text:
image of a "world record" nude swimming event and it's relevant section is a couple lines. If we're in the business of taking mediocre articles and making them good or featured, then actually following the manual of style of articles that already meet that criteria would be a good start. Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  01:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I think we should have a special Wikimania nude swimming gathering, but nobody would turn up because laptops aren't waterproof. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  22:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ghana, dip anyone? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * says who? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  23:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

 * If you have one, take pictures. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Nude backstroke, nude freestyle, nude butterfly, and nude breaststroke. Count Iblis (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I find it distressing that we have no pictures of people engaging in nude underwater intercourse, which is an excellent nude swimming activity. Pandeist (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Only a few people can hold their breath for long enough. Count Iblis (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

 * People need to lay off and remember What_Wikipedia_is_not. WP:LAME much?--Certified Gangsta (talk) 02:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, an article on nude swimming might have an image of someone swimming nude. That's what WP:NOTCENSORED means. It doesn't mean that we should have fifteen images of people swimming nude. Reasonable people can see the difference between editorial commonsense and censorship. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 04:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No offense but you don't get to unilaterally decide what is "reasonable" and what is not. Just so you know, your self-appointed status as the voice of "reasonable people" and "common sense" won't win you any brownie points. The community here will decide.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You think I'm making a point about the sorry state of editorial oversight here in order to win Brownie points? That's cute. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Why do we even have a page on nude swimming. Is there a page on swimming in a bathing suit? Legacypac (talk) 01:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Swimming in a bathing suit is swimming. That's like asking why we have women's studies but not men's studies in college (hint: we do and it's called history) or why we have minority student unions but no white student unions (hint: we do and it's called fraternities) or MRA people drawing false equivalence between "men's rights" and "women's rights". The article belongs.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 03:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Humorless, much?  E Eng  04:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7915369.stm Count Iblis (talk) 05:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The Towel, and the Throwing Thereof

Well, clearly I ain't gonna prevail here, not when the anti-IPC editors come out in force, supplemented by those Wikipedians who avoid WP:COMMONSENSE whenever possible. It's a shame that Nude swimming will be degraded as an article, a real disservice to our readers, but such things can't be helped, I guess.

I withdraw the complaint, and BrightR can do whatever he likes with Nude swimming, at least as far as I'm concerned: I've taken the article off my watchlist, and I don't intend to edit it again.

I'll crawl back into my hovel, and begin the repeated ritual incantation of the twelfth canto of my "A personal prescription for surviving Wikipedia". Cheers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Folks, please do me a favor, I'm trying quite hard to not comment here, because it would inevitably descend into bludgeoning, since I understand your points quite well (really, I assure you that I'm not in any way intellectually disabled), but disagree with them almost entirely. I'm sure you all know that it's much harder to stay away from a place when you're repeatedly being pinged there. So, unless you're an admin who's admonishing or sanctioning me (and not simply expressing a personal editorial opinion) please avoid pinging me to this discussion.  I really have nothing much more to say than I already have, and I feel certain that you don't want to hear that again anyway. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

 * FWIW, I acknowledge to the community at large that edit warring was a piss poor choice on my part to deal with the dispute with BrightR. I can plead frustration, but that's obviously never an acceptable excuse.  I do realize that I'm lucky not to have been blocked, and thank those admins who may have considered it, but showed tolerance to both myself and BrightR.My biggest regret about this whole sordid affair is that my lack of good judgment in this one incident will most likely be the only impediment to my becoming an admin in the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Obviously, this isn't your ORCP, but I thought I'd note I don't consider this one discussion to be a dealbreaker for your future request(s) for adminship - no one should be expected to match consensus all the time. Airbornemihir (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Thanks very much for those kinds words, but it was sort of a joke -- I'm sorry I didn't make that more obvious in the writing. I've been pretty clear over the years that I don't want to be an admin, and, practically speaking, I think I've collected enough people with doubts about me that I don't think I would be successful if I tried. I've even said that I wouldn't !vote for me if I ran, given my record!!  In any case, I'm happy contributing to the encyclopedia, despite its occasional frustrations, so simply continuing to do that is fine with me.  Thanks again, your gesture was appreciated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Another question
Why are we in the business of hosting image of naked, identifiable, living children? One such image is still up on that page after the cull. The problems are so many that I don't know where to start. How would you feel if someone in your workplace pointed out that there was a photograph of you naked and ten years old on the sixth most visited site on the internet? A child is inherently incapable of giving consent in such an image in every jurisdiction I know of. GoldenRing (talk) 06:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I presume you mean File:Kids skinny dipping in India.jpg. Four of the five subjects are simply unidentifiable because of the directions of their head or because of the water. And even so that the fifth is facing the camera, it's safe to say a fair amount of adults do not look like they did when they were children. Anywho, the Commons is hosting the image, they have had a deletion discussion on this before in 2010, you can head there for more information or to discuss it yourself. Here is a relevant guideline to India-specific consent, because of where this photo was taken. Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  07:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , I'm sure you aren't the first person to ask that question. As Moe Epsilon points out the answer is "because we can". That seems to be good enough for Commons. The problem may be that, just like on the Nude swimming article, there is no one sensible keeping an eye on things. That's why you get images like File:Naturist girl.png (archive) and File:Naturist young girl.png (archive). Both of those were uploaded seven months ago. I don't even know if we can host those, but should we? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems to be of the only one who is facing the camera, you can see see about as much of the body as the infamous Virgin Killer album cover as featured in the Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia dispute. And both show less than the infamous Nevermind album cover. In neither of these cases are the people children anymore, but that wouldn't have stopped us. Actually we've even had an article on Spencer Elden since May 2005 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spencer_Elden&oldid=13856728] which if the DOB on the current article is correct, means since he was 14 years old. Nil Einne (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * yes, yes that is the image I was referring to. Even the guideline you cite says, publishing a photo in a manner that might be "embarrassing, mentally traumatic" or causing "a sense of insecurity about [depicted persons] activities" is illegal under the CoI article 21.. I think this image ought to fall foul of that guideline, for the reasons I gave above.
 * Whatever your opinion of the album covers mentioned, I think there is a clear difference between posing for the front cover of an album and having your picture taken by a stranger while swimming. My concern here is not so much people looking at pictures of naked boys, it is more in the spirit of our BLP policy of erring on the side of doing no harm to living people. The people in the photograph are presumably still living. At least one is identifiable; you might not have much luck trying to identify him from scratch, but people who know him will recognise him (and will then probably figure out who the others are easily enough). The photograph would be embarrassing to most people, I think. I certainly don't much fancy my childhood photos being posted online, much less ones of me naked.  The deletion discussion at commons is pretty horrific; the idea that a child has consented to naked photographs because he appears to be smiling at the camera is wrong on so many levels that, again, I don't really know where to start. GoldenRing (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see how a baby less than a year old has posed for anything. Clearly someone that young has no concept of consent or even photography whatsoever and can't understand the concept of posing. In other words, if your argument in that the subject although a child may have some slightly more understanding of the implications of the decision when it was a professional work done for an album cover than if it it was some random taking photos, this falls flat when we consider babies since clearly they don't understand more of what's going on whatever the work. Instead you're saying that the parents can make the decision which means you then get a lot of complications, especially in cases where the images were e.g. at a nudist beach or other such places. Nil Einne (talk) 07:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The wider issue of course is something you touched on. "The photograph would be embarrassing to most people, I think. I certainly don't much fancy my childhood photos being posted online, much less ones of me naked." Since it was an "I think", no real evidence was provided for the former especially if we are talking about the Western world (particularly parts of Europe). Personally I definitely don't want photos of me naked around although more so as an adult than as a child, but it's definitely far from a universal attitude for people to be embarassed by photos of them doing natural ordinary things like swimming as a child even if naked. Which gets into your second point. Unless your advocating we remove all photos of children without explicitly consent then you're making a personal judgement about what sort of childhood photos are likely to be embarassing to someone.  I would hardly be surprised if some people are more embarassed by photos here Commons:Category:Street children, Commons:Category:Begging children for example. And I also wouldn't be surprised if for some 18 year olds they may be more embarassed by a photo of their mother or father kissing them as a child (the reverse but I suspect it'll be rare the person is identifiable without further information in that case) than one of them swimming. And I'm sure we have photos of children incidentally caught nose picking, we do have File:Oldwoman cry baby nakba.jpg for example. (Actually I found one which isn't incidental and probably should be deleted that even has the child's name.) I'm sure I could find other examples which someone may find more embarassing but I'm lazy to especially since if anything were to happen this conversation will need to take place somewhere else.  And that's only children. I'm assuming the argument is that a child is less able to understand the implications, such as the possibility of there being a permanent photographic record of it, of doing whatever they may find embarassing in the future in a public place. Still it's clearly not only children who may wish we aren't hosting images which feature them. For example some people may later regret appearing at a white supremecist rally or singing "no means yes, yes means anal" (okay we don't actually have anything from that AFAIK but I'm pretty sure that's primarily because of copyright reasons) or whatever else. Stuff which may have occured when they were young but considered adults, and in some cases possibly drunk. (Actually we do have a Commons:Category:Drunken people and some images I saw there or in subcats looked identifable.) Yet in at least some of these cases, I'm not sure we'd remove the images even if someone appearing in them asks, and even if they aren't iconic. (Well I'd like it like to think we'd always remove images of run of the mill drunk people if they ask, but I'm not sure if we'd do so for photos of a white supremacist rally. Likewise if one of the kids in any of the photos actually asks, I'm assuming we will delete it unless we have very good reason not to.)  Note that I'm explicitly not saying we shouldn't make such judgements, actually I'm pretty sure we and commons already does to a limited extent. I'm simply saying that if you did want to go about this, you'd need to carefully consider under what circumstances we make a value-judgement that a photo is potentially embarassing so should be deleted. That includes issues like what exactly is consent (including who provides it) and whether we only consider such issues for children, and how to handle cases where what's embarassing may be more incidental (e.g. picking the nose in a group photo). Also is this only about these images appearing in articles, because if it's the wider issue of hosting these images, that discussion would need to take place at commons unless you either plan to block these images from appearing on en.wikipedia, or try again to get the WMF so shut down common.  Nil Einne (talk) 09:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm still thinking through this a bit, but I was a bit surprised to even have to think through it.
 * I think the difference between an album cover and the photograph in question is that the album cover has been published in its own right and Wikipedia is using an image of a thing to describe that thing; if someone queries the use of a naked child on an album cover in a Wikipedia article, we can reasonably say that we have an article on that album and want to illustrate it; it's not like we could choose a different picture of the album cover which didn't have the naked child on it. The use of the image on an album cover also creates the reasonable assumption that someone consented to the image.  It probably wasn't the child, but someone with responsibility for the child was almost certainly involved in the production of the image (and someone in such a position is usually able to give consent on a child's behalf to many things, though maybe we're nearing the edge of those limits here).  The case of a just-starting-out freelance photographer who took a photograph of someone he happened to see somewhere and posted it on flickr under a license he later regretted is clearly different.  Neither you nor I would ever have encountered that picture in the total obscurity of some Frenchman's flickr stream; the only prominence that image has, it has because it is used on Wikipedia.
 * I don't buy struck; see below a lot of your argument above; if I could paraphrase briefly, it seems to amount to  the portion of what you say that amounts to, "Some people will find anything embarrassing, while others aren't embarrassed by anything, so we should just throw our hands up and have no standards whatsoever." (I realise this is not what you're actually advocating.)  Of course some people won't be embarrassed by nude child pictures of themselves, and of course some people will demand that any reference to them be removed; neither of these should determine our actions.  The principle we work by is that of conservatively doing no harm to living people and only publishing things about them that are verifiable in reliable, independent, secondary sources.  Why should that standard be different just because it's a picture of them, not words about them?
 * You briefly discuss the issue of children/adults in similar situations and actually I have many of the same concerns about other images used in that article; they are all of presumably-living people, many of them clearly identifiable to people who know them, and some of them in situations where they may well have a reasonable expectation of privacy. File:FYN 04.jpg, for instance, is an upload on commons by a user who ought to be blocked there for violating the username policy; they claim to represent Florida Young Naturists without, as far as I can tell, any evidence of it.  Even if they do officially represent that organisation, I'd really like to see some sort of evidence that they have permission to post naked photos of members to heavily-trafficked websites.  File:2014 WNBR Brighton beach.jpg is just about reasonable; these people are adults who've just participated in a naked run and if they didn't realise someone might take a photograph of them in the process then they should have.  That kind of reasoning doesn't, as far as I can tell, hold for the other images discussed above.  GoldenRing (talk) 10:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd planned to leave this discussion, but I need to reply since you made highly offensive comments about me. I never said anything remotely like "Some people will find anything embarrassing, while others aren't embarrassed by anything, so we should just throw our hands up and have no standards whatsoever". I explicitly noted that I am not saying so ("Note that I'm explicitly not saying we shouldn't make such judgements") precisely  to avoid this but you ignored my comment and instead made offensive comments about me. Please do not make such highly offensive misleading statements about me ever again. I'm definitely done with this discussion now. Good luck ever getting anything changed when you make such highly offensive misleading claims about what people are saying. Just because people think stuff is complicated, and there are a lot of issues to consider and so we need to think long and hard about how, when and what we do rather so that we don't make sweeping judgements without strong evidence or only deal withone minor portion of a wider issue, doesn't mean they are saying that it should be ignored. It's barely tolerable to suggest they are saying so if the person didn't make it clear they are not say that. When I did make it clear? No fucking way. If you are unable of unwilling to look into the wider issues, that's you choice. If you think you can get stuff changed without looking into the wider issues, that's also you choice. But don't fault someone for bringing up some of the many wider issues. If you do want to consider the wider issues, I have no idea why you'd make such offensive comments about me just because I brought up a few of the wider issues. Nil Einne (talk) 11:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I am distraught to have caused someone such offence. This is genuinely something I'm trying to think through and I was trying to interact with some ideas you'd brought up; I clearly worded that very sloppily and didn't come across well.  I apologise unreservedly.  GoldenRing (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken wars against consensus - 1RR proposal
Now that we've established there's sweeping consensus not only in the WP:V RfC but also on AN/I, can we discuss the real issue here, Beyond My Ken repeatedly ignoring consensus, calling it completely advisory in nature when it suits him, ignores it otherwise, and in general employs the very tactics described in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR? He has been on AN/I, again and again, and RfCd at least twice, and generally fought in talk pages over and over due to his refusal to acknowledge that policy and RfC and talk page discussions are more binding than his personal preference or the "consensus" he and a single other editor achieve locally. This is followed (as it is here) with please avoid pinging me. This recurring behavioral problem (deny community consensus, claim local consensus, WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, "stop pinging me") is repeated throughout Beyond My Ken's contribution history. Can we please agree to a sanction that BMK should be subject to WP:1RR in any matter that is not obviously vandalism? Bright☀ 08:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * All I see is one user, with a deep knowledge of policy and procedure bulldozering his pet POV- without leaving sufficient time for anyone who is not permanently on line to make a comment. I would prefer to see that user to back off and do a week or so solid content creation before commenting further. --ClemRutter (talk) 08:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * without leaving sufficient time - How about ? ? More? Community consensus (RfC) and repeated local talk-page consensus could not sway you or Beyond My Ken. An AN/I which he initiated could not sway him. Sanctions need to be put in place to affirm that consensus is not bulldozering [a] pet POV. Consensus is how Wikipedia works. Ignoring consensus is the problem here, not the alleged lack of sufficient time for anyone who is not permanently on line to make a comment. Bright☀ 09:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Support proposal, as it is clear that BMK still does not "get" it. --John (talk) 09:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - is very lucky  before blocks could be dished out. I find the arguments presented here tenuous at best and incongruous at worst. —  nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 10:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Elaborate? Bright☀ 10:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The information you presented here does not show a pattern of edit warring, and, looking at the block log, it's been years since a competent block has been placed on BMK. Going from that to a 1RR is nonsense. — nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 15:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, seems you are not aware of Beyond My Ken's history. I'll add an overview below in a little while. Bright☀ 15:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I just stated that I looked at it and familiarized myself with it before commenting. Please, do not assume opposition to your proposal stems from ignorance. — nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 15:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't get mad; you stated that you looked at his block history; I'm explaining that he successfully avoided sanctions (such as blocks) time and again, and will provide the history below. Bright☀ 16:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The earliest RfC is from 2008, where Beyond My Ken was requested to stop trying to override consensus with reverts to status quo (sounds familiar?). From minor issues like ignoring the MOS (which represents consensus) in 2012, to more serious issues like OWN, 3RR, and ignoring consensus in 2010-2015, to outright claiming clear talk page consensus where there wasn't any in 2016. If you follow these links you'll find that other than the AN/I and RfCs, there were plenty of other 3RR and talk-page discussions where BMK decided to ignore consensus or "revert to status quo" as he overrides broader consensus in favor of his personal opinion, each time avoiding sanctions and blocks. 17:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Both users are very lucky not to have been blocked for this disruptive edit-warring, but as far as I know only BMK has a years-long pattern of this behaviour. Am I wrong? --John (talk) 10:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I am well aware that both should have been blocked, but only one of the editors has proposed ridiculous sanctions on another user. And you are wrong, see my response above. — nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 15:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If you think they are ridiculous, it is for you to propose an alternative. Which response above? --John (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The alternative is to discuss the issue at hand, something that doesn't require proposing. My response sums it up: [I]t's been years since a competent block has been placed on BMK. Going from that to a 1RR is nonsense. — nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 17:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The content issue was resolved almost immediately and should have never been brought to AN/I, since AN/I isn't about content disputes. What remains is the behavior issue with Beyond My Ken, which has been languishing for years without sanctions. Bright☀ 17:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Oppose Someone involved in an edit war who reverted seven times and now wants to have their opponent hit with a 1RR restriction might want to consider than ANI discussions generally take all sides' editing into account when considering sanctions. Unless one editor's behaviour in this matter is particularly egregious (i.e. inserting BLP violations), which isn't the case here, it's both or neither. Black Kite (talk) 11:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment made an edit, which they discussed in talk. They were met there with statements like :"IPC information is sourced by primary sources: the pop cuklture items themselves.  It it therefore not "unsourced" and therefore cannot be removed at will.  Like any other disputed information, it must be discussed on the talk page, and a consensus reached. This is not a "tactic", this is following Wikipedia procedures, which I suggest you do as well.", and the edit-war ensued. BrightR made six (not seven) reverts; now, I know being "right" is no defence against edit-warring, but it might be helpful if some sort of sanction, or at very least an admonition, was given to BMK, as they need to know they are "wrong" on the interpretation of policy, and "wrong" to edit-war over it, and because I understand this is a pattern of problematic behaviour that has persisted for years. I'd have no problem with a similar admonition being given to BrightR. What we mustn't do here is nothing at all, or we'll be back talking about this every three months forever. --John (talk) 11:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Oppose per nihlus kryik and Black Kite. -- Begoon 11:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, but BMK does not seem to understand (or follow) the relevant policies and editorial consensus, and continued editing in this fashion may warrant some sort of future action. please be advised. Paul August ☎ 14:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Problem is, "for now" has been going on for about a decade... Each time BMK gets off sanction-free, "for now". Bright☀ 15:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Oppose per the reasoning of others here. And Bright needs to stop deleting stuff he doesn't like. This is just a glorified content dispute. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Despite my own view that IPC sections are at least 80-90% trivial crap and that on the whole we would be better off without them, I'm not seeing how BMK's conduct has been so egregious as to justify 1RR across the entirety of the project. A restriction more tightly focused on the problem area (IPC) could be more justifiable. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose BrightR looks to be trying to WP:GAME the system. MarnetteD|Talk 16:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose This clearly a political attempt for Bright to gain an upper hand in a content dispute. Perhaps he's the one who should be punished for gaming the system and wasting everybody's time. --Certified Gangsta (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Quite the accusation considering BMK brought the issue to AN/I, not me. You should consider his storied history of ignoring consensus in order to revert to his own version. Bright☀ 17:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a strange accusation, too, in that as far as the content dispute goes, there was almost wall-to-wall consensus here that BMK is in the wrong... on top of the previous RfCs and policies... Bright☀ 17:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Oppose as vindictive gamesmanship. This proposal borders on vexatious to the point that it may merit a WP:BOOMERANG. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 16:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose cynical gaming the system. and yes John, you are wrong. -Roxy the dog. bark 17:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Gaming how? I'm raising a behavior issue that has cropped up again and again and again... Bright☀ 17:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Perfectly willing to believe I am wrong, but I'm an evidence-based guy and I don't see evidence for that. Is there some? --John (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Oppose a genuinely bad idea. BMK is hardly an edit warring user. If you have to bring up something from 2008 to support your case Bright, it means you have no case. Legacypac (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose 1RR bs, Support indeffing Bright for not being very bright. – Davey 2010 Talk 18:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose After waiting to see some evidence that is relevant to more recent times, I'm not seeing enough to enforce a 1RR right now. 1RR would more plausible for IPC sections, specifically, but that is not what is being proposed. It's overkill to 1RR BMK for the whole project. BMK has also stated above that he was done engaging in this conversation, editing that article and making further reverts, and that was before this section was started. There is nothing to prevent. That being said, both Bright and BMK should both be admonished for repeated edit warring. Bright and John should also drop the stick and not reply nearly as much as they are here. Your positions on the matter here are understood. Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  21:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It is a bad idea. As Legacypac already said, having to bring up something from almost 10 years ago doesn't support your case at all. It almost looks like BrightR is trying to WP:GAME the system. Miles Edgeworth Objection! 21:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Legal threat
See this post by. MarnetteD|Talk 03:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked for a variety of reasons.  Acroterion   (talk)   04:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: G
I don't know what's going on here, but something seems off. Editors:
 * diff 1 2600:1:b112:5ec:dc7d:4ee2:f684:3b0d ES: Undid revision 799880279 by G-gollin (talk) Convicted ethics violator George Gollin self-editing again
 * diff 1 ES: Undid defamatory revision

Jim1138 (talk) 08:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Yes, the "source" for the addition links to an unsourced attack page. This has been ongoing since July apparently, and they are obviously harassment. I've blocked two of the recent IPs for 48 hours for now, semi-protected the page for 3 days and deleted the revisions for the 3 edits that I can find. Alex ShihTalk 08:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Hirenny at Talk:Breitbart News
There is currently an edit war going on at Talk:Breitbart News regarding comments that several editors (including myself) believe are inappropriate. This probably merits more than a 3RR report. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I have ceased the so-called "edit war" you speak of (and even removed my last installation of my edit you speak of). At no point have I been informed of what guideline I violated (and I'm still waiting for a message from one of the editors to tell me which one). I await to be enlightened....Hirenny (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:TPG. Article talk pages are not a soapbox for expressions of disagreement or disgruntlement with Wikipedia or its policies. They are a place to discuss improvements to their respective articles. Your post made no suggestions for improvements and no constructive suggestions; yelling loudly that you won't donate to the project unless the content of an article is changed to your satisfaction is not proper behavior for a Wikipedia editor. We don't respond to financial threats, because none of us are getting paid anything from those donations. Your angry talk about money has literally zero impact on any of us. If you believe changes need to be made to the article, you need to politely outline specific, actionable issues and provide reliable sources which support the changes you think should be made. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

FYI, I did make constructive suggestions elsewhere on the talk page. I also raised legitimate concerns about POV in the article. I'm not the only one. It's also clear that I'm not the only one who has had my concerns erased from the talk page. Read what I actually wrote: I did not "yell loudly" that I won't donate to the project. I reprinted the conversation I had with someone at Wikipedia that I cannot in good conscience donate to a project that allows such an egregious bias in the editing of articles. If I need to reword this to get my point across, then fine. But the point of "talk" is to share views and objections about the content and editing of the article, which I did. But, it appears some views on the talk page are not acceptable to the editorial paradigm. You kind of prove the original point I made. Too bad that you feel you need to wield the bigger sword you have to make your point, and silence mine from the arena. If that is your goal (I would hope it isn't, since it goes against the very tenors of Wikipedia that you so vigorously claim to uphold), well, felicitaciones. Hirenny (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Whether or not you've been useful elsewhere, your edit warring of a long, whiny diatribe against WP because the content of that page doesn't conform to your own beliefs has been nothing but disruptive. And do not email me again. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  00:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Since you characterize my concerns as a "whiney diatribe," let me remind you of these stated guidelines: "Be polite, and welcoming to new users; Assume good faith; Avoid personal attacks; For disputes, seek dispute resolution." Let me also state that at no point did I state my personal beliefs on Breitbart News, only that IMHO (which I am entitle to as you are to yours) that there is a flagrant violation of POV in the article. And I'm not the only one to say it. So, if your statement about me is consistent with these principles about being polite, assuming good faith, etc., please explain to me how it is, so I can better learn to follow your preeminent example as a Wikipedian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hirenny (talk • contribs) 00:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I never called you a whiny ideologue, so if you object to your comments being characterized as "whiny diatribe" then the best thing for you to do is to stop posting whiny diatribes at talk pages. And certainly don't edit war over keeping them on the page. And if you are a new user, then you have stolen, been given, or purchased your username, which is a policy violation that typically results in an indef block. So are you a new user? Or are you the user who registered your account in 2005?  ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  12:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "at no point did I state my personal beliefs on Breitbart News, only that IMHO" - ummm, assuming that "IMHO" means what it usually does, you're not exactly making sense here.  Volunteer Marek   09:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You must be taking the piss because you just complained about supposed bias in regards to Breitbart News. I don't have the time to entertain the reality you believe yourself to be in, and I suggest others save theirs as well. — nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 00:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The bias on Breitbart's website is a separate issue from bias on the Wikipedia page Breitbart News. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 00:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I did make a point (this is a reply to your edit summary that didn't match your edit). It's been explained that the wiki is a not a forum for their perceived Conservative plight, and any acrimonious response is very appropriate. — nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 01:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Explain in actionable terms what you believe to be wrong with the article, in terms that enable good-faith editorial discussion about the complaint. "The article omits Source X which disagrees with the sources currently in the article and thus its viewpoint is not fairly included." "The wording of the third paragraph presents an opinion as a fact without attribution." Something like that, and have reliable sources and references to policy handy to support your arguments. If you're not familiar with our policies, read WP:5P. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Here, here. Finally someone speaking some sense into the matter. Too bad that those who have used some of these kinds of terms on the issue of POV in the Breitbart article have been dismissed and smeared as I have been, and am being in this thread. Upholding the importance of the WP:5P, you will now surely be writing notes to the others commenting here, reminding them of point #4. And #2... Hirenny (talk) 06:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You have not been "smeared".  Volunteer Marek   09:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , I think everyone appreciates your self-revert to remove the offending comment. Now, if you are truly here to build an encyclopedia, you'll drop the stick, stop going on about editor behavior that the consensus here finds acceptable, and go back to Talk:Breitbart News with something constructive and substantive to say. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive IP
We've got an IP — <IP_ADDRESS> — continuing to alter sourced content, via unsourced additions, deletions of sourced material, additions of fringe material, etc., and ignoring all attempts at communication from a number of other editors.

Diffs:, ,.

You can easily find more by looking at the user's page if anyone needs them — none of the editing so far has been constructive as far as I can see:.

Multiple warnings can be found at:. Alephb (talk) 04:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

We have a serious POV vandal at Wavetable synthesis.
So I haven't been paying much attention, but an article that was a clear POV fork, Table-lookup synthesis, that was created several years ago by User:Clusternote was finally merged to Wavetable synthesis (it probably should have simply been deleted). Now Clusternote is changing the lede of Wavetable synthesis to say, in the very lede sentence, that the term is a misnomer. It's totally without merit. I have reverted his changes and he has reverted it back claiming that I am the vandal. This is going to need help because Clusternote is a very tendentious editor. His English is also quite poor, long ago I was able to locate him in Japan.

We're going to need some help here. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 05:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Already looks like a sock puppet has shown up. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 05:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a content dispute. You need to discuss it on the article's talk page.  The sock puppetry accusation seems to be based on a single revert made by someone who was apparently doing recent changes patrol. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Filipe Oliveira (footballer, born 1995)
BLP vandalism on IP address changing with every edit. PP, please? Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 05:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

 * The page has been protected by Ymblanter. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

IranianNationalist
The user has kept on making accusations of bias (and other PA'sd long after being asked to stop), as well as other issues.

Accusation of censorhip and of being an agent of a government  and prejudice

I asked him to stop

His response was

and

In addition (just a few more on other pages)

Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

There is more but I was letting it go a he clearly is not a native English speaker. The problem is this is over multiple pages and even though he now accepts the point is still accusing me of bias.Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

And has now said that my posting of the alert for this ani is disruptive followed up with this Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I want these comments to taken into account:

–Pahlevun (talk) 11:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "Pahlevun was probably a Muslim :v"
 * "We have a proverb says : It's not possible to ride a camel in a bow manner (hiddenly). Having a famous fun superstition(a famous doorway of a mosque) and hidden it?" (Rough translation from Persian language, suggesting that I was doing a "stupid secret job" in case you wonder what's the meaning).
 * "I think Pahlevun is censoring...
 * "But Pahlevun censors the...
 * "I want to add a note, this user Pahlevun has a Persian name... Is it necessary for me to talk about censorship more? Is Wiki an Encyclopedia? Or a political war place? May be wonderful for the staffs in the Jimmy Wales office
 * "you can ask why Pahlevun said... I can see prejudices clearly in this talk :v"
 * "someone attempts to censor contents... also you can take a whois to find who is behind it. Have some nice dollars :v"
 * "Also this is a... fallacy by Pahlevun... Are Pahlevun supporting Islamic Republic? Is Wikipedia for political war?"
 * "The problem is when Pahlevun says... this is censorship I told repeatedly"
 * "I don't push my IMAGINATIONS to anyone (versus Muslims)... if someone wants to believe there is a Jinn out there or not it is a personal decision based on how much we want to be rational or not."

Profanity and Conflict Escalation
Hi there. I have no other way to describe this—and I am not 100% sure this is the best place to report this—but is it appropriate for an experienced Wikipedia editor who is intervening in a case of article vandalism (that I will state has now been resolved), to then—after the dust settles—state the following: | “Fuck off, troll.” The articles in question have been a small cluster of articles—Microman, Micronauts, Scarlett (G.I. Joe), etc…—that have been oddly edited over the past month from a series of British Telecom IP addresses. Other editors have noticed this and the IP addresses had temporary blocks. Now—just today—the block expires and the same pile of editing happen. Then in the middle of this, a magical new user pops up and gets into personal nonsense with Drmies.

Okay, fair enough… The dust has settled and now we all (seemingly) know how to “play” together… I go out to lunch, come back and for no reason, Drmies posts | “Fuck off, troll.”. What is this nonsense? And over what and of value to who?!? I am pinging and  since they have seen facets of this nonsense. What ultimately disturbs me is Drmies sudden—and unwarranted from my perspective—use of profanity in this. Everything has genuinely seemed to calm down and an experienced editor just drops the F-bomb like that? Why? --SpyMagician (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow. That was something. There is no warrant for profanity, but in this case I think he just had enough.--Biografer (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Why? Because of understandable frustration. I was unaware of some of this backstory, or I would have blocked User:Macro The Islander myself; I figured 90% likelihood of trolling, 10% likelihood of being an overzealous Microman groupie.  But if there's a history of this pattern of editing on related articles, and the new user jumped into the middle of a resumption of that, then the balance swings to 100% likelihood of trolling.  While in Utopia, people react to a constant barrage of trolls with restraint and love and polite mumblings, we normal humans occasionally lose our patience when someone succeeds in pushing our buttons. I don't think an ANI thread over a one-off annoyed comment is productive, or very sympathetic. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

 * From what I can tell Drmies has had to put up with some unusually bad shit today, I think not related to this, but ... oh I'm just going to say it: a brand new user appears on this article and their first four edits are reverts calling the administrator's edits vandalism. They then open a new thread on the talk page, which contains a blatant personal attack. Then they create a user page for themselves, which contains nothing but an allusion to the "vandalism". Then reports Drmies at AIV. Which part was not trolling? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Anyway the troll disruptive wikihound has been blocked. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Fair enough of a perspective, but as I state that “F-bomb” came out of left field and after the dust settled and a calm balance was struck. No valid reason for that behavior or language. It was a done issue. Why kick it back to life with an “F-bomb?” --SpyMagician (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe it was an edit conflict that made him still say it?--Biografer (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

 * And thank you for blocking that weird phantom of an editor. --SpyMagician (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh it wasn't me, it was someone who hasn't commented here. Though I thought real hard about doing it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

 * FWIW, this is possibly the most badly-sourced article I've ever seen at Wikipedia. If Drmies was trying to clean it up and someone else kept restoring it to this state, I can entirely sympathise with him; an article this bad has no place on Wikipedia. ‑ Iridescent 20:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it is the most badly sourced article? Yeah, it does have 2 YouTube refs (refs 59 and 61), but the other sources are fine. :)--Biografer (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Really? You think this (which alone accounts for 26 of the references), Tom's Microman Zone, "Skooldays Memorabilia", "Transformers Wiki" et al constitute reliable sources? ‑ Iridescent 20:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Many of these blogs and fan sites contain information translated directly from Japanese source materials. Source materials that would be inaccessible in non-Japanese speaking countries. Primary sources are provided as well if possible. If there is over citation then let’s deal with that. But I assure you there’s no original research here. But if you are serious about your claims, can we discuss on the talk page for Microman or would you rather assume it’s all trash? I mean maybe just roll it all back to that “stunning” 2014 page, right? --SpyMagician (talk) 20:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I agree with Iridescent here - those sites are not even close to being reliable. A Transformers wiki? A page title Microman Forever that doesn't even give the name of the person compiling the information? And more just like that? Not reliable, and if Drmies is removing them, so much the better. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! You know what, I am the one who build up that article from practically nothing using respected sources based on what I know about this toy line and it’s history: Which is a lot. Here is what it looked like back in 2014 before I decided to do something positive about it; back then it was less than worthless and ever so slightly better than manure. This whole kerfuffle came when a slew of anonymous IP addresses from British Telecom made sweeping, unexplained changes under the rationale of “copy edits.” Drmies only came in later and—if you see my attempt at productive discussions—I am taking advice to heart. I am willing to help clean this up. But isn’t Wikipedia supposed to be about assuming good faith? These are dead toy lines and my intention is to provide solid details on these lines that might be dead but have strong histories. That’s all. Can we assume good faith and move forward? --SpyMagician (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:PACT. I see no reason Drmies should have assumed good faith with the blocked editor, and he is assuming good faith with you, he does have a difference of opinion regarding what are good sources and what is encyclopedic.  I'm "G" rated, but I can understand his frustration with the level of nonsense he's been dealing with lately.  Give him a break.  What would you have of him?   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 20:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I was going to make a well-thought-out, patient and polite comment on how curse words are just words that add emphasis to otherwise monotonous statements and subtly point out how ridiculous it is for a mature person to get upset because they happened to read some words (not even ideas, just words) that they dislike reading and go run off to cause drama over it. But then I considered how sensitive people on the internet are, so I decided to just go fuck off and die in fire like the shitty cunt I am. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

 * A momentary and understandable lapse of decorum from one of our finest admins on being trolled and called a vandal. Troll blocked indef now, sure Drmies has no intention of doing it again. I don't think there is anything here to discuss. --John (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Can I just say it should be clear that "troll" was that Macro person? I mean seriously. I think it is probably the same person as yesterday's troll, whom you can admire on Sockpuppet investigations/DisgrunrledGrunt, and who in turn is either connected to this editor, or it's an earlier h8er who just jumped on this edit of mine (more fully explained here). So, this doesn't come out of nowhere. Drmies (talk) 00:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

This user keeps on breaking their unblock conditions
A user called Darkness Shines was blocked indefinitely and then unblocked in May on some conditions including a 1RR limitation. But they repeatedly break this condition. They keep on edit warring. Some examples on Patriot Prayer; on Merle Dixon;  on Rohingya persecution in Myanmar (2016–present). They also got a 31 hour block for edit warring. But shouldn't repeated violation of unblock conditions mean the indefinite block should be imposed on them again? and <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * FYI link User talk:Darkness Shines about talk concerning last block.--Moxy (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this has been dealt with, per the thread on DS's talk page. Yes, there was an issue but this report looks like an attempt to stir things further, perhaps by one of the many socks that DS spotted even while prevented from contributing to articles etc. They've agreed to take on board the many comments made by others in that user talk thread, so let's see how it goes. - Sitush (talk) 00:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That discussion has no reference to the long term behavior of edit warring in just the past month. The discussion is only about his last edit war where he brought up BLP issues and not the other pages he has been breaking 1RR on. 1RR was his unblock condition. And he keeps on breaking it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 00:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTPUNITIVE, until and unless the user demonstrates that they are being disruptive, there is no need for a block. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 00:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

 * The behavior clearly shows a disruptive attitude. There are problems with civility too, another one of DS' unblock conditions  — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 00:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * None of your example are from after the recent block. If the behavior is not continuing, why should the community act now? Alex Eng ( TALK ) 00:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

DS used the word 'idiot' for another user. That breaks the civility condition of his unblock.<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC) {{ping|AlexEng]} I think the community did not look at all his behavioral issues. They only looked at 1 edit war. The 31 hour block is insufficient for someone who constantly misbehaves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 00:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems like you're out for blood here. I don't think there's cause to be rehashing this discussion so late after the fact. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 00:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. DS pledged to take onboard the advice given. There is no good reason for a block. Dr.   K.  04:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violation never stops
Hello. Is it time to react about constant uploading of copyrighted images? Users talk page is FILLED with deletion notices and final warnings spanning since 2016, but it looks like user ignores them. This is now quite disruptive... --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ )  00:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

 * These violations are not by a newbie. Block. Aspro (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 48 hours (to ensure that he see the block and not just the message), with a warning that the next infringement will be met with an indef block. Since the situation's been escalated with a block and not just a message, we can give him a last chance, but if he returns from the block and keeps on going, there's no reason to expect that anything will change, so an indefinite will be reasonable.  Nyttend (talk) 02:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Resnjari egging on editor to denigrate an ethnic group on their userpage
had posted the following quote from a former US president denigrating an entire ethnic group on their userpage, following unsuccessful attempts at inserting it in wikipedia. I removed it, and then reverted me and restored the quote. He then had the nerve to call me a "troll" and then egged on Ilirpedia to restore the quote. Both users have been blocked recently for edit-warring. Any help in dealing with this would be greatly appreciated. Khirurg (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ilirpedia also posted the same anti-Greek material on Talk:Greeks and Wikipedia talk:User access levels, so it's not only on their own user pages... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , Ilirpedia is a new user and i advised him as i saw fit within what i interpreted to be the guidelines (WP:TALKO) as being apt. I have had extensive interactions with editor Khirug of deleting other peoples comments like mine in the past under his former username (who also has a history of past blocks) so i thought the same was at work here. Its why i did undid them.Resnjari (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Even after another user tells Resnjari this is NOT ok, Resnjari doubles down . Khirurg (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You have done similar deletions (another example:) in the past based on no reason. My first inclination was that the same was at work here again.Resnjari (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * apparently realized that this is not appropriate and removed the text from their user page. Resnjari seems to be a candidate for a block.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , there is a misunderstanding here. Its not about a block and what Ilirpedia does is thier choice. This is now a personal query. I have seen many other userpages containing controversial content and quotations. How are they allowed to have that then and no other editor has gone in to edit their page? How is that permitted ? I am asking because its about consistency and rules and of concern to me as i thought a userpage was off limits unless it has swearing (toward someone) or something really vulgar and grotesque and so on. Because if one is permitted in such circumstances to delete, then can i do as Khirug has done when i come across offensive content that i might want to remove?Resnjari (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If you see similar texts at the pages of other editors, please report them to ANI. I usually remove these texts, and if the editor restores, block them.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ok, will do. I just want to clarify one other thing then, Khirug did not report to ANI first yet instead deleted , that content himself. Would that be an issue in itself or not considering he is not an administrator?Resnjari (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I do not see any issues here.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ok, thanks for the advice . Best.Resnjari (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

South Derry Republican, <IP_ADDRESS>, Eireabu
Having had a notification seven days ago that someone tried to log into my account from a new device I am now being harrassed by a new editor Special:Contributions/South_Derry_Republican who is also clearly operating from the bare IP Special:Contributions/<IP_ADDRESS> as well. They have also now engaged in edit-warring on my talk page despite being reverted by myself and  and notified in my reverts of point three of the infobox at the top of my talk page which states:

There are two possibilities: a random editor of obvious strong Irish republican viewpoint takes offense to me as my views contrast to theirs; or secondly and most likely it is an existing user on Wikipedia. In this case I can assume it to be the user, whose username as well as some of their comments to me in the past suggests they are also someone of Irish republican views. They are the only editor I can assume has a big enough grudge against me, in this case over the Red Hand of Ulster article where I completely shattered their viewpoint and arguments by sheer weight of historical and academic evidence as can be seen by a look at the references and bibliography of this edit of mine. Indeed after blocked the article for a month to prevent a full edit-war I posted quite a lot of reasonings and justifications for my edits and on the many issues in the article. I even copied the article into my sandbox and posted regular updates of work in progress for Eireabu to look at and comment on, and how I took their concerns into account, however they responded once and it was quite clear they had not bothered to look at any of the stuff I presented or said and was intent on carrying on as before. They had no clear intention of collaborating.

I also believe the harrassing end comment to me backs up it is Eireabu:  The key bones of contention Eireabu seems to have had with my initial edits to the Red Hand article was over the first documented usage of the Red Hand symbol and the source used for it (slates source as POV as well as adding in their own SYN and OR, |slates source as a unreliable "pamphlet" without any supporting evidence.) They also felt the edit "relegated" the Gaelic history of the Red Hand and implied it wasn't a Gaelic symbol. Whilst the IPs comment is factually flawed (the flags origin—not the Red Hand symbol on it—is de Burgh), it strongly looks like a continuation of Eireabu's viewpoint on the matter.

Whether Eireabu is indeed South Derry Republican and the IP is up for debate however both SDR and the IP are harrassing user accounts that should be blocked as they only seem to exist to harrass me. Mabuska (talk) 11:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Absolutely not!! Nor do I condone such behaviour!! I've better things to do than to get myself involved in such stupid things and I sincerely hope the person detracts from it, I don't have any connections to Derry! Paranoia over myself is a little rash and unfair and an apology is in order. Eireabu (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There are grounds for suspicion and I do not apologise for voicing them and I stated that it is up for debate not certifiable fact. You may very well be innocent but these things have only happened since our few interactions over the past couple of months and I can think of no other editor I've interacted with who has a reason to be peeved at me so it is reasonable and quite right to raise the possibility. But as stated it is not fact, just suspicion and suspicion especially raised by the coincidence pointed out above. Anyways the only action I've directly asked for is against SDR and the IP.
 * Also anyone can make up a username stating anything whether it is true or not, indeed as I enforce the WP:IMOS agreement on the county name it could easily be an intentional choice by someone to have a dig as you cannot enforce IMOS on a username. Mabuska (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well as I have said on my user page, I hope they stop and I am with you in action against whomever it is. You have made an accusation, for which is wrong, I've better things to be doing than such nonsense!Eireabu (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And as I have done at your user page, I thank you for your condemnation. Yet if there is reasonable suspicion it and the reason why must be mentioned whether it is misplaced or not I hope you understand. Mabuska (talk) 23:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I Don't necessarily understand in fairness, it's a big world out there with multiple people with viewpoints, similiar or not. I haven't even noticed the user till you raised it, linking my own username in the process above. Even the quoted point you made above from this user regarding the Ulster flag wasn't something I agree with!! It was always my assumption the flag was largely De Burgo in design and origin, with an O'Neill crest at the centre. Anyway no point crying over spilled milk and alas we must move on! Here's to contentious free contributions and editing here on in. You might have gathered I'm slow with any sort of contributions and quite the amateur, that will never change unfortunately ;) Eireabu (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Mabuska, it wouldn't have hurt to have explained to South Derry Republican on their page, before you took them to ANI, that they're not supposed to restore removed comments. New users — which we're supposed to start by assuming they are — don't know that, and most likely don't read edit summaries. Also, this is not the place to voice your suspicions of Eireabu. The way to do that is firstly to ask them, and secondly, if you think you have good evidence, to open an SPI. I agree it's hard to believe South Derry Republican is a bona fide new user — see them using the template a couple of hours after the account was created, though not using it very well — but it doesn't by any means have to be Eireabu. I've warned South Derry Republican about harassing you on your page, and about editing logged out. Bishonen | talk 16:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC).
 * Considering they hit the revert button with their last edit it is pretty clear they seen my prior edit summary so it is either a lack of competence or lack of willingness to a) read it or b) follow it. Seeing as I clearly stated it was up for debate as to whether it was Eireabu or not, it should be apparent why I didn't file a SPI, and I would be highly surprised if an editor would admit to using a sock to harrass another editor if asked considering the ramifications. Regardless a warning will have to do, thank you. Mabuska (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Carmaker1 Disruptive edits
I've noticed Carmaker1 engages in disruptive editing and hasn't been blocked, this is likely because most auto pages have information added primarily by single purpose editors who are easily pushed around. He is changing around the years on the then when I restored them to the original he refers to this as vandalism. He has repeatedly accused me of being a sock of another editor who attempted to engage Carmaker1 in civil discussion but was instead insulted and had his edit reverted. Honda J engine talk page. His edit history features numerous insults and threats of admin intervention. For a recent instance, edited the page on a single occasion but is threatened anyways.

Now he resorts to canvassing for support. He finds the other active auto editor ( appears to have retired from editing) who changes and reverts year alterations and adds underground messages to inform other editors not to bother changing them since otherwise he'll revert them.. Since most of the auto pages are edited in tiny pieces by single purpose editors this is easily accomplished. By tag teaming the article, Carmaker1 (before it was with OSX) expects to change the page the suit his demands. Even more odd since the Honda J engine is built in Alabama for the North American market and rarely found in exported vehicles. Vortex833 (talk) 12:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I should point out that the dispute between Vortex833@undefined and Carmaker1@undefined started as a difference between using model years (for the American market) and calendar years (for the rest of the world). Unfortunately, Carmaker1 went in with all guns blazing, insulted Vortex833 and didn't explain his position properly, hence making Vortex833 into a mortal enemy. I'm trying to bring both sides to some form of understanding at Talk:Honda J engine.  Stepho  talk 13:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Stepho-wrs - Thank you. That is an accurate account, in my opinion.  There was a request filed at the dispute resolution noticeboard, but I had to close it for various reasons, including inadequate prior discussion and personal attacks.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure calendar years for the rest of the world even exists? Could be original research and endless reverted edits, noticed they refer to the new Camry as 2018 Camry over in Australia as well., , , ,
 * This looks like a content related dispute, and so long as no edit warring occurs, I can leave the article be and encourage you two to resolve your disputes peacefully and citing policy to support your arguments. The concerns I do wish to ask about is the incivility. Vortex833 - Can you provide me with specific diffs that point out the incivility you're talking about here?  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Here Carmaker1 uses derogatory terminology to insult another editor calling him a dunce. The other editor after being insulted didn't respond.  Vortex833 (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Stepho's comment on the talk page seems to be helpful, and based on your response you seem to understand and agree with the reasonable notion that presenting "American model years" (which don't necessarily correspond with actual years) without an annotation of some sort, can be confusing for readers. Therefore you're essentially conceding that your edits were in the wrong. I see no reason to action a user under these circumstances. S warm   ♠  05:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I understood this board was for informing admins of patterns of disruptive edits and was not used to resolve content disputes?Vortex833 (talk) 10:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I accepted adding an MY designation for clarification purposes though I don't see it as necessary or useful. On the page no other editors have changed or shown any sort of confusion in all this time, it's just an invented problem.Vortex833 (talk) 11:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Without an MY designation the Honda J engine would be highly confusing to its visitors, that's why the years have been added in the existing manner up until Carmaker1 and only Carmaker1 decided to invent an issue to solve and change all the years.Vortex833 (talk) 11:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning to realize this "dispute" amounts to pushing original research on automotive pages with an agenda. If sourced material isn't referring to these "calendar dates" then neither should the auto pages.  Googling Honda J30A  returns dates in the original format not the one Carmaker1 is pushing. Did the same for Honda J35  and it's the same. Vortex833 (talk) 11:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

 * That is equivalent to saying that if the source material was written in Japanese then the article must be written in Japanese. CarMaker1 was quite rightly attempting to harmonise the J engine article with the other international engine articles, which the vast majority are in calendar years (although I recognise that whether the article is an American article or an international article is still under discussion). However, he didn't make it clear that he was changing to calendar years (just as the original didn't make it clear it was using model years) and he then responded to reverts in an uncivil manor. His goal was good, but his methods were rough. Be careful to separate the two.  Stepho  talk 22:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

BG9M0THH8H3
There is no need to provide diffs, all of this editor's contributions have already been reverted by other editors, except those at Ex nihilo (should probably also be reverted per WP:DENY, SPI case at Sockpuppet investigations/Wittgenstein123) and those where I was reverted at Yahweh and its talk page. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 10:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the account indefinitely for soapboxing/abuse. Re, the SPI, it looks like a clear WP:DUCK to me as well. – filelakeshoe (t / c)     11:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 12:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard
It is apparent (to me) that the dispute resolution process has broken down. The moderator has recused themself after representations from the originating editor. I am not reporting misconduct. Rather, I am requesting oversight. I perceive that this oversight may take the form of a direction as to how to proceed from this point. On the otherhand, it may take the form of a decision in this matter. To this extent, I note that the matter has been discussed fully and that it has been generally notified (as indicated in the subject thread). I am notifying the originating editor specifically and posting a notification of this on the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As suggested there, I think a proper, neutrally worded RfC at the article talk page is going to be your best option if you can't find consensus. I doubt you'll get an admin here to "rule" on a content dispute or intervene at DR. -- Begoon 11:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Thankyou for your response. I have bought this here for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is fairly clear that, unless another moderator takes the reins (unlikely?) the DR process has failed. Secondly, the processes to date have closely followed the RfC process. There has been (IMHO) sufficient "debate" of the issues to establish a consensus but this requires a "close", since the opposing positions (one versus several) decline to acknowledge an "outcome" even though the consensus position has been identified by those offering a third opinion and the DR moderator. In making these comments, I do not per-judge any independent arbitration. I would observe that to protract this matter more than necessary would be disruptive. The originating editor at DR has already unambiguously indicated that they will not be bound by any decision at DR. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you can request a formal close of any discussion at WP:ANRFC. I don't think it has to be an RfC for that: "The Requests for closure noticeboard is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close a discussion on Wikipedia. Formal closure by an uninvolved editor or administrator should be requested where consensus remains unclear, where the issue is a contentious one...". I'm not sure how long that might take. Or, if you're confident you already have consensus, and the DR is abandoned, you could just go ahead and implement it, consensus does not mean unanimity. I know you know that, but it does bear repeating. -- Begoon 13:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * With thanks. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Doing this. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, I just saw what you did - I meant asking at ANRFC for the article talkpage discussion to be closed, since I looked there and that seemed to be what you were saying needed a close when you said "the processes to date have closely followed the RfC process" - the heading you've used looks like you're asking for ANRFC to close the DR, and I don't think that's going to work... Sorry if I misunderstood/misled you. -- Begoon 14:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

 * While, I am currently evaluating the DRN disc. itself, as a gen. reminder, please don't post any requests about DRN cases to ANRFC.While technically, every editor in good-standing could be a DRN volunteer, approaches at DRN vary widely from RFCs etc. and techniques of closing disc. or moderation varies. And I have not seen any DRN regular sans me frequent ANRFC either.Regards:) Winged Blades of Godric On leave 14:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah - crossed wires, probably my fault. Sorry. -- Begoon 14:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * -Yeah! Prob. he got stuck in the little ambiguous phrasing of your 2nd comment and understood it the wrong way! After all, errors can be fairly expected for people who are prob. not so involved/accustomed with the exact intricacies of our abundance of processes.Regards:) Winged Blades of Godric On leave 15:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I apologise for my error in that I saw the DR as a continuation of the thread at the ship's talk page. Discussion is continuing at Talk:USS John S. McCain (DDG-56) so this has defaulted to your intention in any case. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No need for you to apologise, I should be the only one doing that. My suggestion was ambiguous and I should have phrased it far more carefully. Sorry again. -- Begoon 01:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Clarification
I tried to moderate this dispute, but it appears that there was rough consensus, to which User:Wingwraith took exception, and first wanted me to express an opinion, which I eventually did (reluctantly), and then wanted a detailed refutation from me. At this point, I withdrew from moderation. I am still willing to assist in the formulation of an RFC. I am requesting administrative attention. I will note that any request at WP:AN or WP:ANI is inconsistent with the way DRN works. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So, made an edit that was reverted as disputed, and unanimously rejected by the local consensus on the talk page. They then requested mediation, and when the mediator didn't agree with them, WW attacked him. Wow.  this really isn't looking good for you and I'd be strongly inclined to block you if you engage in any further edit warring. Your proposed edit has been rejected. That's it. That's the reality. Beyond that, no one cares if you think you're "right". Your options are quite simply as follows: Drop the stick and move on, attempt to override the existing consensus by starting an RfC on the talk page (the consensus of which you must abide by), or continue edit warring and get blocked from this website. It's up to you. However this project is governed by consensus. Not individuals who say they're "right". This is not merely a content dispute. You're refusing to listen to existing consensus, which constitutes disruption.  S warm   ♠  05:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I will state FTR that I dispute some of the points that you have made. I wasn't attacking Robert McClenon when I asked him to clarify how it is that my objection had the quality of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and at no point did I say or imply that I had a problem with how he handled his role as the DRM; the fact that he was willing to recuse himself and request that another volunteer take over as moderator instead of closing the dispute resolution process outright is I think proof enough of the lack of any hostilities between the two of us. I understand the rules around consensus which is what partially motivated my bringing the dispute to the DRN, and I made the comment about my being right under very specific circumstances which I stood by then and stand by now. Even though an administrator is now involved with the dispute resolution on the talkpage which renders the RfC and "edit warring" actions moot, I'm not a IDHT kind of editor: I've throughout the process consistently come up with proposed edits, arguments and ideas which tried to carve out a middle-of-the-road approach to ending the dispute. That was my position then and that remains my position. Wingwraith (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Wingwraith in one detail, and that is that I didn't think that I was attacked, at least not exactly, although I did think that the questioning of my mediation was less than reasonable and less than fair. I would suggest that if Wingwraith doesn't want to be disruptive, they either accept that consensus is against them, or request a wider consensus via a Request for Comments.  I would suggest that this thread can then be closed, either with a finding of consensus (minus one) or with agreement to use an RFC.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As indicated above, this discussion is continuing at Talk:USS John S. McCain (DDG-56). I will add that the admin Buckshot06 is overseeing the discussion there. As the originator, I am certainly happy for this to be closed. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

/* WikiProject Trains participants */
Pi.1415926535 and Morphenniel I believe is one of the same person because they have the same edits and most of the time they edit in a hour of each other if I'm wrong I apologise for the inconvenience — Preceding unsigned comment added by P0404 (talk • contribs) — P0404 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Do you have some diffs that can help show us the evidence? -- Jayron 32 15:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You just might want to duck that WP:BOOMERANG. Sockpuppet investigations/Scott19982 is of interest here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Disruption at Administrators' noticeboard
User:Fram inserted a lengthy comment into the header of this RfC rather than in the threaded discussion section, with the express motivation that his comment "it should be considered before someone starts on the proposals", thus giving his opinion more visibility than the other opinions in the threaded discussion section. It also fundamentally changed the wording of the RfC after multiple votes had been cast.

When I attempted to move the comment, Fram reverted.

I would ask that this disruption of an ongoing RfC be stopped. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Fram's comments do not alter the text of the RFC, but rather comment on it from a clearly distinct section. It isn't the big deal you make it out to be, and should be left alone.  You're creating a tempest in a teacup by even bringing this here, there's no need to do anything except either leave it alone, or refute his points in his discussion.  -- Jayron 32 14:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

 * No. You are not allowed to insert your comments into the header of an RfC in order to give your comments more weight than the comments of the other editors who commented in the threaded discussion section. Doing that is disruptive. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

 * "It also fundamentally changed the wording of the RfC after multiple votes had been cast." That's a bit rich coming from the person who "forgot" that Betacommand socked for years after his second ban, even though you linked to the initial sockpuppet investigation with the comment that it came to nothing in your "neutral" RfC opener. Instead of dragging me here, you would do better to ask BetaCommand why he "forgot" to mention his Werieth account to you while you were drafting the RfC. Fram (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I would also ask that Fram be reminded to WP:AGF. The reason for the "fundamental change" he is complaining about is clearly documented at the bottom of Administrators' noticeboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

 * If you didn't know about the Werieth case when you opened this RfC, then you did a very poor job researching Betacommand's history and he didn't feel the need to mention it. In any case, it fundamentally changed the unban RfC from "he did nothing wrong but waited patiently since the ban" to "while being banned, he used a sock to continue the same behaviour for another two years or so", which gives a slightly different impression of the chances that this second ban will have changed anything about his behaviour. Fram (talk) 14:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Again, you are making arguments about the topic of the RfC in the wrong place. The correct place is in your !vote or the comments section. This ANI report is about your refactoring the header of an ongoing RfC. That's disruptive even if you are right. Stop doing it, please. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

 * If that account was a sock, and there is no proof, it appears it was a productive contributor for several years with minimal problems. That would suggest we should let him back. Legacypac (talk) 14:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

 * "No proof"? Have you read the actual discussion? And that account was blocked for their own actions as well. Fram (talk) 14:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I am not going to comment on the underlying RfC here (AN does not rule on such things) other to say that both Fram and Legacypac are free to make any argument they choose in their !votes or in the threaded discussion section. I want to focus on the disruptive behavior of Fram refactoring an RfC after multiple votes have been cast. Again I ask that this ongoing disruption be stopped. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

 * And bringing it here is somehow... less disruptive? It also fundamentally changed the wording of the RfC after multiple votes had been cast. - No, but, this did. I have to agree with Fram. That RfC should be closed or restarted. The RfC failed to present all the relevant evidence and can only be considered tainted. Besides that, no Fram did not alter the wording of the RfC. He created a subsection to the RfC asking that it be closed as biased and tainted. Yes of course it should be considered before !voting on the propsals, that's the whole point. Adding in that I am aware that this change was noted at the bottom of the threaded discussion where it is least likely anyone will see it and where anybody who has already !voted is unlikely to check. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Suggestion - would it satisfy everyone here if Fram's suggestion to close the RfC as out of order were relabelled "proposal 0" in the RfC, so that other editors can comment logically? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with anything to end the juvenile pettiness this thread started. -- Jayron 32 15:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Move on with Ivanvector's solution--As the initial editor who tried transposing the section; only to be reverted, my view is that there is little point in continuing this ssectin for long.While the desired outcome could have benn easily undertaken in a better manner by Fram, it's not disruptive. Winged Blades Godric 15:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

repeated web hosting, and now a legal threat
User:Strawhatmeplease was speedied in 2015 as a U5. The page was immediately recreated with no content except a comment about wikistalkers. Not a big deal, but the last two years have seen nothing from the user but more web hosting on that page, with it being blanked by the user every 8 months or so. Versions before blanking were, and. The last blanking was undone by the user twice before finally being replaced by a legal threat in the edit summary and on the page. There have been no postings to the user's talk page since the 2015 speedy notice by user:Skamecrazy123 and comment by user:JohnCD, so it seems like the user is trolling for a response. Here it is. The user should be blocked while the legal threat is outstanding, and this looks like a case of WP:NOTHERE as well. Meters (talk) 20:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Not really sure it was a legal threat, but in their entire history of editing at Wikipedia, with the exception of the one edit to Skamecrazy123's talk page, all their edits were their talk page. That's absolutely WP:NOTHERE behavior in my book and they have been indeffed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That was the fastest ANI I've ever seen... beat me to the user notification.Meters (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Repeated reintroduction of copyrighted content at Mont Rose College of Management and Sciences
Over the last week, and an IP address which ostensibly represents the same editor have been adding content derived in large part from this page to the page mentioned above. Copyright aside, the content is meant to portray the school in a positive light (thereby violating WP:NPOV) and is written like a press release (WP:NOTNEWS). A few recent diffs in which this content was (re)introduced are provided here: 1 2 3

I and other editors have reached out to the user on their talk page about the various issues involved here, including the copyright violation, WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, and WP:COI. Only one of these editors received a response, once on their own talk page and once on that editor's talk page. There is also an open case at WP:SPI, where it is suggested that this user created their account to continue editing the page after a previous account was blocked for WP:3RR. In the meantime, this user and the IP continue to silently reintroduce the same content. dalahäst (let's talk!) 13:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This was pretty obviously sockpuppetry, the editor's various accounts have been blocked. See Sockpuppet investigations/WilliamJoshua. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I see you've blocked the IP as well, thanks. Hopefully that'll put an end to this for some time. dalahäst (let's talk!) 04:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Continual changing of referenced Standings in the 2017–18 Ukrainian Second League competition
User using IPs <IP_ADDRESS> and <IP_ADDRESS> continually changes the standings in 2017–18 Ukrainian Second League Group A by adding a team which has been annulled and omitted from the reference provided by the official source. The user has not returned any reason nor discourse in the talk section of the article. Official source provided does not have the team in the standings. There is ample documentation in the article about the plight of this team. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a content dispute rather than something that needs admin intervention. That being said, you are correct that the official source has completely annulled the results. Page protected for 2 weeks. Fenix down (talk) 10:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Administrator Kudpung's speedy deletion closure of an AFD

This morning I opened an AFD for U. T. Downs. The article was created by now banned editor Billy Hathhorn. The article had also been at AFD before in 2015. Keep was the result. I didn't know of the past AFD but I made a substantial edit- Note I'm unsure if that is the right link because its been deleted- to this article in either 2015 where I removed a bio of a second person in the Downs article. Taking over 10,000 bytes out a article is substantial. Kudpung deleted the article today. Citing it was created by a banned user. The first problem with that- BH wasn't banned at the time he created the article. Second- That at least one substantial edit was done to the article.

Kudpung defended himself at his talk page when another editor voiced concern. I expressed my opinion on the matter too but he referred me to his first reply. His reply back to me in this edit when I told him I'd take it to ANI is also concerning. "Wrong venue. Discuss it properly and politely, and then we can decide if I restore it or if you take it take it to Delrev if you must. Otherwise you will be at ANI for agressive behaviour, arrogance, admin baiting, and disruption of the collaborative spirit."

I think the article should be deleted but a speedy deletion was dead wrong. The AFD should be re-opened....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I repeat: 'Wrong venue. Discuss it properly and politely, and then we can decide if I restore it or if you take it take it to Delrev if you must. Otherwise you will be at ANI for agressive behaviour, arrogance, admin baiting, and disruption of the collaborative spirit. You have a history of this kind of thing.' And ANI is still the wrong venue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

 * A administrator who threatens an editor with a boomerang for telling him he did something wrong is deeply concerning. WP:G5 says This applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others. G5 should not be applied to transcluded templates or to categories that may be useful or suitable for merging.

 * To qualify, the edit or article must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted will not qualify under this criterion.

 * Your speedy deletion fails G5 on just one grounds but two. Your behavior to me is troubling and that need addressing too....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

This is the right forum for AFD closed by an administrator in violation of policy. Here for example and BTW the editor who brought it to ANI was also the editor who started the AFD....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, since WilliamJE insists on reopennng this thread after I closed it and refusing to use DRV, it is considered disruptive to request undeletion of a page you are seeking deletion on. Waste of time and effort. Legacypac (talk) 01:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I didn't nominate it for speedy deletion. It was Speedied on grounds of G5 which doesn't apply. Have I ever nominated something per G5 or notified an admin of a article(s) created by a banned user. Countless times. Here is just one example....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Looked at your edits and yes you moved text to another article. That does not mean you made substantial contributions to this one.
 * There are keep votes from the sock themself
 * Agree having someone who nominated the article for deletion bring it here because it was delete. Meh
 * This sock was blocked in 2012 and the article was created in Jan 2015.

A edit removing over 10,000 bytes from an article the size of Downs is not substantial? That's absurd pardon my French. As for moving text somewhere else, I recall doing no such thing. What I removed was a second biography. Please point me to my edit that saw me move 10,000 (or any of it) somewhere else....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Cutting out a block of text is an edit, but not a substantial "contribution" to the page, more like a partial deletion. This whole thing make me wonder. Legacypac (talk) 01:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmmm not me. Ah Billy Hathorn, the gift that keeps on giving. Stubbornly thinking he's doing a good thing. I looked at a bunch of his articles a few weeks ago--the drivel is just mind-boggling, though you have to admire the sheer amount of stuff he can pull from the Weekly Parishioner. It's a walled garden with a big old fence around it, and at some point a team of highly trained commando editors needs to go in and clear that shit out to leave something we might call encyclopedic. Drmies (talk) 03:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said recently, I had a G5 denied because the speedy deletion template itself was ruled as a significant edit. Even if that was a questionable ruling, the point remains that G5 is designed to protect any good edit.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The behavioral aspect of the quote here from Kudpung was overreaction. Hard to figure what is going on, but Kudpung might need a wikibreak; and this speedy was out of process.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Wrong venue--Community consensus and approach regarding G5 vary.Take this to WP:DRV. Winged Blades Godric 06:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

 * "I think the article should be deleted". It was. So what is the point of this thread - to sling mud? If you want me to put U. T. Downs in your userspace so you can improve it, I'm fine with that, but otherwise I can't see what action you want that will actually improve the encyclopedia. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Listen here you rabble rouser you. We need to open at least two discussions, undelete the article, file the correct forms in triplicate, and redelete the article. I really don't understand how that isn't abundantly clear.  G M G  talk   10:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Move to close: This belongs at DRV, and only at DRV. There is no allegation of either serious administrative misconduct or of a pattern of misconduct. At worst, we have a misapplication of a CSD criterion that resulted in an early closure of an AfD. Because an AfD was involved, the proper forum for review is DRV. Were this a straight CSD, not involving AfD, then REFUND might be more appropriate. I see no plausible claim on OP's part that anything Kudpung did was anything more than a mistake, either of the facts at hand or in applying policy. That does not merit an ANI thread. So let's close this thread and get back to work. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 10:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If you're wise; Withdraw, if you're not wise; Boomerang - You, William, threatened to take this to AN/I in your first reply to Kudpung on his talk page. This board exists for dealing with behavioural issues that require admin intervention. So your threatening to go to AN/I is implying not only that Kudpung is wrong and has made a mistake, but, that you want preventative action taken for some poor admin behaviour. You were told to discuss politely (i.e. not threatening AN/I) or to take it to DelRev (WP:Deletion review). This is not the board for contested deletions. You are at the wrong venue if you want the deletion overturned. This right now is timesink disruption. Please reassess your own participation here and at Kudpung's talk page. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Quick and easy one
Could someone take a quick look at User:Yihman1's: And put him out of our misery? Will notify in a sec. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) BLP violations today at Issa Rae
 * 2) 5RR at Issa Rae
 * 3) extreme BLP violations at McNamara fallacy earlier this year (see deleted warnings on his talk page)
 * 4) History of actual vandalism (see deleted warnings on his talk page)
 * The guy appears to be on a crusade of some sort, and should be put on ice for a good stretch. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Nevermind, things were getting worse so I did it myself. Two editors blocked and page protected. Anyone who wants to claim I'm involved is welcome to complain here; I'm pretty comfortable with doing this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You're involved! I'm not seeing the problem though.  I'm right on the edge of suggesting a longish block rather than the indef, but you're probably right - it doesn't look like this guy's ever done much productive in two years here.  If he seriously wants to come back and contribute, he has CLEANSTART or STANDARDOFFER.  GoldenRing (talk) 11:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * CLEANSTART?! I don't think so. Among a long list of scummy edits, I'm particularly taken by his referring to a black pastor, murdered by a racist, as "Pickniney" instead of Pinckney. Classy. I'm actually kind of disturbed this person wasn't blocked 9 or 10 months earlier than this.  We give horrible people too many chances to become non-horrible. But horrible people never do become non-horrible. Goof-offs very occasionally become non-goof-offs, bull-headed kids occasionally become non-bull-headed young adults, but horrible people never change. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Hoax vandal at Petr Kellner article

I am reporting starting problem at Petr Kellner. In a nutshell vandal using misleading username and various IP addresses is inserting hoaxes to biography of living person. We have same problem at cswiki (see article history) spanning for months resulting in longtime article protection and indef user block. Same problem is just starting here.--Jklamo (talk) 16:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, Jklamo, the user has been blocked for a username violation. I guess it would be worth keeping an eye open should he edit using another account or as an IP. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

User Leysure, WP:SPA for spamming
, while not editing often, seems to have but one purpose: To spam the Oscilloscope article with news of one particular company's product.

Not shown in its contributions is Draft:Micsig, which was speedy deleted as unambiguous advertising.

Please consider a block. Jeh (talk) 09:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

 * uw-spamblock Nyttend (talk) 11:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Legal Threat from Wydelabs Law board Govt. of India
User Wydelabs - claiming to be "Wydelabs Law board Govt. of India" - has left the following Legal threat on my talk page.

As explained at Alliance University there is a long running family feud as to who is running the university, which has two people claiming to be Chancellor (Sudhir G. Angur and Madhukar G. Angur) and two web-sites, (alliance.edu.in and allianceuniversity.edu.in) both of which are trying to recruit students.

User Wydelabs represents the alliance.edu.in faction with Sudhir G. Angur as Chancellor. It appears that the feud is still ongoing, as on 18 September an IP reverted the article to the allianceuniversity.edu.in website with Madhukar G. Angur as the chancellor, as seen here As there are several claims and counter-claims, I have explained that there is a feud, give both websites and both claimants, and directed people to this explanation in the infobox, removing partisan claims.

Could I ask that, in addition to sanctions against Wydelabs, the page is reverted to a neutral stance, and given, say, extended-confirmed protection. - Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 12:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Clear legal threat, so blocked as such. I'm not inclined to get involved in the above content dispute -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 12:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You need to be careful there Arjayay, you don't want to get yourself deformed ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Why not? someone threatened to "derange" me about 5 years ago - perhaps they succeeded? - Arjayay (talk) 13:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't loose your identity! That's private info. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Could be worse. You could have a lawsuit lunched against you.  E Eng  21:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Mhhossein
Hi there, this is a censorship attempt by Mhhossein in the talk page. -- IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 07:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Special:Diff/801105236 (Talk:2017 Tehran attacks)
 * Also when I pinged a Wiki Fa admin to be a 3rd opinion in the talk page (as someone is familiar with Farsi language) Special:Diff/801101452 Mhhossein accused me to be friend with the admin User:Sharaky.
 * Simultaneously with 3RR in the article history
 * When I reminded the user to avoid such edits Special:Diff/801109515/801117300 this user started to accuse me to WP:PA and threatening to WP:ANI in my talk page frequently to WP:RUNAWAY itself means PA.
 * Why would someone have to familiar with Farsi language to express a third opinion on an article in English Wikipedia. Also, your having pinged them here invalidates the entire point of WP:3O, which is to get an opinion by a neutral uninvolved third party, not a person chosen by one of the two parties in the dispute.  If your Farsi admin has expressed a view, it has literally no values as a 3O "tiebreaker".Furthermore, with an account name like "IranianNationalist", you should expect other editors to be suspicion that your editing does not adhere to WP:NPOV, since you have expressed your bias right up front. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Because the sources are in Farsi language such as VOA PNN or BBC Persian -- IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 08:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Your first diff shows Mhhossein linking to an article version to replace the duplication of that text on the talk page. I see nothing wrong with that.  In your second diff you accuse Mhhosein of censorship, when nothing was censored, a link was substituted for text, and of being uncivil when he questioned why you pinged an editor with 11 edits on en.wiki for an opinion.  I'd have done the same, as it seems to me to be an obvious case of WP:CANVASSING, in spirit if not otherwise. Then, it was not Mhhosein who accused you of a WP:PA with your repeated claims of censorship, but another editor altogether, User:Pahlevun.  Mhhosein then came to your talk page to warn you that the article was under 1RR, and you again claimed that censorship was taking place, and (I guess) was a justification for breaking 1RR.  Mhhosein then warned you that if you kept accusing them of censorship, he would file a report here, which he has a right to do, and which you have now done (so how can you chastise him for warning you that he might do it?) - and you didn't notify him that you opened this, as you are required to do.I have no idea what you mean regarding WP:RUNAWAY.In all, nothing in this complaint seems justified, unless a BOOMERANG is worthwhile. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Also I have question, when the controversial article is about a Persian subject, why do you ask me to avoid pinging a user familiar with Persian language? (Or I say better why do you accuse me to ping a partial user?! the user is a WikiFa admin(at least must be more impartial if you don't know him)) -- IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 08:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You clearly don't get that if you're in a dispute with another editor, your calling in someone you know can;t be considered to be an impartial third opinion. Don't ping me again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "your calling in someone you know can;t be considered to be an impartial third opinion" Had I claimed such a thing? But it is weird when you think the "someone have to familiar with Farsi language" all have to be far away of neutrality!!! -- IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 08:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You're misconstruing the meaning of BMK's comment. The issue is not that you pinged a .fa wiki editor, it's that you pinged an editor at all. Doesn't matter whether they are a .en, .fr or .fa editor, what matters is that the 3O was handpicked by you. That is not how 3O's work. A 3O is where you ask for a completely uninvolved editor with whom you have no relations to chime in with their thoughts to try and resolve the dispute. By their very nature you don't ask a specific person for a 3O. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * @Mr rnddude, can you please and provide some evidences to approve the accusation of any relation between me and Sharaky?, Hi there, plz come here and defend yourself :D @Mr rnddude, Ask yourself when I pinged different WikiFa admins such as Darafsh and Huji in different subjects Why do you (or any other one) claim any relation between me and Sharaky? I even had no vote in any RfC for admin or any other privilege grant... How can I have any relation with any Wiki admins? I'm a slow contributer having less contributions from 2014 (only 94 new Fa articles many of them are tiny articles) -- IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 13:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * IranianNationalist did not notify Mhhosein of this complaint. I have done so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sigh... your ping was your relation to the admin. You have already admitted to pinging the admin in your OP. I am making no claim about what kind of relations you have with any .fa admin. Either your English reading comprehension is too limited, or, you're not reading. I'll try this again with as blunt an instrument as possible. When you attempt a 3O, you go to WP:3O and leave a dated, but unsigned, comment there. That way you improve the chances of getting a completely neutral third opinion. When you ping an editor to the discussion, you make the 3O moot as it is presumed you chose that specific person for a reason. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Also I add : I in different subjects I had pinged different Wiki fa admins such as Darafsh and another admin (I have forgot hist name) for the Farsi-relative articles also experienced non-admin users such as Wikimostafa. But they were busy or not willing to participate in English or they had my gift from other discussions in WikiFa (to avoid conflict of interest. it is rational). @Beyond My Ken So I recommend you have a good view about people talking Persian. Thank you :) -- IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 09:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, since you don't seem to be understanding what Beyond My Ken is saying, let's try it a different way. Specifically pinging another editor to a discussion, where you are in dispute with another editor, and you expect that the editor you pinged will side with your argument, is a blatant violation of WP:CANVASS. If you had some content discussion in other articles, but were not in a dispute with another editor, and had pinged another editor for wider discussion then that would not be a problem. Comparing the two situations is a red herring. It is irrelevant s to what languages are being spoken. The same could be applied to disruption caused by editors with a heavily Eastern European/East Asian/Balkan/African/South East Asian/Conservative/Liberal/Theist/Atheist/etc, etc bias. It is not restricted to any single language nor nationality. Blackmane (talk) 23:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism, User:Pahlevun
Having 3RR in the Great Mosque of Kufa and multiple discussions and many other reliable sources added to the article the user Pahlevun doesn't accept (Special:Diff/801055508/801262639) even other user edits such as User:Slatersteven's previous edit here: Special:Diff/801054968/801055508 Also 3RR And relative consensus discussions : Also as a Note : When the article must be merged it was nominated for deletion by this user (I add : all sources about the subject are official or high ranked clerical sources) : -- IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 08:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Special:Diff/800487503
 * Special:Diff/800642767
 * Special:Diff/800732626
 * Special:Diff/801262533
 * Special:Permalink/801346343
 * Articles for deletion/Dragon gate
 * IranianNationalist did not notify Pahlevun abouut this complaint. I have done so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

A related subject: IranianNationalist's signature says "IsNotNationalist, thus contradicting the implicit statement made by the account name itself. Is this a legitimate use of a nickname in a sig? It seems deceptive to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * @Beyond My Ken (no pinging) : Are you trying WP:RUNAWAY ? -- IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 08:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * @Beyond My Ken However your criticism of my signature is a WP:RUNAWAY and we should avoid making the discussion busy, but I have to reply to your criticism. I changed my signature to avoid probable prejudices about being a zealot patriot or nationalist like Hitler... DO YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT? -- IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 08:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My edit on Great Mosque of Kufa was made after lengthy discussion (on multiple pages) about your arguing the toss that it was called the dragon gate. In fact you accused me of bias for supporting Pahlevun's claim that your sources were questionable.Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * See .Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't see how three reverts in 72 hours could be a 3RR violation. This is not the first time IranianNationalist falsely files for 3RR violation against me (See Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive350). Moreover, There is now a consensus shaped at RSN to not include the content I removed in those diffs (See Reliable sources/Noticeboard). Pahlevun (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You can be deemed to be edit warring even if you do not breach 3RR in a given 24 hour period if (in the eyes of admins) your edits are trying to game the system (such as making 3 edits in 24 hours and then a fourth an hour later).Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So how did Notirainainnatioinalist do

 * (same day as Pahlevun's first revert)
 *
 *

Note they both reverted times on the 13th

 * So if Pahlevun was edit warring so was Iranian nationalist, based upon Iranian nationalist's criteria.Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven AFAIK Pahlevun was (and is) insisting on the official clerical Shiite websites to be not reliable to have their claims they provided (whether Serpent or Dragon) AND I NEVER HAD ANY PROBLEM WITH SERPENT or merging the Dragon gate to the main article Great Mosque of Kufa so when Pahlevun removes there are many differences between removing a a Serpent Hadith or a Dragon Hadith. I never tried to show the Hadith to be happened in reality (Can someone imagine Masih ad-Dajjal in reality?! :D But the name of the Serpent Door historically is based on this Hadith whether Serpent or Dragon) AND EVERYONE must avoid editing wiki based on his beliefs means if Pahlevun doesn't believe in the Hadith it doesn't mean to remove the Hadith as the HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE DOOR. If I accused you Slatersteven to something, sorry it will not be repeated. Good boy with a good manner :)-- IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 13:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Just as you are insisting we must include (which multiple users have disagreed with) a quote from an Haddith (which has multiple versions). You both have (by your definition) edit warred over this.Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's call daddy :D Hi, if you had different reliable secondary sources (Official sources) about Maya civilization calling a historic sacred location as a weird name due to a myth story do you let the mythical story to be removed because it is far away of the reality? @Slatersteven, wrong Hadith or true Hadith there is no difference all versions have a common thing about A CRAWLER(Dragon or Serpent) get inside the Kufa mosque and talked with Ali -- IsNotNationalist  (Welcome) 14:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Pahlevun is trying an original research because I provided many official and high ranked clerical Shiite sources but Pahlevun says the Hadith is unreliable... why? Does he have any source for what he is claiming? If you have any source use it in the article and claim the Hadith is not true. Let the reader to decide not us. -- IsNotNationalist  (Welcome) 15:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You reverted again and asked Why? due to this reason in this my last 2 comments above -- IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 15:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have already responded to your "Vandalism" accusation. Note that no one is here for the content dispute. Pahlevun (talk) 15:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Did he say the HAddith was unreliable, or that the sources you were using for the text of it were?Slatersteven (talk)

 * YESSSS and a couple of times :) :
 * First time in the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dragon_gate (Special:PermanentLink/800263755) says : "The article is based on Bihar al-Anwar, a WP:PRIMARY that contains probably millions of hadith" --Pahlevun
 * and again here Special:Diff/800483399/800489013 says: "@IranianNationalist: This is very interesting that when you wrote یه کم بخندیم :D به این منابع معتبر, you have confessed that the source is not reliable. Wikipedia is not your laughingstock. Pahlevun (talk)"
 * Clearly Pahlevun source is my summary in Wiki Farsi article : fa:در اژدها which the clerical wiki users (and also Pahlevun) don't have any problem with it but for them the important subject is to remove the Hadith from an international view But my sources had nothing to do with Bihar_al-Anwar :
 * The first source was the official website of the Mosque itself : https://web.archive.org/web/20130919075523/http://www.masjed-alkufa.net/news.php?readmore=203
 * The second one was from Hadvi Tehrani the elected member of Assembly of Experts : https://www.islamquest.net/fa/archive/question/fa77393
 * https://www.imamhussain.org/persian/ahlulbayt-55/19608
 * sibtayn
 * http://www.hawzah.net/fa/Magazine/View/3301/5343/50193/اماکن-زیارتی-منتسب-به-امام-زمان-(عجل-الله-تعالی-فرجه-الشریف)-در-ایران-و-جهان-(3)
 * الخرائج و الجرائج، ج 1، ص 189; الثاقب، ص 248; مدینة المعاجز، ج 1، ص 141
 * -- IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 15:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't contribute to Persian Wikipedia, by the way. Pahlevun (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Ouch!! :D So you check WikiFa article histories to start edit wars in WikiEn to refresh your mood?! In WikiFa you can't claim anything because all users can read the reliable Farsi language sources I provided above and they know I'm right :) -- IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 16:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Also here Special:Diff/800475224/800475867 Pahlevun says "Misuse of an unreliable WP:PRIMARY source. Get it back when you have a reliable secondary source." @Pahlevun, How do you conclude the above official clerical sources (masjed-alkufa.net) to be PRIMARY? @Slatersteven DON'T YOU have any reply now? -- IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 15:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not going to discuss a content dispute case here. Pahlevun (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Pahlevun WP:RUNAWAY ? -- IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 16:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutly a Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Pahlevun (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

About pinging
@Beyond My Ken, you mentioned many different accusations about me, I don't know answer what one :) I didn't ping the users to let the admins check a more brief of what is happening... and to avoid having a war in ANI before an admin check (however thank you for making a long discussion) -- IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 09:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * -- is a highly experienced editor and citing policies like WP:RUNAWAY  to counter well-established users in a ad-hominem manner without any minimal basis can be considered  as intentional disruption and indulging in such activities along with casting personal attacks  is not tolerated.Also, please be adviced  that ANI is often witness to boomerang actions.Thank you! Winged Blades Godric  13:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Not involved in this in any way, just happened to notice that neither of these pings worked, so courtesy ping for . Amaury ( talk | contribs ) 13:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Can we close this now with? it is clear both users are POV warriors who are just disrupting the project.Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think that I was a "POV warrior" nor "disrupting the project". Pahlevun (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Second.And collapsed a part. Winged Blades of Godric On leave 16:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * After looking at this entire situation somewhat more closely in the light of day, I agree that both editors are at fault here. And to clarify my "no pings" statement, I wasn't intending to "runaway" from the discussion, I simply didn't want to be called back to it repeatedly at IranianNationaist's whim. In general, I'm perfectly capable of returning to an ongoing discussion on my own, and do not need to have my pants leg constantly tugged to do so. (The ping by Amaury above, though, was reasonable, and I thank them for it.)  There was a halcyon era when Wikipedia didn't have pinging at all, and things worked just fine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Boomerang for IranianNationalist

 * support the boomerang suggested by Beyond My Ken and mentioned by Winged Blades of Godric . --  M h hossein   talk 17:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support; these ranting walls of text have taken long enough. Just so you know, the edit warring continues, despite the rough consensus at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. On a secondary note, IranianNationalist keeps using that word, WP:RUNAWAY. I don't think it means what he thinks it means... --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I have to say congratulations to some specific users (cooperating here in different discussions in different wiki pages we have similar users having similar opinions and the common thing was me :D should I pride to be such a lovely user for this specific users?) they are continuously in the same front to protect Pahlevun and Mhhossein anyway (You can see them in Articles for deletion/Dragon gate and all relative discussions up to now including the relative discussion on the Reliable sources noticeboard). You can see them in any location I had an Edit for example Slatersteven in the https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sina_Dehghan&action=history and it is not a Wikipedia:Hound but previously there were some similar discussions in WikiFa people (users) calling them as a system of campaigning. Yeah continue to support each other (but it is wonderful when we have some permanent users in different discussions supporting each other). AND THE MAIN SUBJECT WOULD BE FORGOTTEN about some reliable official sources have been censored -- IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 19:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * A very nice combination of WP:Casting aspersions, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:POV. You really should be blocked for this comment alone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So "they" go to every page you edit?Slatersteven (talk) 07:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Repeated bad faith and nationalism-based commentary about contributors
warned about assuming bad faith and alleging nationalist agendas etc. A little over an hour later, PAKHIGHWAY did it again. This has been going on for months now, eg: in August and July. Their targets seem to be random and, while I imagine Bish is aware of the latest example, I suspect PAKHIGHWAY might claim them to be involved, so perhaps it would be better if someone else who has had absolutely no previous conversation with PAKHIGHWAY does whatever needs doing, which in my opinion is a block. - Sitush (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Involved? I'm not involved,, Sitush, and it makes no difference what they might or might not claim in that regard. Warning somebody in my quality as admin is the last thing that would make me involved. I don't think their replies to my post are the best place to plant my foot, though. IMO it's not quite time for a block yet. Bishonen | talk 19:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC).
 * I know re: uninvolved, Bish, but I also know how little PAKHIGHWAY cares about such policies and how quickly they make erroneous connections between contributors. - Sitush (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW, I ought to have notified you of my original post here. Sorry, I forgot on this occasion. - Sitush (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Blocked 24 hours. --John (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

 * And now they're coming up with the same nationalist tripe and unfounded allegations of some sort of conspiracy by Indians etc in their unblock request. - Sitush (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

 * And they dtill don't get it! They've even accused me of being Indian, which is laughable. - Sitush (talk) 08:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I've extended the block to indefinite based on their talk page comments. --John (talk) 11:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Asking for a mediation
Hi, i added sources (Encyclopedia.com and Imamreza.com) in the article about ibn al-Haytham stating he was a Persian or Arab scholar and user Thomas W removed them saying i made disruptive edits whereas i previously discussed that issue on the talk page days before making the change... I would like to know if at least one of these source is reliable :

http://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/abu-ali-al-hasan-ibn-al-hasan-ibn-al-haytham

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=mk_CBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=ibn+al+haytham+persian+polymath&source=bl&ots=OyjAaWfKmC&sig=ZQASTu8Sq3m_tQ6oVrT85ruYinM&hl=fr&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=ibn%20al%20haytham%20persian%20polymath&f=false

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 09:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

 * See User talk:<IP_ADDRESS>. The editor was warned by me (a level-2) for disruptive editing for repeatedly pushing a theory about Ibn al-Haytham being Persian, using decidedly non-RS sources (while there are plenty of RS sources supporting he was an Arab), in spite of being reverted by other editors, and there not existing a consensus in favour of their changes on the talk page of the article. Editing that has been going on for a very long time, see page history of article (probably by more than one individual though, so I'm not blaiming it all on this particular one...), but is a content dispute that does not belong here. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 10:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedia.com — I don't know. They mention a book published by major reference publisher Cengage Learning, Science and Its Times: Understanding the Social Significance of Scientific Discovery, so I was wondering if they copied that article's sketch of al-Haytham, but a quick Google search of this book is not promising: some of the phrases from the encyclopedia.com article appear there, but others don't, and the ones that do appear are scattered all over the place, so I'm inclined to believe that this is not a Cengage Gale composition.  Since we don't know where this came from, we can't consider it reliable.  The other one is a book from Springer Science+Business Media, another major academic publisher, so it should be considered reliable, and its author, Harry Varvoglis, is a professor of physics at one of Greece's top universities, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.  Nyttend (talk) 11:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The book is a new source they've found, not a source

source: wikimedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive965