is known primarily for his Anti-semitic anti-Zionism in the lede of this BLP.
As has been pointed out by various editors, both on the article's talkpage and BLP noticeboard, this is a highly contentious claim which is not even supported by the sources they have provided. --Hillbillyholiday talk 10:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Respond I made 1 edit; it was well-sourced. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
ANI isn't the place to discuss the lede Spartaz Humbug! 12:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • I do, however, wish to point out that the page as it stands reads oddly. The brief lede states that Sizer is a parish priest. It's second sentence reads: "Sizer is also notable for his opposition to Christian Zionism, which been the focus of his published works." What is omitted is that , Sizer is widely known for having been disciplined by his supervising Bishop, Andrew Watson (bishop), not for opposition to Christian Zionism but for, "chosen to disseminate, particularly via social media, some of which is clearly anti-Semitic," for his "increasingly undisciplined commitment to an anti-Zionist agenda", for "promoting subject matter, which is... openly racist," and for his 9/11 conspiracy theory, Bishop Watson called it, Sizer's "ridiculous suggestion that Israel may have been complicit in the events of 9/11." [39]. This modern disciplining of a Church of England clergyman was an extraordinary event.[40]. The lede certainly needs revision to reflect the things that has made Sizer notable, some would say notorious.[41].E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
I think that the lead is unsatisfactory too and have suggested Sizer opposes Christian Zionism, which been the focus of his published works. In 2015 Sizer agreed with his bishop to refrain from using social media for six months after he linked to an article which implicated Israel in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, for which he apologised. It is believed[by whom?] to be the first ban of its kind issued by [a bishop]. I think something on these lines will give due weight and be notable, reflecting the body of the article in a descriptive manner. I thought that this edit had almost established consensus and that everything else would be aftermath but I was wrong. Keith-264 (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Since the edits that Clivel 0 is making are related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, this editor is covered by the arbitration ruling barring editors with fewer than 500 edits from the topic area. I have notified them on their talk page of this restriction. RolandR (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

thank you for the WP:ACDS warning on my talk page which I can only assume was made in good faith, nevertheless, as so many Israel haters are prone to point out, anti-Semitism and hatred of Israel are not necessarily synonymous so please do not conflate the two. In this case, this ruling clearly does not apply, because the discussion is about Sizer's dissemination of anti-Semitic material, and not about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Clivel 0 (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The OP made a specific attack on editors on the BLP talk page (bolding his)

"I am finding the continual threats, bullying and attempts at intimidation by User:Keith-264, User:Hillbillyholiday and User:Collect to be getting more than a little tiresome. Clearly there is collusion, because without any prior involvement User:Hillbillyholiday wrote on the WP:BLPN ...

As there was no "collusion" and no "threats" and no "intimidation" on that article, I find the posting here of the same personal attacks to be quite reprehensible. The issue is one where WP:BLP applies, and the issue boils down to whether a claim should be stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice that a person is an anti-Semite, where prior discussions have averred that such a claim is, by its nature, contentious. Further deponent sayeth not. Collect (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

  • I am weighing in to point out that describing many of Sizers' statements and online activity as anti-Semitic is "contentious" only in the sense that the theory that Jews were behind the 9/11 attacks is contentions. Sizer asserts that Israel was behind the attacks. Sizer is widely known for having been disciplined by his supervising Bishop, Andrew Watson for having "chosen to disseminate (material), particularly via social media, some of which is clearly anti-Semitic," for his "increasingly undisciplined commitment to an anti-Zionist agenda", for "promoting subject matter, which is... openly racist," and for his 9/11 conspiracy theory, Bishop Watson called it, Sizer's "ridiculous suggestion that Israel may have been complicit in the events of 9/11." [42]. This modern disciplining of a Church of England clergyman was an extraordinary event.[43]. [44]. But many reputable sources on Sizer's anti-Semitic activity and remarks exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
I would like to point out: Reverend Stephen Sizer said he did not condone the article's accusations (The Independent), and the bishopric website has the apology I have never believed Israel or any other country was complicit in the terrorist atrocity of 9/11, and my sharing of this material was ill-considered and misguided. Seems to me this was a "one-off" per se linking to "WikiSpooks" and was retracted by Sizer - so accusing him of being an unrepentant anti-Semite as a claim of fact is a violation, per se, of WP:BLP. Cheers. And the earlier Daily Mail sourcing which was re-added is not only insufficient to call Sizer an anti-Semite, it quite carefully does not even make the claim which editors asserted it supported. Collect (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Your comments demonstrate why the lead was outside BLP criteria before I edited it. Wikipedia is no place to scapegoat someone or push nonNPOV agendas. If you look at the discussion you will see copious amounts of information that negates all of your claims. Might I suggest that since the Church of England is an arm of the British state and run by David Cameron, a politician, any claim made by any member, not just Sizer must be treated cautiously? Might I also suggest that is is common for newspapers to make inflammatory claims without grounds or with only spurious links to a supposed source? Keith-264 (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
The Church of England is headed by the Queen, not by David Cameron, if you want to give it a non religious leader. Furthermore, RS is RS. If newspapers and other R report something, it can be included, even if it doesn't suit your particular POV. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
L. Windsor is an employee of the state, which is run by D. Cameron. See how easy it is to make claims based on the obvious which are instantly challenged? My POV is clear, WP:BLP was violated in the lead. If you read the discussion you will see that. I want a description of events that are covered in detail in the body of the article. Is that so bad? I also commend "*We certainly cannot use a tabloid source to support anything remotely controversial on a living person. I applaud the idea of discussing here and getting full consensus before adding or restoring anything on this to the article. --John (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)" by John to the audience. Keith-264 (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Are you in there, Your Majesty?
Queen Elizabeth is a red herring. The point is that reliable sources, including his boss the Bishop, state that many of the things Sizer has written and/or posted on social media are anti-Semitic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm glad you agree about Liz but no he didn't.Keith-264 (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

IP disruption at Timothy Leary[edit]

I am boldly closing this and an uninvolved editor getting tired of seeing this bickering. Timothy Leary was protected by Panyd due to a content dispute, which is the heart of this ANI filing. The IP editor made disparaging comments about hypocrisy. Both parties edit warred. As a veteran editor, FKC is acting poorly (edit warring, taking the bait of the IP editor, starting this 2 days after taking the IP to NPOV). Everyone needs to step away from the snarge that was a horse. Strongly recommend both parties disengage. Have some beer/coffee/tea/cocoa and watch some cartoons to wind down. Come back in 24 hours and try to resolve your content dispute. Try an RfC or DRN if that doesn't work. Or maybe even just let other editors who follow that page figure it out. But enough is enough for today. (non-admin closure) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:19, 29 March 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 have been engaged in a content dispute with an IP, 2605:a000:1200:406f:bdc2:282a:6c52:766b, at Timothy Leary. Most recently, this has led the IP to make personal attacks against me, visible here, where the IP describes me as "YOU HYPOCRITE" (capitals in the original). As this is a direct and blatant violation of WP:NPA, I propose that the IP be blocked. I am really sick and tired of this, and believe the situation needs administrator intervention. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a content dispute where FreeKnowledgeCreator is stonewalling an IP, leading him to be annoyed. These things happen, but it's hardly worth doing anything about. The content dispute is in itself not an easy one, perhaps an RfC would actually be the right way to go. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I am one of several editors who disagreed with the IP, as you might have noticed if you had followed the discussion at the Leary talk page and at WP:NPOVN. I am actually pretty "annoyed" with the IP too, but I am not screaming at him in all capitals that he is a "HYPOCRITE", and thereby directly and blatantly violating WP:NPA. I stand by my call for the IP to be blocked; it has no right to behave that way. No objection in principle to an RfC. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

An editor calling another editor's deletion of cited text "unacceptable behavior" is hypocrisy when the editor making the accusation has repeatedly deleted cited content his or herself. Calling someone a hypocrite IS NOT verbal abuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 09:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you want to try your luck? I'm pretty sure that WP:NPA does mean that editors aren't allowed to call each other things like "YOU HYPOCRITE." It's not an ambiguous policy at all. Keep on calling me things like "YOU HYPOCRITE", and the result may not be to your liking. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Realistically, FKC, you were acting like a hypocrite, complaining about edit warring when in fact your behavior was no different. That's what the word means. You've been busy edit warring as well, c.f., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. You've also been blatantly forum-shopping. When you didn't get the answer you wanted on the article talk page, you went to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Timothy Leary and then to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Rolling archive#Timothy_Leary and now here, offering hyperbolic claims that views you don't like are "disruptive" (no, they just disagree with you) and that labeling Leary a philosopher is "the kind of thing that potentially damages Wikipedia's reputation." 6 Really? Wikipedia's reputation is on the line over this? I don't think so. I think it's time for a WP:BOOMERANG. Msnicki (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You have demonstrated your hypocrisy as an editor over and over again, so with all due respect yes you are indeed a hypocrite. What difference does it make whether I write in all caps or not. Actually the symbol for yelling or raising your voice is an exclamation mark not writing in caps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 09:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Your current attitude is not going to result in what you want. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Please WP:DONTBITE the newbies. I think he's frustrated by some pretty annoying behavior. Msnicki (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
As for biting, this AN/I report comes just two days after dragging the IP to the NPOV board. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 15:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, there's some WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior here. It's the kind of thing that takes away the fun for everyone. Msnicki (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
And just to make things more confusing, it is not just "one" IP editor. I initially came to the defense of an IP after patrolling recent changes and noticed that FKC was a little harsh in edit summary to an IP when rv "philosopher". FKC despite being informed numerous times, is claiming that all IP editor involvement in the topic are the same one, and, even-though for myself my IP does change dynamically, it can be discerned that there are more than "one" IP editors involved.2601:80:4003:7416:8C4C:77AF:846C:E4CF (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Repeatedly calling someone a "hypocrite" is repeatedly violating WP:NPA. I can see why administrators might not want to immediately block the IP for one offense, when it is possibly new to Wikipedia, but IP is doing it over and again ("yes you are indeed a hypocrite", above), after being informed of WP:NPA. As for you, Msnicki, you could find a better way of expressing disagreement. You accused me of forum-shopping, but that's behaviour users engage in when they don't get what they want, which is not the case here. Most users who commented at WP:NPOVN agreed with me that the desirability of labeling Leary a philosopher was at least open to question. My request that the Leary article be protected was acted upon here. The IP's persistent offensive behaviour and personal attacks are a different matter again, and one which cannot be addressed at the neutral point of view noticeboard or requests for article protection. So I'm quite justified in bringing the matter here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course you are. Is it the first time? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 20:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you should avoid turning WP:ANI into a playpen? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
And that attitude isn't constructive either. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
How would you respond to a juvenile comment obviously designed purely to offend? It's reasonable to suggest that Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi not behave this way. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I would ignore it. If it continues I would consider why this person is upset, and if there is something I can do to calm him/her down and try to make the discussion constructive. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
FreeKnowledgeCreator is running rampage through articles and leaving editing summaries speaking as-if they are an authority about who, and how certain people should NOT be labeled as a philosopher. This is NOT just aimed at Timothy Leary at this point. I really dislike FKC's authoritative tone when doing their edits, because these are edits that have been long-standing and made by other editors IGF, and yet FKC has not yet pointed-to where they get this "authority" from. Consistently stating, "NPOV", "NPOV", and complete DENIAL when given what is standard required referencing/citing. I think that FKC needs to take a rest from philosophy topics and also answer some of the questions and/or acknowledge that they are hearing what other editors are saying instead-of answering like some kind-of bot that doesn't understand English. 2601:80:4003:7416:8C4C:77AF:846C:E4CF (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I disagreed with an edit you made at Aldous Huxley and reverted you. You reverted right back. That isn't the accepted way of dealing with disagreements. Per WP:BRD, you should have taken the matter to the talk page rather than immediately restore the edit. Most of your comment above is just "I don't like you" stuff, so it seems pointless to respond. What do you expect, for me to say that I don't like you either? Why should I waste my time with that? I stand by the edits I made at Aldous Huxley; the proper place to discuss them would be at the article's talk page, not ANI. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It sounds to me that you just have a bias toward any philosopher who is an advocate for psychedelic drugs. You are the only person who really has a problem with the sited source creditiing Timothy Leary as a philosopher. You should be banned from editing wikipedia for persistent edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You might try rereading the discussion at WP:NPOVN. Several editors questioned whether Leary should be called a philosopher. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

IP edit warring at Aldous Huxley[edit]

Stop this ridiculous bickering. I can't believe how long this has been going on. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

See here, here, and here. I have informed the IP editor of WP:BRD, and the need to discuss issues on talk instead of trying to change the article through edit warring, but am being ignored. The bottom line is that the IP editor seems to feel that no one can revert them, that they do not have to discuss their changes, and that they can always get what they want through edit warring. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow, the amount of hypocrisy here is really staggering . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Note that this user has been warned about personal attacks. The IP's response was to ask for an explanation of why calling someone a "hypocrite" is a personal attack, a question which suggests bad faith. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Note: I didn't acctually call you a hypocrite, I merely suggested that it is hypocritical for an editor to acuse another edditor of edit warring when he or she is really the one doing it his or herself, that my friend is hypocrisy. I dont know what makes you think you have the authority to overule every other editor who disagrees with you. Frankly I am getting pretty annoyed with your authoritarian style of editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talkcontribs)
That comment reveals a lack of understanding of how Wikipedia handles disputes. If you want to make a change to an article, and another editor disputes the change, you need to get agreement for it. Otherwise, the change is not made and the article remains as it was; that's the point of WP:BRD. I am not showing any special conviction that I have the right to "overrule" you by reverting you, and in fact I could equally well ask what gives you the right to "overrule" me by reverting my edits. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Not sure you're the person to lecture on how to handle disputes based on the way you've handled this one, edit warring and taking your complaint about a rather trivial content question to three different drama boards. This is genuinely over the top. Msnicki (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
FKC, you never practice anything you preach, nobody ever agreed with you that Aldous Huxley wasnt a philosopher because he never recieved a paycheck for being one, but you reverted my edit anyway. What makes you think that your the only person who can decide who is and is not a philosopher? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I do not think that I am the only person who can decide who is and who is not a philosopher. I think that if you want to make a change to an article, and no one agrees with you that the change should be made, I have every right to revert you. If you want to the change the article from its default state, it is you who needs to get someone to agree with you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:55, 28 March 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.

77.238.65.171 and behavior on Flydubai Flight 981 talk page[edit]

User blocked for one month. (non-admin closure) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:43, 30 March 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 was looking over my watchlist, when I came upon 77.238.65.171's edits to Talk:Flydubai Flight 981. While there appears to be some discussion going on about the page, this user seems to be treating the page like a forum, and may or may not be linked to a person who was involved with the investigation for Germanwings Flight9525. Can another editor look into their behavior, as it is quite uncivil, and edits like this make me think all they want to do is spout nonsense on the talk page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 12:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for a month as they are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. MilborneOne (talk) 13:30, 29 March 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.

Recreation of Masreliez’s theorem[edit]

NE Ent looked and found no issues. (non-admin closure) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The article Masreliez’s theorem was just recreated, after having been deleted 6 years ago. Someone should check and see if there is sufficient difference between this new version and the old one, or if it should be a speedily deleted. Swedish Wikipedia has had trouble with people inserting stuff relating to Johan Masreliez in different articles, often with intervals spanning years.

Andejons (talk) 07:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Reviewed current article, appears to be supported by the second source provided. NE Ent 17:01, 28 March 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.

Disruptive sock at ANEW... again[edit]

(non-admin closure) Widr to the rescue again. (sort of)
User blocked for 31 hours. Thanks - theWOLFchild 17:45, 28 March 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.

117.237.184.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) - See Diff. Same user as two reports above that was blocked by Widr.
Still waiting for some admins to do some... admin'ing at ANEW, btw... - theWOLFchild 17:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Blocked this one. Widr (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for "bumping" this closed thread, but seriously, I highly commend Widr and his immediate response to cases like this. I had two AN/I reports sorted within seconds of filing them, thanks to this administrator. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 18:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Most admins are always very active with administrative actions right after they get elected. Before you get offended, it's not an accusation, just an observation. --QEDK (TC) 18:56, 28 March 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.

Bilby controlling all additions to article, breaching WP:OWN ?[edit]

Three uninvolved editors found no problem with Bilby's editing and found the filer's motivation dubious... closing this with no action and baseless. (non-admin closure) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:50, 29 March 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.

On Judith_Wilyman_PhD_controversy article, Bilby re-edits all additions to the article to his slant or Uni bias, and dogedly determines outcomes on the talk page. I believe he is breaching WP:OWN. As a newbie I will no longer edit due to these dogmatic practices. His history shows he has spent too much compultion with Uni of Wollongong topics constantly, adding sentences an re-editing Brian Martin (social scientist) and Judith_Wilyman_PhD_controversy, which I believe may be an alert to WP:COI. 1.144.96.24 (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

More likely it alerts to enforcement of WP:BLP. Both are hounded by blp violators. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see that in his history. Bilby has hardly ever referred to BLP in his editorial WP:OWNership of the article. 1.144.96.24 (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Bilby made an addition to the end of the paragraph and the IP has been fiddling with it on various spurious grounds. The talk page discussion is very illuminating. There's a lot of histrionics from the IP but nothing actually concrete nor productive from their various outbursts. Bilby was more than accommodating during the discussion but whenever they asked the IP for what the problem was, all they got was random diatribe. Blackmane (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it's ridiculous when Admin was trying to leave out which Uni manager made the apology, it's quite unique and unacademic to make such, and as such should be included here. I think it's a concern and distortion to coverup these facts. 1.144.96.24 (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Is the identity of the person reported in the article? If so, then that can be included, if not then it can't be included as that in itself is a BLP violation. The article is stuck behind a pay wall so that's not going to be cleared up. Do you have reliable sources that could identify this mystery person? It looks like the IP has a very strong POV in regards to this article which is becoming progressively clearer. Blackmane (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I now have a copy of article, and the apologist person is named. And thanks for your advice. I would assume that the Admin also had copy of newspaper, so why hide that? Admin had this information and was not disclosing, ie my POV on facts as opposed to coverup. So the name of person stays in article from what you are saying. It is also obvious Bilby has strong POV when it comes to this controversy. I will no longer involve in Bilbys edit wars, it's all his. 1.144.96.24 (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify the situation, the two articles have been the subject of a series of POV edits for some time, ever since the announcement of Wilyman's doctorate which had an anti-vaccine focus. This has led to a series of problems, in particular because one side - those strongly opposed to the awarding of the doctorate - have tended to dominate the two articles. This has led to serious problems, including significant BLP violations. At the moment the articles are better than they were, but fundamentally there is still ongoing pressure to keep the POV on one side of the debate. The IP's sudden appearance and editing seems to be part of this. Unfortunately, as the main editors have been very much on one side of the debate, moves towards neutrality have been shouted out as coverups and whitewash. In short, typical editing on a controversial topic. I've been trying to engage editors on the talk page, but it has been a tad challenging to get them to the table, so I've had to rely on BRD more than I'd like. - Bilby (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

  • This is clearly a frivolous complaint. Bilby is doing good work and interacting productively and patiently with others. My personal view is that Bilby is too kind to Wilyman and Martin, but that is a good thing since WP:BLP means where we err, it should always be on the side if kindness. Regardless, Bilby's input has manifestly resulted in better articles, better sourcing and an appropriate focus on content. Guy (Help!) 16:51, 29 March 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.

Need semiprotect[edit]

Page semi-protected by AlexiusHoratius. IP editors handled. (non-admin closure) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:35, 29 March 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.

Two words: Erin Sanders. Just look at the edit history. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@White Arabian Filly: Recommend you file a request at WP:RPP. That's the standard location for requests for page protection. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Ok, will do, but the IP and new user who are making all these crazy fake-file edits have to be dealt with too. I just can't figure out what it is they're trying to do. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I've treated them with good faith and given them the {{welcome-anon-test}} welcome template. What happens next depends on the admin who replies at RfPP -- The Voidwalker Discuss 22:56, 28 March 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.

The Cloisters[edit]

Closing before the issue escalates further. Original combatants each have lack of clean hands that contributed to tone of dispute, which should have been simple to resolve had other issues not been dragged into it. The edit war ended, but three editors have retired or indicated a desire to leave the project. The bigger issue and inappropriate comments that led to this result is separate from the content issue here. (non-admin closure) Montanabw(talk) 02:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An uninvolved admin needs to look at behaviour here. I don't mind a block or scold, by Beyond my Ken is bang out of order, but does not seem to realise, or have even a modicum of self awareness. My involvement started from a series of sub articles, and when I tried to link them in, was severely bitten by blind reverts and accusatory edit summaries. I suppose I fought back, but this doesn't seem like ending, and is more than imidatory. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The user in question, BMK, has single-handedly taken it upon themself to revert the consensus of four separate editors. I find their behaviour somewhat baffling. Note: I am married to the reporter; I still am a separate person with my own opinions. Kafka Liz (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
This is essentially a content dispute over two popcult items, both sourced to the Metropolitan Museum online website (there can hardly be a more reliable source about the Cloisters, which is a branch of the Met). If there's a behavioral question, it's over Ceoil's blanket refusal to talk about his removal of these two items, even though I asked him to do so 3 times, before he called in his friends and colleagues to help him out. (A discussion was eventually started by another editor).
I know that some editors just absolutely hate "In popular culture" sections, and if it were up to them, they'd be banned from Wikipedia, but there have been numerous discussion about the "popcult" question over the years, and that point of view has never prevailed. No doubt Ceoil thinks these two sourced items sully the article about something related to art history, but the community doesn't agree, nor does the community agree with editors (especially ones who have been blocked 13 times for personal attacks or harassment or disruptive editing [45]) refusing to discuss contested edits when asked to by another editor. Ceoil's bring the dispute here is laughable, considering his history, his canvassing, and his knee-jerk reverting. There. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talkcontribs)

BMK, Ceoil, I think you'll both admit (albeit not to each other, and not when you feel backed into a corner) that you can be more stubborn than is good for you, or for the encyclopedia. So: BMK, please don't re-add that until there's consensus for it; it looks like a gaggle of people have disagreed with you. There's a thread on the talk page, see how it plays out, and (if applicable) bow out with grace if it goes against you. More importantly, you're handling this much more aggressively than is good for you, or for the encyclopedia. Ceoil, please don't re-post things to people's talk pages when they've removed them and you know they're unhappy with you, it's not cool, and adds sand to the gears. More importantly, you're handling this much more aggressively than is good for you, or for the encyclopedia. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, fair. But practically how can BMK be managed given blind reverts against established consensus? Also this about far more than a content dispute about the inclusion of wanton trivia, although it has rested on that. Its about behavior, and I never thought Id say this, but OWN. It worth mentioning that he is also trying to defend a "see also" section, that's as abstracted and unconnected, basically "other stuff on Earth". I see that as low value editing.