Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive921

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Adequately protecting articles from the kind of Israel supporters who threaten to rape and kill[edit]

A number of requests for article protection were submitted yesterday. They were declined with what I think was questionable advice for the requesting editor, @Huldra:, to warn the IP. The various editors who receive death threats and threats of physical or sexual violence from Israel supporters should probably not be advised to contact their abusers, but that's another story. I have requested protection again here because in the WP:ARBPIA topic area inadequate protection has predictable consequences e.g. [1][2] (threats suppressed). I'm posting at ANI in the hope it gets the attention it deserves so that at least some articles+editors receive better protection. In ARBPIA, the 30/500 rule is and will continue to be enforced, regardless of whether an article has extended confirmed protection. If the 30/500 rule is not enforced by the server, then it will be enforced by people spending time performing a task that can be more efficiently and effectively performed by a machine. Editors who enforce the 30/500 rule are exposed to the worst Wikipedia has to offer. The ARBCOM authorized 30/500 rule is going to be enforced in ARBPIA either way so please let the server deal with the crazies. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

If we don't allow legal threats, why do we not treat physical threats similarly? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 10:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
They are treated similarly in terms of blocking despite their very profound differences. This something that perhaps Hulda is more likely to have an informed opinion about than me, having had discussions with the legal people I believe. Threats are normally interleaved with the usual ethno-nationalist POV pushing disruption that is common in ARBPIA for accounts/IPs that do not meet the 30/500 requirement. Admins do a good job blocking IPs and suppressing threats. But again, the server can already make that unnecessary via extended confirmed protection. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
For everyone else's ease of access, the pages in question are:
  • Mobile, Alabama - which only connects to the issue in a single line (sister cities), but was previously protected for a year over this issue.
  • Ariel University - which was previously protected for a year because of vandalism (which I get the impression has to do with this), and which has a notice on its talk page regarding ARBPIA3
  • Talk:Hamat Gader - which has a notice at the top regarding ARBPIA3
  • Talk:Canada Park - which has a notice at the top regarding ARBPIA3
  • Talk:Two-state solution - which I've already protected, because that should've been protected the second ARBPIA was passed.
I was hesitant to protect them (and am still arguing with myself about shortening the Mobile AL one, or just putting a hidden note explaining ARBPIA3 between every single letter of the one line related to the conflict), and have italicized my reasons for protecting them. If someone shortens or undoes the protection, I'm not going to wheel war.
I was on the fence, and rather than post about how I sympathize, I figured it'd be better to ask for forgiveness than for permission. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. There is apparently a discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Extended_confirmed_protection_and_arbitration_enforcement that I haven't read yet but assume is relevant. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I think I've glanced it over before. An' holuh shi', wuz Ah realluh thuh one da applah tha' pertecshun ta "Two-state solution"? Ah'm ol fer cuttin' admins slack ol thuh tahm, b'cos we gaht laves 'n' stuff, bud'if tha' ball 'ad bin drop't inee 'arder it'd'a wip't aht thuh dinasores. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Southern American English sounds like a contradiction in terms Face-wink.svg Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 11:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
The scary thing is the Bard's actors would've spoken something similar. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Ah... the Great Vowel Shift, of course? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 12:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
This isn't an Israel supporter. It's Grawp. 172.56.36.137 (talk) 12:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
The edits are indistinguishable from those of an racist ultra-nationalist Israel supporter. They are also characteristic of Grawp or a Grawp-like sock. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Seems to me like you, yourself are pretty racist.142.105.159.60 (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
If you want to believe that, go ahead. I don't care and it won't change anything. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

This is not "our old friend", this is the Telstra, Australia-sock, which I first became aware of at AN/I, August/Sept., 2015. User:Drmies asked me to collect some of the IPs in order to see if he "qualified" for a WP:LTA-page. I did that here: User:Huldra/Telstra-socks. Besides Telstra, Australia-IPs, I believe the same user uses Optus, Australia-IPs, like here. And they typically stand for opinions which are to the right of the Israeli government; typically they say that places on the occupied West Bank are "in Israel", a view which is not supported by the Israeli government, only by the extreme right-wing Israel supporters. For a start: I believe Ariel (city), (on the occupied West Bank) and its University, and its "sister-cities", all have to be permanently protected: they have been favourite targets for years. Huldra (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I had not yet read ANI this afternoon when I took two of these RFPP reports, the two for the talk pages of Canada Park and Two-state solution. I increased Ian's regular semi-protection to extended-confirmed protection. I have not looked at the other three pages but I'll say right now that I don't believe the Mobile article qualifies for it. If someone wants to take the protection back down, I won't object. Katietalk 19:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Okay, I'll ask the obvious question: What does Mobile, Alabama have to do with Arab-Israeli conflict? Why would this level and kind of protection even apply to an Alabaman city? I can see there is edit-warring going on in the article but it is ridiculous to argue that Mobile, Alabama is an article that is concerned with the Arab-Israeli conflict and covered by 30/500. Liz Read! Talk! 21:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Liz....because Mobile, Alabama is sister city with Ariel (city)...an Israeli settlement on the Israeli-occupied West Bank. Certain editors have tried for years to have it say that Ariel (city) is in "Israel". It is the same problem for Heredia, Costa Rica; also a sister city of Ariel. (Yeah, I know: it is crazy to protect a 140 K article just because of -one- sentence, but heck, what else its there to do?) Huldra (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I saw that Mobile had an Israeli sister city but that one note in a long article doesn't justify saying that the article involves the Arab-Israeli conflict. If there is edit-warring or vandalism going on, semi-protect the article. Same goes for Heredia, Costa Rica.
Given that invoking 30/500 usually results in a permanent state of protection that prevents any editing by IP accounts, I think we should be conservative when applying it, only when the articles/pages are clearly covered by the stated topic area mentioned by ArbCom or admins at AE. We can't have every edit-war over an sentence concerning Israel result in 30/500 protection when the article is clearly not about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Liz Read! Talk! 21:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I thought that semi-protecting also stopped IP-editing? Huldra (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Observation: Eh...regardless of the edit-summary attached to the protection, I'm fairly sure it's actually just plain semi-protected. "12:39, 12 April 2016 Ian.thomson (talk | contribs) changed protection level for Mobile, Alabama [Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (indefinite) [Move=Require administrator access] (indefinite)". That, or the difference between semi-protection and extended-confirmed protection can't be seen from the logs (if so, that's something that should be fixed...) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, extended-confirmed protection is visible in the logs. The Mobile article is only semi-protected; look at the protection log for Talk:Canada Park and you'll see the difference. Katietalk 22:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Btw, I´m fine with having "only" semi-protection on most of these articles. Most bad "new" editors, *if* they can edit semi-protected pages, then they do not go for any articles. Instead they go for one of the editors who edits in the area, and who have their user-pages semi-protected (like both Sean.hoyland and myself, and virtually everyone else who is not considered pro-Israeli enough). Apparently it is even more fun, telling us how we will be murdered, than making edits like "Ariel is in Israel"..... Huldra (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
You will never stop us. Ariel, Israel is a city you can never take! 49.188.4.238 (talk) 23:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Please block the above Optus, Australia-IP ASAP; thanks, Huldra (talk) 23:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Huldra, the account has been blocked. The difference I see between 30/500 and semi-protection is that I haven't seen an article with 30/500 protection had that protection lifted. It seems to be a permanent state. Theoretically, it doesn't need to be indefinite but in practice I don't see expiration dates. With most pages with semi-protection, it is only applied for a few days, a week or a month. It is not usually indefinite. Liz Read! Talk! 01:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

─────────────────────────

Oops, my bad on semi- instead of 30/500. Meant to do the latter. Been a touch sick the past couple of days (still don't have my voice back). Ian.thomson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh you will never stop us! Blah blah blah. Yes, that's a lot of words over Mobile, and rather than argue that this troll has made Mobile, Alabama, part of the Arab-Israeli conflict, I applied regular semi-protection. Because the troll is still also just a troll, so semi-protection is valid to begin with. I'm not a big fan of this 30/500 thing but hey, it's there, and it's templated, so why not. I just applied 30/500 protection to an article for six months. Protection needs to be applied to articles that need protection for as long as they need protection, which isn't necessarily indefinitely. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
For the record, if you check my request, I requested indefinite semi-protection for the Mobile article rather than 30/500 in an attempt to avoid this kind of discussion about that article. While it's true that this is also just a troll, it is a troll engaged what is, in principal at least, criminal behavior with a maximum prison sentence of 10 years in Victoria state facilitated by the Wikimedia Foundation's infrastructure and a failure to protect content and editors from racist ultra-nationalist Israel supporters like this one. Since far-right racism+ultra-nationalism are almost mainstream in Israel nowadays the situation is likely to get worse rather than better in terms of exposure to and abuse by this kind of pro-Israel, pro-settlement extremist. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
That sounds a lot like a legal threat. I don't think it actually counts as one, but it's definitely meant to have a chilling effect on this.
I'd also like to address your problematic language. You obviously have an axe to grind, and I don't think you should be editing Israel-related articles.142.105.159.60 (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
There are several reasons why I posted this thread and several reasons why I use the entirely accurate language I use to describe this person as a racist, ultra-nationalist Israel supporter who by issuing threats of physical and sexual violence is, in principal, breaking the law in Victoria and could go to prison for 10 years. Naturally a reliable assessment of accuracy requires the ability to see or have seen the threats that have been suppressed, threats that this person has been issuing for over a year now I believe, perhaps more. For example, perhaps you didn't see that in this particular instance this Israel supporter threatened to rape an editor and their daughters, included racist abuse and a celebration of the killing of hundreds of Palestinian men, woman and children in the Gaza Strip by Israelis as part of their combat operations against Hamas and other armed groups in the Gaza Strip and oddly threatened to rape my 'whore mother' despite the fact that my mother died many years ago. Of course I could go on at length so that you and others gain a better understanding of the nature of this particular pro-Israel extremist. But as I have already told you, you may think whatever you like, I don't care, and it won't change anything. Threads like this are multi-purpose. While the priority is to ensure that editors and articles receive adequate protection, something that I think is very important indeed and a very serious matter, it can also help to flush out people who have a compulsion to defend/excuse/deny absolutely indefensible behavior and are stupid enough to break cover when it comes to defending/excusing/denying the behavior of editors who are supportive of Israel and their occupation of Palestine. This generates useful data. So feel free to continue to communicate with me but it is not you who benefits. As for whether I "have an axe to grind", that is not something I can reliably assess or necessarily even transform into things that I can measure in an evidence based way. But anyone is free and welcome to examine and evaluate the evidence in my ~30k edits, and take the appropriate action if they see fit. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Creating an edit filter for the American and Costa Rican cities simply to prevent the IPs particular additions would be a fairly trivial task? The articles could be unprotected then. Laura Jamieson (talk) 07:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for blocking 49.188.4.238, however 121.219.241.132 just continued. Some of the articles that IP touched also needs protection, I suspect. Deir Yassin massacre is already protected, but the others are not.
Also, is User:Huldra/Telstra-socks soon "qualified" for a WP:LTA-page? It would help when reporting vandalism, I suspect. (Hopefully they will grow up...eventually....)
And I have no idea if it is possible just to create an edit filter for the American and Costa Rican cities, and if that would work. Does anyone know? Huldra (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

YuHuw's-endless disruptive edit war against the consensus:[edit]

It is true for every page he is editing from his last appearance on wikipedia under this name . Below only several examples: Please pay your special attention on his meaningless revert argumentation.

Karaites

1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)

Qaraimits

[1)] exposed sockpuppetry by his anonimous IP. You can see his self exposure here
[2)]
3)]

Karaite

1) exposed sockpuppetry as above under the same IP
2)
3)
4)


The user constantly distorts RS he cites or reverts without meaningful argumentation.Please help Неполканов (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

[| This page ] might shed some more light on this issue. It looks to be a long term issue ! KoshVorlon 18:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes please look at this edit in particular [3] these meat-puppets gang up on anyone who touch their turf [4]. Also pay very close attention to the evidence where Неполканов exposes himself as a puppet presented on this page [5]. The lady doth protest too much, methinks. There are also several ANI cases to read through to catch up. Неполканов is an archetypal boy who cries wolf. YuHuw (talk) 04:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
First you claim that some conspiracy of missionaries is active in the articles, now you're claiming that a post where Неполканов lists the members of a consensus is him confessing to meat puppetry? That's just asinine, and yet another instance where you clearly are not assuming good faith. Please, show all the times where I've come to Неполканов's defense before you came in with your disruptive editing. If you can't provide such evidence, then don't make such accusations. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
YuHuw has a recurring problem where he ignores any consensus that he doesn't agree with, handles points raised for that consensus by either ignoring it, pretending he has already addressed it, changing the subject, or attributing (if perhaps pseudo-civilly) unevidenced bad-faith motives to others. This can be readily seen on my talk page and at Talk:Karaims. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Ian, I have apologized for inadvertently upsetting your religious conviction s so many times [6] I am losing count. It was the week of Purim vacation and I was a little high spirited. I am really embarrassed and sorry about it. Everyone makes mistakes. There is no need to bare a grudge on the matter. You have in all innocence taken the wrong side on this matter. I am indeed the one who encourages WP:BRD discussion to reach consensus (extensively) just as you recommend, while the meat-puppets who WP:CANVASS each other blatantly (as noticed by another editor here) -and have sadly duped you- are the ones who don't if you could only get past your anger at my comment on Christian missionary activity then you might be able to see that more clearly. I sincerely wish you all the best Ian. Take care. YuHuw (talk) 06:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Ian, you have not read carefully the edit he made which exposes him but if you follow the instructions posted you will discover as clear as day. I will post them again for you here. Неполканов must be considered to be either a clumsy meat-puppet or a sockpuppet of a clumsy puppet-master, as justified by examining the third occurrence of Неполканов (use the find function) on this page. It all brings into serious and justified question whether there is any sincere motivation behind complaints against me by those three extremely close friends. Best regards. YuHuw (talk) 06:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC) P.P.S. concerning WP:NPA every time one of them calls me Kaz it is a Personal attack for the resons specified in the history of their case against me. You can see the results of that personal attack in the history of my talk page[7]. Three months of asking them to stop dozens and dozens of times when we all know what that means is why the wavering of WP:AGF in my attitude is justified. Nevertheless, I am still cordial and welcome input which is content based as long as there are no personal attacks like calling me stupid. [8] YuHuw (talk) 06:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

For the hundredth time, my convictions (whatever they are) do not play into this. Whether someone is claiming that Muslims, Masons, or lizard people are taking over, I have a problem with any paranoid rant claiming any sort of editorial conspiracies as you have proclaimed. That you keep insisting otherwise, especially since you have no evidence, is a sign that you are not assuming good faith (and without the assumption of good faith, all pseudo-civility is worthless). Here we go again with you attributing bad-faith motives without evidence.
You cannot pretend to be engaged in BRD when you are continually reverting to your version and consider any consensus that disagrees with you to be the result of canvassing and meatpuppetry. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no rant, there are only mistakes and apologies. Everyone makes mistakes Ian. Perhaps your conflict of interest in this matter makes your comments unhelpful. The discussion pages are proof of my frequent requests for sources and discussion to reach consensus whenever there has been a revert as per WP:BRD. I reverted you twice in a row but explained with good faith here [9] and your current version of that page remains to this day after you ignored the discussions which led to that originally accepted version in the first place [10]. Instead of taking us forward, you took it backwards but nevertheless I supported you in good faith. You just have a grudge against me which is very unfortunate. And I even supported you against that IP editor remember as a sign of my good faith towards you. [11] You blocked that editor with no evidence besides two edits on Karaims as a puppet of Kaz remember? YuHuw (talk) 06:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC) By the way, this IP [12] was yours too wasn't it Ian? YuHuw (talk) 06:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You call feeding Kaz's accusations of admin abuse support? The IP editor behaved like Kaz and his IP address is located in the same place as other proven Kaz socks. Perhaps your agreement with him is clouding your judgement.
And what exactly would my conflict of interest be? If you are going to once again suggest religion (which again, would be assuming bad faith), then the only non-hypocritical course of action would leave the articles on Karaites and so forth to atheists and pagans.
As for the IP, that's obviously Kaz, and for you to say it is mine is a damn lie and a sign that you not assuming good faith. There is no reasonable way you could make such an accusation in good faith. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Ian wrote: "You call feeding Kaz's accusations of admin abuse support? " I am sorry I do not understand your meaning in this sentence. YuHuw (talk) 07:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC) And how can someone be a duck of an editor which has not been on wikipedia for probably years? Which proven sock of Kaz was not based in Cardiff? I have read through all the case history while I was accused and I do not recall the evidence you are referring to. If you have a fact to state please present it clearly. And I agreed with you not that IP remember that is why I reverted him and restored your version[13]. Leaving the Karaites articles to atheists and pagans might be a good idea. :)
But why do you assume the IP I asked whether was you is obviously Kaz? I only asked because it looks like you had similar interests. Why on earth would it be bad faith? I see no similarity between Kaz's edits and that IP's edits. YuHuw (talk) 07:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC) I am not calling you any kind of puppet Ian. Everyone edits accidentally when signed out from time to time. It is no crime. But as it offends you so much I take back the question. Jeez YuHuw (talk) 07:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
I am sorry I forgot to respond to your question in your edit summary [14]. The thought had not crossed my mind. Meanwhile you on the other hand who decided to get involved after the matter was closed did call me Kaz after I was vindicated remember? I wrote to you about it[15] and your disagreement with the admin decision is the source of your conflict of interest in this matter. As an admin yourself you should already be aware that the Kaz puppets are extremely cold. Best regards. YuHuw (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The IP you mentioned behaves the opposite of me in this matter, and behaves like you and Kaz (and it locates to the sort of ISPs that Kaz has been known to use). You asked a question that insisted that that was my IP address. Doing so by accident would be incredibly stupid, which is why I cannot imagine that it was an accident. Having calmed myself down, I still cannot see how someone could ask such a question in good faith. Trolling is unacceptable here, even if it's to try and have your way in an article.
I was going to just suggest that maybe you need to be topic-banned. But if you keep trolling, I'm going to push for a block. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
You clearly have not calmed down and perhaps you never will with regards to me which is extremely unfortunate. Nevertheless, and in all sincerity, please provide one example of me trolling in this discussion above as you claim and tell me kindly in all good faith please as I have been very cordial with you, what exactly I said why exactly it is trolling and how exactly I should have expressed the concept in a way that you would not have considered trolling. Considering your conflict of interest concerning the matter one would expect there should be a Wiki policy against you being involved with me again. If however, you have nothing constructive to say and will only try to threaten and intimidate me again then I would prefer you simply do not post anything in response to this at all as I will find it yet another example of harassment from you which I have to remind you I have already asked once you to stop. Take it easy. YuHuw (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
You said that an IP address that clearly behaves more like you or Kaz belonged to me. How is that not trolling? Ian.thomson (talk) 04:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I did not say that. And sadly no-one involved in this behaves like me. If they did we would all be enjoying pleasant discussions on talk pages sharing knowledge like gentlemen about content and there would be no ANI postings, no insults, no attempts to extract personal information, no canvassing, no-edit-warring by meat-puppetry, no attempts to identify each other, no blocking IPs for 2 reasonable edits, no harassment and definitely no threats of any kind. That is what I imagined could happen when I signed up and that is what I was still hoping for after a month of signing up despite having suffered all of the above which has continued to now nearly 4 months down the line. I am not so snowy white anymore and have become more cynical about wikipedia but have not given up all hope yet. P.S. if you want some examples of trolling take a look at some of these edits [16] especially [17][18][19]. You should also know that Kaz is their code-word for calling someone a Pedo. It might be best to stop calling people Kaz and unravel yourself from their dupe until you have become familiar with their whole game first. If I knew 4 moths ago what I know now, I would never have signed up to defend User:Wbm1058 in the first place [20]. Take care. YuHuw (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Please can you stop these unsubstantiated allegations that other editors have accused you of sexual offences. This kind of trolling by YuHuw is a breach of of the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
YuHuw, here you said "By the way, this IP [21] was yours too wasn't it Ian?" That IP address is one that obviously behaves like either you or Kaz. Now you are straight up lying when the evidence is on the very page, in this very conversation. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
The IP has no behavior comparable to me. Your spin-doctoring, harassing, personal attacks, breach of assuming good faith, trolling, etc. are all too much. I have tried to be cordial but this conversation is going no-where. You should simply be saying sorry for calling me a "Kaz" and we will leave it at that. But you won't so I am taking a break. I am not going to respond here again unless someone neutral with some knowledge of the history @Someguy1221: @Liz: @Zzuuzz:steps in to try and mediate between us. Take care. YuHuw (talk) 04:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Of the two of us, who has been reverting Toddy1 on topics relating to Karaites, Keraites, and so forth? The IP is closer to you than me, and denying that would just be further trolling. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I looked at YuHuw edit history, and I see a lot of reverts with no explanation, claiming that people are lying or sockpuppets, etc. In the discussion above he flatly refuses to accept that he did anything wrong, and the accuses somebody (unclear who) of harassment with no evidence. This has to stop. If YuHuw does not stop accusing people of bad faith and reverting without explanation admin action is necessary IMO. YuHuw should focus the energy in a more constructive way. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history of Keraites, I am really turned off by the edit summaries: "lying in edit summary to pretend he is removing something", "This is the 4th or 5th revert of this issue by this user since he has re-signed to WP with a new ID", "undo restoration of User:Ancietsteppe's POV by Meatpuppet", "incessant edit summary insults is very disparaging and harassing", "revert edits by "YuHuw". If you read the new source he added, it does not support the statement he cited it for. Typical of Kaz", and on and on. But I can't see how we can single anyone out for sanctions without sanctioning the whole lot of you. So the seemingly endless drama-board threads related to this have gone on for too long. The above is for me, too mind-numbing and TL;DR for me to slog through it all. I'm going to try to take this to Talk:Keraites and attempt to sort out the most recent two-edit revert war on that page. Y'all should focus more on content and stop disparaging each other. wbm1058 (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
YuHuw is editing as an IP editor again. He is "answering" a question raised at Talk:Keraites#"Molokan" heresy. His "answer" consisted of rehashing the statement in the article and then changing the subject.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
It's increasingly bizarre that someone who objects so vehemently to being called Kaz should then proceed to act exactly like... KAZ. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 07:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
He is still editing as an IP editor. I guess he will start logging in as YuHuw once this item on WP:ANI has been archived.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Geolocating to North Israel... Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 09:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Personal attack and abusive vandalism of my user page[edit]

Janitorial close, work was done by Stephan Schulz. Vandalism can also be reported to WP:AIV. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:46, 18 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.

This was just done to my personal page...by 189.28.161.3 [[22]]

Nürö Drägönflÿ, G'däÿ Mätë! 09:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Reverted, IP warned. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • My thanks, as I find it about as insulting as it could get.
Nürö Drägönflÿ, G'däÿ Mätë! 09:31, 18 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.

Socks #4 and #5[edit]

Dealt with by ANI fam, Euryalus. (non-admin closure) --QEDK (TC) 16:27, 18 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.

Following on Sock #3, we now have User:Monkonaskateboard and lurker User:Sictransitvan per this dif. M.O. of Monkonaskateboard is the same as the last ones, messing with new users I am trying to help get oriented, per its contribs.

Please indef Monkonaskateboard; Sictransitvan is already blocked. Sorry for the trouble, as always. Jytdog (talk) 10:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done -- Euryalus (talk) 10:43, 18 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.

Rudeness and anti-English comments[edit]

Bold nonadmin close. Kleuske (talk) 17:55, 17 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.

@Catlemur: has been commenting on the Sheep shagger article, which was on DYK yesterday. He was not in favour of it being on there with this comment He then commented on Wikipedia talk:Did you know with what I viewed to be an argumentum ad hominum comment about me He then went on to call me a "bigoted, two faced, sheep shagger" then stated I "come from the same ethnic background as those who invented the insult". I do not believe this is appropriate for Wikipedia as before that last one, I had already pointed him towards WP:NPA twice. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:32, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Casual observer. I'm Welsh, I'm running a national contest about Wales. I'm deeply grateful of The C of E's work to the project, including the Sheep shagger article, which is very relevant culturally and probably the most used perjorative term towards the Welsh in the UK. He's putting in some sterling work on this, and I'm sure if he was really bigoted he'd have absolutely nothing to do with a Welsh contest. In short, Catlemur, shut your trap and get on with building an encyclopedia.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I have never once seen it used in the UK specifically in relation to Wales. It is just an urbanite slur/joke addressed at anyone who lives (or, especially, works) in rural areas where sheep outnumber people. And I expect it is used worldwide in that way - I've encountered its equivalent in Turkey used in relation to rural Kurds. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Disagree. Wikipedia's front page is not the place for ethnic slurs, blithely repeated without acknowledgement of their offensiveness. Catlemur created the article, nominated it for DYK, and chose the flippant wording, knowing it to be offensive. He's got the response he asked for, and if anyone deserves any admin sanction, it's him. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Just to clarify User:Nicknack009, User:Catlemur did not create the article or nominate it for DYK. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC).
Yes, I just noticed that. I meant to type "CofE", but had a brain fart. Apologies, Catlemur. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)::::Can I point you towards my comment below regarding the precedence for controversial articles running on DYK? After all the article does go on to say that it is being reclaimed by those whom it was originally aimed at. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
@Dr. Blofeld:@The C of E: It is royal to do good and be abused.--Catlemur (talk) 12:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Why is "Englishness" somehow special when it comes to cultural protection? Tony (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: Looking at the nomination, the DYK hook was reviewed by Edwardx and promoted to a queue by Cwmhiraeth, and the queues are open to all to view, so blaming The C of E alone for the appearance on the main page is hardly fair or accurate. Having said that, I do wonder why no one appears to have thought to modify the hook by adding the word "derogatorily", a topic better suited to a discussion at WT:DYK. EdChem (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I stand by my DYK review. It is a common usage in many other places where sheep are plentiful, such as New Zealand, and is only sometimes a term of abuse. It did not need to be qualified. Edwardx (talk) 20:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
To directly quote the article: "It is often viewed as offensive in Wales. The insult is also used by Australians to refer to New Zealanders for the same reason[ as it is in South Africa to refer to Australians." Is this sentence so ambiguous?--Catlemur (talk) 21:06, 16 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.

Heavy boomerang[edit]

NOT YET
The DYK hook was inserted and seen by at least three admins [23]; if an editor has a problem with them they should first discuss with them before raising the issue on ANI. NE Ent 21:24, 16 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 appalled by The C of E. The user creates a strongly derogatory article [24] and somehow manages to get his/her ethnic slur into the frontpage. When User:Catlemur reacts, as would any decent Wikipedian, The C of E even has the nerve to complain here as if Catlemur were the problem! In a heavy boomerang I suggest a long block on The C of E. Users who create racist articles and push them into the front page are the very least thing Wikipedia needs. Jeppiz (talk) 12:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

May I point out that Paki (slur) once appeared on the front page of DYK, should the person who did that get blocked too? I feel I also should direct your attention to WP:NOTCENSORED. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
There are plenty of articles on various ethnic slurs here on Wikipedia. I don't see how this article is itself derogatory, as opposed to being on a term that is viewed that way. That said, the DYK wording was quite provocative, and it's not surprising there has been some blowback there. Trouts for User:The C of E, but anything more is an overreaction. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC).
Sure, a trout may be enough, though I think coming to ANI as if C of E were the wronged part is rather rich. Jeppiz (talk) 12:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The reason why I did was for the "bigot" comment and the ethnic comment, I hardly think that is language that should be glossed over here? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Catlemur's comments just turned your wording against you to make it clear how offensive it was. And, hey presto, when you're the target it's offensive! Point made, I think. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
(drive by comment) TheCofE, given that the nominator of Paki (slur) previously renamed Simple's page on Mohammed to "Camel raping paedophile cunt", I'm not sure he's really someone you want to claim for your side. ‑ Iridescent 12:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Ok, can we just lay off the camels, already? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
@Jeppiz: We have a complete category with subcats of racial and ethnic slurs. Does that imply you wish any editor to any of these articles to be subject to action? If not, why would this be an exemption. @The C of E: is this worth an ANI write-up? Come on... I propose to close this thread as meritless and urge both of you to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Kleuske (talk) 12:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
@Kleuske: Agreed, this is going nowhere. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
@Kleuske: Long story short. I protest the promotion of a racist out of context DYK blurb, The C of E accesses me of using ad hominem and racism, all while trying to get me banned. Dr. Blofeld tells me to "shut my trap", while The C of E gets boomeranged and desperately tries to close the discussion in order to avoid punishment. Is this really a case of WP:STICK?--Catlemur (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
You have protested, the DYK ran its course as the community, in its wisdom saw fit. Mutual banning requests do not help in any way shape or form and can easily be construed as disruptive. Yes. This is a case of WP:STICK. Kleuske (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
As far as I understand CoE baseless accusations of racism and Dr. Blofeld's unprovoked verbal harassment are going to be left unpunished despite the lengthy previous history of similar behavior. We are also going to overlook the fact that a bunch of people on DYK did a pretty bad job and forget that this disastrous event ever happened? If that is the case then I guess that I have nothing more to add to this discussion.--Catlemur (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Catlemur, if you feel that way, perhaps you should consider raising a separate ANI but one which does not conflate the DYK submission and acceptance (but perhaps the Talk surrounding it). DrChrissy (talk)

Comment There should be no thought of a boomerang here based on CoE getting an article to DYK. CoE submitted it according to process, and it was evaluated in a legitimate way. I personally would not have wanted it to go to the front page, but those users which acted upon this obviously have different opinions - to which they are perfectly entitled. It is the community's responsibility this got to the front page, not that of CoE. This is not a comment on other aspects of CoE's behaviour. DrChrissy (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

The issue here if you ask me (which nobody's done but I like the sound of my own voice) is not the fact that this article got featured on DYK but instead the hook that was featured. It just said "... that Welshmen are sometimes called sheep shaggers?", nothing about it being a derogotary term and racist insult or anything like that. Just "LOL WELSH PEOPLE ARE KNOWN FOR SEXING THE SHEEP!! GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!". DYK hook approval is known for extreme shoddiness so I'm not surprised the hook was approved, but the fact that it was proposed in the first place shows what can at best be labelled a severe lack of judgement on CoE's part. Brustopher (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

But there are many articles started each day on WP which are speedily deleted or dealt with in a similar fashion. These could easily be judged as a lack of judgement by the uploading editor, possibly severe, but we do not request sanctions against these editors. If DYK hook approval is known for being shoddy, that is the issue we should address, not the actions of a single editor. DrChrissy (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain people get blocked and penalised for repeatedly uploading dodgy articles that get speedy deleted. Also a systemic problem existing doesn't mean that people who are part of the systemic problem, should be left to their own devices. CoE made wikipedia look like a farce (which I guess it is to an extent) on its most viewed page. However this is resolved he shouldn't just get a pat on the back and a "sorry people people were mean to you."Brustopher (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes they do get blocked for repeatedly uploading dodgy articles, but has CoE repeatedly uploaded dodgy articles to DYK (I don't know the answer to this question)? I am not suggesting for one second that CoE gets a pat on the back for sending the article to DYK. Perhaps a warning is appropriate, but we are seeing sanctions suggested such as long blocks which IMHO are totally over the top. The community is responsible for this happening. We ALL could be monitoring the nominations and making comments about the suitability. DrChrissy (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Getting wool from sheep so it can be made into comfy clothes is honorable work and I can't see the objection to an article about such fine people. EEng 19:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  • That reminds me of the best come-back I have ever heard from a comedian. Rob Brydon (a Welsh comedian) was getting heckled by an English audience with people baa-ing like sheep. He dealt with it be saying "Will you stop it! It's hard enough to do this without getting an erection!" - pure comedy genius. DrChrissy (talk) 21:16, 16 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.

Sheep shagger DYK fiasco[edit]

Bold nonadmin close, while applauding the conclusion of The Rambling Man. Kleuske (talk) 17:16, 17 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.

Before reading this you might consider taking a look at [this ANI incident, during which the following events took place.

I was subjected to unprovoked verbal abuse by @Dr. Blofeld:.

I was accused of being racist and making personal attacks by @The C of E:.

During both the ANI and the events that preceded it @Martinevans123: flooded the discussion with off topic comments that contributed nothing to the resolution of the issue: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. I am not entirely sure if this an example of WP:DISRUPT or just an attempt at making a joke.

Last but not least this "DYK... that Welshmen are sometimes called sheep shaggers?" blurb got into the front page. There are too many people to blame for this, but I guess that a fish rots from the head down and everyone is going to get a pat on the back.--Catlemur (talk) 10:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

  • I thought all of my comments were completely on topic. Sorry if you consider six comments "a flood". But, if you're really not sure, why not just WP:AGF? How do you yourself propose to "resolve" this issue? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC) p.s. quite happy to help with improvements to "Fish Heads".
  • It still rings true Catlemur, shut your trap and get on with building an encyclopedia. I know a drama queen when I see one. You're wasting everybody's time.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • The DYK & hook met all the criteria, and so no reason why it should be used. Also, it got 7k views, which is better than most DYKs. You cannot oppose a DYK just because you don't like it. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, "met all the [explicit, written] criteria" isn't the end of the story, because we're also supposed to use our good judgment, and we shouldn't be giving real, unnecessary offense -- but doesn't seem to be the case here. # of clicks tells us nothing at all along those lines, since almost certainly the most patently offensive hook will get a large # of clicks. EEng 10:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps I should suggest it for the front page over at Hafan where it might get more attention? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • It might (might) have been better had the DYK been ... that Welshmen are sometimes derisively called sheep shaggers?, but as someone pointed out elsewhere, it's such a childish slur to which no one (well, almost no one) would actually take offense. (And ME123's links, especially at the earlier ANI thread, help make that clear -- humor does enlighten, you know.) You need to accept that the community does not see this as a serious problem, even if you do. EEng 10:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Catlemur's initial post on the DYK talk was I have seen ridiculous DYK before but this a whole new level of incompetence. Therefore, I don't consider describing what occurred after as "unprovoked." Discussion of the DYK should continue at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Sheep_shagger rather than here. NE Ent 10:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Catlemur is a prime example of how Wikipedia consists of mostly humourless and politically correct people who can't contribute to a building an encyclopaedia, so they resort to bitching about little things that might be considered offensive. The C of E is doing a good job with the Wales contest, and the DYK met the criteria. If it was considered grossly offensive then it wouldn't have gotten through. I don't think it's offensive one bit. I'm friends with Welsh people in RL and I call them "sheep shaggers" as a joke. JAGUAR  11:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Actually, {{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}} = 122,593 -- which doesn't even count unregistered editors -- should tell us Wikipedia mostly consists of people who manage to build the encyclopedia without very much drama. ANI is a highly skewed sample and best not used to draw inferences about the project as a whole. NE Ent 12:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @Catlemur, I find your comments regarding MartinEvans very interesting. The first time I encountered MartinEvans' apparently off-topic interjections, I was here at AN/I discussing something that was VERY IMPORTANT TO ME. I did not find it in the slightest bit funny at the time and I felt like posting a message to state that. However, since then, I have encountered Martin's "asides" frequently and because I was not not emotionally involved, I saw the humorous side of them. Perhaps such a strongly negative reaction is an indication to take a step back? Just a thought. DrChrissy (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • At least you are not paying me in sheep, again. DrChrissy (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I agree, I may have overreacted, I do not want @Martinevans123: to be punished in any way even though I find his comments to be disruptive and unfunny. I just want him to leave me alone unless he has something meaningful to say. Today I learned that I am humorless and PC, as well as that I am a drama queen (who has not contributed to the encyclopedia any way) who continuously provokes good people into telling me to shut my trap. I now know that Jaguar's Welsh friends, officially represent every single Welsh person to ever walk this planet. I must now apologize to everyone involved and get back to silently writing articles like the useless subhuman wikislave I am. This whole thing is a Zugzwang for me.--Catlemur (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
      • As a mark of respect, I refuse to even respond to you. I just wanted to thank you for sparing me the punishment. Martinevans123 (talk)
        • And now Martinevans123 has crossed the line from good natured attempts at humor which we can laugh at and/or ignore to being behaving like a jerk. Some folks find humor okay, Catlemur obviously does not, so please don't specifically antagonize them. NE Ent 14:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC) Fixed. NE Ent 15:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I am Welsh (and fluent in the language) and am not offended at the sheep shagger DYK. Just a bit of humour, and many Wikipedia readers (not just editors; this is the front page we're talking about) will find humorous facts interesting. On a personal note, I'd like to commend The C of E for his successful DYK. At the risk of appearing contentious (and this is most definitely not my intent) I think perhaps "lightening up" is within the best interest of the counter-filer. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 14:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you @Chesnaught555:. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
No problem, The C of E. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 16:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I declare this thread be renamed "The ANI sheepshagger fiasco", be closed, deleted, salted and henceforth only recalled with a furrowed brow by the PC brigrade who are actively seeking to excise the freaking soul out of the place. Otherwise known as: close this thread and move on to something productive. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:21, 17 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:Easter126[edit]

There is a massive Sockfarm around the Topic Stuart Styron.

Nr. Account Anmeldung (de:WP) Erster Edit (global) Edits bis CUA (global)
1 Schitty666 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)) 2016-04-08 JJJJ-MM-TT XXX
2 Helde43 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)) 2016-04-07 JJJJ-MM-TT XXX
3 Patriska2601 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)) 2014-12-08 JJJJ-MM-TT XXX
4 Ulla1956 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)) 2014-10-16 JJJJ-MM-TT XXX
5 Styron111 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)) 2009-07-22 JJJJ-MM-TT XXX
6 Fasterthanyou123 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)) 2014-04-29 JJJJ-MM-TT XXX
7 Flashfox7 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)) 2014-12-26 JJJJ-MM-TT XXX
8 Easter126 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)) 2016-03-26 JJJJ-MM-TT XXX
9 Nature024 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)) 2016-03-01 JJJJ-MM-TT XXX
10 Schmidtrach2 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)) 2016-04-06 JJJJ-MM-TT XXX

In the Table only SUL works fine...

Ulla1956 is allready blocked on en:wp (legal threat), user Patriska2601 Helde43 Schitty666 Schmidtrach2 are bloked od de:wp ((Personal attacks or harassment))


The Easter126 was blocked infinit (Personal attacks or harassment), but the Admin reduces it to three month until jun. I suggest to set it again to infinit, cause this is a Sockpuppet / DUCK Schmitty (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, Stuart Styron has come up before, Schmitty. See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_80#Bert_Martinez_.282.29 and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_94#Stuart_Styron, you might like to check these out. The Stuart Styron page itself has been salted so nothing much is going to happen there. As it happens, I have an IP on my user page today asking about Stuart Styron, I've not responded yet. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalismusmeldung/Archiv/2016/04/10#Benutzer:2.243.198.61_.28erl..29_2 Banned for 1day in de:wp. He is trying to stalk me in german wikipedia, look at my userpage and userdisk https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer_Diskussion:Schmitty&action=history Schmitty (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
His contribs were fully deleted: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/2.243.198.61 Schmitty (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Those were my listings at COIN.
    • User:Fasterthanyou123 self disclosed as Stuart Styron, so a sock of User:Styron111 . Dormant, but both still should be blocked indef for socking/promo only IMHO, plus this widespread abuse from a big sockfarm.
    • User:Flashfox7 account name appears to be a play on my account name, and a clear sock. Dormant but should be blocked. Widefox; talk 09:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Of those listed by Schmitty, four have created pages (all deleted) about Stuart Styron: Ulla1956 (blocked indefinitely), Flashfox7, Easter126 (blocked 3 months) and Nature024. Fasterthanyou123, who has as you say self-identified as Styron, also edited the Stuart Styron page. Was your conclusion that there was meatpuppetry/paid editing at play here? The others are not registered, have not edited or, in the case of Styron111, made only two edits in 2011. None are currently active on en.wiki (in the cases of Ulla1956 and Easter126, this is not voluntary). Schmitty has opened a checkuser request on de.wiki and we can see how that pans out. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Thought we indef blocked socks? This is quite humdrum and melodramatic but not over yet: AFAIR, one person with at least three accounts, possibly with other accounts being meats from a promo company (use of "we" is probably not a English translation artifact but may be more of a royal we than a hint at group accounts/meats). Now, add IP duck sock of Styron User:2.244.158.181 - broken English, style of choosing the good path(TM), etc. COIN can be a bit toothless, but this drama keeps giving despite it being belatedly salted... Ad hominem and legal threats towards Schmitty and disruption of my usertalk [25] Widefox; talk 08:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
www.pressemitteilung-verteilen.com/wikipedia-deutschland-mit-benutzer-schmitty-ganz-weit-vorne Stalking in a bad way, in this PR you find a link to:
http://www.amazon.de/Die-Akte-Wikipedia-Informationen-Online-Enzyklop%C3%A4die/dp/386445123X/ref=pd_cp_14_2?ie=UTF8&refRID=19PY5TE21NHKGG28C81B
Amazon has already deleted this "Post", stating me as a Psychopath. The other PressArtikel is also deleted now.
You find the Links in conrtibutions of de:Benutzerin:Ulla1956; en:wp already blocked for legal threats, is now blocked on de:wp
Schmitty (talk) 11:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Here's an English translation of the www.pressemitteilung-verteilen.com link which is a dead link today [26] .Widefox; talk 14:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
http://www.pressemitteilung-verteilen.com/wikipedia-deutschland-polizei-ermittelt-gegen-benutzer-schmitty Stalking again Stalking at its best Schmitty (talk) 12:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, Stuart Styron has now been deleted. Seven times. Salt? (No idea who they are, but with the article gone, we don't have to do anything at WP:COIN). John Nagle (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Krisreeder10[edit]

Krisreeder10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I have my concerns about the editing of Krisreeder10. He seems to be almost only editing an article about himself in a promotional way. I have also found hime to be gaming the AFC system by creating and submitting drafts while logged out and logging in shortly afterwards to immediately accept the draft, as seen for instance here, here and here. Tvx1 19:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment) I have started having a heavy-handed go at weeding this garden. I have a lot of real-life stuff to do in the interim and so I may not be finished in one sitting. I could cut lots more information given the utter absence of third-party sources, but I will leave that for someone else, not to be lazy but so the author(s) can potentially recognize that I'm not on a one-human vendetta against Mr. Reeder (and that, at some level, I'm trying to help him out by making the article less off-putting for AFD reviewers). It will be interesting to see who reverts my changes. Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
(Non-admin comment)Is User:Krisgrayer10 the same editor? Dbfirs 21:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Likely. But I think it would need a SPI to confirm that. Nevertheless, these users don't appear to be here to build an encyclopedia but only to promote him/themsel(f)(ves)Tvx1 23:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Tvx1 22:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't think the article is Notable. It's specifically localised to a parish church in England. The source material is from the local newspaper only. AfD section. Nuro msg me 00:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Eyes on a situation re: Anmccaff[edit]

Could an uninvolved admin please have a look at a situation for me? Recently I've been working on Elizabeth Alexander (scientist) and it seems that User:Anmccaff has rather taken a dislike to the article in its present form, since its recent promotion to GA status by User:Keilana. I won't go into the arguments he's made, they're all available to see on the talk page and in the edit history, but I will say they are largely petty and/or obtuse. This, however, isn't my problem.

Anmccaff's attitude has made it very difficult to find consensus, if not impossible. He has insulted every editor on the talk page, even User:Bradv who appeared completely uninvolved to mediate. I'd be quite happy to list the insults if it helped, but I think anyone who pops to Talk:Elizabeth Alexander (scientist) will see what I'm talking about. He's also been tagging other unrelated articles I've written in an apparent attempt to bring the fight there too. This is despite the fact I've kept almost completely out of the discussion.

I nearly brought this here a few days ago due to the legally charged statements he made, "... are you refuting your borderline libel ..." and "made assertions about one of the cited authors that, in another context, might be actionable", creating a chilling effect, but my comments on his talk page appear to have stopped that. Whilst there, however, I found a long list of similar issues where the individual worked in a manner that discouraged collaboration, this isn't new behaviour.

Any eyes on the situation or suggestions for ways to move forward would be much appreciated. WormTT(talk) 19:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll check it out.--v/r - TP 19:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Would you like a response to this now, or do you want to look over the interaction history unfettered a bit first?
Just keep in mind as you do that I'd disagree with most of the assertions Worm That Turned has made above. Anmccaff (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
@Worm That Turned: Well, that was a lot of reading. I'll be frank with you, WormTT, I'm not seeing the actionable item. I saw you say you'd take action if you weren't involved, but I don't see to what. I'd definitely agree that Anmccaff's participation has been aggressive and confrontational and I'd strongly urge them to adapt a more collaborative editing behavior. But, I think this is largely a content issue. I think Anmccaff brings up enough of a concern to warrant questioning the GA status. But, I also think the dispute comes down to a difference in perception where I believe Anmccaff is simply wrong. Anmccaff appears to be approaching the article from something of a historical relativism point of view. What were Elizabeth Alexander's contributions at the time, how have they persisted, and what were her intentions at the time? To be honest, I don't think that matters in the context of an encyclopedia article about her. If you wanted to write about whether she has the moral right to claim the accomplishments that historians grant her, well, then we can discuss that. But, Wikipedia's point of view should be about what happened, and how did it have an impact on history. That's it. Whether she intended to be a radio-astronomer at all is immaterial. So, I'd agree with you on those points. Anmccaff spends a lot of time arguing about the meta-properties of this article and not much time discussing actual changes they'd like to make (short of repeated rants about the GA status). The comment on Headbomb recanting "libel" is purely disruptive and nonsense. It's not libel to consider the reliability of a source. That's some serious POV pushing and Anmccaff should be well warned to steer clear of that sort of rubbish argument. Another instance can and should be seen as making veiled legal threats to win a content dispute. But, short of that specific case - nothing actionable springs to mind. Sorry, bud. I'll keep an eye on the talk page for you.

(edit conflict)@Anmccaff: Based on your argumentative approach to the article talk space, I suspect that any response you have to this is going to hurt your case rather than help it. You'd be wise to accept my outside perspective and take the advice I've made above.--v/r - TP 20:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Appreciate you looking over it TParis. Perhaps a bit jaded and have read a little too much into things. I'll defer to your judgement, for the time being at least. WormTT(talk) 21:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've just read through the Talk Page, and were as Anmccaff is being excessively obtrusive & recalcitrant, followed by sarcasm that is completely irrelevant to the issues raised by Headbomb, I'll give them the 'good faith' required for now. They need to take the advice of TP on board, I would further suggest and strongly encourage. From my perspective of reading the argument, it is about semantics on her name and on her involvement, or lack there of, in one specific field of Scientific Endeavour. As I'm not going to put myself through a Degree in Science to familiarise myself with Radio Astronomy, one of my oldest friends is an Astrophysicist for the CSIRO (look it up) in Australia, formally of the Smithsonian and Harvard, so I will ask him at the football this afternoon. Nuro msg me 00:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
(Re "Semantics") no, not in the least, unless you are using the word in the original sense. A person who publishes a certain way, like J. B. S. Haldane, should be prominently noted as that, even if his close friends might have called him "Jack." Dr Alexander had a long and varied career, heavily involved in geology, & soil science, but with notable wartime work in radiometeorology, radio antenna design &cet, and, briefly, investigating solar interference with radar. Almost all of the article is concentrated on a very small part of her life, and mostly from a Guinness-World-Records viewpoint, with a little gender wars thrown in: was she the "first woman in radioastronomy?!!!!?" This is like writing an article on G. H. W. Bush, and spending most of it on when he was shot down, mentioning in passing that he was "involved in business and government service." Anmccaff (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
I can see your point, but you should have been as concise in the Talk Page. I would also agree that the persons Professional name should be the Title of the page. I would then suggest that the article be expanded to cover the more relevant Scientific parts of her career/life, if the primary element of the content is about the GBoWR, which to me is bizarre. And if this has been attempted, which is not how I read the arguments in the talk page that have been raised (though I could have misread that) , well........ Nuro msg me 01:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Nahh, the GBoWR is a figure-of-speech, not literal. The article concentrates on an episode where you can make the case that she was the first at something...or the first woman. Bar-bet history. I think another big problem is that too many Wiki writers are about...12, by the look of it, and only know online resources, really, so the only info they'll see is online stuff, which does generally use her familiar name, Elizabeth.
Do you mind me moving this to the article talk page? Anmccaff (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
No, but the original person who posted here may have a different view, as they are looking for oversight. But if you are asking me to come over to the talk page and contribute, then yes, that's fine. Nuro msg me 01:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
PS: when you run into the fellow from the CSIRO, mention to him that Wiki doesn't even have an article on Bob Unwin. Or Alan Maxwell, or.... Anmccaff (talk) 01:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Weird goings on at Edward Beck (psychologist)[edit]

IP blocked for legal threats, article redirected in his memory (non-admin closure) Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 11:21, 18 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.

Edward Beck (psychologist), as an article, has had issues, including a history of CoI editing by the user Dredbeck (talk · contribs), who seems to be affiliated with or is the subject. We were able to get it cleaned up and expanded enough to avert my AFD request, but there's other suspicious activity going on. Prior to the AFD, the article was moved per an OTRS ticket, only claiming that it is "illegal to use the term psychologist" (although, contravening the OTRS request, the article was moved back to using "psychologist" as disambiguation). And now the user claiming to be Beck left a paragraph calling us out for "mis-editing" the page and so forth.

Anyone want to take a closer look at this? ViperSnake151  Talk  16:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me how using psychologist as a disambiguation has any legal ramifications? We call him a psychologist in the first sentence - is that illegal too? Sam Walton (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
It is unlawful for anyone in the US to call themselves a psychologist if they do not have the relevant qualifications Psychologist#United States and Canada. And, since someone (presumably Beck) regards it contentious to call Beck a psychologist, WP:BLP tells us to removed any unsourced claim immediately. I understand that people should not be making legal threats but we should not be maintaining the description "psychologist" unless it is cited in the article. The categorisation is also inappropriate. Thincat (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I have temporarily removed the claims that may be incorrect but I hope someone can now take the article forward. I have left title in one of the references describing him as a psychologist because I dare say that is a correct citation even if it is an incorrect claim. Thincat (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Huh, wasn't aware of that. Fair enough then, this seems reasonable. Sam Walton (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Legal threat 2[edit]

here? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 17:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

(Just noticed the report above- this is connected to that.) Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 17:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion, this is a legal threat. "I may sue if he she/continues." Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} 17:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Blocked, clear legal threat. Sam Walton (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Aside from the clear legal threat, does his underlying complaint have any merit, are there sources to verify that he is indeed a psychologist? This is self-published, but it doesn't indicate that he has ever represented himself as a psychologist, but rather a professor or assistant professor.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
    • It looks like the concerns of the subject have been address already through editing. I recommend E.M.Gregory (talk · contribs) NOT move the page back like they did previously. I believe the confusion arose because of a citation from the Cleveland Jewish News citation referring to the subject as a 'psychology professor'.--v/r - TP 21:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I just added his degree to the article. He got an Ed.D See Training and licensing of clinical psychologists. He's not a psychologist. I find it ironic that this mediator person went all nuclear on us. Whatever. Jytdog (talk) 09:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I turned it into a redirect since all the sources are about the organisation not about him, and frankly we don't need this shit. Guy (Help!) 09:39, 18 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.

Crazy socks[edit]

Socks are blocked; CU requested over at the SPI to find sleepers. (non-admin closure) GABHello! 00:28, 19 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.

Note:

Socks of this guy

Thanks for your help!— Andy W. (talk · contrib) 00:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks like they're all blocked, Andy. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:21, 19 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.

Shashohag[edit]

Filer reports that the issue has been handled. (non-admin closure) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:00, 19 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.

it's getting to be tiring fixing Shashohag's repeated removal of speedy templates.... HappyValleyEditor (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

ALl their pages and reverts are gone, thank you admins.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 21:28, 18 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.

New socks of Special:Contributions/United Kingdom referendum on the British membership in the European Union[edit]

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.

— Andy W. (talk · contrib) 21:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks like it's  Done Thanks — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 21:33, 18 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.

Sock #6[edit]

sock blocked; I hear to file these at AIV in the future, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:59, 19 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.

Following on the last report, a new sock, User:Tedsmobilepulpit. Per contribs, behaving just like the last. Please indef. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Might it be smart to file this at WP:SPI as well? RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
There is an open case already, tangled up with another. I am in the process of splitting it out manually now. SPI seems backlogged, fwiw. Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Gotcha, I noted that SPI seemed a bit backed up at the moment as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Now split out: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Biscuittin. I am also filing these ANIs because this sock is causing acute disruption and ANI is generally the fastest way to get them blocked. Jytdog (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hmmm, clearing some. --QEDK (TC) 19:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
It's like playing whack-a-mole, and this one has been whacked. You can report these at AIV for faster action – that's where most of the vandalism admins prefer to see block evasion/socking. Just link to the SPI report. :-) Katietalk 19:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I hate se