Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive932

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

The Relationship between Tyranny and Arms Control[edit]

The AFD close has been confirmed by multiple uninvolved people, the article has been userfied (although it's now at MFD, which strikes me as unnecessary right now), and (this is important and isn't given enough weight sometimes) there is no rational reason to spend this much time arguing a clearly correct decision over and over and over and over when the userfied article is still available to edit. Polythesis, I'll answer any questions you have about this - within reason! - on your talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:42, 25 August 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 light of this thread, could someone uninvolved take a look at my closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Relationship between Tyranny and Arms Control—the article in question is now userified at User:Polythesis/The Relationship between Tyranny and Arms Control. If any admin genuinely feels that this was an inappropriate use of the snowball clause, I expressly consent for anyone to overturn my admin actions, either by re-opening the AFD, or moving the article back to mainspace and re-nominating it for a fresh AFD discussion. ‑ Iridescent 18:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I obviously am involved with this, as I nominated the article for deletion. My concern is mainly with the author of the page. Their WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, and constant mentions of censorship set off red flags to me. Additionally, I'm wondering if I haven't seen this type of behavior before from another, now blocked editor, but I could be mistaken. On the Draft talk page I did give a few recommendations, however I'm not sure if these were even considered. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Looks like a perfectly good close to me, and I would have done the same. There is absolutely no point wasting a large number of editor's time on arguing about the deletion of something that is obviously not a viable Wikipedia article. Also, we have been here before (and indeed to ArbCom) on the same subject in the Gun Control article. Black Kite (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
(From the talk page at AN)- I would like to be able to comment on this Incident: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#The_Relationship_between_Tyranny_and_Arms_Control I brought this incident up with the administrator who created the incident report, and he took the matter out of my hands by pre-emptively filing the incident report against himself, and now I can't even comment because the page is protected. Why is that? Polythesis (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Iridescent did not file the report against themselves; rather, they decided to ask fellow admins on their thoughts. The ANI page is not protected anymore. GABgab 19:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Please respond to my completely legitimate concerns in a respectful and thoughtful way, Iridescent. Explain to me how you define "unanimous delete consensus". Does my opinion not count? How can it be either unanimous or consensus if the author of the article was opposed to the deletion? How were the editors who voted to delete the page selected to participate in the debate? Why were no editors who are in favor of the inclusionist philosophy allowed to express their views and cast their vote? Do you honestly think that there are not many other editors who would oppose the deletion if they were aware that it had been proposed and they had the opportunity to participate in the AfD debate? Thank you for posting the original article where I can edit it and reference it. I am grateful for that, but obviously I strongly disagree with your decision to delete the article (which I believe was unethical and contrary to your responsibilities as an administrator), as well as with the decision making process, with the jury selection, and with what seems to be an attempt to unjustifiably censor an article on one of the most popular webpage's on earth, which was created specifically to allow and facilitate the free flow of information and the collection and dissemination of all human knowledge, including knowledge and information related to the article I created, which was my first article by the way. This experience has been very disappointing for me, and it has dramatically changed my views of wikipedia in a very negative way. (And by the way, I am a very well educated and respected political scientist, a political writer and activist, and a military veteran who was responsible for health and safety for thousands of soldiers, not some crazy person conspiracy theorist as you have portrayed me in some of your previous comments.)Polythesis (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Consensus does not require the article writer to agree, and it is based on which opinions are given on the AfD page, not which ones we would like to see. I agree that the consensus in that discussion was to delete the article. It seems like you mistook Wikipedia as a place to publish an essay about how arms control leads to tyranny - there is a difference between an essay and an encyclopedia article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

And also please explain why the article was deleted. Some of these questions and comments were asked/posted on your talk page but were never answered, so they will be repeated here. You were extremely vague in your explanation of why you deleted the article, Iridescent. Simply saying that it does not conform to Wikipedia's standards is grossly insufficient. Because it was taking up too much time for you to refute the article's right to exist is not a viable reason for deleting it, especially since not one person during the discussion was able to explain why they thought it was not neutral, what about it was not neutral, or what other policies you think it violated, and since the sources provided prove that the article is not original research. If it was taking up so much time, then why not just stop trying to delete it unless you have a very good reason to delete it, which you do not. Why exactly do you think it should be deleted? How could anyone in the Wikipedia community possibly benefit by deleting this article?Polythesis (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

To answer your questions in order: (1) as a consensus that was unanimous (that the author of the article is against deletion goes without saying); (2) the participants aren't selected in any way; (3) "editors who are in favor of the inclusionist philosophy" is a misunderstanding, since this is not a question of "inclusionism" and "deletionism" and even the most die-hard believers in 'every topic is notable' wouldn't support keeping an article which violates core Wikipedia policies to the degree this did; (4) No, the only effect of keeping the debate open would be more delete votes. (And I entirely stand by "conspiracy theorist", given that this topic more so than almost any other will determine the survival of freedom of democracy, with the possible exception of the free flow of ideas and information, which is also threatened by your attempts to delete this article is a direct quote from you.) ‑ Iridescent 19:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The close was sound. If this is what ya'll have been dealing with, then my commiserations.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

What makes you think it was an essay and not an encyclopedic article, talk? How were you selected/notified to participate in AfD debate? What is your definition of an essay versus an encyclopedia article? My definition and Wikipedia's definition is that it is an essay if it my personal opinion, as where it is an encyclopedic article if it is a statement of facts and the views of various experts as stated in reliable published articles. My article was the latter, an article, not an essay. There is a very real, objective, measurable relationship between arms control and tyranny, and that relationship has been known and written about by hundreds of philosophers, writers, politicians and human rights activists fur thousands of years, as is accurately stated in the first of the two sentence in the article. And yes, consensus does require the author of the article to agree. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with what the word consensus means. If I don't agree, then we don't have consensus. According to Wikipedia policies, articles may not be deleted if the deletion would be controversial. If I object to the deletion, then it is controversial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polythesis (talkcontribs) 19:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I can answer some of those questions Polythesis, they're more or less easily explained in some cases.
  • Q1:" Explain to me how you define "unanimous delete consensus". Does my opinion not count? How can it be either unanimous or consensus if the author of the article was opposed to the deletion?" <- it's not exactly unanimous, however, consensus is decided by considering the policy based merits of each individual vote. If there are five delete votes which explain themselves well, they will inevitably trump a single or couple keep votes.
  • Q2:"How were the editors who voted to delete the page selected to participate in the debate?" <- they weren't, the participants would have found the AfD discussion either through their watchlist, notifications for certain wikiprojects, WP:AfD, or other venue.
  • Q3:"Do you honestly think that there are not many other editors who would oppose the deletion if they were aware that it had been proposed and they had the opportunity to participate in the AfD debate?" <- I can only address part of this question, again, majority of experienced contributors are aware of AfD and how it works, a lack of votes can indicate disinterest (but many other possibilities exist).
There is no jury selection at AfD, I could pop onto the page and just vote on every single entry there, I highly recommend against this. "unjustifiably censor", I see this comment a lot, and, almost never used appropriately. "collection and dissemination of all human knowledge" <- nope, not at all. If it were for all human knowledge we'd have many billions of articles not millions, there are certain topics that are on Wikipedia and many, many, more that aren't and should not be (a general example would be non-notable people; if the .en Wiki's 5 million or so articles were all biographies how many billions do you think would still need to be written for those alive now and all those who have passed before). "This experience has been very disappointing for me", unfortunately, this sometimes happens, it's just one of the things you need to get used to. Opinions differ and thus, so do outcomes. There's nothing else here to respond to that I can see, hopefully that clarifies at least how the AfD process works. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Which policies are you claiming the article violated? If the participants in the debate are not chosen in any way, then how and why did these particular participants get involved in the debate, and why were just a few of the millions of people who find this topic notable and worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia not represented in the debate, and why was the debate closed so quickly, before anyone other than me had an opportunity to argue in favor of not deleting the article? Was there some time limit that no one informed me of? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polythesis (talkcontribs) 19:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

People who didn't comment on an AfD simply didn't comment on an AfD. Everybody is free to comment as they care, and they need to be on Wikipedia. I care about such things as Coropuna and Cerro Blanco (volcano), but not everyone does, to take an example. Also, a lot of the sources you cite do not actually say that "arms control leads to tyranny" - using such sources to justify an article on the topic violates WP:SYNTH. And again, please consider the possibility that you might be wrong. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The AfD close looks good to me - there was no way it was going to end up as anything other than a Delete if left open for longer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
If "millions of people find this topic notable" why have none of them come to support you? The delete was fine. --Tarage (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course I could be wrong, but I am not. Did you read the sources Jo-Jo Eumerus? Are you familiar with the subject of either arms control or tyranny? Are you familiar with the views of Aristotle, Hamilton and Stephen Halbrook on the relationship between tyranny and arms control? It does not sound like you are, yet you voted for deletion as if you knew that the sources did not discuss a topic which in fact they do discuss specifically. I am very, very familiar with these topics. I have written about these topics extensively, but I did not cite any of my own views because I know that would be against Wikipedia policies. The sources I referenced may say something like "arms were seized to establish tyranny" (Aristotle, paraphrased for expediency), or "private ownership of arms guarantees freedom" (Jefferson and Hamilton, also paraphrased) rather than the specific phrase "relationship between tyranny and arms control", but that does not mean that I synthesized different sources to reach that conclusion; those were the exact conclusions of the original sources, in slightly different wording, which is why they wrote the sources I cited. A source is not required to have the same wording as the title of the article for the article to not be considered original research; the requirement is that the sources reach the conclusion that the article is about even if the wording varies. If you were not familiar with the relationship between tyranny and arms control, if those topics are foreign to you and you have no interest in them or the sources, then I would suggest you recuse yourself from the debate, rather than voting to delete an article because you thought it was original research or synthesis, when in reality you were just not familiar with the topic or the sources, and that is why you thought it was original or synthesized, Jo-Jo Eumerus.Polythesis (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I would like to know the answer to that question as well, Tarage . The only possible answer is that the AfD process is very flawed. The problem is that there is no jury selection. There should be. What it appears happened was that five users who were not familiar with the topic being discussed and perhaps not familiar with the policies that pertain to the AfD process randomly happened to involve themselves with the debate, perhaps because they were bored, or maybe because they wanted to increase their stats as an editor. When they should have carefully analyzed the policy, the arguments of the author, and the sources before reaching a conclusion, instead they voted to delete a very important article that had every right to exists, that was in compliance with Wikipedia policies, and that has an enormous bearing on the fate of human civilization and even the survival of wikipedia itself, without understanding what they were doing or the long term ramifications of their actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polythesis (talkcontribs) 20:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

What do you hope to accomplish by deleting my article Jo-Jo Eumerus, RickinBaltimore and Iridescent? I can list hundreds of reasons why you shouldn't and negative consequences if you do, some of them a matter of life and death. What benefit could there possibly be for deleting it though? Saving a few bytes of space on a server? Exerting power over a dedicated public servant by censoring his work? Entertainment? Why have you done this? I spent much of my day yesterday and today defending this article. I am prepared to spend the next year doing so, because I know how important this topic is, and I know millions of people could lose their freedom and their lives if I allow this topic to be censored. And just to clarify, the definition of censorship "the act of a person who examines books, movies, letters, etc., and removes things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society, etc."[1][2], which is exactly what you are doing, with the possible exception that your motives may differ, because rather than considering my work to be harmful to society, you merely consider it to be not "encyclopedic" enough, which is a made up word that essentially means that you want to delete my article for some reason that you have not really articulated, maybe because you are opposed to the discussion of the topic, or you have no interest in it, or because you like to delete other people's work just for the sake of deleting it, I don't know, because you never explained your intentions, other than citing policies that clearly do not apply to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polythesis (talkcontribs) 20:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Am I the only who has had enough with these false accusations?! If you do so again, you will be warned about WP:NPA. No, I wasn't bored or wanted to raise my edit count. Okay?! I find that statement very insulting. Your article was deleted because it violated numerous policies. Deal with it. It has nothing to do with our acknowledgement of the subject. Policy always comes first, whether you like it or not. You have a battleground mentality and have no intention of dropping of the stick. I suggest you do so right now. You can get blocked for that. Since you are still adamant that it should belong on Wikipedia, I suggest that you work on the draft and work from there. Arguing will not get you anywhere. Enough is enough. And may please ask you to stop writing WP:TLDR comments? It's incredibly long and you're just repeating the same questions. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} 20:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Note: The userspace draft has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Polythesis/The Relationship between Tyranny and Arms Control. --Finngall talk 20:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I tried, in a discussion here, to engage Polythesis regarding why they could not work on the draft. This approach was seconded by Toddst1. Polythesis refused to engage us in that discussion. I remain confused as to why Polythesis feels it necessary to argue so vociferously in favor of keeping a badly formed article when such effort could be better expended on developing a good, working draft. The AfD was appropriately closed per the snowball close in WP:SPEEDYCLOSE. I too would have recommended deleting, but was withholding commenting on the AfD pending Polythesis' response to my query, a response which never happened. Now, we have the creator of the article insisting we are all wrong, insisting the AfD process is badly broken, that the people voting to delete are not knowledgeable on the subject, the same people are not familiar with policies, were bored, wanted to increase their stats as an editor, the article is very important (indeed, apparently fundamental the very survival of freedom and democracy [1]), and now the survival of Wikipedia itself. Polythesis, if you are that concerned about the survival of Wikipedia, democracy, and freedom then I'm convinced you will throw your best work into the draft article. Stop attacking all of us and get to work. I look forward to the excellent encyclopedia draft you will produce. You may wish to read Wikipedia:Your first article as a primer. I invite questions from you on my talk page that you may have about creating the draft. However, further hyperbole is a non-starter, and criticizing the character of your fellow Wikipedians as you have already done is flat unacceptable. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

− So you claim to be knowledgeable on this subject Hammersoft? Name for me one single democracy in history that was established without either arms of the threat of arms? Explain to me how this democracy came into being and how it was maintained without the ability to defend itself from tyranny? Criticizing character is necessary when it is lacking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polythesis (talkcontribs) 20:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

  • This noticeboard is not a place to discuss the merits of an article draft and its content. This discussion is now closed. As I noted, I invite your non-hyperbolic, non-WP:NPA violating questions on my talk page. The issue here, of whether the AfD closure was proper, has closed with affirming the correct decision was made. No further commentary here is needed. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:48, 25 August 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.
  • FTR, OP blocked as an IP's SPA. EEng 01:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Spreadofknowledge[edit]

Having originally intended to final-warn the editor, I went to their talkpage and found that had already occurred, and they had previously been blocked for 48h for similar issues. I have therefore blocked them for a week, with a reminder that further problems may result in increasing blocks. Black Kite (talk) 12:48, 25 August 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.

Spreadofknowledge accused other editors of being racist. He has been warned and blocked for this previously. Given recent unsupported claims and his general editing history, I strongly believe this user is not here to help improve the encyclopedia but to push an agenda. Can an admin please take appropriate action? Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 10:33, 25 August 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 keeps adding copyvio to Maulvi Ghulam Rasool Alampuri[edit]

User appears to have stopped after being warned. SQLQuery me! 18:03, 27 August 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.

Yesterday I ran across a page with a large obvious copyvio and I CSDed it because I thought it was new diff [2]. My bad obviously. I removed the CSD and restored it to the last version that seemed to be free of copyvios diff [3]. I didn't warn the person who added it at this time.

It popped up on my watchlist later as having had a large amount of text added diff[4]. So I again put it back to the last good version and palced a warning on the user's Syedtalhabinsaleem (talk · contribs) talk page diff [5].

They added the text back with an edit summary that said This information is not copyrighted .. this is verified and full comprehensive information by Maulvi Ghulam Rasool Alampuri Organization ..Dont Revert this page please ... you are doing wrong. Even though the page they are repeatedly C&Ping from clearly has a copyright notice at the bottom. http://alampuri-research.org/english/about_poet.php

Short verstion:

Removed, hidden and user warned that if they do it again they will be blocked. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:24, 25 August 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.

Albuquerque, New Mexico[edit]

(non-admin closure) Everything has been fixed by JJMC89. Many thanks. MarnetteD|Talk 08:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An IP 6 editor cut and paste moved the above named article to just Albuquerque and then redirected the former to the latter. Can someone with the appropriate rights please fix? Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 04:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

2602:304:CF42:3320:F070:88:C951:720F (talk · contribs) is the IP that messed things up. MarnetteD|Talk 05:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Reverted by JJMC89; if the move is still needed nominate the redirect for speedy deletion--Ymblanter (talk) 08:36, 25 August 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.

Inappropriate User page content[edit]

JGabbard (talk · contribs)

The extensive rant on this editor's user page, entitled Protesting abuses!, is probably inappropriate on Wikipedia per WP:USER. Admins probably want to have a look at this. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

He sounds like a refugee of the John Birch Society. But if you hadn't brought it here, would anyone even know or care about it? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
They listed Wikipedia but forgot to specifically mention admins. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Gosh, it's been years since I saw someone blathering about our precious bodily fluids. I'd almost forgotten that one. EEng 13:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
"Let's make America great again" (?) Martinevans123 (talk) 13:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Well at least the Admins are having a look/laugh at it :>). That is what I asked for (I suppose). As you can see, although I have some years on Wikipedia, I am still "green" when it comes to some things. areas ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Based on this seems to be not a big deal, I have no problem in closing this thread as resolved. So, please do so. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Free-for-all at Mannathoor Wilson[edit]

Resolved. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC) Reopened, salt applied, re-resolved. Thanks due to Anna Frodesiak for the extra janitoring. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:35, 25 August 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.

Mannathoor Wilson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) I am not sure if this is a BLP or ancient history. The (unsourced at the moment) article is being edited in rather rapid succession by a number of IPs and a few registered users. I have added a db-a7 and BLP unsourced which were quickly removed. I don't know if the article should be page protected or deleted. Not sure who to notify, if anyone. Jim1138 (talk) 08:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know what else to do but delete it as a test page. It didn't google, it was full of fiction. It looked like a hoax. Anyhow, it is gone now. I hope this is okay with everyone. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Its back and in equally poor condition. May need salting. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Sufficient salt added. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Disruptive IP address on "List of natural horror films"[edit]

There is an IP address account on the article List of natural horror films, identified as 67.81.107.101, who recently has become rather disruptive. They have continually insisted that the article does not require citations of any kind, and the only information they have shown to back up this point is a consensus in the past that concluded that the article's sources should be removed (because they were all simply IMDb links at the time). More recently, this IP user has been removing the article's tag that notes its lack of clear inclusion criteria, which is a major problem with the page as a whole.

In both cases, this IP user and I have ventured dangerously far into edit-warring-territory, and the latter incident is ongoing. I wish to prevent such disruption from happening further, as the article's lack of inclusion criteria is a problem that the user continues to ignore and challenge without evidence. Furthermore, as seen here, the IP user told me, in regards to reliable sources, to "get them yourself", which I believe falls under WP:BURDEN. Thank you for reading, and though conflict is annoying, I hope something can be done to prevent disruption until that page is able to be properly managed. –Matthew - (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

  • You are required to notify the other editor of this discussion. I have done this for you. Katietalk 22:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
    • My apologies; I didn't know that. –Matthew - (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm going to protect the page for 3 days to avoid him continuing to edit war and to give the discussion a chance to progress. A look shows that it is unsourced, so the tag is not unwarranted. I also need to note that unsourced does not automatically mean non-notable and in this situation there should be something to show that the list claim (ie, a natural based horror as the main antagonist) is legitimate. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • It looks like there needs to also be a discussion on the parameters of the page, as there are creatures listed that I personally would not put under the banner of "natural horror" based on description that was on the page. For example, I don't know that an extraterrestrial monster like the Cloverfield monster would count, given that it's from outer space and not from planet earth. There's also discussion on the article talk page that says that there are films on the list that are not categorized as horror, as they're considered to be action (or whatnot). Whether these films should be included - and what sourcing would be required to do this - should also be discussed. Honestly, that's sort of the reason why the page would need to be sourced. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Blacklist request for Domenick Nati (again)[edit]

Done SQLQuery me! 18:05, 27 August 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.

Back in April, I requested here on ANI that the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist have a rule added blocking articles about Domenick Nati being written, as User:JellyfishFilms has been an incredibly persistent sockpuppeteer who keeps recreating the article (see the SPI archive). At that time, the rule .*domenick.*?natt?i.* was added to the blacklist. However, JellyfishFilms has gotten around this block by using alternate spellings such as Domenic Nati, Dom Nati, and Dominic Nati. Thus, I'd like to request that the rule be tweaked to .*\bdom.*?\bnatt?i\b.*, which would cover all those names and hopefully any future variants (although I can't say I'll be surprised if he dodges this with yet another goofy misspelling of his name). I added the word boundaries (\b) to prevent this from being too overbearing (without them, it would block words like "domination").

Another measure that could be taken to stop this would be to add Domenick Nati's website, www.naticelebs.com, to the spam blacklist. I can't find it anywhere, but if there's any blacklist that exists for blocking specific text content from articles, that could also be useful, as the article has been word-for-word exactly the same every time the sockpuppeteer has re-created it. -IagoQnsi (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Regex looks good to me, though the .*'s are a little greedy. \bdom.*?\bnatt?i\b will probably suffice, as it'll catch your above test cases (and a couple I've tested) -- samtar talk or stalk 17:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
@Samtar: Some of the past titles JellyfishFilms has used include Domenick Nati Jr and Domenick Nati II, so it'd probably be best to keep the .* on the end. I guess the one at the front could be removed for now, though I wouldn't be too surprised if we see a "Mr. Domenick Nati" article created after that. -IagoQnsi (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I would urge you to make a spam blacklist request in the appropriate place as it will at least temporarily disrupt JellyfishFilms and the link is not in legitimate use on WP. I'll leave more expert people to discuss precise titleblacklist regexes. BethNaught (talk) 18:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 Done at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#naticelebs.com -IagoQnsi (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Title blacklist adjusted. The website has been blacklisted. MER-C 05:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
@MER-C: Thanks, but it looks like you removed the word boundaries (\b) from the regex. This makes the pattern really over-reaching -- currently, you cannot use the word "domination" in a page title. Could you please change it to .*\bdom.*?\bnatt?i\b.*? Thanks, IagoQnsi (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Done. MER-C 00:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
@MER-C: Hey uh, it looks like you only added one of the word boundaries instead of all three of them -- words like "domination" will still be blocked by that. Could you change it to exactly what I put in my previous note? Thanks, IagoQnsi (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 Done Black Kite (talk) 16:36, 26 August 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.

Recent Behavior by Parsley Man[edit]

Issue resolved. --Neutralitytalk 03:39, 26 August 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.

Recently, Parsley Man opened the AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Pennsylvania State Police Barracks attack seeking for it to be deleted. I !voted keep, and engaged in discussion, to be responded to multiple times in what I would consider an uncivil tone. I noticed that this diff [6] looked like a logged out IP address given that one of the two other edits the IP address had was also on a contentious AfD that Parsley Man was a part of in April [7], and reported it here at SPI. I notified him on his talk page of this and he admitted to the sock puppetry while accusing me of POV pushing [8]. After that he posted on my talk page saying "Hope your happy" [9] and then asking for me not to have him banned and to remove the SPI entry [10]. Additionally, he has changed his comments on the SPI investigation to remove the somewhat uncivil initial comment, and apologize and ask not to be banned again [11]

In addition to this, he has asked for the AfD to be closed, but went ahead and merged/redirected one of the pages involved in the AfD discussion to the other [12] [13]. While this had been mentioned as a possible outcome in the AfD, consensus was not clear on this, and not letting the AfD run its course to achieve consensus around the issue appears to be disruptive to me,

While I think Parsley Man is trying to do what is right after the SPI was opened, I think in general the edits are disruptive and slightly uncivil, and that it was worth bringing here to have uninvolved admins review it. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

No comment on the sockpuppetry or other issues, but I noticed that what TonyBallioni calls "uncivil" (per his own initial response) appears to be this. That doesn't look especially uncivil to me, nor do any of the other "multiple times" that were taken as being uncivil. I'd hate to think what would happen if someone who thinks using the words "plagiarized", "superfluous" and "unacceptable" is a violation of WP:CIVIL tried wading into a legitimately controversial topic are like films based on American comic books or the Israel/Palestine dispute. Hijiri 88 (やや) 08:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, and certainly agree that all the terms you used are acceptable. I wasn't talking about the plagiarism or other legitimate concerns about the article but rather the tone of being told "Please review" X twice in short responses. That came off as a condescending tone to me, with the implication being that because my views on wP:ONEEVENT were different than his, I hadn't read it. That along with being accused on POV pushing for asking what he later admitted was a sock to be looked into, and the use of ":P " and having a post on my talkpage that says "Happy now" "Hope you're happy" with a crying emoticon only, to me comes off as disrespectful and just further trying to escalate the situation. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Meh. People say "please review X" to me all the time, and I usually take it as a sincere request that I review X. In fact, WP:AGF requires me to take it like that in most circumstances. And I don't see anything in the above-linked AFD to indicate that this is not one of those circumstances.
That said, double-dipping on logging out to "double-vote" in an AFD is a pretty serious offense. Since the damage is done and since PM has indicated that he will not do so again, I am not sure exactly how to deal with this. A final warning? "If you ever log out in order to cast two !votes in a discussion again, you will be site-banned"-kinda thing?
Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Agreed on the AGF point. I typically try to do this, and where I have fallen short here, I apologize. The civility discussion was not my main concern here, as much as the behavior after he admitted to using the IP to double-vote. At the time, it seemed at best erratic, and looking back it still comes off to me in that way. Probably caused out of fear of being banned, which is not something I am advocating. The premature redirect and merge [14] [15], was my biggest concern and I wanted an admin who was not involved to review it so it didn't evolve into some version of an edit war. Someone elase has already reverted those edits. My suggestion would be a final warning type-thing that you suggested, and also a request/warning that there be no disruptive editting at the pages involved at this AfD until it is closed by an administrator. Again, thanks for your help and sorry for any AGF issues on my end. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I doesn't seem that PM had voted while logged in on either AfD where he voted as an IP. Given, on one he was the nom, but I don't believe there's anything preventing a nom from voting on their own submission, it's just redundant, and he should strike or sign his own comment to make it clear it is him. Seems like the most parsimonious answer is that they forgot to log in on a different device.TimothyJosephWood 12:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

No, in the earlier AFD he was not the nominator, but cast two !votes, one[16] logged in and one[17] logged out. It seems pretty obvious that he intended to the same thing again, but was found out. Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Missed it. Good catch. TimothyJosephWood 13:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Note that I've closed the SPI with a one week block for Parsley Man.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Per PM's block and his interaction on his talk page seeming to be okay with cooling down, I'm fine with closing this. Like I said above, my main concern about opening it was that there was a premature redirect in merge befor AfD could play out, and since the issue seems to have been resolved, I don't think anything else is neccesary. Thanks to all for their help. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:34, 25 August 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 madness at Katie and Orbie[edit]

The page Katie and Orbie has been semiprotected by Drmies and an IP block has been placed. -- Dane2007 talk 00:28, 27 August 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.

For some reason, a single user has been persistently editing disruptively on Katie and Orbie by adding disorganized information, claiming that his edits are "better," and that the article "doesn't need to be organized." The user in question has been using the following IP addresses:

  • 107.77.233.56
  • 107.77.234.167
  • 166.137.99.179
  • 107.77.235.215
  • 107.77.236.80
  • 107.77.233.27
  • 107.77.236.130
  • 107.77.236.109

At one point, the article was semi-protected to stop the socking/vandalism, but after the protection expired, the user continued to make the same reckless edits over and over again without discussing on the talk page. I made a request on the talk page for indefinite semi-protection, but to no avail. Some of the user's IPs were blocked, but he keeps coming back with more IPs.--Loyalmoonie (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Chris

  • I blocked an IP and, after looking at it again, semiprotected the article for three months. Those edits are terrible; I wouldn't call them vandalism, but they are certainly disruptive. Drmies (talk) 17:41, 25 August 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.

Single purpose account continually recreating deleted article[edit]

The page has been salted to prevent re-creation. The page went through a full AfD and a deletion review process that affirmed the deletion decision. Filmfan655321 is cautioned to refrain from attempting to re-create the article and is advised not to make further personal attacks (i.e., calling another editor a liar). Neutralitytalk 04:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The article Blake Fitzpatrick was deleted after an AfD discussion. The deletion review for that discussion ended with clear consensus to endorse the AfD result. Now the article's author User:Filmfan655321, a single purpose account whose contributions all revolve around this non-notable film maker, is continually re-creating the article. I'm therefore requesting that this article be deleted again under WP:CSD G4 to uphold the result of the deletion discussion, and that it be salted to put a stop to this ongoing disruption. Thanks. Reyk YO! 01:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Orangemike deleted and salted the article in question. Unless there's further disruption, it looks like we're done here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
The Afd discussion did not end with a clear consensus. Reyk lied through the whole undelete procedure. I have also contributed to another page, so this is moot. Just Reyk lying again. Filmfan655321 (talk) 03:10, 26 August 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.

Legal Threat on my talk page[edit]

(non-admin closure) Editor blocked by Widr indefinitely for making legal threats. Dat GuyTalkContribs 17:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

See here: [18]. User has been notified. I'm sure this is a kid who is upset I tagged their page for deletion, but per WP:NLT bringing it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RickinBaltimore (talkcontribs)

Added unsigned tag RickinBaltimore, hope you don't mind. Dat GuyTalkContribs 17:14, 26 August 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.

Incivility at Talk: Ajax (play)[edit]

Persistent incivility by User:DionysosProteus at Talk:Ajax (play) § Sophocles' or Sophocles's?, in the form of: refusing to give details[19][20][21] about sources that the user claimed to possess[22], and which would help substantiate the user's claims, even after several requests[23][24][25]; responding to requests with ridicule ("these idiocies",[26] "this idiotic behaviour" and "nonsense"[27]); and various forms of condescension ("Try not to be stupid about it",[28] "use your head",[29] "get a grip"[30]).

After a message was left at user's talk page pointing to Wikipedia's civility policy and emphasizing the need to cooperate with other editors[31] (later amended[32]), user wrote a rambling message on the article talk page where the dispute originated, dismissive of the concerns I raised there, in which I personally was accused of various forms of impropriety ("you have belabored so preposterously", "little indication that you have any real interest in improving the article") as well as having my mental state questioned ("you were confused").[33] Further edits on user's talk page included personal taunting in an edit summary ("what is wrong with you?"[34]) and the inability or refusal to "get the point" about fragmented talk page discussions,[35] after a message was posted there pointing to the relevant section of the talk page guidelines.[36]Coconutporkpie (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Reading the conversation you are rather pedantic. That's not really an excuse though I do understand their response to you.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Essentially you sealioned someone over a basic (as in, taught in secondary/high school) grammar issue which is already covered by the MOS. That someone was incivil to you is a result of you not dropping the stick and backing away from the horse... Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I think you'd better check your definition of sealioning. As the talk page shows, I was the one who started the thread by asking for information. The user in question responded with a vague statement about what's "standard in most literature", apparently[37][38] using a duplicate account. When pressed for details, the user provided a link that didn't actually substantiate the claim. When this was challenged, the user got irritable and very quickly moved to condescension and insults. Also, what MOS says was made clear early in the discussion – this was a question about verifiability as much as punctuation. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
You asked a question and I answered it. I wasn't aware I was signed in on that account at the time. You persisted, so I provided a link that answered exactly what you'd asked (the very first result of the search demonstrates it) and I invited you to do the work of satisying your curiousity about the absolutely minor and inconsequential point yourself, having seen how you'd wasted other editors' time previously. You insisted I do the searching for you. I wasn't prepared to do so, for the same reason. Verifiability doesn't apply for such an issue since no source is likely to be found for the question you were raising (it being so inconsequential). As explained on the talk page. At increasing length. As per your behaviour with the other unfortunate editors of that page. I suggest you review your posts to that page for the last couple of months and reassess the manner in which you attempt to resolve problems identified. It's not the responsibility of other editors to explain things to you that you can so easily confirm for yourself.  • DP •  {huh?} 04:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Holy pedantic waste of volunteer time, folks. I honestly can't imagine a more trivial content issue than this to get bent out of shape over--and bear in mind that I have a formal background in comparative linguistics, so I'm used to parsing incredibly minute aspects of orthography. You both seem like contributors who have generally internalized the values of this project, so I think you ought to both be a little embarrassed that you couldn't iron this out between you without allowing things to blow up like this.

DP, I do understand your vexation here--you are absolutely right that MoS governs the relevant content question here and that CocountPorkPie's redundant comments were off-base and would likely have exhausted most similarly-situated veteran editors. That said, comments like "try not to be stupid" are really never appropriate on this project, frustration not withstanding--and you used them repeatedly in that thread, including fairly early into the discussion, which really is a civility issue.

Coconut, DP is correct insofar as you don't seem to be doing due diligence in familiarizing yourself with the appropriate guidelines here. This is a style issue, and governed by our Manual of Style, as the primary working document reflecting WP community consensus on matters of grammar, spelling, and syntax. He doesn't need to provide additional sourcing and context to support a position that is already enshrined in that document. If you feel this guideline is an inappropriate approach to the matter, then you should take it to the MoS talk page, which is the appropriate space for discussing a change to that community consensus. Meanwhile, while DP's comments were undoubtedly WP:BITE-ish, they don't really rise to the level likely to justify a sanction, and bringing this little dispute here, before you attempted WP:RfC or a third opinion is borderline disruptive.

Honestly guys, getting this unhinged over the placement of a couple of possessive apostrophes and affixes, the difference of which not a single one of our readers was likely to be affected by in any significant way, reflects a misplacement of editorial priorities regarding the work you could both be doing with your time and knowledge sets. I suggest you both WP:Drop the stick on this one, because while the debate is at the moment just a little petty, if it goes much further, it's going to start to become genuinely disruptive and I don't think either of you will come out of the matter looking great. Snow let's rap 23:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Actually, it's not necessary for both sides to walk away. But whichever one does walk away, allowing the other side to have its way on this meaningless question, will be the better editor -- and others will know it. EEng 05:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Please, let’s not pretend that this is a single incident that stands alone — it is a larger problem. (As has been indicated above in this discussion.) Coconutporkpie has opened multiple discussions on the Ajax (play) talk page alone. They are equally a waste of time. Then he discusses related issues on other talk pages elsewhere on Wikipedia, similarly wasting other editor’s time in the midsts of long grindingly inane discussions. (An example is buried somewhere in a discussion on Template talk:According to whom. DP at one point (earlier on the Ajax page) stepped in and helped to resolve one of these inane things, and deserves credit. You can’t really fault an editor for answering a question on a talk page, and then another, and another, but at a certain point you begin to realize you have been drawn in, and you are trapped into being impolite yourself by ignoring him — and then he hounds you with accusations for ignoring him. (As he did to me earlier on the Ajax (play) talk page.) He is devoted to wasting the time of many editors who are, after all, volunteers and could be doing other things. He is a form of troll known as a sea lion. Many editors, myself included, are guilty of taking the bait. Clockchime (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry Clockchime, but I'm not buying your speculation that this is an attempt at trolling and deliberate disruption. Looking at both the Ajax talk discussions and the additional template discussion you provide above, they look like fairly garden variety content disputes to me. That is, they (unfortunately) seem fairly reflective of how such disagreements often play out these days between parties who are certain that their approach is best and fight tooth-and-nail over ever little particular, rather than looking for reasonable compromise approaches that might serve the project and the content best. CPP is certainly opinionated, and if there is anything that discussion you linked proves, it's that he certainly seems to have a selective valuation of WP:Civility, based on whether he wants to apply it to his own behaviour or that of his "opposition", but I see absolutely nothing to suggest that he is arguing those points out of any other purpose than to see things done his way. Indeed, that seems to be the very heart of the disagreement here. So, though his behaviour is arguably problematic, you're going to have to present much more explicit evidence of trolling than that he seems to be acting in an obtuse manner to you; otherwise these observations just looks like a refusal to WP:AGF.
I'm not saying you and others aren't right to be frustrated here (I reserve comment on that, beyond what I've observed above), but trolling is bad-faith behaviour on an entirely different level, and those kinds of accusations need to be substantiated by more than "He's got it so wrong and has missed the point so many times, he must be playing with us". People make bad calls and fail to accept consensus all day every day across this project, while still mostly operating in good faith and from a perspective that their approach would benefit the encyclopedia. I respectfully suggest that all evidence here seems to suggest the exact opposite of what you seem to feel that you see; that is to say, CPP is not someone who is here to deliberately derail the project for kicks, but rather someone who feels very passionately about improving it, but fails to see when it is time to let go of their idiosyncratic approaches. Snow let's rap 22:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Regarding due diligence, what MoS actually says, and which I referenced with a link early in the discussion,[39] is that there were two possible style alternatives. My comments on Talk: Ajax (play) were directed at establishing which of the two alternatives was favored by the majority of sources. I don't see it as redundant to ask an editor to justify their statements, when each of their comments contains new, unverified assertions.[40][41][42][43]
According to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, RFC and third opinion are for content disputes. There was no more content dispute in this case, because several sources in the article turned out to support the existing wording, as I mentioned on the article talk page[44] (I found none that used the alternative). This was after I had already been insulted several times. I brought the issue to this page because of a user's incivility, not to continue a dispute over content.
Vague accusations such as "fails to see when it is time to let go of their idiosyncratic approaches" and "seems to have a selective valuation of WP:Civility" are of course easy to make and impossible to refute, since they are directed at deal with assumptions about a person's mental state, rather than the evidence of their actions. Also, inventing nicknames or abbreviations for other users ("Coconut", "CPP") strikes me as a very passive-aggressive form of belittling or condescension, which itself is considered to be uncivil. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
The answer to your question as to which of the two MoS possibilities was answered in the first and the second (and every subsequent) message. You misrepresent the issue -- it is not nor never was a question of 'most sources'. As the MoS makes clear, it's the way it's usually said out loud. Hence, "Sophocles' tragedy," but "Faustus's damnation." The problem that I and other editors have identified with your manner is that having had the question answered for you, given sources supporting it, you insisted on dragging out a completely minor and inconsequential point long after it had been addressed to the fullest extent imaginable. A simple google books search answered it immediately. You did a similar thing over the all-too-easily-fixed issue of an "immature" work in the wording of the same article. All it took was the smallest active edit and the tinest amount of searching through/for the sources. I wasn't involved in that discussion at all. I encountered it and saw how ridiculous it was. I committed hours of time to improving the article, checking sources, cleaning up citation style, etc., precisely to bring those interminable and pointless dilations on the talk page to a ineluctable conclusion. One day later, you were at it again, about a point with even less merit.  • DP •  {huh?} 02:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
"You misrepresent the issue – it is not nor never was a question of 'most sources'" – in fact it was User:DoctorMabuse/User:DionysosProteus who stated that the disputed material was "standard in most literature".[45] But in any case giving due weight requires articles to account for how material is presented by the majority of reliable sources (also covered at Wikipedia:Verifiability). I was not very clear in articulating this on the article talk page, but I think the policy is clear enough on its own. In asking for more complete verification, I was following recommended practice per Wikipedia's talk page guidelines: "The talk page is the ideal place for issues relating to verification, such as asking for help finding sources [...] Asking for a verifiable reference supporting a statement is often better than arguing against it". —Coconutporkpie (talk) 05:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
It may be the opinion of some users that the topic in question is "a completely minor and inconsequential point" and without "merit", but the fact is that different people edit Wikipedia for different reasons. Some people are interested in basic copyediting, which includes punctuation. Others are less interested in these things, but such differences of Interest or opinion should not be an excuse for incivility. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 05:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Wow, you do realize that I was the only editor involved in this discussion who was defending you to some extent and making an effort to point out that your dispute with Dionysos seemed to have been a two-way street? For no other reason than because I wanted to make sure unfair assumptions about your "mental state" state were not made, I just went to considerable lengths to challenge the emerging view that you are just here to troll the community. And rather than view those efforts as the only thing standing between you and the big ol' WP:BOOMERANG about to smack you in the forehead, you chose to try to parse my comments to find excuses to see insults that were never there.
I'm not going to engage with you on the content issue, because this is not the place for that discussion, but I'll say as much as this; I agree with everyone else here (and everyone on that talk page), that you've got the wrong of the policy argument and that it's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. But then again, frankly at this point I'm beginning to re-assess my perspective now and question whether everyone else who has brought their experience with you here was right and you are in fact just here to stir things up. It seems to be either that or that you are possessed of such a WP:Battleground mentality that you can't even see the level of disruption you cause by blowing up an entire talk page over a few apostrophes. I'm also not going to get drawn in to discussing your one-sided perspective on editor behaviour, except to say that your pretext that you opened this thread because of you are not being treated in a civil fashion is hard to take seriously when you will happily call your opposition's posts "incoherent rambling" when your own ire is raised. I stand by my observations as an uninvolved party here, except to say that I am no longer 100% certain that the other contributors here were not right all along, regarding the good faith/bad faith interpretation of your behaviour. Snow let's rap 02:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Tu quoque – but "Wow, you do realize that I was the only editor involved in this discussion who was defending you to some extent [...]?" I can do without that sort of defending, thank you very much. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 03:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Friend, I am happy to let you have it that way, where that is concerned. Good luck. Snow let's rap 04:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Recommend this be closed before the OP gets hit with a boomerang for this massive waste of time. Softlavender (talk) 08:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Coconutporkpie, I'm afraid that you can't cherry-pick the guidelines to evade the most obvious point, which is that you received an answer, sourced, and many, many subsequent explanations for the standard usage, and still you insisted on wasting our time, as you had done with others before, and there seems to be no sign that you are prepared to amend this behaviour. Your attempts to imply I was acting as a sockpuppet are part of the same pattern. It is unsurprising, then, to see you bandy around "Tu quoque" -- it's the catchphrase of a fool. Thomas Greene, however, at least had the virtue of being entertaining.  • DP •  {huh?} 15:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

João Vale e Azevedo[edit]

Please check the ongoing disruptive editing on João Vale e Azevedo. Jose Enes (talk · contribs) is removing reliable sources, adding unsourced information, breaking references, and adding questionable sources. User is behaving like 95.93.220.31 (talk · contribs), who caused the article to be protected. SLBedit (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

User insists in readding the same stuff over and over. I won't revert it again because I don't want to get blocked. SLBedit (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Editing other editors' Talk comments[edit]

DHeyward has objected to my use of the words "conspiracy theory" and "hoax" to describe the conspiracy theory/hoax about Hillary Clinton's health (here) and has blanked that section. (according to him [46], because "we make our coverage of it pretty shitty when we label it a conspiracy theory"). Which I guess is an edit dispute; whatever. However, he's more recently taken to blanking my Talk page comments, specifically this RfC I just opened (original section: [47] / diff of blanking: [48]) to seek third-party input. Per WP:TPO, I think there's a fairly high bar to edit or delete another user's Talk comments and I'm not quite sure it has been met in this case. If it is, I'm hoping someone could notify me for my edification; if not, I'm hoping someone could notify DHeyward for his.
This may come down to a conflict of vision or perception of reality; looking at DHeyward's edit history he's advocated heavily that blogs like Breitbart, etc. are RS [49], [50] (and these outlets are largely behind pushing the Clinton health hoax), he's whitewashed Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge to replace the RS-used term "militant" with "protester" [51], etc. I guess, in a way, I understand why he wants to edit / delete my Talk page comments, I just really wish he wouldn't. Doesn't seem chill, you know? LavaBaron (talk) 01:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Drmies Maybe? I don't think there's any active arbitration measures that have been violated here, but I could be mistaken? I was under the impression that there was a general proscription against editing others comments. If possible I'd like to avoid the intensity of Arbitration enforcement; just trying to find a quick solution to stop my comments from being edited and RfCs blanked. Once we start editing and deleting each others Talk comments it kinda grinds everything to a halt. LavaBaron (talk) 04:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • There is a fairly high bar, and in this case much of it will stand or fall with the BLP argument that DHeyward invoked. But you were also pointing, or hinting at topics (including, obviously, the one in your first link) that fall under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. Whether AE is more "intense" I cannot tell, and I'm about to sign off so I won't be digging into the argument DHeyward made for removing that RfC right now. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
[ec] Got it, thanks. Just to be clear and to keep this concise and focused, DHeyward's position appears to be that the content was a BLP violation of the tabloid TV doctor "Dr Drew" as, by putting Dr. Drew's conspiracy chatter about Clinton's health in an article titled "conspiracy theories" it "goes the extra mile to diparage him [Dr. Drew]" [52]. I think that's a real stretch as it sourced to RS [53] but, the content question aside, "Dr. Drew" was not actually mentioned in the active RfC he blanked. [54] This appears to be a rather transparent, though impressively bold, attempt to delete content that refutes the Alex Jones/Healther conspiracy theory and to stop the intervention of other editors by deleting RfCs before they're picked-up by the Feedback Request Service.
General note: Not sure if my comments here will be seen by anyone or if they'll be deleted / edited by DHeyward first, so please check the log before replying to verify accuracy. LavaBaron (talk) 04:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • First let's clear up some of the aspersions. Above you accused me of "whitewashing" by using "protester" instead of "militant." The first source in the diff you provided is here. Did you read it? There is no whitewashing and "protester" is both used in RS's and neutral. Second, the drive-by accusation that I "advocated heavily" for categorically including Breitbart as a reliable source: that is false. Your diffs even show that the reference is to specific articles by specific people that are accurate and backed up by other sources. WP:RS has many facets and encourages all sources to be evaluated on a case by case basis. All sources have been inaccurate and unreliable for different topics and the purpose of WP:RS is to make sure we are using reliable sources for every claim. Third, your RfC was out of process. It was created after the same material was deleted in an AfD of an article you also created. Your circular argument that the BLP violating material should stay while the RfC is in place belies your intent to drag out process when the process had already determined it should be deleted (not merged). You were the only one that had participated in the RfC. End runs around AfD should be dealt with swiftly as we are not a bureaucracy. Fourth, you double down on BLP violations above with choice phrases such as "tabloid TV doctor" and then calling his views "conspiracy chatter." those opinions belong in your blog. As I said on the talk page, we normally wouldn't give voice to what Pinsky said since we are not news. Candidate health is a topic that comes up in every election. Heck, Bob Dole is still alive and the talk in 1996 was whether he'd survive the year. The problem with the "Conspiracy theories..." article is that it's a shit magnet and both campaigns exaggerate so we have one side that says any health concern is a whacky conspiracy theory and downplays every medical event and the other side says all health concerns are legitimate and likely. We can't solve it here and each side spins up a new expert every 24 hours. Candidate health is covered in the candidate bios (I re-wrote some of Clinton's since you seem to be digging). The topic cannot be covered, though, with such a presumptive title because it puts living people, including experts, into a BLP violating "conspiracy theorist" box just as you did above. You should probably sit out the rest of the election if this article (and the recent article you created that was deleted) is the type of content you plan on creating and developing. It's not encyclopedic. --DHeyward (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • This is the correct page. The issue appears to concern a massive BLP violation disguised as a "conspiracy theory" which DHeyward removed. The removed section can be seen in this permalink. Unfortunately Sandstein closed the deletion discussion as "no consensus" and that decision could be defended at a review. However, the article was created to subvert this AfD on Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor. The media has to feed the 24×7 news frenzy, and throw-away attacks are described in detail. However, Wikipedia should not contain such attacks except with an after-the-fact encyclopedic treatment based on secondary sources with an analysis of the long-term effects of the attacks. A discussion here needs to decide whether it's-in-the-news cancels normal BLP standards. Johnuniq (talk) 04:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
No, I'm talking about editing my comments per WP:TPO - let's keep it focused there or this will get out of control. Editing other peoples comments is a fairly clear bright line, otherwise I would delete everything you just wrote (j/k).
On the larger issue, it's confusing because we have two opposing sides that are equally intent on deleting content: (a) people who think including any information about the anti-Clinton hoax violates Clinton's BLP, (b) people who think that including information that rebuts the anti-Clinton hoax violates the BLP of the conspiracy theorists. DHeyward appears to be in Group B and contends it violates Dr. Drew's BLP (see above) because it doesn't take Drew's conspiracy theory about Clinton seriously. That appears to be why he blanked the RfC which tries to get a consensus to include the mainstream view that rebuts the conspiracy theory. [see: [55]. This seems to be his M.O., similar to his previous attempts to whitewash the Malheur siege article [56] or to insert Breitbart [57] [58] as a source, etc. LavaBaron (talk) 04:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
So as DHeyward's co-editor on this article, do you also support Breitbart as RS? And a RfC can't violate a AfD, that doesn't make sense. As for me "claiming memory loss" I really hope you have a diff.
It's pretty simple, man: we don't modify other editors Talk page comments. That's a big no no. We also don't make false allegations about other editors like that they "claimed memory loss" [sic]. You two need to cool your jets or go back to Conservapedia. LavaBaron (talk) 05:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
In my comment above, I was referring to these two diffs that the OP edit warred over:
On inability to answer my question (reposted from Recent edit thread (edited for concision):
Extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Me: I'm still curious if this was part of the content deleted at previous AfD. Was it?
  • LavaBaron: No idea. I'm still curious why you want to delete/hide content from the Washington Post that undermines a conspiracy theory. Are you a Healther?
  • Me: [answer LB's question]. As someone with intimate knowledge of the deleted article, how come you cannot elucidate on what was in it?
  • LavaBaron: Can you please clarify why you want to remove content that notes pro-conspiracy videos were manipulated to falsely make it look like Clinton was ill? Third request.
  • Me: [answer LB's question]. Back to my question, was the material in the diff a part of the content that was deleted at the AfD above? Third request :-)
  • LavaBaron: I'm busy dealing with this type of nonsense at Frank Gaffney and don't have time to do it here on top of it. (...)
  • Me: Could you help me understand if the material being discussed in the diff above was part of the content removed at the prior AfD? It's a simple yes / no answer, so hopefully won't take up much of your time. I would really appreciate it.
  • LavaBaron: I don't have access to deleted articles, I can't help you. Sorry.
  • Me: Just to be clear, as an editor/creator of the deleted article, you do not recall if the section "Specific claims" was included in the "Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor" article. Is that correct?
  • Another editor (helpfully): I don't have access to deleted articles either, but I certainly do have a memory and would be glad to help you - the answer to your question is yes - the section "Specific claims" was included in the "Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor" article. It was copied/pasted (along with some of the other content) into this article as can be seen here in this diff.
  • LavaBaron: Thanks for providing. Looks like a vaguely similar section, though some glaring differences as well.
I've found the above exchange interesting. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Are you going to provide a diff to support your claim that I said I had "memory loss" [59] or are you just going to copy-paste random (and heavily edited, BTW - the hole you two are digging just keeps getting deeper) WP:WALLOFTEXT from other discussions to obfuscate your attack? Second request. (Also, per Bishonen's advice here [60]: don't copypaste text from elsewhere in Wikipedia, use links, to avoid bloating up the noticeboard.) LavaBaron (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Here's the diff: "Looks like a vaguely similar section...", and that's after five attempts to receive an answer from the OP and an intervention by other editors. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Here are some diffs of aspersions and personal attacks:
K.e.coffman (talk) 06:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • LavaBaron has a most disconcerting habit of attributing disagreement with him to political motives -- e.g. here [61] where he called me a Trump supporter. What nonsense. (The ANEW outcome was No violation, for those who are wondering.) 06:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Article subject to enforcement restrictions e.g. 1RR?[edit]

Another editor has removed an AE header from the talk page of this article, on grounds that the template wasn't placed by an admin. That point is correct -- but it's not hard to see that the template (and especially the 1RR restriction) would in fact be appropriate there. Perhaps an admin would like to add it? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I removed it not for rules stickler but because same editor (OP above) that created the page, also created the now deleted Clinton health page (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor) and when that AfD was snowballing "delete," they created Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election, 2016 and copied the soon to be deleted material to the new article. They put the DS template on the new page and then nominated the material that was already deleted in an AfD into an RfC. At best, those actions are out of process and removing the DS template and RfC solves it. At worst, it's an example of gaming the system to string out and delay AfD removal and article editing. Drmies restored the template which is fine but for AP2 housekeeping, I think it needs to be logged as a page level discretionary sanction at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log#American politics 2 per the arbcom AP2 decision. --DHeyward (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editor[edit]

(non-admin closure) User since indef'd by Ultraexactzz RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:14, 26 August 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.

HypErionZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is vandalizing articles with edits like this and this. Seems like the account was created to force vandalism past the page protection on this article. Eik Corell (talk) 09:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Eik Corell: Did you make a mistake while providing links? The editor has not edited any of the Articles you have mentioned Bentogoa (talk) 12:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Here's a couple examples for different articles: [62], [63]. Honestly this looks more like a vandal-only account, especially given the language on the talk page. I've reported to AIV. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
And they have since been blocked by UltraExactzz. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
139.0.120.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) changed the diffs I provided, no wonder you guys were confused. Eik Corell (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Tricky IP that one. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:31, 26 August 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.

Range block please[edit]

RANGE BLOCK
Range blocked by Black Kite for 48 hours. (non-admin closure) --Cameron11598 (Talk) 21:39, 26 August 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.

Edit warring IP at The Exodus is indefinitely blocked Til Eulenspiegel, a short range block of 71.246.144.* shouldn't have any collateral damage but I'm not sure how to do it. I need to learn! Doug Weller talk 11:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Done, 71.246.144.0/21 blocked for 48 hours, collateral looks OK. Black Kite (talk) 11:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    • @Black Kite: thanks. Unfortunately when Til gets on roll he doesn't stop. The IPV6 editor there who first added the material was also his and is now at Tahunian where I've reverted an edit he made changing sourced text because he doesn't like the terminology. But he's using 2 IPV6 ranges and I looking at them there would be too much collateral damage. Anyway, he'd just find more. Doug Weller talk 12:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I really love that movie, especially when her head spins around and the green vomit splashes on the priest. EEng 17:39, 26 August 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.

Active RFC archived before end (or even closure) at Talk:Gustav Holst[edit]

(non-admin closure) (& (edit conflict)) Closed in good faith and now re-opened in the same good faith. No point in dragging any further, except a reminder to all that it should be a formal close by someone uninvolved, even if that does feel overly-bureaucratic sometimes. – SchroCat (talk) 14:30, 26 August 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 just going to skip the talk page step here given the names and the scope of this particular problem.

User:Brianboulton archived an active RFC (about infoboxes) prior to the RFC ending (much less having been closed) at Talk:Gustav Holst. I reverted his removal. I have since been reverted by User:Cassianto.

Regardless of how those discussions should be summarized, closed, whatnot, I don't think either of those two users (who are both involved and at least one of which has strong opinions on the RFC matter) should be archiving these sections of that talk page, and especially given the contentiousness of the topic matter.

I will notify both users shortly. --Izno (talk) 12:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Can an uninvolved admin/editor unarchive it and close the discussion formally, its been open since the 30th July and has not had substantial comment for the last 8 days. Brianbolton has archived it claiming 'no consensus' which given he actively participated in the discussion is problematic. Things to watch out for: There are related help and guidance pages for when hidden comments should/shoudnt be used which need to be taken into account. So a straight vote 'no consensus' result would not be fine. Any result needs to mention the related documentation. (I would do it myself except I commented in another venue regarding the same issue) Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

And a huge, smelly trout to Izno for making a non-issue into an issue and wasting even more editor time.--Laser brain (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
(twice edit-conflicted): The last thing we need is a further bone of contention and acrimony on the Holst talkpage. Rather than taking the ANI route, I think this can be resolved informally. I archived discussions which I considered were inactive as they had been dormant for some time. However, I accept that in view of their contentious nature, it is reasonable that closure should be on the decision of an uninvolved editor or administrator. I acted in good faith, as I assume did Izno and User:Cassianto, but in the circumstances I will restore the discussions to the talkpage, and will seek closure advice from an uninvolved editor. Brianboulton (talk) 13:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
If it was just a discussion that might have worked. However once a discussion has been set up as formal RFC with support/opposes etc, it generally needs to run the full length of time and be closed formally by an uninvolved party. Since there has been no real additions in the last 8 days, closing early is not an issue, but it does need a formal close by someone uninvolved. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
As far as I can see, Izno was uninvolved and could've archived it. But they chose not to, for whatever reason. Clearly, they enjoy the dramah and thought there were at least a few more weeks worth of entertainment left to be had. CassiantoTalk 14:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by LackofMeNecktar[edit]

BLOCKED
(non-admin closure) LackofMeNecktar blocked indefinitely by NeilN --Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:53, 27 August 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.

LackofMeNecktar has made numerous disruptive and/or unconstructive edits recently, including impersonating an administrator, [64] and creating a hoax article (The Greeny Channel) from which he then removed the speedy template. There are other relatively minor unconstructive edits in his history (e.g. this one), all of which I think amounts to sufficient reason for an indef block. However, I welcome not just admins actually blocking him, but also other opinions as to whether this is the best way to handle this situation. Everymorning (talk) 02:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Can't do much when given responses like this. Blocked indefinitely. --NeilN talk to me 03:08, 27 August 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.

Urgent block needed to stop WP:SPA page mover[edit]

BLOCKED
LibertyUA blocked indefinitely by TomStar81 for disruptive editing. Iryna Harpy and I have reverted the moves/articles. (non-admin closure) — JJMC89(T·C) 09:27, 27 August 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.

LibertyUA (talk · contribs) is moving Belarus region and town articles faster than I can restore them to WP:BELARUSIANNAMES and WP:COMMONNAME. I've tried to make contact with the user but, as can be seen by their response on their talk page, they're not exactly WP:HERE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Notified him of the discussion and reverted a personal attack. Katietalk 02:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Well that's a clear cut case of NOTHERE. so I've blocked the account. Now for the phun part, repairing all that move related damage :/ (not it) TomStar81 (Talk) 05:53, 27 August 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.

Community ban for Maayan pandithevan[edit]

Incorrect Venue. SQLQuery me! 17:48, 27 August 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 request that Maayan pandithevan (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) be community banned per Wikipedia policy. While this user is technically too new to be banned, this user has also heavily disrupted wikipedia and used multiple sockpuppets, yet he isn't even blocked. This user has repeatedly been told to reference his sources, yet he still uses original research and random "according to"s on pages. His only sources are unreliable, and he always has an edit war over them. Yet, he is saying that the great old writers such as Ramanujacharya, Madhwacharya, Alwars, Iskcon Sampradayaas, Sangam Pulavars, and Valmiki are 100% reliable and that not using their sources would be ignoring them. But the part I think makes him worthy of a ban is that he is doing all of this after repeated warning, and has even used multiple accounts to evade his block. If you support or oppose, please post below. 96.237.27.174 (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

To further my evidence: Judging by his name and the old writers' names, he may also be an SPA. 96.237.27.174 (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I believe community bans are dealt with an WP:AN not AN/I. Correct me if I am mistaken. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
You've got six edits. If you expect this complaint to be taken seriously, you should post under your registered user ID. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
And by the way, he was already blocked before you filed this complaint, but not indef. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:10, 27 August 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.

Baseless accusations, personal attacks and edit-warring by User:Mozad655[edit]

BLOCKED
Both Skyline12399 and Mozad655 were blocked for 72 hours for WP:1RR violation of WP:GS/SCW @ Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map by NeilN (non-admin closure) --Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This user has indulged in multiple violations, so I thought it will be better to report it here. On User:Mehmedsons's talk page he baselessly blames Mehmedsons for being biased towards the PKK because after he edited to show multiple settlements under SDF control on Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map. PKK is a Kurdish militant organisation and Turkey which is helping the FSA sees the Kurdish YPG which dominates the SDF as an affiliate of PKK. Here's the diff of Mozad655's comment where he attacks Mehmedsons: [65]

Not only that, he also baselessly alleged me to be biased in favour of the PKK. This happened when I tried to question him about his claims for Amarinah and not properly sourcing his edits as he never provided a link to the map he used as source in his edits on the module. In addition he baselessly alleges I'm trying to find a pretext for personally attacking him even though I never personally attacked him once. Here's the diff for his comment where he attacked me: [66]

His above comments also indicate that he himself has a possible bias against SDF/YPG. Not only that while he chides Mehmedsons, he himself admits his usage of map as sources was wrong as the module prohibits it.

The user has also edit-warred with multiple users regarding multiple edits on Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map, despite the module clearly limiting reverts to one revert per day. Not just he break the sanction of 1 revert per day, he also clearly violated 3RR. Here are diffs of all his reverts on the module in less than a day:

This person doesn't seem to be here to make Wikipedia better as he has violated multiple rules. I request the administrators to block him. Thank you. Newsboy39 (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what he is talking about. I was having a conversation with User:Mehmedsons on that users' private talk page. Out of nowhere this random guy who I had never spoken to before jumps in uninvited and starts arguing with me long after my discussion with User:Mehmedsons had ended and we had gone our ways. I find it very strange that he would interfere in a conversation that doesn't concern him and was already over.
I'll adress the points he made:
1) It was my impression that User:Mehmedsons's edits were biased because he used a map to edit pro-SDF gains while ignoring that very same map in towns that were shown as under OPP. I believe I had more than enough reason to think he was biased and I told him that quite frankly without any cursing or personal attacks. Why this second user then jumps in and interferes in a conversation he was not part of is unknown to me. I can only assume that it is because he himself is also biased and is defending his fellow pro-PKK editor. Otherwise why would he interfere in a closed conversation that he was not part of anyways on a private talk page of another user?
2) I did provide a link to the map he mentions above. A link that I copied directly from the adress bar of the twitter page belonging to the neutral map-maker. I specifically referred to the latest map on that persons twitter page. There was no direct adress for the map itself as adress bar does not change when you open an image on twitter. At least not on my monitor.
3) As can be seen on User:Mehmedsons's talk page, above user clearly wanted confrontation critisizing every word I wrote, like when I was explaining that the conversation no longer mattered because I had been informed by respected users on my own talk page that maps were not allowed as source (much of the discussion was based on a map), hence why my initial conversation with User:Mehmedsons had ended before this guy jumped in to escalate and restart. This constant criticism of everything and anything I said I interpreted as a personal attack on me, not on what I said but me personally, as I was referring to rules that were clear and out of discussion and that I myself had been informed of around the same time (see my talk page). Yet user would still try to argue.
4) As for my edits. I am not aware of making multiple reverts in the period of 24 hours. I always try to avoid that. It is possible that I may have edited something someone else before prior to my arrival had changed hours before my arrival and without me being aware of such previous edits. I don't know if this counts as reverting others people's edits. I won't bother look in to the above persons history for breakage of rules as I am not interested in personal attacks and don't really care if he is around or not.
Conclusion: Bottom line is that my intial discussion with User:Mehmedsons was over by the time above user arrived out of nowhere and restarted a conversation that he was not part of to begin with. I tried to end the conversation like I had with the first one, and consistently asked him to stop arguing as there was no point to it any longer. By then I had been informed by respected users that maps were not allowed anyways as source for edits. But this guy wanted to even argue over that. It is my impression that he is trying to get rid of objective editors so he can make pro-PKK edits without anyone checking up on it. I have been around for years and asking someone to be banned for a simple discussion with another user is just nonsence. Mozad655 (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I'll address all your claims, here's the actual reasons truth:
1) You cannot simply call someone biased to SDF because you think they showed some territories under SDF control. That is assuming bad faith. There might be conflicting reports and you might think it is not true. But you had absolutely no reason for saying they are "pro-PKK" simply over a disagreement. You had absolutely no evidence, simply saying they showed some territories under a faction isn't an evidence.
2) You didn't copy a link to the map you were claiming about. All you did was provide a link to the Twitter profile which you claimed had the map "Yusuf Bayk under SDF - acc. to latest map from https://twitter.com/ArtRosinski". In actual you can find a different adress bar for posts. How do you think people source Twitter posts directly? They post the direct link to that post. And how are we supposed to know what latest map are you talking about? Posts can keep changing, so can the "latest maps" change. Alternatively you could have just opened the image in a new tab and copied its link. Your edits were unsourced, but this is about your behavior.
3) In actual, it was you who started showing a confrontational attitude. I never tried to have any confrontation with you. All I did was tried to find out out whether your claims were right or wrong and you didn't properly source your edits. Reliablity in an article has to be maintained. And how did you respond? You said I'm biased in favour of my "PKK-buddies". Now even if you think I was being confrontational, how come you are baselessly accusing me of bias? Gain you are assuming bad faith over shortcomings of your own edits.
4) Not only that you claimed I was tryibg to find a "pretext for personally attacking you". However, I never even attacked you once. It was you who started personally attacking me ust because I questioned and raised serious doubts about your claims and edits. Again you've shown presumption of bad faiths. I told you not to attack other editors yet you do it again. This shows that you do not care about Wikipedia's rules which your comments seriously breach.
5) You claim you are not aware of making multiple reverts in a period of 24 hours. However I have posted differences which clearly show you reverting atleast 6 times in less than 24 hours. Your claim is not even possible.
6) Why do you keep saying "pro-PKK" especially? PKK is seen as a terrorist group by some and Turkey is seen as an affiliate by Turkey. Your choice clarly indicates you are biased. You do not say "pro-SDF", "pro-Kurd" or "pro-YPG"
7) The reality is that you didn't bother to claim maps can't be used as sources until I was discussing with you. Here's your last comment directed to Mehmedsons: [73]. Here you accuse him of bad faith just like you did me without any real evidence. And you accuse me here as well.
Not only that you falsely, baselessly and ridiculously claim I'm trying to get rid of objective editors. That is another assumption of bad faith and a personal attack. You have violated Wikipedia's policies many times within 2 days. It is clear that it is you who did not like others making edits other than what you believe in, and started edit-warring, personally attacking and falsely accusing others. A person like you who so blatantly violates the rules and attacks others must be blocked. I request the administrators to block him. Newsboy39 (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
@Newsboy39 and Mozad655: As an outside third party, I don't see any clear cut policy violation here, although it is definitely worth both users to review WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Additionally, over the content dispute, I'd suggest using dispute resolution. -- Dane2007 talk 21:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Newsboy39 I'm sorry you still don't understand my point of view. I'm not going to argue with you again. I've read everything you wrote and its my impression that you have a very distorted perception of both the initial conversation (which you weren't part of) and the second (which you started long after initial had ended). Frankly I don't always understand what you write. Maybe some language problems on your part or maybe I'm not expressing myself clear enough in my responses. Still disappointed though that you would react by attempting to get another user blocked for a simple discussion covering a few lines. Decision has been made. I will move on and so should you. I'm out. Mozad655 (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Mozad, I have every right to question your claims and so dies everyone else. It's me who doesn't understand how you claim others are "pro-PKK" and blame othets. Besides your discussion with Mehmedsons was very uncivil. As I already proved, your last message was a personal attack on him. Instead of blaming others and being uncivil, you should have either tried to address any problems others had pounted out. Your have attacked me multiple times. I don't see how there is any reason you can continue editing here. Newsboy39 (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Dane2007 I was never uncivil to him and even Mozad655 accepted he was wrong when questioned about some of his claims. In all my comments I was always well-behaved towards him and assumed good faith. However he didn't like me questioning what he claimed. Claiming that I was uninvited or anything else doesn't excuse him. I do not see how someone who has edit-warred, made personal attacks and baselessly accused others of bad faith should continue here. Newsboy39 (talk) 21:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
@Newsboy39: You're correct, you weren't uncivil to him. The reason I stated you should review both policies is because WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are closely related and might help you understand why I am saying I don't see the clear cut policy violation. The diff you cited for the personal attack was definitely firm and potentially uncivil, but in this case it was not a personal attack. As you stated, all editors are invited and encouraged to participate in the encyclopedia, so claiming you are uninvited is irrelevant in his argument against you. -- Dane2007 talk 21:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Outside party comment After going through the linked edits and talk pages and reading above I agree with Dane2007 100℅ but I couldn't help but notice that Newsboy had been warned [here] for violating 1RR and his responses to the warning editor [here] were very uncivil and confrontational. Now they are here making similar claims against another editor that they themselves are guilty of. But just my opinion on the matter. As for this ANI, never throw a stone in a glass house. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" 21:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

WarMachineWildThing Since being warned about 1RR by EkoGraf, I haven't violated it neither anyone accused me of it. And I only made 2 reverts. From thereon out, I have always tried to discuss something wrong in others' edits, however Mozad655 got angry about this. He seems to have known it all along and claims he didn't make multiple reverts in a day, even though he made 6 of them. Another thing is I wasn't being "uncivil" to EkoGraf, I truly did feel he was threarning me. But we solved the situation amicably and in a civil manner on Battle of Sirte (2016). And all of it was days ago. No such attempt made by Mozad655, only false accusations of bias and personal attacks. I don't think trying to find faults in both over one reason or another will do any good. Newsboy39 (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh no please do not mistake my statement,I never said you had done it since, But it had been done. There was nothing threatening about those warnings, typical warnings I've issued many myself, I've seen alot worse. But I digress, Back to the matter at hand, I just checked the refrences again to make sure I didn't miss something. I see 1 revert and the rest are just edits. As Dane said above you both should review both policies WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA as I see no clear cut policy violation either.Chris"WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 22:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
WarMachineWildThing I understand what you're saying completely. I and EkoGraf had our disagreements many times, but never once I made any baseless allegations against him or accuse him of bias. And in the end we did manage to put our disagreements aside and solve the issue amicably on Talk:Battle of Sirte (2016). I do believe that Mozad655's actions are far more serious than anything I might have done some days ago. Problem with Mozad655 is instead of showing improvement, he blames others. I seriously doubt he should continue here. Newsboy39 (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Dane2007 WarMachineWildThing I've checked WarMachineWildThing's claim and properly investigated all the diffs, however most of the diffs are still reverts. It might not be clearly visible, but I checked the previous edits for verification that they are reverts. In his edits Mozad655 has changed content back to as it was before others made an edit on it. Here are the reverts:
Mozad655 has made 5 reverts in one day. He should be blocked immediately. Newsboy39 (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
It would also