Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

CFCF Not Here on E-cigs

CFCF(User talk:CFCF, CFCF) Has recently made several controversial edits, reverts and moves on pages related to e-cigarettes whilst refusing to engage in consensus building. These pages are subject to General Sanctions

here he re-reverts material that was disputed back into the article despite discussion on the talk page relevant to it that he was not involved in claiming established consensus.

here he hatted a discussion relevant to that controversial material he had added in where he was being asked to justify the inclusion of some material but he did not engage in it.

here he accuses me and/or S Marshal of vandalism for removing content which did not have consensus for inclusion and was being discussed at the talk page when reverting & here he accuses me of vandalism again. (I freely admit here I was slow edit warring however it didn't come close to vandalism, it was a content dispute that I was handling badly and have been sanctioned for). I posted to his talk page to ask him not to accuse me of vandalism when I was not doing that

and here he 1 click archives it without response. I Reposted a request that he engage in discussion to build consensus

and here he 1 click archives without response

here he admits that he finds discussions to seek consensus unproductive and so reverts without contributing or considering them.

here he re-introduced a controversial claim with a long discussion on the talk page which had not found consensus and in which he had not participated.

here Despite an ongoing discussion which CFCF had not participated in at the talk page CFCF moved the article from Chemicals in Electronic Cigarette Aerosol to Electronic Cigarette Aerosol. here CFCF had added a "Redirect you may have meant" tag to Cigarette smoke with no discussion. It had been reverted and he re-introduced without taking it to the talk page.

here When I posted to his talk page about the above he 1click archived it immediately.

here The part about being designed to appeal to 11 year olds we had reached consensus to remove, the later sentences, Quack Guru had Boldly Added, S Marshal Reverted because it was controversial. CFCF re-introduced without discussion

I could go further but this is already long enough and covers just the last week.

I know this isn't a major issue but I feel CFCF has earned at the least warning in an area of general sanctions because this pattern of behaviour is not conducive to consensus building in a topic which, touch wood, has calmed down somewhat recently from a prior battleground and is in some ways being productively edited. I know S Marshall has been frustrated by some of CFCF's edits and they show that CFCF has little or no interest in working collaboratively in this topic area per WP:NOTHERE.SPACKlick (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

CFCF has made good edits to various e-cig pages. This should be closed immediately. QuackGuru (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

This looks very much like abusing process to attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute. Admins take a bit of a dim view of that. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I have no intention of gaining an advantage in a content dispute. My desire in this would be for CFCF to engage in the collaborative process so consensus can be reached on the disputed content but nobody can force that. The issue I have is that when discussion is on-going and the nuance of consensus is being reached, whether in the direction I initially wanted or not, CFCF makes driveby reverts without reference to that discussion or any of the consensus and kicks the process back a notch. Hence why I've asked for a warning or a prod and not any form of ban/block/Tban/Iban that would limit CFCF's contributions.SPACKlick (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The e-cig pages have greatly improved as a direct result of CFCF's edits. That's what the evidence shows. QuackGuru (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I see nothing in CFCF's edits needing sanctions. I agree with Guy. Cloudjpk (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Guy. CFCF's edits seem quite reasonable. This appears to be a content dispute and not sanctionable. Ping me with {{u|Jim1138}} and sign "~~~~" or message me on my talk page. 03:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

[Some of] The edits would be reasonable if they responded to consensus but CFCF actively ignores consensus, ignores ongoing discussions, When he adds information and is reverted he immediately reverts back and ignores all discussion about the inclusion. Whether or not the content of his edits is good, and I won't weigh in on that here because there is content dispute, the lack of collaborative effort is a clear example of NOTHERE. SPACKlick (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Once again I'd appreciate it if someone could restore order on that page. I certainly don't think all of CFCF's recent edits have been 100% helpful, but he's far from the only offender and what's actually needed is a large injection of clue.—S Marshall T/C 21:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Of Note CFCF again included without consensus. There is a discussion about this hatnote on the talk page. 4 editors see the hatnote as outside policy 1 has made an argument for it. CFCF claims to have made his point on the talk page. His one post on the talk page is No, you're wrong. WP:HATNOTE. How are these not WP:NOTHERE edits? SPACKlick (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagreed. See diff. QuackGuru (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Off Topic about QuackGuru
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Do you think your edit improved the page? How about me? Do you think my edits improved the page? Don't massage anything. I want your unfiltered opinion. QuackGuru (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC) I think that edit improved the page, yes. Since you ask for my unfiltered opinion, I think your influence on the encyclopaedia as a whole is a net positive because you're relentless in dealing with bad faith editors and highly active, but I also think you have poor encyclopaedic judgment and you often don't understand words in the same way I do. I think CFCF is reverting good edits and bad edits alike and he can't tell the difference. I think the best editor at work on that page is Johnbod and I wish he could get a word in edgeways. And I think AN/I is an extremely bad place to have this conversation because AN/I only ever solves simple problems, i.e. the ones where you can point to a clear policy violation using diffs. You can't come to AN/I saying "CFCF has bad judgment" and expect anything positive to happen as a result.—S Marshall T/C 22:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC) Do you want me topic banned or "just reined in"? See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive886#QuackGuru_and_Electronic_cigarette. Rather than delete relevant text I consolidated two sentences to improve the readability. If you look at my previous edit I changed the word "abuse" to "addiction" to clarify the wording. The known unknowns cited to a MEDRS review is good information, especially when it is about young people. QuackGuru (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC) I know this was directed at S Marshall but IMO reined in, specifically passed through a copy editor. Most of the sources you find have good information and most of the information you want to add is good information to add. It's just how it's incorporated and where its incorporated that's usually where I end up with objections. If you could work closely with a strong writer who can keep things readable and increase the information transfer in the article, your net benefit on the encyclopedia would be significantly greater.SPACKlick (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• SPACKlick is pretty much a WP:SPA for e-cig topics per their contribs. The topic seems to draw such editors or turn otherwise useful editors astray. SPA warns about situations where there is "...evidence that a user is also editing to add promotional, advocative, or non-neutral approaches, or has a personal or emotional interest in the area of focus, possibly with limited interest in pure editing for its own sake....") On their userpage SPACKlick makes their advocacy position on e-cigs very clear (which is very "pro"): here. In my view SPACKlick should be trouted for bringing this groundless case, and should be warned to broaden their editing at WP, with a topicban per WP:NOTHERE, per SPA, riding on their failure to broaden their scope of editing. Jytdog (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Once Again CFCF added a controversial hatnote without engaging in discussion, where the discussion was ongoing, where the bulk of discussion was not in favour of the edit. Likewise CFCF has repeatedly reverted inclusions by S Marshall without discussing it but not reverted the same or near identical inclusions when written by QuackGuru as discussed by S Marshall in this post on the talk page. Whether or not I am sanctioned per the below discussion. I would appreciate if someone could cast eyes and a decision over CFCF's interaction with the page which I feel is pretty clearly not in the benefit of either consensus and collaborative editing at the article or the encyclopeida's aims as a whole. SPACKlick (talk) 13:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

A brand new account reverted the change. Before that an IP reverted the change without an edit summary. QuackGuru (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

As Quack points out another editor removed it after my above comment and CFCF immediately re-instated claiming consensus on the talk page. This is now bordering on Edit Warring Surely? It's ridiculous. Thats 4 reversions 1234 of the same hatnote with only 1 comment of non-engagement on a talk page where 4 editors (not including two who have removed the hatnote) have disagreed with inclusion. SPACKlick (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The new account only made one edit to Wikipedia so far. The IP made four edits to Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Another IP making an edit to the page. QuackGuru (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

CFCF again added the hatnote, calling its removal vandalism. Still has not engaged on the talk page, the discussion still not having come to consensus. That's 3 reversions in 25.5 hours. walking right along the line of an edit war. SPACKlick (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The new account might be a throwaway account. The IP is from Germany. The editor from Germany was banned and indef blocked. Reverting a banned editor is not a revert. QuackGuru (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I suspect DaleCurrie is a throwaway account but it's misleading to link to Fergus there Quack, because while they are banned they haven't been shown to make either of these edits, if there's concern you want SPI. By the way CFCF doesn't just do this on e-cig pages. he reverted me on Domestic violence for a formatting fix pointing to a consensus on the talk page. The formatting hadn't been discussed even once on the talk page. I'm rounding on the conclusion that CFCF has a problem with certain editors and fails to follow AGF.SPACKlick (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Boomerang topic ban for SPACKlick

Per comment above by User:Jytdog, I propose a topic ban from the e-cig pages for User:SPACKlick. Cloudjpk (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@Cloudjpg: Are you proposing a topicban for yourself too? Your edit count shows a "bizzarro-sock" of SPACKlick and not one with a longstanding edit history.--TMCk (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• This proposal is based on a fallacious and hypocritical comment by User:Jytdog, which itself seems a good justification for BOOMERANG. If SPACKlick can be considered a SPA, Jytdog should be as well.

Spacklick's top edited pages:

94 Electronic cigarette 56 Monty Hall problem 34 Roger Moore 28 List of Durham University people 26 Orthodox Presbyterian Church 25 Sean Connery 24 Electronic cigarette aerosol 24 Safety of electronic cigarettes 23 Top Gear (2002 TV series) 18 St Cuthbert's Society, Durham 17 George Lazenby 16 List of Old Boys of The Scots College (Sydney) 14 Zoe Quinn 11 Trial of Oscar Pistorius 11 College of St Hild and St Bede, Durham

Jytdog's:

675 Genetically modified food controversies 584 Monsanto 327 Genetically modified food 319 Glyphosate 220 Genetically modified crops 159 Genetically modified organism 155 Organic farming 139 GlaxoSmithKline 137 Electroconvulsive therapy 128 ZMapp 124 Organic food 108 A2 milk 99 Séralini affair 99 Novartis 98 Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms

SPACKlick is surprisingly the only editor to speak out against CFCF's unsupportable redirect from "Electronic Cigarette Aerosol" to "Cigarette smoke". A read of the resulting talk page section (where QuackGuru seems to speak for CFCF, who is absent) should have uninvolved observers questioning why it is SPACKlick who is being portrayed as the problem. petrarchan47คุก 22:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Petra you are so dependable! As I wrote above, per contribs. The bulk of my editing on GMO stuff was mid-2012- mid-2013, with spikes when anti-GMO advocates come around, or back around as the case may be, and yes that has been an enormous amount of work. If you look through the past couple years, the edit count would look very different than the totals you present there.

Getting back to the topic, if you actually look at SPACKlick's contribs in the past year or so, he has indeed become pretty much a SPA for e-cigs; those articles cause people to obsess and e-cig topics keep causing trouble. My recommendation is above. Jytdog (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Of my last 500 edits, a quick and dirty analysis says that 60% are e-cigarette related (if there's a tool for better temporal analysis I'd appreciate the link), including talk page edits and user talk edits. but that may have missed some of them. If we go to the 500 edits before that, very few of them are e-cigarette related. It comes and it goes. And I won't deny e-cigarettes has been my focus recently, just s monty hall was for a while. I come and go from the project with certain dense posting periods. I still monitor a lot of RFC's and where I feel I can contribute, do so. I had hoped to get started on a long project in project tree of life but real life got in the way and another stellar editor had done the majority of the legwork prior to my return. I edit where my interest is at the time. E-cigs has been a focus for a long set of editing bursts because it still has major problems and I haven't yet found a tack that leads to productive improvement although progress has been made. SPACKlick (talk) 01:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

That User:SPACKlick finds the diffs listed concerning is I agree a concern in itself. Some time away from the article may due SPACKlick good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Of note, In all but one of the diffs I've posted above I have attempted, however (un)successfuly, to point out that my issue isn't the content of the edit but the context of the edit being ignoring, over riding or avoiding discussion between editors attempting to hash out consensus. The one I don't point to avoiding ongoing discussions relating to consensus is where he avoided BRD on a potentially controversial addition by unreverting his own edit. I also pointed out that this wasn't a major issue but it is an issue of disengagement from the process and the sort of behaviour I thought the general sanctions were supposed to nip in the bud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPACKlick (talk • contribs) 21:42, 8 July 2015‎ (UTC)

• Comment. SPACKlick is well aware of the sanctions.[1] Me thinks SPACKlick repeatedly deleted sourced text.[2] See Talk:Electronic cigarette aerosol#Re introduction_again for the current discussion. He was warned by the admin User:Bishonen to stop making personal attacks.[3] Back in April SPACKlick wrote: this previous section at the e-cig talk page: "It's almost like you're not competent to edit this page", "your ridiculous addition", "a ridiculously long caption", "it was pointy, tendentious or ownership", "you do not own this article", "You arrogantly inserted".[4] In June SPACKlick wrote" "QuakGuru, whether or not particle size is medically relevant is OUTSIDE THE SCOPE of this article which is about the CHEMICALS WITHIN E-CIGARETTE VAPOUR. Particle size, is not relevant to what chemical a particle is. You're nuts"[5] He was recently warned again about NPA.[6] QuackGuru (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Quack talking about ownership: Me, I and myself. Cheers.--TMCk (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
    • You wrote in your edit summary "I'll promise you my friend, I will not cease in standing by your side in battle..."[7] You wrote "I also shall not cease in doing so until you have learned and turned (until death, online or real, will takes us apart).[8] QuackGuru (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
      • And as you can see I did hold my promise.--TMCk (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

General sanctions are failing

General sanctions on e-cigarettes aren't working because it's so hard to attract the attention of an uninvolved administrator. The only participant in this discussion who might remotely count as an "uninvolved administrator" is JzG and he's only contributed one sentence. Everyone else is divided along party lines. What's actually needed here is a referee; but I can fully understand why a previously uninvolved person would shy away from such an entrenched situation with such a lot of history.—S Marshall T/C 07:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Since this thread has attracted so little attention from uninvolved administrators, it should be archived without result.—S Marshall T/C 22:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
• Well, I can try to referee if you think it would help, but I strongly suspect that my long-standing support for WP:MEDRS and opposition to pro-CAM edits will not sit well with the group that makes up the pro-ecig side of this war. In the absence of uninvolved admins, and given the clear need for some firm action, I guess arbitration may be the only option. Guy (Help!) 14:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, I certainly do think it would help. It shouldn't be necessary to go to arbitration over this; that's like going to A&E with a hangnail. I don't think I could produce diffs that would be of much interest to arbcom.—S Marshall T/C 15:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I can also take a look, but I have some notifications and an Arbcom case evidence to do over the weekend, so if it can wait a couple of days for another set of eyes as well then that would help. Is it deteriorating notably fast? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
    • No, it isn't. I'm finding the situation's improving, probably thanks to the extra eyeballs on the subject. Thank you.—S Marshall T/C 00:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. User:Georgewilliamherbert, please review the current atmosphere at the e-cig pages. I am not aware of "the extra eyeballs on the subject".
• S Marshall is well aware of the sanctions. In your edit summary you wrote "tag-teaming".[9] You claimed "Consensus can change, and it will. I learned this when I got broad consensus to change the first paragraph of this article in many ways, and then started an RfC to discover that changes in the population of this talk page meant my consensus was no longer there. Wikipedia's a waiting game, QG. A quick look at your block log tells me there are pretty good odds that you won't be active on this talk page forever, and when you're gone it will be possible to make the fixes you're preventing. Don't get me wrong, QG, I do think you're a net positive to Wikipedia despite the fact that I find you very frustrating to deal with. I've argued in many discussions before that you should not be blocked, just reined in. My views in that respect have not changed."[10]
• S Marshall, so why do you want me "reined in"?
• Both SPACKlick and S Marshall deleted a 2014 MEDRS compliant review from the Addiction section recently. The 2014 review is relevant to the section, especially since it is concerning youth. QuackGuru (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• I want you reined in because I'm a mean and nasty POV-pushing industry shill, of course!—S Marshall T/C 23:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Whew, glad we got that settled. <g> BMK (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Pretty sure E-cigs is going to need to go to ArbCom, since editors are reporting that GS are not working, and since there are or have been so many SPAs editing the e-cig articles. I propose that someone start to draft an ArbCom request proposal -- but it obviously shouldn't be drafted by QuackGuru or by one of the SPAs or virtual SPAs, past or present. I don't know that there is anyone editing the articles who is completely neutral about the topic, but perhaps Doc James might be willing to, as he has in the past edited on the subject, but has remained decidedly quiet when related subjects come up on ArbCom or ANI. If he or someone of his ilk would draft and post an ArbCom request, however brief, others could chime in on ArbCom with their opinions. Just a thought. Softlavender (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Will take a look in a two weeks as off to Wikimania. I am sure that some would view me as far from neutral. Especially those who continue send me hate mail regarding the topic. User:S Marshall has done some good work condensing the prose. QG adds generally well supported text. The discussion on the talk page get more snarky than it should be at times. Would be good if many of those involved would work more on other pages but of course we cannot mandate that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

You're right. Someone reverting with a misleading editsummary to re-introduce utter unscientific fringe nonsense -- I sure don't have much (or any) confidence in them. Even less when the same supposed to be a scientist. But go for it anyways. It doesn't matter who is filing.--TMCk (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion on the talk page showed the restored text is well sourced. For example, see Talk:Electronic_cigarette_aerosol#Re_introduction_again. QuackGuru (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I have started reviewing pages; I tagged one more with the talk page "under DS" notice. Still getting a feeling for how the conversations are going. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I recommend you check the archives too. See Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 24 and see Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 25. QuackGuru (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Georgewilliamherbert: Are you still looking into it and intend to comment? Just wondering since it's been a while and problems on those pages have been "abandoned" before several times. Thanks.--TMCk (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Rolandi+ and Alexikoua's behavior in Balkan-related articles

• Rolandi+ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alexikoua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Both of these editors have been duking it out in multiple Balkan-related articles. The Balkans are under discretionary sanctions as per WP:ARBMAC. Both users are aware of this: [11] [12]. Both users have been previously blocked for edit-warring, and are well aware of the rules there. Rolandi+ is just coming off of a block and Alexikoua has been blocked multiple times.

One of many examples of their warring is Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus.

• Full or partial reverts from Rolandi+: [13] [14] [15] [16]
• Full or partial reverts from Alexikoua: [17] [18] [19]

Other examples with some recent edit warring include:

• Illyrians
• Kara Mahmud Pasha
• Greater Albania

Both users have placed warnings on each others' talk pages but appear fairly oblivious that the warnings apply to themselves as well: Rolandi+ placing on Alexikoua: [20] [21] Alexikoua placing on Rolandi+: [22] [23]

Also note that Alexikoua went to several articles that Rolandi+ edited in a short period of time and reverted everything he did, which is possibly WP:HOUND. He clearly was singling out Rolandi+, at the very least: [24] [25] [26].

While both users are being fairly careful to avoid violating the 3RR, it is clear they they are engaging in disruptive behavior, and they're well aware of the rules given their respective block logs. It's getting to the point where a topic ban may be necessary. ~ Rob^Talk 16:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

On each case I initiate a discussion on the correspondent talkpage and I'm very carefull when to remove specific parts in case they are either poorly cited or not cited at all. For example in Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus, I'm still waiting for Rolandi's talkpage participation but there is still no response [[27]]. On the other hand Rolandi's talkpage is full of warnings from multiple users (I count at least 4). Also comments such a this one [[28]] from a recent ani filled again him by another user, reveal an edit-warring nature.

About Rob's comments I have to add that my last blog was 2+ years ago (May '13), thus it's a bit unfair to neglect that fact, in addition that this is the first report against me from that time. Alexikoua (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The OP paints a very simplistic picture, which shows sloppiness and a lack of understanding of the topic and issues involved. Rolandi+ is in conflict with multiple editors, due to his falsification of sources, dishonesty, and incivility. He has repeatedly falsified sources, edit-warred over unsourced material, made stuff up and refuses to get the point. At Illyrians, he has falsified a source that makes the opposite of the claim he is pushing in the article [29] [30]. He edit-warred over this, made accusations of sockpuppetry, and is extremely rude in the talkpage [31]. He was blocked for edit-warring at Illyrians, and he is now resuming right where he left off [32], using low quality sources. This, after he was blocked 36 hours for breaching 3RR at two different articles in the same day [33]. He is also falsifying sources at Vlachs [34], and edit-warring over there as well. Here he falsifies one source [35] (the author states that the Italian census numbers are exaggerated, but he omits that and enters the number using Wikipedia's own voice) and removes another high quality source (Meyer) for no good reason, without even mentioning it in the edit summary. When he can't find even low quality sources to falsify, he just makes stuff up [36]. When a fellow Albanian editor mildly criticized one of the highly nationalistic, low quality sources he tried to use, Rolandi removed that user's talkpage comments from the talkpage [37]. To top it all off, he is extremely rude and refuses to get the point: [38] [39] [40] (referring to Greek editors as "penguins") [41], [42] (taunting a Serbian user about being bombed by NATO), [43] [44], [45], [46], [47]. Here is is taunting another user to "please" revert [48]. It's really not hard to find diffs of this user's disruptive behavior. Just go to any talkpage he has participated and they as plentiful as fish in the sea. This user has exactly ZERO positive contributions to wikipedia, has major WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. His talkpage is nothing but a graveyard of warnings by multiple users of all kinds of backgrounds [49]. Even in Japan-related topics he is making trouble [50], for which he was warned. Alexikoua has repeatedly tried to engage him in article talkpages and on his own talkpage, to no avail. It is impossible to reason with this user. He is here to here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS [51] (Greek sources cannot be trusted because "it made genocide,killed and stole albanians") and nothing will get in the way of that. This is in stark contrast to Alexikoua, who has kept a clean record for the last two years now, has created dozens of articles and DYKs, and is always civil and amenable to reason in talkpage discussions. Athenean (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

This is an unfair report regarding Alexikoua. Rolandi+ has exhibited WP:BATTLE behaviour including removing a fellow-Albanian editor's comments for not agreeing with him for which he was subsequently warned on his talkpage by an admin. Here after his block for edit-warring expired he tells the blocking admin: Actually I have been busy for some days so the block wasn't any problem for me. He has also exhibited bravura when reported at 3RRN challenging me to report him even as he had two, yes two, 3RR reports pending against him at 3RRN. In addition his talkpage is full of warnings regarding his falsification of sources and other disruption. Alexikoua's edits are a factor of stability in the Balkans, a troubled area of Wikipedia. There is simply no comparison between the two editors. The OP is completely misguided in his unfair comments regarding Alexikoua. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi , There are many cases of edit warring between us.It's true!I hope this will not happen in the future. As for "Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus" case I tried to explain him twice at his talk page that he couldn't delete others' edits and references only to add the greek hypothesis.It's normal to include all the hypothesis about Thomaeus' origin.Also he can't delete well-established informations that have been there since a long time. As for "Illyrians" case,I had corrected my edits.My last deleted edits made it clear that Illyrians may be the ancestors of Albanians.(I didn't make it a fact,just a hypothesis).Alexikoua thinks that the Albanian hypothesis doesn't need te be included there,but the Vlach hypothesis yes. As for "Greater Albania" I stoped my edit waring and I have discussed that with Athenean at my talk page.I will discuss that at the article's talkpage soon as I haven't enough time now. I hope that there will not be any need for this noticeboard in the future.However it is important the fact that Alexikoua has a habit to delete almost all my Albanian related edits within 24 hours.If you see my edit history,the majority of my edits have been deleted by Alexikoua within a short time.He doesn't try to talk to me or discuss together. In our recent edit warrings another user is included.Athenean has the same habit as Alexikoua to undo the majority of my edits. As I said ,we need to be more carefull in the future and stop edit warring.However,it is important for Alexikoua not to delete almost all my edits.If he thinks I have made disruptive edits in the future,he can try talking to me or to involve other users or an administrator for help. As for my past mistakes I have been blocked for 36 hours before some days so Athenean doesn't need to mention them here. I don't actually know why these three users contribute at the same pages at the same time.I think it is a kind of sockpuppetery or collaboration. Rolandi+ (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

As for Japan related article,the warning was a mistake.Go and ask that editor.It not the only time I got warnings that were a mistake.See my warnings history and the involved users' talk pages please . As for the Vlach case ,as you can see,I hadn't falsificated any reference,just go and see .The warning editor falsificated the references.This story is explained but Athenean doesn't mention this fact.As for Italian census case I explained to Athenean what I meant with that reference at my talk page.But Athenean doesn't mention my explanation because the only thing he wants is my block.As for "Baku spirit" case,why don't you go and se the KSFT's talk page.I suggest to these three users to open as many noticeboard cases as possible ,there is no problem for me. Rolandi+ (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

This case is only about me and Alexikoua.There was another ANI involving me before some days and these three editors commented against me.Isn't this a collaboration?You can easily note that there are many cases where these three users edit at the same pages at the same time .Isn't this some kind of strange collaboration or even sockpuppetery?Rolandi+ (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The topics you are editing have been the target of sockpuppetry, edit-warring disruption, falsification of sources and personal attacks by editors advancing low quality, nationalist-based edits. You seem to be doing most of these things so don't complain when other editors clean up after you. Also if you have evidence of sockpuppetry don't try to weasel your insinuations into the discussion. Either open a sockpuppet investigation against the editors you suspect or stop your personal attacks. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

You are making personal attacks here,I am just defending myself.If you have sth against me,open another case.Also an unregistred user undid my edits at Thomaeus by claiming that my edits are " propaganda & false information".This is strange.He explains this by saying "(WP:V, WP:RS)and Jacques & 'scholars' from the Hoxha era are very unreliable sources".Who is this user in the reality?Strange.Rolandi+ (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

You are making personal attacks here,: Can you specify by giving a diff which part of my comments were a "personal attack"? Who is this user in the reality?Strange. Why are you asking me? If you have any questions about a user you can open an SPI to find out. Finally, do not ask other editors to intervene making false claims against editors who comment here because it is considered canvassing and uncivil. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Here's a simple fact: Alexikoua has reverted the edits of Rolandi+ repeatedly and across multiple pages in short periods of time. Edit-warring is not excused by correctness. That's the only additional thing I'll say. This statement is not influenced in anyway by Rolandi's comments on my talk page; I was watching this discussion already, and would have commented this way when I had returned no matter what. I do agree with the point about WP:CANVASS, though. ~ Rob^Talk 22:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

From what I can tell, Alexikoua has not exceeded 2 reverts in a 24 hour period in any article. This is in contrast to Rolandi who has breached 3RR at least twice in the last few days. You seem to be painting the users with the same brush. That is incorrect. There is one user who has made countless valuable contributions to Wikipedia, and one who hasn't. There is one user who has engaged in ethnic baiting, and one who hasn't. There is one user who falsifies sources, and one who hasn't. There is one user who has been blocked recently for multiple breaches of 3RR and one user who has maintained a spotless record for the last two years. Athenean (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Your accusations of WP:HOUND and excessive edit-warring against Alexikoua do not stand up to scrutiny. If I look at his contribs of the last 7 days (i.e. since Rolandi's block expired), he has reverted Rolandi a total of two times at Greater Albania, once at Illyrians, three times at Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus, and once at Kara Mahmud Pasha. This is over a period of 7 days, and not taking into account that Rolandi was POV-pushing, falsifying sources, being incivil, and was reverted by several other users (because he was POV-pushing and falsifying source), not just Alexikoua. Athenean (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I had not seen the HOUND allegations of the OP against Alexikoua. That betrays a total lack of understanding of the MO of the SPAs and socks in this area of the Balkans. Once an SPA is bent on changing the nationality to Albanian of many historical figures they do it across multiple articles and they do it by falsifying sources and enforce it through edit-warring. To follow such an SPA through multiple articles to correct their falsification of sources is good and standard practice not WP:HOUND. I don't doubt the good intentions of the OP but they are severely misguided and betray a total ignorance of the operating methods of the SPAs in this subject area. I am also concerned that despite the available evidence of widespread disruption by the Rolandi+ SPA the OP seems bent on insisting on treating Alexikoua's proper edits as somehow problematic. Such behaviour is not constructive. To gain a proper understanding of the nationalist-based disruption in this area one has to check SPI archives such as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Malbin210/Archive and related cases as seen in the archive and also check the sockpuppet userpages and contributions. For example, one of the socks had tried to convert the origin of George Washington's mother to Albanian. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Firstly you said that I haven't made any valuable contribution here.Then you mention "nationalism" ,Malbin210 and related cases.It is obvious now,the only problem for you is the fact that there are some Albanian editors contributing to Wikipedia.You don't want Albanain editors to contribute to Wikipedia.This is the only problem here.Rolandi+ (talk) 09:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

What part of edit-warring disruption and falsification of sources did you not understand? Don't try to use the ethnicity of editors as a red herring against me, especially when you yourself removed a fellow-Albanian editor's comments because he didn't agree with you. Resnjari, whose opinion you reverted because he didn't agree with you, is also Albanian and he has my respect. This has nothing to do with ethnicity and you know that very well. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 09:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The previous ANI regarding Rolandi+ was initiated by me, but it apparently ended in no result. I don't think it's necessary for me to present the user's incorrectness – he's been warned countless times. It's strange that he is allowed to continue this disruptive behaviour. Alexikoua shows none of Rolandi+'s manners (has always been civil, etc.) and I fail to see why Alexikoua is mentioned as a subject in this ANI. --Zoupan 10:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

As for Resnjari,I have talked to him.I deleted his comment because we weren't talking about chams in greece.Why don't you mention this fact?Zoupan says it's strange that I am allowed to contribute to Wikipedia.It's very strange in fact.Why doesn't Zoupan mention his falsification of sources as he did for example at Kosovo serbs?Why?How it's possible that these users undo all my edits (including Zoupan)?Why?Why do Alexikoua,Dr.K and Athenean delete all references that say the a X famous person or ethnic minority has albanian origin?How is it possible?Why don't you see their edit's history.Don't believe in our words...just go and control our edit's history.Alexikoua is very civil because after he deletes others' work and references ,he asks his collaborators for help.Before some days there was another ANI where I was involved.It was opened by Dr.K,while Athenean and Alexikoua commented against me.How is it possible that when I don't have the same ideas with Alexikoua,Athenean and Dr.K come and delete my work?How is it possible?It's unfair that the work of the Albanian editors is always undone by these three editors.How is it possible that all references introduced by Albanian editors(or by other editors who add the so-called pro albanian references)are "nationalism","unreliable","propaganda" and "manifesto"?It's unfair because Wikipedia has to be neutral.Look for example at Thomaeus article,I explained Alexikoua that he couldn't delete the well-established infos only to add the greek hypothesis.The right thing to do there is to include all the hypothesis about Thomaeus' origin.If you can't control these users,why don't you delete all the Albanian related articles,so they will not be vandalised anymore? Rolandi+ (talk) 11:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Also see at the "Greater Albania" talk page.These users put a map showing the presence of Albanians in the neighbour countries .Why don't they agree to put the map of "Greater Albania" there? Because they don't like it?Alexikoua says it is created by Albanian users?And what does it mean?Note the fact that Alexikoua uses greek politicans as references (for example at Souliotes)That article is about Greater Albania and not about the presence of Albanians in the neighbour countries.Everyone knows that the Greater Albania map is the map introduced by League of Prizren.Actually ,this is RACISM.Rolandi+ (talk) 12:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Alexikoua,Dr.K and Athenean delete my references and edits .They say that my references are POV (Even when the reference is a non-Albanian/non-greek well-known scholar).On the other hand they use greek politicans as references. I can't even use the talk page,because the only thing they say is that my references are always "POV" and "manifesto".How is it possible that all my references are unreliable?Isn't this strange?Look at other Albanian editors.Their work is always undone by these three users because their references are always,but always "unraliable" and "POV".How is it possible?Rolandi+ (talk) 12:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

@Rolandi: To name an example, it's kinda weird to insist on adding citations such as this: [[52]], which claims that the Wars of Alexander the Great were fought by Albanians [[53]]. Even an editor who is not involved in historical articles will find it POV and unreliable. It's also not a case of ethnic conflict, as I've worked together with several editors that share the same national background with you.Alexikoua (talk) 12:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Why did Athenean lie?He said that I falsified sources at "Baku spirit".My warning there was a mistake.Why don't you go and ask the warning editor?Also note he didn't warned me for falsification. Athenean said I had falsified the source at "Vlachs".Why don't you go at the Vlach's editing history and see the truth?Why don't you see what the book used as reference says in reality?Also Zoupan said there is a problem with me at "Vlachs".Which is the problem?Zoupan don't know how to lie! Athenean said I falsified the sources at "Illyrians".Where is the falsification there?My edit there said that according to some scholars Illyrians are the ancestors of Albanians (this means that it's a theory,I didn't make it a fact). Athenean said that I falsified the source at the "Greater Albania".I explained him that we had to introduce both greek and italian figures to make the article neutral,why didn't he mention this fact?Because the only thing Athenean wants is to lie about me. As I said the use of the Talk page with these users is useless as the only thing that these three users say is that others' references are always,but always "nationalism","POV" ,"propaganda" and "manifesto".It's not my fault that these three users always say that my references are "propaganda" and "POV". Also,Alexikoua,why do you mention only the case of Wars of Alexander?Why don't you mention all the cases where you have undone others' edits claiming their references are "POV" and "nationalism" and "propaganda"?Rolandi+ (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

It's very easy.There is so many edit warring between us because these three editors always,but always undo my edits .The talk page is useless because the only thing they do is to claim the others' references are always,but always "unacceptable","POV","nationalism","propaganda","manifesto","unreliable".I can't use the dispute noticeboards for hundreads articles,because it is ridiculous.The only thing to do is to prevent these three users from vandalizing Wikipedia,especially albania-related articles.I am sure that if these three users stop deleting other's edits and references only because they don't like them,there will not be any edit warring/problem at albanian related articles anymore.Also I suggest you to help editors about Balkans-related articles (for ex. if their references are reliable/POV etc).Rolandi+ (talk) 13:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Alexikoua doesn't agree to put the map of the Greater Albania at the "Greater Albania" article.He firstly said the the current map is detailed,but it's not the map of Greater Albania (the original map is based on the map of the League of Prizren ).Then he claimed that these maps are the the same,but they aren't.He said that we can't put the map of the Greater Albania there because "I am eager to see a map that paints everything in red" (meaning that I am a nationalist and maybe I have irridenstist ideas) while the national colours of Albania are the red AND THE BLACK.He doesn't agree because he doesn't like the map,this is the problem with these editors,they don't agree with others only because they want to control Wikipedia.Note that the current map shows Albanians in Albania and neighboring countries,not the Greater Albania based on the maps of the League of Prizren.Rolandi+ (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The Balkans are subject to discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBMAC. Arbitration Enforcement may be a more efficient way of dealing with conduct issues than this noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

To Robert McClenon. About time this happened. More attention needs to be paid because to many shenanigans having been going on and some Albanian editors have been intimidated and i include myself in this as being as such. Few Albanian editors have been engaging with Wikipedia recently because of such things and some editors of a non-Albanian heritage seem to be making changes in articles without even discussing it. I call to your attention the article Aoös whose name was changed by Greek editors (such as user User:Hwasus > [[54]] without consensus (and due to Albanian editors no longer continuing for a while) while in previous discussions about a name change was resolved that Vjosa stays as the page's name ([[55]]). Who would i go to regarding this very serious matter.Resnjari (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Alexikoua deleted many informations at Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus,including the references that said that he Thomaeus might have been of Albanian origin,saying that "widely established international scholarship tend to disagree with what was written inside Albania during the People's Republic regime".Where did he learn that Thomaeus' albanian origin hypothesis is fabricated during the communist period in Albania?Also he deleted Jacque who isn't albanian.This is only racism and this is a big problem.Seriously this is ridiculous.Rolandi+ (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

To Rolandi, some Albanian sources from the communist period are tainted because they were ideologically driven and or forced by Enver to produce material that has many problems. For a list of academics who managed to go against the communist regime and produce good research like Eqrem Cabej see book "Pipa, Arshi (1989). The politics of language in socialist Albania. East European Monographs. As for non Albanian western sources state Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus was a Greek. This is possible as during the time Nicholas was born there were some Greeks (merchants and so on) in Durres, as it was a coastal port and international city (its also had Albanians). See Robert Elsie article page 3 ([56]. The stuff on numbers in the Cham Albanian article, the Topulli stuff is resolved. Send me on my talk page the stuff from researcher Nazarko (he is a good source -full inline citation though and source). I'll work something out regarding Idromeno on that basis.Resnjari (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Resnjari.you said that western sources state that Thomaeus was greek.And Jacque,isn't he a western source?I am not saying that Thomaeus wasn't greek,I am saying that he might have been albanian (hypothesis).Also where did you learn that the Albanian hypothesis was fabricated by the Communist Albanians?The fact that many albanian scholars ideologically were driven and or forced by Enver Hoxha to produce material that has many problems doesn't mean that the albanian hypothesis was fabricated by them.See also sources like Jacque.Alexikoua deleted many infos that were there since a long time and added the greek hypothesis.The right thing to do is to include all hypothesis.Rolandi+ (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• "Comment": Rolandi+ is proving to be a problem editor on a number of articles surrounding the Balkans. I suggest that he/she is an aggressive editor who's WP:NOTHERE. Leaving missives such as this on my talk page is not appreciated when I have read through the sources he/she has used to introduce changes to content on Vlachs. The user has WP:CHERRYPICKING sources addressing a variety of complex issues and academic evaluation in order create WP:SYNTH. I made the mistake of allowing the user enough WP:ROPE to continue refactoring the same content, for which I take responsibility: I made the wrong call. As the "Vlachs" article falls under the general scope of WP:ARBMAC, I agree with Robert McClenon that this is something to be dealt with via WP:ARB. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

In my limited observation, there is a great deal of battleground editing and quarreling about articles about the Balkan region. One reason is of course that the Balkan region has too many times been a real battleground, including being the origin of World War One, which killed fifteen million people. ArbCom was prudent in putting the Balkans under discretionary sanctions as an area that the community does not deal with effectively at noticeboards such as this one. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you're aware that most of my editing is in the area I know, being Eastern Europe. Being a glutton for punishment, I like to keep my hand in on other contentious areas where I don't have any doubts as to my neutrality. ArbCom is, unfortunately, an extremely arduous process for those who are involved in working through complaints (and my sympathies are extended to them) as there's a tendency for involved users to continue their battles there rather than follow the processes. Unfortunately, the end product is that problem editors keep getting out of being sanctioned by the skin of their teeth, only to keep their heads down for a period of time and resume when they're confident that enough time has elapsed for prior behavioural problems to have been forgotten. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Irina Harpy,why don't you mention the fact that the discussion (and the problem) between us started because you changed (falsified) the citation at the reference.See here what the source says.Another user deleted your falsifications and explained everything.Why don't you mention this fact?Why?I agree that Balkans related articles are almost all problematic and vandalised but this doesn't mean you can LIE!Rolandi+ (talk) 08:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy Rolandi just needs some more practice. One just needs to have a in depth discussion about things and too tone it down a bit. At the moment it seems i am the only one doing engaging with him without resorting to name calling and so on. I value Rolandi wanting to contribute; it’s just he has to be more cautious about certain sources or how the source is used in general. There are few Albanian editors these days on Wikipedia. Things have become dormant and some editors of non-Albanian heritage have taken it upon themselves to do for example article name changes (like the Vjosa example i cited) without community consultation or to call POV anything a editor might want to undertake in adding to an article (even when the source/s is peer reviewed and very credible) (see: Talk:Cham Albanians). I have had these issues multiple times now (in the end my edits have gone through almost in their entirety) but it has taken too much time, energy and effort which though was done in good faith. There were cases were even my cognitive abilities where questioned which was quite offensive. (See article Talk:Greek Muslims). What you might call "quarreling" i have an issue because not all editors are equal. Some who have privileges are editors from a background who may have less than polite views regarding people of Albanian heritage. There should be non-Balkan editors adjudicating certain articles so those who have those privileges don't abuse them or intimidate editors who insist on change (the later must make their case though). Merit and content based on Wikipedia policy should be the outcome everyone conducts themselves upon. More oversight is needed or absent that the removal of privileges (auto patrol etc) of some editors for those engaging in such behavior so as to make it a level playing field. Wikipedia is a democratic forum, it should not be a place where Greek editors have privileges over Albanian ones or vice versa.Resnjari (talk) 09:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The user makes up his own rules, again, and again.--Zoupan 16:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you mention the fact that there is a consensus at the talk page?Why?Why do you want to delete informations +add others without consensus?Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolandi+ (talk • contribs) 17:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see a concensus in the talkpage. Can't understand what you really mean.Alexikoua (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no concensus about our recent edits,so they have to all to be deleted until a consensus.I said that at talk page,you commented but you did't said no.Zoupan and Alexikoua agree with the fact that my edits (and others made by other non-albanian editors) have to be deleted until consesnus (note that the edits of some other non-albanian editors have been there since a long time but you deleted them because you don't like them).But you don't agree with the fact that your recent edits have to be deleted until a consesnus too (as some of them are clear vandalism). You always,but always (just see your editing's history) delete others' edits and references.Strange.You always delete albanian's editors edits but you don't know what to say.Alexikoua deleted my edits at "Kara Mahmud Pasha" saying "rv poorly cited (you have been advised how to do that properly without false ISBNs)".Actually there wasn't any ISBN there.He LIED. This is what some specific users :Alexikoua,Zoupan,Dr.K ,Athenean do,they just destroy others' work,especially the work of Albanian editors. Note:It's the second time that unregistred users delete my work.After the habit of those four user to delete my edits was introduced here,some unregistred users are undoing my edits.STRANGE!Rolandi+ (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

After the habit of those four user to delete my edits was introduced here,some unregistred users are undoing my edits.STRANGE!: Actually your insinuation is not strange at all. That was the favourite MO of blocked sock Bonender: Are you a sock puppet account of Alexikoua ? Cause i will seek investigation cf. Malbin210's SPI. Strange indeed. Isn't it? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Also here you accuse Athenean of being Alexikoua's sock: disruptive editing by Alexikoua's sock,maybe needs reporting Funny that. Very similar phraseology to Bonender's. Really funny stuff, ain't it? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The real fun is that you claim that people that doesn't have the same ideas with you are socks.Why don't you go and see how many contributions you have deleted by claiming that others are sock...hundreads...thousands.How is possible that you edit at the same article at the same time?Rolandi+ (talk) 09:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Block Rolandi+ and move on I'm amazed at the lack of action and long discussions. This in an incredibly simple matter that does not need to take up anyone's time. Rolandi+ is definitely guilty of multiple policy violations as clearly demonstrated in the discussion. No other user appears to have done anything wrong. I suggest an admin just closes this discussion with a suitable block for Rolandi+. When a situation is this clear, there is no need for all the drama currently taking place.Jeppiz (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

As I see Roland had already reflected on his wrong doing, which I fail to see on Alexikoua, and what is more outrages I see that people fail to understand the subtle difference of personal offences and arguments. Roland is being offended here and still is argumenting his positions. Resnjari is right, there are very few Albanian in Wiki, which is being 'taken over' from sources provided from our neighbors (as in the Vjosa case as he/she mentions). This to be honest shouldn't be normal and not fair. This is almost supression due to numbers. Wiki should be a place of consensus, harmony and inclusions, not the place where biggest actors surpress the smallest. QTeuta (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)QTeuta

Edit warring on Albanians

There is now an edit war going on at this article between User:Rolandi+ and User:SilentResident. See article history. I've notified SilentResident. Rolandi+ is already party to this discussion. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I've notified SilentResident about discretionary sanctions, as he does not appear to have ever been notified in the past. ~ Rob^Talk 21:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I deeply apologize for the 3-revert rule, I just tried to revert the POV edits by the user Rolandi+. Feel free to check the page's history Albania. Again, my apologies if I broke the 3-revert rules, this was not my intention. --SilentResident (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

When Rolandi+ insisted on his POV edits on Albanians and refused to provide any reliable sources for his edits in the appropriate talk page, even after 3 reverts, I realized that I had no other option but to ask politely for a moderator's attention on the issue, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Unsourced_POV_edits_on_population_figures I didn't had any bad intentions, I just tried to prevent POV edits on the page. My apologies. --SilentResident (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions warnings should not be given on the basis of a single edit-warring incident on a single article. That's why we have the 3RR rule. Only when the editing causes disruption in more than one Balkans-related article and there is a pattern of disruptive editing in multiple Balkans-related articles a DS warning should be issued. SilentResident does not qualify for a DS warning under these criteria. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

This has become ludicrous. Reverting edits by a DE does not merit sanction warnings. As noted by Dr. K, Rolandi+ has established a NOTHERE editing pattern and is oblivious to BRD to the point of being pure BATTLEGROUND. DS warnings for GF editors (particularly where they are obviously aware of the existence of the DS) smacks of punitive action inferring that the editor is acting in bad faith. Surely there is a point at which Wikipedia sysops should review the nature of incidents and not shift the onus to the reverter while ignoring the BURDEN on the contributor to back up their content changes/additions with cite checked RS (nor allow for non-sysops to play the blame game by using DS warnings to be used as badges of shame). This can only be construed as rewarding bad faith editing on some obscure point of POV righteousness. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

A DS notification is just that - a notification. As the template itself states, it is not an implication of any wrongdoing, but merely a notification. If he plans to continue editing in that area, it's something he should be aware of. I meant nothing more by it than that. I agree that my warning did not meet Dr.K's criteria, but those criteria are not part of any actual policy that I've been able to find. ~ Rob^Talk 01:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

A DS notification is just that - a notification. As the template itself states, it is not an implication of any wrongdoing, but merely a notification.: That does not mean that one should proceed with notification overkill or notify in the absence of good grounds for a notification. A DS is designed to warn about disruption in the Balkans area. An edit-warring dispute in a single Balkans article does not equal disruption in the Balkans area. Good judgment is needed when using Arbcom instruments. You will not find this requirement in any policy but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

DS notification is not a sanction. It's notification that special policy applies, for editors working in a topic area that have done something that merited attention. That something may or may not have been actionable but attracted attention.

We had prior arguments over whether it was a hostile action or abusive to DS notify someone, and the consensus was that involved parties should not under that circumstance but others' doing so was not a problem. Was there something specific here that was a problem?... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you George. I have seen the prior debates and I understand the arguments. Having said that, I think a notification to an editor who has not exhibited disruptive behaviour in the area of the Balkans is not necessary. A single article in the Balkans area is not the area of the Balkans. Here we have Rolandi+, an edit-warring champion in the area of the Balkans edit-warring, as is his custom, with an editor who has no record of disruptive behaviour in the Balkans area. I think it is an overkill to give the latter a DS warning absent any evidence that his behaviour is going to spread to at least one more Balkans article. I think using discretion in such cases is a good idea. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

He was engaging in behavior that could easily lead to a report to WP:AN3 if it continued. Had that occurred, an admin would have almost certainly brought up the discretionary sanctions (if only to mention them). I'm of the opinion that an editor should not first hear about discretionary sanctions when they're being talked about on a noticeboard. They should know what they're getting into before they engage in any behavior that is borderline, as they may choose not to engage in that behavior if they're aware of the discretionary sanctions. Keep in mind that, on the flip side, an editor that is editing positively in a contentious area subject to discretionary sanctions will want to know about them so they can respond appropriately to disruptive editors if necessary. Knowledge is power, etc etc ~ Rob^Talk 03:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

It is somehow speculative to assume that an admin at 3RRN will issue DS warnings to the parties but even if s/he does I don't see the problem with being informed at the noticeboard. I think it is preferable to see the warning at the noticeboard than being slapped with it at one's talkpage. There are also other ways to inform editors about DS without slapping them with a formal notice. Knowledge is power and other such slogans are ok but being slapped with a DS notice on their talkpage is intimidating to some editors never mind the disclaimers and associated slogans. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Echoing Dr. K's sentiments, the problem is that I would consider the notification as being a bad judgement call on behalf of BU Rob13. While experienced editors are aware of the fact that, technically, it isn't an accusation of wrongful editing behaviour, such warnings should be issued bearing in mind the context (it takes two to tango, but substantiating who's leading the dance is of primary concern). In this instance, the new contributor did not receive the same warning to at least meet with a sense of parity, whereas it was directed at a more experienced editor who was reverting badly sourced, POV content whereas the other party (whose amendments to the content actually carry the BURDEN) was not following through discussions per BRD. The new contributor has already been previously blocked, harrassed non-partisan editors and cast WP:ASPERSIONS as to the nature of their editing, and is treating Wikipedia articles surrounding Albanian issues as a BATTLEGROUND. I'll admit to the fact that I've already been worn down by the opponent by trying to comply with AGF, this courtesy has not been extended to any editors attempting to communicate with Rolandi+ (see the section on my talk page + the diffs outlining multiple examples of harassment of other editors in this thread, not simply this subsection).

While I'm not condemning BU Rob13 for posting the DS notification, at the very least a reciprocal alert should have also been posted on Rolandi+'s talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Good point Iryna, but I did that some weeks ago as soon as I realised we were faced with yet another edit-warring champion in the Balkans area. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Propose topic ban of Rolandi+

Just a few days ago, Rolandi posted this, saying (and I quote) "As I said ,we need to be more carefull in the future and stop edit warring.". Yet today he racked up 3 reverts at Albanians, no problem. Is there anyone here who still believes a word this user says? He has lost all credibility in my opinion. Any more warnings are a waste of time, he will make all the right noises to avoid punishment and then as soon as he thinks no one is looking he will revert to form (no pun intended). I am thus proposing that he be topic banned from Balkan related articles, broadly construed. Proposed. Athenean (talk) 05:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• "Support". While I would be reticent to support a general block against Rolandi+ (as has been suggested in the earlier thread), if the user is genuinely committed to being HERE, s/he needs to familiarise themselves with WP:PG by working on articles outside of the contentious ones directly and indirectly involving Albania. Throwing themselves into the deep end of an area they have partisan alliances to without any experience in moderating their behaviour is bound to be distressing for both the user and regular editors. At some point in the future, after demonstrably positive input, the topic ban could be reviewed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Irina Harpy,all the problem here is that I said you that I will report you because you sent me a false warning and because you falsificated the reference at Vlachs.This is tha all the problem.Why don't you go and see what really happened at Albanians?Why?That editor and me used the talk page and I explained him his mistakes.Also,my edits aren't reverts of his edits (except one only after we talk at the talk page),but improvements of his recent work.Go and see to believe it.So don't try to LIE AGAIN.Rolandi+ (talk) 09:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Also go and see what SilentResident did at Albanians.Milliyet says that 500 thousand have consciousness of their Albanian origin while there are 1.3 mln albanians in turkey.This is POV .It means he isn't neutral and then the problem is me.The only problem is that some editors delete informations (not always added by me ,for example at Albanians ) claiming that the references aren't reliable.When the reference is a well known scholar,the problem is the user who deletes it.Also I didn't make edit-warring,I improved some informations (some of them were added by SilentResident) and reverted his edits only one time .

Also ,after this ANI was created and some Greek editors were involved on it,how is it possible that some other greek editors started deleting well established informations about Albanians?No, this isn't a problem,the problem strangely is only me! Rolandi+ (talk) 09:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Also SilentResident doesn't need to LIE.He said he deleted my POV,but the informations that he deleted without any clear explanation and without concensus are there since a long time.Those informations weren't added by me.SO HE LIED AGAIN AS HE DID ABOUT MILLIYET REFERENCE.AND THEN THE PROBLEM IS ME!!!!You are very neutral!Rolandi+ (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Support topic ban Rolandi+ has shown beyond any doubt they are WP:NOTHERE, and continues to violate several policies. The continued comments by Rolandi+ inthis thread further show the user is unwilling to hear and continues to insist the problem is everybody else. Broad topic ban only solution.Jeppiz (talk) 10:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Rolandi+, you have just attacked me and called me a liar. This is very sad and unfortunate of your part. I have expected that, like how I am trying to be polite with you, I could have enjoyed a minimum level of reciprocity in my politeness to you. I wish you could show some maturity at least, because Wikipedia is not a playground where we fight with other Wiki users, nor it is a bar where we accuse them of blatant lies. While you speak with accusations and insults, I speak with logic. While you are resorting to edit wars with other users, reverts and insults, I have at least tried asking for your cooperation in bringing more sources for citation. I have nothing against you, and it only saddens me that Wikipedia is overshadowed by people of your kind whose the actions disrupt the peaceful environment and cooperation with other users. I am very sad, and I am sorry. --SilentResident (talk) 10:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

And dear community, because I am involved in this unfortunate tension with Rolandi+, I don't think I am eligible in taking position regarding Rolandi's ban suggestion. (so I won't be voicing pro-banning or against banning him, and will stay neutral).--SilentResident (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose': My preference is that further discussion is had with Rolandi. When i have done so how certain sources or numbers may be an issue, he has taken it on board and relented (for example the Cham Albanian page or the Tomasso article). Some editors here who are advocating for a ban have in the past referred to certain proposed changes with peer reviewed material i have done as "POV" (while after backing off when i invoked Wikipedia policy and so on and in the end have gone through. They have also shown to be very selective with Wikipedia policy or even to the point of making it up to prevent peer reviewed material going into an article. For more see: Talk:Souliotes) and have said things such as questioning my cognitive abilities which was very offensive (For more see Talk:Greek Muslims). I do not trust some editors’ motives in this instance for banning Rolandi, due in part to my experiences with them. There are many Greek and Serbian editors, but so few Albanian ones these days. I call for outside adjudication regarding the matter so trust and good faith can be restored and some articles that are in need of a fix up to be done as such with peer reviewed material and free of intimidation and personal attacks as i have experienced repeatedly for a select number of editors here now going after Rolandi. Outside intervention is needed so as to prevent any ganging up like activity from occurring.Resnjari (talk) 10:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

SilentResident,your words are very beautifull.Why don't you go and see what did you do at Albanians article?Why?Also keep in mind that I do not intend to offend anyone,I said that you lied because you really lied.And your words (your lies about what really happened at Albanians )may send me to a block.Rolandi+ (talk) 10:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Alexioua and me have made edit warring (Alexikoua has made edit warring at hundreads and thousands other cases about Balkans related articles ,more than me) so Athenean proposed topic ban ONLY for me.Interesting!Rolandi+ (talk) 11:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I want to report Rolandi for trying to blakcmail me now, in the Talk: Albanians, he threatened me twice: "So revert your edits about the albanians in turkey,or I will report you after that ANI" and "I may be blocked for this topic,but this doesn't mean that I can't report you for your vandalism.So go and delete your edits about albanians in turkey". He is basically threatening me that if I don't undo his reverted POV edits, I will get reported! Please, any help? --SilentResident (talk) 11:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes,go and read Wikipedia's rules about the use of concensus when you want to delete well-established informations.I am involved at this ANI now,after that I will report your falsification of sources (see what Milliyet really says about the number of albanians in Turkey).I also will report you for your lies (you said that you deleted my POV,while they weren't added by me ) and for your vandalism (you deleted well -established referenced infos without concensus ).Rolandi+ (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Support topic ban. I tried explaining to him the importance of having reliable facts and sources in Wikipedia's articles, and especially in the sensitive ones related to the Balkan region. This person however is pushing things off edge by trying to blackmail the me and accuse the others! I agree with Jeppiz and the people above, this user should be banned, at least from the Balkan-related articles. --SilentResident (talk) 12:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

This ANI is about Alexikoua and me,but the discussion here is only about me.who are discussing?athenean,zoupan and dr.k who have deleted almost all my work and edits (and many other's edits,just see their history ).also,i had said to irina harpy and silentresident that i will report them,so thay came here talking against me!this isn't fair.why isn't there any problem with alexikoua's edit warring ?why?he has deleted many others' work and edits (not only albanian editors )only by saying "manifesto","nationalism""propaganda" etc. This isn't fair and it's sure this will not end here.if neended,i will try contacting wikipedia for the fact that the discussion here is only about me.you can ban me,but this will not end so easily. This is not a thread,i am just saying what is going to happen.this is ridiculous,the discussion here is made only by some editors that don't have the moral right to discuss here,for the only reason they have been accused from me for several things.on the other hand,alexikoua isn't mentioned on this discussion. Also note that I haven't made edit warring since that ANI.The only one is at Albanians where SilentResident deleted many infos (with a part I agree,with some no ),I tried to explain him the Wikipedia's rules (I would send him a warning but I am at this ANI now ).This isn't my fault.Anyways I will be more carefull in the future and I will solve problem at Albanians at ANI .Rolandi+ (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• To be frank, Rolandi+ has made no contribution (or "work"). A topic ban would possibly stop his disruptive editing if he decides to change his ways, and give him a chance to contribute. If he then continues his behaviour which we've seen thus far, definitely block as per WP:NOTHERE.--Zoupan 00:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Zoupan,you said I have made no contribution....where did you learn that?Go see my editing history (all my editings at balkans ralated articles and balkans non-related articles ) and then come and talk here. As I said: This ANI is about Alexikoua and me,but the discussion here is only about me.who are discussing?athenean,zoupan and dr.k who have deleted almost all my work and edits (and many other's edits,just see their history ).also,i had said to irina harpy and silentresident that i will report them,so thay came here talking against me!this isn't fair.why isn't there any problem with alexikoua's edit warring ?why?he has deleted many others' work and edits (not only albanian editors )only by saying "manifesto","nationalism""propaganda" etc. This isn't fair and it's sure this will not end here.If neended,i will try contacting wikipedia for the fact that the discussion here is only about me.you can ban me,but this will not end so easily. This is not a thread,i am just saying what is going to happen.this is ridiculous,the discussion here is made only by some editors that don't have the moral right to discuss here,for the only reason they have been accused from me for several things.on the other hand,alexikoua isn't mentioned on this discussion. Also note that I haven't made edit warring since that ANI.The only one is at Albanians where SilentResident deleted many infos not added by me (with a part I agree,with some no ),I tried to explain him the Wikipedia's rules (I would send him a warning but I am at this ANI now ).This isn't my fault.Anyways I will be more carefull in the future and I will solve problem the at Albanians at ANI .Rolandi+ (talk) 08:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Zoupan i am very concerned that you have inferred that Rolandi "has made no contribution (or "work")". He has contributed to many other non-Balkan articles and his edits have stayed. Only an administrator can make that call. The issue is with Balkan related material. My advice to you Rolandi is use google books and scholar if you do not have access to a university database of journal articles and academic books. Believe me you will save yourself a lot of trouble. Look for Western peer reviewed material that has done work in the field and do google the author to make sure their work does not have creditability issues or they as a academic. Then do as you will. I have been going through your Balkan related edits and they have been challenged on a variety of matters, a sizable amount with due reason. I understand where you are coming from as an Albanian. But be cautious. I do not want you to get banned. Going through the archive of some of the articles and their talk pages just very recently, a picture is emerging that it is a select few who have engaged in making editing for Albanian editors quite difficult. Nothing has been done about that, yet you are making yourself the focus of attention and giving them the justification to continue with such forms of intimidation while making them getting away with it. There are editors in here who have abused their privileges. The focus needs to be upon them, not you. I urge you most emphatically as one Albanian to another or as a brother to brother to reflect carefully and take into consideration what i have written and how to go about editing controversial topics. There are few Albanian editors and their numbers have shrunk here already and continues to do so. Don't allow yourself to be another in that line. Be aware its difficult for us like editors of other backgrounds like the Palestinians, Turks, African Americans and so on who also have low numbers contributing and have issues in having their voice heard. Its harder for us because this is after all a Western platform. Don't forget that. Take care Rolandi. Resnjari (talk) 09:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

As for Resnjari's advice for me,I totally agree and I will be more carefull in the future.Rolandi+ (talk) 09:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I disagree with Resnjari that Rolandi+'s behavior is really affecting the rest of the Albanian editors negatively or positively. At least not for me. I don't know if Rolandi is Albanian or not, and that little matters. My unpleasant encounter with Rolandi+ does not affect in any way my attitude towards other Albanians. I have met other editors, of other ethnicities and their behavior can not (and should not) be compared to that of Rolandi+, and so, it is logical that here in the Administrator noticeboard, the matter is not the ethnicity of a person, but his behavior and attitude. Rolandi+ is subject for his indimitative attitude. Of course this in no way this means that the other Albanian editors of Wikipedia could be affected or related to Rolandi's case in any way, just because of his ethnicity. And this should not be allowed to happen. Wikipedia should and must encourage the and contribution of all the people regardless of ethnicity. --SilentResident (talk) 12:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Like i have said in the past, an in depth discussion free of diatribe with Rolandi will go a long way to solving these issues. How is it that after i have engaged with Rolandi that he has desisted regarding certain articles, while the rest of you continue with the path you have taken regarding him ? It has created a situation where all positions have hardened and no progress has occurred. I never said anything about Rolandi’s behavior affecting Albanian editors. But I definitely want him around. There are so few Albanian editors around and he has a passion for doing the editing task and patrolling pages. It’s just how he has gone about it that is the issue and needs refinement. You say you have had a unpleasant encounter with Rolandi, I have more than a few more than a few with Athenean who has even questioned my cognitive abilities (what the heck does that have to do with editing the article!) and called my peer reviewed edits and proposed changes better suited to a “blog” and even called changes regarding articles relating to Albanians “irrelevant”. And yet I have extended in a spirit of good will to him even after all of that to only engage with the material (and to do no personal attacks) and all he has done is repeatedly continued with such mannerisms. Alexikoua on the other hand (part from saying POV, POV, POV to my proposed edits based on peer reviewed sources in the talk page as a first reaction) has even made up Wikipedia policy in order in an attempt to restrict peer reviewed sources from going into a article (like the Albanian name of the Souliots) saying that a “10% threshold” was needed without providing any proof (It went through in the end, but not without much problems by other editors also). What am I to make of that then especially, for example, when Alexikoua has numerous privileges and undoing edits? All my edits are based on sources of the highest quality. I can vouch for all and albeit one (due to “original research reasons”), all have gone through. But how much stuff did I have to write to argue for the inclusion of those edits in the talk page because I was accused of POV pushing – and these are for edits I have proposed in the talk page. I have not edited them even into the article yet!) It has become an absurdity frankly! Also if did place these issues on the Administrator notice board who would act upon it anyway? It would be me pitted against people who have privileges. The system is not balanced and is currently two tiered. Because of this, my trust in the system is very minimal at the moment. It is on this basis also that I distrust this campaign against Rolandi. Yes Rolandi needs to clean up his act, but it’s a no to any form of a ban.Resnjari (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Strongly oppose: I admit to have not read in depth the technical arguments in the articles and the full details the case with Rolandi+ and Alexikou. Nevertheless, I can clearly see that in relations to challenging articles related to Albania, the other editors belong to countries that openly disagree with the most Albanian-promoted version of histories, e.g. Greek, Serbian, Russian (all supportive of pro-slavic, pro-orthodox christian and anti-albanian theses). I find it equally disturbing that the users with common views opposing the Albanian vision of history, unite to ban an Albanian editor. I have the impression that this has nothing to do with Rolandi+ (despite his flamboyant temperament), since similar heated attitudes are exhibited by most other editors. Then, how do we solve the disputes? Easy, create an anti-Albanian majority and kick the Albanian out. While it might have worked in the past, it is not fair. Admins should be careful to not punish editors from the tiny nation of Albania, only because the opposing pro-slavic pro-orthodox sides (Greeks, Serbian, Macedonian, Russian) are more numerous. In my opinion, this anti-Albanian discriminating behavior is not fair and should stop. OppositeGradient (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

OppositeGradient, that is a comment without any merit, and it violates WP:NPA. There is no anti-Albanian conspiracy here. Personally, I don't think I've ever edited an article even remotely related to anything Albanian, I'm neither pro-Albanian or anti-Albanian. Your whole argument seem to be nationalistic (we shouldn't ban Rolandi+ because he is Albanian as well as there's an anti-Albanian conspiracy at play). At ANI, we should not care one way or another. Bad conduct is bad conduct regardless of a user's nationality. The fact of the matter is that Rolandi+ has violated Wikipedia policies time and time again, and continues to violate them despite several warnings. Everything else is irrelevant.Jeppiz (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Ethnicity-based arguments are the silliest form of discourse and do not belong anywhere and especially on Wikipedia. Same goes for ethnicity-based conspiracies which are an even worse form of argument. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Jeppiz due to my experience with certain editors, saying that the Albanian factor is not present in their persistence regarding making editing difficult POV is very questionable. In my experience as I have mentioned repeatedly in previous posts now, I can cite many examples to the contrary. And it is some of those same editors now also going after Rolandi. Makes on wonder. Dr. K, it no conspiracy. Ask Athenean, why my cognitive abilities (or of any interest to him) were questioned or why Albanians are “irrelevant” in an article that relates about Albanians (e.g. Northern Epirus? The ethnic issue here is at play for some editors in how they view those changes done by editors who they don’t like. How else does one interpret their interest about a person's cognitive abilities, making up Wikipedia policy and saying Albanians are irreverent? Resnjari (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Jeppiz, you can be characterized as an Exception that proves the rule :) Please note that I mentioned well-known attitudes toward Albanians, instead conspiracies focus on non-evident facts. In fact, the question is whether the other editors oppose the Albanian guy i) because they had a full disagreement on the respective topic, or ii) because they blindly respect Wikipedia rules. Stated otherwise, those editors would be credible if they would find his behavior disruptive despite agreeing with him. Let me further iterate, Rolandi+ is not significantly more combatant than for instance Alexikou, right (plus minus the same style)? Then, why do the 'neutral' editors above not raise a flag on Alexikou as well? The only explanation is because they publicly share his opinions on the articles under concern. Jeppiz, it is very easy to blame a person without seeing the big picture. Perhaps you and I would also lose our cool if several editors gang against us because of our opinions (not behaviors). For instance, he mentions that his reliable sources are mistreated and ignored to the point of driving him mad. Analyzing those behaviors is highly important for the quality Wikipedia. For this reason I think we should not selectively punish Rolandi+. Instead we should all work together on trying to break the existing 'gang-style' lobbying in Albania-related articles. Meanwhile I advise Rolandi+ and all editors involved in heated discussions to cool down a bit and let go. OppositeGradient (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Rolandi+ is not significantly more combatant than for instance Alexikou, right (plus minus the same style)? Then, why do the 'neutral' editors above not raise a flag on Alexikou as well? This betrays a total lack of understanding of the content that Rolandi+ is pushing in this area. Calling Alexikoua "combantant" shows no understanding of the disruptive MO of Rolandi who is pushing his POV through falsification of sources and OR. But we have been through these points in multiple fora as well as in this report, so I am not sure why you seem oblivious to them. Alexikoua has been editing this area for years and is an expert in this subject area. He is a very knowledgeable and moderate editor who has reached consensus with many Albanian editors before. He has also faithfully countered wave after wave of relentless and disuptive socks over the years defending Wikipedia from socks who wanted to convert many historical figures to Albanian including George Washington's mother Mary Ball Washington. Alexikoua should be congratulated for his tireless efforts through the years defending Wikipedia's policies not unfairly criticised haughtily from those who have no idea of the relevant article content. That he has a problem with Rolandi+ is indicative of Rolandi's POV-push problems. You are welcome to your opinion obviously but if you do not understand or investigate more deeply the parameters of this discussion you should not accuse Alexikoua for no good reason. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

My friend, please do not tell me you think Alexikou is a hero :) The way I see it is two combatant editors showing similar attitudes. The only difference is that most editors commenting here have a history of disagreeing with Rolandi+, which makes the credibility of his inquisition questionable. OppositeGradient (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Please do not patronise me when you address me. I don't know you at all, let alone consider you my friend. I will not repeat myself but I will just reiterate one point: You are completely unaware of the content issues involved so offering your opinion on a content issue you have no idea about is not constructive. And yes, Alexikoua has been defending the content policies of Wikipedia, a fact that completely escapes you because you have no idea of the content involved. But I said that before. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Please note everybody, "OppositeGradient" is a sock of User:Sulmues, one of the most disruptive editors to plague the Balkans topic areas [57]. He always thought in ethnic "terms" and that disruptive Albanian editors should not be banned no matter how disruptive just becaue "it's not fair". Athenean (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@Athenean: I suspect that you're correct, and that a WP:SPI is in order. The similarities in MO (language, battleground, personal, harass, etc.) are distinctive. OppositeGradient is currently operating in the same manner on the current Kosovo RfC. S/he has admitted to being this IP, but has been active there as this, this, and this IP at the least. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

"Alexikoua should be congratulated for his tireless efforts". Yep so then why does such an editor then try to make up Wikipedia policy. A selective "moderate editor who has reached consensus with many Albanian editors before". That is open to interpretation. Not all would agree. Resnjari (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Support topic ban. Editor clearly disobeys rules and consensus and gathers support from regular crowd of POV pushers. Naphtha Termix (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, do you mean Rolandi+ alone, or both editors involved in the combative discussions are responsible for the heat? By the way, who are the regular crowd of POV pushers supporting Rolandi+? I am particularly interested, since Rolandi+ is being 'attacked' by most editors expressing opinions here. OppositeGradient (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

You for one. Naphtha Termix (talk) 04:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Really, I am a "regular crowd POV pusher"??? :) Ok, Mr. POV-dreamer, if you would be thinking before you typeset, you would realize I was not part of any article discussions involving Rolandi+. How can I be POV if I was not participating at any discussion (for your records in contrast to most editors here opposing him). Thanks for the dose of morning smile :). That closes it from my side. OppositeGradient (talk) 06:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Strong support Rolandi+ is a combative, edit-warring POV-pusher who has triggered all the POV-push alarm bells in this area of the Balkans. His edit-warring and POV edits align closely to the edits of countless socks which have plagued this area for years. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

As I said I will be more carefull in the future .Rolandi+ (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I Strongly Oppose any ban on Rolandi, in light of all things cited in my above comments.Resnjari (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

You have already given your vote above, so please strike out this second vote. --T*U (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I have added the word comment to the above sentence. However I strongly oppose any ban on Rolandi for the reasons i have outlined and due to the editor involved in calling for such a thing.Resnjari (talk) 07:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The last thing to say is that I will be more carefull in the future .Rolandi+ (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Rolandi+, but oppose general block. I agree with Resnjari that Rolandi+ shows signs of willingness to learn how Wikipedia works, but the edit history in Balkan-related pages shows that the editor will need to learn how to edit in a NPOV way. After a period of, say, half a year or one year, Rolandi+ will have the chance to show ability to follow Wikipedia guidelines (and possibly also will be able to learn punctuation rules) and may then apply for lifting of the topic ban, which I will support if the general edit history shows improvement. On another note, I will strongly lift my voice against all arguments above that are based on nationality. Being Albanian, Greek, Bulgarian, Siamese or whatever has no relevance to this discussion. --T*U (talk) 23:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
• I also oppose an outright ban, he is willing to learn the rules and can edit constructively. Maybe three months will be enough to make him stop and think, I am sure after that he will be very welcome on those articles. Naphtha Termix (talk) 04:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Rolandi, subscribe to some of the journal databases that Wikipedia is offering access to. Francis and Taylor has much stuff that relates to humanities type material that involves Balkan topics. As for TU-nor's comment that "I will strongly lift my voice against all arguments above that are based on nationality. Being Albanian, Greek, Bulgarian, Siamese or whatever has no relevance to this discussion." I will most strongly lift my voice and disagree with that view due to the following. I have shown evidence to the contrary and can do so even more. All things come into play because some editors reason's for claiming POV or refusing peer reviewed sources and data in an article have been based not on Wikipedia policy but other 'reasons'. These same editors are the same ones most adamant in wanting to ban Rolandi. All things must be considered because they are selective when using Wikipedia policy and sometimes have tried to make up Wikipedia policy. If you want more evidence and exact words (+editors involved) and were its all located i am more than happy and willing to have that discussion here (i was not aware of this process before till a few days a go). Again i say, no ban of Rolandi for the reasons outlined.Resnjari (talk) 07:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I read the Wikipedia's rules recently (carefully ) and I guarantee I have learned how to edit in a NPOV way.Also,you can see my recent constructive contributions in Balkans-related articles and in Balkans non related articles.So the best thing to do is to give me another chance.I know I have made many edit warring in the past but this will not happen in the future and I am sure for that.

I have read the Wikipedia's rules carefully and I will be more carefull in the future.

The right thing to do isn't to block me for some time,but to give me a "golden chance" and to patrol carefully all Balkan related articles.Rolandi+ (talk) 08:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I want you to not just patrol, but edit too, but to do it right. There are so few Albanian editors already and intimidation on other pages has occurred by editors seeking a ban for you. You getting banned will stifle a dwindling Albanian voice so limited at the moment. No ban. Wikipedia is a democratic forum, a ban of this nature will further curtail freedom of expression. A censure or something along those lines with a final warning that if it occurs again, it will be a ban for Rolandi. But no ban at this moment.Resnjari (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for a specific period of time (up to a year). I have only glanced at this discussion, but the edits I have seen from Rolandi from my watchlist (particularly at Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus) betray both a POV-ish attitude and a general WP:IDHT mentality. Regarding Alexikoua, as others have said, counting reverts is not the fairest way to apportion blame when dealing with such cases. I am however in favour of giving at least one more chance to people, and prepared for now to accept the argument that this is due to inexperience, and that there is remorse and will for improvement. Thus I would strongly recommend that during this ban period, Rolandi engage in article-writing in other areas and topics, so that he can a) gather experience about how things are done here and b) demonstrate his competence in constructive article-writing away from contentious topics. This should be sufficient to determine if he is a WP:SPA or WP:HERE... I also advise Rolandi to seek out a WP:MENTOR if he is serious about contributing constructively. Constantine ✍ 13:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Resnjari.The best thing isn't my block topic,but to give me my last chance.I have made many contructive contributions the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles .If I will do any other edit warring or any other bad thing like that,just ban me forever.

I read the Wikipedia's rules recently (carefully) and I will not make bad things anymore.I think I don't need to learn anymore,if I continue making edit warring or anything else,just ban me forever.

Also note that I have made many contributions that aren't related with Balkans articles,so I don't need time to learn or to demonstrate my competence (I have read Wikipedi's rules recently and I have done many contructive editings the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles ).I am using the talk page now ,as you can see in my recent history,I am not and will not make edit warring or anything else in the future.The only thing I need is a last chance,not a topic block.Rolandi+ (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

But you already said that, haven't you? And as soon as you thought no one was looking, you went and racked up 3 reverts over at Albanians in the blink of an eye. Why should anyone believe you at this point? Athenean (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

To Athenean,firstly,I knew that someone was looking me at Albanians.I know how Wikipedia works.

Secondly,when talking about my recent constructive contributions,I am talking about my construcive contributions after the Albanian case.Also we found concensus at Albanians.Also note that after the Albanian case I read the Wikipedia's rules carefully and now I know what is edit warring and why we need to use the talk page to make constructive contributions.

Thirdly ,I can say to the administrators.:The best thing isn't my block topic,but to give me my last chance.I have made many contructive contributions the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles .If I will do any other edit warring or any other bad thing like that,just ban me forever.

I read the Wikipedia's rules recently (carefully) and I will not make bad things anymore.I think I don't need to learn anymore,if I continue making edit warring or anything else,just ban me forever.

Also note that I have made many contributions that aren't related with Balkans articles,so I don't need time to learn or to demonstrate my competence (I have read Wikipedi's rules recently and I have done many contructive editings the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles ).I am using the talk page now ,as you can see in my recent history,I am not and will not make edit warring or anything else in the future.The only thing I need is a last chance,not a topic block.Rolandi+ (talk) 07:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Athenean, don't go accusing Rolandi. I just checked and he has not done any edits very recently on the Albanians page. I am the last editor to have made a contribution and a significant one [[58]]. Frankly Athenean you need to stop your behavior of accusations toward other editors. With me, you have questioned by cognitive faculties (very offensive), referred to Albanians as "irrelevant" in the Northern Epirus article (on the talk page) which is about a territory within the sovereign borders of Albania with a substantial Albanian population and you have referred to my proposed edits (all from peer reviewed western sources and importantly academics of Greek background) there in the talk page as "fit" for a "blog", not Wikipedia. You also said that you would not allow me to undertake any changes to articles, or by condescendingly referring to me as "its you" and "i thought it was you". These are but are few of your memorable comments after i have repeatedly stretched out a hand of good will to discuss and edit (like at the Talk:Greek Muslims or the Talk:Northern Epirus. Don't intimidate and or bully. Wikipedia is a democratic forum. Moreover I was not properly aware of this administrators board for incidents, but if you continue, and i say this to Alexikoua also who made up policy (a so called 10% threshold to try a prevent peer reviewed material going into the Souliots article, See: Talk:Souliotes) which is a no no in Wikipedia, i will lodge complaints against you both. Like i have said to you many times (by having to quote at length Wikipedia policy) Athenean stick to the content, not the person. Also, a FINAL warning to Rolandi will suffice with some short probationary period, but definitely no ban especially since those calling for it are less than innocent and their motives more than suspect (as i have outlined in the above posts). Resnjari (talk) 09:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I can perfectly understand most non-Balkan editors, who do not see how a majority of Greek/Slavic editors try to impose their version of history in most Albanian-related articles. I also dreamed of a world (and encyclopedia) where nationality is not important. Yet, all of us involved with any Albanian-related topic know this is not real. We cannot pretend that this situation is simply a random group of Greek/Slavic editors with randomly same opinion on Greek/Serbian-Albanian relations, all randomly start attacking a randomly Albanian editor who randomly happen to disagree to randomly all of them in randomly all disputed articles under consideration. Sure, the whole story is a random coincidence and has nothing to do with nationalistic views on history. If you think there is no difference between the ideal world and the Balkan reality, then I think this incident is destined to be misjudged. OppositeGradient (talk) 13:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Its why we need more outside oversight at times keep an eye on the editing process. There are those within Wikipedia who would object to material entering a article not its merit, but because it might go against a world view. For example the article Turco-Albanians was created by non-Albanian editors with southern Balkan heritage. It was created without any mention that the term has mostly pejorative connotations. Many editors who "contributed" and patrolled the article were against additions to that article or concerns of Albanian editors. Now because Albanian editors had either no access or were unaware of sources to make sure the article had no racism, those who patrolled (have a look at the page history bit of the article: Turco-Albanians: Revision history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turco-Albanians&action=history ) made things very difficult to get change there. Now i have made the changes there but it was not without its issues. Its because of this article that at first i was really annoyed, (its like having the article on the "n" word saying that its a friendly ethnographic term used by white people for African Americans) and overacted as Wikipedia says it does not promote racism. There also was a lot of POV on the Cham Albanians page (such as the unsubstantiated claim of Chams being involved in the deportation of Ioannina's Jews. It had a citation tag on there for more than two years). I found the source from where that had been copied and pasted. A Karl Savich article on the website Serbianna, a problematic website for one and two all the sources he had cited not one mentioned anything about it, and i checked them all !). Change was only done after a exhaustive process and accusations of POV. All my edits based on peer previewed material went through, but one for "original research" reasons. Currently i am in the process of editing the Northern Epirus article. As it stands now i have identified numerous issues of POV pushing and unsubstantiated claims made in there (as outlined in the talk page :[Talk:Northern Epirus]) and it reads more like a propaganda piece for the Greek Northern Epirote lobby than a encyclopedia article showing neutrality and balance. I have not even added my edits (based on peer reviewed material with inline citations and also mainly from Greek academics !) and into the article first, but on the talk page and invited editors to make comments on the content. So far, Athenean has come out with, no, no, no (to paraphrase his comments) and i have not even done the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle because i want everyone's constructive input, while Alexikoua had to be convinced that a article about a geographical place in Albania that has substantial numbers of Albanians which the literature on Northern Epirus states had to be included (see: Talk:Northern Epirus). It was not without its issues as at first, as i was again accused of POV pushing, then some edits i have made using peer reviewed material on other pages (about for example the remaining Albanian speaking presence in the Epirus article) and agreed to by those editors where in a way explained to me that they could be deleted if i persisted with these changes and only after exhaustively citing Wikipedia policy was a somewhat "normal" discussion started with Athenean's comments once in a while of no, no, no. But never a why, why, why, when asked. I urge non-Balkan oversight and outside intervention during the editing process of that article and to make sure that the discussion is had primarily on the content and that no intimidation occurs. I urge this of the administrators and others too of a non-Balkan background as there are also few Albanian editors and a fake consensus could also occur to block certain peer reviewed material relevant to the article going in.Resnjari (talk) 14:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

OppositeGradient, your passionate arguments in favour of a Slavo-Greek conspiracy would be much more believable (aside from the fact that one would have to completely ignore that Greek and Slavic nationalism don't make good bedfellows) if the case were actually precipitated by some anti-Albanian cabal ganging up on a poor blameless Albanian user, and not by the latter behaving in a typical tendentious manner that we all are sadly too familiar with. This thread was not started by Greeks nor Slavs, and complaining about cabals and secret agendas is always the last refuge of someone with no case and no arguments. The problem is Rolandi's behaviour and disruptive pattern of editing, which has caused this whole bruhaha. Of course other Balkan users will get involved, because Rolandi edits in Balkan-related articles, and pushing a particular POV he is bound to get in conflict not with German, Chinese, or American users, but with Greeks, Serbs, etc. i.e. with people who care about these articles. If his edits were more thought-out, if he provided decent sources, if he respected the WP:BRD rule, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Resnjari, I have seen you being engaged in page-long content disputes with Alexikoua and Athenean, but you are not reported at ANI. Why? Because you do not behave in a hot-headed manner, and argue on the basis of sources. I too would like to see more Albanian editors active at WP, but not if that means that we have to tolerate nationalistic hogwash POVs and edit-wars. Complaining about ethnic-based profiling and then arguing that a user should be cut more slack than usual because there are too few of his nationality around is a weird line of argument. I am willing to allow a period for Rolandi to shape up and matters to calm down, but with the provisional topic ban. Why? Because I've been here long enough to know that if he is WP:HERE to do serious work, then he will persist through this period and come out better from it. Without the ban, we'll in all likelihood be here again a month from now. Constantine ✍ 17:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

You said:"Without the ban, we'll in all likelihood be here again a month from now."Why are you so sure ?

I can say to the administrators:The best thing isn't my block topic,but to give me my last chance.I have made many contructive contributions the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles .If I will do any other edit warring or any other bad thing like that,just ban me forever. I read the Wikipedia's rules recently (carefully) and I will not make bad things anymore.I think I don't need to learn anymore,if I continue making edit warring or anything else,just ban me forever. Also note that I have made many contributions that aren't related with Balkans articles,so I don't need time to learn or to demonstrate my competence (I have read Wikipedia's rules recently and I have done many contructive editings the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles ).I am using the talk page now ,as you can see in my recent history,I am not and will not make edit warring or anything else in the future.The only thing I need is a last chance,not a topic block.Rolandi+ (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Constantine, the issue with Rolandi is no one here attempted to calm him down by properly showing the error of his ways that went beyond policy. I engaged with him in a manner, which lets be frank about it, has now stabilized the situation and he has but all ceased his previous activity. That is what dispute resolution is all about, while others kept fanning the flames. For example he deleted a comment of mine. So, i then placed another comment and explained what he was doing was out of whack regarding the material. I didn't go all paternalistic with him. He is an equal. No one is above or below and i stand by that. In general Rolandi will have to do much reading before editing some Balkan topics (like i said to him he should subscribe to the Francis and Taylor database, many good humanities journal articles there if he has no access to university stuff). He is in need of a last warning, that i agree, but no ban. I still think that a ban is not the way to go, due in part to some editors own behavior as i have pointed out. Athenean, has all but refused to engage with peer reviewed material that i put up as proposals, (not even in the article itself, but the talk page and has been disruptive when a consensus has been reached with an editor on the matter !) I have repeatedly urged him to engage in the discussion in good faith.) and has been very dismissive also (apart from his colourful commentary that has nothing to do with the article). Alexikoua also at one point made up policy (which is a Wikipedia no no) to try and prevent a peer reviewed source going into the Souliotes article which he as a editor with privileges should know better and so on (Will Alexikoua get a warning for doing that? I wonder). POVs occur when the material is in question. Why do i get repeated accusations and dismissiveness? Its not always Albanian editors engaged in POV pushing or edit wars. It also comes from the other side. I have given examples already to that effect, especially with regard to Athenean. To date all my sources have been of the highest quality (all peer reviewed) and so have my edits (yes at times the wording needs refinement, that's why in good faith i have asked for engagement and input in the talk page, not POV accusations which i still get), yet i still have to deal with these shenanigans. If Rolandi gets a (topic) ban than these others should too as they have intimidated people and violated Wikipedia policy. If Rolandi stuffs up again and we are all in here in a month as you say, then a ban is what he will get. But for now no. A definite, clear and final warning will do.Resnjari (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Diff of Rolandi+ removing warnings and discussions regarding his behaviour. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. I do not see If Rolandi gets a (topic) ban than these others should too as realistic.--Zoupan 00:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes he has been warned. As i am not aware previously as to who could give out such warnings (i thought it was only the administrators who could), Rolandi got caught out, while these other editors have been getting away with such behavior. All should get a warning and be reminded that they solely stick to examining the material and editing and not focus on the person. The others are in need of a warning by the administrators also. One cannot defend Alexikoua's making up policy regarding that "a 10% threshold" was need so a peer reviewed source could go into an article. Or in another article that if certain peer reviewed edits are sought for there, that other previously peer reviewed material (agreed to also by Alexikoua) would be subject to deletion. Zoupan how is that defensible, especially since Alexikoua has many privileges that other editors don't ? I have also outlined Athenean's behavior which is consistent and has bordered on and been sometimes outright offensive. No ban, only a final warning for Rolandi. If Rolandi gets a topic ban or whatever the others too + warnings. Administrators need to take these serious issues that i have outlined into account. Wikipedia is a place meant to be one free of intimidation or bullying and that goes for all. Stick to the policy and peer reviewed material ! Resnjari (talk) 07:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I am saying this again ( all editors can go to verify my recent constructive contribution).

I can say to the administrators:The best thing isn't my block topic,but to give me my last chance.I have made many contructive contributions the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles .If I will do any other edit warring or any other bad thing like that,just ban me forever. I read the Wikipedia's rules recently (carefully) and I will not make bad things anymore.I think I don't need to learn anymore,if I continue making edit warring or anything else,just ban me forever. Also note that I have made many contributions that aren't related with Balkans articles,so I don't need time to learn or to demonstrate my competence (I have read Wikipedia's rules recently and I have done many contructive editings the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles ).I am using the talk page now ,as you can see in my recent history,I am not and will not make edit warring or anything else in the future.The only thing I need is a last chance,not a topic block.Rolandi+ (talk) 08:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The discussion has been going on for almost ten days, and it takes up half of the entire ANI-board. One way or another it should be closed.Jeppiz (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Competence and civility issues with Koala15

• Koala15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

My latest encounter with Koala15 was on the Ted 2 page, where I fixed a fairly simple grammatical error [59] and was blankly reverted on sight [60]. I reverted back with the summary "Unexplained" [61] and he kept edit warring with the summary "Go home, your [sic] drunk" [62]. This happened again, until General Ization issued an EW warning on my talk page, and a civility warning [63] on Koala15's page. Koala15 repeatedly refused to apologize or even acknowledge that he was edit warring, dismissing General Ization with sentences such as "Have a sense of humor" and "There is no need for you to get so worked up over this", assuring him that he matter had been resolved, when in fact, it was not - and still is not. I explained very clearly on my talk page why I performed said edit, which prompted Koala15 to respond with a guideline that directly contradicts his edit - which I also explained. However, he refuses to "get it", while writing replies on the grammar level of a twelve year old - which I extensively tried to explain within the same discussion, examples being seeing him "use patently incorrect expressions like "more clearer", open a sentence with "hence", miss punctuation, or consistently not capitalize "I" as in first person", not to mention his first reply to me via edit summary: "Go home, your drunk".

A quick look on Koala15's talk page will reveal that he has been taunting other editors for a while, in an abrasive and unapologetic manner. A few select examples: User talk:Koala15#Reversions... [64], User talk:Koala15#July 2015 [65], User talk:Koala15#No [66], User talk:Koala15#Redirecting [67]. Another example of insisting on edit warring and being rude is here. I would like to finish this nuisance on the Ted 2 page and move on, but I would like to ensure that he doesn't spite revert me again. Please take care of this matter. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be about this at all. Thank you very much. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 20:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Well i tried to work with you, but you don't seem to wanna work with me. Most of the things you are linking from my talk page are simple misunderstandings. And i don't think you can report anyone for a 'lack of competence". Koala15 (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

How ironic... you have just given another dismissive and offensive reply. You are either not realizing it or deliberately insulting me, and neither case is welcome on Wikipedia. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 21:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I have had my own run-ins with Koala15, which can be seen at Talk:Penguins of Madagascar and Penguins of Madagascar. Koala15 had initially participated in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR over a copyedit tag about the article with a reason saying "And i do think an IP's suggestion is less valid, cause the majority of them are vandals.". Not all IPs are vandals. Some contribute with no issues at all. I find that comment uncivil and rather a POV statement. They persistently removed the tag until they reached 3 reverts. They stayed quiet on the article, but they removed it again but this time with reasons but not valid ones. There was still WP:Consensus going on in the talk page, which Koala15 dismissed. Instead of participating in WP:Discussion and ask for opinions, they removed the template again. I reverted them, stating that they weren't the user who added the template and to remove it from a user who disagreed with it in the beginning is very questionable. They started edit warring, making 5 reverts within a span of 12 hours, I believe. If they reached the 6th revert, I was going to report them. My warnings can be seen on the user's talk page and PfM's talk page. In terms of Koala15, I do think they make good edits and they help the community, but my only concern is the way they act. Upon disagreements they edit war and so on, it seems. I do agree that saying a user is drunk is uncivil as much as saying to a user they need help. It seems they have had run-ins with other people, excluding me, EauZenCashHaveIt and General Ization. I would suggest a warning about continuing disruptive editing but I'm not sure. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 21:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Well i apologize, i shouldn't have removed those maintenance templates without asking. And i don't think its fair to say i participated in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Koala15 (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Per one of the bullets, "An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental." You removed the template with this reasoning: "Uhm, yeah no." which certainly counts as you saying it's unnecessary without valid reasons and follows on of the statements "I can see nothing wrong with the article and there is no need to change anything at all." which you've given the impression (not even at this point) since the beginning and on the talk page. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 22:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Note for reviewing admins: here's the last "clean" version of Koala15's talk page, before he panicked and blanked it in order to invalidate the links I brought up earlier: [68]. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 21:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, it was time they cleaned their talk page (no offense, Koala15). It was so long, over 200 posts. They kept some stuff, so I don't think it would really matter since it's their talk page. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 22:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The timing though... anyway, I've said too much already. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 22:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• First, 200 posts going all the way back to 2012 probably needs archiving (and no, archiving isn't just blanking all the warnings) but that's not the issue here. Second, Wikipedia:Competence is required which includes social competency. Koala15's edits are problematic. Insulting and being uncivil is a concern. Individuals who cannot corroborate effectively have been shown the door before. I'd say there's civility here but I'll let some others chime on what they think should be done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
• Having had run-ins with Koala15 before, some of which have been referenced in this post, I thought I'd also chime in. While their edits themselves are not disruptive or problematic, aside from a lack of edit summary usage, Koala15's conduct towards other users is condescending, patronizing and downright rude in some cases. On multiple occasions I have been told by the user that I don't understand Wikipedia, ("You don't understand the guidelines") and that I'm a newbie who interprets policies wrong ("I understand that you are new here, but you seem to lack a simple understanding of the rules of Wikipedia."), which if anyone else has been on the receiving end of, would know that it's incredibly frustrating. Initially I thought I was the only one to be scolded as deluded by Koala15, but apparently I'm not the only one. A quick CNTRL+F searching for the word "understand" on an old revision of their talk page shows three distinct immediate instances where Koala15 downplayed other editors, brushing them off as not understanding some aspect of the project: I'm not even gonna bother responding to this nonsense, cause you clearly don't even have a basic understanding of Wikipedia., "Once again you show that you don't understand the guidelines." and "It sounds like you don't understand Wikipedia." and "You are possibly the most clueless editor i have ever met.". While Koala15's talk page only showed a few instances of their incivility, I imagine I wasn't the first to be insulted on their talk page or via edit summaries. A block doesn't seem appropriate to me, and would quite possibly chase Koala15 away, given how bitter and angry they already come off with a near-clean block log, but an assurance from the user that the'll try and be more civil and get off their high horse would be nice. Azealia911 _talk 10:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Koala15 care to respond? Azealia911 _talk 10:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Well its easy to take my quotes out of context and try to me make me look bad, but in the context of the conversation they were more or less facts. Either way you seem like a good editor, it just took you a while to fully understand the guidelines. Which is fine, it took me a while when i first joined Wikipedia. Koala15 (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh Koala15, you really are being serious aren't you? You're not even trolling, sigh. I guess that means no chance of an apology for being rude and condescending? (the latter of which is ironically displayed in your most recent reply). Azealia911 _talk 17:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Well its definitely not my intention to be "rude and condescending" that's just how I talk. I think its really a matter of how you choose to interpret my words. In the future, i will try to be more thoughtful with my reply's since it bothers everyone so much. Now hopefully we can put this whole thing behind us and move on. Koala15 (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

No, we can't... at least not while you maintain these dismissive and unapologetic replies. Each and every one of those reinforces the incompetence claim. You've been told the same thing by everyone here: apologize, show genuine regret, and we will move on. Your telling everyone to move on while sarcastically dismissing every concern raised on this page is nothing short of offensive. Notice that it's you who keeps brushing off every opportunity to make things right. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 23:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I second EauZenCashHaveIt's comments, completely accurate. Koala15, your replies just demonstrate what everyone here is trying to tell you, you just seem to not be hearing us, replying with the behavior and tone that landed you here. Back handed comments like "Either way you seem like a good editor, it just took you a while to fully understand the guidelines" don't do anything but frustrate me, and "I think its really a matter of how you choose to interpret my words" is absurd, so it's our fault for getting offended at what you say? "i will try to be more thoughtful with my reply's since it bothers everyone so much" you say, acting as if we're burdening you with actually being...nice?! Maybe take responsibility for your actions, genuinely apologize (which you have yet to do) and maybe then we can move on. Azealia911 _talk 18:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I thought i did apologize. But yes i apologize if i offended anyone, that was definitely not my intention. Hopefully we can move on now. Koala15 (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for apologising Koala15, yep, that's all I needed, take care. Azealia911 _talk 19:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

jeez a bit hypocritical to talk about incivility when you're saying he has the grammar of a 12 year old. and why would you care about grammar on the internet anyway? poli 19:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering when the usual devil's advocate would make their appearance. This is an encyclopedia, grammar is a basic requirement here. And most importantly: while Azealia may or may not have gotten their apology, the general issue is still unresolved. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 19:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

obsessing over grammar is so pretentious. i promise you're not smarter than anyone else here so chill. poli 22:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Would you like your name to be added to the report? EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 00:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• EauZenCashHaveIt, what exactly are you looking to happen? Koala15 has apologized and said that they will be more thoughtful with their conduct. I say leave it, we've given them the rope, its their choice to hang themselves with more rudeness, land back here, and ultimately be blocked, or lasso their next edits with both hands (yes, that is literally the only analogy I could think of for positive things to do with rope). What else would you propose? Azealia911 _talk 19:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@Azealia911: I am looking for a more permanent solution than an obviously insincere apology with no indication of any behavioral change. But hey, if there are no takers then I guess we both have better things to do than bark up that tree. If you are satisfied then I won't say anything, at least until something new happens. Sadly, I have a feeling I am not mistaken. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 19:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Thomas.alrasheed evading block with Saudi IPs

User:Thomas.alrasheed was blocked on 26 June for vandalism, for making sneaky and false changes. Since then, a handful of Saudi IPs have been doing the same thing at the same articles.

These are the involved IPs:

• 14 July 91.147.158.2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 14 July 5.41.92.111 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 14 July 37.16.140.91 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 12–13 July 95.185.219.189 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 12 July 5.41.33.123 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 10–11 July 95.185.127.27 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 6, 13 July 37.16.146.46 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 3 July 93.169.136.252 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2 July 93.169.59.51 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 1 July 93.169.12.138 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 1 July 78.95.255.95 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 30 June 78.95.244.95 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 29 June 93.169.155.41 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 29 June 93.168.23.175 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 28 June 5.156.128.116 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 27–29 June 78.95.146.48 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 24–25 June 93.168.204.202 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 19–23 June 91.108.164.48 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

The question is how to stop this guy? Do we protect articles, or block IPs, or set a few rangeblocks, or set a filter? Binksternet (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Not convinced rangeblocks would be helpful looking at the IP ranges, edit filter might be the best way to go depending on the contribution changes, page protection is onyl other viable option . Amortias (T)(C) 18:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

FYI, Thomas.alrasheed registered his account on 25 June but the problem started months before with other Saudi IPs, interspersed with edits by an IP from UK targeting all the same articles and doing the same vandalism. Another IP from the UK, Special:Contributions/80.42.129.101, vandalized by inserting the surname Al Rasheed, the same as the registered account.[69] So this guy has access to both UK and Saudi IPs. Binksternet (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• 9 January 2015 – 212.215.223.124 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 6 January 2015 – 95.184.30.206 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 6 January 2015 – 212.215.223.138 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 3 January 2015 – 212.215.236.62 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2 January 2015 – 212.215.205.208 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 1 January 2015 – 94.97.218.27 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 31 December 2014 – 94.97.169.225 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 30 December 2014 – 94.97.178.186 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 28 December 2014 – 185.5.153.45 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• December 2014 – January 2015 – 89.187.100.76 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

(Non-administrator comment) I agree regarding the edit filter. This seems too broad to warrant mass page protection; I can't see much of a pattern to his targets at all. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 20:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The guy is still active, see Special:Contributions/95.185.33.12. Binksternet (talk) 16:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

A combination therapy might be the way to go. At least one of the target articles is semi-protected already. I'll think about creating a reasonably narrow edit filter. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC).

Thanks! Another IP appeared today, Special:Contributions/95.185.249.232, making just one edit but with the usual style and target. Binksternet (talk) 19:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

And another: Special:Contributions/5.108.160.29. Binksternet (talk) 06:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/5.41.187.86. Persistent guy. Binksternet (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Also re-appeared on User:37.16.140.91, which could maybe use a 31 day block or smth. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC).

Thank you to blocking admins NeilN, Edgar181 and Darkwind. I have created a long-term abuse case, which you can see here: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Thomas.alrasheed. I expect we will need to remain vigilant, regardless of what kind of edit filter can be fashioned to match this guy's style. Binksternet (talk) 21:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Ban proposal for User:Tamsin Kendra for Terms of Use and COI violations

• Tamsin Kendra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This account is used as part of a scam that has been reported multiple times to OTRS. Relevant tickets are #2015040210025176, #2014092910015601, #2014082110017591 , #2014080810016151 and #2014080610021121, plus the latest one #2015070210016402 which finally produced this information. I have some additional off-wiki data that I can share, however I would probably be skirting WP:OUTING so I will not, at least not here. I apologize for using information that is not readily accessible to most editors, I hope one or two folks with OTRS access can verify that these are related. There are also two relevant threads at AN and ANI:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive270#Something_new:_COI_extortion
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive889#Someone_may_be_impersonating_me

The methods of operation here as far as I can tell are to a) create an article, then demand money from the subject and mark with {{db-g7}} if not produced; and b) to trawl AFC looking for declined articles and demand money to get them accepted, claiming they have "special rights". The userpage of the account above is included in emails sent to targets of the scam and used to give credibility to the idea that the editor is an active member of AFC with 16,000 edits registered 10 years ago, which is of course not true since the account was created a month ago and they have exactly three edits. They have also apparently included links to administrators' userpages claiming to be them.

Now that we have an actual target account, I would like to propose a formal project-wide ban for this user (or users) for violations of the terms of use and WP:COI so they can be blocked on sight. I would also like to request an off-SPI CU, so that perhaps a few more accounts and related articles will surface. I honestly don't know if this is actionable based on the evidence and the lack of edits on this account, so if there is no consensus for this at least I'd like everyone to be aware that this is happening and how. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• No objections to the block. The details of the OTRS tickets are noted. An off-SPI checkuser investigation is already underway. Risker (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I've had a couple of these through OTRS so we might have some more accounts we can use to pool SPI data. I'll go ticket digging. Looks like blatent undisclosed paid editing so that looks like our trumpcard. Amortias (T)(C) 19:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Ticket #2015061010024265. Admins will have to gather the username in question as I cant see who the author who requested deletion was. Amortias (T)(C) 19:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Amortias. Since I'm not consistently onwiki right now (traveling), if you'd be so kind as to email me the ticket numbers, I'll make sure that the CU team is reviewing the whole lot. Risker (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't have OTRS access at this time, but per confirmations above that the tickets are valid and investigations are proceeding off-wiki, I have indefblocked the account here for apparent violations of community standards and terms of service. I would like to request that someone on the OTRS and CU teams update the block once details are appropriately gathered. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Is the WMF Office aware of this incident, and has the above evidence been forwarded to them? MER-C 01:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

That aside, it would be worth broadcasting this somehow to editors site wide, perhaps via a banner? As much traffic as AN and ANI get, the vast majority of editors would not be watch listing these pages. Blackmane (talk) 02:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@MER-C: Not this specifically, in the past I have forwarded what information I had to Legal but they never got back to me as to what they did, if any. @Blackmane: I think the best thing we can do is make sure admins examine any G7 deletions by new accounts with a bit more care, and also be on the lookout for new accounts fiddling with AFC submissions as well. Although they likely don't use the AFC tools, perhaps a filter can be written to detect when an article is created in mainspace by a new account that already exists in draft form. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, is there anyway to prevent new accounts from nominating articles to AFD? kinda how autoconfirmed works is what I had in mind Blackmane (talk) 02:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Blackmane: It is possible with an edit filter but that should be considered only as a last resort.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

That's fair enough. Blackmane (talk) 08:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Just to close the loop... Office is aware. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Prasenjitmouri

User:Prasenjitmouri has all the telltale signs of a spamming sockpuppet. Start with some token edits. Wait until auto-confirmed. Create a token user page so it's not redlinked. Create a redirect where an article will be placed [70] (redirect to avoid NPPs from seeing the article). Upload a fully formed promotional article with lots of references [71] (quality of the refs are not important so long as there is lots). Do other random stuff so you don't look like a single purpose account. Problem is (besides the spamming and socking) their busy work involved dumping in Fictitious references. [72] Reference talks about a person, Bianca Nickleberry, not the place Nickleberry, Texas. [73] Article talks about a current turntable, not the 1980s Mister Disc. [74] are not about Audio Visual Warning Systems. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, these are indeed classic signs of what yiu describe, Duffbeerforme, but it's cicumstantial evidence. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Kudpung. The fake references are not circumstantial evidence. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I've witnessed similar behavior. User:Prasenjitmouri added a blank "Bloomberg" reference to SearchLock (see diff: Special:Diff/668136021/667376998) after it was nominated for deletion, and has not cooperated in helping me track down the issue number (since there is no mention of Searchlock in any online bloomberg publication), yet has had plenty of time to go on a "oneref" and "citation needed" spree on other articles. The Morningstar reference does not technically exist either, as it's from their automatic archive of Marketwired, a standard anything-goes press release website. Misleading. Wieldthespade (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed this behavior from this user as well and have found it to be extremely suspicious. As I noted on their talkpage, they randomly italicized titles of articles a few times before creating their spam page (that still got speedy deleted). I think it's safe to say that this user is WP:NOTHERE. agtx 22:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

A "relative" owning an article

• Spiro Koleka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Burridheut (talk · contribs) persistently removes referenced material regarding Spiro Koleka belonging to the Greek community of Albania. Here are some of his comments (diffs): "Do not use inaccurate information on purpose, not on this page.", "Removed text about Greek origin. There is no historic/official evidence that this Spiro Koleka has any greek ancestry. On the contrary, he could not have been a politburo member if that was the case.", "You are editing my article", etc. He claims that "I know better his origin as he was my family member! I will report you for spreading separatist propaganda with your Wikipedia edits.". I have presented WP:OWN, WP:NPOV and WP:OR to him. Compare this diff.--Zoupan 20:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi all, this is Burridheut. Zoupan is forcing greek separatist propaganda on a family member of mine, the proof is on the edit history. He on purpose has added in it information about another subject person with the same name, so we have an identity mismatch. I have informed him about this repeatedly and have challenged his sources as they are not based on official records and have lots of errors. Zoupan blindly insists that Spiro Koleka (the subject of the article) first was Spiro Gogo Koleka, than he claimed it is the son of Spiro Jorgo Koleka. In fact, I that am the creator of the article, can tell you who I created the article about, and that these people mentioned here are not part of the same family as the subject of the article. Spiro Koleka's father was Thoma Koleka. As a final evidence for this, I have uploaded a picture from the graveyard of the Vuno village where you can see the grave stone of Spiro Koleka (see here at http://i.imgur.com/pAJ5FLt.jpg), in which he is named as Spiro Thoma Koleka (Thoma thus is the father, not anyone else). So I have proved my claim with the man's own grave stone! Zoupan has found an erroneous/inaccurate source online that is not based on official records. From the same source he has taken the supposed claim that Spiro Koleka was born in a greek family. This is not true/fact, there are no records to support this, and the author of the text has mixed the fathers lineage of Spiro Koleka, meaning also his ethnic background is inaccurate as well. So how can this source be trusted??? You will excuse my ineptitude to resolve this matter here on wikipedia "following the book" but I am a beginner here and do not know all the rules, I am learning some of them the hard way though. The only article I have ever created and edited is this one!

I do know my family, village and region much better then an internet anonymous that is happy to change people's fathers so he can baptize them as greeks, serbs or whatever minority is convenient for him. Please help in resolving this issue impartially based on real world evidence (see picture at http://i.imgur.com/pAJ5FLt.jpg). There is also a facebook group called Vunoi (birth village of both Spiro Thoma Koleka and Spiro Jorgo Koleka) where you can address any questions to corroborate my claims or Zoupan's. I kindly request you to ban/restrict Zoupan from editing articles about Spiro Koleka in the future as he is doing the same as he has done in other articles in the past, where other people have complained of his propaganda and biased edits. Thanks for your time! --Burridheut — Preceding undated comment added 13:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The main problem is not the claim of "mismatched identity" (which is made only to confuse uninvolved editors) but that Spiro Koleka belonged to the Greek community: ... the supposed claim that Spiro Koleka was born in a greek family. This is not true/fact, there are no records to support this, and the author of the text has mixed the fathers lineage of Spiro Koleka, meaning also his ethnic background is inaccurate as well. If Spiro Jorgo Koleka was not the father, it still doesn't refute that Spiro Koleka belonged to the Greek community (which is directly referenced: James Pettifer; Hugh Poulton (1994). The Southern Balkans. Minority Rights Group. ISBN 978-1-897693-75-9. "some Greeks rose to high positions under the one party state, with an ethnic Greek, Spiro Koleka, from the minority southern village of Himarë; The Southeastern European Yearbook. ELIAMEP. 1994. But there has always been a Greek presence in Albania, despite this general trend. ... integrated into the communist system in Albania, with one member of the minority, Spiro Koleka, a native of Himara, being a close associate of Enver Hoxha ...). Both being from the same village in Himara, a predominantly Greek town (The South Slav Journal. Dositey Obradovich Circle. 2001. Politburo member Spiro Koleka, who came from the predominantly ethnic Greek town of Himara.), with the same names, they were without a doubt part of the same family (Robert Elsie (24 December 2012). A Biographical Dictionary of Albanian History. I.B.Tauris. p. 243. ISBN 978-1-78076-431-3. Spiro J. Koleka ... He is not to be confused with his son of the same name, Spiro Koleka [2] of the communist period). Please see the article talk page.--Zoupan 00:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, future disruptive editing is awaited by possible sock Endribinaj (talk · contribs) I'm gonna edit that page once more, if I see you persist in your futile efforts, I'll report you for the sole reason that you're spreading false information maliciously. So long.--Zoupan 00:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Diff of ip vandal.--Zoupan 01:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Zoupan (talk · contribs) why did you delete the part of the article that was talking about his engineering achievements (road design etc.)? They had references and you deleted them. Perhaps you did not like those, but stop vandalizing this article. If you lack entertainment go watch a movie instead. --Burridheut

Copy/paste content after move

Christian75 (talk · contribs) first moved a template, then copy/pasted code into the old page. This is bad.

Original page: Template:Recent changes in Chemistry

Moved to Template:Recent changes in Chemicals (note the diff is -mistry vs. -icals)

Then c/p code [75].

One hour earlier I already noted that that the name change was not a good idea: [76].

I have tagged the new page (created by the move) for Speedy T3, duplicate code. Surprisingly/stunningly, Christiaan75 removed the speedy tag [77].

What is needed now is to restore the page history (attributions, mostly mine). Also, given that the editor is making disruptive edits afterwards, some measurement may be needed to stop that. -DePiep (talk) 01:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@DePiep: See the talk page of the template. And your edit summary says "[...] I won't have to do with WP Chemicals anyway". But its not your user page. The WP Chemical projects have all the chemical articles (which use the {{chembox}}). I moved the template because it was named chemistry, but didnt contain articles which are related to WP Chemistry, but only articles related to WP Chemicals. Therefore, I created a new template which have recent changes for all articles in Category:WikiProject Chemistry articles but you insist to undo it. Why? Please explain.

I removed the speedy deletion request because I didnt think it should be deleted. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion says: "The creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so." I am not the creator, and I hope you will undo you recent edit Christian75 (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikilawyering. You did not discuss a single edit. The move was disputed, and you knew it beforehand. The copy/paste is not allowed at all. The code was copied, so it's deletable. -DePiep (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I've functionally reverted to the pre-war edition. Christian75, please observe the following statement in the license. "If You Distribute, or Publicly Perform the Work or any Adaptations or Collections, You must, unless a request has been made pursuant to Section 4(a), keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g., a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution ("Attribution Parties") in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party or parties...". You didn't attribute the source of the template code, so you committed a copyright infringement. Don't repeat. Nyttend (talk) 01:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend and DePiep: The talk page got a {{copied}} (but after I made the template, but the talk page is now deleted when Nyttend moved the template back) (The edit summary said something like "from chemicals" which I realized wasnt very helpfull but should have been more clearly. Btw, the template was created by DePiep with the edit summary "from RC in Anatomy" - IS THAT OK? and DePiep please comment my comments and not just say "Wikilayering". Christian75 (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

On attribution, you're right; I'm sorry. But on general issues, still please don't copy/paste content from one place to another, if for no other reason than that it's confusing. It's easy to see that the older template was created from Template:Recent changes in Anatomy, since the previous edit involved moving that template to a different title. Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that "chemicals" changed. I thought that they are what they are.

Anyway, the name change seems like a really terrible idea. BMK (talk) 02:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: - have you seen the template? Its a help box, which have a link to recent changes in the chemical articles at en-wiki - and yes they change. Theese articles are all tagged with WikiProject Chemicals, not WP Chemistry (the "drugbox articles" are covered by WP:PHARMA). None of the of the articles are covered by WikiProject Chemistry. Therefore, I moved the template:recent changes in Chemistry to Chemicals, so I could make one for WP Chemistry too. (The template should be named "Related changes to" like the label in the tool box[78]). But its allowed because DePiep doesnt like the WP Chemical project[79]. He has proposed to merge the Chemical project but no consensus[80]. DiPiep have long wised me blocked, see [81] Christian75 (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Continuing the battle attitude, without acknowledging their copy/paste error, Christaan75 now forked the code into a misleadingly named {{Recent changes in WikiProject Chemistry}}. So far, non of the edits were based on talk activity. -DePiep (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Its not battle attitude. I didnt change your templates at all. I made a template for "recent changes for the WikiProject Chemistry" which I find very useful. Please comment my comments which I posted two days ago, and this one too. Explain why it isnt useful. Christian75 (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• I thank admins for reverting the chaos. Given that this ANI post did not prevent Christiaan75 from creating forked template (by pattern: no talk preceded), it might as well be closed. I've put the copy-paste 'creation' up for deletion at TfD. -DePiep (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Its the second time you write my name with two a's - the other is here. I think its really bad attitude to start an ANI and not comment afterwards! Btw. the TfD shows that Im not the only one which finds the name of the template incorrect. Christian75 (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Yoshi123Yoshi

• Yoshi123Yoshi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

This editor appears to be an single purpose account pushing a fringe point of view about Standard penetration tests in that article and in Boring (earth). He seems to be here to right great wrongs and is not here to help write a neutral point of view encyclopedia. A number of editors have reverted his edits and posted on his talk page, but he continues as if he he didn't hear what they said. If he doesn't start to contribute in a more productive and less biased way, I believe he should be blocked from editing indefinitely. BMK (talk) 05:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

This definitely looks like someone attempting to take us away from a neutral point of view: the SPT page presents a single perspective, someone brings in a source that offers a different perspective, and others do their best to get it suppressed. Unless you have a very solid reason for what you're doing, your edit-warring will produce a WP:BOOMERANG situation. Nyttend (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend: I think you had best get your facts straight, since I, Beyond My Ken, who filed this report, have made a only single edit to Standard penetration test and none at all to Boring (earth). I have not been involved in any edit warring, and can't imagine why I would be eligible for a boomerang. I suggest you read Yoshi123yoshi's talk page, and his statement just below, and check his contribution list. The article's talk pages would be useful as well - but the content dispute is obviously not relevant here, just the behavior of the editors, which was the basis for my report. BMK (talk) 04:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear, about boring(earth) and SPT

I believe I was very willing to talk about technical matter on SPT. I wrote in talk section, mailed User:Argyriou prvoded him enough links written in English.

I did not want people to misunderstand that I am only babbling with my fantasy so what I did was to privide the source from PWRI and NARO ,both the National Research and Development Agency of Japan. My writing is only a brief explanation/summarization about the source articles. Even though I mentioned Argyriou about PWRI and its legitimacy, he kept deleting so I had to mention about PWRI on SPT log/history. He stopped deleting a couple of weeks. And then he deletes again and this time he referenced the PWRI link for his writing. This can be confirmed from SPT history.

Anyone who has actually read the PWRI article would know Argyriou has never read it. His overly generalized explanation about the defects of SPT is not what the PWRI article says at all. It is not something one can summarize in one sentence.

If one demands the neutral point of view, it has to be the neutral point of view and fairness in technology.

Although User:Beyond My Ken says great many reverted my writing, it was only Argyriou. Now User:Beyond My Ken reverts my NARO part so it adds up to two i believe. Of course BMK has the right to criticize me, but at least could BMK provide enough reason why he deleted the NARO part in SPT before trying to shut me out? NARO is like IEEE in the US. NARO gave an endorsement to some machine that has overcome SPT problems.

To me it is far more strange why Argyriou kept deleting my explaining and made the source reference I found as his and again deleting my summarization. I have no intention to start another edit-war, but I want BMK to un-revert what he deleted in SPT.

Thank you.

Yoshi123Yoshi (talk) 04:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Although Argyriou was the only other editor besides myself to revert your edit on Standard penetration test, Jim.henderson also reverted your edit on Boring (earth), so the situation is not as straightforward you vs. him as you present it, and my statement that "A number of editors have reverted [your] edits" is correct. BMK (talk) 04:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Since Argyriou and Jim.henderson have been mentioned by name, I have informed them both of this discussion. BMK (talk) 05:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Q to BMK: Is there a way to get experts or people knowledgeable in the field to comment at this ANI (e.g., post notes on the article Talk page and on the talk page of the relevant WikiProjects)? I tried looking at this when the ANI was posted but found it slightly too obscure for me to want to try to fathom. Softlavender (talk) 05:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• I have posted neutral pointers to this discussion on the talk pages of WikiProject Civil Engineering and WikiProject Geology. Let's see if that accomplishes anything. BMK (talk) 07:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I have nothing against Mr. User:jim.henderson's editing in Boring(earth); all he did was deleting Boring comment I did but left the title and redirected to SPT. I actually mailed him thank you note a couple of days ago. You can ask him that. So that leaves just Argyriou and BMK. You, BMK, started jumping in just a couple days ago deleting NARO part in SPT. I really want you to stop using "great many," and provoke others to shut me out and at the same time secretly deleting NARO part in SPT. To my point of view, it is really BMK, you, the one who has not been true to others. Has anyone actually tried to read the PWRI article although it is in Japanese???? If you have, you will know what I mean. PWRI and NARO are the National Research and Development Agency of Japan like I said, not some civil-engineer-wannbes-lunatics!! All I did was summarization. Like I said, I want BMK to un-revert what he deleted in SPT. I've worked in this industry, worked with some notable professors. I know pros and cons. Yoshi123Yoshi (talk) 00:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

You need to stop exaggerating, please. I didn't "jump in and start deleting", I reverted the article to its stable version with a single edit. I never said "a great many editors", I said "a number of editors," which is accurate. You're not going to get anywhere by levellling charges that are easily disproved by any editor interested in taking a look, and you're not going to bully me into reverting by invoking authority I have no way of checking on.

If you want your information to be accepted into the article, you need to reach a WP:consensus with the other editors on the article's talk page, not continue to try to force the edit into the article for months at a time. (See Yoshi123Yoish's article contributions, which indicates that this campaign began back in mid-April.) If you cannot reach a consensus, there are methods of WP:dispute resolution which you can pursue, but trying to bulldoze the article is not one of them. BMK (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I said "start jumping in and delete," not "jump in and start deleting." What I meant by "start jumping in and delete" is that you, BMK, reverted my work once a couple of days ago all the sudden. I had impression that you were trying to wage an edit-war on　be half of Argyriou. You had not taken a part in this editing problem with me and Argyriou. You are right about "a number of people." English is not my native tongue. Besides, Mr. User:jim.henderson's editing is very reasonable and I have nothing against his editing. His editing was nothing like Argyriou's. I fully accept his change. You cannot make his editing comparable to Argyriou's. Practically, User:Argyriou was the only one who has been deleting my writing. Have you googled NARO and PWRI?? For NARO: http://www.naro.affrc.go.jp/english/index.html, for PWRI: https://www.pwri.go.jp/eindex.html It provides info about NARO and PWRI in English. Can you ask for help on Japanese? If it makes you happy, I can translate, but NARO article has 26 pages of technical writing comparing the boring machine and NSWS talking about the necessity of NSWS. And like I said I provided Argyriou other source in English, mailed him. If you want to read an English academic paper, this is the link: http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/120003726151. The author is Associate Ph.D Shinya Inazumi from National Institute of Technology, Akashi Colldge, teaching civil engineering. You can contact him for more info. Anyway, Argyriou did not listen at all. And he made the PWRI link as his reference and kept deleting my writing. Whose act is more strange? Do you know anything about SPT and civil engineering? NARO and PWRI are as legitimate as they can be and careful about what they write. And one more thing I never deleted Argyriou's writing. He is the one who kept deleting my writings without productive talk. Yoshi123Yoshi (talk) 10:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

As I've said above, the content dispute should be discussed on the article's talk page, not here. It looks very much like the point of view you're attempting to add to the article may be a WP:FRINGE POV, which is not generally accepted within the field, and needs to be evaluated for the WP:WEIGHT it should be given in the article. Those, too, are content issues and can only be decided on the article talk pages, or on the talk pages of the relevant WikiProjects. Please do not continue to argue the content issues here - go to the article's talk page and argue it there, or pursue dispute resolution.

Here, the issues I raised are that you are a WP:SPA, a single-purpose account whose only reason for editing is to make the changes you want in those two articles. This is verified by your article contributions. You exhibit I didn't hear that behavior, where you're told something repeatedly by other editors and yet ignore it and continue on the same pathway. All this appears to add up to your not being here to help create a neutral encyclopeda. You can respond to those issues here, not the content issues, please. BMK (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Genaro García Luna

There appears to be a slow revert war going on in this article, with User:DenialTon and User:Random mesh removing a section about his involvement with organized crime and other users (including unregistered ones) re-adding it. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 07:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Definitely something weird going on here at Genaro García Luna with DenialTon (talk · contribs · logs · block log) and Random mesh (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (who in at least one place seem to be editing towards a common goal). This most recent edit by User:DenialTon is definietly concerning (removal of sourced content), but it looks like both DenialTon and Random mesh have been trying to remove this sourced content for a while (note this edit summary for Random mesh). It would probably be a good idea if an Admin looked at this... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • OK, I have restored the content that was removed in June. We'll see what happens with the two editors above now. Meanwhile, more eyes on the Genaro García Luna article might be a good idea – it looks to me like the article could probably use some work, regardless... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

(Mis)using Wikipedia to promote a candidate in the Canadian election.

Canada goes to the polls in the autumn, one of the candidates is Amarjeet Sohi. In the last few days, Sohi's page has been "improved". Improved from the candidate's point of view. Sourced and neutral information about the candidate having been arrested was modified to say "falsely arrested" [82], and information about controversies was heavily reduced to give way for promotional material [83]. These changes are made by WP:SPAs (possibly socks of the same user [84], [85]) and all attempts by established users to restore the article [86], [87], [88] are swiftly reverted. I've encouraged the SPA to use the talk page, but to no avail. I first reported the page for semi-protection but was encouraged to take it to ANI instead. I think it's problematic that Wikipedia is being used not only to promote a candidate but to censor information from highly respected media Globe and Mail just because it's not favourable to a political candidate.Jeppiz (talk) 08:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow, a protection request on that article was declined? That's weird. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:11, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I thought so as well, yes. And the activity here at ANI is rather disappointing. As the SPA has decided to WP:OWN the article, what action to take? Say, "Hey sure, go ahead and abuse Wikipedia as a tool for your political campaigning!". The only other option seems to be edit warring, as bringing it first to WP:RPP and now here yields absolutely no result. I realize it's holiday season, but still.Jeppiz (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to talk about this but the original wikipedia page contain a lot of unsourced opinion. I think the revision clarifies some points. On falsely arrested, read the source and tell me what you think source. It's pretty clear that the arrest was false, he was never charged and then releaseed. There are other statements like "Following his election in 2007, Sohi soon became a strong proponent for the abolishment of the old 6-ward system in favour of the current 12-ward system." which are not sourced. In the other sections the changes reflect sourced material replacing non sourced material.

In the federal election section: "Mere months after Sohi was re-elected by a large margin in the 2013 municipal election, rumours began swirling that he was considering a run federally in the 2015 federal election" Not sourced. On the other material that was changed, read the articles and let me know how what is said a) that Bhuller was disqualified from the race for rules violations and b) that there was controversy is not reflected in the post. Anyways I'm not involved in the Sohi campaign. I just think the page was weak, full of speculation and opinion and in need of edit. Let me know how you would like to see it changed. YEGGradStudent (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like this can now be moved to that article's talk page. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

User: JIK1975

• JIK1975 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For several months now the user in question has been going around "fixing" redirects. His talk page shows that he's been told repeatedly to stop it with a number of users pointing him towards WP:NOTBROKEN and WP:NOPIPE, but he doesn't answer any of these posts. He edits a lot, but 95% of his edits are redirect fixes.

Here are some of the times he's been told to stop doing what he's doing:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JIK1975&diff=667574680&oldid=666445935
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JIK1975&diff=668033922&oldid=668024105
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JIK1975&diff=669048538&oldid=669033215
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JIK1975&diff=669430565&oldid=669048689
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JIK1975&diff=670136903&oldid=669895466

リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 18:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• What Administrator intervention are you requesting here? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Deep down, I believe his intentions are good, but he also should know by now that what he's doing is not helpful, in fact quite the opposite. For a start, a short-term block from editing could really wake him up. If he resumes this activity upon his return, I could bring the issue back up in terms of a longer block. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 19:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Ribbon Salminen: I have to warn you – any kind of block for "WP:NOTBROKEN" edits is extremely remote, as it's unlikely to be considered "disruptive" enough editing. The most you might be able to get out of ANI is an actual Admin leaving this user a warning note that they should quit with the NOTBROKEN edits. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I was one of the editors (referred to above) who posted about WP:NOTBROKEN, etc. on JIK1975'S user talk. I too believe they were not trying to intentionally create problems. Although the majority of the edits I saw were unnecessary, they didn't do any real harm. There were a few, however, which actually redirected the page to a different (but similarly titled) article, but I believe these were soon fixed. I think a big part of the problem was that attempts were made to discuss things on their user talk page, but these were seemingly ignored. There was also the problem of never leaving any kind of edit sum, which made it hard to udnerstand why the edit might have been needed. This kind of editing is problematic, but perhaps not serious enough to warrant a block. Regardless, the whole thing is now probably a mute point since they have posted "OK, I won't fix those redirects anymore." on their user page. It still might be a good idea for an administrator to inform them that they should be a little more careful in the future when making such edits as well as to leave an edit sum when editing, but I can't see any point in a block at this time. - Marchjuly (talk) 23:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Update: I left JIK1975 a personalized message on their Talk page about this, and they have now contacted me on my Talk page. I think part of the issue was that the previous message left on JIK1975's Talk page about WP:NOTBROKEN was too technical, and I don't think the message got across. I'm hoping now that JIK1975 is aware of the issue, that this matter may be resolved. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Splashyelephant2003

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

---

• Splashyelephant2003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Splashyelephant2003 is a new contributor, who's sole edits [89] have been to repeatedly edit the infobox for an article on Liberland - an entirely unpopulated plot of land on the disputed Croatia/Serbia border which has been declared as a 'micronation' by a Czech libertarian politician. Needless to say, the 'micronation' has received no recognition whatsoever. Despite having no recognition, and a population of zero, the individual behind this is apparently issuing 'citizenships', and Splashyelephant2003 has chosen to add these as either 'population' or 'members' to the infobox - sourced solely to a 'Liberland' website. [90] I have repeatedly asked Splashyelephant2003 to stop doing this, as it is a clear violation of NPOV to imply that such numbers have any legal meaning, and that we would require third-party sourcing (though of course 'members' is an inappropriate field to use anyway - it is intended for another purpose entirely - e.g. as used in our Hanseatic League article). Splashyelephant2003 however refuses to engage in any meaningful discussion - though s/he did decide to ask whether I was 'croation' in an edit summary, suggesting that this was evidence of bias [91]. Since it seems apparent that Splashyelephant2003 will continue adding this promotional nonsense to the article indefinitely unless obliged not to do so, I request that s/he be blocked from editing until he agrees to discuss the matter properly, to comply with Wikipedia NPOV policies, and not to engage in further promotion based on nothing but the imaginary nation's own website. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk about SPA. Looks like they may have stopped, though. I've issued a final final warning and added the article to my watchlist. Bishonen | talk 18:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC).

Splashyelephant2003 is once again edit-warring rather than discussing content issues: [92] AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours. Thank you, Andy. Bishonen | talk 11:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC).

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

Disruptive editor refusing to accept consensus

Several months ago, I was involved in an editing dispute with Synthwave.94 on Happy (Pharrell Williams song) regarding how to list US charts. It is standard practice in song articles to list the main US chart, the Billboard Hot 100, before any secondary charts. Synthwave.94 holds a different viewpoint that all charts should be listed in alphabetical order, which means that charts such as Adult Top 40, Adult Contemporary, and Alternative Songs would be listed before the Hot 100. The two of us, and other editors, discussed this at the article talk page before reviving an older discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Record charts#Chart order, where nearly all editors besides Synthwave agreed that the primary chart should come first, with secondary charts listed in alphabetical order after that.

Despite the overwhelming preference to list the primary chart before any secondary ones, Synthwave has continued to war over this. At the "Happy" article, he has reverted my changes to reflect this consensus on multiple occasions over the past few months. Initially he reverted me on the basis that the discussion was still ongoing. Recently, with the discussion untouched for over a month and editors' preference quite clear, I reinstated the change only to be reverted again. Additionally, Synthwave has been changing examples on Wikipedia:Record charts/Billboard charts guide and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Record charts to reflect his/her preferred ordering, against consensus.

I warned Synthwave on his/her talk page recently that I would bring the matter here if their tendentious, disruptive editing continued. They refused to acknowledge the problem and tried shifting the blame on me. Not too long after, I corrected the chart ordering on Rehab (Amy Winehouse song) to reflect consensus, and Synthwave reverted with a blatantly misleading edit summary that did not state all of his/her changes.

Synthwave is an editor with quite a history of edit warring, disruption, and IDHT behavior over the past two years. I'm not sure what sort of action needs to take place, but this is obviously a recurring problem with the arrangement of record charts only being a small part of it. Chase (talk | contributions) 01:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• Pinging editors who also discussed the matter with me and Synthwave, in case they'd like to comment or better articulate anything I might not have explained well enough: IndianBio, Tomica, Azealia911, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, SNUGGUMS, Iknow23, and Btljs (who partially agreed with Synthwave). Chase (talk | contributions) 01:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

You ought to strike the comment about Synthwave.94 being disruptive, etc. The user has not been blocked for seven months. I find Synthwave.94 to be an invaluable fighter of vandalism. I would like to see that this disagreement is evaluated on its own merit (or demerits) rather than bringing in a truckload of old laundry. Binksternet (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

"Not blocked for seven months" is damning with very faint praise indeed. An editor's history (or alleged history) is generally relevant in assessing allegations of improper behavior, as opposed to content disputes. DES ^(talk) 03:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Chasewc91, you don't know nothing about me and most of what you're saying is misrepresentative of the editor I am, so please stop saying incorrect statements about me. As Binksternet pointed out, I'm mainly a vandal fighter. I don't even understand why you judge on 5-6 edits only. I've already told you the problem linked to chart order associated with charts components, but you never listened to me and you continue messing around with alphabetical order in charts. Calling me a disruptive editor exaggerated and clearly inappropriate in all ways, especially because you are the one who started the edit war. Synthwave.94 (talk) 03:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

As the article's talk page shows, I engaged with you in discussion about this. I pinged several other editors who work on music articles and virtually everyone who commented agreed with me. You then continued to edit against this consensus, and that is the problem. Chase (talk | contributions) 04:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not striking anything. The block log shows multiple blocks for edit warring and that is the issue I am currently having with Synthwave. Edit warring against consensus. Chase (talk | contributions) 04:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• On the whole, Synthwave.94 does seem like a good level-headed editor, however, I don't think it's uncalled for that Chasewc91 is labeling them as disruptive. Failure to accept consensus and to continue making changes against the communities opinion is disruptive, and the fact that Synthwave.94 continues to edit in their preferences over two discussions (1,2) where clear consensus was national over genre chart, is frustrating. Even still, the user continues to claim they weren't listened to "but you never listened to me and you continue messing around". Move on, and accept that "The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you." Azealia911 _talk 08:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'm uninvolved in this particular content dispute, but have had contact with Synthwave.94 on another issue (here here) and he had difficulty hearing the community consensus on an issue. While WP:CITEVAR is not the same as the order of charts, there is an MOS section on the chart issue and it should be followed. @Binksternet:, part of the reason that he wasn't blocked in seven months is that for three of those months, he was in fact blocked with talk page access revoked. That block just expired on March 22, so he's just about to hit his fourth month of not being blocked. I'm not sure what should be done, he does do good work where he's not against a consensus of editors, perhaps a break from editing music articles? GregJackP Boomer! 15:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Synthwave.94 seemed quick to accuse Flyer22 of owning in the links you provided, interestingly enough, the last edit to Michael Jackson, the topic of the links you gave, was Synthwave.94 blankly reverting an edit which simply placed spaces between bullet points in lists throughout the article. Pot calling the kettle black anyone? Just interesting. Azealia911 _talk 19:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

User FifthAve101 (report to be blocked from editing)

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

---

• FifthAve101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@FifthAve101: User has consistently added unsourced material in WP:BLP, as well as other pages. He was given numerous warnings on his talk page and he elected to ignore them. His most recent disruptive edit was on Danilo Anđušić's article were he added P.A.O.K. BC as the player's current team ([93]), when there is only transfer speculation and not an official announcement on the club's website. Additionally, no reference was provided for his edits. This is typical of the user's editing and since he was given numerous warnings and hasn't complied he should be blocked from editing. A notice has been left on his talk page, concerning this report. Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) ^{a penny for your thoughts?} 09:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Many Talk page warnings, has themselves never touched a Talk page, several controversial page moves... Yeah, something probably should be done about FifthAve101 here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
• Blocked for a week. This isn't WP:AIV. Use that next time rather than here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Greece national football team - God help us

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

---

This is totally unbelievable but unfortunately I have to spend my time on an "issue" like this. User:IM-yb is trying to drive us all crazy. He replaces the crest of the Greek national team which is this (as everyone in the world knows): [94] (I hereby provide you with some links (!!!) [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102] etc) with the logo of the Hellenic Football Federation. As you know, in every national football team article in wikipedia we use the official jersey crest and not the logo of each country's football federation:

• France national football team - French Football Federation
• Germany national football team - German Football Association
• Spain national football team - Royal Spanish Football Federation

In some cases the team's jersey crest is the same with the federation's logo. But in any case, in wikipedia national football team articles we use the jersey crest. This is something self-evident and we shouldn't even argue about this. Being completely unable to engage in a dialogue with this user (he is headstrong, I don't understand his English, I can't communicate with him, and ultimately, I don't want to spend my time on such obvious matters), I am urging the admins to give their ruling on that "issue" and decide what's right and what's wrong. When I reverted his edit, he posted this answer on my talk page: [103]: "I believe the crest of the national team is better about beauty, but is wrong, because the official sources has the Hellenic Football Federation logo as the official emblem. Because i am interested about logos of the national teams, many teams has the federation logo as official, regardless if they has another in the shirt. The others showing another logo in official sources (electronic bulletin boards, official banners and in the official websites of the federations) only for the national team. In another same articles, the logo of the shirt put in the text, not in the infobox, if it isn't official".

I am really looking forward to your intervention. Thank you so much for your attention, Gtrbolivar (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

This is obviously a content issue that needs resolving on the article's talkpage. User:IM-yb has only made a few edits on the article (I was expecting the article history to be a wave of back-and-forth edit wars), and you've not notified them of this discussion either. Quick, before a boomerang hits you. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just thought I would point out that, no, not "everyone in the world knows" as many people (including myself) care little about soccer. What you've got here is a content dispute that admins cannot rule on. Your best bet is the dispute resolution noticeboard or raising an RFC. As a final point, I find your tone highly condescending and arrogant to a degree. You might consider that this editor may find it as difficult to discuss with you as you do with them because of this. Blackmane (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. It does not receive the same coverage or interest in the United States that it does in the rest of the world, so I advise you to take a less arrogant tone. American admins simply aren't exposed to it unless we make a specific effort, and I for one would really appreciate it if requests for action on the subject contained some kind of brief explanation so we can sort of know what we're doing. When I hear about football, I don't know what the X national federation does or doesn't do for the X national team. I do know that I want my people to knock the holy snot out of those people and shove 'em into the middle of next year. KrakatoaKatie 16:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I like Linus on kernel management style and try to remember it for things having nothing to do with Linux. --Unready (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

notified IM-yb. Blackmane (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello to all. I believe the crest of the national team is better about beauty, but is wrong, because the official sources has the Hellenic Football Federation logo as the official emblem. Because i am interested about logos of the national teams, many teams has the federation logo as official, regardless if they has another in the shirt. The others showing another logo in official sources (electronic bulletin boards, official banners and in the official websites of the federations) only for the national team.

• onsports.gr
• epo.gr Greece vs Latvia, electronic bulletin board
• epo.gr Greece vs Latvia
• epo.gr Romania vs Greece

In the same cases, quote examples:

1. Official logo of federation and official logo of national team used in wikipedia infoboxes:

• Royal Spanish Football Federation in contrast to Spain national football team, official source ([104])
• Scottish Football Association ([105]) in contrast to Scotland national football team ([106]), in the same official source

1. Official logo of federation used and unofficial logo of national team not used in wikipedia infoboxes:

• Liechtenstein Football Association official logo ([107]), Liechtenstein national football team unofficial logo in official shirt ([108]), like Greece
• Polish Football Association official logo ([109]), Poland national football team unofficial logo in official shirt ([110])), like Greece

And many other quotes, who the logo of the shirt don't used in official case by the official football governing bodies. Wikipedia follow that sources. --IM-yb (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

This is no doubt the biggest problem the people of Greece will face in 2015. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

So it's not their resistance to doing the sensible thing, and bringing back the Drachma?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I see that now. The links of the sources and my text deleted in the article [111]. I don't know what should I do in this case. --IM-yb (talk) 18:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I explain the logic that we follow in the same articles in en:wiki. I used the official sources of the official football governing bodies. I want the protection of my text and logo changes from Wikipedia:Vandalism, without edit wars. --IM-yb (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@IJBall, IM-yb, Blackmane, Unready, Lugnuts, and Gtrbolivar:Comment: I think that the best place to reach consensus on this issue would be the talk page of WikiProject Football. It would attract a sufficient number of users that, additionaly, are engaged in the writing of football related articles. I don't think that the article's talk page is the right place for this, since this could be recurring in every national team article. It would be time saving to make this discussion once and for all. Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) ^{a penny for your thoughts?} 15:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure, though as I suggested, a formal RfC would be best. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

IJBall you could start the RfC and I'll provide a link to your RfC on the talk page of WikiProject Football in order to attract users in the discussion. Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) ^{a penny for your thoughts?} 16:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I would prefer not to be the one to start the RfC – I don't really have a dog in this hunt. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree Hansi667. It is a good idea. --IM-yb (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Now found the official page in facebook, of the Greece national team ([112]). In this page the Hellenic Football Federation presents the crest of the kit as the official logo of the national team. I put the source in the logo summary. Therefore, I accept this logo and I do not change it again. Hansi667 and IJBall the RfC is no longer necessary. --IM-yb (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Course of action?

Without a shred of arrogance, I don't understand what he is suggesting here. If there's someone here who did understand please let us know. The crest of the Greek national football team has been there for years, it is our official jersey crest. This user is trying to replace it with the logo of the Hellenic Football Federation, which is utterly wrong and (excuse my tone) ridiculous. How can I open a public discussion about this? I mean, seriously, this cannot stand. Unfortunately, we'll end up arguing the most obvious and self-evident facts here in wikipedia. Wikipedia simply cannot become a shelter for any headstrong user who wants to impose his own erroneous and distorted point of view on everybody else, just because he has all the time in the world available.

On every other dispute I had with this user, he simply imposed his point of view (which was completely wrong and against every wikipedia rule) firstly because he has enormous amounts of time available and secondly because there is nobody else to stop him and put an end to his arbitrary actions. So I am looking forward to your advice admins: What is the proper course of action from here? I want a public discussion and a consensus from a vast majority of users. We cannot let IM-yb to do whatever he wants just because nobody cares. If we have to prove and argue about the most obvious and self-evident facts, if that's what it takes, we'll do it. Gtrbolivar (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Worst case scenario: you can hold an WP:RfC about this – I am certain the overwhelming opinion will be to use the Greek national football team crest. And, to answer your question, no, I have no idea what IM-yb is trying to say... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your input IJBall. What should I do to start a WP:RfC, could somebody help me with the procedure? My ultimate goal is to involve as many people as possible. There is no doubt in my mind that the vast majority will go for the obvious, for the self-evident. The fact alone that we're losing our time to discuss such an "issue" really sends me over the edge. Anyway, I'd really appreciate any help. Gtrbolivar (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

IJBall the logo of the shirt of the Greece national football team dont't used officialy by the Hellenic Football Federation (epo.gr), who is the only responsible for the national team. In en:wiki, logos who doesn't used officialy by the football federations of the countries, dont't used in the infoboxes. Gtrbolivar overtake that and make copyright violation with this action. Gtrbolivar has three reverts in 24 hours ([113], [114], [115], Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule). Knowledge received and you (admins) are responsible to comply that user. --IM-yb (talk) 11:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free content

• Policy
  • 4. Previous publication. Non-free content must be a work which has been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia :by (or with permission from) the copyright holder, or a derivative of such a work created by a Wikipedia editor.

Βased on the above this is copyright violation. --IM-yb (talk) 12:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

In the national teams infoboxes (like Poland national football team), we don't use the kit crest ([116]), if it is not published by the national federation (Polish Football Association) who is responsible. --IM-yb (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Responsibility

I respect the official symbols of organizations, companies, clubs and other frames. I don't play with that and some times my edits was guide for other editors, who respect that work (some examples: I use sources in talk page of Council of Europe and make the necessary edits in the article me and after other editor, also a third editor added additional source in talk page. I informed the other editors in the article 2015 Copa America about the unofficial fair use logo and other editors acted to correct the problem). I use sources about logos, flags and other emblems and not make or use fake or unofficial symbols in articles of Wikipedia.

I believe in your responsibility and your will to the preservation of reliability of Wikipedia. Unsourced or fake data who they are liable to cause confusion, has not place in Wikipedia articles infoboxes. The policies (Verifiability) and guidelines (MOSLOGO) are clear in that issue. I want to follow the example of other same articles, which harmonized with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. What can I do to implement the policy and guideline and don't have edit war? I want the permission from administrators to implement the policy and guideline. --IM-yb (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Ι apologize about my level in English language. I kindly ask for your understanding about that. Thank you. --IM-yb (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Because the issue is complicated, the consensus of the editors in the talk page of WikiProject Football, is a good road to solution. --IM-yb (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Help from Russian speaking admin needed

A very persistent IP-hopping individual claiming to represent the Diocese of Smolensk and Vyazma has for some time now been regularly spamming a link to the Russian Orthodox Church (http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/) on a large number of articles relating to Russia and Russian history, brushing off all objections to the links with edit summaries and user talk page comments like "The ROC is higher of any rules of Wikipedia (absolutelly). God wishes be everywhere and without limitations" (ROC = Russian Orthodox Church), "The ROC is higher of any rules of Wikipedia", "Rules of Bible are higher than any rules of Wikipedia (God higher of Jimmy Wales in the same time). God wants be everywhere!" and "Undid revision 669952272 (be against God is very bad thing). Their English seems to be rudimentary to say the least, so could a Russian speaking admin please tell them what Wikipedia is and isn't, in as firm a way as possible, without hurting their feelings too much? The only result of my attempts to communicate with them is that they no longer link to a page that is only in Russian, but to an English translation of it. The IPs they've used so far (or at least the ones that I'm aware of) are 95.29.79.7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 95.27.125.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 95.27.106.54 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Thomas.W ^talk 18:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• Ymblanter is an Admin who speaks Russian. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

AFAIK there are others too, so I hope one of them sees this. Thomas.W ^talk 19:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I responded at their talk page, let us see whether it helps.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Need1521 may well have some bearing on this. Smolensk and Russian Orthodox Church are recurring themes. Favonian (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@Favonian: Judging by the evidence presented in that SPI there's a definite link between the IPs I mentioned above and the SPI. Thomas.W ^talk 21:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Thanks. I copied your message to the IP they used today (User talk:95.29.79.7) to increase the chance that they'll see it. Thomas.W ^talk 20:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I was not sure which Ip they are currently using. The SPI might also be a good avenue to follow. Do not hesitate to ping me if my help is needed, the coming week I should be reasonably available.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

This is sockmaster Need1521. One of the ips claims to be a "representative of the Diocese of Smolensk and Vyazma" and checkuser confirmed Need1521 sock Crown218821 claimed to be a "Priest in the Diocese of Smolensk and Vyazma" so the link looks fairly obvious. The disruption by this person on this occasion has been going on for nearly 2 months now, but the likely parent account, User:Crazy1980 was community banned back in 2011, also for spamming external links and there's been periodic disruption since then. Attempts at communicating with this user are totally futile and usually result in threats and insults. Another Russian speaking admin who tried to reason with them received this message, which reads "Bitch, you're almost a corpse. You touch one other user with an ip address and I think I'll come to you and I will hurt you very painfully. I still do not know your address. But authorities have a lot of friends. Sit down and do not rock the boat, schmuck." If they haven't got the message after 4 years, they never will and can only be reverted and blocked on sight. Valenciano (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Now after you posted the link I see this is the same asshole who was following me here and on Commons (I even had to protect my talk page multiple times earlier this year). They are mentally unstable. All IPs must be blocked on sight, all edits must be immediately reverted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ymblanter (talk • contribs) 06.11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• They also could use Remote desktop software or Virtual private network. I recommend to check these details. - Local Bear55 (talk) 23:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC).
• Is this the same kook who's been infesting Jimbo's talk page? Guy (Help!) 08:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Judging by the SPI, yes. Thomas.W ^talk 08:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• I certainly meant that one.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

This seems like an appropriate time to remind all concerned that if you spot a threat of harm to yourself or another editor (such as the "you're almost a corpse" note above), you should feel free to send a link to [email protected]. That email address is staffed 24/7 by my team (and attorneys, and mental health experts, etc.) who can evaluate the threat and determine what action is appropriate to take next. We work closely with local aid organizations and law enforcement, and have a process set up that works anywhere in the world. You don't have to be subject to that type of threatening to contribute to Wikipedia! <end of announcement, hiss, screech, drops mic.> Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 10:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Gampalagudem

User:Raw-WikiEditor has WP:POV pushing Gampalagudem page, even after admins intervention, he tried to add back his own info by removing sourced references such as this. I've even filed a sock investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Raw-WikiEditor. The edits on the village page shows spamming site references such as also non working links such as this by removing an official census of India website reference provided by me. He added some cinema theatres info, and removed this, not against his edits, but he doesn't collaborate even after talking on his talk page.--Vin09 (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

History of the WWE - Long-running edit war that is still going on

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

---

• I filed a case about this two months ago here, and a consensus for a topic ban was clear - yet nothing happened, which was utterly bizarre. Well, we're back at square one - since May, there have been ten reverts by User:Rebelrick123 where they directly reverted User:RealDealBillMcNeal, and RDBMN has eight reverts against RR123 by my last count, and they've also been edit-warring at a rapid rate elsewhere with other users - List of WWE personnel being one example. My request is this; could an admin please put into place the clear consensus for a topic ban from that thread (as an absolute minimum)? This situation clearly isn't slowing down, and in fact, today it has picked right back up again. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I previously supported a topic ban for these two, but if this still going on, I think a block as well as a topic ban, is in order. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Via both the users' talk page and via the talk page of the page itself, I have requested the user provide valid sources, to no avail. Am I just to let factually incorrect edits stand? Great. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
    • The best course of action would be to either consult with other editors about the edits, or to go to a noticeboard about it. It absolutely isn't worth getting lured into an edit war, no. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I was also of the same thought as IJBall and Lukeno94 that a topic ban should be levied against the two. Since that discussion was not closed, perhaps this should be considered a continuation of that discussion with a formal close enforcing that sanction. Blackmane (talk) 02:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Edit Warring and Violation of WP:NOR

• Oranges Juicy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kosovo Verification Mission (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello everyone! I would like to inform you on a case that I believe is a violation of WP:NOR in the article Kosovo Verification Mission.

The brief summary of the article is: "Prior to the war in Kosovo 1999, OSCE sends a verification mission to check the violation of the human rights of the Serbian security forces towards the local Albanian population."

All reliable sources present in the article refer to the forces involved in the massacres against the Albanian population as Serbian forces, Serbian army, or Serbian security forces, e.g.: [117], [118], and more sources present in Kosovo Verification Mission.

My reading of the sources indicate that it is undoubted and supported by plenty of sources (see article refs), that the conflict in Kosovo and the violation of the human rights prior to the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia were conducted by the Serbian forces against the local Albanian population. Yet, and now my case begins, an editor Oranges Juicy claims that the usage of the term "Serbian forces" is wrong, because the official name of the state was "Yugoslavia" and the troops should be either called "Yugoslav army" and/or "state loyalist forces".

While I acknowledge that a large section the troops were part of the army of Yugoslavia, the most precise term is Serbian forces. The reason is that the violation of human rights was carried on by a mix of Yugoslav army, Serbian police and Serbian paramilitary forces (not part of the Yugoslav army) [see article sources]. Therefore the term Serbian forces is a precise umbrella term for commonly describing the actors carrying the violations of human rights against the local Albanian population. Numerous reliable sources [see article] explicitly refer to the troops as Serbian forces/army/security forces, etc ... Those sources are from very respected institutions such as HRW, UN Security Council, US Government.

The editor is right in asserting that some of Serbian forces were part of the Yugoslavian army, and I agreed to add such a clarification in order to reach a consensus. However I find it not acceptable to completely remove the fact that those forces were Serbian, given that i) numerous reliable sources EXPLICITLY state the Serbian ethnicity of the troops , and ii) not all Serbian troops were part of the Yugoslavian army, e.g. Serbian paramilitary. It is my firm understanding that the case is unambiguous, given that numerous reliable sources are explicit in the usage of the Serbian ethnicity term.

Despite the explicit usage of the term Serbian by reliable sources, the editor Oranges Juicy insisted and repeatedly edit warred [see the most recent article history] on removing the term Serbian from the article. I have warned the editor multiple times in the article's and his' talk page that WP:NOR is not acceptable, and he should not edit war towards covering the Serbian ethnicity of the troops. I even had communicated that he is leaving me no other option than ANI.

In that perspective, I believe a disciplinary action is useful to restore the neutrality of the article.

A note: The editor Oranges Juicy is also Serbian, therefore trying to cover the fact that the Serbian forces committed violations of human rights, MIGHT be a point worth assessing (even though I would like to assume good faith). In addition, the user has a prejudice against using official US Government reports as reliable sources, citing Oranges Juicy in Talk:Kosovo Verification Mission "... It is not reliable anyhow since it is a partisan government account rather than an independent report. ..." This is just an illustration to show the attitude of the editor in treating reliable sources.

Sorry for taking your time. I would have preferred the editor dropped the stick and we would not have to resort to escalations, however it is my duty as an editor to not neglect violations of Edit Warring and WP:NOR. --OppositeGradient (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Response from Oranges Juicy

Hello from me as well.

I will attempt to summarise how I see the situation and then I will gladly take advice from admins on the best course of action for my circumstance.

The Kosovo war happened 1998-1999 and was according to sources fought between the rebel KLA and the government forces of the FRY. Sources state that atrocities took place, and where government forces were the perpetrator, those sources attribute the incidents to three separate bodies:

• 1. Vojska Jugoslavije (SRJ). The national army comprising staff from all over the territory which was Serbia and Montenegro.
• 2. Serbian Police. As Kosovo was in Serbia and not Montenegro, most police-based incidents report "Serbian police".
• 3. Serb paramilitary groups, clients to the government but otherwise independent. Here, Serb is accurate because the fighters were volunteers from outside Serbia such as Bosnia and Croatia where ethnic Serbs originate from.

To this end, the general term Serb forces is vague and should not be used. If one knows the act were carried out by the Scorpions or the police, the editor should say so. Where we know it to be military, according to sources there was only one army for which we have an article, Military of Serbia and Montenegro. Links to Serbian Army or Serbian Armed Forces sends a reader to articles pertaining to entities only reformed since 2006 which is wrong for incidents reported for 1999. Also when an act is attributed to the army then one would say Yugoslav Army regardless of whether witnesses believed the suspects to be ethnic Serbs as OppositeGradient believes - just as one would speak of the British Forces even if the suspects for an incident were all English.

The Kosovo Verification Mission article should be precisely about its title, and other matter should only be included insofar as it relates to the subject. Given the coverage in world media in early 1999 there is no shortage of sources to report on the aftermath of the Mission's departure, which is that hostilities resumed. Originally the article named "Serb forces" with a link to one source. Personally I question the reliability of a source published by the US State Department given the country's involvement but either way, nobody disputes the content as reliable sources back it up. The problem is that - apart from the source not being independent - the writing style was anecdotal rather than empirical, outside of the first paragraph, "Yugoslavia" was not mentioned and the term used from there onward was Serb, as in Serb forces, Serb army and Serb government. It is not WP:OR to see this is generalisation since at the time, Serbia and Yugoslavia were used interchangeably, even when reporting naval engagements during the NATO war: Serbia is landlocked. During this time, sources frequently cited Slobodan Milošević as the chief suspect and as sources reflect, he headed the Yugoslav government in 1999 - but this did not stop reliable sources referring to the Serb government where they meant central, and even calling Milošević "Serb president", even though the real Serbian president in 1999 was Milan Milutinović.

OppositeGradient is desperate to present the ambiguous "Serb forces" on the section dealing with the aftermath atrocities, though he cannot grace readers further on which grade of force was being referred to (police or paramilitary). Despite me explaining the above to him, he dismissed the facts as original research and synthesis purely because one anecdotal and questionable US government publication has used the "Serb" demonym for all to come out of FRY in 1999. The article section deals not with one incident but all things that continued from the time KVM left until UNMIK was created and Yugoslav forces withdrew. As such, I provided three reliable sources which referred correctly to Yugoslav troops/army or security forces that were present. Before doing this, I revealed these sources to OppositeGradient as well as a host of others. He has failed to disprove them, or to intelligently question the content. If those sources are wrong, and Serbia and Montenegro had separate military forces then all OppositeGradient needs to do is provide a source (such as one that shows that Montenegro was independent during the 1992 to 2006 period) and then we can question why the heck we have a Serbia and Montenegro hoax article and the like. OppositeGradient claims "Serb forces" is an umbrella term but that is the only example of WP:OR presented in this thread, no source whatsoever acknowledges the various bodies and then informs its readers that they will use "Serb forces" as an umbrella term. Furthermore, paramilitaries are not above the government for which they fight. If there had been unauthorised paramilitary activity against other non-government forces then the government perspective would be that it is internal rebel fighting. Besides, the bone of contention did not involve me adding Yugoslav but I chose the neutral unambiguous state loyalist forces and it doesn't need to be explained why - but OppositeGradient is adamant that "Serb" alone should be used per his idea that the source deploys the so-called "umbrella term" even though the same source refers to the non-existent "Serbian Army" of 1999. I believe the person drafting was simplifying the very same way people spoke of the "Russians" as opposed to the multi-ethnic Soviet forces, or the "Turks" as opposed to the multi-ethnic Ottoman forces.

In the short time OppositeGradient has edited, he has already been warned about WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL and I believe that casting aspersions that I am "Serb" is very boderline with these policies. I have never revealed my ethnicity to anybody and would prefer that to remain private just as I do not suspect one of being Kosovar Albanian. But as I have stated previously, I have lived in Britain since 2000 and I was born in Mostar. That city is one which by 2000 was almost empty of ethnic Serbs, I will happily confirm that my parents and siblings all live in Mostar as do my surviving grandparents, their children, other grandchildren, the lot - only my wife (also from Mostar), two daughters and one son (all born in UK) have left Mostar. In fact, if one were to examine my edits that closely he will quickly see that I have made numerous edits not favourable to the alleged "Serb" position.

For my part, I would like to apologise if my editing has been disruptive, if I have violated policies and if I have made mistakes. Concerning the latter, I would dearly appreciate advice on how best to handle a situation that would avoid an edit war with an editor hell bent on inserting incorrect information on account of a source that clearly does not discern, and one that is offset by countless that do. I apologise again for my inexperience and confess that no I have not read every single policy, though as each is presented to me, I read them.

Thanks, I will get back to this when administrator replies arrive.

Oranges Juicy (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• The reasoning above is exactly what I referred to. I cannot provide a better WP:OR description, than inviting you to read the post above. While most sources explicitly identify the actors committing violent acts as "Serbian forces", the involved editor argues that the reliable sources are wrong and need revision. He believes HRW, official US Government reports, most journalists at the time ... etc are all wrong and biased in naming the armed Serbians as Serb forces. Admin it is your call, because I have no breath left to further explain to the editor what WP:OR is not allowed. In addition, his arguments are quite irrational. It is out of imagination to expect, for instance from a journalist of Human Right Watch, to clearly specify the affiliation of the perpetrators of a massacre in a Kosovo village? How can reliable sources of the time know who pulled the trigger against civilians in villages, whether they were Serbian Police, Yugoslavian army, or nationalistic Serbian paramilitary troops. Even to date, the International Court of Justice does not know exactly which fraction of the Serbian forces murdered the civilians. For this reason, all the reliable sources use the term "Serbian forces", because it is the most realistic and precise umbrella term. P.s.: Just to inform you an important detail, the original version of the article had the term Serbian forces, precisely as the numerous reliable sources called them. It was the editor involved who started edit warring and changing the article by covering the Serbian ethnicity of the troops based on his WP:OR. OppositeGradient (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• “It is clear beyond any reasonable doubt that the great majority of (atrocities) have been committed by security forces in Kosovo acting under the authority of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,” (then-UN Secretary- General Kofi Annan speaking in October 1998);
• International negotiators obtained agreement from Slobodan Milosevic to withdraw a portion of the Yugoslav troops in Kosovo and to allow a "verification force" from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to oversee the truce between the KLA and Yugoslav forces. (source referring to KVM itself).
• From the beginning of the NATO air campaign against the FRY on 24 March, large concentrations of Yugoslav forces were active around Decani. (OSCE source, in contrast to OppositeGradient's claim)

So, am I still guilty of WP:OR? Oranges Juicy (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• First you WP:OR against the given reliable sources, and now you are offering some new sources to save yourself at ANI. You should have presented reliable source long ago in the talk page, instead of edit warring. However, even the new sources you selectively presented here are contradictory to your claims. It is not true that the newly presented sources above do not refer to the troops as Serbian forces. Please notice that all the newly presented sources contradict their usage:
  • source 1) citing: "“Fighting in Kosovo has resulted in a mass displacement of civilian populations, the extensive destruction of villages and means of livelihood and the deep trauma and despair of displaced populations,” Annan wrote. “Many villages have been destroyed by shelling and burning following operations conducted by federal and Serbian government forces.”",
  • source 2) citing: "Then, a massacre of Kosovo's civilians by Serbian forces in January 1999 led to the threat of air strikes by NATO."
  • source 3) This is spectacular :). The editor above cited one of the 24 occurrences of the term "yugoslav forces" in the third source. However, a careful look at that document reveals that it uses the term "serbian forces" 338 times and the term "serb forces" 130 times! .
• Summary: You resorted to WP:OR in the article and now you suddenly present new sources to save yourself at ANI. Anyway none of the new selective sources prove your points, quite the contrary. And those are just a handful of selective sources, since the term Serbian forces is used by significantly numerous sources, found in the article. Furthermore, if sources regarding an event claims the perpetrator are Serbian forces, we should not use other terms from other sources, if they do not refer to the same event of a specific article aspect. Unfortunately, I believe both the initial WP:OR and the new initiative of the involved editor to rescue him(her)self by bringing contradicting sources here at ANI, are problematic behaviors. (P.s: Trust me, I have no desire to get the editor involved punished, because I find him a hardworking editor and a nice person. However, for the sake of Wikipedia's quality one cannot simply violate WP:NOR, edit war on top of that and continue to not drop the stick even at ANI.) OppositeGradient (talk) 20:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Well now the OP is producing utter nonsense. He says, "Anyway none of the new selective sources prove your points". All I can suggest here is that he read them over and over until the information registers, or find someone to read it for him and elaborate. He then says, "And those are just a handful of selective sources, since the term Serbian forces is used by significantly numerous sources, found in the article." Well that comment is not only utter hogwash but it betrays the sheer desperation by this editor to get the "Serb" point across. Those sources weren't new and yet it took me seconds to find them because reliable sources here are copious, add those to the ones listed at Talk:Kosovo Verification Mission and the others I added to the article. First he says, "sources explicitly use Serb" and then when he is shown that they explicitly do not necessarily use it, rather than admitting he was wrong or that sources use two terms interchangeably, the editor clutches at straws out of insane hopelessness by labelling these items as "a handful of selective sources". Apart from the fact that this is not so (Google producing thousands of results), it wouldn't matter if there were just one source because using the accurate terms "Yugoslav forces" or the completely safe "state forces" do not contradict the reported facts - totally incommensurable to the Flat Earth theory. The fact is that OppositeGradient named what he believed to be his own "most trusted sources", and I provided direct links from those very same publishers, they do not say what he wants them to say, and he doesn't like it. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 00:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oranges Juicy links arent a complication they are a requirement. Also please read this link and then consider rewording your response. Amortias (T)(C) 18:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

References

• Neither of you in this page long discussion provide diffs of the actual edits nor point to any talk page. There's just two of you at Talk:Kosovo Verification Mission so I'd suggest trying WP:3O or other options rather than just calling each other's edits "OR" as if that's an actual argument. This is a content dispute. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Ricky81682 I fear the case is mistakenly understood as a content dispute. To illustrate the case let me please provide you a very concrete example. Based on a US Government official report , the article originally had the following sentence. "Then, after the KVM had left, Serbian forces began a campaign of killings, rapes, detentions, and deportations of the Kosovar Albanian population." The claim was explicitly supported by the source (Introduction section) as follows:

• Serbian forces have made Pristina a ghost town. Serbian military police and paramilitary forces reportedly expelled between 100.000 to 120.000 persons from Pristina in only four days. Kosovars now in Macedonia have claimed that only 100 ethnic Albanians remain in Pristina. Serbian forces reportedly had been taking furniture from abandoned homes.
• In Pec, Serbian forces allegedly herded young Albanian women to the Hotel Karagac and raped them repeatedly. The commander of the local base reportedly used a roster of soldiers' names to allow his troops visit the hotel on a rotating basis. The Hotel Karagac is only one example of the gender violence that plays such a large role in Serbian actions in Kosovo.
• Reports indicate that the violence in western Kosovo is stronger than in any other region of the province. Serbian forces emptied Pec of ethnic Albanians in 24 hours. In Djakovica's old city, Serbian forces allegedly burned 200 to 600 homes the day after NATO airstrikes began. By the next day, the rest of the old city had been torched.

It is very explicit that the acts were conducted by Serbian forces, as the reliable source explicitly refers to them. Now the other editor involved, arbitrarily removes "Serbian forces", and enters his own synthesis term "state loyalist forces", despite my numerous clarification and the explicit nature of the reliable source. See his edit diff: . In the talk page, he first argued the source is not found, then he changes stance and expressed that the source does not support the claim (on the contrary, the source can't be more explicit), and finally he reasons that official US Government sources are not trustworthy and the person writing that report is incapable (see his words above). As you can very clearly see, this is a not a content dispute, but a clear violation reliable sources and WP:NOR. Nobody can change explicit statements of reliable sources based on personal synthesis, that is the basic concept we are being taught in Wikipedia. Finally, I did my duty as a responsible editor to fight against, and report, WP:OR and edit warring, now I naturally expect the admins to ensure that Wikipedia rules are respected. OppositeGradient (talk) 10:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

References

 Done - See here. Thank you for the advice and for drawing my attention to WP:3O. I have drafted the question and background in a way I feel does not hint one way more than the other, though if you disagree with this, please let me know and I'll see about amending my text. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion / disruptive editing / 5.107.141.137

Hi, 5.107.141.137 continuing on from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/92.96.206.60/Archive has now moved onto dumping their version of the article into المسيح ,Jewish view of Muhammad and Jewish views on Muhammad. Also related to this previous ANI "Theories of Muhammad in the Bible", and 5.107.141.101 reported here earlier today. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I processed this via a report at WP:AIV. IP has been blocked and all their redirect targets semi-protected but the disruption will probably continue. [119] If they'd actually stop and listen and work with other editors, a lot of the material they're trying to dump into redirects could probably be worked into the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Since they keep doing this, and have vowed to continue, can this not be detected with filters of some sort since it is exactly the same huge (53K) chunk of text each time? I only keep bumping into to guy because of the same errors posted every-time (and not because of the secret cabal he blames this on). KylieTastic (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Pinging an edit filter creator Samwalton9. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

•  Done Special:AbuseFilter/710. Hidden to avoid WP:BEANS. Sam Walton (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• They are back - now using 92.99.239.114 @ Scriptural prophecy - KylieTastic (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked. KylieTastic, are you detecting these during recent changes patrol or something else? Email me if there's WP:BEANS involved. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:TROUBLES for Ring Julian and Text Julian

• Ring Julian (talk · contribs)
• Text Julian (talk · contribs)

Single purpose accounts set up solely to rake trouble at a controversial discussion at Talk:Derry (i.e. WP:TROUBLES related).

No other contributions. Posts indicate a (seemingly intimate) knowledge of previous discussions, editors, etc. Contributions are combative/trolling.

Can another admin block this editor as a case of WP:QUACK in violation of WP:TROUBLES? Thanks, --Tóraí (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

People aren't psychic so some diffs and some explanation would be helpful. Saying they are to "solely to rake trouble" about an RFC for renaming a city article name that goes on for pages isn't the best way to get fast results. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't think it was necessary since they have less than 20 edits and none outside of the scope of this thread. It's a WP:COMMON-sense case of WP:QUACK (IMO) but Valenciano has spelled it out below. --Tóraí (talk) 09:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that Text Julian arrived and plunged straight into an RFC to support another editor, whose arguments they have a habit of repeating. If you look through their first six contributions, Text Julian already showed familiarity with sandboxes, signing their contributions, article talk pages and indenting their comments, as well as Wikipedia concepts like "consensus" and "common name." I could live with a new editor figuring out one of them but all of them together, in less than 7 edits, is highly suspect. When questioned about that they cited their computer literacy. Yet that literacy didn't extend to following a big "forgot your password?" sign or following a clear link from their talk page to this ANI. The latter two look simply like attempts to overcompensate and try to belatedly establish their "newbieness." Most of their edits since then exhibit a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, being more focused on attacking other editors for their supposed political motivations ((diff1), (diff2), (diff3)) than discussing the topic at hand. Valenciano (talk) 08:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

What twigs it for me is a seeming familiarity with the editors involved, previous discussions and conflicts, as well as a literacy of policy and guidelines and the culture of Wikipedia.

Take their 3rd ever contribution: it demonstrates a familiarity and literacy with Wikipedia (e.g. referring to policies and calling Wikipedia "the project") and this topic area (e.g. saying that, "The current situation has only worked well for those...") that immediately quacks loudly. In their 4th ever contribution, they are discussing other editors user pages, not just in a functional sense but with a fluency that demonstrates an intimate understanding of their significance in Wikipedia culture and a seeming prior knowledge of the editors themselves. By their 5th ever contribution, they are redacting another user's comments, quoting WP:NPA.

That's some progression for a newbie. They may as well write, "Quack! Quack! Quack! Quack!" So, since the account holder has been evasive in explaining himself/herself, can we block these accounts, please, as a clear case of WP:QUACK? --Tóraí (talk) 09:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

User ClassicOnAStick

Could an administrator please examine the conduct of ClassicOnAStick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Their talk page history is littered with warnings from other editors, about such things as adding unsourced material, and not leaving edit summaries See [120], [121], [122], [123].

To each warning this editor responds the same way: they blank their talk page. Several editors have asked them not to blank their talk page and start responding to comments about their questionable edits, see [124], [125], [126].

On July 19th User:Lord Laitinen wrote here "It is very important that other users see Level 4 (final) warnings. Removing them is very undesirable and questionable. If you wish to "erase" this warning, please refrain from controversial editing habits. Thanks." Then finally a response, in an edit summary as they blanked their talk page here, "just leave me alone". Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything in Wikipedia:User pages that requires retention of warnings. In fact, the guideline specifically notes that those warnings can be found in the talk page history. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Bugs, that is true, however in my opinion the behavior of immediately removing every warning raises warning flags about the editor. Not enough for any official action, but enough to keep on eye on the editor's behavior. BMK (talk) 03:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The presence of level 4 warnings are enough to keep an eye on an editor. --w^{L<speak·check>} 04:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There is nothing wrong or in violation of policy about removing warnings from a user's own talk page. However, I guess we could take BMK's advice, see [127], [128], and [129]. Each was removed shortly after it was posted. GregJackP Boomer! 04:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it bears watching. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Reply from the mentioned user

I'll tell you why I remove messages. I am ashamed of my mistakes so I remove them so I don't have to look at them. I said leave me alone because I didn't appreciate the constant notifications. i apologize If that was line crossing. Deleting messages has since became a habit. It seems that I need to brake it. I also don't leave summaries because #1 I forget and #2 I get lazy Rewind Wrestling (talk) 02:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Why is your signature completely unrelated to your user name? The sig is intended to identify the editor to other editors, yours seems to be intended instead to obscure your name. I suggest you change it. BMK (talk) 03:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I raised this issue about another editor recently. I was told that there's no rule against have a signature that has nothing to do with one's user ID. I don't think it's ethically right, but it's "legal". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

As Baseball Bugs said, there's nothing wrong with removing old messages from your talk page; the edit history is almost always preserved. But if the notifications are bothering you, it may be a good sign to read up on any policies they're pointing out and try to follow them, so at least you'll get less notifications. --w^{L<speak·check>} 04:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Help with the Republic of China elections page move

User:Number_57 has mass moved articles pertaining to elections Republic of China (Taiwan) to use the name “Taiwan” without starting a discussion, and in one case a page where such a move proposal was already rejected. Since the political status of Taiwan is highly controversial and the pertaining user moves are quite numerous and without consensus, this potentially constitutes vandalism. These moves ranges from articles about presidential, legislative, local elections and related templates. While some are reverted, I do not have the energy to find all the changes and revert all of them.

Here is a list of related moves (not exhaustive). Special:Diff/642446410/650200771, Special:Diff/639532221/650200886, Special:Diff/645569045/650200867, Special:Diff/640398686/650201015, Special:Diff/638063457/650200814. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexlur (talk • contribs) 05:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Related: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese), WP:NC-GAL#Elections and referendums. Alex Mattrick | ゆうせい 05:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I moved the articles in March to bring them into alignment with the naming convention for article titles (WP:NC-GAL) seeing as the main article was moved to Taiwan some time ago. I wasn't aware that there had been an RM on the "Elections in" page three years ago, but saying this "potentially constitutes vandalism" and filing an ANI report is really taking the piss, especially coming from an editor who has about 50% of their edits to their own userspace... What is rather concerning is that (on my userpage) they have claimed that moving the articles back is in line with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese), which doesn't even mention the Taiwan/ROC naming dispute. Number 57 07:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Help with unsalting a page.

Need Misty Edwards unsalted as a substantially better article has been created via AfC Draft:Misty Edwards that I believe to be ready for mainspace. Also, could you please tell me if this is the appropriate place to post such requests, as I was unable to find a solid place to post for help on issues like this. Thanks. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done. I checked the state of the article which was deleted in 2010, and this one seems to meet all of the notability issues which were missing in 2010, largely because there's 5 more years worth of refs. But the draft looks to me to meet the minimum notability standards at WP:GNG so I unsalted it. In the future, WP:AN is probably a more appropriate board, FWIW. --Jayron32 05:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Wynn vale

Recently I had cause to look up a neibouring suburb ie Wynn Vale in South Australia listed as part of its attractions is Football and other sporting clubs your failure to mention the biggest junior soccer club in Australia is my concern. Regards Scott Baird [email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.137.110 (talk) 09:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Francis Schonken is edit warring

Like the WP:MOS, WP:AT and its guidelines are under Arbcom sanctions

Today user:Francis Schonken reverted a long standing redirect on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision). History of the redirect and restoration:

• 14:27, 30 October 2009‎ Kotniski (redirecting to merged guideline where all this is covered, per talk)
• 22:00, 9 November 2009‎ Francis Schonken (there was no consensus for this)
• 08:20, 10 November 2009‎ Kotniski (undo - consensus was certainly reached on this (see multiple naming convention talk archives))
• 23:53, 16 February 2012‎ Jc37 (restore for illustrative purposes)
• 02:40, 13 April 2012‎ Born2cycle (Restore as redirect per consensus reached years ago about avoiding duplicate guidelines - see edit summaries in history)
• 10:36, 1 July 2014‎ Francis Schonken (Undid revision 487105621 by Born2cycle (talk) apparently new discussions emerged where this may be useful, see WT:NC#What should decide titles? initiated by Born2cycle)
• 19:15, 1 July 2014‎ PBS (Rv to last version by B2C. Reverting a change that is two years old without a new talk page consensus is not appropriate. Gain a consensus at talk WP:AT before making such a change)
• 08:21, 21 July 2015‎ Francis Schonken (Undid revision 615193695 by PBS (talk) per discussion at WT:AT#Using a . to distinguish an article)

I initiated an Rfc on WP:AT over this issue at 09:03, 21 July 2015 and then at 09:05, 21 July 2015‎ reverted Francis Schonken's edit to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) 08:21, 21 July 2015‎. with the comment: "Undid revision 672396442 by Francis Schonken (talk) I have started an RfC on WP:AT see RfC: Possible restoration of guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision)"

So far so normal, but since then:

• At 09:10, 21 July 2015‎ Francis Schonken reverted my revet to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) with the comment "Undid revision 672400336 by PBS (talk) restore for illustrative purposes during RfC; besides this needs updating after being in the closet for some years"
• At 09:11, 21 July 2015 without seeking consensus to do so Francis Schonken then edited the header of the RfC so that it is no longer stands on its own but made it a sub-secion of another section. Which of obscures the RfC section heading in the TOC.

Edit warring like this is a clear breach of the sanctions, and altering the heading of the RfC is at best an alteration without checking the consensus first and at worst an act of bad faith (it is particularly disruptive to start to make edits to other editors edits on talk pages when the talk page is about disputed content by the two editors).

Outcome: I want the last two edits by Francis Schonken (to the guideline and to the RfC) reverted. So that the RfC a clear a possible to attract as many editors as possible; and the RfC to run it course, so that it can see what the consensus is BEFORE changes to the guideline are made.

-- PBS (talk) 10:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)