위키백과:관리자 알림판/IncidentArchive944

207.34.115.71

Mkativerata 인신공격, 불경, 편집 전쟁

J. B. 프리스틀리의 모욕적인 언어

VPN

SQL^{Query me!} 04:14, 2017년 1월 24일 (UTC) 완료[응답]

184.145.42.19

사용자별 단축 블록:괴롭힘에 대한 길리엄(사용자의 경우:[1] 이후 거무스럼이 발생하여 차단된 경우 삭발을 하려는 명시적 의도를 알아두면 이러한 불쾌한(그리고 거부된) 차단 해제 요청이 초래되었다[2].왜냐하면 블록으로부터의 복귀는 가쉬[3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]의 편집요약을 들이마시는, 종종 스나큰 논평이나 노골적인 공격으로 가쉬의 편집요약을 따르고 되돌리고 있었기 때문이다.일부 편집에는 동의하지 않지만 일부 편집은 유효할 수 있지만(모든 편집 내용을 확인하지는 않았다) 편집 요약은 부적절하며 IP는 편집 요약에서 사용자에게 [11]의 경고를 받은 후 계속 주석을 달았다.미터 (토크) 04:34, 2017년 1월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

ANI 편집이 사용자별 편집 워링 블록과 충돌한 경우:물질과학자.IP에서 이미 그가 해고할 것이라고 밝혔기 때문에, 그리고 우리는 이미 이 글이 작성되는 동안 한 블록/블록 해제 과정을 거쳤기 때문에 일단 이것을 열어 두겠다.미터 (토크) 04:39, 2017년 1월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

그리고 이 블록은 또 다른 인신공격[12]Meters (토크) 04:51, 2017년 1월 20일 (UTC)[응답]을 초래했다.

그리고 또 다른 하나는 [13]우리는 적어도 대화 페이지 접속은 제거해야 한다.미터 (토크) 06:02, 2017년 1월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

됐다. 보잉! 제베디(토크) 06:04, 2017년 1월 20일 (UTC)[응답하라]

모두 고마워 - 나는 방금 일어난 일을 보고 일어났어.나의 반전을 살펴보니, 성급하게 한 것도 몇 개 있었고, 그럴 필요가 없는 것도 몇 개 있었지만(파괴적인 편집들을 되돌리는 동안 내가 좀 지나쳤음에 틀림없어), 그리고 나서 다시 IP 편집기는 조금 - 좋은 편집자들은 되돌리지 않을 것이고, 다른 것들은 이미 처리된 것 같다.다시 한번 고마워!게슈 (대화) 2017년 1월 20일 (UTC) 14:48 (응답)

107.77.*.*까지 만화 기사의 지속적인 파괴 행위

이 애논 편집자는 스펀(코믹스)[14]의 공동 창작에 대해 주로 사기적인 주장을 하며, 독자들이 자주 방문하는 웹 포럼에 독자들을 언급함으로써 실제 창작자인 토드 맥팔레인과 다른 특정 만화 창작자들을 암묵적으로 비하하는 등 여러 주 동안 꾸준히 기사를 파괴해 왔다.[15] He evades page protections by targeting additional articles, and evades blocks by changing IP addresses, so far including 107.77.194.22, 107.77.203.11, 107.77.203.4, 107.77.204.229 (multiple warnings given on this one), 107.77.204.153, 107.77.204.185, 107.77.203.81, 107.77.203.210, 107.77.203.4 –Jason A. Quest (토크) 14:08, 2017년 1월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

피해 기사 대부분은 현재 반보호된 것으로 보인다.당분간 IP범위를 주시하겠다.닌자로봇피리테 (토크) 2017년 1월 20일 18:26 (UTC)[응답하라]

그는 이 활동을 추가 관련 기사로 확대하고 있다(특수:기부금/107.77.194.126 17/18-1월) 그리고 현재 "늑대 팩"이라고 불리는 것을 창조했다고 주장한다.[16] -제이슨 A. 퀘스트 (토크)2017년 1월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

공공 기물 파손 및 경고 무시

• 88.254.94.183(대화 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 필터 로그 · WHOIS · RDNS · RDNS · RBLs · http · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그) 간결한 이유(예: 4차 경고 위반).日本語 (대화) 01:30, 2017년 1월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

그 계정은 의심스러우며(아마도 금지된 티르길일 것이다) 잘못된 편집 요약과 원본 콘텐츠 삭제로 페이지를 계속 훼손하고 있다.그가 편집한 투란의 수정사 및 기타 기사(반달화)를 살펴본다.고마워. 88.254.94.183 (대화) 01:44, 2017년 1월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

그는 원본 콘텐츠를 삭제했지만 편집 요약에는 원본이 아니라고 적었다.내가 그에게 경고한 후, 그는 그것이 출처지만 믿을 수 없다고 인정했다.또한 이 기사의 수정 내역도 참조하십시오.그는 허위 편집 요약본으로 페이지를 파기하고 명백히 거짓말을 하고 있다. 88.254.94.183 (대화) 01:57, 2017년 1월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

IP 편집기가 User를 고발하는 것 같다.Tirgil34 (토크·컴퍼니)라는 일화는 LTA 반달이다.무슨 일인지 모르지만 티르길34는 분명히 자신의 양말과 편집전을 벌인 이력이 있는 것으로 보여서 그것도 고려해야 할 부분이다.또한 IP 편집자는 이러한 우려들을 더그 웰러의 토크 페이지로 가져간 것으로 보인다.닌자로봇피리테 (토크) 06:03, 2017년 1월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

닌자 로보트피레이트 고마워.나는 여전히 이 편집자가 의심스러워서 저 LTA 반달의 새로운 양말일 수 있을지 의심스럽다. 하지만 그것은 티르길일 뿐아니라 아닐지도 모른다.위와 같이 허위 또는 오해의 소지가 있는 편집요약으로 소싱된 내용을 삭제하여 이용자가 기사를 파손하고 있는 것이 분명하다.그는 그것을 여러 번 했다.나는 그가 여기에 기여하기 위해 있다고 생각하지 않는다.88.254.94.183 (대화) 07:02, 2017년 1월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

• (비관리자 논평) IP의 주장의 타당성을 자세히 조사할 기운이 없지만, 몇 가지 고려해야 할 점은 다음과 같다.

1. 두 사용자 모두 3RR을 훨씬 초과했기 때문에, 그들 중 한 명이 문제의 기사를 명백하게 파괴하지 않는 한, 그들은 둘 다 위반이다.
2. NRP는 둘 다 Tirgil34라고 미묘하게 암시하고 있는 것처럼 보이지만, 다시 한번 나는 확인할 기운이 없다.
3. OP가 다른 위키미디어 프로젝트에 기여하는 것은 거의 전적으로 한국 언어의 유전적 분류와 관련이 있다.이것이 Tirgil34의 애완동물 화젯거리가 아니라면 그들은 같은 사람이 될 것 같지 않다.
4. "고마워 닌자로봇피리테"라는 문구가 정말 재미있다.

히지리 88 (聖や) 09:16, 2017년 1월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 NRP의 논평을 완전히 읽지 못했고 따라서 그의 함의를 알아차리지 못했다.어쨌든 결국엔 글의 편집 전 버전과 편집 후 버전 사이에는 아무런 차이가 없기 때문에 말이 되지 않는다(그렇다면 그 가짜 편집전의 목적은 무엇일까?)OP의 기여도에 대해서는, 나는 그가 다른 위키미디어 프로젝트에서 한 것이 아닌 en에서 한 것이 무엇인지 모른다.위키, 그의 기여는 의심스러운 것 같고, 또한 "허위적인 성격을 양말에게 강요하는 것" (그리고 거짓 플래그 작전은) LTA 반달의 습관적인 행동 중 하나이기 때문에, 나는 그가 같은 사용자일지도 모른다고 생각했다.나는 지금 그에 대해 덜 의심스럽다.그러나, 위에서 언급했듯이, 이것은 단지 양말풀이만의 문제가 아니다.사용자가 거짓/잘못된 편집 요약을 사용하여 소싱된 내용을 명확히 삭제함. 88.254.94.183 (대화) 12:43, 2017년 1월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 소싱된 내용을 삭제하지 않았다.이 근원은 해석의 대상이다."우리는 4번째 한국어와 일본어로 추가해도 된다"라고 쓰여져 있지만, 설명서에서 그들은 항상 "투란어"로 간주된다고 되어 있다. (이것은 오보렛 용어여서 더 이상 신경 쓰지 않는다...)나는 드라비디안이 충분히 출처를 찾았고 이 사건에서 내가 실수를 저질렀다는 것을 인정하지만, 나는 이 에이드 전쟁을 시작하지도 않았고 "다른 중지"가 기여한 것도 없다.日本語 (대화) 15:22, 2017년 1월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

User:Boxing 팬

사용자:복싱 팬, 그들이 계속해서 WP에 턱없이 모자란다는 의미에서:CIR도 그렇고 MOS:BOXING에 대해 말도 안 되는 소리.그들은 이미 복싱 웨이트 클래스에 대한 의견 일치에 대한 편집 전쟁의 블록을 가지고 있었지만, 최근에는 다음과 같은 것들을 계속해서 망치고 있다.

• 복싱 레코드 테이블, 잘못된 콘텐츠 변경([17], 12월 관련 기사에서 같은 행동을 했다는 이유로 여러 번 경고받은 바 있다: [18], [19])
  • 이유 없이 작은 텍스트 매개변수를 분할하고 첫 번째 인스턴스([20], [21], [22])에서만 연결해야 하는 요소를 다시 연결
  • 잘못 읽도록 결과 유형 변경([23], [24], [25], 더 많이 읽음)이미 몇 년 동안 이런 일을 해 온 연쇄 반달들이 있다. 우리는 또 다른 것이 필요하지 않다.
• 중복 인포박스 통계([26], [27], [28], [29])를 추가했는데, 흥미롭게도 IP가 정확히 동일한 편집을 위해 최근에 차단되었다.그 일로 SPI를 불러올지도 모른다.)
• 불규칙적인 욕설 분출 ([30])

내가 이 사용자가 WP라고 말할 수 있는 것은 아니다.NOTHERHERE, my godness I've try to communication I've been flureed in the face, 하지만 그들은 확실히 건설적인 편집을 하는 습관이 있는 것도 아니고, 세상의 모든 경고들이 아무 것도 하지 않는 것도 아니다.맥 드림스테이트 (대화) 23:48, 2017년 1월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

WP로 이동해야하는 고객:AIV 루트는 멈추지 않았지만 그들이 차단된 후에도 계속된다면 난 바로 이곳으로 돌아올 것이다.그럴 때 이 주제에 대한 C&P 덤프를 찾아보십시오.맥 드림스테이트 (대화) 02:42, 2017년 1월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

가능한 WP:여기 상황이 아닌가?

데릭 테일러의 파괴적 편집

사용자:Soupforone, 인신공격 및 관련 사건

수프포론 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)

가빌로베아돌 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)

새로 등록된 편집자, 이전에 영향을 받는 기사를 86.89.46.70으로 편집(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)

에티오피아 하베샤 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)

관련 사례:

1. AN/I: 사용자:에티오피아 하베샤, 에티오피아 관련 페이지의 파괴적 편집자(필러: 사용자:두크세네)
2. ARC: ARB 케이스(필러: 사용자: GabiloveAdol)
3. @Middayexpress의 오래된 사례일 가능성이 있는 경우, 코드리스 래리가 오늘 AN/I에 게시한 노트를 보십시오.
4. 새로 등록된 @GabiloveAdol 계정 @Buckshot06: 어디선가 관리자 @Buckshot06에 별도의 사례가 있거나 있을 것이라는 곤혹스러운 댓글이 지난 24시간 동안 내 토크 페이지에 올라오고 있다.미안하지만, 나는 그 케이스가 무엇인지 알 수 없고, 링크를 제공할 수 없다.아마도 관리자들은 영향을 받는 당사자들에게 이러한 사례들을 공개하고 통합하도록 요청할 수 있는가?

영향을 받는 기사:암하라족, 오로모족, 이파트 술탄국, 소말리스족, 시라지족

@Soupforone과 관련된 행동/사건

1. 인신공격: 비고트 혐의.이미 두 명의 관리자와 다른 편집자들이 토크 페이지에 참여했던 콘텐츠 분쟁은 가빌로브아돌, 에티오피아 하베샤와 함께 @Soupforone에 의한 파괴적 행동 양식이 있을 정도로 확대되었으며, 최근의 내용은 WP의 고발이다.@Soupforone의 인신공격으로 BIGOT.토론의 다른 부분은 여기서, 여기서 검토할 수 있다.수프포론은 이에 대해 "이티오피아 하베샤나 당신을 위한 것이 아니다"라고 반박했지만 이상하다.그 페이지에 대한 논의의 맥락은 내가 편집한 내용과 현재 진행 중인 ARB 케이스다.비록 그것이 어떻게든 나에게 불리하지 않았다 하더라도, 근거 없는 WP:위키피디아에 있는 모든 사람에 대한 BIGOT의 주장은 적대적이고 부적절한 PA이다.
2. 수프포론의 정책 쇼핑, 무언가가 고착되기를 바라는 것.Suspforone은 소스 섹션 삭제를 시도했고 WP:RS가 먼저 WP:과도한, WP:REDFLAG 및 WP:공격이 적용된다.나는 그들이 정책을 어떻게 오해하는지 설명했다.수프포론은 내가 WP에 대해 옳을지도 모른다고 대답했다.공격, "적용되는 것은 명백히 BLP"...여기서. 중요한 것은 여러 명의 관리자/편집자가 이미 BLP와 BLPGROGroup이 이러한 기사에는 적용되지 않는다고 설명하였다.
3. 위키백과 정책을 석벽에 오용하고 다른 사람의 편집을 차단한다.예를 들어, Subforone은 WP를 호출했다.여기서 "WP:공감대를 얻기 위한 부담은 사실 변화를 원하는 편집자에게 있다.그래서 토론과 합의를 위해 먼저 이 자리에서 토크페이지에 어떤 가능성 있는 단어를 제시해 달라고 부탁한 겁니다."내가 WP를 설명했을 때:"BOLD는 검증가능성과 신뢰할 수 있는 출처를 제공하는 것으로, 내가 이미 신뢰할 수 있는 학술적 출처를 제공해 그 부담을 충족시켰다는 점에서 수프포론은 정책을 다시 재해석했다.
4. 소말리아-이토피아 우주 기사의 WP:OWN 행동.예를 들어, Amhara 사람들은 WP에 의해 그 기사에 출처나 출처를 더 이상 추가하지 말 것을 요구한다.여기에서 IP 편집기와 합의 없이 BRD(위 참조)동일한 WP:수프포론이 나에게 "소말리스, 그 페이지는 힘든 합의 과정을 통해 연마되었으니"라는 댓글을 남긴 소말리스 기사에서 "소말리스, 그 페이지는 힘든 합의 과정을 거쳐 연마된 것이다"라고 태그가 붙지 않은 '소말리스' 버전을 삭제/교체하거나 소말리스 기사의 출처를 인용한 소말리아 기사로 확대/교체를 중단하라는 요청을 했다.

콘텐츠 분쟁은 해결될 수 있지만 정책은 명확히 할 수 있지만 WP 연계와 같은 인신공격은 다음과 같다.BIGOT는 적대적이다.이 페이지는 대담하게 "다른 편집자들과 이 에세이를 편협한 직접적인 비난으로 연결시키는 것은 정당하더라도 적대적인 것으로 해석될 수 있다"고 경고했다.위키비고트리에 대한 근거 없는 혹은 추측성 비난은 WP로 간주될 수 있다.인신공격"세라 웰치 양(대화) 17:26, 2017년 1월 17일 (UTC)[응답하라]

• TLDR. 무슨 일이 일어나길 원해?EENG 17:36, 2017년 1월 17일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 이것은 암하라/에시오페이아 지역에서 진행 중인 분쟁이다.본질적으로 그것은 '네이티브/로컬/관련 편집자들은 기사가 유럽 혈통의 서양인에 의해 왜곡되어 부정적으로 (NPOV와 일치하지 않음)되고 있다고 생각한다'로 요약된다.나는 사실 지난 몇 주 동안 그들 중 몇몇의 편집 이력을 보고 동정심을 느끼지만, 여전히 명확하다.기껏해야 보잘것없는 소스로 문화/역사의 일부 측면을 과장하는 것에 대한 지속적인 편견이 있는 것 같다.(곧 거부될) 아르브컴 요청에 제공된 디프트를 살펴보면, 세라 웰치가 사용한 출처가 기사와 관련이 없다는 불만(암하라인 등에 대해서는 언급하지 않는다)이 일부다.즉, 해당 내용에 더 많은 콘텐츠를 추가하지 말라는 요청으로 이어지는 것이다.오직 죽음에서만 의무가 종료된다(토크) 17:40, 2017년 1월 17일 (UTC)[응답하라]
    • 경합된 섹션(암하라 피플#슬래버리)의 모든 인용구에는 인용구가 삽입되어 있다.이 학술 간행물은 에티오피아 연구에 많이 인용된 교수들에 의해 출판되며, 일부는 에티오피아에서 살거나 공부한 경험이 있다.그래서 이것들이 관련 있는 출처가 아니라는 것은 사실이 아니다.섹션의 문구는 부분적으로 수프포론의 재작성에 기초한다는 점에 유의하십시오. 이 문구는 출처 확인 후에 수프포론이 다시 썼다고 선의로 가정해야 한다.세라 웰치(토크)양, 2017년 1월 17일 (UTC) 18:01 [응답]
  • @EEng: WP:BIGOT 증거가 수프포론에 대해 유효하다고 판단되면 PA에 대한 적절한 제재를 강구한다.안식을 위해, 그 요청은 완화되는 상황이 무엇이냐에 따라 달라질 것이다.세라 웰치(토크)양, 2017년 1월 17일 (UTC) 18:01 [응답]

만약 인신공격이라도 있다면 그냥 다른 곳으로 넘겨줘.우리는 텍스트 벽이 필요 없다.EENG 20:06, 2017년 1월 17일 (UTC)[응답]

• @ Sarah Welch씨, 내가 왜 여기서 언급되었는지는 확실하지 않지만, 나는 그것이 맥락에서 벗어난 패러프레이싱처럼 보이는 당신의 최근 편집을 비난했기 때문이라고 생각한다.위에서 자세히 설명하였으니, 그 대신 다른 점들을 나열해 봅시다: [31][32][33][34][35].여기 소식통은 이집트 술탄에 의해 촉발된 분쟁이라고 했지만, 당신은 기사에 "분쟁은 암다 치온에 의해 촉발되었다"는 내용을 추가했다.그리고 이집트 술탄과 관련된 편지의 가장 중요한 부분(나일강을 변조하겠다는 협박)을 무시한 채 마치 이집트 술탄이 아프리카의 뿔에 있는 이슬람교도들과 관계하고 있는 것처럼 내용을 덧붙인 이유도 있다.나는 여전히 나에게 어떤 것이 문맥에서 벗어난 패러프레이싱처럼 보이는지 물어본 이 두 가지 질문에 대한 설명을 듣지 못했다.— 에티오피아 하베샤 (대화) 20:30, 2017년 1월 17일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  • AN/I는 기사의 토크 페이지를 대체하는 것이 아니다.약 2시간 전에 거기에 설명이 게시되었다.당신은 가빌로브아돌과 마찬가지로, 이것으로 증명된 바와 같이, 당신이 연루되어 있기 때문에 이 사건에서 언급되었다.세라 웰치 (대화)20:48, 2017년 1월 17일 (UTC)[응답]
    • 사라 웰치 양, 왜 갈등이 암다 치온에 의해 촉발되었다고 하셨는지, 학자는 이집트 술탄에 의해 촉발되었다고 하셨는지에 대해서는 아직도 아무런 반응이 없으십니다.내가 여기 ANI에서 이 문제를 설명한 이유는, 당신이 관리자들에게 당신의 요약이 신실한 반면, 내 요약은 그렇지 않다고 설득하려고 노력했기 때문인 것 같다.나는 관리자에게 문맥에서 벗어난 당신의 패러프레이싱에 대해 알려주기 위해 상세하게 설명했다.다른 모든 편집자들이 말했듯이, 텍스트의 벽 대신에, 만약 당신이 당신의 비난에 대해 다른 것을 제공하고 그것이 인신공격인 방법에 대해 간략하게 설명했다면, 인신공격으로 기소된 우리에게 도움이 되었을 것이다.— 에티오피아 하베샤 (대화) 11:06, 2017년 1월 18일 (UTC)[응답하라]
      • 로버트 맥클론이나 다른 사람들처럼 AN/I 상의 당신을 이해할 수 없다.내가 어떻게 "문맥에서 벗어난 패러프레이싱"을 했을까?아니, 텍스트의 벽에 대해 "다른 편집자들이 다 말했다"는 게 아니야!!(이미 제공된 'diff'를 무시한 채 대응(diff1, diff2 등)하면서 다른 AN/I 파일링과 토론(diff1, diff2 등)에 대해서도 유사하게 '문자의 벽'을 불평하지 않는 비관리자 ENG의 이상한 코멘트를 제외한다.AN/I 가이드라인에는 "설명하지 마, 문자는 전혀"라고만 되어 있는 것은 없다.첫 번째 초안에서 나는 (자극의 의미와 함께) 첫 번째 문장과 두 번째 문장에 각각 침전된 것과 촉발된 것을 모두 사용했다.문제될 것도 없고, AN/I에 대해 논의할 가치도 없어.세라 웰치 양(대화) 13:12, 2017년 1월 18일 (UTC)[응답]
• Sarah Welch 오케이 사람들이 아까도 너를 포함해서 내 게시판에 올라왔었니?그러나 어쨌든 해당 기사와 관련된 모든 사용자들은 관리자인 벅샷06을 포함하여 감독 팀에 의해 검토되고 있다. — GabiloveAdol이 추가한 서명되지 않은 코멘트(대화 • 기여)
  • @GabiloveAdol:이미 신청하셨나요, 아니면 다른 위키백과 포럼에서 암하라 사람들과 관련된 문제에 대해, 관리자인 벅샷06과 같은 다른 사람을 상대로 추가 사례를 제출하시겠습니까?중복되지 않도록 링크를 제공하고, 코멘트 끝에 ~~~를 입력하여 코멘트에 서명하십시오.세라 웰치(대화) 03:36, 2017년 1월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

• ENG#s, 정말.새라 웰치 양의 문자 벽이지만, 그녀에 대한 인신공격은 단 한 번도 없었다.왜냐하면 나는 아무것도 만들지 못했기 때문이다.내가 가빌로브아돌(그녀가 아님)을 자신의 토크페이지에 있는 편협한 정책 에세이로 지목한 실제 이유는 우리 둘 다 애초에 blpg그룹 정책이 인종에 적용된다고 가정해 왔기 때문에 자구책으로 지적한 것이지만, 한 행정관은 후자가 실제로 소그룹을 대상으로 한 것임을 분명히 했다.게다가, 아왈-아브디와 산성스노우는 소말리아 사회 계층화 텍스트에 문제가 있었음을 증명할 수 있다. 비록 이것들은 결국 고쳐졌지만 말이다.그러나, 암하라 사람들에 대한 노예제도에 관한 많은 글은, 포함된 텍스트를 포함하여, 정말로 부당하고 잘못 전달된 것이다; 에티오피아 하베샤, 두크세네, 가빌롤로브는 확실히 그것에 대해 잘못 알고 있는 것은 아니다.그것의 일부는 The_Four_Deuce[36]에 의해 가장자리 게시판의 가장자리 표시로 확인되었고, 나는 또한 원래의 연구 공지 게시판에서 어떤 다른 문구가 합성되는지를 직접 링크와 함께 증명했다[37].오직_in_death만이 위의 실제 상황을 잘 캡슐화한다.수프포론 (토크) 04:36, 2017년 1월 18일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 아니, @The Four Deuce는 결코 교수를 특정하지 않았고, 이디오피아 학자인 도날드 N. Levine의 출처를 "프링"의 출처로 지목했다.소말리스 기사에서 @Awale-Abdi는 yes Soupforone your added를 지우고 내가 덧붙인 글을 남겼다(AcidSnow는 당신이 위와 같은 거짓 주장과 암시를 하듯이 2016년 8월 12일 이후 그 기사를 편집하지 않았다; fwwwww, 나의 첫 번째 소말리스 기사 편집은 2016년 11월 14일이었다.당신의 인신공격에 대해, 나는 이미 위의 디프프트를 제공했다. 당신이 WP라고 쓴 곳:BIGOT. 문맥은 분명히 당신이 WP를 사용했을 때 암하라 사람들의 기사를 편집한 것이다.BIGOT 링크, 그리고 당신은 나를 전적으로 겨냥한 @GabiloveAdol의 ARB 파일링(diff2)에 대해 논의하고 있다.WP의 컨텍스트는 무엇인가?BIGOT의 표현은? 그리고 당신은 누가 WP의 주장된 저자가 되는 것을 암시하고 있는가?BIGOT 콘텐츠?세라 웰치(대화) 05:13, 2017년 1월 18일 (UTC)[응답]
    • 물론 WP의 맥락은 다음과 같다.가빌로브아돌은 처음부터 페이지가 인종적으로 타겟팅되고 있다고 주장했기 때문에 BIGOT는 암하라였다.하지만, 이 문제에 대한 정확한 정책 에세이를 그에게 가르칠 용기가 있다고 해서 내가 개인적으로 당신을 공격했다고 주장하는 것은 정말 큰 일이다.또한, Awale-Abdi는 층화 물질에 문제가 있다는 것을 나타내었다 [38] [39], AcidSnow [40].포 데이스에 대해 그는 레빈 족의 주장은 "어떻게, 언제, 어떻게 노예로 인정받았는지, 얼마나 많은 사람들이 노예가 되었는지 또는 어떤 출처를 제공했는지 설명하지 않기 때문에 유용한 출처가 아니다"고 썼다. 우리는 어떤 것이 지나가는 곳에서 언급되는 소스를 사용해서는 안 된다"[41].그것은 꽤 간단해 보인다.수프포론 (토크) 07:06, 2017년 1월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

• WP:BIGOT는 사용자 행동에 대한 에세이인데, 누구한테 적용된다고 생각하는지 명확히 해줄 수 있어, 수프포론?코드리스 래리 (대화) 07:14, 2017년 1월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

• 그것은 가빌로브아돌의 "누군가가 이 페이지에 부정적인 빛을 비추고 싶어 한다"는 말의 의미에 달려 있다.수프포론 (토크) 07:31, 2017년 1월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

• @Soupforone(diff)과 함께 작업해 온 @GabiloveAdol의 인신공격의 확산에 대해서는, 이 디프에서 「다시 현행범으로 잡혔다」와 「철저하게 하고 거짓말을 했다」를 보라.PA에 대해 경고를 받았는지, 관리자 @Buckshot06에 의해 이 차이점을 확인하십시오.그 주장이 거짓이며 나는 WP를 인용했다.Herbert Lewis에 대한 RS, 이것 좀 봐.세라 웰치(대화) 05:29 (UTC) 2017년 1월 18일 (화)[응답]
  • 실제로 가빌로브아돌은 "누군가 이 페이지에 부정적인 빛을 비추고 싶어 한다"고 우려해 암하라 층화 물질을 고치기 위해 감속자의 도움을 요청했다[42].그것이 내가 그를 도우려고 했던 시기와 이유다.수프포론 (토크) 07:06, 2017년 1월 18일 (UTC)[응답]
    • 네가 알아낸 그 "누군가"는 바로 나였다.그래서 당신의 근거 없는 WP:BIGOT 댓글이 나를 겨냥한 건가?세라 웰치(토크)양 2017년 1월 18일 15시 10분 (UTC)[응답하라]
      • 음, 그건 네가 원래 층화 물질을 첨가했다는 걸 의미해, 그건 사실이야.내가 너를 개인적으로 공격하는 곳은 어디에도 없다.제발 없는 것에 손대지 마.수프포론 (토크) 15:50, 2017년 1월 18일 (UTC)[응답]
        • WP를 연결하셨습니다.비고트. 코드리스 래리가 당신에게 물었을 때, 당신은 그것이 누구에게 적용된다고 생각하는가?당신은 "그것은 가빌로브아돌의 뜻이 '누군가가 이 페이지에 부정적인 빛을 내고 싶어 한다'는 것에 달려 있다"고 설명했다.ARB/C 파일링에서 가벨로브아돌의 링크는 대부분 나에게 불리한 증거로 당신의 조언/코멘트를 인용하고 있다!왜 WP를 연결했는지 설명해 주시겠습니까?비고트? 그 '누군가'가 내가 아니면 누구한테 발라줬어? 아니면 가벨로브아돌한테 발라줬어?세라 웰치 여사 (대화) 2017년 1월 18일 (UTC) 16:48 (응답)
          • 음, 꽤 간단해.GabiloveAdol은 "누군가가 이 페이지에 부정적인 빛을 비추고 싶어 한다"고 지적했고, 그래서 나는 그것이 이 페이지에 대한 올바른 정책이라고 생각하며 blpgroup을 가리켰다[43].대신 그를 WP와 연결시켰다.역량 정책 에세이 [44].GabiloveAdol은 나중에 Arb의 blpgroup 정책을 암시했지만, 그곳의 한 관리자는 그 정책이 소규모 그룹을 위한 것임을 암시했다.자개책으로 가빌로브아돌을 WP로 가리켰다.BIGOT 정책 에세이는 그의 토크 페이지에서 분명히 이것이 그의 특정 관심사에 대한 실제 기준이었다고 설명했다[45].에르고, 제발 거기 없는 것에 손을 대지 마.수프포론 (대화) 03:52, 2017년 1월 19일 (UTC)[응답]
            • 당신은 그의 특별한 관심사(주체 기반 편향에 관한 조항을 감안할 때)라고 주장한다.GabiloveAdol이 이 "특정 관심사"를 표명한 곳에 디프를 제공하십시오.위에 추가한 링크는 WP를 받을 만한 어떤 관심도 보여주지 않는다.BIGOT가 대답한다.세라 웰치(대화) 03:29, 2017년 1월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

코멘트 민족주의 편집자들은 만약 "선의" 편집자가 "선의" 편집자들이 "선량한" 편집자들에게 어떤 편견(부정적인)"을 비난할 것이라는 편견을 가지고 있다. 만약 "선한 믿음" 편집자가 이 민족주의 단체에 부정적인 사실을 보여주는 내용을 추가한다면 말이다.말하자면, 그것은 Ms에 대한 마녀사냥인 것 같다.웰치는 "Ethiopia, Horn of Africa, Oromo, Amhara... 등 민족주의 정체된 기사들을 편집한 이후로 계속 생겨났다.비고트리는 이러한 유형의 기사에서 양방향으로 움직인다. 예를 들어, 소수민족의 목소리를 짓밟는 지배적인 민족들이 있다. 위키피디아에서 소수민족의 정보가 주목을 받는다고 할 때: 1. 편집 전쟁은 일어난다 2. 편집 민족주의 편집자들은 편집 전쟁을 시작한다 3. 선의의 편집자들은 비난을 받는다.거짓 "다수 또는 소수 민족 집단 편들"에 대한 f 편향/비대적 등.위키피디아, 다양한 수단을 통해 기사를 망치고 있는 윤리논리주의 편집자들에 대해 진지하게 뭔가 할 필요가 있다.이타주의 편집자들이 위키백과에서 가장 큰 비중을 차지하는 편집자일 때 비고트리 카드를 뽑는 것은 비논리적이다.윤리논리주의 편집자들의 모토는 "나의 민족성은 너의 민족에 최고다!"이다.해리더티 (대화) 07:35, 2017년 1월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

• 참고 SPI는 사용자:GabiloveAdol에 의해 Sarah Welch에 대해 개방되었다.이 또한 몇 분 만에 폐쇄되고 삭제되었다.FYY. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 15:07, 2017년 1월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

재탄생, 삭제, 소금에 절였다.이반벡터 (/)^Talk_Edits 15:18, 2017년 1월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

Sarah Welch, GabiloveAdol의 특별한 관심사는 "누군가가 이 페이지에 부정적인 빛을 비추기를 원한다"는 그의 주장임이 분명하다; 그것은 주제 기반의 편견이다[46].반면에, WP가 어떤 주장을 이끌어냈는지는 불분명하다.귀사의 역량 정책 링크수프포론 (토크) 2017년 1월 20일 15:16 (UTC)[응답]

그 당시 그 근거가 무엇이었는지는 잘 모르겠지만, 나, 사라 웰치 양, 벅샷06, 로버트 맥클론 양, 듀크센 양 등의 SPI를 요청하는 것이 지금 역량 문제를 의심하는 이유가 될지도 모른다!코드리스 래리 (대화) 2017년 1월 20일 (UTC) 16:00[응답]

이 신참은 확실히 물린 느낌이 든다.수프포론 (토크) 2017년 1월 20일 16시 12분 (UTC)[응답]

가빌로브아돌은 2014년 7월부터 IP 에디터로 편집하고 있는 것으로 알고 있다.코드리스 래리 (대화) 2017년 1월 20일 16시 15분 (UTC)[응답]

실제로 가빌로브아돌은 2014년 7월 20일 이후 편집이 끝난 86.89.46.90과 동일하다고 자진 공시했다.FWIW, SPI는 에티오피아 하베샤에 의해 재조명되었다.세라 웰치 양(대화) 2017년 1월 20일(UTC) 16시 31분 [응답]

@Soupforone:WP의 세 번째 단락 참조:역량, 특히 이 섹션.가빌로브아돌-86.89.46.70은 "출처 35는 제목으로 이어지지만 기사는 없기 때문에 출처가 정확하지 않다"고 주장했다.이는 '수단을 넘는 편집, 기술적 전문지식의 부족', 2016년 10월 이후 거듭된 출처 삭제와 소싱 콘텐츠 삭제는 '비증분적 변화'에 해당하며, 편집 요약본에는 '편파적이고 명확하게 부풀려져 있어 최근 분열을 일으키는 데 추가되고 있다!!!"는 CIR의 "바이어스 기반"에 해당된다.위에서 언급한 바와 같이, WP와 같은 컨텐츠 정책/가이드라인/요건에 대한 귀하의 창의적(잘못된) 해석:부담, 이제 WP:CIR, 계속 파괴적이야WP 연결:가빌로브아돌로 콘텐츠 정책 페이지를 비고트(BIGOT)와 (오류)해석하는 것도 또 다른 수준이다.세라 웰치 양(대화) 2017년 1월 20일(UTC) 16시 31분 [응답]

사라 웰치 양: 에티오피아 하베샤, 오직 죽음만이 의무 종식을 한다, 포 데우체스, 나 자신과 듀크센은 모두 가빌로베아돌의 주장에 불행히도 어떤 실체가 있다는 것을 발견했다.위키피디아 링크에 대해서는, 내가 가빌로브아돌을 공격했다는 것을 단 한 번도 보여주지 않았지만, 내가 개인적으로 당신을 공격했다는 것은 말할 것도 없다.제발, 거기 없는 것에 손대지 마.수프포론 (토크) 2017년 1월 20일 18:36 (UTC)[응답]

@Soupforone:당신이 GabiloveAdol을 가는 것은 이러한 차이점들에 의해 증명된다: 1 당신의 근거 없는 WP:GabiloveAdol의 토크 페이지에 있는 BIGOT 링크, 2는 IP( = GabiloveAdol), 3은 "WP에 대한 당신의 말이 옳다:공격; 동일한 IP에 의해 제기된 문제에 대해 "여기에 적용되는 것은 명백하게 BLP"이다.추가 증거: 가빌로브아돌은 현재 거절된 AR/C 사건에 대한 증거로 당신과 당신의 설명을 인용했다.

부디 잘못 인용하고 잘못 전하지 마십시오. 오직 죽음만이 의무 종식, 사대부, 또는 두크세네.당신은 그들이 "가빌로브아돌의 주장에 불행히도 어떤 실체가 있다는 것을 발견했다"고 주장하지만, 당신은 조금도 동요하지 않고 주장한다.그들의 편집 이력은 그러한 결론을 시사하지 않는다.@Only_in_death_does_duty_end는 "어느 (만약 사실이라면)가 무엇으로 이어지는가"로 잠정적이다.@The Four Deuses가 "가빌로브아돌의 주장에는 어떤 실체가 있다"고 기술한 링크를 찾을 수 없다.당신의 주장을 뒷받침하는 가빌로브아돌과 4대 강간의 대화가 좀 다른가?세라 웰치(토크)씨(20:44, 2017년 1월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

거의 그렇지 않다. 내가 실제로 가빌로브아돌의 주제별 편향적 주장과 함께 쓴 것은 "실제 기준이 WP인 것 같다:비고트" [47].내가 그를 괴롭힌 곳은 어디에도 없었고, 내가 직접 너를 공격한 곳도 없었다.나머지는 내가 인용한 것이 아니다. 오직 죽음만이 의무는 끝난다. 나의 마지막 직책에서 Four Deuce와 Duqsene을 인용하였기 때문에, 나는 분명히 그들을 잘못 인용할 수 없었을 것이다.비록 그들은 각각 가빌로브아돌의 주장에 과도한 무게와 층화 물질에 대한 잘못된 표현에 관한 어떤 실체가 있다는 것을 발견했지만[48][49][50] (나는 <The FourDeuces와 가빌로브아돌>이 담소를 나눴다고 주장한 적이 없다.)거기 없는 것에 손을 대지 마십시오.수프포론 (토크) 04:19, 2017년 1월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

@Soupforone:네가 가빌로브아돌의 속바지라고 고백하는 거야?GabiloveAdol/86.89.46.90이 무엇을 생각하고 있는지 어떻게 알 수 있는가?그들은 WP가 없다고 언급했다.BLP나 다른 정책적 주장들은 당신이 그들을 대신하여 설명하고 그들의 의견으로 삽입하는 것이다.양말이라면 깨끗이 털어놔라.그렇지 않다면, 그들을 대신해서 말하는 것과 "IP가 자료의 많은 부분이 WP라고 주장하고 있다:FORED와 WP:REDFLAG (diff), "그/그녀 [IP]는 WP:BLP..."등 (diff) 등은 IP가 그렇게 쓴 적이 없기 때문에, 당신만이 한 것이다.

당신은 세 명의 편집자를 모두 오보했고, 이것은 당신과의 지속적인 행동 문제의 추가 증거다.그 링크들 중 어느 곳도 가빌로브아돌의 주장을 인정하거나 논평하지 않는다. 단지 너의 것이다.Duqsene 또한 그렇지 않다.@Only_in response의 초안을 링크시키지만, 그 초안을 잠시 후에 수정하여 "만약 사실이라면"이라는 텐트성을 표현하는 @Only_in은 무시한다.그러한 천박함이 "가빌로브아돌의 주장에 불행하게도 어떤 실체가 있다는 것을 알았다"는 것을 의미하지는 않는다.세라 웰치 여사 (대화) 13:54, 2017년 1월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

사실, GabiloveAdol은 처음부터 페이지가 인종적으로 타겟팅되어 있다고 생각했고 따라서 진행자의 도움을 요청했다고 말했다[51].그것이 내가 그를 도우려고 했던 시기와 이유다.또한 내가 쓴 것은 가빌로브아돌의 주장에는 층화물질에 대한 과도한 무게와 잘못된 표현에 대한 어떤 실체가 있었다는 것이다.이탤릭체로 표시된 부분은 가빌로브아돌의 다양한 주장이 모두 아닌, 그들이 어느 정도 정당성을 발견한 실제적인 부분이다.오직 죽음 속에서만- "나는 사실 지난 몇 주 동안 그들 중 몇몇의 편집 이력을 보고 동정심을 느낀다. 기껏해야 보잘것없는 소스로 문화의 일부 측면을 과장하는 것에 대한 지속적인 편견이 있는 것 같다."[52]; 듀크센-- "아파르가 아비시니아를 습격하는 것은 상상할 수 없을 것이다."[53];포 데우스- "그것이 어떻게, 언제, 무엇이 그들을 노예로 만들었는지, 얼마나 많은 사람들이 노예가 되었는지 또는 어떤 원천을 제공하는지는 설명하지 않기 때문에 유용한 원천이 아니다. 지나가는 말로 어떤 것이 언급되는 출처를 사용해서는 안 된다.] [54].오직 죽음의 후기 구절에서 트위크는 그의 초기 주장을 성가시게 하는 것이 아니라, 그 내용에 대한 부분적인 저항이 있었던 이유에 대한 설명이다[55].수프포론 (토크) 2017년 1월 21일 15시 40분 (UTC)[응답]

절제는 가식적으로 논쟁하는 것이 아니다.IP는 이것을 의미하며, WP:비고트 등관리자인 Buckshot06 등이 또한 강연을 완화하려고 시도했다는 점에 유의하십시오.암하라 피플 페이지.그들은 건설적이었고, 당신은 "WP:공격이 적용되지 않는 경우 WP:BLP 적용" 뒤에 다른 BIGOT 링크가 표시된다.너는 계속해서 세 사람이 말한 것을 왜곡한다.세라 웰치 여사 (대화) 2017년 1월 22일 14:52 (UTC)[응답]

나는 위의 세 가지를 아주 잘 표현하고 인용했다.WP의 경우:BIGOT 및 WP:공격 정책 페이지, 나는 명백히 가빌로브아돌을 그들에게 가리켰다. 왜냐하면 가빌로브아돌은 주제에 기반한 편견을 가지고 있다고 주장했고 도움을 요청했기 때문이다 [56].위키피디아가 위키피디아와 연계되는 것을 단념시키는 것은 없다. 그것이 그것 때문이다.수프포론 (토크) 2017년 1월 22일 16:19 (UTC)[응답]

가빌로브아돌과 수프포론 제안

위의 증거 수집과 논의를 바탕으로, 나는 AR/C 파일링 중 PA용 GabiloveAdol을 지속적으로 금지하고, Amhara 사람들 기사에서 관리자/수적 편집자 및 기타 파괴적 행위에 대한 SPI 제소를 제안한다.또한, 나는 스프포론에 대한 제한적인 제재/경고를 제안한다.후자의 권고안은 "없는 것을 위해"라는 수프포론의 거듭된 주장에 근거한 것으로, 이는 그들이 WP를 연결하지 않았음을 시사한다.비고트 등은 "IP/가빌로브아돌은..."이라는 말로 가빌로브아돌을 통해 자신의 고민/PA를 반복해서 넣으려 했지만, 불성실한 마음으로 그렇게 했다. 앞으로는 다른 IP/편집자를 대변하려고 하지 않기를 바란다.이 사건은 에티오피아 하베샤와 직접적인 관련이 없다.세라 웰치(토크)양 2017년 1월 21일 14시 10분 (UTC)[응답하라]

• 의견 - GabiloveAdol은 특히 토크 페이지에서 진행자 도움을 요청했다[57].그것이 내가 그를 도우려고 했던 시기와 이유인데, 분명히 그것에 반대하는 위키피디아는 없다.Sarah Welch씨는 또한 내가 그녀나 WP를 개인적으로 공격했다는 것을 단 한 번도 보여주지 않았다.GOADed GabiloveAdol.사실, 내가 GabiloveAdol에게 그의 임의제출을 중단하라고 충고했기 때문에 그녀의 이러한 주장은 이치에 맞지 않는다[58].가빌로브아돌에 대한 가혹한 제재는 불공평할 것이다. 다른 (주요 게시판에 포함) 그의 주장에 대해 과도한 무게와 잘못된 표현에 관한 정당성이 있다는 것을 발견했기 때문이다 [59][60].그러므로 가빌로브아돌에게 대신 필요한 것은 경험이 풍부한 행정가의 기본적인 위키티켓에 대한 안내다.수프포론 (토크) 2017년 1월 21일 15시 40분 (UTC)[응답]
  • 디프는 "적색", "적색수색", WP:BIGOT 등과 같은 인신공격에 대해 위에 있다.세라 웰치 여사 (대화) 2017년 1월 22일 14:52 (UTC)[응답]
    • WP:BIGOT 링크는 내가 가빌로브아돌(당신 말고)을 그가 주장한 주제별 편향에 관한 정책 에세이로 지목한 것이었다.나는 또한 당신이 거짓말을 하거나 현행범으로 잡혔다고 쓴 적도 없고, 내가 당신에게 인신공격의 여지가 전혀 없다.수프포론 (토크) 2017년 1월 22일 16:19 (UTC)[응답]

사용자 관련 동의:GabiloveAdol

세라 웰치(및 다른 것으로 알려지고 있음)에 대한 경박한 SPI의 제거에 대한 코멘트와 함께 여러 관리 페이지의 스팸을 살펴본 후, 그것에 대한 나의 훈계에 대한 경솔한 회답으로, 나는 사용자:가빌로브아돌은 백과사전에 기여하기 위해서가 아니라, 단지 t에 관해서만 배틀그라운드 편집에 임하기 위해 여기에 있다는 결론을 내리고 있다.그는 아프리카의 뿔(혹은 어떤 이름으로 불리든)인 격전지 지역이다.나는 마지못해 사이트 반을 정리한다고 결론을 내려야 한다.로버트 맥클레논 (대화) 2017년 1월 22일 (UTC) 18:32 (대화)

관찰:아프리카의 뿔

나는 이것이 아프리카 혼 지역과 관련된 파괴적인 편집과 관련된 세 개의 개방형 스레드 중 하나라는 것을 관찰하고 싶다.이는 발칸반도와 인도 파키스탄 등 역사적 격전지였기 때문에 배틀그라운드 편집에 취약한 또 다른 지역으로 보인다.이러한 일부 영역에서는 ArbCom이 ArbCom의 재량적 제재를 가하여 운영 중단 편집에 대한 제재를 합리화해야 했다.가장 최근의 이 분야에서의 중재 요청이 적절히 거절된 반면, ArbCom 재량제재를 발의한 ArbCom이나 커뮤니티의 일반제재를 실시하는 것이 적절할 수도 있다.(어떤 이유로 커뮤니티 일반제재가 사용될 경우 ArbCom 제재만큼 효과를 발휘하지 못했지만, They는 어떠한 제재 체제도 없이 모든 것을 자유롭게 하는 것보다 낫다.)로버트 맥클레논 (대화) 2017년 1월 22일 18시 10분 (UTC)[응답]

당신이 원하는 모든 것에 동의하라.

너는 네가 원하는 모든 것에 동의할 수 있어, 나는 여전히 내 SPI 케이스를 만들 거야, 관리인이든 아니든.내가 필요한 모든 것은 그것을 덜 경솔하게 만드는 것이다. 그리고 단지 질문에서 편집자에 대한, 편집자에 대한, 시간 기록과 시간 기록들을 제공하는 것 뿐인데, 그들 중 일부는 놀랄 정도로 지속적인 금지를 요구하고 있지 않다.AR/C 충원 과정에서 그들은 내가 잘못된 곳에 있는 것들을 목표로 하고 있다고 말했는데, 암하라 사람들의 기사의 내장과 기사 중립성/잘못 표현에 대해서는 나중에 세라 웰치 & 수프포론 씨가 편집했다.내 토크 페이지에는 팬허스트 출처에 관한 그 부분의 선의와 신빙성에 의문을 제기하는 이유가 더 있었다.

수프포용 나는 네가 그를 남자가 아닌 여자라고 부르지 않았으면 좋겠어, 그렇지 않으면 내 별명을 써.사라 웰치 양 2016년 10월 27일자 암하라 피플 페이지에 실린 파괴적 행동에 대해 나는 결코 부인하지 않았고, 심지어 Arb/com에서 당신의 기사를 삭제했으며, 그것에 고무된 나는 빠른 시일 내에 그것에 반대하는 내 주장을 할 것이다.코드리스 래리 1세는 2016년 10월 전에는 위키백과를 편집한 적이 없고, 5인 가구에 살고 있으며, 동생이 카스트가 뭐냐고 물어본 후에야 새라 웰치 씨 섹션만 삭제/편집하려고 했다.

나는 나만의 속도로 가고 있고, 시간이 있을 때나 그것에 대한 느낌이 있을 때 파일/응답할 것이다.ciao GabiloveAdol (대화) 06:18, 2017년 1월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:브러더

원래 AIV에서 보고서를 작성했는데 오래된 자료로 보관되어 있어서 관리자의 주의가 필요해 가지고 왔어.거의 7년 동안 이 편집자는 자신이 쓴 책을 "시민"으로 기사에 삽입하는 것 외에는 아무것도 하지 않았다.그가 이렇게 오래 갔다는 사실이 놀랍다.WP:SelfCITE는 제쳐두고, 그는 분명히 그의 책을 홍보하고 가능한 한 많은 기사에 그것을 삽입하기 위해 여기 있을 뿐이다.그의 이해충돌도 사용자페이지에 공개되지 않은 상태로, 삽입물 중 하나가 제거된 후 불만을 토로한 뒤에야 알려졌다.우리는 분명히 승진 전용 계좌의 영역에 있기 때문에 나는 그들을 다룰 관리자를 요청하고 있다.고마워. --Majora (대화) 21:24, 2017년 1월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

자신의 책을 인용하는 것은 WP가 아니다.반달리즘, 그래서 AIV에서 보고되지 말았어야 했다.하지만 그는 그의 책을 스팸 발송하는 것을 멈출 필요가 있다.어디에 속하는지, 어디에 속하지 않는지 좀 더 자세히 살펴봐야 할 것 같다.책이 애매한 주제에 대한 유일한 현존하는 자료 중 하나일 경우, 인용문으로 삽입해도 괜찮다.소프트라벤더 (대화) 22:56, 2017년 1월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

@소프트라벤더:여기서 자신을 홍보하는 것이 유일한 목적인 사람들을 보고하는 것은 트윙클의 AIV 모듈 아래 선택사항이다.그러니... 만약 그것이 공공 기물 파손의 형태가 아니라면, 우리는 그것을 다시 할 필요가 있을 것이다.여기서 요점은 거의 7년 동안 이 사람의 유일한 목표는 오직 그의 책만을 기사에 삽입하는 것이라는 것이다.마침표.그게 NOTPROMOONION 위반이 아니라면 무엇인지 모르겠다. --Majora (토크) 23:04, 2017년 1월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

• (충돌 편집)의도되지 않은 논평 이 사용자들의 기여와 그 사용자들과 리차드 오브 어스 사이의 교환을 그들의 토크 페이지에 옮겨 놓은 것을 보면, 이것은 단순히 편집 방법을 모르는 편집자의 단순한 문제일 뿐이라고 생각한다.여기서 일부러 꾸민 것은 아무것도 보이지 않는다.나는 리처드가 문제를 해결한다면 기꺼이 그를 지도해 줄 것이다.MjolnirPants 다 말해봐.23:06, 2017년 1월 20일 (UTC)[응답하라]
• 나는 그들의 편집 내용 중 약 30편(약 1/5)을 검토했고, 내가 확인한 모든 것은 주로 편집자의 책을 기사에 포함시키는 것에 관한 것임을 발견했다.나는 그들이 약간의 내용을 추가했다는 것을 인정할 것이다.그러나 여기에는 심각한 자기 홍보 문제가 있다.나는 편집자가 더 이상 자신을 거론하지 못하도록 제한하는 것이 여기서 합리적인 조치라고 생각한다.나 자신도 막으려던 참이었다.--v/r - TP 23:21, 2017년 1월 20일 (UTC)[응답하라]
• TParis에 동의해. 내가 보기엔 COI를 편집하는 것 같아.미니애폴리스 00:01, 2017년 1월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 그것이 WP라고 말하고 싶다.NOTHERHERE 상황, 그리고 그렇다, 홍보/COI.적어도 이 시점에서 그는 자신의 책을 기사에 직접 추가해서는 안 된다. 그는 기사 토크 페이지에 대한 요청으로 제한되어야 한다.최악의 경우 그는 NOTHERE로 차단되고 자기 홍보로 차단되어야 한다.소프트라벤더 (대화) 00:45, 2017년 1월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

• 나는 그가 백과사전을 짓기 위해 여기에 있다고 생각한다.그는 그의 인용구를 추가할 필요가 있다.그는 이미 기사에서 조달되지 않은 자료에 자신의 책을 인용할 수 있기 때문에 어떤 것도 추가할 필요가 없다.그가 덧붙인 기사에는 산문이 필요하다는 점도 지적하고 싶다.그는 이 지역에서 적어도 세 권, 어쩌면 몇 권의 책을 더 썼을 것이다.(그분의 이름이 그렇게 흔치 않은 것은 아니다)WP:SelfCITE는 허용되며, 우리는 글을 쓰는 경험과 정보를 가진 사람이면 누구나 기사에 기고할 수 있다는 사실에 매우 기뻐해야 한다.게다가 그는 작년에 한달에 6번도 안했다.나는 우리가 위키피디아의 기여를 따라잡는다고 생각한다.우리가 그에게 친절하게 대해준다면 그는 책에 썼던 그의 출처를 인용할 것이다.그가 그렇게 하지 않더라도, 산문을 갖는 것은 우리에게 시트를 첨가하기 위해 찾을 수 있는 무언가를 준다.리처드 오브 어스 (대화) 2017년 1월 21일 07:31 (UTC)[응답]
• 물론 자기 인용은 허용된다.만약 그의 편집이 백과사전에 도움이 된다면, 우리는 그의 동기가 무엇이라고 생각되는지에 대해 신경써야 할 것이 무엇인가?폴 아우구스트 ▷인터뷰 12시 49분(UTC) 2017년 1월 21일(화)

그런데 앨리스 다이아몬드라는 글을 쓰는 것은 백과사전에 분명 유용한 공헌이다.우리 백과사전에 쓸모가 있는 기고자들을 몰아내지 말자.부탁드려도 될까요?폴 아우구스트 인터뷰 13:29, 2017년 1월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

@폴 아우구스트:아 그래, 출처만 논의되고 있는 사람이 쓴 것이 의심스러운 기사야."유용한"은 확실히 논쟁의 여지가 있다.우리는 자기 홍보를 허용하지 않으며, 이 사람은 필요한 어떤 수단을 써서라도 자기 자신과 자신의 책을 홍보하기 위해 여기 있는 것이 아주 분명하다. --Majora (토크) 18:53, 2017년 1월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

• 나는 Richard-of-Earth와 Paul August의 의견에 동의한다.우리는 항상 사람들에게 그들의 연구가 위키피디아에 포함되길 원한다면, 그들은 먼저 믿을 만한 출처에 그것을 출판해야 할 것이라고 말한다.글쎄, 그는 그렇게 했다.EENG 22:47, 2017년 1월 22일 (UTC)[응답]
• 상기에 동의하다.관련된 편집 사항과 실제로 *잘못된*가 없다면.단지 자만하는 것은 문제가 되지 않는다.오직 하나의 참고자료로만 소싱되는 정보는 부당할 수 있지만, 빠른 시선으로 볼 때 이와 같이 논란의 여지가 있는 것은 없는 것으로 보인다.참고문헌들이 RS에서 나온 것이라면, 우리가 관련 내용에 대해 그것을 정의하는 한, 궁극적으로 누가 그것을 추가했는지는 중요하지 않다.첫 번째로 물어봐야 할 질문은 "다른 편집자가 정보를 추가한다면 이것이 문제가 될까?"이다.오직 죽음에서만 의무가 종료된다(대화) 2017년 1월 23일(UTC) 10:21, 응답하라(응답)

경품 팬의 법적 위협

Followalltherules는 대화 페이지 액세스가 취소되어야 할 것 같다.

믿거나 말거나, 나는 위와 같은 NAC를 하려고 했지만 편집 충돌이 있었다.여기에 분명히 말뚝이 박혀 있었던 것 같다.( () 히지리 88 ( (聖) 10:38, 2017년 1월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

"Curly Turkey"의 남용

이 반달리즘 같은건 없어?

내가 방금 본 한 가지 단서는 내가 편집한 것이 대부분 또는 전적으로 코셔였다는 것을 감히 증명한다: 게슈의 말!섹션 제목에서 내 IP를 사용하여 이 페이지의 섹션까지 스크롤할 수 있다.미안, 이걸 어떻게 표현해야 할지...

"모두 고마워 - 나는 방금 일어난 일을 보고 일어났어.나의 반전을 살펴보니, 성급하게 한 것도 몇 개 있었고, 그럴 필요가 없는 것도 몇 개 있었지만(파괴적인 편집들을 되돌리는 동안 내가 좀 지나쳤음에 틀림없어), 그리고 나서 다시 IP 편집기는 조금 - 좋은 편집자들은 되돌리지 않을 것이고, 다른 것들은 이미 처리된 것 같다.다시 한번 고마워!Guchy (토크) 14:48, 2017년 1월 20일 (UTC)"184.145.42.19 (토크) 18:34, 2017년 1월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 위 편집 후에 이것이 닫혔다는 것을 알았다.OK then!184.145.42.19 (토크) 18:34, 2017년 1월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

납치된 dab

자원봉사 마렉

텐빙고

프란시스 숄켄의 방해

편집으로 돌아가기

이 보고서가 닫히자마자 프란시스 숄켄은 편집으로 돌아왔다.그는 바흐 (BWV 142)의 허구적인 작품에 대해 나를 따라왔다.위의 논의에서는 프란시스 숄켄의 편집에 대해 두 명의 관리자와 소프트라벤더(토크 · 기여)와 조누니크(토크 · 기여)에 의한 진술이 있었다.아마 그들은 지금 의견을 말할 수 있을 것이다.Mathsci (대화) 10:29, 2017년 1월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

프랜치스는 2014년 이 글을 역사에 따라 처음 편집했다.이어 2017년 1월 첫 편집 전 2016년 8월과 10월에 일부 편집이 이어졌다.기사를 먼저 분명히 편집하고 감시 목록에 올려놓았을 때 편집자가 당신을 '따라왔다'고 불평하는 것은 기껏해야 잘못된 것이다.이제 그만둬야 할 것 같아.오직 죽음에서만 의무가 종료된다(대화) 2017년 1월 24일(UTC) 10시 42분 [응답]

그래, 하지만 위의 토론이 열린 상태에서 암암리에 진행되는 명백한 게임은 기껏해야 의심스럽다.나는 또한 그가 몇 년 전에 그 페이지를 약간 수정했으므로, 마쓰시가 수정하는 대로 갑자기 다시 수정해도 괜찮다고 말하는 논리도 이해할 수 없다.그가 페이지 워치리스트를 가지고 있다고 믿을 이유가 없어 보이고, 우리는 그가 이 토론을 지켜보고 있었다는 것을 알고 있기 때문에, 우리는 그가 적어도 마츠시의 편집 내용을 부분적으로 감시하고 있다는 것을 알고 있다.엄밀히 말하면, 그가 그것을 감시목록에 올렸다 하더라도, 그의 감시목록의 한 페이지가 Mathsci에 의해 편집되었다는 통지를 받았다면, 그는 여전히 우왕좌왕할 수 있다. 그리고 그는 그것을 한 사람이 Mathsci이기 때문에 거기에 나타나기로 결정했다.이 남자는 내가 하기 전에 그가 따라온 기사들을 편집했지만, 그는 여전히 나를 따라오고 있었다. 내가 그에게 잘 되지 않은 직후에 그는 우연히 페이지를 다시 편집하기로 결정했다고 주장했다.히지리 88 (聖聖) 10:58, 2017년 1월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

잠깐...난 행정관이 아니야하지만 네가 날 잊었는지 잘 모르겠어.히지리 88 (聖や) 11:04, 2017년 1월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

• 정말 엉망진창이다.2017년 1월 11일 프란시스 숀켄(토크 · 기고)의 마지막 편집 1시간 뒤, 마쓰시는 이 보고서를 공개했다.12일 뒤인 2017년 1월 23일 레이저브레인(Laser brain)에 의해 이 ANI 구간이 폐쇄됐다.12시간 후 FS는 Mathsci가 최근 활동 중인 BWV 142의 Uns ist ein Kind Geboren에서 편집을 재개했다.FS는 2014년 10월부터 2016년 10월까지 5번의 편집을 한 반면, Mathsci의 첫 편집은 2017년 1월 21일이었다.FS는 최근 Mathsci에 의해 추가된 출처에 대한 위키백과 편집자의 판단을 제거하는 것과 같은 몇 가지 점에서 위키백과 절차에 관한 것이 옳다.하지만, 정말 엉망진창이군!FS는 Mathsci가 대담에 대해 어떤 출처도 작품의 수신을 논하지 않기 때문에 그러한 섹션은 OR이 될 것이라는 것을 강조하면서 상세한 설명과 함께 삭제한 "리셉션" 섹션을 추가했다.AGF는 ANI 섹션이 활성화되어 있는 동안 FS가 사라지는 것은 괜찮다고 가정하고, Mathsci가 활성화되어 있는 기사에서 다시 시작하지만, 그러한 행동은 시스템을 게임하는 것과 구분할 수 없다.FS가 3개월 후 페이지 편집을 재개하기 전인 1월 21일부터 24일까지 13건의 편집을 마쓰시가 수행한 것과 같은 종류의 상호작용을 중단해야 한다.조누니크 (대화) 2017년 1월 24일 11시 14분 (UTC)[응답]

@요누니크: AGF는 자살조약이 아니다.이 실이 열려 있는 동안 FS가 일부러 침묵을 지키고 있었던 것은 거의 확실한데, 특히 전에 있었던 일이고 마쓰시가 실의 윗부분에서 아마 이런 일이 일어날 것이라고 지적한 것을 보면 더욱 그렇다.그래, 이론상으로는 이렇게 "어두워지는" 것은 괜찮지만, 비활동적인 사용자에 대한 ANI 스레드는 아무런 결과도 없이 보관되거나 불필요한/징벌적인 것으로 종결되는 경향이 있기 때문에 그것은 명백한 게임이고, FS는 이것을 알고 있다.위에서 일어난 이 정확한 일은 -- 이 멍청이가 어떻게 되었는지는 모르지만, FS에 관한 것은 아닌 것 같은데, 어쨌든 편집하지 않고 있는 FS에 관한 것은 더 이상 그를 앞으로 더 힘들게 할 것이 분명하다.

그리고 그렇다, 이론적으로, 한 페이지를 이전에 편집해서 그의 감시 목록에 올려놓았다는 것은, 그가 한 번 기사를 편집하면 곧바로 뛰어올라 마쓰시의 기여 페이지를 적극적으로 감시하지 않음으로써 마쓰시를 "그냥" 괴롭히고 있었다는 것을 의미한다.(마지막 문장은 당신이 이 점에 대해 기본적으로 내 의견에 동의한다는 것을 의미하지만, 2013년과 2017년에도 너무나 많은 사람들이 당신의 감시 목록에 페이지를 가지고 있는 것이 헛소리를 변명하지 않는 것 같았기 때문에, 나는 어쨌든 그것을 강조하고 싶었다.)

히지리 88 (聖聖) 11:52, 2017년 1월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

• @요누니크:문제는 위의 거대한 AN/I 섹션의 경우, 그 대부분은 단지 그들의 주장을 이어가는 관련 편집자들일 뿐이라는 것이다.어떤 견인력이나 지원을 획득한 행동 방침에 대한 합리적인 제안은 없다.이 보고서가 공개되는 동안 프란시스 숄켄이 사라진 것은 상당히 불쾌한 일이다(그동안 IP 편집자가 신비롭게 마쓰시와의 싸움의 맨틀을 차지하고 있었다).이 중 행정 개입 수준으로 올라가는 것이 있는가? --레이저 브레인 (대화) 12:35, 2017년 1월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

@레이저 브레인:의문의 IP가 FS라고 생각하면 그때 FS는 로그아웃을 하면서 편집하고 있었고, 그것이 자신이라는 것을 거듭 부정하고 있었는데, 이것이 삭발이다.이것은 본질적으로 다수의 계정을 남용하는 것과 같으며, 이것은 보통 한 블록의 근거가 된다.나는 FS의 정상적인 편집 패턴에 대해 내가 그라고 생각하는지 확실히 말할 만큼 충분히 알지 못하지만 만약 그것이 (그리고 많은 IP들이 CU가 확인하지 않은 삭스펫리용으로 차단된다)였다면 짧은 블록과 더 이상의 삭스핑에 대한 경고는 내가 추천하고 싶은 행정 개입이다.히지리 88 (聖聖) 12:50, 2017년 1월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

젠장. 나는 방금 전까지 (LB가 IP를 신비하다고는 하지만 다른 사람이라고 주장하는 그들의 선의를 부정하지 않는 곳) 미트푸페트리 설명을 잊고 있었다.그러나 이 ANI에 '침묵한 필리버스터'(TM)를 주기 위해 위키백과에서 떨어져 있는 동안 더러운 일을 하기 위해 캐나다에서 친구를 고용하는 것은 여전히 지장을 주며, 아마도 경고 형태의 가혹한 경고나 짧은 블록 형태의 가혹한 경고(FS가 분명히 알아야 하기 때문에 후자의 선택사항)의 가치가 있을 것이다.더 좋은히지리 88 (聖聖) 13:12, 2017년 1월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

이것은 말도 안 된다. 나는 간단한 이름 변경을 제안한다. 왜냐하면 칸타타는 바흐의 것이 아니고 (그리고 토크 페이지에 제시된 출처들이 그것을 확인해주기 때문에) FS와 Mathsci 둘 다 그것에 대해 전쟁을 시작하기 때문이다.이제 나는 북아메리카, 더 정확히 캐나다 출신임을 다시 한 번 확인할 것이다(보시오, 평일에는 주로 오전 7시 전후나 오후 5-11시 사이에 편집하는데, 예외는 가끔 있다).만약 당신이 여전히 내가 FS라고 믿는다면, CU: 나는 그렇지 않다.그 두 사람에 대해서는 - 그들 사이에 어떤 원한이 있는 것 같다 - 아마도 이것은 WP:B가 아니라는 엄중한 경고일 것이다.ATTLEField는 필요한 최소 조치일 것이다. 69.165.196.103 (대화) 13:04, 2017년 1월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

IP 69.165.196.103과 나 자신 사이에는 아무런 관계가 없음을 확인할 수 있다.이름 변경에 대한 토론은 Talk에서 진행하십시오.Unsit ein Kind Geboren, BWV 142/Archive 1#Requested move 2017년 1월 22일.그것에 대한 전쟁은 없다 (그리고 만약 내가 그 부분에 대한 단 한 번의 기여 후에 그것이 명백히 중단되었다면). --프랑시스 숀켄 (대화) 13:37, 2017년 1월 24일 (UTC)[응답하라]

그것은 형편없이 쓰여졌다, 내 말은 기사에 새 섹션(FS는 그것에 대해 의견이 없다)을 추가하고, 출처에 대한 마쓰시의 논평을 삭제한 다음, 마쓰시는 그것을 취소하기 위해 진행했다; 그것이 내가 (중요한 것이긴 하지만) 편집 전쟁이라고 부르는 것이다.A by war I 또한 여기서 ANI. 69.165.196.103 (대화) 23:02, 2017년 1월 24일 (UTC)[응답]에 대한 주장을 의미한다.

레. "마츠시의 출처 해설":

1. 06:13, 2017년 1월 21일 – Mathsci는 메인 스페이스에 POV 해설 "진위 문제 논의의 주요 소스"를 추가하여 Dürrr 1977 소스 소개
2. 14:27, 2017년 1월 21일 – IP 69.165.196.103은 POV 한정자 "main"을 제거한다("진위성 문제에 대한 논의를 위한 출처"라고 표시).
3. 23:03, 2017년 1월 21일 – 메인 스페이스에 POV를 두기로 결정한 Mathsci는 한정자 "principal"(주요 소스라고 부르는 POV와 동일한 POV)을 추가한다.
4. 08:15, 2017년 1월 24일 – Francis는 출처의 POV 자격을 완전히 제거하고, 요약 편집: "출처에 대한 위키백과 편집자의 판단 삭제"
5. 09:43, 2017년 1월 24일 – Mathsci는 Dürrr 1977 소스 "진정성 문제에 대한 토론의 주요 출처"에 대한 POV를 다시 소개한다(내 강조)

2, 3, 4, 5는 되돌림: 2개는 비소싱 POV(1개는 비소싱 POV, 1개는 프란시스), 2개는 비소싱 POV(1단계에서 비참조 POV도 소개한 Mathsci)를 다시 도입하는 것이다.WP를 참조하십시오.과제: 비소싱 문구를 삭제한 경우 검증가능성을 제공하는 참조(정책 요구사항)로만 재도입할 수 있다.

뒤르, 1977년 소스를 쓴 바로 그 알프레드 뒤르 역시 1998년 BWV로^2a 알려진 마지막 버전의 편집자였다.그 버전의 BWV에서 우리가 여기서 이야기하고 있는 칸타타는 의심스러운 작품들(안하 II로 알려져 있다)의 부속서(안항)에 있다.뒤르가 안항 II에 배치하기 위해 제시한 유일한 참고 자료는 1977년 자신의 책이 아니라 "Schering, BJ 1912"이기 때문에, 뒤르 1977년을 위키백과의 메인스페이스에서 그 진정성 문제에 대한 주요 출처로 제시한 것은 분명히 용납할 수 없는 POV이다.

Re. "전쟁에 의한 나는 또한 ANI에 대한 이 주장을 의미한다" – 위에서 언급한 바와 같이, 나는 당신의 2017년 1월 24일, 13:04, 24 코멘트를 하기 전에 그것에 관여하지 않았다. --프랜시스 숀켄 (대화) 07:58, 2017년 1월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

이것이 당신의 첫 번째 격렬한 논쟁이 될 수도 있지만 그것은 ANI 주변에서 흔히 볼 수 있는 종류의 문제다. 분명히 참가자들은 누가 무엇을 하고 누가 그것을 시작했는지에 대해 매우 걱정하겠지만, 솔직히 우리는 상관하지 않는다. 우리는 단지 소음이 멈추기를 원한다.이 논의는 앞으로 나아갈 방법에 대한 제안이 부족하다.한 달, 주제 금지 또는 상호 작용 금지로 시작하는 단계적 블록을 포함할 수 있다.희박한 가능성은 참가자가 어떤 이유로든 절대 승선하지 않을 것임을 인식하고 서로 피해야 한다는 것이다.어려운 점은 두 분 모두 바로크 음악 분야에서 일한 경력이 있고, 현재 바흐와 관련된 기사 편집에 열중하고 있다는 점이다.아마도 당신은 마쓰시가 기사를 따라온 사례들을 확인할 수 있을 것이다. 그러나 현재의 프락처는 마쓰시가 활동할 때 현명하지 못한 개입을 한 기사를 다루고 있다.나는 위의 "11:14, 2017년 1월 24일" 코멘트에서 당신이 3개월 전에 먼저 기사를 편집한 사실을 포함하여 그 시기를 간략히 설명했다.당신이 인식하고 있는 긴급함에도 불구하고, 마쓰시가 그 지역에서 편집을 중단해야 한다는 것을 보여줄 증거가 없을 것 같기 때문에, 개입하는 것은 여전히 매우 현명하지 못했다.그 문제를 어떻게 해결할 수 있다고 생각하십니까?조누니크 (대화) 10:01, 2017년 1월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

• (ec) 이 글의 추가 편집은 많이 했다.프란시스 숄켄(FS)이 어제 편집에 대해 러닝 코멘트를 쓰려고 하는 이유는 무엇일까.하프시코드와 오르간(Bach)을 위한 콘체르토 대본에 대한 그의 파괴적인 편집이 위에서 디프트로 자세히 설명되었다.FS가 개선하려고 시도할 수 있는 바흐 작곡에 관한 서투른 글들이 많이 있지만(예: Clavier-übung I, Well-Tomety Clavier, 발명품, 신포니아스(Bach)))는 나의 편집 내용을 추적하는 것을 선호한다.그는 나를 따라 여러 기사로 가서 새로운 비평을 꿈꾸고 있다.여기서 그는 내가 진행 중인 편집에 대해 시대에 뒤떨어진 논평을 한다.

BWV 142의 경우, 나는 믿을 만한 출처를 추가하고 움직임에 대한 적절한 설명을 제공했다.나는 가장 먼저 살아남은 카피(Christian Friedrich Penzel, 1756년)의 페놀티메이트 페이지의 이미지를 추가했다.최근 권위 있는 NBA I/41(2000년)에 실린 안드레아스 글뢰크너의 역사적 해설이 FS에 의해 무시되고 있다.그는 19C년에 바흐에게 잘못 귀속되었을 때 사람들이 이 작품에 대해 어떻게 생각했는지에 대해 자신만의 개인적인 에세이를 쓰고 싶어할지도 모른다; 그러나 현대 장학금을 나타내지 않는 이 변칙적인 작품의 경우.이 작품이 바흐의 작품이 아닌 상황에서 왜 WP를 쓰는가.또는 (필립 스피타 같은) 사람들이 귀속 거부되기 전에 어떤 생각을 했는지에 대한 에세이가 있는가?그것은 독자에게 아무런 쓸모가 없다.그래서 프란시스 숄켄의 "이세이"가 제거되었다.안드레아스 글뢰크너는 이미 역사적인 논평을 제공했다.바흐의 학자 앤드류 탈레는 바흐의 최근 저서인 '바흐 투시'에서 바흐와 동시대인들의 칸타타를 비교하면서 다음과 같은 방법으로 BWV 142를 쓴다.[시론]—그것은 가짜 작품으로서 가정적으로 할인된다.

FS는 지금 알프레드 뒤르를 문제 삼았다.2011년 사망하기 전 그는 바흐 칸타타스, 바흐 게셀샤프트의 우르텍스트 출판물, 연대기 등에 관한 주요 권위자 중 한 명이었다.칸타타에 관한 그의 책(2006년 옥스퍼드 대학 출판부에서 영어 번역 출간)은 위키백과 기사의 주요 참고 문헌 중 하나이다.뒤르가 자신의 저서에서 지적했듯이 1957년 이전에 쓴 출판물은 음악적 분석에 가치가 있을 수 있지만 연대기(또는 진위)에는 신뢰할 수 없다.그 예로 비록 사후에 출판되었을 뿐이지만 그는 바흐의 학자 윌리엄 G의 두 권의 저서를 언급하고 있다. 휘태커, 내가 BWV 39에 사용했어.뒤르의 책을 빌려서 105호를 만들었다.BWV 142와는 달리 이 두 작품 모두 확실히 바흐의 작품이다.사실, 그것들은 명작이다.

이것은 사소한 글이나 단조로운 글이다.이 보고서를 촉발시킨 1월 11일 사건은 FS에 의해 큰 혼란이었다.그는 편집 직후 거의 2주 동안 en.wp로 사라졌다.그는 이 기사에서 내가 편집한 내용을 추적했는데, 만약 그가 "긴급"한 문제가 있었다면, 출처에 대한 긴 논의가 있는 기사 토크 페이지에서 그것을 제기했을 것이다.그는 그렇게 하지 않았다.현대문학은 많지 않다(= WP:RS) 이 가짜 칸타타에 대해; 나는 아주 적은 것을 모으는데 많은 시간을 보냈다.Mathsci (대화) 11:53, 2017년 1월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

내가 먼저 지적한 것에 대해 다른 사람들이 신용을 얻는 것을 그만뒀으면 정말 좋겠어.그렇다, 그것은 아무도 내 코멘트를 읽지 않는 경우일 것이다. 그래서 그들이 그런 행동이 시스템을 게임하는 것과 구별할 수 없다고 말할 때, 그것은 16분 전에 나의 코멘트와 무관했을 것이다. 명백한 게임 [...]은 의심스럽지만, 그러나 그것이 Johnuniq가 위에서 그가 그 시스템을 게임해왔다는 것을 제안했다는 사실을 변화시키지는 못한다.오탈. 내가 제안했고, 조누니크는 내 제안을 반복했다. (실제로 마쓰시가 먼저 제안했지만, 단지 다른 말로만)히지리 88 (聖聖) 2017년 1월 25일 12시 15분 (UTC)[응답]

(ec) 위의 문구를 여러 가지 방법으로 수정했지만, 분명히 약간의 편집 충돌이 있었다.Mathsci (토크) 12:28, 2017년 1월 25일 (UTC)[답글]

@요누니크: 위에서 언급했듯이, 이것이 아마도 FS의 첫 번째 격렬한 논쟁이 될 수는 없을 것이다.그는 분명히 자신의 전투력 외에 다른 이유 없이 정비 템플릿에 대한 사소한 논쟁을 훨씬 더 좋게 만들었고, 음, 나는 그가 WT:V의 믿을 수 없을 정도로 씁쓸한 분위기에 대해 그를 비난하고 싶지는 않지만, 그가 200번 이상 페이지를 편집했다는 것을 고려하면 그가 쓴맛에 익숙하지 않을 수 있다는 것은 상상하기 어려울 것이다.그것은 그의 토크 페이지에서의 경쟁력을 위해서가 아니다.히지리 88 (聖聖) 10:22, 2017년 1월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

@요누니크:씁쓸함은 없고, 위에서 논의한 문제에서도 없다(분명히 나 자신만을 대변할 수 있다).FYI, Mathsci가 Dürr 1977 선원의 메인 스페이스 POV 자격을 제거하는 동안.내용 문제는 무미건조하게 해결되었다.

콘텐츠 문제는 WP에 속하지 않는다.ANI. 또한 비이슈(나처럼 추가적인 편집 행동을 개선할 수 있는지 알아보기 위해 위의 토론이 종결되기를 기다리는 것)는 여기에 속하지 않는다.마찬가지로, 편집자 행동에 대한 토론은 내용 토론에 할당된 대화 페이지에서 제외되어야 한다.

질문에 답변하려면:나는 현재 여기에 보고할 행동상의 문제가 없다.내가 위에서 보고한 것은 이미 해결되었다(이 게시물에서 위의 차이점을 참조하라).나는 메인 스페이스 콘텐츠로 돌아가서, 필요하다면, 메인 스페이스 콘텐츠에 대한 토론에 적합한 토크 페이지에서 그 콘텐츠에 대한 토론을 하고 싶다.Mathsci는 현재 BWV 142 기사를 편집하고 있다.그 진척도에 따라 그 기사에 대한 개선의 여지가 생긴다면 재평가하겠다(이에 대해 나는 마쓰시의 적극적인 편집 세션을 방해할 의도가 없다).만약 당신이 뭔가 합법적인 것을 원한다면, 나는 그 행동에 대한 토론이 내용 토론의 병폐에서 퇴보하는 것을 방지하고, 이것들이 혼합된 내용/행동 토론으로 변질되는 장소에서의 내용 토론을 비슷하게 막는 것을 제안하고 싶다.--Francis Schonken (talk) 2017년 1월 25일 (UTC) 12:26 [응답]

ANI에서 언급될 때 "어둠에 빠짐"으로 제재를 피하기 위한 게임을 하는 것은 이제 "비 이슈"가 되었는가?마쓰시는 (이 실의 꼭대기 부근) 이것이 당신과의 반복적인 문제라는 것을 암시했다.히지리 88 (聖聖) 12:33, 2017년 1월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

• FS의 편집에는 일반적인 문제가 있다(나나 나의 편집과는 무관하지만 BWV 142에서의 그의 편집과는 관련이 없다).Das_ist_je_gewißlich_wahr#Reception은 그가 어떻게 "reception"에 관한 섹션을 만들고, 1차 소스에서 콘텐츠를 합성하는지를 보여준다.그 경우에 그는 BWV 141의 "인식"에 관한 에세이를 썼고, 마치 음악사학자와 훈련된 음악학자가 쓴 것처럼 썼으며, 위키백과 자신의 목소리로 썼다.다시 이것은 잘못 기인된 칸타타(BWV 141BWV 142의 경우와 마찬가지로, NBA I/41의 BWV 141에 대해 발표된 논평이 존재한다.[107] FS가 이 절에서 참조를 제공하였으나 바흐 아카이브에서 복사하였다.내가 아는 한 FS는 그런 참고문헌을 읽어본 적이 없다.바흐 학자인 안드레아스 글뢰크너가 쓴 칸타타의 귀속 전말을 담고 있는 것으로 알고 있다.나는 바흐 학자가 이미 귀속 등에 관한 내용을 썼는데 왜 FS가 그 내용을 직접 꾸며냈는지 모르겠다.그것이 그가 위키피디아를 편집하는 방법이다.Mathsci (토크) 17:42, 2017년 1월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

Mathsci는 BWV 142에 대한 FS의 편집 [108]은 파괴적이고, 비소싱적이며, OR이었다고 주장한다.그 주제는 19세기 칸타타의 환영이었다.그래서, Mathsci는 한 섹션이 바흐의 작품에 대한 19세기 수신에 대해 언급하고 있기 때문에, 그것은 관련이 없다고 말한다. 왜냐하면 새로운 언급들이 있기 때문이다. 그것은 두 WP 모두에 반대되는 것이다.ITSOOLD 및 WP:IDLI. 또한 출처는 그들이 설명하고 있는 것에 대해 신뢰할 수 있다.Mathsci는 또한 모든 사람들이 그가 명명할 수 있는 모든 출처에 대한 접근권을 가지고 있다고 가정한다. 그것은 명백히 잘못된 것이다. 만약 그들이 어떤 출처에 대한 접근권을 가지고 있지 않다면, 누군가 파괴적이라고 비난할 근거가 없다. 그들은 여전히 다른 출처로부터 의미 있는 편집을 할 수 있다.그가 BWV 141에서 언급하는 Das is jewißlich wahr는 OR -과 Mathsci의 주장이 "음악사학자나 훈련된 음악학자에 의한 것 같다"는 주장은 MOS와 일치하는 전문용어와 사실을 포함하지 않는다.
이제, 내 작은 소리지르지 마.Mathsci와 FS(또는 그들 중 적어도 한 명)는 뭔가 원한을 품고 있는 것 같고, 그것이 여기에서 근본적인 문제인 것 같다-둘 다 바로크 음악(흔히 바흐의 것)에 관한 기사 편집에 관심이 있고, 그것은 그들이 가끔 충돌한다는 것을 의미한다(어떤 문제에 대해서는 분명히 같은 의견을 공유하지 않기 때문에). -이러한 갈등으로 이어질 수 있다.여기 하나.두 사람은 이것이 (나 자신을 반복하는) 전쟁터가 아니며, (적어도 일정 기간 동안) 상호 작용 금지가 좋은 생각이 될 것이며, 짧은 주제 금지가 (정신을 진정시키는 데 도움이 될) 해롭지 않을 것이라는 점을 상기해야 한다고 생각한다. 69.165.196.103 (대화) 00:02, 2017년 1월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:Johnuniq는 BWV 142의 토크 페이지에서 "인식"에 대한 코멘트를 보고 코멘트를 했다.BWV 141의 경우, 사용자:프랜시스 숄켄은 마치 바흐 학자처럼 편집했다.그의 편집 방식은 WP에서 다음과 같이 비판되어 왔다.RSN—웹에서 찾을 수 있는 모든 것, 구식 책, 주요 출처, 바흐 아카이브의 원시 목록 등 사용.이는 WP를 사용하지 않는 데서 기인한다.RS. 두 경우 모두 음악학자들이 이 작품들의 접수에 대해 쓴 적이 없다.그들의 진실성과 귀속성에 대해 많은 것이 쓰여졌지만 그것은 다른 주제다.

칸타타스에 관한 콘텐츠를 만드는 표준 접근법은, 정통적이든 가짜든, 주요 당국 중 하나인 알프레드 뒤르의 주요 2차 출처를 살펴보는 것이다.그의 칸타타에 관한 책 영문판 부록 1쪽[109]에서 BWV 141의 진위에 대한 주요 논의는 바흐-자흐르부치 39(1951-52) 31-35쪽이라는 글에서 그가 주었음을 알 수 있다.BWV 141의 이 5페이지들은 뒤르, 임 미텔펑크트 바흐의 1988년 기사에 다시 인쇄되었다.이것은 이 일의 주요 부차적인 출처 중 하나이다.BWV 141에 사용할 수 있는 다른 유일한 2차 소스는 NBA I/4의 안드레아스 글뢰크너가 작성한 비판 보고서의 요약인 것 같다.[110] 둘 다 도서관에서 상담할 수 있고, 그 내용을 패러프레이드 할 수 있다.텔레만 칸타타스의 리셉션은 보통 책[111]과 잡지 기사에서 "리셉션" 또는 "리셉션"이라는 제목으로 음악학자들이 논한다.[112]

IP의 편집은 위의 실에서 조누니크와 소프트라벤더가 논의한 바 있다.여기서 그들은 솥을 휘젓는 것을 돕기 위해 두 번째 또는 세 번째 마녀처럼 다시 나타나며, 그 여분의 양서류 je ne sais quoi를 덧붙인다.그들은 이차적인 출처에 대해 논평을 했고, 그들을 살펴봐야 한다는 것이 얼마나 불합리하다고 생각하는지에 대해 논평을 했다.그들은 그것 때문에 내 주제가 금지되기를 원한다.그러나 BWV 529는 2차 소스(동일 책의 2판)를 사용하여 편집된다.오디오 파일도 꽤 열심히 해야 해.

Largo BWV 529/2 • 4:32

알레그로 BWV 529/3 • 3:55

FS의 콘텐츠 편집의 가장 큰 문제점은 웹에서 찾을 수 있는 소스를 무분별하고 독점적으로 사용한다는 것이다. FS는 전문 기사의 소스 자료를 찾기 위해 도서관을 이용하는 것을 지속적으로 거부해 왔다.Mathsci (대화) 06:18, 2017년 1월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

2016년 8월, Mathsci는 (다른 것 중)에 전념했다. "..." 다른 기량을 가진 다른 편집자들을 얕보는 모습을 보이는 것은 단호하게 피하겠다"고 말했다.

위에 그들이 썼다(IP 69.165.196.103에 대하여): "..."여기서 그들은 솥을 휘젓는 것을 돕기 위해 두 번째 또는 세 번째 마녀처럼 다시 나타나며, 여분의 양서류 je ne sais Quoi를 덧붙인다."

"다른 편집자들을 비하하는 모습을 보이는 것을 완전히 피한다"는 말은 실패한다.나는 마쓰시가 69.165.196.103의 기술에도 어떤 식으로든 관심이 있는 것을 보지 못했다.Mathsci와 함께 편집하는 것은 특별한 종류의 기술을 필요로 한다.IP 69.165.196.103은 그런 기술을 가지고 있다고 생각한다(또는 적어도 어느 정도 커뮤니티 지원을 받아 개발할 수 있을 것이다). --프랑시스 숀켄(토크) 07:25, 2017년 1월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

프란시스 숄켄은 여기서 그 매력을 켰으며 아마도 밑바탕에 깔린 문제에 대한 비뚤어진 검토에 성공했을 것이다.그러나 나는 뒷감당을 좀 검토했고 "비통함은 없다"는 FS의 상부의 주장에 놀랐다.그것은 나의 "이것이 당신의 첫 번째 격렬한 논쟁일 수도 있다.나는 이 "비통함" 주장을 전적으로 솔직하지 않은 것으로 간주하지만 위키피디아의 망가진 절차에 따르면 FS는 이전의 쓰라린 상호작용을 완전히 망각한 마쓰시의 글을 수정하기 위해 마쓰시가 활동적인 기사에 우연히 도착했다고 믿어야 한다.IP는 Talk에서 그들의 조급하고 반복적인 논평으로 심각하게 고려되지 않았다.오르골뷔클레인#2017년 1월 현재 발행.조누니크 (대화) 2017년 1월 26일 10시 48분 (UTC)[응답]

추카우문나

32.218.37.8

배경 - 출처 및 관련 관습과 법률에 따라 누가 어떤 사람인가

요청된 사용자 블록:히지리88번길

"Closed" means "Closed"
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Beeblebrox: With all due respect, the "very real possibility of an ArbCom case" is, in fact, something that I indicated more than once I was intending to seek out. Does this restriction eliminate that possibility, and, I suppose, it would be curious to know how strong the "interaction" is. Would any edit made by one party to a page or discussion that had already involved the other party in any way qualify as a violation? If so, then I think that for this matter to have any real enforcability there may well need to be some sort of restrictions of one sort or another on the common areas of activity, including religion/Christianity, noticeboards, etc. John Carter (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Teenage Fairytale Dropouts vandal

Question: All known recent IPs used by the TFD vandal have been in the 49.197.*.* range. Is there any indication that a rangeblock would cause collateral damage? Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 22:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the range calculations. I haven't done any digging, just inputted the information into the range calculator. A few check users or administrators that are familiar with range blocks might want to take a look. I'll do a bit of analysis myself when I get the chance. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈^(Talk) 23:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP Range Calculations--Cameron11598 (Talk) 23:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted 17 IPv4 addresses: 49.197.43.108 49.197.109.103 49.197.113.179 49.197.115.94 49.197.117.111 49.197.117.242 49.197.119.36 49.197.119.92 49.197.121.213 49.197.122.139 49.197.122.176 49.197.182.154 49.197.184.15 49.197.189.203 49.197.199.230 49.197.208.229 49.197.215.162 Total affected Affected addresses Given addresses Range Contribs 64K 65536 17 49.197.0.0/16 contribs 20K 1 1 49.197.43.108 contribs 8192 10 49.197.96.0/19 contribs 4096 3 49.197.176.0/20 contribs 8192 3 49.197.192.0/19 contribs 8196 1 1 49.197.43.108 contribs 1 1 49.197.109.103 contribs 4096 9 49.197.112.0/20 contribs 1 1 49.197.182.154 contribs 2048 2 49.197.184.0/21 contribs 1 1 49.197.199.230 contribs 2048 2 49.197.208.0/21 contribs 3080 1 1 49.197.43.108 contribs 1 1 49.197.109.103 contribs 2048 6 49.197.112.0/21 contribs 1024 3 49.197.120.0/22 contribs 1 1 49.197.182.154 contribs 1 1 49.197.184.15 contribs 1 1 49.197.189.203 contribs 1 1 49.197.199.230 contribs 1 1 49.197.208.229 contribs 1 1 49.197.215.162 contribs 459 1 1 49.197.43.108 contribs 1 1 49.197.109.103 contribs 1 1 49.197.113.179 contribs 1 1 49.197.115.94 contribs 256 2 49.197.117.0/24 contribs 128 2 49.197.119.0/25 contribs 1 1 49.197.121.213 contribs 64 2 49.197.122.128/26 contribs 1 1 49.197.182.154 contribs 1 1 49.197.184.15 contribs 1 1 49.197.189.203 contribs 1 1 49.197.199.230 contribs 1 1 49.197.208.229 contribs 1 1 49.197.215.162 contribs 17 1 1 49.197.43.108 contribs 1 1 49.197.109.103 contribs 1 1 49.197.113.179 contribs 1 1 49.197.115.94 contribs 1 1 49.197.117.111 contribs 1 1 49.197.117.242 contribs 1 1 49.197.119.36 contribs 1 1 49.197.119.92 contribs 1 1 49.197.121.213 contribs 1 1 49.197.122.139 contribs 1 1 49.197.122.176 contribs 1 1 49.197.182.154 contribs 1 1 49.197.184.15 contribs 1 1 49.197.189.203 contribs 1 1 49.197.199.230 contribs 1 1 49.197.208.229 contribs 1 1 49.197.215.162 contribs

From what I can see it would require a /16, which would do a little bit of collateral damage. It might be block able for a short period (if absolutely necessary) but I would advocate against a long term block of the range. Ping KrakatoaKatie, Bbb23 or any other CU for a second opinion. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈^(Talk) 03:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, if it's really a very disruptive LTA editor, we could see if the WMF would be willing to contact their ISP about abuse coming from their network. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ping @Kbrown (WMF): & @Jalexander-WMF: would this be doable? --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈^(Talk) 05:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent TFD IP is 49.181, not 49.197, so I'd say the question of rangeblocking is moot for now, but I'd still like to see an answer on whether we can contact the ISP. --Finngall ^talk 22:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing Opinion

An editor selectively notified editors of an AfD discussion (that was later removed by a different editor as it was incomplete) that was taking place at Talk:Isaaq_Genocide. Although the notice was neutral enough, all members the editor solicited, since they were cherry-picked by the editor, ended up supporting their view. This seems like WP:VOTESTACK to me but I would like the opinion of an admin (or other experienced editors). The soliciting posts for editor no.1 [here, and editor no.2 [here]. There were in total 3 votes supporting them, the aforementioned two solicited votes, and a third editor who, though not directly solicited as far as I can see, has self-identified as an acquaintance of the initiator of the request, you can word search this sentence in the talk page linked above: "whilst Acidsnow in particular is nothing more than an acquaintance to me." Needless to say all three editors have interacted and discussed many topics in the past and it seems to me that they would have a reasonable expectation of stances on different topics thus it appears WP:CANVAS. Many thanks. Kzl55 (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC) The user has been informed of this discussion. Kzl55 (talk) 02:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's a clear distinction between my actions and that of Kzl55. As Awale-Abdi points out, me and Soupforone have had numerous disagreements in the past (see this articles talk page as an example: here). In fact, Soupforone and I have disagreed on the vast majority of our discussions, so theirs no indication that we would agree on this matter either. In addition, I've never spoke to AlaskaLava prior to this discussion. Awale-Abdi found the article on his own and we've disagreed in the past too (see here:[143]), so stating that he is an acquaintance doesn't prove much. All three users are all well established editors and have all shown considerable knowledge one the Somali people and the wider region. One the other hand, Kzl55 sought the thoughts of individuals whom had all joined recently (most likely a coincidence), made very few edits, and had all desired to prop up the regions independence movement on Wikipedia, see: here, here, and here. This further supports why I and other users cite WP:PROPAGANDA for the Isaaq Genocide article and the rest of Kzl55 edits. I suggest that they familiarize themselves with WP:BOOMERANG.

This report is nothing more than part of a series of personal attacks that this user has made against me. These include: accusations of vandalism (see here: [144], [145], and [146]), raising the possibility of metapuppetry (see here: [147]), soliciting views (see here: [148]), and so forth. He has also made comments such as:

"much of the content the editor initiating this request works on, or is involved in edit wars over, is slanted against certain Somali groups namely the Isaaq" ~Kzl55, 20:57, 15 January 2017

"It seems to me, and this is unfortunate, that the initiator of the deletion request harbors negative sentiment against Isaaqs" ~Kzl55, 16:57, 16 January 2017

"Some groups from the Somali peninsula benefit from the dilution of an event of this magnitude, estimates ranging between 50,000-200,000 civilian deaths, and causing some 800,000 people to flee their homes. The sheer scale of this calamity is unprecedented in East Africa. This might explain why some editors are persistent in WP:VAND of the page by blanking and using redirects, and now trying to nominate it for deletion" ~Kzl55, Revision as of 16:57, 16 January 2017

"You are trying to pass off your opinion as a fact" ~Kzl55, 04:51, 17 January 2017

"your negative edits of Somaliland pages here, it is very clear and I stand by it" ~Kzl55, 16:19, 17 January 2017

I and several other users have already stated that it would be in their best interest for them to stop (see here: [149], [150], and [151]). But as we can see from here, nothing has changed. If there's an anything an admin can do about this, then let it be so. If a separate discussion is required, then I am also willing to make one AcidSnow (talk) 07:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• (Non-administrator comment) AfD discussions don't take place on article talk pages.(See below.)Notifying users you suspect will !vote a certain way is canvassing, but notifying a small number of experienced and ethical users who are familar with the topic and have not demonstrated a strong bias is normally acceptable. I do not know if this is what happened there, but the number of users notified was definitely small. Additionally, if someone actually does open a properly formatted AFD and you do what you apparently did there, posting massive walls of text with the effect, if not necessarily the intent, of filibustering the discussion, you will be more likely to face sanctions than the "canvassing" party. Anyway, what administrative action are you seeking? Do you just want to know if it was canvassing? If it's a simple yes/no question, the answer is yes, but it was extremely minor and if the "AfD discussion" has already ended nothing will come of it, and your own wall of text was arguably much worse than notifying two users. (Although, again, I don't know why those users were selected. You say that the notifier had previous interactions with them, but again the only way to know if someone is experienced, ethical and familiar with the topic is to have had previous interactions with them.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kzl55 has been making numerous attacks against me as pointed out by myself and other users. I am interested in seeing if anything can be done about it. AcidSnow (talk) 07:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hijiri88, just to note that the discussion was located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaaq Genocide while the alleged canvassing took place. AcidSnow hadn't used the AfD page template or listed it in the AfD log. I spotted this and the page was moved to the article talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Noted. But a significant portion of the "discussion" apparently took place after your move of the discussion to the talk page, so my point about the absurdity of it still stands (especially given the OP's an AfD discussion [...] that was taking place at Talk:Isaaq_Genocide), as does everything else about walls of text and what is considered disruptive canvassing. This assumes that, since the OP didn't present any evidence of collusion or tendentious editing, the small number of canvassed editors were selected for a valid reason. My assumption could well be wrong, but the burden is still on the OP to prove it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do I go about fixing this? AcidSnow (talk) 08:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AcidSnow: Follow the step-by-step instructions at WP:AFD. If I recall correctly, they are not that difficult. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. You need to start a new AfD from scratch, AcidSnow, and hopefully this one, as well as following process, will attract concise comments rather than walls of text. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that walls of text, if posted with an apparent attempt to filibuster civil discussion and preserve the status quo by default, are severe violations. It is not clear that Kzl55 intended to filibuster that "discussion", but now that they have been warned about it here, if they do it again on a new, properly formatted AFD, you should come back here and report them. AGF is not a suicide pact: if someone persists in "good faith" disruptive behaviour after being told it is disruptive, you can report them for their disruptive behaviour. But you need to be brief as well. Very long comments tend to discourage outside input and preserve the status quo by default, so if you are seeking sanctions against someone you need to keep it as short as possible. I noticed you post some walls of text on the talk page yourself. You should know that if you want the page to be deleted, this shooting yourself in the foot, as walls of text almost always have the effect of preserving the status quo, and you were trying to argue against the status quo. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that these comments are addressed to AcidSnow, not to me. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. (笑) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri 88 Thank you for your reply, the point is that not only did AcidSnow committed multiple cases of vandalism (blanking via redirection) here and here, but they disruptively started an AfD despite the page being very will sourced, notable and neutral. They then solicited the opinion of other editors that they had a reasonable assumption (based on previous interactions) that they would support them, and they did end up supporting them. Having solicited only a small number, in this case two editors, is still significant as the number of editors interested in Somali topics is extremely small, so two editors constitute a large portion of regular editors interested in Somali subjects.

I am glad you agree this was a case of canvassing (albeit with your 'minor' qualifier). With regards to administrative actions I am seeking, I am not entirely sure of what actions I can seek, could you elaborate on what the procedure is with cases of vandalism and canvassing? Or point me to where I can read on it? I just want them to cease their activities, this is a very important subject as such their behaviour should not be tolerated.

About the walls of text, I was unaware this was frowned upon, I apologies. In my defence, the main claim against the article, and I quote editor AcidSnow, was that " very few individuals classify these events as a whole as a genocide" and that the Somali State may have also victimised other groups thus Isaaq genocide was not a subject worthy of an article. Me citing the very respected and established sources, like the UN, Human Rights Watch, World Bank and various scholars on the subject of genocide like Israel Charny in addition to international media was to answer those claims. I honestly would not know how else to answer them, would responding with links to pages of the books that discuss the issue made a better response (but then whoever is reading will end reading even more texts from the links)? How would you have countered those claims without resorting to quoting from neutral sources? I am new here so very open to learning how these mattered are resolved. Kzl55 (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing to point out, and a very important point to highlight. This may explain the energy and 'walls of text' involved in this discussion. I do not know the background of the aforementioned editor, or indeed if they are Somali or not, their particular interest however suggests they may be. The civil war has done a lot of damage to Somali social fabric along clan lines, there are deep-seated issues and distrust based on clan. Depending on your background you could be either from a group that fell victim to acts of genocide or someone whose clan perpetrated said acts using state assets. In doing so the issue, despite the clarity with which an outsider can deal with it, and abundance of resources documenting it, becomes very polarising for Somalis. This situation becomes like asking someone from a Hutu background to accept the Tutsi claim of genocide that their people may have committed, something they were unaware of due to upbringing, environment and such. I say this because the possibility that the editor's opposition to a well sourced article that does not deviate from scholarly consensus may stem from belonging to different groups than the Isaaq in question, which if accepted, may indirectly cast their own clan as part of the 'other group', i.e. the victimiser. This is one of the reasons why despite the wealth of scholarly consensus on the specific targeting of Isaaq and the well documented cases of mass murder with intention of extermination, all of the evidence from UN reports to world media coverage, many Somalis belonging to other clans still choose to refuse to accept that Isaaq genocide happened. I hope that makes sense. Kzl55 (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kzl55: You have to understand that when I say I am not going to read AcidSnow's wall-of-text above, that's not a statement of partiality towards you. I will also not read walls of text posted by you. While other editors likely scrolled through this thread, rolled their eyes at the above, and simply moved on, I'm in too deep not to clarify this for you directly, especially given that you pinged me (most of the pinging I've been receiving recently was abusive, and logging in and seeing those notifications is not as pleasant as it perhaps should be, so I would appreciate it if you don't do so any more). You and AcidSnow have a content dispute. Both of you have apparently stepped somewhat over the line of civility. AcidSnow did something that you and perhaps others consider to be canvassing, but you did something that would have made notifying a small number of knowledgeable users justified (as it was literally the only way to get outside input after you made the discussion unreadable). Nothing is going to come of this thread until a new, properly formatted, AFD is opened. This thread should be closed pending that action. If you post WP:TLDR commentary in the next AFD, it could be seen as deliberate filibustering, and you may be reported here for disruptive behaviour, so I urge you to be careful going forward. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri 88, I did not say that your statement of not reading AcidSnow's wall of text implied partiality to me, I was referring to your answering of the main point I was raising here on the act of canvassing, to which you said: "Anyway, what administrative action are you seeking? Do you just want to know if it was canvassing? If it's a simple yes/no question, the answer is yes, but it was extremely minor ...". That is all I was referring to. Sorry about the pinging too, I am new here so thought this is how you properly include someone's name in the conversation when addressing them. I contest your line with regards to stepping over the line of civility on my part. Unless you mean the long replies, which I totally see your point, but I am having difficulty thinking of a better way to respond. Out of interest, how would you go about responding if the main point of contention that AcidSnow raised was "very few individuals classify these events as a whole as a genocide, let alone the Isaaq clan solely"? My train of thought was that the most appropriate way to answer these claims, given that they put the volume of scholarly discussion in doubt, was to bring multiple reputable sources. Would summarising all the points into much shorter quotes work better? (like this?), genuine question. Many thanks. Kzl55 (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was attempting to respond to all of Kzl55's statements, but I understand know. Though, Kzl55 is still making PERSONALATTACKS once again, see: [152] and even in his latest replies! The former occurred on a different discussion that they made. So I would like to ask again, if there's anything an administrator can do, then let it be so.

In addition, please refrain from misrepresenting my statements Kzl55. We can continue this discussion in the coming days. Nor did Hijiri88 agree that I was canvassing, even in a small case (see here: [153]. AcidSnow (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AcidSnow: He may well have posted personal attacks against you in the above massive wall of text, but I have no intention of reading it. I recommend you just forget about it for now, open the new AFD, and if there is any further disruption then you can come back here and open a new thread. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think it was a personal attack? I was discussing why I think the issue is very polarising for Somalis, and why people of a certain Somali background may be inclined to ignore or outright dismiss a very well documented subject. You are being very unreasonable. Please cease the disruptions.Kzl55 (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't referring to that specifically, but to claim that ones edits may be motivated by their origins is nothing more than another attack. It wasn't solely a general statement and it cast doubts on the rest of their edits. So I ask again, please stop. AcidSnow (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cordless Larry (talk) it was you who has suggested to open a WP:AN/I canvassing against the user AcidSnowtalk) after i showed you what he did [154] so why bash the user Kzl55talk about using walls of text when you have said that before on the talk page and knowing that he was against three other persons at the same time and one was called by the AcidSnowtalk like i have showed you ,and to the Hijiri 88聖やや i say to you just read my wall and you will find that i was blocked then unblocked because of him because he accused me twice not once on the same matter and he is good at playing the victim by saying words like (series of personal attacks) so i say to him please cut it out. and i don't see the need of opening anew AfD discussion about this matter because if their argument is the use of WP:PROPAGANDA and other similar Wikipedia symbols without backing it with sources and links then rather using words like i think and i imagine and i.... and i.... and repeat the same answers given by the user Kzl55talk it will be a waste of time this is my opinion. Bysomalilander (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, I was just saying that this was the correct place for accusations of canvassing, not suggesting that you do so. I do agree that AcidSnow should be careful, though. While they may have disagreed with Soupforone in the past, this seems to me something that they would clearly agree on. Anyway, I was offering friendly advice to Kzl55, Bysomalilander. Concise comments are much more likely to get read than walls of text. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why you think that this is something that we would agree CordlessLarry? Anyways, I never accused Bysomalilander of being a sock or a puppet master (what he was incorrectly blocked for:[155]), rather that they were restoring the same things as one, see here: [156]. They also made unnecessary statements against me in response: [157]. In addition, if you look up above you would clearly see that I provided diffs for my statements rather than my Imagination. AcidSnow (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just my intuition from my knowledge of your and Sourforone's contributions, AcidSnow. I also wonder what made you choose the three particular editors, out of all those who edit articles about this region of the world? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't really make sense to me, but it is your intuition CordlessLarry. Please read the first paragraph of my initial reply. In addition, it is two individuals, not three. AcidSnow (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, AcidSnow - it was indeed two. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All is forgiven. AcidSnow (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Soupforone had already told you that they though the article was "propaganda". That might actually mean that it wasn't canvassing for you to inform Soupforone about the deletion discussion, since they were already involved. Others might be able to offer a more informed view on that, though. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. If you read my first paragraph of my initial reply, then you should also understand the situation with AlaskaLava. AcidSnow (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, though that does make me wonder why you would single AlaskaLava out for their view! Cordless Larry (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read it again, especially my comment on all three users (including Awale-Abdi) and the distinction between those of Kzl55. AcidSnow (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well I think my point stands that there are other editors who are also knowledgeable about the region and who might well have offered a different opinion, but I think the lesson here is that it might just be better in future (i.e if you restart the AfD) to post a central notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Somalia instead. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cordless Larry (talk) sorry but what kind of a answer is that? you see that it was done to with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and still you let him lose why?Bysomalilander (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I notified those who were also active since many are not. Your comment is helpful nonetheless. But note the distinction between my actions and that of Kzl55. I suggest that they once again familiarize themselves with WP:BOOMERANG and WP:NPA. AcidSnow (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If an administrator sees fit to take action, Bysomalilander, I'm sure they will. I was just offering my opinion as someone who spotted the malformed AfD and the accusations of canvassing. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Cordless Larry (talk) it's really frustrating and hope too that an administrator sees fit to take action so lets hope . Bysomalilander (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cordless Larry I note that AcidSnow was the one to inform Soupforone of the discussion to begin with, it could have well been a stealth canvassing tactic. Inform those who would support you of the discussion to get them involved and then there would be no need to inform them of the AfD as they are already part of the discussion. We will never know. One fact remains, AcidSnow informed two editors that ended up supporting them. That can not be ignored. There were three votes in total (I wonder how many active editors have shown interest in Somali subjects?), your hunch is absolutely right, if you have a Somali background or a history of editing Somali pages, it is not hard at all to know from previous interactions what someone's stance on a particular subject might be. It is a clear case of canvassing for votes. Two votes that were solicited directly and one that self identified as an acquaintance of AcidSnow. I am quite disturbed by this behaviour as this article is about a very important subject, yet AcidSnow is continually opposing it through vandalism by twice blanking the page (via redirections), then starting an AfD, and then canvassing support for its deletion. They seem to be taking this quite personally. Kzl55 (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based off your own reasoning KZl55 you were will aware of the possible statements of the users that you had informed (see my initial reply in which I discuses this in greater detail: [158]). In addition, you informed three compared to my two. Please see the two Wiki policies that I have already highlighted for you and cease your attacks. AcidSnow (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong again. I saw the canvassing that you did, and then sent my messages thinking it is normal practice on Wikipedia seeing as you (an editor since 2013 if you have not had previous membership) did so. Upon reading the rules on the subject, in under an hour, I had removed my posts and left a message on the editors talk page that "Sorry I did not know you one could not solicit view here. Apologies." As such, no users I have messaged joined the discussion or had any effect on it, whereas your solicitation provided your position support. Do not confuse the issue, you knew exactly what you were doing.Kzl55 (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose one-month editing restriction on both parties

• Could some uninvolved user close thread? I've posted too many times (even editing the article once) to be considered uninvolved. At present, it doesn't seem likely that this will be viewed as anything other than a content dispute. A new AFD should be opened, and if there is any more disruption then it can be discussed here. I suspect that at least one of the parties has been behaving disruptively on the article talk page with the goal of filibustering the discussion, and has been trying to spin this as the other party behaving disruptively, but this can't be confirmed unless this thread is closed and a new AFD is opened. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought: proposing one-month two-way canvassingnotification ban on both AcidSnow and Kzl55. "Canvassing""Notification" here describes any message, neutral or not, individually addressed to any single Wikipedian or group of Wikipedians. Assuming the revised AFD is opened within a month, this would prevent any possible question that canvassing has taken place. I do not think there has been bad faith canvassing on the part of either party (although I do think Kzl55 has been behaving disruptively), but this temporary, limited sanction would help to make that clearer. I also suggest that any further talk comment by either party of 500 words or more be collapse using this template, and any attempt to revert this collapsing be reported to admin to block the reverter. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nom. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Okay. It hadn't occurred to me (mostly because I was adhering to the pact myself) that this proposal would immediately be overrun by users on both sides supporting the restriction on the user on the other side but defending "their man". I'm done here, as no one seems to be willing to compromise. @AcidSnow: You can take my advice on the AFD, but if you don't do it properly this time this will just wind up back here again and you're all gonna waste even more time and effort. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thank you for including a precise definition of what you mean by "canvassing"; I started to speedy-close it with a rationale of of "canvassing is already prohibited of everyone", but then I re-read and realised my mistake. I would, however, suggest that you replace "canvassing" with a different term that you define in the same way, lest others make the same mistake as I did. Nyttend (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Thank you for pointing that out. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Decline (for AcidSnow) I have clearly shown that this report is nothing more than another attack against me. Both of my actions and statements in regard to the two users were appropriate as per here: Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification. AcidSnow (talk) 03:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (for Kzl55) The user has been continuously been making attacks against me despite being told to stop by multiple users (see here: [159], [160], and [161]). Its is most likely going to continue if admin action is not taken. AcidSnow (talk) 03:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AcidSnow: You see, the problem is that you haven't "clearly" shown anything. If in the next month you really need to notify someone of something, you can ask me to do it and I'll use my judgement as to whether it would be appropriate. I have no intention of contributing the AFD myself anyway, so that would be okay. This is not a punitive sanction for you. This is a chance for you to demonstrate your good faith. Apart from Cordless (who had already made a procedural edit) I'm the only outside party who's had the balls to comment in this thread, and I've already told you that I'm not willin to read the above wall of text. That indicates that you are not going to be able to get the sanctions you want at this time. You and Kzl can take this temporary measure, and then, if what you are saying is true, Kzl will almost certainly slip up and cause disruption again soon. Then you can propose sanctions, but you need to do so in a manner that the community will accept, not in the form of a wall of text. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88: If I condense my first paragraph in which I had proved my innocent, then will it be more approachable and will you read it? AcidSnow (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No.

I'm not an admin, so I don't have the ability to block anyone (and even admins, despite what some admins seem to think, don't have the authority to unilaterally impose restrictions except under very specific circumstances), and if you are not going to cooperate with my sincere efforts to resolve this problem, I don't know why you would think that I would do the heavy lifting for you and request sanctions on someone you don't like.

No one else is going to read this, and it will get archived without any result. That much I can guarantee.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you're not an admin @Hijiri88:, you even said that at the beginning of the discussion. I have taken you statements into consideration and reduced the size of my replies (almost all under a 1,000 characters). In addition, I never asked for you to help me block Kzl55, rather for you to consider reading my innocence after I reduce my initial statements. I hope you understand now. AcidSnow (talk) 04:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But you're not getting it. Because I'm not an admin, the only thing I could do with a clear and succinct summary of what is going on is propose sanctions, and that's not my job. If you still want to propose sanctions, you can do that, but no one else is reading this thread, so the only people who will !vote are the users who were already active on the talk page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'am aware of the powers of a non administrator and that you are not obligated to comment after reading my statements. I was only attempting to clear my name so that you too would be willing to read and understand it. Nonetheless, I thank you for your guidance and your time. AcidSnow (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to clear your name. Just like no one else is reading this, no one else was reading what the others wrote about you. Trust me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (for AcidSnow) As Kzl55 (talk) has mentioned in numerous occasions, AcidSnow has solicited members to take part in the now deleted AfD discussion to remove the Isaaq Genocide page as shown here, and here. In the AfD, the walls of text that Kzl55 (talk) had posted do not suggest that they were attempting to filibuster any civil discussion, but rather suggests the rich source of credible sources that support the merit of the Isaaq Genocide page. I believe Kzl55's actions do not warrant a ban, but AcidSnow's violation of WP:CANVASS should come with consequences. Koodbuur (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Buzz off. If you are not going to read the proposal and its rationale, there's no justification for pretending you did and casting a !vote on something that wasn't proposed just because you have a content dispute with one of the users involved here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

back to the Canvassing

This WP:AN/I was opened by the user Kzl55 against the user AcidSnow after the user Cordless Larry pointed out thankfully that this its place not the talk page and was based on my findings that the AcidSnow called for the help of two other editors like seen here [162] and here [163] which resoled in this one editor only agreeing with him while two other editors stood beside him on the same point which was to cancel the page just look at the date from 15 January 2017‎ to 18 January 2017‎ find it here [164] and all of that was done in the the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way([165]) and that was it to be blocked and canceled like shown here :[166] because the editor didn't like the page and was ignoring the numerous sources brought by Kzl55 so i hope i Wikipedia:Administrators will take a look at this .Bysomalilander (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• note to all the other editors who have commented on this WP:AN/I they have been read so stop repeating yourselfs and no need to change this WP:AN/Iit from what it was first proposed to answer and i say to them to stop twisting it to something else .Bysomalilander (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that by "all the other editors" you mean me, as I am the only other editor who has commented. You do realize that no one is watching this thread, right? And that until the AFD is opened no action will come? And that continuing to post here is pointless? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AcidSnow: See what I mean? No one's posted here for more than 24 hours, despite the "new proposal" made above.. You should just forget about this thread and open the AFD. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing regarding African american terminology

72.186.9.206 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has been replacing the word "African american" with "black" on many different pages, which make up all of the user's contribs. I believe this is disruptive, as the term "black" is not very neutral. I don't know how I should proceed with this. Meiloorun (talk) 🍁 21:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Left a personalized level-2 warning, but this does not constitute vandalism; please don't use the {{Vandal}} tag yet. We'll see. Miniapolis 23:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing whatsoever non-neutral about the term "black". If that somehow offends you, please do not look at any US school article, because that is the term the education statistics compilers use. And we use what the source uses. Now arbitrarily changing African - American to black is quite possibly disruptive, but no more so than arbitrarily changing black to African - American. We don't use the PC term de jour here. John from Idegon (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not certain why you consider the term "black" as non-neutral. Blacks/Afro-Americans use both terms, and I think those predisposed to negative concepts likely consider them both pejorative. Now, if you can give examples where it's disruptive, or unless there is a policy I missed, that's another matter. Objective3000 (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One problem is that subject of the complaint is replacing the linked "African-American" with the un-linked "black". I don't see how that improves those articles. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 01:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, my bad for not investigating. Advice to OP, include this kind of info in your ANI entries. Objective3000 (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is problematic is not so much the term in itself but the systematic change of one term for another one in a manner that seems to be designed to make a point of some kind: [167], [168], [169], [170] (where I also think the sentence loses some of its grammaticality), [171] (ditto - or at least it's unidiomatic), [172], etc. There's many more. The IP has also been asked not to make these changes, but has ignored that and restored their changes with some slow edit warring on Clarence Thomas and Hidden Figures, where their change was reverted with a reasonable explanation in the edit summary [173] which went unheeded and they changed it back again [174]. It's also worth pointing out that this same IP has been doing the same thing for a while - this is a diff from September last year. They do not appear to have engaged in discussion about their preferred wording, ever. --bonadea contributions talk 12:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this seems to run afoul of WP:POINT. As to whether "Black" is non-neutral, I can argue it square or round. Indeed, one can argue that it's positive OR negative. Please see Black is beautiful. David in DC (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I was misunderstood a bit, the point was that I didn't find replacing the term "African American" with "black" contributed anything to the article. I understand that they can be used interchangeably, but it this case replacing the word indiscriminately just doesn't seem very constructive. I was not offended by this, just confused by this user's actions. Meiloorun (talk) 🍁 20:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Black people and see if that would be a suitable replacement for African-American. I wouldn't be so sure about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ret.Prof and WP:NOTBLOG

User:Max.vado56789

Rajmaan - problematic sourcing

Rajmaan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can I get a second pair of eyes on this. Rajmaan has done a lot of edits on Islamic terrorism today, he seems quite prolific. I've reverted a few as they were based on blogs e.g. [175],[176] and seem to be attributing blame or defending certain groups suspected of these attacks. Then there is a strange series of quotes from islamic terrorists posted seemingly at random [177] in the Spain section of Irredentism, which I suppose could be tangentially related. I'm concerned this is WP:FRINGE material, not properly sourced and there may be a great deal more that needs to be reverted. WCM_email 18:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you filed this in the wrong place. I discussed this already at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_197#Longwarjournal Talk:Xinjiang_conflict#Reddit.2C_twitter.2C_personal_blogs_are_NOT_reliable_sources and Talk:Xinjiang_conflict#The_Deleted_material_.28liveleak_and_all_unnecessary_links_removed.29 and it was resoled. I'm allowed to use Long War journal and "blogs" run by official organizations.

Blogs run by official organizations can be used as sources. Its personal blogs which are not allowed. See Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Exceptions and Wikipedia:Blogs as sources. some organizations like Freedom House or a news website like CNN or The New York Times may have what they call a "blog" on their websitewhich is a WP:RS.Rajmaan (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources aren't random blogs. The azelin.wordpress.com is from the Jihadology.net website, which is run by a fellow of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy think tank named Aaron Y. Zelin. Zelin is a counter terrorist analyst and he analyzes terrorist material on Jihadology.net. That source in the Tiananmen Square article is from the Turkistan Islamic Party's official magazine, which was downloaded and hosted by Mr. Zelin on his website. Ṣawt al-Islām presents Issue #14 of Ḥizb al-Islāmī al-Turkistānī’s [Turkistan Islamic Party magazine: “Turkistān al-Islāmīyyah”] Link to the PDF.

memri.org MEMRI analyzes Middle Eastern and terrorist related media. Not a blog.

http://www.doguturkistanbulteni.com is the official Turkish language news arm of the turkistan Islamic Party and it posts their own material directly. Its both a news site and a primary source for the Turkistan Islamic Party.

Twitter accounts I used are- run by experts and specialists- counter-terrorist analysts, organizations that monitor terrorism, specialists in the Middle East, fellows at think tanks. Some are verified by Twitter (blue check mark) and others are verifiable by other means (such as the affiliation between the jihadology twitter account and Aaron Zelin). And Twitter can be treated as a primary source if the organization or person running the twitter account is commenting on something related to them, see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves.

The quotes are not at random. Al-Andalus (Andalusia) refers to Islamic rule over Spain. The topic is about irridentism, and the Islamists are calling for an irridentist reconquest of Spain.

None of the sources I used are fringe. They are run by counter terrorist analysts or organizations or are primary sources.Rajmaan (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I share the concern voiced by Wee Curry Monster about Rajmaan's behaviour. The main problem with Rajmaan's edits is not the sources, but that he routinely inserts huge amounts of (mostly referenced but poorly formatted) text into articles with little regard to article structure, relevance of the information, or WP:WEIGHT. Numerous editors have warned him before, including Hzh [178], Lemongirl942 [179], Bgwhite [180], CWH [181], and myself [182], with little effect to his behaviour. I've had to repeatedly remove huge blocks of his texts on quite a few articles such as Terrorism in China, Yuan dynasty, Battle of Talas, etc. I believe Rajmaan can make a positive contribution to Wikipedia, but he has got to start heeding the friendly advice from other editors. -Zanhe (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These edits on terrorism related articles have nothing to do with relevance or weight. They are relevant to all the recent articles I created or edited. Nothing that I posted on 2013 Tiananmen Square attack for example, is off topic or irrelevant, or broke the structure. I posted on Freedom Houses's reaction to the attack, and the Turkistan Islamic Party's claim of responsibility in its own magazine. And also on 2016 Southern Aleppo campaign I added relevant information related to the topic and did not break the format. I created new articles like Tariq Abdul Haleem, Abdul Razzaq al-Mahdi, Abdullah al-Muhaysini and Abu Dhar Azzam and all the information I posted on there is related to the topic, and also added to Hani al-Sibai. This is not mass off topic posting or coatracking. The warning from Lemongirl1942 was over lack of sourcing. Bgwhite's warning was over reference formatting and POV. I formatted all my references, used no more than three or four at most, and changed the dates after I was asked to.Rajmaan (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Attacking the use of freedomhouse.org/blog/ has nothing to do with inserting huge amounts of text, weight or relevance. He also seems to think the Azelin website is a random wordpress blog. I did not insert massive amounts of texts there or coatrack the article, which is what Zanhe seems to think I did here.

The complaints about "blogs" has been beaten to death at Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Exceptions and Wikipedia:Blogs as sources. A "blog" is a style of formatting for a website, and when a "blog" is hosted by a news organizations or organization like Freedom House, its an RS. Its not something like a random person owning blogspot.com and then putting out their own opinions. I'm not citing random Joe Smith on blogspot, I'm citing Freedom Houses's own website where they have a "blog" format and commented on the attack, and counter terrorist Analyst and WINEP fellow Aaron Zelin's hosted material where he published the TIP's magazine which commented on the attack. He just happens to rent his website on wordpress. Wee Curry Monster seems to think I'm citing random fringe people like a conspiracy theorist who owns a blog, like Alex Jones or something. He said and seem to be attributing blame or defending certain groups suspected of these attacks and said I am using FRINGE sources. His complaint has nothing to do with what you are dragging up.Rajmaan (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Status as RS depends on the person or what organization runs the website and not whether it says "blog" in the url. Alex Jones has his Infowars website. It doesn't say "blog" in the url. Meanwhile, a news organization like CNN or a think tank like WINEP may run a website, and if might says for example news.blogs.cnn.com or something like that in the url. So if I cite www.infowars.com/ Infowars ^{infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used} and CNN next to each other, but CNN just has "blog" in the url, I might get a knee jerk revert from Wee Curry Monster on the CNN citation but not on Infowars. A blog is a style of formatting. Or if I cite a tweet by a verified counter terrorist analyst and think tank institution fellow like Charles Lister, while citing Infowars at the same time, I also might get a knee jerk revert by Wee Curry Monster on the tweet, but not on Infowars. Wikipedia needs emphasize this and stop having editors jumping to revert when they see "blog" in the url. This is what he reverted http://www.freedomhouse.org/blog/be-skeptical-official-story-tiananmen-car-crash https://azelin.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/e1b8a5izb-al-islc481mc4ab-al-turkistc481nc4ab_s-turkistan-islamic-party-e2809cturkistc481n-al-islc481mc4abyyah-14e280b3.pdf I've been attacked before over using Long War Journal which was attacked as a "blog" just because of its formatting, when its run by a think tank with counter terrorist analysts.Rajmaan (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wee Curry Monster: Couldn't agree more that Rajmaan contribution is seriously problematic with his conflict of interest that always sided with Muslim extremist, scholars and militants biography and some things pros/cons related to China. Aside from this topics, most of the related users I ever encounter that seems related to Rajmaan (or it is actually he himself!!) seems to have an interest on races related topics, wars and conflicts and prostitution articles. Instead I have filed a case before to see whether Rajmaan is related to another user named Gass gess which I found has a very identical edit pattern with him, but the discussion goes to no where. In late December 2016, I have encounter another user named Polyenetian and most of this user contribution also seems to have some close edit pattern behaviour with Rajmaan. Rumilo Santiago (talk) 04:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Danrolo - Strange case of sock puppetry

User:Danrolo came to my attention for a contentious moved of Syrian Republic (1930–58) without discussion. His user page, was moved once for maintenance reasons to @Danrolo~enwiki:. Now @Danrolo~enwiki:, was indeffed by @Bbb23: in 2013 for persistent sock puppetry/disruptive editing. Looking at the contrib history of both users, they seem to edit in the same area (i.e. mostly political parties), and in the same manner (i.e. contentious edits, no discussion). I want to raise an WP:SPI but I am not sure I understand what's going on. Did the user recreate the old user name? is it a glitch? Yazan (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why did I receive a ping here?—CYBERPOWER(Chat) 23:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bad transclusions, which are now fixed. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 23:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that would probably be my fault. Forgot to add "ping" before user names -> transcoded all user pages. Apologies. Yazan (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, that was peculiar. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 23:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I got one too. The whole user page! He suffers from transclusions of grandeur. SPECIFICO talk 23:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infuture it might be a good idea to add "{{u " before the name - That way you don't mass-ping everyone one, Easy mistake to make mind. –Davey2010^Talk 23:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies again. In my defence, you can also blame it on how many barnstars @Bbb23: has (they were all transcluded here). Yazan (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the same user already held the global account, before WP:SUL renaming of the not-properly-linked enwiki account. Bbb23 should be able to clarify the status of the block. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:31 am, Today (UTC+1)

• To answer your question, yes they are the same. These accounts were created before SUL was really a thing, and as such were not connected to each other globally. During SUL finalization, the enwiki account was renamed. The home account for the original is eswiki, so while he was logged in over there he visited this wiki and the account was automatically recreated.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 23:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've pinged Bbb23 to clarify the state of the block. Yazan (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not much to clarify. The block log gives my reasons for the block. It doesn't appear to have been triggered by an SPI, and I was not a CheckUser at the time.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23:. But if it's the same user (with the same behaviour pattern), then shouldn't he be blocked again? is there a reason why he is able to edit at the moment, other than the technical glitch? Yazan (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct that if it were not for the automatic renaming, they couldn't edit without requesting an unblock and having it accepted. At the same time, I feel uncomfortable automatically blocking them so long after the initial block. If you think they deserve to be blocked, I suggest you take it to SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I too wouldn't feel comfortable blocking unless there's more disruption. I have not yet checked the recent contributions.—CYBERPOWER(Chat) 00:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. Taking this to SPI would be just vindictive (as the editor arguably might not even know he's socking). But the fact that he has never communicated with anyone (never replied to an objection, or discussed things on talk page, or here, or even added the odd edit summary), is very very frustrating. Yazan (talk) 07:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:IreneTandry, ownership and competence concerns

User:J-lorentz persistently adding copyrighted material

Undiscussed 'merger' of two Wikipedia pages into one without consensus

Not Here

Bullying by User JamesBWatson

FkpCascais again pushing POV

@Calton: I did put links to personal attacks against 3 users and a link to the report where FkpCascais was warned against such behavior to show that this is a continuous issue. I'm not sure that is nothing.141.136.215.208 (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leprof 7272, disruptive editing while logged out

Was originally going to report this to WP:AN3, but the page has been protected, and there's something deeper here that needs to be discussed. I noticed a frantic IP on Jennifer Hale (edit talk history links watch logs). After I reverted it, Leprof 7272 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) restores its edits. Up until Leprof (as Leprof 7272, the account) made that fourth revert, it really looked like they were attempting to bypass WP:3RR by using both an IP and registered account on the same article, and that was the straw that broke the camel's back for me. Leprof is purposefully editing while logged out, on the same pages. The user takes ownership of the IP's edits here. From what I can tell, on every article the user edits as a user, they also edit as an IP as well. Why is this allowed? When confronted, they will admit to being the owner of the IP. So that somehow makes it okay? Does this not fail WP:SOCK#LEGIT? It would be one thing if Leprof would edit the same page using legitimate alternate account User:Leprof 7272 (alt), for example, as well as the main account. But instead, Leprof edits as the same page as Leprof 7272 and as an IP who I can't tell is also them at a quick glance. This is inappropriate, because it splits Leprof's editing history, making it harder to detect patterns in the user's contributions. It's unclear why Leprof does this, but it's very disruptive behavior. They have been warned about their editing while logged out no less than three times, yet they refuse to change habits. Sro23 (talk) 10:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While it's true that Leprof 7272 often edits while logged out, most of these logged out edits are also tagged (example). I've run into Leprof quite a few times over the years, and I honestly believe this is someone who edits in good faith – though not always as transparently as a strict reading of policy would demand. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On a somewhat cynical note, it's hard not to equate the IP to Leprof, given the similarity in tag-bombing and shouting in edit summaries. However, I completely agree (having been one of original the warning-leavers) that editing while logged out makes it very hard to track the edits where they don't end up logging in later on. They may be somewhat of a net positive to the project, but it literally takes ten seconds to log in; plus, none of the excuses they've given have been adequate, especially given that they know they should be logging in. Primefac (talk) 12:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fulvestrant

• Fulvestrant (edit talk history links watch logs)

I'm having an issue at an edit in the Fulvestrant page. Some editors are making summary deletion of my revisions with poor arguments. It is my impression that the Manual of Style isn't something to blindly obey, it's a guideline, but even if some edit does not fulfill the currently accepted aesthetic, it would be wiser to encourage a better review instead of deleting the page. I've stopped contributing to Wikipedia because of this very irritating behavior. There is just no censorship to what some veteran editors do. Kindly find one newbie that knows how to defend itself against this senseless deleting! Not to mention that it is an enormous to figure out how this thing works. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biasuz (talk • contribs) 15:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it's your first time here, but when you raise an issue here at WP:ANI you should notify the other editors involved. I've done so. 80.229.60.197 (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not "should" but "must". It's a giant red note in the instructions for using this page. I'll not comment further here because I had commented at the article talkpage on the underlying content issue. DMacks (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEDRS has nothing to do with the Manual of Style. You'd be well advised to take heed of what other editors have told you on the article's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add that making reference to other editor's "nazi keyboards" is not something you want to do shortly before seeking admin attention here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by that edit. There was no reason to delete the whole thing. I did not introduce any inaccuracies to the article. Had he made a note to refine my sources or helped me to improve what I wrote, I would not have been so irritated. Biasuz (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of this wrong with this new users edits. 1) They are using med doses which we do not per WP:MEDMOS they are using primary source which we also do not. If they cannot adjust to how Wikipedia works regarding civility they many not be suitable to continue editing here.

Again with the "we do not utlize primary sources." I've read the article, primary sources are not forbidden WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD.

Lots of new editors can figure out what a review article is and how to properly summarize them in their own words. And many will ask if they do not understand how something works. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As several people have said, MEDRS has nothing to do with the MOS. It has nothing to do with aesthetics either. Nil Einne (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's edits ran counter to both WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS as I noted here and elsewhere. Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know that but the OP implied that the issues raised about their edits were only MOS related, and that they only related to aesthetics. Neither of these were the case as MEDRS issues were raised. This doesn't mean the MOS issues didn't matter, but rather when your basic complaint is so serious flawed because you're claiming something which even a quick look at the edit history shows is incorrect, it's hard for people to take it seriously. Nil Einne (talk) 12:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Biasuz there is indeed a lot to learn in order edit Wikipedia, and especially with regard to content about health. Rather than demanding that your edits stick, and getting angry when they are reverted, you would do better to slow down and try to learn how to edit and behave in accordance with the policies and guidelines, in spirit and letter. What you are doing demonstrates no openness to learning. Folks who behave that way leave here angry or get blocked - outcomes that are entirely driven by their own approach to Wikipedia and the editing community. Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Considering they have responded with yet another profanity laced demanding WP:BATTLEGROUND post at the article's talk page since the last posting here, I'd say a block would be in order to allow the OP's temper to settle. John from Idegon (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try a different approach then. Is my edit factualy wrong? I've read all said guidelines. None of say you absolutely cannot utilize a primary source. The reason is quite obvious... There are a lot of publications in science and the level of evidence varies. A phase II should not carry an interpretation of efficacy because they are quite often incorrect or unpowered to do so, but this is not the case. We are talking about a phase 3 trial with quite a respectable N. At the end of the day this is a robust finding on a peer reviewed journal. Biasuz (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biasuz, MEDRS states in bold, "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content..." This means you need to present a very, very good case on the article's talk page to use one and see what other editors say. And telling editors to "piss off and undo your revert" while presenting highly dubious secondary sources isn't going to help your case. I see that Jytdog has actually done the work and says that he's found a Cochrane review as a secondary source. Hopefully this will resolve this particular issue but you need to realize that using primary sources will always be heavily discouraged here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editor, refusal to accept RfC outcome, unjustified meatpuppet accusations.

Hi, Sorry to be here but this has to stop. See this discussion Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#RFC_close_review_at_Talk:Silicon_Alley.23RfC:_Should_this_article_discuss_the_biotech_industry. The editor involved Castncoot will not accept the result of the RfC, nor the result of an independent review of the closure. They have participated in edit warring following the result of the RfC as they didn't want material removed (going against the RfC consensus). They are now taking to personal attacks and are accusing me and another editor of off-wiki collusion. Which is entirely baseless. Can you get this user to stop. They've been asked many many times to drop the stick but they are continuing their disruption. Hopefully everything you need to know you can read on the AN thread I linked above or on Talk:Silicon Alley but if you need any other info let me know. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Going from one Administrators' noticeboard to another? That is really strange. A diversionary tactic from your own action. Castncoot (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I've followed the correct procedure. However you need to stop. Polyamorph (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Polyamorph is correct to do this. AN is the correct place for a request to review the RfC, ANI is the correct place to report disruptive behaviour. Black Kite (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing it here seems to have stopped them for now. Hopefully it stays that way. Polyamorph (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The RFC close was endorsed by three uninvolved editors (two admins). Castncoot has had their say and has gotten no support to overturn/re-open the RFC so I expect that discussion to wind down. Further insinuations of meatpuppetry or off-wiki canvassing without solid evidence will result in a block as will any other personal attacks. The RFC was closed with "There is consensus that biotechnology should be excised completely from the article." Adding such mentions to the article without consensus and edit warring to keep them there will also result in a block. --NeilN^{talk to me} 21:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One such example of insinuation of baseless off-wiki "collusion" here. The first baseless accusation of meatpuppetry here. If it continues then I request a warning at the very least. Thanks Polyamorph (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of the meatpuppetry accusations: here.Polyamorph (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, NeilN, that's not correct. The RfC closure was amended again after the three uninvolved editors you are referring to made statements. I wish somebody would understand and acknowledge that point. Wouldn't you agree that this process has been highly irregular? Wouldn't you also agree that it's bad faith for someone to agree to a compromise, close the RfC,[212] and then pull the tablecloth from under the table and say, "Just kidding!"? I also believe that editors should not discuss anything pertaining to an active RfC off-wiki. The reason is that it invariably takes away from the pristine nature of the RfC by adding some level of personal and confidential familiarity, even if inadvertently. Do you really believe this is appropriate while an RfC is still active? [213]? Castncoot (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Castncoot, what I initially stated is completely correct. The last RFC close, done here was reviewed and endorsed. WP:STEALTH says, "Because it is less transparent than on-wiki notifications, the use of email or other off-wiki communication to notify editors is discouraged..." There was no notification done here. A RFC is just another discussion (nothing "pristine" about it) where a formal close is expected. There is usually nothing wrong sending emails to other involved editors which pertain to their behavior (e.g., quietly asking them to tone it down, take a break, etc.) --NeilN^{talk to me} 00:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm embarrassed to keep bringing this up over and over again, NeilN, please bear with me here - but what you have quoted was not the last close but rather the intermediate close that the three uninvolved editors saw. This was the final (and original) close. In other words, Tazerdadog had amended his closure but apparently did not re-sign his closures to update the date and time; if you notice, the language approved by the three uninvolved editors reads, "and should be excised completely from the body and the lede of the article" rather than "excised completely from the article", as the final (third) closure reads, same as the original. This may seem like a small detail, but it is actually significant. The reason it came about was that I clarified with Tazerdadog whether his closure applied to the See also section, and he clarified that it did not ([214]) and left it to editorial discretion (and amended his closure for the first time). I therefore then added the link Biotech and pharmaceutical companies in the New York metropolitan area to the see also section of Silicon Alley, and people jumped on me and accused me of violating the RfC closure because they didn't realize that the closure had been amended to allow this onto the see also section. This became a back and forth and so I needed to start an RfC just for the See also section matter, believe it or not. Meanwhile, the three uninvolved editors approved this intermediate closure exempting the See also section on the Admin noticeboard page for RfC issues. Subsequent to this, Tazerdadog had another change of heart and reverted his closure back to the original format not exempting the See also section. These three uninvolved editors never commented on this and were like not aware that this second amendment had taken place. I believe that such an extreme degree of irregularity warrants close examination of the situation. I hope I was able to convey this convoluted series of events clearly.

Meanwhile, when you say above that there was no notification that an off-wiki correspondence was being filed, isn't that the whole point here? I had forgotten to add the formal RfC tag, and the off-wiki correspondence was done in a stealth fashion which probably exuded undertones, whether or not consciously, not to bring up the fact that formalization of the RfC asking whether biotech should be removed from the See also section had not been done; in other words, to let "sleeping dogs lie" and let the RfC stay informally filed. (Talk:Silicon Alley#RfC: Should Biotech and pharmaceutical companies in the New York metropolitan area be removed from the see also section?: [215], [216], [217])

Finally, doesn't it constitute a brazen breach of good faith that an intermediate compromise had been reached including biotech in the article, with the RfC closed as such, and then breached soon afterward against the agreement? None of the three uninvolved editors commented on this, and I suspect they may not be aware that this occurred, as I suspect Tazerdadog may also not have been aware, as he never mentioned it in his closure commentary. I do believe this is highly significant because it demonstrates that at least a quorum of the most involved editors had indeed come to an agreement allowing biotech in the article, before the agreement was breached shortly thereafter without warning. I know you're a senior admin, and I find it a privilege to be able to work through all of this one on one with you. You may be able to understand why I'm having such a difficult time accepting the torrid way this whole process has unfolded. Castncoot (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If an RfC doesn't go your way, it is disruptive to begin a new one. Another user sent me a message to say I shouldn't have pointed out to you that you hadn't added the RfC tag. An email I didn't initially read, hence my message on their talk page which is actually none of your business (users are free to communicate with one another in a friendly manner). It's got nothing to do with WP:STEALTH, you don't seem to understand that's totally irrelevant. But they were right. I shouldn't have pointed out your mistake as there was no consensus for a second RfC. Hence why your addition of a new RfC tag was reverted. Polyamorph (talk) 04:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Castncoot, your attempts to make a mountain out of a molehill are the root of the problem here. You quite vocally brought up the tweaking of the close statement on AN and no admin saw fit to comment. Contrary to what you may think, admins do check for followups to their posts. You have also repeatedly referred to the compromise close without mentioning the fact that this close lasted all of two minutes with Jytdog self-reverting his close without any posts being made in the interim. Editors may very well substantially edit/remove their posts within a short period of time if there has been no response to them. Statements characterizing this as "a brazen breach of good faith" as well as other statements like "a significant number of editors are going to be disappointed and lose faith in the promise of Wikipedia to maintain due diligence and journalistic integrity" show you have lost perspective on the matter. You also misunderstood my point about WP:STEALTH. Off-wiki communication was not done to notify editors about this discussion. My advice to you is wait a few months, find other sources that show a link between the two topics, and calmly open a new discussion, refraining from hyperbole. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Castncoot was brought to ANI before (archived section) for mixing accusations of "corruption" with a content dispute, and they did the same with regard to me in this one. They hinted here that I might have a COI and when I filed at ORN they wrote this: He hasn't denied a conflict of interest with regards to a company he suggested listing in the Talk:Tech companies in the New York metropolitan area and then edited that entry extensively on that article page. I had indeed mentioned Flatiron Health at that Talk page here and here, and here is the putative "extensive edit" to the list article. The accusation had no merit and i never replied but i have no COI with Flatiron. This is a continuation of the behavior they were warned about in the earlier case.
  

But their other behaviors have been more disruptive. More generally this content dispute with Castncoot has been a strange journey and a great exercise for me in ~trying~ to stay calm and work the DR process in the face of a really obstinate, bludgeoning, and incompetent editing and behavior by Castncoot on an article with few other watchers. I laid out the the relevant parts of the history of the content dispute in the RfC statement here, but it actually started a bit earlier, at Regeneron when Castncoot tried to add a "See also" link to Tech companies in the New York metropolitan area to that article. So efforts to resolve the dispute started at Talk:Regeneron, then went to Talk:Tech companies in the New York metropolitan area, then went to Silicon Alley, where they came to a head.

In any case, if you have a look at the Talk page statistics for Talk:Silicon Alley you will see that Castncoot made 233 edits and contributed 92883 bytes; I am second with 135 edits and 48926 bytes. So the BLUDGEONing is clear. And you can pick any of their contribs to the talk page at random and you will see the bad sources they brought and the strange arguments they made, over and over.

This content dispute has been both unpleasant and protracted, and I don't have any sense that Castncoot is going to drop the stick on this article, nor that they will stop conflating the the tech industry and the biotech industry in other articles. This has the potential to disrupt other articles -- see for instance their strange argument here, repeated here and many other times, which was their key argument here.

So behaviorally the key issues here are BLUDGEON, STICK, and repeated violations of WP:OR in the face of what reliable sources say, repeated misunderstanding of BURDEN (see here and later here and here - the correct application of BURDEN was explained by Boghog here. Boghog noted Castncoot's consistent misrepresentation of policies and guidelines here.

Castncoot also consistently misrepresented other editors over the course of the dispute. Me, consistently, but also Ɱ eg. see this diff protesting that and also Polyamorph protested being misrepresented here.

Not sure what kind of community action could address all that. The continued pattern of accusations of corruption are problematic, but the other issues have been more disruptive. Jytdog (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For a start I would like them to withdraw (and apologise?) for their baseless accusations. And be warned by an admin that any further contravention of WP:STICK and further personal attacks / accusations will result in a block. Especially since the a stern warning was recommended at their previous AN/I here, even though it wasn't given. Polyamorph (talk) 10:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding a warning by an admin, I believe I did that with my first post in this thread. --NeilN^{talk to me} 13:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is True. Thanks. Polyamorph (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Violations of several guidelines exhibited by a user

User:Johanprof has edited the Vladimir Putin article several times, and an outstanding edit of his, due to its summary line, is this one: [218]

He claims that "the entry has been written by an anti-Putinist which is disgusting". Now since every anti-Putinist should be allowed to edit Wikipedia, so long as their edit respects the respective guidelines and is constructive, this, in my view, violates Wikipedia:Civility and the third of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Furthermore, the edits of said user have been described as "tendentious" by other users; see User_talk:Johanprof. This would mean that said user disregarded Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Additionally, said user was engaged in edit warring; see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vladimir_Putin&action=history. --Mathmensch (talk) 09:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not so much the edit summary, but BLP violations which the user was determined to add to the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Massively disruptive and insupportable edits by that user on that article. Might need a page ban from the article. Softlavender (talk) 12:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE: This needs some admin attention and input. Softlavender (talk) Softlavender (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender, this seems like a premature filing. The user stopped editing altogether after discretionary sanctions notices were given (and two days prior to this thread being opened). If disruption starts up again then we can look at blocks/page bans. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks by Niteshift36

Niteshift36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an editor on the Betsy DeVos talk page, can't seems to resist directing malicious lewd/homophobic personal attacks at me. Despite being warned twice to knock it off, the attacks have continued and the editor in question has dug in their heels and persists in defending such attacks, despite their being prohibited by policy.

The first attack was as follows:

“It's obvious you like Dick and spend a lot of time thinking about Dick, explain why your interest in Dick belongs in the article.”[219]

I cautioned the editor to stop making these types of comments.[220]

Instead of heeding the warning and backing off, the editor in question doubled down on the attack with the following reply:

“It's not my fault and if it hurts your feelings that I pointed out how much time you spend thinking about Dick or how much Dick you should see, there's nothing I can do about that.”[221]

Just yesterday, the same editor decided to re-launch the same attack:

“Apparently, you've given up your obsession with Dick”[222]

I responded by pointing out that comments of this nature constitute a personal attack. I asked the editor again to stop making such attacks and advised him/her to strike the comment from the Talk page.[223] As per policy, I also provided a WP:NPA warning template on the editors’s talk page.[224]

Instead of striking the comment and/or apologizing, or even acknowledging that such comments are problematic, the editor smugly defended the attack[225] and is showing no sign of modifying their behavior or recognizing that it constitutes a user conduct issue.

This has gone beyond merely being disruptive. It has created a hostile editing environment and necessitates admin intervention to put a stop to it, as I fear this out of control behavior will only get worse. A block would be warranted at this point to send out a clear signal to the editor that such behavior is not tolerated at WP.

Incidentally, concurrent with the issue I am having with this editor, another editor on the same talk page is also now complaining that they are being personally attacked by Niteshift36.[226] Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That conduct is unnecessarily hostile. The article is subject to WP:ARBAPDS discretionary sanctions and Niteshift36 has been previously alerted. I recommend taking this to WP:AE.- MrX 17:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to look into this and suggesting WP:AE as a remedy. That will be next step. The editor's reply below to this notice shows that there is no remorse or even the slightest bit of awareness as to why this kind of behavior is problematic and wholly unacceptable. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• As for Red's allegation, the comments may be sarcastic, but they're not a personal attack. Rhode Island Red has done more than his share of commenting on the contributor instead of content, so for him to suddenly play the victim is really dishonest. Much of this isn't Red and his allegedly hurt feelings, it's about the fact that I opposed editing by him and his ilk and then, as others came in for RfC's etc, his positions were shown to be against consensus. Truthfully, I see this as more an attempt to "eliminate the resistance" than to improve the encyclopedia. As for the comment that I did strike through, it was, in face, a completely false statement being made, but I softened my words. If one lies, one should not be surprised when the lies are called false. Again, I don't believe this complaint is because Red actually felt attacked or is worried about the good of the project, but that's just my opinion. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whether a personal attack or not, they are clearly juvenile and inappropriate. Please grow up and try to act like an adult. Paul August ☎ 18:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the notice about this posting on Niteshift36's talk page, which happened to be on my watchlist because I'd complained to him about his personal comments and attacks on a different page. He dismissed the complaint and deleted the post.[227] His comments on Talk:Smith & Wesson M&P15 have tended towards personal remarks and stonewalling in place of providing sources or stating policies. All of that makes engaging in discussion both uncomfortable and fruitless. So I endorse Rhode Island Red's concerns about this editor's behaviour. Felsic2 (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course you do Felsic. Just like Red, you obstruct, obstruct and obstruct. You've resorted to making claims that are easily proven to be false, refused to heed consensus.... and now you try this. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a chronic behavior problem and a hostile war-like approach to editing. Thanks for weighing in. Looks like WP:AE is warranted. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You do realize that if Arbcom starts looking at the DS for that article, it will also look at your violations of it as well, don't you? The boomerang is always around. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are shooting yourself in the foot by trying to intimidate me and throwing gas on the fire. You could have saved yourself by recognizing that your indefensible behavior is wildly inappropriate; apologizing; and promising to stop. I have no qualms whatsoever about taking this to WP:AE as it seems to be the only way to curtail further attacks. You have sealed your own fate. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• See, this is part of the problem. You see things that aren't there. I didn't try to intimidate you. I can't threaten you. I'm not an admin, so there's nothing I can do to you. What I did actually do was point out that sometimes these things boomerang. Many times, I've seen people come here, thinking that if they're first to complain, their own conduct will be ignored and seen it boomerang. Since you've violated the DS and engaged in some less than civil conduct of your own, I merely pointed out that you aren't excused merely because you were first to complain. Any threat or intimidation is solely of your own making. I clearly stated that my remarks were "sarcastic" and "snarky". Having been around Wikipedia for many years, I've seen "wildly inappropriate behavior" and a pun based on the name of a person in the discussion isn't even close to that. You've proven yourself to be unwilling to listen to the points of others. Case in point: The RfC about the Academi/Blackwater description. You were all "overwhelming keep", having rejected my position as uninformed. In the end, somewhere around 9 more editors (most uninvolved) opined it was you that was in the wrong. Still, you treated me like I had no idea what I was doing. Ditto with adding the net worth of the subjects father in law. You told me countless times how wrong I was and how I didn't get the applicable policies. How many others came in and told you that you were wrong? You want an admission? Fine, I admit that your obstructionism may have led me to be sarcastic and less civil than I should have been. Perhaps if you became more open to discussion instead of attempting to demagogue, you'd find people being more pleasant. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edit[228] is troubling. The edit summary implies that Niteshift36 thinks that it is OK to be rude if he believes that someone is telling a lie. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You're partially correct Guy, I did link my "rudeness" to the poster's lie. I do wonder though if you took the time to see what the alleged "rudeness" was. In one case, it was saying "don't do that again" when he refactored my talk page entry. In the other case, I struck through calling his falsification "b.s." and instead called it a fabrication. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't seen Niteshift36's edits, and am not commenting on them, but I suggest everyone here take a close look at Felsic2's editing behaviour, a totally unacceptable very tendentious and disruptive behaviour that can make anyone who disagrees with them very frustrated. Such as on Talk:Smith & Wesson M&P15 where Felsic2 totally refuses to accept that other editors don't agree with them, and starts section after section to discuss the same thing, his repeated attempts to get material about a shooting into the article, in order to wear their opponents out, and drive them away from the article. Even lying about having support from other editors, when no such support exists on the page, in a deliberate attempt to mislead other editors. I also suggest you read previous discussions about Felsic2 here on WP:ANI: #1 and #2. Discussions about the same kind of behaviour they're now showing on Talk:Smith & Wesson M&P15. - Tom Thomas.W ^talk 19:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors, including yourself, have made misstatements on that page. The issue is whether a single misstatement is justification for Niteshift36 to repeatedly call me a sorry liar. Based on this posting it appears to be a common practice of his. These personal attacks did nothing to help us arrive at a consensus and merely made the talk page a more hostile place. Felsic2 (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You were asked repeatedly by both of us to back up your claim. You have had every opportunity to admit it was incorrect. You never have. You've tried diverting, making counter claims and even tried some sarcasm of your own, but never just said "I was in error". Niteshift36 (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What misstatements have I made? Your behaviour doesn't excuse Niteshift36's behaviour, but it was a deliberate lie, since there's no way you could have so totally misread the consensus on the page, where not a single other editor posted in support of your edit (an edit you tried to sneak in anyway, hoping noone would notice, just like you have done on other articles before...). - TomThomas.W ^talk 20:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since this thread is about Niteshift36 lets keep the focus there. I'll reply to your question on your talk page. Felsic2 (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Anyone who posts a complaint here is as much fair game as the editor they're complaining about, so there's no reason not to discuss your behaviour too. Especially since it's your tendentious and disruptive behaviour that caused the frustration Niteshift36 vented in their comments... - TomThomas.W ^talk 20:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Above, you wrote, "Your behaviour doesn't excuse Niteshift36's behaviour." Now you seem to be saying the opposite. Anyway, if you want to make a case against me go ahead, but just casting aspersions and making threats is unhelpful. Felsic2 (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again. What threats have I made? Felsic2 has started a parallell discussion on my talk page too, if anyone is interested. - Tom Thomas.W ^talk 20:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems like this just died, without anyone looking at the core problem: Felsic2's tendentious and disruptive editing... - Tom Thomas.W ^talk 12:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? This entire thread is a report about Niteshifts behaviour, and most of the above discussion about Felsic is an off-topic derail: Felsic isn't even the one who made the report. If you have problems with their editing, feel free to report that issue in a new thread. With diffs. Can we get back to the actual topic of this thread now? Fyddlestix (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who cares to comment on this thread can be scrutinized for their editing. If Felsic's history is a more pressing matter, I would rather deal with it now than worry about a few sarcastic comments by Niteshift.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, we can examine anyone's conduct - but we need diffs to do that. I see some accusations and griping about Felsic above, but only 2 diffs (neither of which appears to show anything remotely untoward). Meanwhile, there are a number of diffs that seem to show troubling comments/behavior by Niteshift linked upthread. So no, I really don't think that Felsic's behavior is "core problem" here - those of you who think it is should post evidence of that if you don't want to be called out for derailing the discussion. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hijacked dab page Çağdaş

Talk page abuse

Remove editing restriction on Kmweber

User:Chicken & Beef Pork

2601:48:C501:69BF:10E6:F4C1:AA66:5186

Lift Wtshymanski's restriction

Sikri, Sant Kabir Nagar

A group of users did a copy/paste move from Sikri to Sikri, Sant Kabir Nagar. I reversed it for now to restore the attribution history - but cannot investigate further at the moment (working from my phone right now). Can someone else investigate to see if a history move is appropriate here? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone also notify the editor(s) of this ANI for me? I can't seem to get templates to post, the autocorrect on my phone keeps mucking it up for me. Thanks. --- Barek(talk • contribs) - 05:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AzimK95 earlier created Sikri, Sant Kabir Nagar which I redirected to Sikri but after several failed attempts to keep the title he want he moved Sikri to Sikri, St. Kabir Nagar and now he's removing contents, references and maintenance template from the article. I don't know what he's up to. GSS (talk c em) 07:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page moved without consensus

Note: this was originally posted on WP:AN. Blackmane (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please see: Talk:Rugby League NRL State of Origin series#Requested move 24 January 2017

An editor whom I and another editor (User:Mattlore) suspect of having a WP:COI has moved a page with no consensus at all to a frankly silly title and I think it needs reverting back ASAP. Also, the user in question User:Stateoforigin is possibly in violation of the Wikipedia username policy.

Thank you Bwfcwarrior (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As Mattlore is mentioned I changed the name of the title on the page State of Origin series to read, Rugby League NRL State of Origin series, the page is all about the NRL Rugby League series so why doesn't the heading reflect that. I would like to ask other people there thoughts and changing the heading to represent the story and contents. COI, we have not conflict of interest excpe the fact that the story heading must be accurate. Mr Mattlore suggest that we may have a relation ship with the Story, its not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stateoforigin (talk • contribs) 00:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My thought is that the only reason you are here is to try drum up page views to flog your merchandise.

I think this thread should probably be at WP:ANI actually, my bad. Since the user in question has replied here, I doubt I can copy & paste it over. So I'll just have to ask you admins to forgive my newbieism. I hope this issue can still be looked at though. Many thanks again Bwfcwarrior (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Stateoforigin: you do not have consensus to perform the move. Regardless of what you think is the right title, you should have proposed the move and gained consensus with sources and evidence. This diff suggests some sort of commercial COI. I'll be dropping a post on WP:UAA in a moment. Blackmane (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that 331dot has already reported the name. Blackmane (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did some poking around. The website they posted on their talk page is a business that sells State of Origin merchandise. While their editing is not yet in violation of the TOU, their username definitely is as it represents a business. Blackmane (talk) 01:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blackmane, regardless of what you think the heading still needs to change to read accurate, the Story is all all about the Rugby League State of Origin series, don't you agree? We have posted it for discussion to get a consensus, as this is what was suggested by 331dot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.56.138 (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is irrelevant. you did not have consensus to make the page move. This is not about a "story", this is about what is reported in reliable sources. If anything, the article should be moved back to its original title and a consensus sought. If you do not have consensus to make a move then per Wikipedia policy you may not make the move. Also, please sign into your account to post a response and also sign your posts using four tildes, ~~~~ Blackmane (talk) 03:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I skimmed the talk page. This seems to be the only prior discussion on renaming the page. I may have missed where its been discussed and there was an issue raised and please point out if I have. There's nothing specifically that leads me to see this as a controversial move. Seems like nothing more than a bold move which is allowed with out a prior consensus. They seem to have reasonably followed WP:MOVE.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• (Non-administrator comment) The only two situations in which moving a page without consensus is unacceptable are where (1) a previous RM established the current title by a clear community consensus (not a "no one !voted so move by default" situation) and (2) there is an ongoing RM and the move was made to circumvent it. Otherwise, the standard operating procedure is outlined in WP:BRD. There is no user conduct issue here, as far as I can tell, except possibly Bwfcwarrior being trigger-happy and forum-shopping a content dispute to AN for no reason. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you have read all the comments here, at the article talk page and that users talk page, looked at his/her/their contributions and then mine, and come to the conclusion that I AM the problem editor here, then wow! Just wow! Thank goodness you're not an administrator here. (BTW, before you play the uncivil card, take another good look at my talk page contributions since I decided to take the plunge and sign up here! Civil, yes. Civil doesn't mean being taken for a mug though!) Good day Bwfcwarrior (talk) 12:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I don't have to read a bunch of comments you didn't mention in your OP comment here; your OP comment itself clearly sets the thread up as not being something that needed to be taken to ANI. If you think moving an article without prior consensus is by itself worth reporting on ANI, then yes, you are behaving problematically. And you really need to drop the confrontational tone. I suggest this thread be closed and a trout offered to the OP. He/she would be wise to take it with the good humour with which it is meant, rather than the above overly defensive SHOUTING and exclamation marks. WOW!Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're the only person here to put "wow" in bold letters with an exclamation mark, I certainly didn't... Bwfcwarrior (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Way to totally miss the point. If you continue shouting with block capitals and bolding, and exclaming sarcastically "wow! Just wow!", even if you don't technically bold the word "wow", you will likely be blocked soon, and not just for a username violation. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It appears User:Stateoforigin has been blocked. Since I'm NOT "forum shopping" mr. assume bad faith Hijiri 88, I'm happy for the issues regarding the page move to revert back to the article talk page since I was obviously mistaken about it being a candidate for a quick (WP:BOLD) move back to it's original title. (So basically, if anyone wants to close this thread, feel free as I have no objections) Thanks again Bwfcwarrior (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, engage in civil discussion and stop shouting or leave. It is not a good idea to ping someone who is currently unable to respond, and implying that someone got blocked for disruptive behaviour (It appears User:Stateoforigin has been blocked ... So basically, if anyone wants to close this thread, feel free as I have no objections) when it was a username block is extremely disturbing. I've seen quite enough of that kind of comment in the past few days, and it's incredibly ironic coming from someone who would dub me "mr. assume bad faith". You forum-shopped a content dispute to ANI, which you shouldn't have done, and then you were extremely aggressive in defending that decision. This needs to change. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked at your talk page Hijiri, clearly you're an uncivil editor here and frankly you show some worrying troll traits. I also noticed you're no stranger to Wikipedia's block policy either. Attempting to talk down to me is just laughable frankly. I appreciate it when good, experienced editors offer me help and advice. You though, well if you didn't talk to me again on here unless it's absolutely necessary to the betterment of the project, it would be a good idea. Finally, I do believe stateoforigin to be a disruptive user, but I didn't imply that is why he/she/they are now blocked. In fact, all I did and will ever do is state the facts, see here for example. Bwfcwarrior (talk) 13:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need this drama at the moment, which is the only thing stopping me from proposing a BOOMERANG at this point. You really, really need to change your tone if you are going to work in a collaborative environment like Wikipedia. Checking the block logs and reading user talk page archives from years ago in order to "zing" people who give you this kind of advice is ... really inappropriate. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Final comment on matter: Just a quick final FYI to everyone here. Since there is nothing more constructive to come from commenting to Hijiri, I will be ignoring them here from now on (unless as above, I need to talk to them for the betterment of this project). I stand by my earlier comment that the issue from an ANI point of view regarding user:stateoforigin is effectively over and move discussions can be better continued on the article talk page. I would close this, but not sure how or if that's proper as the starter. I'll leave that up to someone else. Thank you again Bwfcwarrior (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag abuse

RIGILKENTARUS disruptive edit

RIGILKENTARUS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Although there is no hard MoS on all football article. The European clubs usually used two column in their squad list. The involved user (possible socks, master unknown) keep removing {{fs mid}} from the articles, which last final warning was on 15 January but he still removing the {{fs mid}} on 26 January. Matthew_hk tc 14:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has made a total of five such edits after the lastfirst time the issue was raised on their talk page, and the last of those was over a week ago. I don't see any evidence they have edit-warred over their removal of this formatting template. I'm not sure what urgent, ongoing problem is being raised. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)Sorry, fixed mis-statement of timing. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help with a new (maybe) editor, disruption, etc.

I don't do this very often, but I'm out of ideas for what to do in this situation.

On Jan 19th, Wikiinfomation (talk · contribs) tagged Hickok45 for speedy deletion, asserting spam/promotion only [241]. The tag languished for three days during which a couple of people contested it on the talk page, and I eventually removed it on the 22nd when I came across it. I commented on the editor's talk page explaining why I removed the tag and noted that he/she should take time to become more familiar with guidelines before resuming tagging [242]. In the meantime, he responded, then blanked his talk page [243], and placed a Notability tag on the Hickok45 article [244]. I deleted this, as the article contains significant RS coverage, and I have more that I'm going to add tonight.

A subsequent talk page discussion devolved into circular logic, with the editor seemingly playing an WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT game, either knowingly or unknowingly [245]. Wikiinformation insists that the article is pure advertisement and provides rationales that show a profound misunderstanding of guidelines.

Finally, they submitted it to AfD (fine by me), then proceeded to vote twice (in addition to their submission) [246]. I changed this to a comment and added a response, which Wikiinformation blanked and replaced with another double vote [247].

The account itself seems fishy to me. Their very first edit was to create a brand new article about a minor WWII ship [248], and they subsequently uploaded images from this ship, dated 1943, as their own work [249]. Assuming the editor was at least 18 years old in 1943, that would make him around 90 years old today. That's not outside the realm of possibility, but the idea of a 90 year old writing new articles on Wikipedia and using Twinkle and other tools immediately seems unlikely at best. I'll also add that the new article they created SS Lawton B. Evans, has had two other brand new accounts edit it (with the only edits to that article) making me wonder if there's a sockfarm [250], [251].

They finally removed their double vote after someone else brought it to their attention, claiming "mistake", despite the fact I told them that very same thing previously (which was ignored) [252]. I'm fine with the AfD being allowed to run its course, but can someone please have a look at this editor to determine if they're really just a new (and very stubborn) editor or something else entirely? The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 23:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Something went awry with your link for the editor in question as clicking on contributions does not show any so lets try this one Wikiinfomation (talk·contribs). MarnetteDTalk 23:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, thanks for the heads up. I fixed that. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 23:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't help that Wikiinfomation has repeatedly rewritten their comments on the AfD, once removing another editor's response to his comment (I suppose either because they thought the rewritten version of the own comment rendered response redundant, or because they simply didn't like the response). I've warned Wikiinfomation to stop the tampering. -- Hoary (talk) 01:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ferociouslettuce

User Ferociouslettuce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making inaccurate edits to The New York Times Company article by inserting incorrect Chairman and then deleting the correct Chairman in favor of a majority shareholder. This editor, who has multiple blocks, is also accusing me of working for The New York Times, a "conflict of interest" and a "spammer", none of which is in any way accurate. David J Johnson (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's allowable for them to remove content from their talk page, but for them to claim in the edit summary that you work for the NYT Co. or their shareholders is just a little bit ridiculous. And groundless. I also noticed that while they've been here since 2006, they only have 300+ edits and most of those seem to be talk comments or minor in nature. White Arabian Filly^Neigh 23:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that they have been warned multiple times for their editing and been blocked from editing on at least two occasions. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note on their talkpage warning them that they are edging into violating the terms of their unblock, and that the speculation they keep inserting is disproven with a trivial search. Acroterion (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies David. The articles I had been reading refered frequently to Carlos Slim as owner, so it appeared you were editing out of concern for Sulzberger Jr. This not being the case, I am ready to move on to better things. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute with Lx 121 on Talk:Atrocities in the Congo Free State

User:Elianamwiha copyright violations

Username filter for blocking defamatory accounts?

IP editor rapidly adding poorly-sourced info to BLPs

User:Жовтневе багаття

User:217.245.52.77

User:Abc616

Rangeblock Request

Nkansahrexford

With regret, I have to ask that the indef-block of Nkansahrexford be re-instated. This editor was indeffed by Wizardman on 31 March 2015 for repeated copyvios, and a substantial CCI was opened to clear those up. The user was unblocked by Foxj with an undertaking not to violate copyrights again. I've just removed copyright violations (from at least two sources) from Creo Concepts, created by Nkansahrexford on 27 October 2016 (note: I only became aware of this when I went to check the page off the CCI list, and found it already complete; I may have been too sweeping with my removal of text). I know that we need more editors from Africa; unfortunately, what we absolutely do not need is more editors who violate copyrights – we are already overwhelmed by them (about 76,000 pages waiting to be checked at CCI – please help!). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only noticing this because I added a PROD tage to Credo Concepts and got a rather strange message on my talk page. Here's the thread, as seen on the editor's talk page:

You slapped a suggested for deletion on an article I didn't move onto Main Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nkansahrexford#Proposed_deletion_of_Creo_Concepts

I'll urge you take a closer look at who to slap a suggestion for deletion on their profile before proceeding. Check the logs, and you'll know the right thing to do: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creo_Concepts&action=history

Because I started the article somewhere on Wikipedia doesn't mean I'm the author of the article on main wikipedia. Unsigned comment by Nkansahrexford (talk · contribs) at 18:07, January 26, 2017‎

I've looked at the edit history -- no one has ever complained to me FOR notifying them about a deletion request -- and near as I can figure -- and I will admit I'm not up on the subtleties -- Nkansahrexford created this page, but did so in the sandbox of a different user, Iamjunie07 (talk · contribs), who moved it into mainspace [269]. Why would Nkansahrexford do that? --Calton Talk 11:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bishonen#User:Iamjunie07_Not_my_account -- Nkansahrexford (talk) 12:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, I see no attempts at communication between you two. There's also the matter of your claim to me not to have written the thing you now claim you did, nor of it being made up of copyright violations. --Calton Talk 13:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And while we're at it, why did you add a welcome-user template -- using the name of the company instead of the user -- to the talk page of the sandbox, three minutes after creating it? [270] --Calton Talk 13:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

139.192.182.85

After being blocked, the user yet started another mischief. He yet added many false information regarding airline flights in different articles. In this article:[271], He called another user Cukimai, and after doing a research, the word means "vagina", according to this website:[272]. I need the admin to help me to confront this issue. Cheers. CWJakarta (talk) 07:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You should have alerted the IP to this discussion; you didn't, so I did. I am an admin. Some admin, perhaps me, may be willing to confront the issue. A quick look at the IP's recent edits suggest removal of information, some of which they explicitly say is untrue. (That no, airline X does not serve airport Y. Which is something that cannot easily be "sourced".) Please present diffs. As it is, you've presented a single diff, in which there's no addition of any information, but whose edit summary they've used "cukimai", which may mean "vagina" (though may be in some other language), and may be about somebody else and may not. Meanwhile, I warmly invite User:139.192.182.85 to comment here. -- Hoary (talk) 08:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-involved comment): this IP has been discussed at ANI before, and at least one similar incident (with a different IP, albeit one that also geo-locates to Jakarta) has also been discussed. The common pattern seems to be removing references (which may, to be fair, be because they're now stale) and occasional vulgar edit summaries in Batak (IIRC, "child prostitute" has been used in the past, so "vagina" does seem to be a slight improvement...) 80.229.60.197 (talk) 08:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying, User:80.229.60.197. The user's most recent edit was made at 06:43, 27 January 2017. If they continue similarly without bothering to explain, I recommend a block. -- Hoary (talk) 08:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the user edited again and communicated in Indonesian in the edit summary, one of the words was "pendeho" which I am guessing is a swear word? lovkal (talk) 08:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He also keeps clearing his talk page lovkal (talk) 09:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK for them to remove stuff from their own talk page: WP:OWNTALK - it's seen as indicating that they've read the comment(s) posted. 80.229.60.197 (talk) 09:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok my bad. lovkal (talk) 09:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, this is what the word "pendeho" means:[273]. CWJakarta (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A different word within the summary of that very edit is translated by Google as "cunt". The edit was to the article Haikou Meilan International Airport. For the most part this article is a pile of unsourced information, or misinformation. Edit summaries aside, how are his edits less credible than those by other editors? (An actual and not merely a rhetorical question.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)Restored after what I'd hope was merely accidental deletion in this edit. -- Hoary (talk) 10:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)'[reply]

True, well I just assumed he was up to no good based on the edit summary, cursing while providing relevant information makes no sense IMO. lovkal (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kmoksy

Kmoksy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Kmoksy continues to vandalize the Pastirma article by removing sourced content and also the Armenian cuisine and Byzantine cuisine categories for no given reason, besides "scientific-fiction".[274][275][276][277] In the last edit I warned him to stop or I will report this, but he ignored me. Please note that this isn't a content dispute because Kmoksy isn't even disputing anything, he's just removing things he doesn't like and edit warring.

He has a history of edit warring on this page before now.[278][279][280] --Forsytor (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned him, I think coolly but clearly. -- Hoary (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The edits cited above are complex. By contrast, this edit is simple. In it, Kmoksy says that no, Sami Zubaida, Richard Tapper and Claudia Roden (in their A Taste of Thyme. Culinary cultures of the Middle East; Tauris, London and New York 1994, p. 35 & 39) don't say that it's of Armenian origin but instead say that it's of Anatolian origin. I don't have the book; if anyone has it, do please check. -- Hoary (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is Kmosky just planning to ignore the fact that there is little difference between pre-turk Anatolian culture and Armenian? I think this comes down to a Turkish nationalist trying to denigrate Armenia. 2600:1017:B012:73C7:233C:4289:9EDB:9951 (talk) 05:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem possible. However, it's really not useful to speculate about something we will never know for certain unless the user chooses to say as much themselves. It suffices to say that, if it violates consensus and this user continues to edit war, they can be blocked. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would largely be ignored yes. If the source does not say 'Armenian' its not Armenian. If it says 'Anatolian' that is what the article should reflect. The two are not the same and saying one while the source says the other would be misrepresenting the source. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except that what was once part of Armenia is now part of Anatolia. One may have informed, cool arguments about nomenclature, as one may about Danzig versus Gdansk. And one may have arm-waving and shouting, as one may about Danzig versus Gdansk. I'd like to know what the book says, and whether User:Kmosky actually corrected the article in order that it conformed more closely to the cited source. Let's hope that Kmosky comes here and explains. -- Hoary (talk) 10:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is about conduct. Don't bring the content dispute into ANI
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Taste of Thyme book (2001 edition) states on p. 35: "Armenians enjoy a reputation throughout the region as distinguished cooks, both in domestic food and in professional catering. They are particularly renowned for their pastry cooking and for fine basturma." This message is repeated on p. 39: "[Armenians] are widely admired as cooks, especially for their pastries and sausages, notably pasturma [sic]." There is no mention of the ethnic origin of the dish; this is about present-day Armenian cooks. Personally I have little doubt that the name of the dish is of Turkish origin, an earlier form being bastırma, which makes it plausible that the ethnic origin of the dish is Turkic. A statement that the dish is (specifically) of Armenian origin needs a reliable source; in that respect, giving Taste of Thyme as a source fails verification. --Lambiam 21:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly dynamic Serbian IPs removing reference from multiple articles

Two Belgrade-based Serbian IPs, 178.221.137.49 and 178.223.93.49 (both of which are effectively WP:SPAs) have been targeting articles that use a book by Philip J. Cohen, ‘’ Serbia’s Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History’’, deleting it as a reference and citations to it and disparaging it and the author in edit summaries. As can be seen from Talk:Philip J. Cohen, this book is critical of collaborationist Serbs during World War II, and has been attacked by some Serbian sources ever since it was published. However, I believe it contains material that is of benefit to the encyclopaedia, and this material shouldn't be deleted by editors because they don’t agree with it. This all began after I AfD’d an article on a vocal blogger critic of Cohen, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Kosta Savich and also posted a RfC at Talk:Banjica concentration camp to establish the reliability of Cohen for use on that article after another Serbia-based IP had dismissed it on talk. Banjica concentration camp was at least partially run by Serbian collaborators. First 178.221.137.49 deleted Cohen from Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia here, which I reverted on the basis that while it was BOLD, there was a RfC about Cohen ongoing (which they had already contributed to) and they should wait for the RfC to close before taking such action. I tried to engage them on their talk page, here. However, they deleted it again. I then issued an ARBMAC warning. The deletion was subsequently reverted by another user.

Next, 178.223.93.49 deleted Cohen from the articles on Nikolaj Velimirović, Lazo M. Kostić, and Kosta Kumanudi, all figures associated with Serbian collaboration during World War II. I reverted these removals, but 178.223.93.49 reverted them. 178.223.93.49 also deleted Cohen from List of Serb countries and regions. Obviously I have left them as is for now, but the pattern that is appearing concerns me.

These deletions, almost certainly by the same person, occurring while an RfC about the reliability of Cohen is ongoing, is clearly disruptive and disrespectful towards our community dispute resolution processes. Obviously I am involved, and any further warnings from me appear unlikely to be heeded, so I am asking if an uninvolved admin will warn the users to stop this deletion of Cohen from articles and tell them to wait for the outcome of the RfC on the reliability of Cohen. There are other IP and registered SPAs (likely meatpuppets) appearing on the RfC and elsewhere around this subject, but these two are the obviously related ones causing the most disruption. I've notified both IPs. Thanks for your time looking at this. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that this is Vujkovica brdo (talk·contribs), who exhibited similar relentless behavior of removing all content referenced to sources he doesn't like [281][282], see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Špiro Kulišić, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josip Pečarić mainly in the field of mathematics but also in articles about Serbian and Croatian history. The article B. Wongar (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views) provides the obvious link, both 178.223.93.49 and Vujkovica brdo editing the article about an obscure Australian anthropologist. While this does not fall under sockpuppeting category (Vujkovica brdo retired in November), it does show a long-standing pattern of disruption. While he often does have a point on the matters of content (he does have a point about Cohen, IMO), he goes about it in so belligerent manner that it inevitably ends up in conflict and disruption. No such user (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage you to have your say about Cohen at the RfC. Thanks for the heads-up about Vujkovica brdo. If it is Vujkovica brdo (and the similar editing on B. Wongar – which has only nine pagewatchers – seals the deal for me), he had been warned three times for edit warring and WP:OWN in the week prior to his "retirement" in mid-November here, here, and here, so edit warring now using IPs is a clear attempt to evade scrutiny of past behaviours, which is prohibited by WP:Clean start. The editors that warned him were @Joel B. Lewis, David Eppstein, and Arthur Rubin:, so they might have a view on this. Would a narrow rangeblock pick up both IPs without too much collateral damage? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My interest in Vb's edits is connected only to his work on mathematics, not on Serbian history, so I have no informed opinion on the current dispute. But I do have the general impression that Vb knows how to evade rangeblocks. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The two IPs have stopped since being notified of this thread, but a new account KanteP has just appeared to start edit warring deleting Cohen from articles here, here and here on the Judenfrei article, and making wholesale deletions of work I've recently put into Banjica concentration camp here, claiming I'm putting "too much" background into the article. When I've pointed them to another article with a similar amount of background, Kragujevac massacre (which I've also worked on recently and which is currently undergoing GAN review), they then tagged it as too long as well and made comments on the review page about Cohen here. I have tried to reason with this "new" editor, but this is obvious trolling by someone with less than 100 edits on all wikis, who has obviously been here before, and is very disruptive when all I am trying to do is improve articles in a difficult area using reliable sources, some of which I need to translate with great pain to my brain. It has been several years since there has been this level of trolling in the Yugoslavia in WWII subject area, and I would appreciate a hand here. I've notified the new account. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few points related to this Peacemaker67's work.

• Banjica concentration camp. Two sections Background and Establishment are 2.5 (out of 6) pages long i.e. comprise more than 40% of the whole article. All my warning about this meaningless disproprtionality were in vain. It was told him (her?) that "The Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia already covers most of this section and there is no need to repeat the same things here". The Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia link is visible in the article, If we browse Begovic's two volume book, available online, we'll see that Begovic for the same events (in Background and Establishment) dedicated just 17 out of 750 pages which is less than 2.2% of the whole book
• His reading of Begovic's book is incomplete which results into dubious and unclear conclusions inserted in the article. I've expressed and elaborated my concerns on the article talkpage.
• Cohen's book. The book is rejected by seven notable scholars as something that might be not even written by him. I removed Cohen's book only from the articles where he is obviously inaccurate and incomplete. This user always reverted my fixes not giving a serious reason for it nor responding to my edit summaries. Needles to say that this Cohen's pamphlet accusing the Serbs is advertised excessively across all Wikipedias.--bez potpisa (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not a content dispute (they can be resolved on talk pages and through DR like RfCs), this is about behaviour. I was in the process of expanding Banjica concentration camp, and of course, I started with the background... This editor is aware of (and has participated in, at least once) the ongoing RfC about the reliability of Cohen at Talk:Banjica concentration camp, but continues to ignore that community process (which is still running) and continues to delete Cohen from articles, as if he alone is the arbiter of what a reliable source is on WP. He does not compare and contrast sources when they differ, as we do on WP, he deletes sources he doesn't personally agree with. These articles now include The Holocaust in Serbia here, and Edmond Paris here, and now he is also removing respected Holocaust historian Christopher Browning from The Holocaust in Serbia here because he disagrees with what Browning said at a conference (and then misrepresents what Browning said on the talk page in defence of his deletion). The edits on Judenfrei and The Holocaust in Serbia, along with the removal of Cohen (who has a lot to say about Serbian collaborators and their involvement in the Holocaust in Serbia), might give an uninvolved observer reason to be concerned about his motives. There is a current in Serbian historiography about the Holocaust, saying that local collaborators were only doing what they were told, so have no responsibility for what happened etc. This pattern is very concerning, apart from the edit warring, deleting references, trolling me at Kragujevac massacre etc. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, this is only a content dispute. Browning was blatantly wrong, read in details Sajmiste concentration camp. Jews from Nis were deported to Sajmiste and died in Belgrade were deported and not killed on spot! This is my last response to your incivilties.--bez potpisa (talk) 05:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• More edit warring, now over the Browning quote on The Holocaust in Serbia, per above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There are more IPs here 178.221.134.32 is also probably Vujkovica brdo (talk · contribs), as is 178.223.78.167 given the common editing of B. Wongar (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josip Pečarić. It looks like this editor has been editing while logged out using dynamic Serbia IPs and and editing while logged in, using two separate accounts, one of which they claim they've "retired" from now. This is a breach of WP:Clean start and not in good faith, hiding their history of edit warring. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• A look at Catholic Church sexual abuse cases indicates more IP hopping disruption by the same range, including 178.221.148.19 and 178.222.141.169, again on Edmond Paris, and removing reliable sources using 178.221.134.32 on Milorad Ekmečić here. It is pretty clear to me that KanteP is a new account for Vujkovica brdo, but that they are also editing a fairly narrow range of articles using IPs regardless of whether they have a registered account. At the RfC mentioned above, it appears that the same editor has !voted three times, twice as different IPs and once as KanteP. This is pretty obviously being done to edit war and disrupt community processes and not get held accountable for their actions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Despite a notice about not editing while logged out, the same editor again deleted Cohen from Edmond Paris here], this time using 91.150.92.1, which has also been used to delete Cohen (and other sources) from Judenfrei here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• And so it goes, still edit warring while logged out at Judenfrei here, and Emanuel Schäfer (the Gestapo officer that had the Jewish women and children of Serbia killed using a gas van), again removing Holocaust historian Christopher Browning and replacing him with the decidely fringey Barry Lituchy, here. This editor just edit wars to remove reliable sources he doesn't like, and edits while logged out in an attempt to avoid scrutiny. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The two registered accounts have now been blocked for socking. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editor seems to be NOTHERE

Editor Caillou ftw dora ftl does not seem to be here to build an encyclopedia. Around 90% of his 21 edits are to user space, or some kind of disruptive change to the encyclopedia. Very few are constructive. He has taken to making changes to some articles so that is is how HE wants it to be, rather than following consensus of the community.

I’m posting with two requests – first, I don’t want to raise things at ANI if it's not necessary and so, were there intermediate steps that I could have taken? And second, now that the matter is here, would someone please take appropriate action, whatever that may be. Thanks. 110.147.183.191 (talk) 10:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm counting 7 edits to user space, that's only 33%. They're a bit odd, but they could be the result of a user not understanding they have their own sandbox to work with. The only change against an established consensus that I can find is this single pair of sequential edits. This was potentially disruptive, but still not out of line for a new user. I think your assessment of the situation is a bit presumptive. Everything else is WP:GNOME-ish redirect creation. And the first and only bit of interaction this user has received was you notifying them that you reported them. While I could imagine that we're looking at some sort of troll user, in the light of WP:AGF, their edit habits largely depict a new user who is helping with small edits in niche areas that most of us wouldn't've bothered with. (Likewise, I am assuming that you are similarly new and making this report out of concern for the site rather than any sort of malice). I love blocking some NOTHERE users as much as the next admin (or am I the only one who does this while wearing a Judge Dredd helmet?), but I can't actually find a reason to pull the trigger. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its not only the user space edits that I am reporting. See the contributions section for the editor and check out the two edits to Motion picture content rating system (speedily reverted). He then went on to do the same thing at another user's user page, which I am actually suspecting is a possible sock puppet of the editor I am reporting. 110.147.183.191 (talk) 10:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I not only saw those, I linked to them in my last post. 11 of their edits were helpful and 3 were attempts at WP:BOLD editing (misguided in application but not theory). Of the 6 that were to other user's pages:

• RTL5: There is no User:RTL5 and User talk:RTL5/sandbox was created by an IP editor who I assume is CFDF based on these edits. Editing while logged out is allowed, as long as it is not done to avoid scrutiny, pretend to be multiple people, or some other dishonest reason. Looks as though CFDF was trying to create an article and didn't know how to.
• User:Mileland: While that user does exist, their only edits (over a month ago) were to create an apparently defunct sandboxes. This could be a sockpuppet of CFDF's, but so what? There actually isn't a blanket ban on sockpuppetry (dynamic IPs would make such a ban unfeasible for IP editors), there are just certain types of sockpuppets that are allowed and some that are not. Making a mistake in trying to create an article is not exactly forbidden.

So, again, this does look like a new user who is still figuring out how the site works, not a troll. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson: But if they are new users why would they add comparison tables of imaginary countries' motion picture content rating systems to Mileland's sandbox? I don't know what you are seeing, but I am seeing nearly a spitting image of SlitherioFan2016 himself. 110.147.183.191 (talk) 20:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you're claiming they're a sockpuppet, there's a place to raise that concern. Seraphimblade^{Talk to me} 20:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a place for that? Cool! Send me there! 110.147.183.191 (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPI. It's an amazing place, with unicorns and rainbows. Well, ok just checkusers. But they are awesome. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RickinBaltimore: I have one problem. As an IP editor I am unable to create pages. Could someone please create the SPI page and I will go forward to notifying CFDF about the investigation. 121.216.27.248 (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it's deemed needed, I'm sure someone will do so. Unfortunately I don't see the link, outside the two edits earlier mentioned to the motion picture rating page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RickinBaltimore: Well what can I do in the meantime? 121.216.39.62 (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, just leave it be for now. There's a number of eyes on this now, and if anything looks to be out of place, it'll be acted on I'm sure. Just go ahead and edit like you normally would, and if anything appears weird, leave me a message, I'll have a peek. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• FURTHER INFORMATION: The editor has not responded to the case. I'm pretty sure that this is conclusive that he doesn't care how he edits and just wants the encyclopedia to be the way he wants it to be. But I'm trying to assume good faith here, maybe a bit of decoration to user spaces and trying to help out. I'm not 100% sure this is even a troll, but I think he might be NOTHERE and This needs to be dealt with. Any objections? 121.216.39.62 (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Go to one of the enforcers and plunge a knife into its guts"

User:Yimingbao

User:Yimingbao is continually reverting edits on tennis tournament draw pages, removing the appropriate closing tags, from something like this:

{{flagicon RUS}} [[Olesya Pervushina]] ''(Semifinals)'' 

To something like this:

{{flagicon RUS}} [[Olesya Pervushina]] ''(Semifinals) 

More details on this can be found in this discussion on WP:Tennis:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis#Text_formatting_on_tournament_and_draw_pages

Some diffs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_Australian_Open_%E2%80%93_Women%27s_Singles&type=revision&diff=762017125&oldid=762016952
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_Australian_Open_%E2%80%93_Women%27s_Singles&type=revision&diff=761275232&oldid=761275126
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_Australian_Open_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_Singles&diff=prev&oldid=761851826
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_Australian_Open_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_Doubles&diff=prev&oldid=761664249

Attempts to contact to user to stop this have failed to yield any results.

Rubyaxles (talk) 06:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yimingbao: I'm struggling to understand why you are removing the italic close tags - please could you explain why you are making edits like this? -- Samtar^{talk · contribs} 09:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, some undocumented quirk of MediaWiki causes all tags to be automatically closed in a table row. I agree with the consensus linked above that this is bad practice and should be discouraged. If this undocumented behavior were ever changed, we'd end up with broken code all over the place. It also makes the content much harder to copy-paste somewhere else, as the code will have to be modified if it ever gets pasted outside of a table row. It further gives newer editors the idea that it's OK to leave tags unclosed, which is something I'd rather we didn't do. I have no idea what Visual Editor would do if it saw this... it might choke. This just seems like a really bad idea to me, and I think it's disruptive to strip out the proper formatting. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked Yimingbao 31 hours for continuing to strip out proper formatting without explanation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:YeeYeeYeeYee

G10 Attack Page created by Benevolent Dictator

can an admin rename this image file?

User:Joseph A. Spadaro and WP:NPA violations

Kavdiamanju and unconfessed paid advertising

User:Fulgery destruptive editing, Single-purpose account, POV pushing

Fulgery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This account was created on 16 January 2017. His first true edits ([287], [288]) were in Ibn tumart article with no justification. I reverted his edits assuming a good faith, but here began the real problems (and a week of headache). He reverted my revert adding some unreliable primary sources (very poor sources) to support his allegations, and he started a discussion. I responded (in a good faith) to this. The problem here is that this new account is playing a high level WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT game, but I didn't noticed it the first time. He reverted again my revert! (adding another unreliable source). I recommended him to take a look at WP:PRIMARY for the second time. Now, the thing that surprised me in his third attempt to discuss his edits is his decision to lodge a dispute resolution (that was his second day in wikipedia!!). I refuted all his claims in this, but he started an edit war With no attention to the discussion (His understanding to the WP:BRD is inversed). I reverted his edit again. He requested a dispute resolution ( a two days account!). There was a long standing discussion with him, but he WP:NOTGETTINGIT and all sources(primary sources, unspecialist/unreliable secondary sources......) he was using were rejected by the discussants ([289], [290], [291], [292], [293], [294]......). is it possible for a "four days account" to know how to Request for page protection? Just for clarification this editor have a total of 126 edit (60 edit in ibn tumart talk page, 11 in Ibn tumart page, 42 edit in other user talks.....) with no constructive edits. So, he doesn't has any edits outside Ibn tumart page. Which seems to me like a single-purpose account which appears to show good knowledge of wiki usage beyond that of a newbie, and a clear WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, desprutive editing (Rejects or ignores community input, Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability, Does not engage in consensus building......) with pov pushing (with some Victim playing techniques.) + when the page was protected he stopped editing for four days and today he returned again to edit because the seven days protection ended + this user was already reported by another editor for his edit warring behaviors. --Aṭlas (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm innocent of this user's accusations. I created an account to edit several pages, not only this one. It's because there is a long discussion with him going on that I don't do other edits on other pages for now. Also, I don't have any other account (he is accusing me of this if I understand well).

There was a long discussion and many edits because I brought some sources that were not reliable at first, without knowing it. He was also warned about the edits. Now, I think I know what is a reliable source and I'm still learning about how to use Wikipedia. I kept discussing in the Talk Page with all the users involved (even in their Talk page). I don't think that I've been hurtful to anyone. As for the POV pushing, I think the current article doesn't represent all significant views on the subject so I want to improve it.

This user forgot to tell you about today's discussion : I brought reliable sources and edited the page as we are told to do by the rules, now I'm sure I'm in my right. He reverted my edits. I asked him if he thought that my sources were reliable or not, and he didn't want to reply to this precisely. And then, now that I brought reliable sources, and because the "unreliable sources" were his main argument against me, I learn that he's complaining about me and accusing me of things. Fulgery (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're still learning about how to use wikipedia!!?(requesting a dispute resolution, Requesting for page protection !!?) this is so suspecious for a two/three/four days account. "Now, I think I know what is a reliable source.." I don't think so. your behaviors Don't emphasize your words. Tens of sources were used against your claims, but what !? You just don't like it. All other editors Do not agree with your edits, but what!!? You're not getting it. "I don't think that I've been hurtful to anyone." who told you that you are hurtful to anyone ?This is what I call Victim playing. "I brought reliable sources and edited the page as we are told to do by the rules, now I'm sure I'm in my right.". What reliable sources you're talking about? To this moment you did not come with a single reliable/specialist source Comparable to (The encyclopedia of islam and The cambridge history of africa...). He reverted my edits. I asked him if he thought that my sources were reliable or not, and he didn't want to reply to this precisely. This was already discussed hundred times, so no need for a baseless Re-discussion of this. As there is a consensus in the talk page (and all user talk pages you notified User_talk:Kansas_Bear#Ibn_tumart,User_talk:HaEr48#Ibn_Tumart....) that your sources are unreliable. --Aṭlas (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the dispute processes, I simply searched for it... The sources that I brought are "reliable/specialist". Do you read Arabic ? But we're progressing, so you confirm that you don't consider the source I used for the Arab descent to be reliable, don't you ? If so, on which basis ? And what has been discussed extensively were other sources, not the reliable ones. The Encyclopedia of Islam and other sources tell one view and I accept these sources ; the reliable sources that I brought tell the other view. They are complementary and both views should be mentioned in the article. Fulgery (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"They are complementary and both views should be mentioned in the article.". This is why an RFC is taking place. As for the cited source. It's difficult to rely on it, because the bulk of specialist (The encyclopedia of islam, the cambridge history of africa, Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought.......) secondary sources (some of these sources were placed in the discussion) denied this claims. So we shouldn't emphasize the claims by putting "Arab or.." in the lead. --Aṭlas (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Encyclopedia of Islam is not a reliable source. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you Mr. ip for this important point. --Aṭlas (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You already know that this RTC is misleading for me and I will not participate in it, so forget about it. For you claim that "the bulk of specialists" denied his claims, you will have to bring a reliable source telling this, as you (and me) are not a reliable source. And even if it was the majority view, that doesn't give you the right to delete the mention of the other view if it's reliably sourced.

There are secondary sources that accepted his claims and other secondary sources that related Ibn Khaldun and others' acceptance of it. This Arab descent is an important point to know about Ibn Tumart, and mentioning it in the lead is not "emphasize", but it's going by the rules by citing all the significant views on the subject of his descent, the Arab and the Berber. But, you didn't answer me : do you read Arabic ? Fulgery (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC is misleading for you, because you have an agenda and you want to apply it in any existed way. So, the overwhelming consensus which oppose your point of view is not going to Satisfy your desires. "so forget about it" Why forgetting about it ? There is six editors who gived their opinions and their statements. "For you claim that "the bulk of specialists" denied his claims, you will have to bring a reliable source telling this.....". I (and other editors) already gived you the reliable sources, and that your claims will not take place. "This Arab descent is an important point to know about Ibn Tumart...." It's important for you not for this page. Did you read what others have written, or you just skipped it ? The important thing is to mention the sharifian claims and discussing all this mahdist/sharifian claims separatly in the body of the article. Yes I studied arabic and I can read arabic.

This endless, baseless debate will not end or what ? Do you care about what other involved editors have said ? Do you think that your opinion is The Most Important One Of All ? or what ? + I'm not the only one who told you that you're playing an WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT game ([295]) --Aṭlas (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I discussed with the others and I "care about what they have said" (but not on the RTC that I find misleading). I just want to improve the article. I repeat : "For you claim that "the bulk of specialists" denied his claims, you will have to bring a reliable source telling this, as you (and me) are not a reliable source." And even, We're not talking about majority here, but relating all the significant views, even if they are minority views. As far as the "Berber" word is mentioned for the identity in the lead, the equivalent word for the other identity is "Arab". One can see no point of adding something to an article, but a question is : does one have the right to prohibit and delete the addition of the reliably sourced significant view by Wikipedia criteria ? "No" is my answer and I stay firm on that. Fulgery (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"but relating all the significant views, even if they are minority views." Well, per WP:WEIGHT, as we're talking here about an extremely small minority viewpoint (one modern arab author if we considered his work as a reliable source) Compared to the bulk of the modern reliable secondary sources. We shouldn't give the arab origin a place in this article. The sharifian claims should be discussed separatly in the body of the page, as some reliable sources address the sharifian claim and judge it to be false. --Aṭlas (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are other modern reliable sources that validated or accepted the Arab lineage, and there are again, other modern reliable sources that related the acceptance of some medieval scholars like Ibn Khaldun and others. Again, the "an extremely small minority viewpoint" opinion should be supported by reliable sources that that say that. There's no undue weight in relating this significant and known opinion. Fulgery (talk) 04:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What sources you're talking about ? There are sources!! What sources? "and there are again, other modern reliable sources that related the acceptance of some medieval scholars like Ibn Khaldun and others." What sources ? Here we are again with your baseless arguments. Did you provide a reliable source ? No. "Again, the "an extremely small minority viewpoint" opinion should be supported by reliable sources that that say that." You're tuning around the circle again. We don't need to cite that the sky is blue. It's obvious this sources you want to use is an "an extremely small minority viewpoint", because it's opposing the bulk of reliable/specialist secondary reliable sources. "There's no undue weight in relating this significant and known opinion." This your point of view and here you are confirming my concerns about your behaviors (Pov pushing, WP:NOTGETTINGIT) --Aṭlas (talk) 04:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"What sources you're talking about ?" I cited them in the talk page in my summary, point 2. And we have to add to this, Ibn Khaldun and other medieval scholars acceptance of it. We are not talking about a scientific theory that had been outdated, the opinion that accepts his Arab lineage existed in the past and exists today and should be reflected in the lead. Again, the undue weight argument should be backed by reliable sources. Fulgery (talk) 05:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editor needs friendly advice

User:Sheila Ki Jawani bears watching and guidance. SKJ is a good editor in many respects, but he or she is making a string of edits which are either marginal or just plain wrong. If you look at this person's Talk page, you will see some warnings that don't seem to be slowing him or her down. I defer to the other editors and the administrators who watch this board to keep an eye on SKJ and hand out some good advice. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Motivação. This does not appear to be a new editor. GAB^gab 19:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And another: Life imprisonment(talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Reverted edits and added at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Motivação. - DVdm (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Block requested at the SPI - please continue to report these socks, as they can easily slip under the radar. GAB^gab 16:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's probably a ton of accounts, ready to continue the mission. - DVdm (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Belen Rodriguez

Could another administrator please take a look at the dispute at User talk:Mz7#Many thanks? The dispute revolves around the Belén Rodríguez article, and it seems to be spiraling a bit out of control. I have to log out for a bit due to a real life commitment, but within that discussion there are behavioral disputes and accusations throughout. There is also a relevant report at WP:ANEW. I would appreciate a second pair of eyes. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mz7, I already apologize to on an edit war. But the IP from Italy 151.67 kept making offensive and disruptive comments starting attacking and harassing me, kept on calling me a "Troll", and the IP from Italy want to block me. Admins, please I am innocent. Could you check the Belen Rodriguez history page there might be mupltiple IPs from Italy using the 151.67. My arguments are stabled and I'm innocent. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Totally false, he is not innocent. I'm a variable IP (not multiple) and he always deleted all other people messages in his personal talk page and all other edit in Belen's page and he refuse to accept Il Giornale, one of the most important newspaper in Italy, as good source; on Spanish ediction he was blocked for Vandalism and note that he create here a legal intimidation against me--151.67.43.10 (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it, You're comments are disruptive and you are starting to attack me and I am not a destroying the article. Attn Admins: I am waiting for a strong administrator to resolve this incident. 00:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

In order to resolve this issue, Administrators could you review 151.67.43.10's contributions. There is a lot of disrupted contributions. For an example, WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests has disrupt the editing and the IP from Italy said "Please, with your arguments you LOST the AFD (article for deletion), stop!". I told the IP to Stop and the IP continuing the edit war in the WikiProject a few times. There will be a administration action against the IP from Italy for a possible blocking. Thanks. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 06:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the situation is pretty much clear. 151* tries to add the info that Rodriguez is divorced. First they tried to reference it to a gossip blog which is not a reliable source. Then they brought a reference to Il Giornale, which is likely a reliable source. The problem is that the article only says "everything is most likely finished", it does not say anything about the divorce. Whereas the divorce is likely coming, the sources of quality acceptable for us has not yet been presented, and the info can not be added to the article per WP:BLP. 2001* were reverting this info, but at least they did not try any BLP violations. The article is currently protected; if any of the IPs continue disruption they should be blocked. I do not currently see a need for a block.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: I am not talking about Belen's divorce, I am talking about 151.67's disruptive contributions. In order to resolve this issue could you review 151.67.43.10's contributions. For an example For an example, WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests has disrupt the editing and the IP from Italy said "Please, with your arguments you LOST the AFD (article for deletion), stop!". I told the IP to Stop and the IP continuing the edit war in the WikiProject a few times. There will be a administration action against the IP from Italy for a possible blocking. Thanks. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did study their contribution and in fact addressed it in my above comment.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Clovis Proprio

WP:NOTHERE account User:JosephMignoneDelaware

Blocked user using talk page for personal attacks

GoldenGuy23 continues to add unsourced content

A user has added anti-semitic dogwhistle terms to a page

User: Anastan repeated WP:NDP, WP:NPA, WP:Civility violation and use of offensive words

Ąnαșταη has an incredibly long history of WP:NDP, WP:NPA, WP:Civility violation and use of offensive words to other editors.

• (diff Kosovo is not a regular country, but a disputed territory that want to be a country. One day. Maybe...)
• (diff You should use talk page one day, its allowed, trust me)
• (diff Sure, everyone here believe you. Me too.)
• (diff But i guess that you will ignore this outsider's observation, as you dont like it.)
• (diff Maybe it is time for you to drop the subject and leave. #JustSaying...)
• (diff You should stop doing that then, as you may be blocked.)
• (diff Bob, stop with this awful editing attitude, and drop the subject here.)
• (diff Hmm, i will post that, just to take him off me finally. Very bad editing style he has.)
• (diff No, Red, you are pushing it now too much. You are not allowed to say "If you dont do this, i will do that". That is the best way to get blocked on this page. So stop with that now.)
• (diff Who are you? Only edits are here?? Please return to your account, if its not blocked or banned.)

Anastan reverts other editors because of their ethnicity. They constantely accuse other editors of nationalism and use this as an argument to revert them:

• (diff Try to calm nationlist agenda. restore relevand name in serbian, as per numerous sources.)
• (diff No, its not. It on the border of Montenegro, where Serbian language is used. You should get used to serbian language, nothing bad will happen if you see that in article. Try to stop nationalist politics)
• (diff go to talk, and do not push your nationalism)
• (diff Its just another try to remove word Serbian from everything connected to Albania and Kosovo, as Jezerski vrh is not Slavic but only Serbian.)
• (diff Lets not talk about two countries kosovo status is disputed.)
• (diff I am sure everyone is interested to hear how one language is less important then other or similar political nationalist demagogy.)
• (diff Society which actually is famous for nationalism and propaganda is the one you are protecting and pushing by removal of Serbian from the places you don't like, and by trying to hide hundreds of years of Serbian history. Please be very careful in the future, or you may be reported.)
• (diff restore nationalistic vandalisjm)

Anastan reverted an edit because it was done by me. Such "arguments" are discouraged by Wikipedia policy:

• (diff Someone else may remove that, but not you! You are welcome to go to the talk.)

Twitter accounts allegedly used to drum up opposition to Assad’s government Anastan considers "American propaganda":

• (diff american propaganda)

Anastan reverts other editors accusing them of POV pushing without facts or arguments:

• (diff This POV pushing must stop now, this is article about person, and not about event.)
• (diff Removed POV pushing by this editor again.)

I asked Anstan to be civil ([301]) and as a response he reverted an edit because it was done by me.(diff Someone else may remove that, but not you! You are welcome to go to the talk.) Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, everything is false. Despite this fake list of diffs, with some of them almost two years old, Ktrimi991 is actually the one who is constantly breaking Wiki guidelines, removing sourced content per WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and doing a lot of actions in clear violation of WP:ARBMAC while he was actually ALREADY warned about ARBMAC with also quite more warnings from number of editors on his talk page. Just to mention that one of users first edits were complicated ref name addition, so it is quite obvious that this user is actually returning user or most probably sock of a banned user.

Just to mention only few things:

removal of templates without any talk page activity

POV pushing, mostly PRO-Kosovo

Inserting questionable information 3 times despite the fact that three users reverted and removed that, and even questioned that on talk page.

inserting Kosovo where it should not be

Removal of Kosovo Liberation army links in order to "clean the article"

pushing the POV that Kosovo is a country in article about small mountain peak

Removal of sources

removing big long standing sourced sections as per "nationalist source too"

removal of sources in order to hide obvious non Albanian name of the lake

" nationalist source"

Improper comments with personal attacks are always here

"Yeah, it was a battle. I assume you know what "battle" means. do you have any problems with Albanian historiography?"

false templating the regulars with false templates without reason

Stalking

Stalking me in talk pages just to vote against me in unrelated discusion

Stalking me and removal of categories per nationalist question (while its super obvious that category should be there)

And so soo many other things. This is just few first pages. @EdJohnston: Already seriously warned him to behave "After narrowly avoiding a block for personal attacks on 4 September, as of 11 September you are busy edit-warring at Albania. Be aware that you can be banned from editing about Albania or Albanians under the discretionary sanctions if you show no sign of waiting for consensus." This user is WP:NOT HERE to edit wikipedia, but to use it as a propaganda tool, in order to establish his own political agenda. It looks like that its time for Wikipedia:BOOMERANG. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 22:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 22:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to distract others' attention from your lack of civility. About "my POV" you can solve article dispute on relevant noticeboard. The removal of sources was already discussed between me and other editors. You just did not accept community consensus which enlarges the list of your disruptions. Stalking? I am free to comment everywhere I want. Nothing is false because everything is proved by diffs. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Admin edit-warring

John (talk · contribs) has been edit-warring on Mary Marquis over the past week, claiming that WP:BLPSOURCES entitles him to remove any references sourced to The Daily Mail. There is currently an open RFC at WP:RSN on whether The Daily Mail should be banned as a source (which John has contributed to), but no ban is yet in place. His removal of content has been reverted several times by me and another editor, Jheald. I asked him to provide a link showing that The Daily Mail was banned as a source on BLPs, but he refused to respond and continued edit-warring. John has threatened to block me for reverting him, and posted a boilerplate warning on my talkpage rather than discussing, despite previously being asked by me not to not template the regulars.

This would all be quite bizarre behaviour from any user, but the fact that John is an admin makes it even more unacceptable. Looking through his talk page, it appears he was warned twice for edit-warring last month, once by Someguy1221 at EWN and once by MSGJ at ANI. On both occasions (and in the current dispute) he seems to have deliberately circumvented 3RR to avoid an automatic block. MSGJ wrote "I am closing this thread with the result that User:John is admonished for edit warring and incivility. A block at this time is not necessary but he is warned that future occurrences will likely result in a block." ¡Bozzio! 08:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are you trying to force this through rather than waiting for discussion to take its course? If an editor cites BLP then you cannot force that edit through until consensus supports it. In BLP cases the onus is on the person seeking to add the information not the other way round. Instead of raising complaints you need to stop. If you don't the block will be inevitable. Spartaz^Humbug! 09:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @Spartaz: I think you're misinterpreting the dispute. John is the one forcing things through without either responding on the talk page or waiting for the RfC to finish. I wrote on the talkpage "If you have a link to the discussion where the Daily Mail was banned from being used as a source on BLPs (as you claim), I'm happy to self-revert" at 06:13, and this edit summary was his only response at 06:59. I'm not seeking to add anything, but John is attempting to remove reliably-sourced information that has been in the article since 2009. The onus is on him to gain consensus for removal, crying "BLP violation!" doesn't override an existing consensus. ¡Bozzio! 10:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @Spartaz: as you have now commented and expressed your strong opinion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Daily Mail RfC it was probably not wise for you to act as an administrator on Mary Marquis and to fully protect your own version of that article. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reverting to the last version that undisputedly is clean and protecting is a routine action for a claimed BLP issue. The correct action now is to discuss the removals, agree what is non-contentious and then find a reliable source for that before reinserting it. The existing consensus is already that DM is not suitable for BLPs so being opposed to its use on the project is hardly disqualifying for any admin taking action around a BLP. I'm afraid that's just the way it is. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:13, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing-- you're both edit warring. If you want, you can continue to do that and get yourselves blocked, but there are other options here. The RfC isn't done yet, so you both need to find something you're willing to compromise on until the RfC resolves itself. The notion of a reliable source, BLPs or otherwise, isn't just the publication itself, but the claim(s) being made. Bozzio, if the claims being made are controversial or contentious, then a different source would generally be preferred. John, if the claims are not contentious, then you should let this go until the RfC has resolved. If you can't agree on that, it's time to step away from the article and let the RfC run its course. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 09:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Possibly because this is a crusade for John and he is repeatedly highly disruptive as part of it. To do this when there's an RFC running on the matter is simply to ignore the rest of the community because (as always) John's editing is so much more important than anyone else's.

This is way past any question of the DM, this is a behavioural issue about John, and has been for some time. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to point out, the RFC on the Daily Mail at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard is basically if we now start with the premise its an 'unreliable source' not fit for use *at all* without a strong reason to do so. But there has long been a working consensus on the BLP noticeboard that the Daily Mail is unsuitable and unreliable *for BLP's* except for very basic uncontentious information. At least *some* of the material removed (I think he was a bit heavy handed) above by Tony falls outside that criteria and rightly should have been removed or an alternative source found (the choice here is usually down to how much the editor cares about the article). Secondly BLP removals (where correctly notified as such) are not subject to the usual edit-warring criteria. With consensus *required* on the talkpage of the article or a suitable alternative location (BLPN) to over-ride it. So Spartaz was correct in his protecting to prevent an edit-war - in a BLP edit-war the version protected is almost universally protected without the BLP-contested material present. So while he probably shouldnt have done it himself, had this been requested at RFPP, the end result would have been the same. Incidentally, if there was a previous discussion where the material cited to the Daily Mail was discussed, I didnt find it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• What User:Only in death said. The DM is already covered by WP:BLPSOURCES and cannot be used on articles like this. I have tried to find better sources but that which cannot be sourced in proper sources will have to go. The RfC is about whether we should blacklist the DM from all articles so is not germane here. Bozzio may need a tap with the cluestick if he continues these shenanigans. --John (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• First, if there's something contentious here...I'm missing it. It looks a heckuva lot like mundane biographical details, which for all intents and purposes, we could probably just as well source to her social media. Second, John edit warring? That's definitely never happened before.TimothyJosephWood 14:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont agree with all the removals, but her medical history for example requires a source better than the Daily Mail for inclusion. A primary source, a biography, literally anything would be better than having that sort of personal info sourced to the Mail. A paper that has been proven to *make stuff up*. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overblown, and same stuff is in Scotland Now[302]. Google search is generally preferable to ANI drama for dealing with this type of issue. The Wikia article is better than WP's though not RS in its own right. But none of the info seems all that contentious. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 07:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, the ScotlandNow article was very very likely written from our piece, so relying on it would be an act of citogenesis. Also, it's from the Daily Record, which those who would do away with the DM links would also seek to remove it. Even with sources that doesn't apply to, I tend to think that there is a case that where something has been said in an interview, even with the Mail, it is not a bad idea to give a link to that original interview, rather that to a "cuttings piece" that repeats the information in another newspaper a few years down the track. As for the Wikia article, it is a verbatim copy of our article as it stood a couple of years ago, before people started removing stuff. Jheald (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't look to me like the removals improved the article in a way many readers would appreciate. I'd keep using the Daily Mail cite for that stuff and add anything better that turns up. If it were something potentially damaging I could see a problem, but if it's been around for that long without anyone contesting the info (I mean saying they think the info is wrong, not just saying they don't like the Daily Mail) I don't think there's a problem keeping it. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 11:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm with Spartaz on this. If there is poorly sourced material on a blp, then the onus is on the person adding it back to seek consensus for its inclusion. In this case, there is an RfC open and the material can be added back after the RfC if there is consensus to do so. Contentious or not, we need to be extra careful when it comes to blps.--regentspark (comment) 15:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seneed Acharya

This person, under his latest account incarnation User:Dynes acrz, has just recreated for the third time since October 2016 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Seneed+Acharya&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&subtype= ) the article Seneed Acharya about himself, using different accounts. Both previous versions were speedy deleted, today's version is likely to go soon. I believe that article name should be protected from recreation and a sock puppet investigation on this user's multiple accounts is due. Fbergo (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked a couple obvious socks. There's already an SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Seneed acharya, which you can use to report new ones. I'll semi-protect the article if it get recreated again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At least one more sock that I've added, and a bunch at a separate SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Senz acharya. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seneed Acharya recreated by another sock. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had blocked this person before. Couldn't remember who it was, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Undisclosed paid editing?

• Tim Wallace-Murphy (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views)
• Jordan.williams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jordan.williams has uploaded images to Commons (e.g., this), piping his username to read "DMA Europa". DMA Europa is a common or garden PR company. A cursory search reveals a possible connection. This appears to be a violation of the foundation's TOU. I tentatively propose an indefinite block, and speedy deletion of the article as G11, unambiguous advertising.

Question for Jordan.williams: if, as you say here in answer to a question from Theroadislong, you are "not being commissioned for the work" on Wallace-Murphy, why do you use the name of a PR agency when you upload a photo of him? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been nominated for deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not going to post it here, but I googled his name and the name of the company and found evidence that he works for them. He's claimed that he's not being commissioned to make the article but it's clear that he does work for a PR company and has used their resources to upload images, meaning that the PR company is involved to one extent or another. Even if this is legit something he's doing on his own, he's still using their marketing kit to create the article - meaning that at some point in time Wallace-Murphy or one of his representatives paid the company to promote him. That's a pretty close relationship there, enough to where it's a bit squiffy. It's possible that he just didn't think about it, so if there are any ties he needs to state what they are, even if this was something he did entirely on his own time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)
• Support block for undisclosed paid editing, very clear from the contrib history alone, but Tokyogirl's evidence just solidifies my support further. What makes it worse is the denial of paid editing when it's quite clear that there's a connection here. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support block per Jcc. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Pointing user in the right direction: It would seem Jordan.williams has provided his explanation at the the AfD of the relevant article. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And that's an explanation that good faith demands that we accept, even if I still don't know why he wanted to use the company's name to upload an image. At this point, I think it'd be quite enough to ask Jordan.williams for a clear declaration of conflict of interest, and an undertaking not to edit any article with connections to DMA Europa. Could you do that, Jordan, perhaps on your user-page? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:The ed17 and personal attacks

Legal threat?

John Carter

Just so we're clear, the community supported the block, which was unilaterally overturned by the blocking admin and John knows that any further violation of this topic ban will be taken very seriously. If I see them here again over that topic ban, I will be proposing an indefinite ban. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 02:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• For added transparency, the e-mail and discussion that led to the unblock can be read here as it has since been archived; [304]. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional account

Personal attacks

Telco Productions Inc.

Requesting rangeblock: 2601:c8:c000:363d::/64

Disruptive "article" about a non-existent topic.

Threat on my talkpage

IP Editor legal threat in edit summary

Perhaps I'm overly cautious but here [306] an IP editor seems to be making a legal threat. Gab4gab (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gab4gab: Personally I'd say a little on the cautious side (which isn't a bad thing!) - I'll keep an eye on them and I've protected the article -- Samtar^{talk · contribs} 19:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sufficiently ambiguous that it could simply be a friendly warning (though I wouldn't bet the family jewels on it). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Admin-opinion request on canvassing issue