Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive942

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

Noticeboard archives


The user has been the driving force behind an edit war in the article Party of the Danes. The user continues to remove sources and does that by a political bias clearly stated by the user on the talk page. I wonder if it is here i ask for a semi-lock on the article or if you should move on the users behaviour instead? I have been drawn into the war by reverting the users edits, so in that sense i have been no better than he/she. Regards, Dnm (talk) 22:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, answer my concerns at Talk:Party of the Danes instead of ignoring me and reverting my rewriting. I try to be constructive at least. -- (talk) 23:05, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
And no, false accusations of vandalism don't count as an appropriate answer. -- (talk) 23:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Dnm, firstly, removing sources is not vandalism. It mostly falls under disruptive editing. Please read what is and what is not vandalism at WP:Vandalism. Regarding the IP, I am not sure I quite understand your second message, but if a vandal is edit warring (not you in this case), a user is more than allowed to use that excuse to revert them and report them if necessary. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} 23:10, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. I will read it. I am not used to English Wikipedia and its choice of words. Dnm (talk) 23:16, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
The issue is that I've raised my concerns about the sourcing of the article on the talk, but Dmn (and Adville) respond to my critique with ad hominem and it seems no consensus can be reached. When I try to rewrite the article into NPOV, it just gets reverted with no explanation other than "vandalism" from Dnm. It's getting annoying. -- (talk) 23:20, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I just semiprotected the article for a month for persistent disruptive editing (tendentious removal of sourced and relevant content), and only afterwards did I notice this ANI report. Anyway, my action still seems appropriate, unless another admin has a better idea. Thank you for your report, Dnm. For another time, the best place to ask for protection is WP:RFPP. Bishonen | talk 23:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC).
Disruptive editing? Please take a look at my NPOV version [1] compared to now [2], and consider my concerns raised at [3] which I have not received a response for, before labelling it as "disruptive". -- (talk) 23:27, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Political parties and other organizations don't get to simply self-describe, Wikipedia is also supposed to tell the reader what reliable sources say about their ideology. You have repeatedly removed every trace of that in the lead and body of the article and in the infobox, relegating it to a separate "Allegations of Nazism" section. That's not how NPOV works. Bishonen | talk 23:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC).
Read my comment and the discussion at talk again. The article is POV, there has been a huge discussion about these "Nazism" claims on, and the outcome was to collect such allegations in a separate section. It is NOT OKAY to spam the article with an WP:UNDUE amount of Swedish MSM for a Danish party with irrelevant links and WP:POVPUSHING agencies like and present it as "Many experts and analysts" when it is obviously a fringe view not even acknowledged in Danish MSM about a Danish political party. is NOT RS, as I have explained 1000 times in the talk and + Aftonbladet do NOT explicitly state that PofD is Nazi, so how on earth can you accept this when these issues are unsolved? What a disgrace and such a superficial way of managing this dispute. When you're dealing with the sole claims from 1 single Swedish MSM (minus, which is not RS) and 1 researcher at a left-leaning university, it's absolutely not okay present this as a mainstream view, then it is just biased accusations, and should be dealt with so as accusations in a separate section, and in the lead you could write something in the line of "The party has been accused of X by Y." -- (talk) 09:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
I've blocked ContraVentum (talk · contribs) who edit-warred over much the same thing in much the same terms (i.e., complaints about "Swedish MSM" and Swedish editors) after the article was semi-protected. Acroterion (talk) 17:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I've removed Contraventum's talkpage access after abuse, Acroterion. Bishonen | talk 23:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC).

IP block for IPV6 range by Cox Communications out of Buckeye, Arizona[edit]

Editor has been asked several times to be civil on Talk:Canada and is now making personal attacks at me. There's no way to address anon other than by the city in which the editor's IP is located and the editor seems to have decided to out me, and my location. I can't warn anon because of IP hopping. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Walter Görlitz, the IP isn't hopping on purpose, their ISP does that. The whole /16 range can be blocked if required, as it's all one person and carries no risk of collateral damage. But I'd need some examples of the personal attacks before considering such a rangeblock. I'm having trouble finding any attacks — they may be there, but there are a lot of edits from the range on the talkpage, and all I see at a quick look is basically discussion. And what about the outing you mention? Bishonen | talk 17:19, 25 December 2016 (UTC).
  • More: PS, I understand it's difficult to warn them, but you certainly missed an opportunity when they came to your page and you simply removed them. They're probably keeping an eye on your page, so it would make sense to a) put back their post, and b) respond to it with a warning and a specific mention of this ANI discussion. Just a thought. Bishonen | talk 17:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC).
I understand how IPV6 works. Each time you sign on, you get a new IP. However, I would like a block. I placed a warning on the Canada talk page expressing the facts. I also asked for proof and the editor, who has no proof, called me a troll for requesting proof. A block please. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:10, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid that's not a blocking matter in my book, Walter Görlitz. And you gave as good as you got, indeed your response was more personal than the IP's post. Bishonen | talk 00:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC).
Understood. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Trolling by[edit]

I'm bringing this over from WP:AIAV as I guess trolls are allegedly not considered vandals and the administrator who rejected the report refuses to discuss this there even though plenty of short discussions take place there all the time when an administrator rejects a report. Anyway, I was originally not even involved with this IP, but after AlexTheWhovian, a user who's on my watch list, requested the IP to leave his talk page alone, the IP ignored his request and posted on his talk page again. Alex reverted the IP, to which the IP responded by reverting Alex. I then reverted the IP and the IP began stalking me at 100 Things to Do Before High School and raised basically a bogus discussion on the talk page of that article just to cause trouble and then posted on my talk page accusing me of being a sockpuppet of Alex. This is honestly behavior that shouldn't be tolerated and should be a blockable offense. The IP is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Callmemirela also reverted an edit of theirs on Alex's talk page, though I don't know if they ended up getting stalked as well. Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Repeating copyvios[edit]

User:Cornellcam is repeatedly creating a promotional article for Board of Student Advisers, most recently at Board of student advisers. These is largely copyvios and have been deleted 3 times at the original location as A7, G11 and G12. Xe has now reposted at a new location and this version is like the others and is largely copied and closely paraphrased from here Duplication Detector. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I've deleted and salted "Board of student advisers". ("Board of Student Advisers" was already deleted and salted.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
That would explain why the creation has occurred across multiple titles. Thanks! Twitbookspacetube (talk) 09:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Glad to have helped. If the material pops up under yet another title, don't hesitate to point this out. -- Hoary (talk) 09:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Range block for disruptive LTA[edit]

Blocked for another 3 months. Black Kite (talk) 11:10, 28 December 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.

There's an LTA who edit wars to add unsourced content, blank citations, change wording to be incorrect, and is generally disruptive. You can read about it in this LTA report. On 5 July 2016, 2a02:c7d:9ec5:3800::/64 was range blocked by Krakatoa Katie for 45 days. The range has become active again recently, and the edits are still disruptive:

Individually, many of these problems are not major, but whenever anyone tries to fix any of these issues, he edit wars indefinitely to maintain them. You can see some of his edit warring in Vampire in Brooklyn, Eddie Murphy Raw, 12 Rounds 2: Reloaded, and Absolutely Anything. Some of these have since been semi-protected because of him. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:40, 28 December 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.

North korea juche[edit]

An RFC is not a vote, closures are based on policy-based consensus, and those who take a side in the discussion should not close them. The discussion is ongoing, and there is no admin action required here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:58, 28 December 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.

they overturned my closure of rfc, and then said it was closer to "non consensus" when 6 out of 10! i guesse i want someone to re close it it consensus to include juche in the infobox with support of 6 out of 10 (talk) 11:48, 28 December 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.


(non-admin closure) Subject blocked by Nyttend. Images deleted on Commons Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:J-lorentz (contributions) editings in Indonesia article is disruptive and thinks he/she owns the article. Wikipedia:Ownership of content. He/she also always uploads images that he/she don't own, without photographer's permission, from Google Images, mirrored, or cropped the watermark of the photograph's owner, and creating fake Metadata. ( He/she applies "his/her" photographs to many articles. Most of his images has been reported and speedy deleted, and leaving Indonesia article and other articles broken and missing images. Administrators, please take an action for this disruptive user. Rantemario (talk) 05:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours; I couldn't delete the Commons images because someone else got to them first. Please re-report if the user resumes disruption. Nyttend (talk) 23:59, 28 December 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.
Nyttend, I don't see any blocks in the block log. Was the editor blocked or not? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
No. Somehow I forgot that one little detail! Now remedied, and thank you for catching my mistake. Nyttend (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Motbag12 edit warring, called editors white trash and vandals[edit]

(non-admin closure) User has been blocked by Hoary for 31 hours for offensive comments. Prior to that, the user started a discussion on the talk page of the article. I'm closing this with a warning to Motbag12 that if they recommence edit-warring (instead of establishing WP:CONSENSUS on the article's talk page) after the block expires, or if they post offensive comments, or if they edit as an IP to edit war, the next block will be commensurately longer. Softlavender (talk) 11:14, 27 December 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.

Moving this from WP:EW as there was no 3RR notice:

Indian Century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Motbag12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 05:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 756848092 by Joshua Jonathan (talk)You are simply a white trash European who hates India. You cant deal with India and China becoming great powers, is it? Sources give"
  2. 04:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC) "VANDALISM REVERTED. There is no such Wikipedia or encyclopedia rules and regulations such like that. As long as legitimate sources are provided, those sources can be listed for verification only."
  3. 17:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 756753478 by RegentsPark (talk) VANDALISM REVERTED; Lead Expanded - economic projections"

Also [4] while logged out, calling other editors vandals and white trash, etc. I see little hope for this editor and iif I hadn't reverted them would have taken action myself. He's been warned several times and another editor removed a personal attack I haven't read from the article talk page. Doug Weller talk 06:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

No 3rr warning though but this is still beyond acceptable. Doug Weller talk 06:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Doug Weller talk 06:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Misread one of the warnings, as it said 'has been removed' I thought it meant a talk page comment, but it must have referred to an edit summary, although of course that hasn't been removed. Doug Weller talk 06:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm losing track of the reverts, another with his account[5] and two more with an IP address, with an edit summary about "white Americans". So that's 2 after the warning. Doug Weller talk 08:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Actually that makes 3 total after the warning. Softlavender (talk) 08:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Awarded a 31-hour cooling-off period. -- Hoary (talk) 09:44, 27 December 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.
Evading block as an IP.[6] Before the block he seems to have used another IP.[7] which User:Materialscientist blocked. Doug Weller talk 22:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Busily evading the block with different IPs. (Perhaps his own block should be lengthened accordingly.) I've regretfully s-protected Talk:India and Talk:Indian Century. -- Hoary (talk) 09:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I would say an extension by 72 hours per block evasion offence would be alarmingly easy to justify. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 09:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I'd have no trouble justifying it myself, Twitbookspacetube. But I would say that, wouldn't I? After all, he [I always think of these people as male] has put me among "white illiterate administrators of free encyclopedia", a diagnosis that must surely upset me so profoundly (not) as to render me incapable of dispassionate thought. Better that an alternative admin takes any additional action. -- Hoary (talk) 11:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I suppose WP:INVOLVED is rather important Twitbookspacetube (talk) 11:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Legal threat at Talk:Swami Nithyananda[edit]

User Shashaanktulsyan has been indeffed by Oshwah for issuing legal threats. De728631 (talk) 14:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In response to my addition of a {{COI editnotice}} template, User:Shashaanktulsyan decides to reply with a legal threat (see previous edit as well). The article seems have a history of BLP violations (both against the subject and others). However, it also has a history of dubious editors popping up and trying to puff up the article (using unreliable sources)/WP:BLUDGEONing discussions and !vote stacking. All of this is disruptive and I hope others can look into it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's a legal threat. When fans and supporters edits like a paid editor and COI editors, the good faith wikipedians face problems. Marvellous Spider-Man 06:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: & @Marvellous Spider-Many: & @Lemongirl942: "Good faith" is ok, but purposely repeating the same thing again and again and again and again for 2 years means what? Surely there is something wrong here. This topic has been debated and discussed over for a period of 1.5 years. The dubious content was removed after almost 1 year of debate. And then again Ms. Lemongirl942 tried to bring it up again as a separate wiki article. Then again the second debate on the exact same topic happened. You can see the discussion. . There is overwhelming vote for the content to be removed. Yet I don't understand why is it comming back to wikipedia again and again and again. And Lemongirl942 very well followed the discussion end to end because she only had raised it. Even if she has a different subjective-view-point (which is fine) she very well knows that is has been discussed for almost 1.5 years and yet she is telling, "I think this is NPOV, I would prefer retaining it". Please explain how she has the right to override the vote of whoever voted it here ? If this is the case what is the point of going through all this. And I get a message, ' "f you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution." ' What do we mean by follow the proper channels? What has been happening since past 1.5 years. Let us talk straight forward. So does it this is going to go on perpetually? And the same issue will be proped up by any random editor and continuously WP:BLP violations will be done. If that is the case, please make it clear. Why this hypocrisy? As if everyone is jobless. I don't understand what benefit people gain by writing abusive content in biography of a living person. Seriously. And also note in the voting I voted for the content to be retained, but still it was removed for WP:BLP. The problem is not that the content is there. I want it to be there. The problem is, only those versions of it is being retained which just give half the picture and have been removed for this reason by various editors for past over 1.5 years. And I don't know what is so hard for some editors to read the previous discussion and follow this. I very well said, let us have the full content and I fully agree with Lemongirl942 that all that should be there along with other facts also. But the discussion which lastest 4 months concluded that it should be removed. So on what basis is this being brought back again and again and again and again and again. When will it end? Shashank Tulsyan (talk) 07:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
How about you make a statement that either retracts or clarifies that what you posted is not a legal threat? Because you WILL be banned for it. --Tarage (talk) 07:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
@Shashaanktulsyan: Regardless of how long the discussion has been ongoing and the direction it has taken, it is simply not considered acceptable to post a statement such as Also note, ideally wikipedia should completely remove this page if editors have decided to become accomplice with abusers, otherwise legal proceedings will have to taken against wikipedia to try and influence the outcome of any discussion or to discourage other editors from freely participating in it for the reasons given in WP:LEGAL. If you have a COI and have concerns with the article content, then please follow the steps listed in WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement. If you're not able to reach a consensus on the article's talk page, then try asking for assistance at a community noticeboard like WP:BLPN, WP:COIN, WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN. Continuing to engage in discussion to try and resolve things may take time, but it's your best chance at a resolution. Continuing to make legal threats, on the other hand, will quickly lead to your account being blocked by an administrator and thereby completely remove you from the process. If your issues are with external media outlets and their coverage or lack of coverage of this matter, then you should discuss the issue with them and not try and use Wikipedia as a place to right some great wrong. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
A pretty blatant legal threat. The user must be indef'd at least until (or if) they recant and disavow that threat. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Reported user has been indefinitely blocked for making legal threats. The user was given plenty of time to acknowledge Wikipedia's policy on legal threats and redact or withdraw the threat in question, and failed to do so. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Recommend also adding a longish semi. The article has a looooong history of fairly egregious BLP violations. (Ping @Titodutta: as most recent protector.) I really don't know who this guys is, and I think...came across the article from RC feed, but apparently he' Indian love child of Jerry Falwell and Kim Kardashian. TimothyJosephWood 14:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Requesting topic ban for User:Jennepicfoundation[edit]

Per community consensus, User:Jennepicfoundation is now banned from making any direct edits at the article Alexandre Mars. She may, however, use the article's talk page Talk:Alexandre Mars to participate in discussions and to suggest that changes be made to the article by other editors. Any direct edits to the article page made by Jennepicfoundation will lead to an immediate indefinite block. De728631 (talk) 02:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The named user is a disclosed COI editor.[8] She is the Director of Communications for the Epic Foundation, whose founder and CEO is Alexandre Mars. She is a single purpose account who created and has worked exclusively on the article Alexandre Mars. (She previously used two alternate accounts, User:Andamanes and User:Jennchowdhury, which are currently blocked at her request.) User:Ritchie333 and I assisted her with creation of the article in May through July of last year, and it was accepted July 9, 2015. We and others counseled her about her conflict of interest and told her she should suggest edits at the talk page, but she persisted in doing direct edits to the article. On July 13 I gave her a strong warning.[9] She made a few innocuous edits, then the article was quiet and stable for a year and a half. On December 15 of this year, she pasted a mostly-new biography into the article.[10] The new material, which she described as "Epic Foundation-approved", was very promotional. She described her employer as "the French Bill Gates" and used language like "made a fortune", "the world's largest mobile agency", and "he is an avid runner and sports fanatic". She was warned that the article was a copyvio because it is duplicated in multiple other places, but she replied that the bio was created by the Epic Foundation and given to the other places where it is published, so she didn't regard it as a copyvio. (Of course, by our rules the fact that it had been published elsewhere meant that it was.) The situation has been discussed at her talk page [11], the article talk page [12], and most recently the COI noticeboard [13]. She appears to have no understanding of the problem or how inappropriate this recent addition was, and she clearly intends to keep doing this kind of thing. Although she has been told, repeatedly, not to edit the article herself, she insists that she can and will add anything she wants as long as it is sourced and (in her opinion) neutral.[14] I don't think further counseling is going to help. I am recommending an indefinite topic ban, for User:Jennepicfoundation and any alternate accounts, from any editing having to do with Alexandre Mars or the Epic Foundation. --MelanieN (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Since she's never edited anything but the Mars article, and she is an obvious SPA with a self-admitted COI, a topic ban would be the equivalent of a block, so why not simply indef block her until she agrees to not edit the article directly, but to make suggestions on the talk page? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree. Hard block indefinitely. Her statements at the talk page are the equivalent of giving us the middle finger. John from Idegon (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Agree with JFI. Toddst1 (talk) 00:35, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
I prefer a TBAN as more appropriate to the offense. There are things you get blocked for; there are things you get topic banned for; they are not the same things. But that's what discussion is for. I would just request that this discussion remain open until at least the 27th, so that she can have a chance to respond. (Chances are she does her posting from work, and she probably has Sunday and Monday off.) --MelanieN (talk) 00:55, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support pageban (allowing input on Talk) and block if it's not honoured. Guy (Help!) 00:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Just an indef block, with talk page access. Why do we go through all these hoops to preserve the 1/1,000,000 chance that someone like this will ever be a productive editor? EEng 06:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Page ban Not many hoops to go through. If they edit the page then they get blocked, if they stop editing altogether then it is effectively the same as an indef. If they start editing at the talk page (however unlikely this is seen to be) then we have the desired result. Jumping straight to indef seems a bit harsh. AIRcorn (talk) 08:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
I'll bet you three AfDs, a GA, and ten DYKs it doesn't work. Deal? EEng 08:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Your money is safe, but at least this way we're seen to be fair. Guy (Help!) 17:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Page ban with talk access - if she doesn't get the message, indef. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Note: If Jennifer acting as agent for the Epic Foundation has pasted EF copyright text into Wikipedia in full awareness of the T's and C's, then it has been released under the appropriate license. "Our rules" may of course demand an OTRS release in addition, or they may not. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 09:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC).
  • Support page ban with talk access. User:EEng, Hope costs nothing. Tiderolls 13:05, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
...nothing but yet another ANI thread. But hey, we got a zillion of them anyway, so what's one more? EEng 18:31, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Page ban with talk access Agree Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:54, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Just so resolution of this is not held up because of an apparent division between editors as to what to do, let me be clear that if the consensus is for a page ban, I'm OK with that as well. I agree with waiting until the 27th for a close, seems only fair. (Unless she edits the article before then.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:07, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I also support a page ban. Good idea, because it leaves her able to suggest edits on the talk page. The ban should make it clear that if she edits on the article page, AT ALL, that will be an immediate block. No need for a return to ANI. --MelanieN (talk) 23:52, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  • If the user hasn't yet figured out that direct editing of the article is improper, I don't think she ever will. However, I support MelanieN's idea of giving a little more WP:ROPE – she can suggest edits on the talk page, but any direct editing of the article will lead to an immediate indefinite block. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 19:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I too would accept a page ban with talk page access for the sake of a solid concensus only. However, I'm in the same camp as EEng. Hope does not spring eternal here for me. John from Idegon (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
[FBDB] JfI, I'm going to have to ask you to leave my camp if you don't stop eating collaborative communities [15]. Fair warning. EEng 04:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Complication: the user has been blocked as a username violation, so she currently cannot respond here even if she wants to. I have posted a note to the blocking administrator (I don't think the name is a violation), but in the meantime please don't close this discussion; I'd really like her to have a chance to respond rather than getting blindsided over a holiday weekend. --MelanieN (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC) Never mind, she's been unblocked. --MelanieN (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Inappropriate section at Talk:Generation Snowflake[edit]

Talk:Generation Snowflake#Please ban Keri should probably be removed, closed, or hatted, along with leaving a note on the talk page of the contributor who opened it stating that such a thing is inappropriate on the talk page of an article.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I've hatted it, even though I'm not an admin, because I found it inappropriate - "ban someone or I'll stop donating" is a bit childish really. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
At the very least, someone would need to prove they actually are donating. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Actually, no, they wouldn't, because it would be utterly irrelevant to any on-wiki dispute. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
So instead he would need to take it up with the Foundation? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't see why it's relevant at all. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I concur with Boing! said Zebedee. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 11:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't disagree in general. But it's not automatically irrelevant. It might be relevant to the Foundation, IF the user isn't bluffing and is a significant donor. Not that that's license to attack other editors - it's akin to a legal threat. But the WMF might be interested in looking into it. You always have to be careful where money comes into play. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree that my donations are meaningless in the disagreement. The actions on that page definitely make me want to distance myself from Wikipedia, mostly because it seems gang-like and it is increasingly clear that wikipedia is about popularity. Don't worry about my donations. Thanks for at least taking me seriously. (talk) 13:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, if you want to quit editing, we can't stop you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I find the idea that someone would attempt to use donations (that may or may not have actually happened) as a method to exert editorial control or leverage extremely distasteful. Why not go and edit another article instead of making this toothless attempt at blackmail? Exemplo347 (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
User has already been blocked for edit warring and is clearly very pissed off at the direction the article is taking (he's not the only one). Don't see any reason to keep this open. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Article ownership and personal attacks[edit]

Warning delivered. Further incidents of this sort will be dealt with more severely. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:14, 28 December 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.

Hello! Please, do something with this user. [16]. Corvus tristis (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The "or else" is an implied threat, and cannot be tolerated. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I have notified the user of this discussion. Please remember to do this yourself the next time you file a request at AN or ANI. JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
The name-calling (which I won't repeat here, it's in the link) is probably at least as bad as the "or else". Neutron (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Corvus tristis. That looks pretty clear cut to me. Everybody needs to keep calm and discuss differences in a civil manner which clearly did not happen here. I have dropped a warning on their talk page. If you have anymore problems of that sort drop me a line on my talk page and I will deal with it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I am going to leave this open for a bit in case Jvm21 wants to respond, but I don't see much more to be added to this discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
User:Jvm21 was previously blocked in September by User:Jo-Jo Eumerus for adding unsourced statements to articles. (An example is described at User talk:Jvm21#Best Foreign Language Film). We should consider taking some admin action this time around if the user will not back off from these threats and personal attacks ("you cybernetic al-Qaeda wannabe. Nobody hijacks my pages and gets away with it"). EdJohnston (talk) 21:56, 27 December 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.


Wikiwatcher99 is blocked for 10 days.(non-admin closure) TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Wikiwatcher99, an apparent SPA, is disrupting an AfD for Jay Chen. Making accusatory comments. Objects to AfD but does not show notability, instead is accusing me of ulterior motives. Has edited only Jay Chen and Norman N. Hsu.

The subject, Jay Chen does not appear notable. Ran for the US House but lost to incumbent. Was once a school board member. Now a trustee of a community college in California. Never held political office. I came upon the article by way of Norman N. Hsu which was not the Norman Hsu I was looking for. I've also nominated that article for deletion for the same reason. Neither of these fellows have reliable sources to indicate they are notable per guidelines. Apparently, Jay Chen was on Fox News and Wikiwatcher has accused me of seeing the broadcast and immediately wanting to delete the page because he says I'm working for the Republican Party. I'm not, btw. He's disrupting the AfD and seems to be using bully/battle tactics and, what?, Republican shaming??? I'm not a Republican, either, btw. Please restrain so the AfD can proceed without further incident. He's already voted "remain," so a block would do no harm to his vote. Thank you. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

  1. [18]
  2. [19]
  3. [20]
  4. [21]
  5. [22]
  6. [23]
  • Blocked 10 days to allow the AfD to complete. Guy (Help!) 23:30, 27 December 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: Nivashkumaryadav[edit]

He abuseth talk page access privileges while blocked, I taketh take page access away. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:11, 29 December 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.

abuse of talk page while blocked WNYY98 (talk) 07:55, 29 December 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.

Proposed WP:CIR block for user Qucipuci0[edit]

Hello. I have come across a user (Qucipuci0) who is making a lot of Japanese album articles - which is fine, however, I don't think English is their first language and their choice of wording in articles is very poor. Example: diff and one of their pages that I haven't fixed: Power of Words - I have fixed at least 20 of these articles with the same style wording, "Album charted for 42 weeks and totally sold 746,000 copies.". I have reached out to them offering my help and even told them how to reply back to me in case they didn't know how, to no avail. They have created 149 articles and have several article deletion notices on their talk page. I am requesting either a warning or a WP:CIR block [per recommendation of an admin] --Jennica / talk 07:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Seems the user has chosen to retire. TimothyJosephWood 15:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


Continued addition of unsourced material to BLP after final warning.

  • Final warning: [24]
  • Continued addition of unsourced material: [25]

Suggest a temporary block. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Seems the user is likely a sock of User:Mattmeine, given their similar behavior. TimothyJosephWood 15:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
...who is a banned sock of User:CensoredScribe. TimothyJosephWood 15:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so how do we get a block? This user continues to add unsourced material: [26]. Is there a better noticeboard for this? Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC) @JzG: and @Doug Weller: who happen to be randomly two of the recent admins to contribute here that I recognize. Is this WP:DUCK worthy, or do we actually need to go through the WP:SPI backlog? TimothyJosephWood 23:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I was hoping to avoid SPI, as I find the procedure tedious. We should certainly get a temp block on the BLP issues, but a sock ban would be better if that's possible. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
@Kendall-K1 and Timothyjosephwood: Sorry, I've been busy. I've blocked as a sock of Mattmeine - but note that Mattmeine is only a suspected sock of CensoredScribe, he wasn't blocked as a sock. The CU evidence combined with behavioral was sufficient. Doug Weller talk 12:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Resolved: User blocked. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


(non-admin closure)Apparently you can revoke range blocks talkpage access, so KrakatoaKatie did. Amortias (T)(C) 16:45, 29 December 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.

2607:FB90:5E96:F5B0:0:49:A34D:B501 (talk · contribs): The IP is range blocked but is making disruptive edits to their talk page, User talk:2607:FB90:5E96:F5B0:0:49:A34D:B501, transcluding pages so causing errors and adding it to project categories (warning – it will take time to load). Can talk page access can be revoked for a range block? I would say protect the page but they can just return to another one.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 15:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked for the range. Katietalk 16:27, 29 December 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:The Quixotic Potato[edit]

It looks like the responses and discussion here have drawn to a close, so I'm going to wrap up this report, leave my final words, and be done with it. Looking through the context of this issue, as well as the discussion in this ANI report, I believe that the underlying issue here (and something I highly recommend that The Quixotic Potato take from this and improve on) is the failure to discern the difference between comments that express legitimate concerns regarding an editor's contributions or editing behavior from those that violate Wikipedia's civility and personal attack policies. Another underlying issue also appears to be the inability to discern which type of discussions that expressing these concerns would contribute positively and toward the topic on-hand from other discussions that they would not. In this case, making comments such as the one that became the center of this ANI report (especially given the word choice and manner in which it was stated), and in a discussion over content-related matters will generally be seen as unconstructive and not aimed towards building a consensus. Many editors have expressed that the comment, it's timing, and the context in which it was made in response to - was inappropriate. If The Quixotic Potato has legitimate concerns stemming from another editors contributions or behavior, he should create or participate in a relevant discussion and express these concerns with supporting evidence and with improving and maintaining the encyclopedia as the primary goal and focus. I urge The Quixotic Potato to be mindful of comments made towards other editors, and to take the time to understand the difference between concerns and attacks, as well as the right time and place to express them. Should problems in this area continue to occur and without care, administrative action can be implemented in order to correct the action if needed. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:The Quixotic Potato has called another user an extremist [[27]].

I asked him to withdraw the statement [[28]]

His response what to say it was not an insult and I need to make sure of my facts before I falsely accuse someone. [[29]]

As far as I am aware (please correct me if I am wrong) that a PA is still a PA even if factually accurate.

In addition he is arguing some pretty spurious arguments on the SPLC talk page, and making other comments that boarder on PA's in that they are about the editors and not what they say [[30]].

I think the user is clearly to involved in the topic to be a constructive editor.Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Please note there is a difference between "to" and "too", "border" and "boarder" and "what" and "was". (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 12:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you would like to address the actual points made is is not a breech of policy?Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
breach. I didn't do anything wrong. You can call me a potato because I am a potato. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 12:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
As you can see he is making no effort to actually explain how his actions are within policy, and is a tendentious editor (at best). I will bow out for a bit and let other editors take over.Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Ehm, I actually did explain why that action is allowed: "You can call me a potato because I am a potato". On my talkpage I wrote: "Saying an extremist is an extremist is not an insult. They are usually quite proud of it, and they dislike those who have a more moderate opinion. I would ask you to check their contribs before falsely accusing me of insulting anyone." (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
The Quixotic Potato - I disagree. Your response here appears to violate Wikipedia's policy by making personal attacks at David A, and clearly so. You tell him that he "hold[s] far far more bigoted views than the average muslim" and doesn't realize it, imply that his views are being controlled by others by stating that you hope he can "escape from those who are in control of your worldview", and ending with "islamophobia and antisemitism are two sides of the same foul-smelling coin" and "Extremists like Motsebboh are not your friend". This is absolutely not a constructive comment that exists to provide direct input in discussion to the request for comment taking place on the article's talk page. Per Wikipedia's policy on civility, you're expected to keep discussions toward content, and not toward other users. Please do not make further uncivil responses or engage in making personal attacks toward other editors. This violates Wikipedia's policies on how to interact and collaborate (which is one of Wikipedia's five pillars). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Please specify which part you mean. Have you checked their contributions before falsely accusing me? Everyone's worldview is controlled by others, but people have to decide who to trust. You act way too quickly; please do some research before posting a comment. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm failing to understand what "part" of my response needs to be specified or explained further to you. The user's contributions are completely irrelevant. To put things in context: David A responded to a vote comment citing a document (that may or may not be found to be relevant to the discussion) as part of his reasons behind his thoughts. Another editor responded believing such document to be unrelated to the discussion, David A responds with additional comments regarding the document, then you respond to him with this. I'm not suggesting that your response violated Wikipedia's policies on civility and making personal attacks - I'm telling you that it did. This response was unacceptable. Period. If further personal attacks such as this continue, you may be blocked from editing. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
If you wanna make it through RfA, and handle cases like this, you have to do a lot of reading before you start writing. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Ah lol you did. Well, rnddude is giving a good example. Slow down. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand your response here at all. Reading below, even if you did provide diffs to assert your thoughts regarding David A's contributions... how does that make your response acceptable, or a positive contribution to the discussion at-hand regarding the article? How is this response positively aiming to help the discussion come to a consensus? I made an in-depth thought and response here on my talk page. I believe that it clearly explains this situation and the issue at-large. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I've replied on your talkpage. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Without getting into the meat of the argument, Quixotic; you hold far far more bigoted views than the average muslim is pretty clearly an a comment about the contributor and not the content. Hypothetically if you were calling a spade a spade it might be overlooked. The fact is, you weren't. It is quite clear that David A is "passionate" about the issue of Islamic doctine and Islamic extremism, as I am assuming you are about Islamophobia. There is no need to go to such a low level to further your arguments. If you can't posit your case without commenting on others then either your argument is weak or you're not bothering to put up a strong one. RfCs are decided by the weight of the arguments, not the insults. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, check his contribs. I know it is a comment about the contributor, but it is based on their contributions. And as you can see I didn't really bother with that RfC, that is correct. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Diffs Quix, you must provide diffs. You've been brought to AN/I for your actions, if you have any intent of defending your extremism comment you will have to provide evidence that the editor has espoused extremist, bigoted, or otherwise unseemly views that impact on the encyclopaedia. That would make your comment defensible. As it currently stands, you've called an editor bigoted and provided no evidence of such. I don't know where in their contribs to look. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, the thread started about another comment, but if you want me to give you some diffs for that one then I will have to do some research. I haven't saved the links I dug up, maybe I should've. There are quite a few examples that illustrate what I mean. Most muslims do not spend a large amount of time trying to post negative information about groups they dislike on Wikipedia. Women, children and the elderly are the majority... (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Sure, that would at least give me some context to work off of. Though I may not necessarily draw the same conclusions as you do. The PewResearchCentre's study doesn't give any great confidence to Islamic doctrine and Muslim groups who subscribe to it wholly, much like with many other religions. If David has an issue with Muslims then I will have a chat to them about it on their talk page. Many criticisors of Islam forget the distinction between the faith and the person. I once heard it said that your faith is a product of circumstances beyond your control. If you were born in a Hindu family, you'd be a Hindu, a Buddhist family, a Buddhist, a Nordic family in the viking era, Thor, in Ancient Rome, Mars, or in Ancient Egypt, Amun-Ra and Kek. Etc, etc. Attacking the people for their faith is an issue worth addressing, the faith itself is not immune to criticism, nor should it ever be. Think of non-Catholics during the Medieval era for example. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I am a "strong" atheist (or, more precisely, I am a ignostic theological non-cognivist). My parents used to be vaguely christian, I was baptised and we went to church when I was very little, but all three of their kids are atheists, and later they also stopped believing. My opinion about (for example) ISIL is pretty clear. Muslim extremists would kill me if they would get the chance (you can read my userpage, it explains my POV). I believe that all Abrahamic religions are very very similar, and they are all incorrect. Just a bunch of made up stories from people who tried their best to explain natural phenomena. Most of it is basically a revamped version of the Epic of Gilgamesh. I am Dutch, so I also do not like nazis. Here in Amsterdam there are many muslims, and unfortunately my country also contains quite a few islamophobes. It is sad that they do not seem to realize that antisemitism and islamophobia are two sides of the same foul-smelling coin. Heck, islamophobes and nazis use the same propaganda techniques. I'll get back to you with some diffs, but that will take a while. The quote you posted below (the one I responded to) is an example, because the context is that we were talking about people that the SPLC listed as anti-muslim extremists. Like I said before "women, children and the elderly are the majority", most of them just wanna live in peace and accusing them of possessing "enormously more bigoted views than most critics of Islamism" is of course a very very extreme point of view that isn't shared by many people outside of the alt-right and far-right. The SPLC also dislikes both antisemites and islamophobes, I think my opinion is quite similar to that of the SPLC. [31] (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I have heard of Majiid Nawaz but I can't remember where. Unless I am grossly mistaken, he is particularly critical of Islam, but, I don't recall him being anti-Muslim just severely anti-Islam. I'll get back to you on that if I can find where it was I'd heard of him. I'm happy to wait a day or two for you to find what you're looking for as needed. The quote you're referring to was, I think, a poor choice of expression. I do not believe that David had women and children in mind when he said that, but rather the (male) Muslims in the Middle-East and Africa who do - in some areas significantly - hold views that are not in-line with ours. Female circumsion, the death penalty for adultery, etc. But, I'll let you take the time to find the diffs before I exonerate or prosecute anyone. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
On that very same talkpage David wrote that the SPLC is "systematically targetting anybody who rationally criticises radical Islamism". If you look at the people on the list then most of them are clearly extremists, e.g. Horowitz said "the American left, whose agendas are definitely to destroy this country", Daniel Pipes is the source of the much-ridiculed claim that there are hundreds of “no-go zones” in Europe where Shariah law prevails and where non-Muslims, including police, are afraid to go, Walid Shoebat believes that all Muslim organizations in America should be the No. 1 enemy et cetera et cetera. I don't think I have to explain that those views are far more extreme than those of most muslims (especially the ones I meet here in Amsterdam). Majiid Nawaz was the only one I didn't know much about [32] (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban.Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

lol. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@The Quixotic Potato: Your statement that David A is more biggoted than your average Muslim. Are you implying that all Muslims are bigoted and that David A is just more of a bigot than the rest of the Muslim population? Either way this sort of comment makes it seem that you bias against Muslims (extremist or otherwise) would be sound cause for a Topic-Ban on the subject. Amortias (T)(C) 13:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

????? Please read before commenting. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Comments like these should get people topic banned from WP:ANI discussions. Anyway, this is boring, I am gonna do something a bit more productive. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Amortias you have missed the mark by about a quarter-mile. Quix is clearly calling another editor extremist for referring to the average Muslim as extremist. Or rather they appear to perceive it as such, I disagree with their conclusion but am waiting for diffs. Your jumping in to tell Quix that they are biased against Muslims is unwelcome and unproductive. Please expend more effort into going through the content of the issue before posting your comments. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
The diff here [33] specifically states It is sad that you do not realize that you hold far far more bigoted views than the average muslim I'm not sure how stating that someone else has far more bigoted views than a group of people can be considered appropriate without anything to back it up. If its poor wording and they meant to say unlike other/the majority/some Muslims you have bigoted views on... then its simply a case of wording being flakey, calling someone extremist or biggoted without evidence is still not helpful. Amortias (T)(C) 13:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Amortias, read the comment to which Quix is responding to; the average Muslim possesses enormously more bigoted views than most critics of Islamism. Context, always important to have context. I by no means defend either comment, neither is of any use to the situation and in that respect I agree with you, but, I still find it not useful to claim someone is biased against a group without a more thorough examination then what is on the face of their words. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
All of which is largely irrelevant, as the question is did The Quixotic Potato break policy, and is he a disruptive editor.Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Change to total ban, I think it is obvious the user has a contemptuous attitude towards both the five pillars and users who disagree with him.Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

lol. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Case to point.Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
in. And I would treat you differently if you would treat me differently. That is how life on this planet works. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment generally you would be hard pressed to get more than a warning to be less aggressive passed against editor A for calling editor B a bigot straight after editor B makes a bigoted statement. People might quibble that it should have been phrased 'your editing/opinion' rather than 'you'. But its basically semantics in order to comply with wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, if someone would ask me use different wording next time in order to be less blunt then I would. But Dutch people are infamous for being blunt, and we are often perceived as being very rude when we believe we are simply being honest. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough, could you next time not call someone a bigot just because you think they are and try and word it so it is not an insult.Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
OK, seems like a reasonable request to me. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
@The Quixotic Potato: As an uninvolved editor, I started reading this thread and came to the opinion that it should be closed with no action after the first few comments. But the more I read (specifically, of your responses) the more I think some sanctions might be in order, if only to impress upon you the need to work with others here, instead of simply working alongside them. Your insistence upon offering corrections to Slater's comments strikes me as incredibly arrogant and dismissive. Your refusal to provide diffs after being asked by two different admins strikes me as evasive. Your opening of the ANI thread below strikes me as disrespectful to everyone else.
I'm not 'piling on', and I'm not suggesting specific sanctions. My preference is still to see this resolved without sanctions, because in many ways I agree with you. What I'm doing here is simply letting you know what sort of negative effect your responses here are having on someone who approached this thread with a bias in your favor. I'm also advising you to get some diffs and use them to defend yourself, or else apologize and strike the comment. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, I am a complicated person, you might wanna get to know me more before you judge me. But, like I explained before, "if someone would ask me use different wording next time in order to be less blunt then I would" (update: someone has, and I did, see above). I have noticed that it is quite difficult to be as diplomatic as I want to be in a foreign language. Not just in English, I have the same problem in other languages. I have a very large vocabulary in Dutch, and using a foreign language limits the ways in which I can express myself. I mentioned two diffs (1 and 2), but I can find many more if you want me to. I am very very arrogant, I won't deny that, but if you read my userpage then you'll discover that there is also another side to that story. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC) might wanna get to know me more... You see, that's the point. I don't know you very well, and because we're just two Wikipedians from two different countries, I'm not likely to ever get to know you well. From my point of view (and that of everyone else here), there's absolutely no difference between you behaving arrogantly, disrespectfully and dismissively, and you appearing to behave arrogantly, disrespectfully and dismissively due to some language difficulties. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, you are invited for a cup of tea with a stroopwafel, here in Amsterdam. I wrote: "And I would treat you differently if you would treat me differently." then Slatersteven posted a comment that was constructive and I responded with "OK, seems like a reasonable request to me". Respect is overrated, love is far more important. I usually treat those who treat me respectfully quite nicely (if I may say so myself), but I am known to annoy those who treat me in a way I dislike with perceived arrogance and dismissiveness. BTW I am here to fix typos, I strongly dislike typos and I've fixed many thousands of them. Some quotes from my userpage: "This user suffers from Bloaty Head". "This user is aware of the fact that he is a hypocrite". "This user knows that he knows nothing". "I hate my fellow-man because I'm hateful to myself!". So yeah, on the one hand I can be an arrogant prick if I want to, and I enjoy that if I think that it is well deserved, but I am not one-dimensional. And most people treat me far better so I return the favor. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:32, 28 December 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.


No. This is clearly an attempt to "trade punches" and is on the verge of violating WP:POINT. ANI is not a game, and we're not going to play. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:18, 28 December 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.

Slatersteven has falsely accused me (which I don't really mind), but then he insulted me by writing that I am "a tendentious editor (at best)". That is a clear personal attack (of course this is slightly sarcastic, calling someone a tendentious editor is kinda comparable to calling someone an extremist). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 12:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

And now the user launches a tit for tat ANI, about a subject "he does not mind".Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:INDENT and Straw man argument. I said I don't really mind your false accusation. The subject of this section is your personal attack. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

And not a serious accusation, just taking the piss (by his own admission, he is just using this ANI to mock me) [[34]].Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I asked you politely to read Straw man argument but here you are misrepresenting what I wrote again. I wrote: "if you act like that you will get mocked. That is life." (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:11, 28 December 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 came back from the dead[edit]

Blocked. (non-admin closure) GABgab 05:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Yes, here I am again, with yet another disruptive editor in the field of Jewish articles. (talk · contribs) is back disrupting the Hebrew calendar article and talkpage after a half year block. His point of view has been extensively, ad nauseam actually, discussed in a section on the talkpage, and rejected. Nevertheless, today he made an attempt to add his opinion to the article[35] and reopen the talkpage discussion.[36]

In addition, I find it highly suspicious that this editors comes back 1. right now that Rococo1700 was blocked here on WP:ANI for 48 hours 2. is aware of my recent report of Rococ1700 here on WP:ANI as follows from this edit 3. displays the same battleground behavior as Rococo1700, as witnessed from this edit where he says "I will be delighted to meet you at ANI" 4. also edits (and edit wars) Judaism-related articles.

Whether that is a coincidence or not, I think the best course of action is to reinstate the block of this IP. His is a single-purpose account, and the purpose is to be disruptive and push his point of view against consensus. Debresser (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

  • I think it's probably a coincidence. Their edits don't overlap, but the IP is from a main British ISP, whereas Rococo1700, judging by their editing times, is in the USA. Feel free to start an SPI page if you think they're the same, though. Incidentally, the IP was previously blocked for being a sock of a completely unrelated banned editor, although whether they actually were is another issue. Black Kite (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Not so sure about the unrelated bit. The banned editor in question is known to take great interest in calendar-related articles. Favonian (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, that was my point, really; the banned editor in question is certainly not known for spending 95% of their time on Italian art-related articles, as Rococo1700 does. Black Kite (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for putting me straight. :) Thus encouraged, I have renewed the IP's block for ban-evasion. Favonian (talk) 21:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
I am happy to have been wrong about Rococo1700, and also with the solution implemented. Debresser (talk) 06:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC) (talk · contribs) is continuing the issue on the talkpage. As you can see, he was involved in this issue before, and now suddenly came back after more than a year-long hiatus. I am not sure if this is another sock, but showing up suddenly after more than a year and making no other edits, makes me suspicious. He was previously blocked for sock evasion. Debresser (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Definitely the same and blocked as such. Favonian (talk) 16:52, 28 December 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.

Edit warring on Kay Parker[edit]

Content disputes should be taken to the article talk page, not ANI. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 05:20, 29 December 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 kind of at the end of my rope with (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). There's been a few-days-long edit war on Kay Parker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) happening where myself and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) will delete bogus/unsourced info in accordance with WP:BLP, upon which the IP user will revert it and leave abusive, unsigned messages on my talk page.[37] [38]. 68. has been blocked once before for similar behavior. The only reason I come here now is because I really don't want to be abused further over what amounts to a very simple, very bright-line application of BLP.

Karunamon Talk 18:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I am happy Karunamon brought this discussion to this page. It should be very simple for someone to explain to Karunamon how WP (should) work. (Of course all his claims of "abuse" are outrageous defamation, but whatever.) Here is the issue, someone explain to one of us who is right:

Kay Parker was a porn actress. She was known for one thing, and one thing only: She starred in the original Taboo. If you don't believe me, a simple google search will produce dozens of pages with ACTUAL CLIPS FROM THE MOVIE. The one place you WON'T find this information is . . . wikipedia. Wait, what? The world's encyclopedia doesn't have the most obvious fact about a celebrity? I have for 20 years been a good WP citizen, and whenever I see a mistake or omission I fix the problem in good faith. Lately it has become almost impossible to improve WP because of incidents like this. I added a simple sentence that "Kay Parker is best known for Taboo." Now, if there is a rule that claims on biography pages must be sourced, I am fine with that. It is obviously grossly NOT FOLLOWED, EVEN ON KAY PARKER'S OWN PAGE, but whatever. So what did I do? I provided THREE DIFFERENT CITATIONS TO THIS OBVIOUS FACT, one of the cited pages is ALREADY A SOURCE ON PARKER'S PAGE!!!!! Yes, the information is already available with already cited sources.

And this information has now been deleted multiple times from Parker's page. This kind of abusive editing MUST BE STOPPED. It is destroying the value of wikipedia. If you people won't explain this to this guy, there is no hope for any of you.

(By the way, just to be clear, during this whole charade, I have been trying in good faith simply to add relevant information to Parker's page. This guy is now claiming the reason for deleting the information is my language--that she's "most famous for" taboo. I just want to be clear here, so we are all clear on who is acting in good faith and who is not, I modified that statement the last time I added it so it said "She was in the movie Taboo." THAT WAS ALSO DELETED. (I included citations too.) The biggest thing that has to change here is that the assumption that superusers are being truthful has to stop.

We've discussed this before. "Best known for" is not encyclopedic, or cited. Who's to say that she's not "best known for" some other role? Say she starred in it - fine. Cites prove that. Say she's most well known for it.. there's nothing to support that. Karunamon Talk 22:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

To Karunamon: "says she starred in it--fine." Yes, exactly, and yet that information is currently not on the Kay Parker page. I added it four or five times. You now admit that it is proper information to have on her page. AND YET THE INFORMATION IS NOT THERE. Because you and others have deleted the information in bad faith multiple times. The page is currently laughably incomplete, and _____I_____, the only one who wants to fix it, have been blocked from fixing it. There is a problem with many of the editors of WP, that is for sure, and I am not it.

At this point I don't even know what you're talking about. Look at the page history, and notice that I made one, and only one edit. All that edit did was delete some invalid userbox syntax, and the opinionated statement you've all but admitted doesn't belong (about "most known for"). I did not remove anything about roles she's starred in wholesale, and at this point, I demand you either link to the edit where I did so, or stop lying about it. Immediately after that revert, and my initial post about it, you started leaving progressively less civil messages on my talk page in violation of policies on personal attacks and talk page signatures. If you want to add sourced information that she starred in Taboo, go for it. That's totally okay, as I've told you in the talk discussions many, many times now. The only reason that discussion ceased is because you told me to stop talking to you. If that information includes unsourced opinions, I will revert it again. "Adding information" and "completeness" are not excuses for violations of the biography of living persons policy. Karunamon Talk 23:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I checked the article talk page, and noticed there is no discussion regarding this issue. You both should take any discussion to that page, and if needed use the tools from WP:DISPUTE to develop consensus on the disputed content. ANI (this page) is not the place to carry out a content dispute. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 02:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

There really is no content dispute. Kay Parker was in the movie Taboo. I added that information to her page. It has been deleted five times and now I have been blocked. At no point has anyone seriously disputed whether she was in the movie. This is just a usual question of WP editors repeated bad-faith editing. Since they are allowed to get away with it, it continues.

Karumanon, if you haven't been making those edits, what in the world are you talking to me for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

You are both discussing article content, and you are disputing its removal. By definition, it's a content dispute and this is not the page for that discussion. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 05:20, 29 December 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:Musashi miyamoto[edit]

Informed on talk page here.

Disruptive editing and incivility by ♥, a WP:SPA (technically, he posted some non-SPA in 2011, but his 2016 contributions have been SPA), mainly on the article RF resonant cavity thruster (aka the emdrive), a controversial invention. As background, the emdrive article is currently dominated by three emdrive proponents, two of whom (including Musashi) are WP:SPA.

Musashi tried to introduce weakly-sourced and IMHO pseudoscientific content (, and has been edit-warring for months on and off (with sporadic support from the other two dominant page editors) to attempt to steamroller in the content without WP:CONSENSUS, for example: [39][40][41]). Continued despite a warning on the article talk page [42] and two warnings on his talk page. Claims there is WP:CONSENSUS for change, despite active discussion and multiple skeptical editors objecting to it on reasoned grounds. (To be fair, I'm the only page editor currently actively trying to revert that particular weakly-sourced addition, but other editors have raised objections on Talk about the addition!) Again to be fair, the three most active editors are pro-emdrive and in favor of inclusion, but my understanding is that WP:CONSENSUS doesn't work that way, especially on WP:FRINGE pages. If my understanding is incorrect, please correct me! To be clear, my complaint filed here is about Musashi's behavior, not the other two main pro-emdrive editors.

In addition, Musashi consistently exhibits non-civil behavior, for example:

  • According to Guy/Jzg, an admin, Musashi wrongly accused Guy of vandalism; Guy's warning is here: [43]. I don't have a diff for whatever actual incident Guy alludes to. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • [44] Apparently not taking Guy's warning to heart, called my edits "vandalism".
  • [45] Possibly in retaliation for my placing edit-warring warnings on his Talk page, opened a section on my Talk page titled "Belligerent Editing".
  • [46] Accused me of "slandering" the IBTimes and the authors of the paper he's trying to include.

Also, Musashi is IMHO tendentiously helping block inclusion of well-sourced material:

  • [47] The Washington Post publishes the uncontroversial statement that "Most scientists are skeptical" of the emdrive. Musashi (along with the two other main pro-emdrive editors) argues against the change to the WP:LEDE, insisting on watering it down to something like "Many scientists are skeptical". This seems to me tendentious. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I must interject here. As has been pointed out to Rolf many times, while the Washington Post does use 'most scientists', National Geographic uses 'many physicists' (the current source for that attribution in the article). Rolf has not pointed out why the WP should be a better source than Nat Geo, and aside from Rolf, nearly all editors agreed through a discussion on the talk page that 'many' was the correct choice. Calling MM's support of this 'tendentious' is beyond disingenuous. InsertCleverPhraseHere 22:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Regards, Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

  • I echo Rolf's comments. I would suggest that in the first instance the user is restricted from making edits directly to that article, and potentially is topic banned altogether. Guy (Help!) 08:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
This user opinions on this subject cannot be considered as being objective, because this user has personal grudge against me since the time when I have shown that he abused his power and was unfair (more on this in my reply to Rolf H Nelson below)Musashi miyamoto (talk) 01:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Dear admins, I can't help but guess I am the other account accused by Rolf of being a "WP:SPA" (I am a indeed a relatively new account but that has contributed a fair amount to other articles here, here , here, and am drafting a new article here). I appreciate Rolf has highlighted that he is not raising the complaint about myself or InsertCleverPhrase, but I would like to raise some points: It seems reasonably clear that Rolf has his own POV on the emdrive issue (""the emdrive doesn't work" is an objective fact") and that the reported incident here appears to be motivated to advance that POV on the page rather then tackle underlying breaches of policy. There is extensive coverage of the topics being debated on the talk page: notably the "most/many scientists" controversy in the lede, and the underlying science (a purported "Casimir-like effect') behind the drive. From what I see there is a healthy debate on the talk page, and the editing on the main page merely reflects that debate. There are die-hard opponents and proponents on both sides, both of which seem incapable of compromise.--Sparkyscience (talk) 11:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Sparkyscience Correct, you're the other SPA editor I was referring to. The three articles you list as having contributed to, zero-point energy, De Broglie–Bohm theory, and electrodynamics all relate to the emdrive or fringe theories advanced to justify the emdrive; thus SPA. Many accounts, despite being SPA or initially SPA, are nevertheless still WP:Here to build an encyclopedia, in which case we're happy to have you here. As for being new, welcome aboard; we were all new editors once, and I'm sorry your initial experience editing Wikipedia is encountering difficulty. Yes, there is debate on the talk page[48] that blocked the change to "most scientists are skeptical", sourced to the Washington Post[49]; I consider the blocking of the edit tendentious, and understand that the people blocking the change obviously do not consider their arguments tendentious. I'm sorry you and I don't see eye-to-eye on the motivation behind this ANI post, hopefully that won't prevent us from working together to improve the RF resonant cavity thruster article. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Dear Admins, apparently user Rolf H Nelson considers that attack is the best form of defense, that is why he created this entry in which he twists everything round and distorts the facts. He falsely accuses of alleged wrongdoings not only me but also other editors of that article like Sparkyscience[[50]], to which Sparkyscience replied: "The irony is not lost on me that it appears to be you who is deleting other peoples contributions and that most other editors do not agree with your preferred version of the page. Any particular reason why you copy and pasted this warning on my and Musashi miyamoto but not InsertCleverPhrase talk page seeing as we have all done the same thing? I agree this needs to go to DR.--Sparkyscience (talk) 10:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)"
    I and several (at least 3 others) other editors merely have been reverting his obvious vandalism. In particular, there has been already reached the consensus twice regarding [[51]], yet he repeatedly ignores that and is pushing his own POV by removing indiscriminately multiple times (about a dozen times) without any good reason the whole sections of the article against the consensus previously reached - this is a seriously disruptive editing, it is in fact vandalism, because it became evident that his motivations have been other than to improve Wikipedia, his removal of the whole sections of the article were not good-faith editions. In order for a disruptive editing to be considered non-vandalism, there must be seen any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia. Removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to core content policies of neutral point of view is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia and therefore constitutes to be vandalism. I suppose that we all assumed good-faith editions by Rolf H Nelson at the beginning, but evidently repetitive removal without a good reason of the whole sections without waiting to reach a new consensus and ignoring the previous consensus, and ignoring most of the valid points, which successfully rebut his unfounded opinions, show that his intentions are not to improve Wikipedia. His overall behavior in fact shows that he is trolling, because despite being the culprit he dares to falsely accuse victims of his trolling and takes unfounded actions against them unscrupulously lying and distorting the facts. It is quite apparent that he gains satisfaction from such disruptive and cunning behavior like all trolls do.
Sparkyscience said to Rolf H Nelson in the talk page of the article: "It should be self evident looking at the talk page that not everybody agrees with your POV, but nonetheless your view has already been taken into consideration with the correct moderation, by clearly stating that many scientists believe it to be impossible and classify it as pseudoscience. Attributed quotes stating that the majority of the scientific community believe such devices as impossible belong in the body not the lede. The lede should be objective and not portray opinions as facts. The other editors are under no obligation to accept your demands for a false compromise that you offer on your own terms to remove the NPOV tag. Continuing to hold the page hostage until you "win" just betrays the fact you are wedded to own ideas. Accusing the other editors of being disruptive while deleting whole sections indiscriminately is clearly hypocritical and unhelpful. You also consistently seem uninterested in addressing or giving specific criticism to the proposed underlying scientific theory by which the device works: Let me ask again - where does the energy of the Casimir effect come from? and is it possible in principle to transfer momentum from the electromagnetic field to matter and under what constraints?--Sparkyscience (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)"
Also confirmed by Insertcleverphrasehere who said to Rolf H Nelson the follwing: "Know when to give up, the majority won't always agree with you, even if you argue ad nauseam. You clearly have a POV to push here, try to exercise some self control. I realise that you don't like that the mainstream media keeps being overly positive about these tests, but thats what the sources are, for better or worse.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  01:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)"
Now, let's move to the other points in his false accusations:
  • WP:SPA - this accusation is so ridiculous, I do edit also other languages wikipedias, and I do not always login when edit, because the only thing I care is improving Wikipedia, while it seems that some other editors also like to brag how many edits they did. I do not know how many edits altogether I did in en Wikipedia and other Wikipedias, because it never mattered to me, but certainly more than my logged editions here show. Probably I do not edit as often as some other editors for various reasons, including time constraints, however, there is noting wrong with that. I only edited Emdrive while being logged only because my web browser or wikipedia site remembered me all the time when I was returning to see again the article, and because of that I have been doing all Emdrive editions while being logged. I note that this is also the first time ever, since I began editing Wikipedia many years ago, that I met so much belligerent and unfair editor as Rolf H Nelson.
  • Musashi tried to introduce weakly-sourced and IMHO pseudoscientific content - not true, the consensus on the talk page was that it is a well sourced input[[52]], not different in any way from other inputs. All papers which are in included in the article, just like this one, were published in peer reviewed journals and had multiple secondary sources. If this one is to be removed then all other hypotheses would have to be removed as well, because there is no difference between them regarding weight and sources (all peer-reviewed and all with the same or similar multiple secondary sources).
    Also I replied to Rolf H Nelson on the article talk page as follows and he did not comment it in any way:

It can be said about all or most of the hypotheses presented here (except perhaps measurements errors). So why would you challenge this one and not the other ones? I have to repeat myself again: "There is no difference between the position of this hypothesis and all the others. All of them have been published in peer reviewed scientific journals and subsequently debated in popular press. This is not up to Wikipedia users to decide which one is correct one and which one is not. You have no qualification for that, unless you published a rebuttal in a scientific peer-reviewed paper - but even then the hypothesis should not be deleted, but merely an information about rebuttal paper added. However, no such rebuttal paper has been published in this case." So there are no reasons to remove this hypothesis - if you remove this hypothesis then all the others would have to be removed as well. They are all equal in a sense that they all have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals with decent IFs, and all have been published in secondary sources.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

All of my edits were to improve Wikipedia, and all of them were done in accordance with Wikipedia polices, and all other active editors of that article confirmed that. When someone attempted to add not well enough sourced new hypothesis (it was not published in a per review paper, but only in an article in a magazine) I and only I requested that it should be removed due to breaking WP:RS policy. Those users who are war editing now (in particular Rolf H Nelson), have not requested this, even though there was a good reason for that, which shows that they are not objective regarding using WP policies. In fact I pointed out their hypocrisy to them then: "Where are those editors eagerly reversing inputs now? What did happen that they allow a hypothesis without a scientific paper to be included in a Wikipedia article?"[[53]] I reached a consensus with the author of that not well sourced input and he agreed with me that it should be deleted and he deleted it.[[54]] So all this shows that I am objective and constructive, I can and do achieve consensus with reasonably behaving editors, and that I do follow all those Wikipedia polices, which I am aware of, in order to improve Wikipedia, but unfortunately that cannot be said about the belligerent users such as Rolf H Nelson and to a lesser extent also JzG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musashi miyamoto (talkcontribs) 13:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  • and has been edit-warring for months on and off Not true. I started editing Emdrive article on 6th of December 2016[[55]]. I have always been logged when editing this article and never edited this article before. It is Rolf H Nelson who is edit warring and other editors agree with me.
  • (with sporadic support from the other two dominant page editors) Not true. It was the other way around.[[56]] First Tokamac, Sparkyscience and Insertcleverphrasehere have been reverting disruptive blanking of the whole sections by Rolf H Nelson. So there have been three editors before me reverting Rolf H Nelson disruptive edits and I began supporting them, as the fourth editor, only when it became apparent that what Rolf H Nelson is doing is vandalism (that these were not good-faith edits), and when it became apparent that those three other editors had hard time coping with the malicious, indriscriminate, repetitious removal of the whole sections of the article by Rolf H Nelson against the consensus reached twice amongst active editors on the article talk page.
  • Continued despite a warning on the article talk page [165] and two warnings on his talk page Not true, there was only one false warning (which by the way I did not see for some time). As already other editors pointed out this is all part of pushing his POV against the consensus. When his vandalism did not work, because the 4 editors were firmly against him and none from the active editors supported him, he eventually stopped vandalising and instead started this phoney war accusing falsely other editors, while the evidence shows that he is the culprit. Also he ignored multiple requests from other editors of taking the matter to DR or RS, as other editors multiple time suggested to him, which he has not done yet, and which additionally shows that he is not interested in any compromise, he is not interested in improving this Wikipedia article, he is only interested in personal attacks against editors. Also I note that I did not notice his phoney warning on the article talk page (which was not directed personally to me), because he inserted it after the references.
  • Claims there is WP:CONSENSUS for change, despite active discussion and multiple skeptical editors objecting to it on reasoned grounds. Not true, there was achieved twice the consensus among active editors. Editor InsertCleverPhraseHere replied to Rolf H Nelson on the article talk page as follows: "Still, none of this explains why you unilaterally removed the section under discussion here, citing the need to get consensus before inclusion. A huge discussion has been undertaken here regarding that section, and consensus seems to have formed that the material merits inclusion. I really don't understand why you decided that removal and more talk was the right option here. If you believe the material does not merit inclusion, perhaps you should say so here, as the points you have raised above don't really apply as we DO have reliable secondary sources reporting on this.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)"
    The views of those two who became inactive had been rebutted and they did not object, so it had to be assumed that they agreed with rebuttals. Rolf H Nelson at that time did not participate in the discussion on the talk page, but instead started his disruptive war editing, even though he had been told multiple times by at least 4 different editors that what he is doing is wrong and disruptive. For some unknown reason (probably to show that there is allegedly less editors against his views than there really are) Rolf H Nelson has not included here Tokamac who also reverted his disruptive blanking of the whole sections of the article; it is also not clear why Rolf H Nelson chose me as his main victim of his trolling attempts, although it seem likely that he did this in retaliation for leaving the warning on his talk page in an attempt to stop his disruptive editing.
  • According to Guy/Jzg, an admin, Musashi wrongly accused Guy of vandalism; Guy's warning is here: [166].) I did not know at that time that vandalism on Wikipedia has more narrow meaning than dictionary meaning. However, what Guy/Jzg did would not be vandalism only if we assume good-faith editing, and I am not so sure that it was such editing when considering his further disruptive edits, because he did not explain the reasons neither of that first edit and later ones (he later removed twice link as the source and he did not explain why he did it). Also Guy/Jzg is using two different usernames, apparently he is using Jzg for disr