Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive920

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Reporting Siredejoinville for disseminating false information, probable conflict of interest, and for hoaxes[edit]

Blocked for one month, in order to prevent (or at least slow) the persistent addition of hoax and unsourced content. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:47, 12 April 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’m reporting Siredejoinville for disseminating false information, sabotage, and suspected hoaxes. Below some of the articles that he has created and/or expanded:

Patrimonial Heritage of House of Borja makes no sense whatsoever. The titles held by members of this family are or could be included in the respective articles on the individuals and/or in the umbrella article, House of Borgia. What the user is trying to do is to invalidate the transmission of these titles or the fact that some are now extinct, to claim that these titles should have been passed on to a Juan de Borja Matheus and that now the rightful heir is Jorge Reinaldo Ruiz de Borja-Haro Mariño de Lobeira y Trastamara-Aragón. Although I’m not reporting this because of socking concerns, it is quite revealing that the name of the supposed heir to these titles is quite similar (embellished with high-falutin surnames) to that of Ruiz-Mariño, a user who was blocked, for being a suspected puppet of Siredejoinville, the same user who has been creating or expanding articles created by the former.

The other articles which he has created or edited are: Francisco Mariño y Soler; Jerónimo Mariño de Lobeira y Sotomayor; Antonio Mariño de Lobeira y Andrade, Count of Mayalde (I’m currently fixing it); Principality of Tricarico; Marquisate of Lombay; Duke of Valentinois, and lastly, Prince of Squillace which I and another user have fixed but, as you can see in the history, just today he reverted and added info without references (or with primary sources), removing the rightful title holders, etc. He has also created County of San Juan, Marquisate of Santa Rosa, Vicecounty of Casa Romana all of which I suspect are hoaxes since I have been unable to find any supporting reference. Please check the history of these articles and the supposed title-holder and the remarks I left on the discussion page of a couple of these articles.

Titles in Spain are very regulated and transmission, new titles, rehabilitation, etc. must be approved by the Ministry of Justice and published in the BOE (the Official State Gazette) as shown here, where I added the new title-holder and a link to the publication. What this user is doing is very risky and probably illegal; some of these titles have current title-holders who would not be too pleased to see that en.wiki is giving false information. In addition, his competence in the English language is not sufficient as another user pointed out.

For more details, you can check the messages I left at the discussion page of BgWhite: here, here, and here. --Maragm (talk) 18:10, 10 April 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.

Repeated personal attacks and baseless accusations made by Legacypac[edit]

I've tried to tell Legacypac that personal attacks are discouraged. It's been enough.

I've warned him again and again.

Then, he said that I must keep off his talk page, so I did. And one more:

And I've warned him on the RfC page too. HighInBC told me that on my talk page that my conduct was sub-par and that I failed to assume AGF here. Well, the thing is after Legacypac says something like, "It is exceptionally hard to get them deleted at MfD especially for lack of notability, but in mainspace A7 etc can be applied." diff you simply can't assume good faith. (It - Drafts)
Legacypac has a good history of personal attacks too, he got warned for one here.

Some more baseless accusations with no proof:

  • Ches & WV are essentially joined at the hip, to the point I wonder if one is not a sock of the other.
  • this is just another attempt by WV's meat puppet to attack an editor they disagree with
  • WV loves one way interaction bans.

WV - Winkelvi, Ches - Chesnaught555
Not to mention, Legacypac has a chronic problem with opposition, creating revenge threads on ANI for each of them, here, here and here. Also, to top it off, a beautiful piece of ad hominem attitude. Hope I've bored you enough. --QEDK (TC) 10:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Ease up please QEDK. It has been great having you on my side in trying to get some points across, but we are now making progress. Legacypac has received an awful lot of criticism, sorry that you have received the reaction, but let's ease up and let the RfC have some air. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe: Maybe if you were in my position, you'd say otherwise. We're making progress on the content side of it, yes but that is no reason to take me for granted, I am a human and I see no reason why I am repeatedly attacked even after I tried, again and again, to be the nice person in the whole incident. If he's received criticism, I trust it's for a reason. --QEDK (TC) 10:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment QEDK is spot on and I'm glad he provided examples that involve me because I would have done the same. I have been the subject of LP's attacks and sub-par behavior for quite some time. I've asked him to stop, I've warned him he needs to stop. There are others who have done the same and have also been the object of his uncivil behavior. He seems to think he's made of Teflon and continues without care. How long do we, as a community, have to take his abuse? -- WV 11:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • QEDK: Your "troll" diff shows LP removing your comment from his talk page; your comment, in full, was "That's purposeful misinterpretation for ya.". Are you saying you were not trolling? The "wrestling a pig" diff shows LP removing his comment where he had written hyper-abbreviated nonsense to mimic your comment written in that style. Doing that is not ideal editor behavior but it's not that bad under the circumstances (why did you write that nonsense?). Johnuniq (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: I prefer you stop your insinuation, I think everyone (except you i.e.) understood that I wasn't trolling and I've discussed it with specific detail (did you by any chance, miss the edit summaries?). I did not write that nonsense, SmokeyJoe decided to remove vowels from our conversation and Legacypac was well aware of that, since he replied to me when the comment was unmodified and later removed his modified comment. You should know the actual substance of the whole situation before you take on your challenge. --QEDK (TC) 12:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
"SmokeyJoe decided to remove vowels from our conversation" - Huh? - theWOLFchild 09:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Here is the conversation in question, and the de-voweling: [1] It does not reflect well on QEDK, and SmokeyJoe violated WP:TPO by altering it. (Hatting might have been in order, but not alteration.) Softlavender (talk) 09:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Disemvoweling is a moderation method consistent with TPO. With a bit of humour. The discussion had become unproductive and some moderation may have helped. Yes, hatting might be better, and it even allows the hatter to make a snide or witty comment in the hat header. It was pleasing to see a comment removed, but barbs in edit summaries were not. If either editor wants their vowels back, I stored them offline and can give them back on Tuesday. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Gotta move the vowels every morning to stay regular Face-wink.svg Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 09:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
You most certainly did make that remark. As well as the other one where you templated him/her. You know very well what he/she meant by temptating. I don't 100% understand your reply - to be fair. SQLQuery me! 13:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't think everyone understood that you weren't trolling. It looked to me like you were trying to illicit a negative reaction. What starts out as a friendly conversation quickly devolved into you making accusations of bad faith. Someone interpreting things differently as you is not the same as "purposeful misinterpretation". Once you went to the accusations of bad faith you were reverted, to which you responded to with a template, which was reverted, and you gave another template. Is this a productive means of communication?
Yes, Legacypac called you some names, but you are hardly without blame here. Attacking somebodies motives is at least as uncivil as name calling. My comment on your user page was meant to prepare you for the fact that both of your behaviour would be looked at if you felt the need to make a post about this here, I am glad you are comfortable with that. HighInBC 13:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
@SQL: When did I say that I did not? And my vocabulary is not well enough, so I guess I haven't come across the word, "temptating", maybe you can shed light on the matter. Also, there's a reason I templated him/her, I meant to warn him of the impending result and not to make rash decisions without thought. He, however, did not care.
@HighInBC: I do not fear scrutiny. If the community thinks I assumed bad faith without reason or that I've been in the wrong multiple times, I shall pay the price. You don't need to keep reminding me of that. --QEDK (TC) 14:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
You seem to very clearly understand the typo "temptating" to mean "templating". For two, in your rant, you made the statement "I did not write that nonsense, SmokeyJoe decided to remove vowels from our conversation and Legacypac was well aware of that, since he replied to me when the comment was unmodified and later removed his modified comment.". It seems to be in reference to one of the diffs I linked - tho I am having a lot of trouble identifying what you are talking about. SQLQuery me! 14:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I am just wondering what admin action you think should apply to legacy? You assumed bad faith, he called you a name, really it is not something I would block either of you for. It is certainly not something I would block one but not the other for. However I am involved enough in the underlying dispute that another admin can decide what to do, or what not to do. HighInBC 14:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not just you - I don't see what action could be taken here that benefits the encyclopedia, and holds to our policies. I guess, really really technically they could both be warned to behave better in the future? SQLQuery me! 14:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it calls for just a warning, and since anyone can give a warning here it is. Legacypac, please don't engage in name calling as it is against our policy. QEDK, please don't assume bad faith as it is also against our policy. I really don't know what benefit further action will result in. HighInBC 14:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

See this [2]. This is the nonsense I was talking about. Also, I thought temptating was tempting but I could make no connection, thanks for shedding the light.
Since both of you have been involved in previous disputes (typically on the other side), I prefer to not take my advice regarding this from you. The community can decide. Thanks, though. I believe a one-off wrong can be differentiated from repeated disgraceful behaviour, since 2 admins here clearly can't see the difference. --QEDK (TC) 15:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I just wish all these cats would stop reporting each other. If they can confine their...what's the word...mutual bitching? sniping? at each other to their talk pages, we'd all be better off. *Sigh* Drmies (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Sadly I've been banned from his talk page with a "Buzz off." *sigh* --QEDK (TC) 15:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Maybe you don't understand Drmies, but we've tried to be nice, time and again. Yet, we are here again, despite all the effort, now all wasted on him. --QEDK (TC) 15:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
"we've tried to be nice, time and again." Amen to that. It's as if no one cares about WP:CIVIL anymore, including admins who seem to be no longer taking it seriously (not pointing a finger at you, Drmies, I'm making a general observation). I understand telling editors they need to toughen up and/or just go about their business and not be so sensitive, but in the case of LP (and, frankly, another editor I can think of immediately) it's a continual thumb of the nose from him in the way of what's collegial and civil. He seems to simply no longer care that he's being unbelievably rude and attacking other editors and that behavior is impeding productive contributions, productive discussion, and productive solutions to problems. In other words: it's gone past being annoying, it's disruptive and destructive. My personal opinion about why he does it is because no one is doing anything about it and he's been allowed to continue in that vein repeatedly. Anyone even remotely familiar with behavior management could look at the unwanted, inappropriate behavior and attitude from LP in conjunction with the lack of reaction from admins and say: if there are no consequences, the message being sent is "please continue and escalate". And that's exactly what he's doing. -- WV 15:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not trying to tell anyone to toughen up--but admins (if I can generalize) just get tired of this. The chain of diffs and insults is too complicated and tedious, and maybe iBans all around are the only solution, but then, who would want to enforce iBans, which are notoriously difficult to apply? Drmies (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
We're in the business of difficulty. After all, that's why we get all the power, glory, and riches that come with the bit. Gamaliel (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I strive for accuracy in communications and Internet troll fits QEDK's actions exactly. I have real life work to do today and wrestling with a pig is not on my priority list. I'm sorry if anything I said was misinterpreted as name calling. No one has ever been banned from my talk page, but I do remove personal attacks and nonsense from it as is my right. Legacypac (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

  • But your accuracy, then, leads to a personal attack. "Internet troll", when applied to a Wikipedia editor, means you don't believe the editor to be contributing to the project in good faith--but ANI is not a good forum if the case is not so easy to make, which I think is what's happening here as well. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Legacypac you are often rude and accusatory in your interactions. I can very well see why QEDK has lost patience with you. 217.38.191.252 (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
@Drmies you are welcome to your idea of what trolling is, but that is not exactly my idea. My meaning is best summed up in the lead of Internet troll "a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, often for their own amusement." There are part time trolls and even single troll type edits so saying an edit is trolling or the editor is acting like a troll does not imply all their activity falls into trolling. Legacypac (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

For a great laugh, check out WV last userpage edit summary [3] compared to his posts in this thread. Looks like he is calling someone a troll to me. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no plausible way that QEDK could be called a troll. He started out complaining about specific actions by Legacypac (which have been reverted, per consensus). Furthermore, I see no plausible reading of LP's comments which does not constitute a stealthy attempt to rewrite policies on drafts. Now that the draft policy discussion is out in the open, QEDK, LP, and others should stop commenting on the former actions, but only comment on current actions (of which QEDK's here and LP's on the guidelines and on user talk pages deserve censure.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Which of my comments need censure, mate? --QEDK (TC) 03:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Referring to someone as a troll on one occasion among a ton of edit summaries and talk page discussions where few to none such comments have taken place previously is not a good parallel for you to make, LP. Why? Because you personally attack other editors and call them names frequently. If your habit of doing so were not reality, Drmies wouldn't have pointed out to you what he did above. Indeed, I've never known him to just make such comments willy-nilly or without a good reason - he's very reluctant to make such accusations, in my experience. What's more, for you to say, in essence, "Look, they did it, so it's okay for me to do it, too!" is not a good defense. In fact, it's a very childish response. -- WV 19:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
He's been throwing dirt at the people who oppose him since 1997. I count exactly 0 admins who care about this issue when others have been blocked for less. Strange is this world and stranger is the Wikipedia community. --QEDK (TC) 03:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
You seem to have a problem accepting any conclusion other than the one you want. The more you do this, the more the problem looks like being you. No action is going to be taken against Legacypac, other than asking him to stop personalising the dispute and dial down the rhetoric, which has already happened. This much is pretty obvious. If you want to stay here and continue to call for the wrath of Jimbo to be brought down on his head, all that will happen is that you'll be filed in the box of "vindictive and disputatious" and treated accordingly. Both of you are doing what you think is in Wikipedia's best interest, right now you seem to be the vocal one who refuses to accept that the other party is acting in good faith. That's not a good place to be. Your best bet is actually to seek common ground, because right now you are both so fixated on the points of difference that you're never going to stop fighting. If you are genuinely acting in good faith then that should be a serious concern for you. Legacypac being wrong in making some of his statements does not mean you are right in making any or all of yours. You have both personalised the dispute, and admins tend not to draw much of a distinction in such cases - instead we focus on the ones who do not accept the problem and continue to try to fight the battle rather than putting their hands up and calming down. Guy (Help!) 09:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I do not know what to expect now, honestly. I guess it was my mistake that I expected "something" out of this well-intentioned and factually correct thread. Maybe if I called you a troll or a pig thrice, you'd be in a different position. Again, I guess I have incredibly thin skin. *no sarcasm* --QEDK (TC) 16:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
1997? Wikipedia was created in 2001. Gamaliel (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oh good grief, QEDK, you were trolling in all three instances where Legacypac rightly called you out on it (twice on his own talk page). Once again you are accusing Legacypac of what you yourself are actually guilty of [4]. Sooner or later this is going to backfire in a way that you do not like -- even SmokeyJoe agrees with that. Drop this and move on. Softlavender (talk) 08:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Is that trolling? You got it all wrong. I am guilty of a making a topic ban proposal against Legacypac? That certainly makes sense. --QEDK (TC) 16:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Look at what you said Godsy [[5] and yes, you continue to stalk my edits even today or is it just coincidence you are editing multiple new articles I just touched? Legacypac (talk) 03:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

James J. Lambden is wikistalking me.[edit]

James J. Lambden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is WP:WIKISTALKing me to articles simply to WP:WIKIHOUND my work. This is because we were in a disagreement over his instance on keeping white supremacist literature as sources for white pride against consensus [6]. He has never shown any interest in exoplanets or astronomy until this point so it is clear what he is doing by !voting on deletion discussions and no others. [7], [8]

jps (talk) 05:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: It's technically inaccurate to say he is stalking you "to articles", as since March 28 he has only edited two articles, Michelle Fields and Kamen Rider × Super Sentai: Super Hero Taisen, neither of which were ever edited by you (I was analyzing your claim from the top down, so this was frustrating for me when I looked at JJL's contribs and didn't see it). I think a much stronger argument, given JJL's editing history (he's hardly shown any interest in anything so far) would be the timing.
That said, this is super-dodgy behaviour. JJL is essentially a new user (account created last April, but only started editing a month ago...), so I say block for 24 hours, with a warning that following users you disagree with is a form of WP:HARASSMENT and is not tolerated, and if it continues longer blocks will be forthcoming (2nd offense one week, 3rd offense indefinite).
Hijiri 88 (やや) 06:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
You demand (you use the word "say" rather than "suggest") a block, and as reasoning link to an advice page, a page that actually gives you no support for this demanded block. The act of following users you disagree with is not a form of harassment as defined in the page you linked. "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors ... in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work". In what way is work by jps being confronted or inhibited? In addition, in what way do any edits by James J. Lambden involve "tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior"? These things are required to be present before a block can be imposed. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry about inappropriate use of the lingo. It just feels really yucky when that happens. jps (talk) 06:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

And now this. jps (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense. This is an attempt to misrepresent a content dispute. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

And how did you learn of this particular content dispute? jps (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • jps, I'd like to examine this report but it would be easier if it was clearer. Are you suggesting the IP in your last diff, 166.171.187.71 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), is James Lambden logged out? How can you tell? I fully agree it's some established user evading scrutiny in order to stalk and harass you, but why JL in particular? Any special style or contextual similarities? Bishonen | talk 15:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC).
I have reason to believe that there is a group of people monitoring my activities on Wikipedia and I think that the IP matches this kind of unasked-for monitoring. I have come to decide that it may be best to discuss this more off-wiki, so if you are interested in more ideas with regards to this matter, please send me an e-mail. Sorry about this. jps (talk) 07:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Note to the closing admin It may be of relevance that Jps has very recently raised a similar accusation of wiki-stalking on this noticeboard[9] which has now been closed. DrChrissy (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

Not an issue for ANI. Liz Read! Talk! 10:45, 13 April 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.

2605:E000:8746:7B00:F5F7:482A:A1B8:8090 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Раммон (talk) 05:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Seriously? One post from an IP editor. Just revert it. It looks like a test edit anyway. --Tarage (talk) 06:51, 13 April 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.

Highly abusive summary line[edit]

Edit summary revdel'd, IP blocked. Liz Read! Talk! 14:50, 13 April 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.

Reporting a highly abusive summary line by 182.183.183.191, requesting indef block for 182.183.183.191 and removal of the summary. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

What was the summary? It was redacted from the diff, so there's little in the way to judge the block-worthiness of the offense. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
We don't indef block IPs because they change owners. I can see the diff and it was rude, just name calling. I have blocked the IP for 31 hours for being abusive. HighInBC 14:32, 13 April 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.

Is Wikipedia censored[edit]

Boldly closing this good faith post. There is nothing here that suggests a need for Admin intervention. Suggest move to WP:BLP talk page. (non-admin closure)-Ad Orientem (talk) 15:03, 12 April 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.

In the last days, newspapers around the world have reported widely on Elton John and his husband David Furnish and how the latter has managed to get a British court to issue a superinjunction to stop British media from reporting about the latter's alleged extramarital affair. To my surprise, some users would appear to argue Wikipedia should be covered by this superinjunction. This is, as far as I can see, nonsense. The superinjunction only applies to England and Wales (Scottish papers are reporting about the matter) and definitely not to the US, where Wikipedia is hosted. If it would just be a rumour, WP:BLP would apply, but it's a matter of fact that this superinjunction has been taken out, and that it is highly controversial. This is something reported in Scottish press [10], in Canadian press [11], in Swedish press [12]... As all of these papers argue, the issue is not so much the extramarital affair, but the idea that celebrities can use media to promote themselves but stop media from negative reporting, which (the journalists argue) is a violation of freedom of speech. A key issue of Wikipedia has been that Wikipedia is not censored. I believe this to be an important principle that applies to this case as well. Jeppiz (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely accurate. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I think the reason why the subject of super-injunctions often does not find its way onto Wikipedia, is that often there will be no reliable sources about the subject, which means we can't include them anyway, particularly on WP:BLP articles, where strict sourcing rules apply. Thus we don't explicitly censor, but there may be nothing usable to censor in the first place.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
This is a complex issue involving BLP, perhaps the BLP noticeboard would be a better place to resolve this. HighInBC 14:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Whilst noting of course that it is the quality of the sources that are reporting this that is important. Don't know about those Canadian, Swedish papers, but the Daily Record (Scotland) is the worst type of scummy tabloid. So I'd have to say, so far, that if that is the strength of the source, then forget it. Your principle is, I reiterate, however sound. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree, had it only been sleezy tabloids then I would not even have posted. But Aftonbladet, although also writing about celebrities, has a rather strong credibility in Sweden and is very different from Daily Record. I don't know the National Post and Toronto Star well, but the former in particular would seem to be completely WP:RS. Regarding BLP, which two users mention, it seems pretty obvious it does not apply. We cannot state anyone has had an extramarital affair, but we definitely can state that someone has taken out a superinjunction and that this has caused controversy. So I don't think BLP applies unless we interpret BLP as saying that nothing negative, no matter how well it's sourced, should be published. Jeppiz (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
The BLP matter is judging the quality of the sources to make this claim. This is why I suggest BLPN, that is where the sources for claims about living people are given greater attention if the matter can't be settled on the article talk page. I don't think this is something for an admin to settle by discretion though so I don't think this is a good place for the discussion. HighInBC 14:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Inflammatory and confrontational header aside, I don't see where this is an admin issue at all. This is the exact sort of thing that needs to be confined to the article talk page, and to request assistance if that isn't working, try WP:BLPN or WP:RSN. I don't see where anyone isn't acting in good faith, and where normal WP:CONSENSUS-building and dispute resolution would not solve this problem if given some time. --Jayron32 14:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Have you proposed an edit on Talk? I think this kind of tabloid tittle-tattle has no place on Wikipedia, but I am definitely in a minority in that respect. Guy (Help!) 14:59, 12 April 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.

Have some pages turned into Wikimedia Commons?[edit]

Content issue, and we might expect to find some photos at a road sign article. Not ANiLegacypac (talk) 04:09, 12 April 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 looking at Road signs in South Africa and the page is filled with pics of road signs. I don't know if it is appropriate for an EN.WIKI to host a gallery of pics. I believe they are better suited in Wikimedia Commons.

To tack onto that, Road signs in Canada, Road signs in Indonesia and Road signs in Botswana


Winterysteppe (talk) 03:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The pictures themselves are already on Commons, so this is just a content issue. Probably a better idea to raise this at talk pages/relevant wikiprojects/potentially AfD than here. Or just be bold and change it to something else if you have a different format in mind. (Non-administrator comment)Nizolan (talk) 03:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I was asking for comment here since i thought it would get more comments instead of at the relevant talk pages. But i think it is not something for ANI to bring up. Winterysteppe (talk) 03:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I would suggest raising the question (which is a content issue) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transport. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
"Asking for comment here since I thought it would get more comments instead of at the relevant talk pages" could be considered disruptive behavior. Please don't do that. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:42, 12 April 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.

Improper merge without consensus for Mohamed Abrini discussion found at Talk:2016 Brussels bombings[edit]

Complaint withdrawn, 3RRs closed, hugs all around. Legacypac (talk) 04:07, 12 April 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.

Parsley Man and Jolly Janner have been reverting against consensus to their preferred versions. I was not aware there is a 1RR for ISIL related pages but am now. The discussion which can be found here is still open with strong arguments for separation including WP:NEO. The vote count is also even split 4 to 4. Regardless of outcome, any neutral editor should know not to merge without consensus. I am looking for administrative revert to restore contents of Mohamed Abrini until consensus has been reached.

Also note Parsley Man has been reverting without explanation or discussion on talk page. This alarming edit here show bad faith and an attempt to use 1RR to enforce his views over consensus. Valoem talk contrib 23:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I notified Parsley Man and Jolly Janner about this discussion. You should have put a discussion notice on their talk pages. The instructions, both on this page (at the top) and on the edit notice instruct you to do this. Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, Liz missed that, I am not looking for any action against the editors simply for a neutral administrator to revert the article until consensus has been reached. Valoem talk contrib 23:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I welcome an administrator's involvement. Should help reduce edit warring. Jolly Ω Janner 00:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I can't believe this bullcrap. Early on in the discussion, it was suggested that the Abrini article and the Osama Krayem article be merged into a completely new article that would detail all of the Brussels attackers and accomplices, which would turn out to be the Brussels ISIL terror cell article. All of the other participants agreed, and I eventually agreed as well (and do note that I was the one who started the merge proposal in the first place). The article was created, and then that's when the problems started. I am pretty sure a compromise counts as consensus too. Parsley Man (talk) 01:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
.The problem is User:Valoem inability to assess a 100% agreement by all the involved editors whom, reaching agreement went forth and built the new page, merging some pages and splitting content from 2016 Brussels bombings. The discussion is on the core 2016 Brussels bombings talk page and was linked from Osama Krayem and Mohamed_Abrini pages. Additional pages were also merged in by various editors into Brussels ISIL terror cell a page that has been edited and linked to extensively by many editors in its short life. Legacypac (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I understand and share the frustration of seeing an apparent consensus emerge (and yes, compromise is an integral part of a good consensus) and then acting upon so with best intentions, only to see it repeatedly reverted. Just as we compromised in our first discussion, we should again compromise by being patient to Valoem and listening to their opinions. In the meantime, there is nothing stopping us from improving the article on the terror cell. Maybe Valoem is willing to make compromises too. Jolly Ω Janner 02:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm very happy to listen to ideas and suggestions. Being told black is white, not so much. Legacypac (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

─────────────────────────

  • Withdraw No action or input need I assume all parties are fine with this. Valoem talk contrib 04:02, 12 April 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:Sportsfan 1234[edit]

Janitorial close. Now at AfD. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:18, 12 April 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.

Could an admin please have a quiet word with User:Sportsfan 1234 to explain that not only admins may remove speedy deletion templates from articles, and that the response to any disagreement should be to discuss the issue rather than edit-war over the tag? The article concerned is Crazy Eyes Crew (history). I have tried disussing this on the editor's talk page but the only response has been to blank my messages and to issue me with a level 4 vandalism warning, so it seems that this editor will only take notice of an admin. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the tag, and I am an admin. The article was ineligible for A7 speedy deletion. Per policy "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." "Credible claim of significance or importance" is as liberally applied as possible; there are claims of particpation in championships. Please note that this removal of the A7 tag does not mean the article should not be deleted. Instead, deletion should be handled through WP:AFD or WP:PROD instead. It is merely not eligible for speedy deletion and should have such claims discussed first. --Jayron32 13:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:15, 11 April 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:Wwallacee[edit]

Wwallacee blocked 48 hours for disruption, baiting and generally not getting it. Extended summary at user talk:Wwallacee. Guy (Help!) 15:28, 12 April 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.

User:Wwallacee took exception to an edit of mine, and has now posted to the talk pages of over twenty articles on which he was not previously involved (apparently by going through my contributions), warning them of my "political bias" and asking users to "monitor me". See Special:Contributions/Wwallacee. I need somebody to stop him and roll back his edits, please. Scolaire (talk) 09:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The diffs are easy enough to find, it says "Warning about user Scolaire" in every edit summary. 22 and counting... - theWOLFchild 09:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I object to the statement by user Scolaire - there is a history of edits by him, multiple edits to a number of different pages, all with the common denominator of removing material rather than improving it. Moreover, the choice of material selected for removal often seems to be politically motivated. I view this as private and politically-motivated censorship.Wwallacee (talk) 09:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Removal of content is no different from addition, as far as policy goes. Your "warning" posts are unambiguously unacceptable, per WP:NPA. Just so you know, virtually every editor who asserts "censorship" as part of a content dispute, turns out to be the one pushing an agenda. Best to WP:AGF and ask about the basis for the edits, rather than start flinging accusations around. The edit Scolaire notes above is entirely appropriate. There is a link in the body of the article, which is where this should go. Calling out a single incident related to the Troubles is POV in the context of someone with a long career and who is apparently mainly known for scouting activities not his military career. You can settle the content dispute on Talk, but if you continue in your current vein I think you will end up topic-banned or blocked. Guy (Help!) 09:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I repeat that this dispute is not about user Scolaire's edit to the Francis Vane page: my objection is to a pattern of edits made by him to numerous pages in the past month or so. I first became aware of this due to Scolaire's edits to the page for Francis Sheehy-Skeffington, which I had done a lot of work on and was monitoring. Scolaire cut a number of passages which I introduced in the course of a big overhaul of the page. During this overhaul I rechecked all the previously existent references, improved formatting, and added new content, also with references. Rather than improve upon these edits, Scolaire simply removed sections that displeased him. When I went to the Talk page, I discovered that Scolaire had even "casually suggested" cutting the entire section I had been working on. This section had to do with political material and I naturally suspected that the proposed cut might have a political motive. I decided to look up Scolaire's contributions history, and there I discovered that in the past month or so, he has made numerous edits to pages having to do with the Easter 1916 rising in Ireland. For instance, he altered the following Wikipedia pages: Arthur Griffith, Easter Rising, Sinn Féin, History of Sinn Féin, The Troubles, Constance Markievicz, Tom Clarke (Irish republican), Patrick Pearse, Thomas Kent, Partition of Ireland, James Connolly, Proclamation of the Irish Republic, Irish War of Independence, Fenian Rising, Republic of Ireland, Fianna Éireann, Paul Murphy (Irish politician). The history pages for those pages will show the nature of his changes. In most cases his edits consisted of removing material contributed by other editors, often with technical and legalistic justifications. But when the pattern of such quibbling edits is examined, it becomes clear that there is more going on here than just a very rule-conscious editor. At minimum Scolaire's recent activity on Irish-related pages has not been contributing positively to Wikipedia.Wwallacee (talk) 11:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Diffs or it didn't happen. Unlike your absolutely inappropriate talk page spamming, which definitely did happen. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
"a pattern of edits made by him to numerous pages in the past month or so" = he can edit (within policy and guideline) any pages he likes; "I had done a lot of work on and was monitorin" = careful- you wouldn't want to suggest WP:OWNership; and all things being equal, you will have to provide diffs to back up your complaint. Just vaguely pointing in the direction of an article and saying 'he changed it' = not sufficient. As frankly, that's what we're here for. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 11:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I am certainly not suggesting "ownership", I am just relating the story of how I came into awareness of Scolaire's pattern of activity. If you look at the History and Talk pages to Francis Sheehy-Skeffington it will be apparent that I have not attempted ownership of the page, in spite of what the language of my previous comment may have suggested to you. Furthermore, my intention in posting messages to the various talk pages was not to make a "personal attack" but to warn other users who were editing those pages to look out for this pattern of aggressive edits. If you remove the messages I put on the Talk pages (as user JzG has now done), and require me to provide "diffs" for the dozens of edits where Scolaire has exerted his pernicious influence, then you are in effect favoring a strategy of "ownership", namely where a user such as Scolaire assumes ownership by simply cutting other users' contributions in small but obsessive edits over a period of time. The work of individual users who do have good faith is left unprotected under that scenario, which favors only the aggressive persistence of a politically-motivated person.Wwallacee (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I can't find any edits of his that are objectionable, or even political. Do you have links? --OpenFuture (talk) 12:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes it would be nice to see some diffs.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Without links to specific examples of what you allege, it is difficult to ascertain the veracity of your complaint. In the links you do provide, I can see nothing objectionable to Scolaire's edits, indeed their removal of commentary and opinion was necessary, in my opinion. However, your placement of "warnings" is a bit problematic. Might I suggest, as long as their are no follow-up comments from other editors on those talk pages, that you self-revert those? Onel5969 TT me 12:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you can look at the following links: Arthur Griffith, Easter Rising, Sinn Féin, History of Sinn Féin, The Troubles, Constance Markievicz, Tom Clarke (Irish republican), Patrick Pearse, Thomas Kent, Partition of Ireland, James Connolly, Proclamation of the Irish Republic, Irish War of Independence, Fenian Rising, Republic of Ireland, Fianna Éireann, Paul Murphy (Irish politician). The History pages and Talk pages of those pages will show the pattern of activity I am talking about, namely dozens of small cuts without positive contributions. I understand now that this is referred to in Wikipedia's rules as disruptive editing.Wwallacee (talk) 12:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
We are asking for diffs, not 50 articles that we have to spend hours searching thru.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, I said links, I should have been specific that I meant links to diffs. I already looked at several edits on several of those articles, and didn't see anything. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Well I see an issue. Anonymous editors adding unsourced POV material into the article. Scolaire seems to be doing the important and necessary job of rolling these back. Guy (Help!) 13:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to draw your attention to a supportive comment from another Wikipedia editor concerning this dispute. User Edmund Patrick posted this comment in reply to one of my Talk pages messages. The whole discussion where this supportive comment was posted has since been deleted by user JzG / Guy. However it can still be retrieved in the history pages here. User Edmund Patrick's comment was that he found the warning about user Scolaire "very informative" and that it was "a valid point". He asked for specific examples, and I have to admit that I have not yet had time to collate these, as Scolaire's pattern of activity spanned many pages and consisted of many small edits, usually "undo", "revert" or removal of material. Like the rest of you I have limited time! However, please realize that this comment by user Edmund Patrick was only possible because he "found" my original warning after it had been deleted by user JzG / Guy.Wwallacee (talk) 08:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Wwallacee has now renewed his attacks on me, again on a page where he was not previously involved, saying that Guy was "speaking for himself" when he said that the accusation was without merit. He has also (while not logged in) restored his attack at Talk:Francis Vane. Can somebody please explain to this person that what he is doing is not okay? Scolaire (talk) 08:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I object to the above comment by user Scolaire, as mischaracterizing what I did. I merely restored a comment on a Talk page, which was not one of the comments under discussion here, and which specifically addressed issues with Scolaire's edits of that page. - Wwallacee (talk) 09:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
It may be that I was not logged in when I made a certain edit - if so it was inadvertent, as I have certainly not tried to hide my user name in dealing with user Scolaire. I am a Wikipedia editor of ten years' experience and I object to Scolaire's insinuation that I am inexperienced. -Wwallacee (talk) 09:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Your statement is factually incorrect. Edmund Patrick undid my removal of your talk page personal attack [13] before replying [14]. I did not removve the text again, that was Scolaire [15]. You are long on assumptions of bad faith and rather short on accurate demonstrations of actual problems. Guy (Help!) 15:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I would like to draw the Administrators' attention to another edit controversy in which Scolaire was accused of abrupt removal of material rather than improvement of said material. On the Talk page for "The Troubles" (a topic related to the Irish war of independence), the discussion immediately prior to my controversial intervention (which has since been deleted by user JzG / Guy) involved another dispute with Scolaire over his abrupt and unfriendly removal of material in a controversial fashion. See the Talk page here. -Wwallacee (talk) 09:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict): seriously Wwallacee, I do agree with some of your statements concerning the editing pattern shown by some but you do need to provide diffs, replacing what has IMO been incorrectly removed is not assisting the sorting of this in any way. Diffs please. Edmund Patrick confer 09:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I am working on this - but please see the comment I just posted above, which links to another edit controversy where Scolaire displayed the behavior I am talking about. -Wwallacee (talk) 09:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I respectfully draw the Administrators' attention to another controversy involving user Scolaire, in which he made attacks against other editors in just the same tone as what he is now labeling (from me) "personal attacks". Moreover, the political nature of his editorial attempts at "ownership" is also apparent here. -Wwallacee (talk) 09:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Here is yet another Talk page exchange which reveals the behavior I am talking about. Here user Scolaire seems to be acting in an imperious fashion, preventing an editor who disagrees with him from having access to the page, and even demeaningly characterizing the said user's comments on the Talk page as "filibustering". In general, I would characterize all of this as disruptive editing. -Wwallacee (talk) 09:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

You have asked for "diffs", and I have been slow to provide them because I have had a hard time zeroing in on particular edits that could illustrate my thesis out of context. However, if you look at this, and the previous few edits to the same page, where Scolaire unceremoniously reverted the work of an anonymous user, you can see at least an illustrative example of the high-handed attitude I am trying to point out. -Wwallacee (talk) 09:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I request permission to post new comments about user Scolaire to the Talk pages where my previous comments have been removed by user JzG / Guy. My purpose is to solicit opinions from other editors regarding user Scolaire's editorial practices. We have already seen that such a Talk page comment, where it was live for only an hour, did elicit comments supportive of my thesis (see above). I would be happy to make the language of my comment more conciliatory, so it could not be construed as a personal attack. -Wwallacee (talk) 10:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Summary: To summarize my previous few comments to this page: I have provided examples of user Scolaire's disruptive editorial practice here, here, and here. I have also provided a "diff" here. On this last, to fully understand the pattern you must examine the previous six to ten edits, and also look at these in context of the overall evolution of the page. I now ask for permission to solicit further examples of user Scolaire's disruptive editorial practices by posting new comments about user Scolaire to the Talk pages where my previous comments have been removed. -Wwallacee (talk) 10:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I have not, up to now, been involved in the controversies concerning Wwallacee, but I wish to state that I am offended by the abusive language used by this editor to an innocent comment I made on Talk:Francis Sheehy-Skeffington, Easter Rising section. [16] This editor needs to get his act together, get off his high horse, and apologise forthwith. Hohenloh + 13:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I presume you are referring to "thanks a lot, a-holes". That was very nice, all right. Scolaire (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah Calling people arseholes = boomerang bait. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:28, 12 April 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.

Phd8511 using edit summaries to carry a grudge a launch personal attacks[edit]

Done. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:28, 12 April 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.

Phd8511 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Background

HMS Ajax (S125), the page for a Royal Navy Astute-class submarine, was created in early 2011. In December 2015, Phd8511 began to contest the name of the article, claiming the boat had not yet been named and requested it be changed to "Boat 7". Sources have been provided that support both "Ajax" and "Boat 7". Attempts at discussion on the both the article talk page and the talk page at Talk:Astute-class submarine did not achieve any consensus. Phd8511's demeanor and posting style was somewhat hostile and aggressive. I brought the issue to the community at both WT:SHIPS and WT:MILHIST, but there was still no support to change the name. My view is that sources support the current name and should that name change, we can easily change the article to match.

Edit summaries

Phd8511 has a history of expressing himself colorfully though edit summaries, but has used them for personal attacks and to carry a grudge for weeks and weeks after the issue. This has continued with edits and articles that have nothing to do with the naming dispute or even the Ajax page. The following are the most recent of the edit summaries in question, (though there is more if you go farther back).

(Diff with summary - article - date);

This behaviour has continued, despite numerous warnings, seen here, here, here and here.

There has also been numerous attempts to discuss Phd8511's hostile behaviour with him, seen here (from myself), here (from User:CrackDragon) and here (from User:Antiochus the Great).

Perhaps it's time for some administrative attention. - theWOLFchild 08:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it probably is. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 08:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Hmm. I left a "final warning". If that doesn't work, report again; I agree that this behavior is very blockable. I have not looked at possible edit warring, but that may be a problem too. Drmies (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
@Drmies: But the 4 other warnings had zero effect, as well as the multiple attempts to discuss this user's behaviour with him, some of which were also dismissed with hostile edit summaries. I think something more definitive is called for here, to send a clear message and protect the project from further disruption. - theWOLFchild 20:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, maybe, but this is what I think is best for now. If it doesn't help we can still block, but if the person is smart they'll stop. You are welcome to let this run for a while and see if other admins are willing to push the button right now. Drmies (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Blocked after all--for socking. So it goes. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Agree with the prior warning by Drmies and agreed it would have been prudent to wait a bit on a block, but now with socking also agree with block by Drmies. — Cirt (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Whoops! Socking? Who is the other account? (nevermind, I know now) - theWOLFchild 03:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh and thanks for at least issuing a warning and getting something from an admin on the record. Before the socking, that still would've been better than nothing. But now, a block is a block, so this can be considered dealt with, if anyone wants to close it. - theWOLFchild 02:55, 12 April 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.

Antonio J. De Rosenzweig[edit]

Article deleted. —Nizolan (talk) 01:19, 12 April 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'm requesting assistance for a promotional vehicle in a biography's clothing. This has twice been nominated for speedy deletion, and I prodded it as well, and all templates have been removed. Ostensibly a bio, it's really an unreferenced press release on behalf of the subject's Rosenzweig Disaster Magnitude Scale, created by a WP:SPA. The article's author has admitted at the article talk page and at their own talk page that there are no reliable sources to support the content--this is the very definition of a spamicle, and I've been frustrated in attempts to have this considered for deletion. Since I can't start an AfD, I'm asking someone else to have a look. Thank you, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I nominated the article at AfD per Atlantic306's suggestion in the edit history, though I notice it was nominated for speedy again by EvergreenFir while I was preparing my nomination. —Nizolan (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to you both. I'll comment at the AfD. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Follow up The article was speedy deleted at the request of its creator. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:45, 11 April 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.

Alleged COI on the Dresden Files and Jim Butcher[edit]

The material Bilby deleted is a breach of WP:BLP. Please don't restore this material without reliable sourcing. Please note that "it was reported on reddit" is not a reliable source. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC) Since the close: IP blocked for attempted outing and as open proxy. Extending hat to include post-close comments. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:27, 12 April 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.

Bilby, an editor, has completedly removed factual information regarding this topic (a book series called the Dresden Files) because of alleged violations of the biographies of living persons policies.

It is obvious that a fictional book series is not a biography of a living person. Thus, it would be a false reason for removing factual content and then protecting the page from editing.

Moreover, it has been reported on the reddit channel that Bilby is working at the behest of public relations/press agents of the book series, the Dresden Files. [17] According to multiple reddit users, Bilby was promised an autographed advanced copy of the upcoming book, Peace Talks, as well as inclusion in the book series beta reader program.

Here is the relevant page re: the Dresden Files: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Dresden_Files&action=history (cur | prev) 07:16, 10 April 2016‎ Bilby (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (22,576 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Protected "The Dresden Files": Violations of the biographies of living persons policy ([Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 07:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)) [Move=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 07:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC))))

Nor was this the only protection/reversion made by Bilby as part of his financial incentive promised by the public relations/press agents for the book.

Bilby made numerous attempts to do the same as to the page of Jim Butcher. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Dresden_Files&action=history (cur | prev) 07:16, 10 April 2016‎ Bilby (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (22,576 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Protected "The Dresden Files": Violations of the biographies of living persons policy ([Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 07:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)) [Move=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 07:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)))) (cur | prev) 07:15, 10 April 2016‎ Bilby (talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,576 bytes) (-2,821)‎ . . (rv - BLP concerns.)

There is simply no reason to blanket remove factual information. For example, the page acknowledges that Jim Butcher has one son but does not mention a wife.

It is therefore factual to post a fact regarding the son's mother, whether she is still married or divorced. There is no reason for Bilby to delete references to Butcher's divorce. Considering that Butcher's press agent, Priscilla Spencer, has publically posted Butcher's proposal to a new girlfriend [18], there is no reason to delete this fact.

Bilby needs a reminder that it is inappropriate for Wikipedia editors to participate in censorship (similar to the actions of the moderators at sub-reddit /r/dresdenfiles) and even more inappropriate to obtain financial gain for editing on Wikipedia.

Moreover, as to both pages involving the Dresden Files and Jim Butcher, the edits that were removed contained factual references, links to sources, and other supporting facts, including non-copyrighted content from the books themselves. A blanked reversion followed by a protection is not warranted. It constitutes a scrubbing of "bad PR" and that is not the purpose of an public encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.14.25.33 (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, if Reddit users say it, it must be true. They're never wrong. clpo13(talk) 20:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Seriously, though, here are the BLP violations removed. The content is related to the author (who is a real, living person, therefore WP:BLP applies) and sourced solely to Reddit, Twitter, personal blogs, and forums, falling afoul of WP:USERGENERATED. This isn't censorship, this is pruning completely unreliable sources on a biography. clpo13(talk) 20:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Okay, IP, you need to realize Wikipedia does not report the Facts™. We report what reliable sources say, especially when it comes to BLP articles, not what some random on the Internet says, regardless of who they claim to be. On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. clpo13(talk) 20:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Also, according to WP:BLP, BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts. The article may be about the book series, but it includes information about the author. Therefore, BLP applies. Also, there's another relevant quote from that policy page: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. clpo13(talk) 20:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
You realize that it's a hopeless case, right? --OpenFuture (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Eh. clpo13(talk) 21:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
There's nothing "inappropriate" about redacting and removing unsourced and poorly sourced claims about a living person, particularly those with derogatory intent or imputations. Given that literally every link there was to Reddit or another user forum, I think Bilby's actions were entirely appropriate. It is not "censorship" to make sure our articles are properly sourced. On the other hand, you have made entirely unsupported claims about an editor's motivations when their actions demonstrate nothing more than a determination to enforce our policy on content about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)(edit conflict)(edit conflict) ;-)
I looked through the changes and can confirm that Bilby correctly removed things that was in violation of WP:BLP, WP:RS and also WP:UNDUE and simply not encyclopedic. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
If it is anything like this edit, then Bilby was very much justified in removing it. Not only was it negative information directed at a BLP, it was not backed by a single reliable source, instead it revolved entirely around a series of Reddit posts and blog posts. Our WP:BLP is very strict here that any information relating to a BLP must be cited to reliable sources, especially if it is negative. —Farix (t | c) 20:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
The Reddit issue is irrelevant unless reliable sources report on it. Also, as Clpo13 stated above Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons applies across the entire Wikipedia space, including talk pages, not just to article about the particular individual. If you keep trying to spread these claims without the proper reliable sourcing, you will eventually find your editing privileges revoked. —Farix (t | c) 21:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I think our I.P friend may have tried to | out Bilby in this message - check the edit summary. Not a real bright idea. KoshVorlon 15:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
The IP tried to readd the info on this page again, which I removed and may require oversight if it is an attempt at outing. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

My New Question That Was Deleted, removing the alleged self-published name anyway[edit]

RM This information was rev-del'd on article pages
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Time to block this IP? (S)he clearly isn't listening to anything anyone is saying. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:57, 11 April 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.

IP hopping troll[edit]

Range block and semi-protection applied. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:40, 12 April 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.

86.187.170.157 is the latest IP of the user described here Eik Corell (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Reverted and watching. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
These also appear to show a related behaviour pattern: 86.187.170.135 (talk · contribs), 86.187.162.9 (talk · contribs) and 86.187.166.58 (talk · contribs). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC). Also 86.187.154.21 (talk · contribs). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Request a rangeblock or similar sanction: This user is now edit warring as 86.187.169.157 (talk · contribs) on multiple articles; here, here and here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Here is their latest IP. Also, this is a long-term vandal, they have been discussed many times previously. We're currently waiting for an edit filter to be implemented. Eik Corell (talk) 18:52, 12 April 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.

Multiple Personal Attacks by User:Garuk Gar, one of the many many many socks of User:Cow Cleaner 5000.[edit]

Is there anything more that can be done about the many offensive edits by this user and her virtually unlimited supply of socks? See these (ahem) "contributions" which are all personal attacks against myself and multiple editors and admin. She has created more than 100 socks[19][20] to pursue her conspiracy agenda. She also seem to have an unhealthy obsession with Justin Anthony Knapp, bordering on stalking. Could someone at WP contact her ISP maybe? Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 18:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

PS: I assume CC5K is a "her" due to the user's self-declaration of that gender[21] and her rant about embracing feminism as the "one way forward".Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 18:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely since that same diff says My husband Justin Anthony Knapp is very upset over this article yet CC5K constantly attacks Knapp as a terrorist... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Actually, Knapp says otherwise on his talk page... "CowCleaner comes back intermittently to say something about how great I am and how a manga magazine is a terrorist organization." Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 19:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Short of revert, block, catalog, and then ignore, there isn't much else that can be done. A range block is impossible as the editor uses multiple open proxies to wage their little campaign of disruption, misinformation, and harassment. The only outstanding problem is when an administration is too lazy read the preexisting case file on this individual and only gives a short term block, even after being directed to the case file. —Farix (t | c) 16:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Farix. Appreciate the response. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 17:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Reporting User HunteWinchester123 due to multiple vandalism editions[edit]

This user HunteWinchester123 has been reverting editions without any explanation just because he believes I have edited too much other pages he is probably taking this too serious but he must be jealously just because of the editions I have warn him for 5 times and he persists with his irrelevant editions that are being: deleting information without any explanation from Wikipedia page Maryse Ouellet, adding unnecessary images as the article has too many, re-adding irrelevant sources and unreliable ones, and changing dates. This has became so annoying due to the fact I need to re-edit them to be correctly fit, so I ask for this reporting due that this is becoming so annoy. Thanks.TheBellaTwins1445(talk) 6:13, April 10, 2016 (UTC)

  • What I see is two editors bickering, neither one of them explaining very well or in coherent English what they're doing. I also see 57k on a glamour model/rassler, though I'm happy to see great concern over which original researcher gets the moves right. I'm glad wrestling is real. You two, try to talk it out on the talk page, and stop referring to edits you disagree with as "vandalism". Drmies (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
    • However, I'm trying to make a call for an stop for this HunteWinchester123 user, he had reverted editions without explanations, all he wants is to re-edit the page until he gets what he wants, as I have told you this is becoming so annoying it is incredible how he just reverted the editions because he believes I'm taking advantage in every female wrestler of WWE company, I just want some kind of lesson for him or just a little block because this really needs to stop right know, and also I don't see what wrestling moves need to be in this case If we are talking of a current vandalism case this is why I'm coming to you. Thanks and I wait for an answer and stop for this case.TheBellaTwins1445(talk) 7:10, April 10, 2016 (UTC)
      • Additionally the edits I have done are already revised even because he re-adds unreliable and death sources, I don't disagree with editions I don't like are because they are bad as they have been revised and deletes information without any explanation.TheBellaTwins1445(talk) 7:13, April 10, 2016 (UTC)
        • I really don't understand what you are saying or why anything here is a. a matter that a. requires administrator intervention because b. it's about content. That's the answer, and it is also, as far as I'm concerned, a "stop for this case". But I invite other editors and admins to have a quick look here to see what I missed. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
          • Hopefully there is no confusion over my edit's and the edit's of the reported user. Quickly off-topic, my edits were not original research and were simply removal of false info misrepresented from a source that had no mention of the given info. The dispute over moves were discussed on my talk page and are now resolved. - Now, as for HunteWinchester123, the edits really aren't vandalism. It simply looks like both users have to look at WP:OWN and WP:REVTALK, as well as what is NOT vandalism, because all I see from the edit summaries are rarely explanations for their edits and are simply reverting edits that they disagree with/are different from their own. Sekyaw (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
            • First, I want to thank Sekyaw and Drmies for being impartial. Second, I edit Maryse's page for years, longer than TheBellaTwins1445 have an account here, she just started editing because Maryse returned to WWE. TheBellaTwins1445 is monopolizing all wrestling pages, she reverses all the edits, she has some mental problem thinking that is the owner of the page (she needs medical consultation). I didn't remove anything from the pages, you can see in history of the pages that I just add new content. She remove information, images and never explains her edits. I already sent messages for her asking why she does it, but she never answered me. I don't want a war, I'm a peaceful person, I would like her to stop it. She has warnings about his behavior on wikipedia, I don't. So you know who is wrong (Sorry by my english, but I guess you know what I'm saying). -- HunteWinchester123 (Discussion)
              • Ok firstly I'm not in any kind of mental problem OK?, second I'm not trying to edit pages and say I'm the owner of them and you know what, I don't seriously think that the fact you have being editing the page before me needs to matter here because Wikipedia is free and you can edit what ever you want at the time you want, I have being reverting your editions due to the fact they are being unuseful at reverting the edition I have did all you do is re-add images that are not useful for the article it has too many of them and also you put unreliable sources that are being death and ones that are not even useful for the information as matter of fact being Twitter ones some sources have being taken down and some of them are just death and each time I take off them all you do is revert and revert and revert them all I want is a stop on your irrelevant editions as it is so annoying re-change the page each day this is becoming an editing war and I seriously want this to stop !!! So what you think?TheBellaTwins1445(talk) 3:37, April 11, 2016 (UTC)
                • In order for me to support this NOT CLOSED ! discussion, here are some of the edits that support me on this case
  • He began deleting, adding unnecessary images, death and unreliable sources and changing some information without any further explanation of why he did it. Hoping this helps.TheBellaTwins1445(talk) 6:26, April 11, 2016 (UTC)
    • What I'm changing? You're changing Maryse's nickname "The Canadian Phenom" for "The French Phenom" and saying that she was Cameron's manager, when in fact they never ever appeared together. You need to educate yourself and stop with the lies. -- HunteWinchester123 (Discussion)
      • Prior, you have been changing information without any explanation this it isn't a lie since I have proofs given on this discussion, I already re-edit the article and you are persistently re-editing it adding too many unnecessary images, changing information and adding unnecessary ones since here are some recent proofs
  • Now are this lies ? And answering on changes of her nicknames, you should see first the reference you provide before editing Thank you, I hope this comes to an end.TheBellaTwins1445(talk) 5:52, April 12, 2016 (UTC)
    • To whoever seeing this just take a look of her/his edition from April 13, 2016, In this one he or she don't even explain their/her changes, she or he has delete relievable information, add sources that I already mention are unreliable, birth name wasn't necessary as it was already mention on the page to her/him and persistently wants to add unnecessary images on the article, here is the edit so you see I'm not lying. And this is why on the main reasons I'm trying to make a call to all of you to stop this.TheBellaTwins1445(talk) 8:52, April 13, 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks on article talk pages (Crimea annexation, Aleksandr Dugin)[edit]

In a current discussion with myself and others at Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, User:Iryna Harpy made a post [30] which said very little about specific content questions, but instead accused several other WP users — User:Tobby72, User:Haberstr, and User:Moscow Connection — of "POV pushing" , "disruptive editing" , and presenting arguments with "no good faith" .

I contacted Iryna about this on her user page, sending copies to each of the users she had named [31]. Iryna's response was that she found my message "bizarre", she said I was using her user talk page to bully her, and she asked me not to message her user talk page again, except to notify her of a formal complaint. She did however clarify that she does not think Moscow Connection had engaged in disruptive editing or had lacked good faith, though she does think Moscow Connection had pushed POV. She regards her comments about the other two WP users, Tobby72 and Haberstr, as "legitimate criticism". [32]

I noticed a more extreme though less recent personal attack by Iryna Harpy on Talk:Aleksandr_Dugin (a somewhat related topic). There she accused another WP user of putting "pineapples up his arse, leafy side up, just to get his juices flowing" . [33] Iryna made that comment about 12 months ago, and it is still on that talk page right now (22:21, 22 March 2016) [34], it hasn't been removed or archived, although it is at present in a collapsable/expandable box.

Iryna is an experienced WP editor, who should know better than to misuse article talk pages in this way. Her actions suggest to me that she has a strong sense of WP:OWNERSHIP in relation to these pages, and wants to push away users who have different views regarding their content. Whatever her motive, the personal attacks she makes are not appropriate for article talk pages, because they don't contribute to civil content discussion. [Highlighting added March 25]. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Those aren't "personal attacks", those are fairly accurate descriptions of these editors' editing practices. Tobby72 in particular has been driving people crazy with his slow motion edit war and attempts to insert text into these articles against consensus which has been going on for something like a year now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • This section is a nonsense, and should be closed. Iryna is one of the few good faith editors capable of dealing with these articles. She might get frustrated sometimes, but that's a common feature to us all. Furthermore, if one is confronted by the type of disruption that is evident in this very AN/I thread, which is rooted in canvassing, one will inevitably let one's lips slip from time to time. Please shut this thread. RGloucester 02:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
RGloucester, you say Iryna is "one of the few good faith editors capable of dealing with these articles" . What does your comment say about the others who have tried to deal with the articles, either by making edits or by commenting on the talk pages? Is Wikipedia still "the encyclopedia anyone can edit"? Or is it now "the encyclopedia which only a few good faith editors are capable of dealing with"? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia's Talk Page Guidelnes: "While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user." If Iryna had valid criticisms of the way Tobby72 and others have been editting, she should have put her criticisms on their user talk pages, where they would immediately see what was said, and not on the article talk page. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Stop it with the WP:WIKILAWYER. These users, whom you've been encouraging [35], were disrupting THESE articles hence it made perfect sense for Iryna to comment on THESE articles' talk pages.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As predicted on my talk page, the user fully intended to canvass in order to embark on a WP:HUNT, posting on Moscow Connection's talk page, on Tobby72's talk page, and on Haberstr's talk page. The most telling of these have been his/her communications with Haberstr on 21 March where s/he commended the editor stating "Lack of neutrality re Ukraine conflict: I agree with you that WP's coverage of the Ukraine conflict has a neutrality problem, and I respect your efforts to address this problem." in a bid to align himself/herself with other users who support his/her POV. Haberstr's response to the "cc" (or, let's start this hunt because WP:CRUSH doesn't seem to be working) makes for interesting reading in itself.
All of this ducking and diving in and out of ARBEE sanctioned articles, and WP:BAITing editors who are constantly working on them is going to elicit a WP:SPADE response eventually. Mind you, I have publicly apologised to Moscow Connection for tying him in with the other two. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and as an aside, while this ANI is being used to tie up editor and admin time, Haberstr is using his valuable time to keep edit warring the article's content. That's NPOV? Really? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes it is NPOV in my opinion. But you disagree, which I respect. Your comment simply illustrates that you don't respect others having a good faith disagreement with you, and you express that disrespect by getting angry and accusatory on talk pages and here. And that is exactly the problematic behavior that fellow editor Kalidasa has asked administrators to do something about. I think I can summarize your response to Kalidasa so far as "I don't understand what Kalidasa is getting at, and here, let me angrily express more assumption of bad faith to make sure everyone knows I don't get it."Haberstr (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Haberstr, you exhausted good faith on the part of other editors participating in these articles years ago. RGloucester 23:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Is it possible to stay on the Iryna Harpy behavior topic, and to stop the ad homimen attacks on me? If you have evidence put it on my user talk page.Haberstr (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Where no one will see it? Nah, I think this is the appropriate place for it, which is why I did provide the evidence below.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Then you will agree that it is appropriate also to remind editors that volunteer Marek, was banned for his pov-editing on Russia-related topics and is one its the most notorious POV-pushing disruptive editors on Wikipedia. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
What Iryna Harpy said in that post ([36]) is reprehensible but utterly routine in my experience with her. In response to Harpy’s allegations: I engage in good faith NPOV editing. My aim is to create Wikipedia Ukraine/Russia NPOV entries, i.e., entries that respect the distinction between fact and allegation and are at least inclusive of the two main ‘Cold War II’ perspectives. I hate disruptive editing and resist it as best I can.Haberstr (talk) 05:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Here are other examples of Harpy’s bullying and threatening language, from the last 12 months of the Crimea Annexation talk page (other examples are at other Ukraine-related pages). All of these were in response to what I think outside editors would regard as polite-or-neutral-in-tone arguments by other editors for RS-based edits that they believed were NPOV: [37] “For the last couple of years, Tobby72 has been POV pushing the same content over and over and over and over and over against consensus. Personally, I've had all I can take of his disruptive editing and intentional gaming.” 05:05, 15 March 2016; [38] “Haberstr, you're at it again. Drop it …” 22:05, 26 January 2016; [21:44, 2 February 2016] “Wow, I'm sincerely impressed by your continuing POV pushing about how terrific the RF really is, and how much every citizen loves 'em. Drop the propaganda, pleaaassseee.”; [39]Stop wasting our time. How many times are you intending to incriminate yourself by gaming?” 05:09, 1 April 2015, [40] “Any further envelope-pushing will be understood as WP:POINTy. Please familiarise yourself with this guideline, Tosha, as it is just a hair's breadth from tendentious editing behaviour.” 04:26, 21 March 2015; [41] “…both you and Mobolo and disruptive, tendentious editors. … How can it be an ad hominem attack when the nature of your continuous POV pushing for unencyclopaedic information - which contradicts RS and is designed to promote spurious content - is antithetical to what the project stands for? As editors, you are not even vaguely neutral, and neither of you can be extricated from the biased, unbalanced content you push. … it's about time you realised that your continuous and blatant lack of civility can't be disguised by a dusting of civil POV pushing. In fact, we have huge tracts here … demonstrating your relentless bad faith disruption.” (Highlighting added 25 March) 05:09, 25 March 2015 Haberstr (talk) 05:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Looking over some of the edits, this is prime territory for WP:BOOMERANG. None of Iryna's comments go beyond identification of non-neutral edits. Meanwhile, repeated non-neutral edits in an area subject to discretionary sanctions and an attempt to force out dissenting editors through coordinated action (i.e. canvassing for an ANI) are serious issues. ~ RobTalk 05:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Not sure if this statement is about User:Haberstr or User:Kalidasa 777. Yes, Kalidasa has definitely engaged in disruptive canvassing in this instance. In the case of Haberstr, the problem is compound because:
1. The user has already been warned previously about disruptive canvassing here and here
2. Previously warned about making controversial, POV, moves and the purposefully salt-ing the redirects so that the moves could not be undone without admin intervention here and here
3. Has been previously warned multiple times about starting edit wars and edit warring against multiple editors here and here and here. This includes purposefully starting edit wars in the hope of getting an article protected to "their" version [42] [43]
4. Has been previously warned about making personal attacks and using partisan language here
5. Haberstr was the subject of this WP:AE report which was closed with no action only because it went stale, although three of the commenting admins recommended some form of topic ban (presumably from Russia and Ukraine related topics).
Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't assume you are attempting to change the focus of discussion away from an incident report regarding Iryna Harpy's alleged personal attacks, but that is in fact what your comment does. Please stay on topic, which is not my past. Nonetheless, since you have made allegations and claims against me, I will briefly respond: In sum, we have "closed with no action ..." and your recitation of a small group of 'pro-Ukraine' editors' massive number of 'warnings' against me, based completely on assuming bad faith.
We all really need to stop assuming other editors are editing in bad faith or assuming other editors are being "disruptive," and then attacking them on the Talk Page, as Iryna has been doing repeatedly for years. Such accusations make Talk Pages toxic and off-putting places, not just for the person over and over again so accused, but also for all newbies and potential newbies who might've wanted to participate in a welcoming editing environment. Regarding Ukraine-related articles specifically, I think it is obvious there is honest disagreement on the meaning of NPOV and POV from the perspectives of the two sides of the (unintentional but inevitable) edit wars regarding Ukraine-related Wikipedia entries. There also seems to be good faith disagreement regarding the meaning of consensus, which is also the basis of many angry/rude/dismissive attacks, nearly always by the 'pro-Ukraine' side (including Marek and Iryna) against the other side of the debate. Based on a close reading and good faith understanding of WP:CONS, and on the long-standing and failed efforts to find consensus, I don't believe there is consensus on the array of Ukraine-related Wikipedia entries where edit wars unfortunately occur. It is a difficult situation but we nonetheless should be civil and assume good faith.Haberstr (talk) 08:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
"We all really need to stop assuming other editors are editing in bad faith or assuming other editors are being "disruptive,"" - you mean like when you went around accusing everyone who disagreed with you (even Russian editors) of "hating Russia"? And the reason edit wars constantly flare up on these articles is because you and some of your buddies just can't stop beating WP:DEADHORSE and your way of engagement is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You're complaints boil down to "why won't they let me push my pov in peace! That's so unjust!" which is why this keeps coming up again and again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Marek's charges are all false, and he notably has provided no evidence for them. Will he ever actually be on topic. His comments so far have all been off topic. If he feels that Iryna has not been assuming bad faith, why not simply say that, and provide evidence and support for that opinion? I think my first comment on Iryna above, where I've quoted repeated instances where she seemed to me to be assuming bad faith, can serve as a rough model for him.Haberstr (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
"Marek's charges are all false, and he notably has provided no evidence for them." - ahem: [44]. Who do you think the closing comment - "participants are reminded that Wikipedia is not a battleground and your fellow Wikipedians are most likely not intelligence operatives" - was directed at? Jimbo Wales? I don't think so.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
You are accusing me of the following:you went around accusing everyone who disagreed with you (even Russian editors) of "hating Russia" and you have provided no evidence. Please retract the false accusation and apologize. The closing comment was directed at all participants, which included you and Iryna. Please comply with that request. Haberstr (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Reply to the counter-charge of "canvassing". I find it difficult to take this seriously, but it has been raised by a number of wikipedia users (Iryna, RGloucester, and Marek), and Rob has indicated that he takes it seriously, so I'll briefly reply. Yes, I put a message on the user talk page of User:Haberstr, expressing approval of some of his work. And, as I've already mentioned, I alerted User:Haberstr, User:Tobby72, and User:Moscow Connection to the fact that their editing had been attacked on an article talk page. I also informed them (and Iryna) about this AN/I... Aren't these the sort of matters which user talk pages are for?? Am I missing something here? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 07:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Do Iryna's comments go beyond identification of non-neutral edits? @ Rob Please take another look at the diffs I've already presented. The first, on the Crimea article talk page is a generalised attack on 3 WP users. It states that they've been engaged in dispute about the article for a long period, during which "no good faith argument" was ever presented by them...[45] Iryna has already admitted that her comments in relation to at least one of these users, User:Moscow Connection , was unwarranted. The other is her statement on the Aleksandr Dugin article talk page about the user who she says has "pineapples up his arse" .