Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive932

The Relationship between Tyranny and Arms Control

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

---

In light of this thread, could someone uninvolved take a look at my closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Relationship between Tyranny and Arms Control—the article in question is now userified at User:Polythesis/The Relationship between Tyranny and Arms Control. If any admin genuinely feels that this was an inappropriate use of the snowball clause, I expressly consent for anyone to overturn my admin actions, either by re-opening the AFD, or moving the article back to mainspace and re-nominating it for a fresh AFD discussion. ‑ Iridescent 18:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I obviously am involved with this, as I nominated the article for deletion. My concern is mainly with the author of the page. Their WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, and constant mentions of censorship set off red flags to me. Additionally, I'm wondering if I haven't seen this type of behavior before from another, now blocked editor, but I could be mistaken. On the Draft talk page I did give a few recommendations, however I'm not sure if these were even considered. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks like a perfectly good close to me, and I would have done the same. There is absolutely no point wasting a large number of editor's time on arguing about the deletion of something that is obviously not a viable Wikipedia article. Also, we have been here before (and indeed to ArbCom) on the same subject in the Gun Control article. Black Kite (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

(From the talk page at AN)- I would like to be able to comment on this Incident: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#The_Relationship_between_Tyranny_and_Arms_Control I brought this incident up with the administrator who created the incident report, and he took the matter out of my hands by pre-emptively filing the incident report against himself, and now I can't even comment because the page is protected. Why is that? Polythesis (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Iridescent did not file the report against themselves; rather, they decided to ask fellow admins on their thoughts. The ANI page is not protected anymore. GAB^gab 19:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• The close was sound. If this is what ya'll have been dealing with, then my commiserations.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

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

I can answer some of those questions Polythesis, they're more or less easily explained in some cases.

• Q1:" Explain to me how you define "unanimous delete consensus". Does my opinion not count? How can it be either unanimous or consensus if the author of the article was opposed to the deletion?" <- it's not exactly unanimous, however, consensus is decided by considering the policy based merits of each individual vote. If there are five delete votes which explain themselves well, they will inevitably trump a single or couple keep votes.
• Q2:"How were the editors who voted to delete the page selected to participate in the debate?" <- they weren't, the participants would have found the AfD discussion either through their watchlist, notifications for certain wikiprojects, WP:AfD, or other venue.
• Q3:"Do you honestly think that there are not many other editors who would oppose the deletion if they were aware that it had been proposed and they had the opportunity to participate in the AfD debate?" <- I can only address part of this question, again, majority of experienced contributors are aware of AfD and how it works, a lack of votes can indicate disinterest (but many other possibilities exist).

There is no jury selection at AfD, I could pop onto the page and just vote on every single entry there, I highly recommend against this. "unjustifiably censor", I see this comment a lot, and, almost never used appropriately. "collection and dissemination of all human knowledge" <- nope, not at all. If it were for all human knowledge we'd have many billions of articles not millions, there are certain topics that are on Wikipedia and many, many, more that aren't and should not be (a general example would be non-notable people; if the .en Wiki's 5 million or so articles were all biographies how many billions do you think would still need to be written for those alive now and all those who have passed before). "This experience has been very disappointing for me", unfortunately, this sometimes happens, it's just one of the things you need to get used to. Opinions differ and thus, so do outcomes. There's nothing else here to respond to that I can see, hopefully that clarifies at least how the AfD process works. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

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

People who didn't comment on an AfD simply didn't comment on an AfD. Everybody is free to comment as they care, and they need to be on Wikipedia. I care about such things as Coropuna and Cerro Blanco (volcano), but not everyone does, to take an example. Also, a lot of the sources you cite do not actually say that "arms control leads to tyranny" - using such sources to justify an article on the topic violates WP:SYNTH. And again, please consider the possibility that you might be wrong. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• The AfD close looks good to me - there was no way it was going to end up as anything other than a Delete if left open for longer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

If "millions of people find this topic notable" why have none of them come to support you? The delete was fine. --Tarage (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

Am I the only who has had enough with these false accusations?! If you do so again, you will be warned about WP:NPA. No, I wasn't bored or wanted to raise my edit count. Okay?! I find that statement very insulting. Your article was deleted because it violated numerous policies. Deal with it. It has nothing to do with our acknowledgement of the subject. Policy always comes first, whether you like it or not. You have a battleground mentality and have no intention of dropping of the stick. I suggest you do so right now. You can get blocked for that. Since you are still adamant that it should belong on Wikipedia, I suggest that you work on the draft and work from there. Arguing will not get you anywhere. Enough is enough. And may please ask you to stop writing WP:TLDR comments? It's incredibly long and you're just repeating the same questions. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Note: The userspace draft has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Polythesis/The Relationship between Tyranny and Arms Control. --Finngall ^talk 20:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• I tried, in a discussion here, to engage Polythesis regarding why they could not work on the draft. This approach was seconded by Toddst1. Polythesis refused to engage us in that discussion. I remain confused as to why Polythesis feels it necessary to argue so vociferously in favor of keeping a badly formed article when such effort could be better expended on developing a good, working draft. The AfD was appropriately closed per the snowball close in WP:SPEEDYCLOSE. I too would have recommended deleting, but was withholding commenting on the AfD pending Polythesis' response to my query, a response which never happened. Now, we have the creator of the article insisting we are all wrong, insisting the AfD process is badly broken, that the people voting to delete are not knowledgeable on the subject, the same people are not familiar with policies, were bored, wanted to increase their stats as an editor, the article is very important (indeed, apparently fundamental the very survival of freedom and democracy [1]), and now the survival of Wikipedia itself. Polythesis, if you are that concerned about the survival of Wikipedia, democracy, and freedom then I'm convinced you will throw your best work into the draft article. Stop attacking all of us and get to work. I look forward to the excellent encyclopedia draft you will produce. You may wish to read Wikipedia:Your first article as a primer. I invite questions from you on my talk page that you may have about creating the draft. However, further hyperbole is a non-starter, and criticizing the character of your fellow Wikipedians as you have already done is flat unacceptable. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

References

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

• FTR, OP blocked as an IP's SPA. EEng 01:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Spreadofknowledge

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

---

Spreadofknowledge accused other editors of being racist. He has been warned and blocked for this previously. Given recent unsupported claims and his general editing history, I strongly believe this user is not here to help improve the encyclopedia but to push an agenda. Can an admin please take appropriate action? Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 10:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

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

User keeps adding copyvio to Maulvi Ghulam Rasool Alampuri

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

---

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

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

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

Short verstion:

• Syedtalhabinsaleem (talk · contribs) keeps adding copyrighted material from
• http://alampuri-research.org/english/about_poet.php to
• Maulvi Ghulam Rasool Alampuri despite warnings.--Savonneux (talk) 05:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Removed, hidden and user warned that if they do it again they will be blocked. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Albuquerque, New Mexico

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

---

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

2602:304:CF42:3320:F070:88:C951:720F (talk · contribs) is the IP that messed things up. MarnetteD|Talk 05:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Reverted by JJMC89; if the move is still needed nominate the redirect for speedy deletion--Ymblanter (talk) 08:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Inappropriate User page content

JGabbard (talk · contribs)

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

He sounds like a refugee of the John Birch Society. But if you hadn't brought it here, would anyone even know or care about it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

They listed Wikipedia but forgot to specifically mention admins. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Gosh, it's been years since I saw someone blathering about our precious bodily fluids. I'd almost forgotten that one. EEng 13:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

"Let's make America great again" (?) Martinevans123 (talk) 13:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Well at least the Admins are having a look/laugh at it :>). That is what I asked for (I suppose). As you can see, although I have some years on Wikipedia, I am still "green" when it comes to some things. areas ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Based on this seems to be not a big deal, I have no problem in closing this thread as resolved. So, please do so. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Free-for-all at Mannathoor Wilson

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

---

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

I didn't know what else to do but delete it as a test page. It didn't google, it was full of fiction. It looked like a hoax. Anyhow, it is gone now. I hope this is okay with everyone. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Its back and in equally poor condition. May need salting. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Sufficient salt added. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Disruptive IP address on "List of natural horror films"

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

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

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

Blacklist request for Domenick Nati (again)

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

---

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

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

Regex looks good to me, though the .*'s are a little greedy. \bdom.*?\bnatt?i\b will probably suffice, as it'll catch your above test cases (and a couple I've tested) -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 17:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Samtar: Some of the past titles JellyfishFilms has used include Domenick Nati Jr and Domenick Nati II, so it'd probably be best to keep the .* on the end. I guess the one at the front could be removed for now, though I wouldn't be too surprised if we see a "Mr. Domenick Nati" article created after that. -IagoQnsi (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I would urge you to make a spam blacklist request in the appropriate place as it will at least temporarily disrupt JellyfishFilms and the link is not in legitimate use on WP. I'll leave more expert people to discuss precise titleblacklist regexes. BethNaught (talk) 18:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#naticelebs.com -IagoQnsi (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Title blacklist adjusted. The website has been blacklisted. MER-C 05:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@MER-C: Thanks, but it looks like you removed the word boundaries (\b) from the regex. This makes the pattern really over-reaching -- currently, you cannot use the word "domination" in a page title. Could you please change it to .*\bdom.*?\bnatt?i\b.*? Thanks, IagoQnsi (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Done. MER-C 00:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@MER-C: Hey uh, it looks like you only added one of the word boundaries instead of all three of them -- words like "domination" will still be blocked by that. Could you change it to exactly what I put in my previous note? Thanks, IagoQnsi (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done Black Kite (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Recent Behavior by Parsley Man

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

---

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

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

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

No comment on the sockpuppetry or other issues, but I noticed that what TonyBallioni calls "uncivil" (per his own initial response) appears to be this. That doesn't look especially uncivil to me, nor do any of the other "multiple times" that were taken as being uncivil. I'd hate to think what would happen if someone who thinks using the words "plagiarized", "superfluous" and "unacceptable" is a violation of WP:CIVIL tried wading into a legitimately controversial topic are like films based on American comic books or the Israel/Palestine dispute. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, and certainly agree that all the terms you used are acceptable. I wasn't talking about the plagiarism or other legitimate concerns about the article but rather the tone of being told "Please review" X twice in short responses. That came off as a condescending tone to me, with the implication being that because my views on wP:ONEEVENT were different than his, I hadn't read it. That along with being accused on POV pushing for asking what he later admitted was a sock to be looked into, and the use of ":P " and having a post on my talkpage that says "Happy now" "Hope you're happy" with a crying emoticon only, to me comes off as disrespectful and just further trying to escalate the situation. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Meh. People say "please review X" to me all the time, and I usually take it as a sincere request that I review X. In fact, WP:AGF requires me to take it like that in most circumstances. And I don't see anything in the above-linked AFD to indicate that this is not one of those circumstances.

That said, double-dipping on logging out to "double-vote" in an AFD is a pretty serious offense. Since the damage is done and since PM has indicated that he will not do so again, I am not sure exactly how to deal with this. A final warning? "If you ever log out in order to cast two !votes in a discussion again, you will be site-banned"-kinda thing?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed on the AGF point. I typically try to do this, and where I have fallen short here, I apologize. The civility discussion was not my main concern here, as much as the behavior after he admitted to using the IP to double-vote. At the time, it seemed at best erratic, and looking back it still comes off to me in that way. Probably caused out of fear of being banned, which is not something I am advocating. The premature redirect and merge [14] [15], was my biggest concern and I wanted an admin who was not involved to review it so it didn't evolve into some version of an edit war. Someone elase has already reverted those edits. My suggestion would be a final warning type-thing that you suggested, and also a request/warning that there be no disruptive editting at the pages involved at this AfD until it is closed by an administrator. Again, thanks for your help and sorry for any AGF issues on my end. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

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

No, in the earlier AFD he was not the nominator, but cast two !votes, one[16] logged in and one[17] logged out. It seems pretty obvious that he intended to the same thing again, but was found out. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Missed it. Good catch. TimothyJosephWood 13:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Note that I've closed the SPI with a one week block for Parsley Man.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• Per PM's block and his interaction on his talk page seeming to be okay with cooling down, I'm fine with closing this. Like I said above, my main concern about opening it was that there was a premature redirect in merge befor AfD could play out, and since the issue seems to have been resolved, I don't think anything else is neccesary. Thanks to all for their help. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

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

IP madness at Katie and Orbie

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

---

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

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

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

• I blocked an IP and, after looking at it again, semiprotected the article for three months. Those edits are terrible; I wouldn't call them vandalism, but they are certainly disruptive. Drmies (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Single purpose account continually recreating deleted article

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

---

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

Orangemike deleted and salted the article in question. Unless there's further disruption, it looks like we're done here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The Afd discussion did not end with a clear consensus. Reyk lied through the whole undelete procedure. I have also contributed to another page, so this is moot. Just Reyk lying again. Filmfan655321 (talk) 03:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Legal Threat on my talk page

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

---

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

Added unsigned tag RickinBaltimore, hope you don't mind. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 17:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Incivility at Talk: Ajax (play)

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

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

Reading the conversation you are rather pedantic. That's not really an excuse though I do understand their response to you.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Essentially you sealioned someone over a basic (as in, taught in secondary/high school) grammar issue which is already covered by the MOS. That someone was incivil to you is a result of you not dropping the stick and backing away from the horse... Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you'd better check your definition of sealioning. As the talk page shows, I was the one who started the thread by asking for information. The user in question responded with a vague statement about what's "standard in most literature", apparently[37][38] using a duplicate account. When pressed for details, the user provided a link that didn't actually substantiate the claim. When this was challenged, the user got irritable and very quickly moved to condescension and insults. Also, what MOS says was made clear early in the discussion – this was a question about verifiability as much as punctuation. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

You asked a question and I answered it. I wasn't aware I was signed in on that account at the time. You persisted, so I provided a link that answered exactly what you'd asked (the very first result of the search demonstrates it) and I invited you to do the work of satisying your curiousity about the absolutely minor and inconsequential point yourself, having seen how you'd wasted other editors' time previously. You insisted I do the searching for you. I wasn't prepared to do so, for the same reason. Verifiability doesn't apply for such an issue since no source is likely to be found for the question you were raising (it being so inconsequential). As explained on the talk page. At increasing length. As per your behaviour with the other unfortunate editors of that page. I suggest you review your posts to that page for the last couple of months and reassess the manner in which you attempt to resolve problems identified. It's not the responsibility of other editors to explain things to you that you can so easily confirm for yourself.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 04:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Actually, it's not necessary for both sides to walk away. But whichever one does walk away, allowing the other side to have its way on this meaningless question, will be the better editor -- and others will know it. EEng 05:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Please, let’s not pretend that this is a single incident that stands alone — it is a larger problem. (As has been indicated above in this discussion.) Coconutporkpie has opened multiple discussions on the Ajax (play) talk page alone. They are equally a waste of time. Then he discusses related issues on other talk pages elsewhere on Wikipedia, similarly wasting other editor’s time in the midsts of long grindingly inane discussions. (An example is buried somewhere in a discussion on Template talk:According to whom. DP at one point (earlier on the Ajax page) stepped in and helped to resolve one of these inane things, and deserves credit. You can’t really fault an editor for answering a question on a talk page, and then another, and another, but at a certain point you begin to realize you have been drawn in, and you are trapped into being impolite yourself by ignoring him — and then he hounds you with accusations for ignoring him. (As he did to me earlier on the Ajax (play) talk page.) He is devoted to wasting the time of many editors who are, after all, volunteers and could be doing other things. He is a form of troll known as a sea lion. Many editors, myself included, are guilty of taking the bait. Clockchime (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Clockchime, but I'm not buying your speculation that this is an attempt at trolling and deliberate disruption. Looking at both the Ajax talk discussions and the additional template discussion you provide above, they look like fairly garden variety content disputes to me. That is, they (unfortunately) seem fairly reflective of how such disagreements often play out these days between parties who are certain that their approach is best and fight tooth-and-nail over ever little particular, rather than looking for reasonable compromise approaches that might serve the project and the content best. CPP is certainly opinionated, and if there is anything that discussion you linked proves, it's that he certainly seems to have a selective valuation of WP:Civility, based on whether he wants to apply it to his own behaviour or that of his "opposition", but I see absolutely nothing to suggest that he is arguing those points out of any other purpose than to see things done his way. Indeed, that seems to be the very heart of the disagreement here. So, though his behaviour is arguably problematic, you're going to have to present much more explicit evidence of trolling than that he seems to be acting in an obtuse manner to you; otherwise these observations just looks like a refusal to WP:AGF.

I'm not saying you and others aren't right to be frustrated here (I reserve comment on that, beyond what I've observed above), but trolling is bad-faith behaviour on an entirely different level, and those kinds of accusations need to be substantiated by more than "He's got it so wrong and has missed the point so many times, he must be playing with us". People make bad calls and fail to accept consensus all day every day across this project, while still mostly operating in good faith and from a perspective that their approach would benefit the encyclopedia. I respectfully suggest that all evidence here seems to suggest the exact opposite of what you seem to feel that you see; that is to say, CPP is not someone who is here to deliberately derail the project for kicks, but rather someone who feels very passionately about improving it, but fails to see when it is time to let go of their idiosyncratic approaches. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding due diligence, what MoS actually says, and which I referenced with a link early in the discussion,[39] is that there were two possible style alternatives. My comments on Talk: Ajax (play) were directed at establishing which of the two alternatives was favored by the majority of sources. I don't see it as redundant to ask an editor to justify their statements, when each of their comments contains new, unverified assertions.[40][41][42][43]

According to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, RFC and third opinion are for content disputes. There was no more content dispute in this case, because several sources in the article turned out to support the existing wording, as I mentioned on the article talk page[44] (I found none that used the alternative). This was after I had already been insulted several times. I brought the issue to this page because of a user's incivility, not to continue a dispute over content.

Vague accusations such as "fails to see when it is time to let go of their idiosyncratic approaches" and "seems to have a selective valuation of WP:Civility" are of course easy to make and impossible to refute, since they are directed at deal with assumptions about a person's mental state, rather than the evidence of their actions. Also, inventing nicknames or abbreviations for other users ("Coconut", "CPP") strikes me as a very passive-aggressive form of belittling or condescension, which itself is considered to be uncivil. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The answer to your question as to which of the two MoS possibilities was answered in the first and the second (and every subsequent) message. You misrepresent the issue -- it is not nor never was a question of 'most sources'. As the MoS makes clear, it's the way it's usually said out loud. Hence, "Sophocles' tragedy," but "Faustus's damnation." The problem that I and other editors have identified with your manner is that having had the question answered for you, given sources supporting it, you insisted on dragging out a completely minor and inconsequential point long after it had been addressed to the fullest extent imaginable. A simple google books search answered it immediately. You did a similar thing over the all-too-easily-fixed issue of an "immature" work in the wording of the same article. All it took was the smallest active edit and the tinest amount of searching through/for the sources. I wasn't involved in that discussion at all. I encountered it and saw how ridiculous it was. I committed hours of time to improving the article, checking sources, cleaning up citation style, etc., precisely to bring those interminable and pointless dilations on the talk page to a ineluctable conclusion. One day later, you were at it again, about a point with even less merit.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 02:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

"You misrepresent the issue – it is not nor never was a question of 'most sources'" – in fact it was User:DoctorMabuse/User:DionysosProteus who stated that the disputed material was "standard in most literature".[45] But in any case giving due weight requires articles to account for how material is presented by the majority of reliable sources (also covered at Wikipedia:Verifiability). I was not very clear in articulating this on the article talk page, but I think the policy is clear enough on its own. In asking for more complete verification, I was following recommended practice per Wikipedia's talk page guidelines: "The talk page is the ideal place for issues relating to verification, such as asking for help finding sources [...] Asking for a verifiable reference supporting a statement is often better than arguing against it". —Coconutporkpie (talk) 05:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

It may be the opinion of some users that the topic in question is "a completely minor and inconsequential point" and without "merit", but the fact is that different people edit Wikipedia for different reasons. Some people are interested in basic copyediting, which includes punctuation. Others are less interested in these things, but such differences of Interest or opinion should not be an excuse for incivility. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 05:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Wow, you do realize that I was the only editor involved in this discussion who was defending you to some extent and making an effort to point out that your dispute with Dionysos seemed to have been a two-way street? For no other reason than because I wanted to make sure unfair assumptions about your "mental state" state were not made, I just went to considerable lengths to challenge the emerging view that you are just here to troll the community. And rather than view those efforts as the only thing standing between you and the big ol' WP:BOOMERANG about to smack you in the forehead, you chose to try to parse my comments to find excuses to see insults that were never there.

I'm not going to engage with you on the content issue, because this is not the place for that discussion, but I'll say as much as this; I agree with everyone else here (and everyone on that talk page), that you've got the wrong of the policy argument and that it's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. But then again, frankly at this point I'm beginning to re-assess my perspective now and question whether everyone else who has brought their experience with you here was right and you are in fact just here to stir things up. It seems to be either that or that you are possessed of such a WP:Battleground mentality that you can't even see the level of disruption you cause by blowing up an entire talk page over a few apostrophes. I'm also not going to get drawn in to discussing your one-sided perspective on editor behaviour, except to say that your pretext that you opened this thread because of you are not being treated in a civil fashion is hard to take seriously when you will happily call your opposition's posts "incoherent rambling" when your own ire is raised. I stand by my observations as an uninvolved party here, except to say that I am no longer 100% certain that the other contributors here were not right all along, regarding the good faith/bad faith interpretation of your behaviour. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Tu quoque – but "Wow, you do realize that I was the only editor involved in this discussion who was defending you to some extent [...]?" I can do without that sort of defending, thank you very much. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 03:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Friend, I am happy to let you have it that way, where that is concerned. Good luck. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Recommend this be closed before the OP gets hit with a boomerang for this massive waste of time. Softlavender (talk) 08:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Coconutporkpie, I'm afraid that you can't cherry-pick the guidelines to evade the most obvious point, which is that you received an answer, sourced, and many, many subsequent explanations for the standard usage, and still you insisted on wasting our time, as you had done with others before, and there seems to be no sign that you are prepared to amend this behaviour. Your attempts to imply I was acting as a sockpuppet are part of the same pattern. It is unsurprising, then, to see you bandy around "Tu quoque" -- it's the catchphrase of a fool. Thomas Greene, however, at least had the virtue of being entertaining.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 15:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

João Vale e Azevedo

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

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

Editing other editors' Talk comments

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

• LavaBaron, are you not looking for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement? Drmies (talk) 03:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Drmies Maybe? I don't think there's any active arbitration measures that have been violated here, but I could be mistaken? I was under the impression that there was a general proscription against editing others comments. If possible I'd like to avoid the intensity of Arbitration enforcement; just trying to find a quick solution to stop my comments from being edited and RfCs blanked. Once we start editing and deleting each others Talk comments it kinda grinds everything to a halt. LavaBaron (talk) 04:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• There is a fairly high bar, and in this case much of it will stand or fall with the BLP argument that DHeyward invoked. But you were also pointing, or hinting at topics (including, obviously, the one in your first link) that fall under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. Whether AE is more "intense" I cannot tell, and I'm about to sign off so I won't be digging into the argument DHeyward made for removing that RfC right now. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

[ec] Got it, thanks. Just to be clear and to keep this concise and focused, DHeyward's position appears to be that the content was a BLP violation of the tabloid TV doctor "Dr Drew" as, by putting Dr. Drew's conspiracy chatter about Clinton's health in an article titled "conspiracy theories" it "goes the extra mile to diparage him [Dr. Drew]" [52]. I think that's a real stretch as it sourced to RS [53] but, the content question aside, "Dr. Drew" was not actually mentioned in the active RfC he blanked. [54] This appears to be a rather transparent, though impressively bold, attempt to delete content that refutes the Alex Jones/Healther conspiracy theory and to stop the intervention of other editors by deleting RfCs before they're picked-up by the Feedback Request Service.

General note: Not sure if my comments here will be seen by anyone or if they'll be deleted / edited by DHeyward first, so please check the log before replying to verify accuracy. LavaBaron (talk) 04:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• First let's clear up some of the aspersions. Above you accused me of "whitewashing" by using "protester" instead of "militant." The first source in the diff you provided is here. Did you read it? There is no whitewashing and "protester" is both used in RS's and neutral. Second, the drive-by accusation that I "advocated heavily" for categorically including Breitbart as a reliable source: that is false. Your diffs even show that the reference is to specific articles by specific people that are accurate and backed up by other sources. WP:RS has many facets and encourages all sources to be evaluated on a case by case basis. All sources have been inaccurate and unreliable for different topics and the purpose of WP:RS is to make sure we are using reliable sources for every claim. Third, your RfC was out of process. It was created after the same material was deleted in an AfD of an article you also created. Your circular argument that the BLP violating material should stay while the RfC is in place belies your intent to drag out process when the process had already determined it should be deleted (not merged). You were the only one that had participated in the RfC. End runs around AfD should be dealt with swiftly as we are not a bureaucracy. Fourth, you double down on BLP violations above with choice phrases such as "tabloid TV doctor" and then calling his views "conspiracy chatter." those opinions belong in your blog. As I said on the talk page, we normally wouldn't give voice to what Pinsky said since we are not news. Candidate health is a topic that comes up in every election. Heck, Bob Dole is still alive and the talk in 1996 was whether he'd survive the year. The problem with the "Conspiracy theories..." article is that it's a shit magnet and both campaigns exaggerate so we have one side that says any health concern is a whacky conspiracy theory and downplays every medical event and the other side says all health concerns are legitimate and likely. We can't solve it here and each side spins up a new expert every 24 hours. Candidate health is covered in the candidate bios (I re-wrote some of Clinton's since you seem to be digging). The topic cannot be covered, though, with such a presumptive title because it puts living people, including experts, into a BLP violating "conspiracy theorist" box just as you did above. You should probably sit out the rest of the election if this article (and the recent article you created that was deleted) is the type of content you plan on creating and developing. It's not encyclopedic. --DHeyward (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• This is the correct page. The issue appears to concern a massive BLP violation disguised as a "conspiracy theory" which DHeyward removed. The removed section can be seen in this permalink. Unfortunately Sandstein closed the deletion discussion as "no consensus" and that decision could be defended at a review. However, the article was created to subvert this AfD on Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor. The media has to feed the 24×7 news frenzy, and throw-away attacks are described in detail. However, Wikipedia should not contain such attacks except with an after-the-fact encyclopedic treatment based on secondary sources with an analysis of the long-term effects of the attacks. A discussion here needs to decide whether it's-in-the-news cancels normal BLP standards. Johnuniq (talk) 04:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm talking about editing my comments per WP:TPO - let's keep it focused there or this will get out of control. Editing other peoples comments is a fairly clear bright line, otherwise I would delete everything you just wrote (j/k).

On the larger issue, it's confusing because we have two opposing sides that are equally intent on deleting content: (a) people who think including any information about the anti-Clinton hoax violates Clinton's BLP, (b) people who think that including information that rebuts the anti-Clinton hoax violates the BLP of the conspiracy theorists. DHeyward appears to be in Group B and contends it violates Dr. Drew's BLP (see above) because it doesn't take Drew's conspiracy theory about Clinton seriously. That appears to be why he blanked the RfC which tries to get a consensus to include the mainstream view that rebuts the conspiracy theory. [see: [55]. This seems to be his M.O., similar to his previous attempts to whitewash the Malheur siege article [56] or to insert Breitbart [57] [58] as a source, etc. LavaBaron (talk) 04:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment -- I'm with Johnuniq that this content removed was a subversion of the previous AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor), and that this material should stay out. I have pointed out so to the OP on the article's Talk page Recent edit thread, in which the OP repeatedly dodged the question whether the material removed was previously deleted at AfD, and then claimed that the section in question was "vaguely similar" memory loss. :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 05:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

So as DHeyward's co-editor on this article, do you also support Breitbart as RS? And a RfC can't violate a AfD, that doesn't make sense. As for me "claiming memory loss" I really hope you have a diff.

It's pretty simple, man: we don't modify other editors Talk page comments. That's a big no no. We also don't make false allegations about other editors like that they "claimed memory loss" [sic]. You two need to cool your jets or go back to Conservapedia. LavaBaron (talk) 05:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

In my comment above, I was referring to these two diffs that the OP edit warred over:

• revert #1 at 05:25, 24 August 2016
• reverrt #2 at 00:43, 25 August 2016.

On inability to answer my question (reposted from Recent edit thread (edited for concision):

Extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Me: I'm still curious if this was part of the content deleted at previous AfD. Was it? LavaBaron: No idea. I'm still curious why you want to delete/hide content from the Washington Post that undermines a conspiracy theory. Are you a Healther? Me: [answer LB's question]. As someone with intimate knowledge of the deleted article, how come you cannot elucidate on what was in it? LavaBaron: Can you please clarify why you want to remove content that notes pro-conspiracy videos were manipulated to falsely make it look like Clinton was ill? Third request. Me: [answer LB's question]. Back to my question, was the material in the diff a part of the content that was deleted at the AfD above? Third request :-) LavaBaron: I'm busy dealing with this type of nonsense at Frank Gaffney and don't have time to do it here on top of it. (...) Me: Could you help me understand if the material being discussed in the diff above was part of the content removed at the prior AfD? It's a simple yes / no answer, so hopefully won't take up much of your time. I would really appreciate it. LavaBaron: I don't have access to deleted articles, I can't help you. Sorry. Me: Just to be clear, as an editor/creator of the deleted article, you do not recall if the section "Specific claims" was included in the "Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor" article. Is that correct? Another editor (helpfully): I don't have access to deleted articles either, but I certainly do have a memory and would be glad to help you - the answer to your question is yes - the section "Specific claims" was included in the "Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor" article. It was copied/pasted (along with some of the other content) into this article as can be seen here in this diff. LavaBaron: Thanks for providing. Looks like a vaguely similar section, though some glaring differences as well.

I've found the above exchange interesting. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you going to provide a diff to support your claim that I said I had "memory loss" [59] or are you just going to copy-paste random (and heavily edited, BTW - the hole you two are digging just keeps getting deeper) WP:WALLOFTEXT from other discussions to obfuscate your attack? Second request. (Also, per Bishonen's advice here [60]: don't copypaste text from elsewhere in Wikipedia, use links, to avoid bloating up the noticeboard.) LavaBaron (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's the diff: "Looks like a vaguely similar section...", and that's after five attempts to receive an answer from the OP and an intervention by other editors. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Here are some diffs of aspersions and personal attacks:

• Not sure WP may be a good fit for you (maybe try Conservepedia?);
• Are you a Healther?;
• Following is the content "K.e. coffman" (and probably Alex Jones, too) wants deleted (...) Coffman - no one is going to let you turn this article into a platform to spout conspiracy theories (...);
• Cute but I'm not going to revert and turn this into a pro-conspiracy rant no matter how much you ask
• So as DHeyward's co-editor on this article, do you also support Breitbart as RS?
• You two either need to cool your jets or go back to Conservapedia.

K.e.coffman (talk) 06:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• LavaBaron has a most disconcerting habit of attributing disagreement with him to political motives -- e.g. here [61] where he called me a Trump supporter. What nonsense. (The ANEW outcome was No violation, for those who are wondering.) 06:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Article subject to enforcement restrictions e.g. 1RR?

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

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

Disruptive editor

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

---

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

@Eik Corell: Did you make a mistake while providing links? The editor has not edited any of the Articles you have mentioned Bentogoa (talk) 12:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's a couple examples for different articles: [62], [63]. Honestly this looks more like a vandal-only account, especially given the language on the talk page. I've reported to AIV. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

And they have since been blocked by UltraExactzz. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

139.0.120.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) changed the diffs I provided, no wonder you guys were confused. Eik Corell (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Tricky IP that one. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Range block please

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

---

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

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

I really love that movie, especially when her head spins around and the green vomit splashes on the priest. EEng 17:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

---

I'm just going to skip the talk page step here given the names and the scope of this particular problem.

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

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

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

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

And a huge, smelly trout to Izno for making a non-issue into an issue and wasting even more editor time.--Laser brain (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

(twice edit-conflicted): The last thing we need is a further bone of contention and acrimony on the Holst talkpage. Rather than taking the ANI route, I think this can be resolved informally. I archived discussions which I considered were inactive as they had been dormant for some time. However, I accept that in view of their contentious nature, it is reasonable that closure should be on the decision of an uninvolved editor or administrator. I acted in good faith, as I assume did Izno and User:Cassianto, but in the circumstances I will restore the discussions to the talkpage, and will seek closure advice from an uninvolved editor. Brianboulton (talk) 13:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

If it was just a discussion that might have worked. However once a discussion has been set up as formal RFC with support/opposes etc, it generally needs to run the full length of time and be closed formally by an uninvolved party. Since there has been no real additions in the last 8 days, closing early is not an issue, but it does need a formal close by someone uninvolved. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Izno was uninvolved and could've archived it. But they chose not to, for whatever reason. Clearly, they enjoy the dramah and thought there were at least a few more weeks worth of entertainment left to be had. Cassianto^Talk 14:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by LackofMeNecktar

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

---

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

Can't do much when given responses like this. Blocked indefinitely. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Urgent block needed to stop WP:SPA page mover

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

---

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

Notified him of the discussion and reverted a personal attack. Katie^talk 02:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Community ban for Maayan pandithevan

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

---

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

To further my evidence: Judging by his name and the old writers' names, he may also be an SPA. 96.237.27.174 (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe community bans are dealt with an WP:AN not AN/I. Correct me if I am mistaken. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

You've got six edits. If you expect this complaint to be taken seriously, you should post under your registered user ID. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

And by the way, he was already blocked before you filed this complaint, but not indef. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

• [67]
• [68]
• [69]
• [70]
• [71]
• [72]

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

I have no idea what he is talking about. I was having a conversation with User:Mehmedsons on that users' private talk page. Out of nowhere this random guy who I had never spoken to before jumps in uninvited and starts arguing with me long after my discussion with User:Mehmedsons had ended and we had gone our ways. I find it very strange that he would interfere in a conversation that doesn't concern him and was already over.

I'll adress the points he made:

1) It was my impression that User:Mehmedsons's edits were biased because he used a map to edit pro-SDF gains while ignoring that very same map in towns that were shown as under OPP. I believe I had more than enough reason to think he was biased and I told him that quite frankly without any cursing or personal attacks. Why this second user then jumps in and interferes in a conversation he was not part of is unknown to me. I can only assume that it is because he himself is also biased and is defending his fellow pro-PKK editor. Otherwise why would he interfere in a closed conversation that he was not part of anyways on a private talk page of another user?

2) I did provide a link to the map he mentions above. A link that I copied directly from the adress bar of the twitter page belonging to the neutral map-maker. I specifically referred to the latest map on that persons twitter page. There was no direct adress for the map itself as adress bar does not change when you open an image on twitter. At least not on my monitor.

3) As can be seen on User:Mehmedsons's talk page, above user clearly wanted confrontation critisizing every word I wrote, like when I was explaining that the conversation no longer mattered because I had been informed by respected users on my own talk page that maps were not allowed as source (much of the discussion was based on a map), hence why my initial conversation with User:Mehmedsons had ended before this guy jumped in to escalate and restart. This constant criticism of everything and anything I said I interpreted as a personal attack on me, not on what I said but me personally, as I was referring to rules that were clear and out of discussion and that I myself had been informed of around the same time (see my talk page). Yet user would still try to argue.

4) As for my edits. I am not aware of making multiple reverts in the period of 24 hours. I always try to avoid that. It is possible that I may have edited something someone else before prior to my arrival had changed hours before my arrival and without me being aware of such previous edits. I don't know if this counts as reverting others people's edits. I won't bother look in to the above persons history for breakage of rules as I am not interested in personal attacks and don't really care if he is around or not.

Conclusion: Bottom line is that my intial discussion with User:Mehmedsons was over by the time above user arrived out of nowhere and restarted a conversation that he was not part of to begin with. I tried to end the conversation like I had with the first one, and consistently asked him to stop arguing as there was no point to it any longer. By then I had been informed by respected users that maps were not allowed anyways as source for edits. But this guy wanted to even argue over that. It is my impression that he is trying to get rid of objective editors so he can make pro-PKK edits without anyone checking up on it. I have been around for years and asking someone to be banned for a simple discussion with another user is just nonsence. Mozad655 (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll address all your claims, here's the actual reasons truth:

1) You cannot simply call someone biased to SDF because you think they showed some territories under SDF control. That is assuming bad faith. There might be conflicting reports and you might think it is not true. But you had absolutely no reason for saying they are "pro-PKK" simply over a disagreement. You had absolutely no evidence, simply saying they showed some territories under a faction isn't an evidence.

2) You didn't copy a link to the map you were claiming about. All you did was provide a link to the Twitter profile which you claimed had the map "Yusuf Bayk under SDF - acc. to latest map from https://twitter.com/ArtRosinski". In actual you can find a different adress bar for posts. How do you think people source Twitter posts directly? They post the direct link to that post. And how are we supposed to know what latest map are you talking about? Posts can keep changing, so can the "latest maps" change. Alternatively you could have just opened the image in a new tab and copied its link. Your edits were unsourced, but this is about your behavior.

3) In actual, it was you who started showing a confrontational attitude. I never tried to have any confrontation with you. All I did was tried to find out out whether your claims were right or wrong and you didn't properly source your edits. Reliablity in an article has to be maintained. And how did you respond? You said I'm biased in favour of my "PKK-buddies". Now even if you think I was being confrontational, how come you are baselessly accusing me of bias? Gain you are assuming bad faith over shortcomings of your own edits.

4) Not only that you claimed I was tryibg to find a "pretext for personally attacking you". However, I never even attacked you once. It was you who started personally attacking me ust because I questioned and raised serious doubts about your claims and edits. Again you've shown presumption of bad faiths. I told you not to attack other editors yet you do it again. This shows that you do not care about Wikipedia's rules which your comments seriously breach.

5) You claim you are not aware of making multiple reverts in a period of 24 hours. However I have posted differences which clearly show you reverting atleast 6 times in less than 24 hours. Your claim is not even possible.

6) Why do you keep saying "pro-PKK" especially? PKK is seen as a terrorist group by some and Turkey is seen as an affiliate by Turkey. Your choice clarly indicates you are biased. You do not say "pro-SDF", "pro-Kurd" or "pro-YPG"

7) The reality is that you didn't bother to claim maps can't be used as sources until I was discussing with you. Here's your last comment directed to Mehmedsons: [73]. Here you accuse him of bad faith just like you did me without any real evidence. And you accuse me here as well.

Not only that you falsely, baselessly and ridiculously claim I'm trying to get rid of objective editors. That is another assumption of bad faith and a personal attack. You have violated Wikipedia's policies many times within 2 days. It is clear that it is you who did not like others making edits other than what you believe in, and started edit-warring, personally attacking and falsely accusing others. A person like you who so blatantly violates the rules and attacks others must be blocked. I request the administrators to block him. Newsboy39 (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Newsboy39 and Mozad655: As an outside third party, I don't see any clear cut policy violation here, although it is definitely worth both users to review WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Additionally, over the content dispute, I'd suggest using dispute resolution. -- Dane2007 ^talk 21:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Newsboy39 I'm sorry you still don't understand my point of view. I'm not going to argue with you again. I've read everything you wrote and its my impression that you have a very distorted perception of both the initial conversation (which you weren't part of) and the second (which you started long after initial had ended). Frankly I don't always understand what you write. Maybe some language problems on your part or maybe I'm not expressing myself clear enough in my responses. Still disappointed though that you would react by attempting to get another user blocked for a simple discussion covering a few lines. Decision has been made. I will move on and so should you. I'm out. Mozad655 (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Mozad, I have every right to question your claims and so dies everyone else. It's me who doesn't understand how you claim others are "pro-PKK" and blame othets. Besides your discussion with Mehmedsons was very uncivil. As I already proved, your last message was a personal attack on him. Instead of blaming others and being uncivil, you should have either tried to address any problems others had pounted out. Your have attacked me multiple times. I don't see how there is any reason you can continue editing here. Newsboy39 (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Dane2007 I was never uncivil to him and even Mozad655 accepted he was wrong when questioned about some of his claims. In all my comments I was always well-behaved towards him and assumed good faith. However he didn't like me questioning what he claimed. Claiming that I was uninvited or anything else doesn't excuse him. I do not see how someone who has edit-warred, made personal attacks and baselessly accused others of bad faith should continue here. Newsboy39 (talk) 21:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Newsboy39: You're correct, you weren't uncivil to him. The reason I stated you should review both policies is because WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are closely related and might help you understand why I am saying I don't see the clear cut policy violation. The diff you cited for the personal attack was definitely firm and potentially uncivil, but in this case it was not a personal attack. As you stated, all editors are invited and encouraged to participate in the encyclopedia, so claiming you are uninvited is irrelevant in his argument against you. -- Dane2007 ^talk 21:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

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

WarMachineWildThing Since being warned about 1RR by EkoGraf, I haven't violated it neither anyone accused me of it. And I only made 2 reverts. From thereon out, I have always tried to discuss something wrong in others' edits, however Mozad655 got angry about this. He seems to have known it all along and claims he didn't make multiple reverts in a day, even though he made 6 of them. Another thing is I wasn't being "uncivil" to EkoGraf, I truly did feel he was threarning me. But we solved the situation amicably and in a civil manner on Battle of Sirte (2016). And all of it was days ago. No such attempt made by Mozad655, only false accusations of bias and personal attacks. I don't think trying to find faults in both over one reason or another will do any good. Newsboy39 (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh no please do not mistake my statement,I never said you had done it since, But it had been done. There was nothing threatening about those warnings, typical warnings I've issued many myself, I've seen alot worse. But I digress, Back to the matter at hand, I just checked the refrences again to make sure I didn't miss something. I see 1 revert and the rest are just edits. As Dane said above you both should review both policies WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA as I see no clear cut policy violation either.Chris"WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 22:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

WarMachineWildThing I understand what you're saying completely. I and EkoGraf had our disagreements many times, but never once I made any baseless allegations against him or accuse him of bias. And in the end we did manage to put our disagreements aside and solve the issue amicably on Talk:Battle of Sirte (2016). I do believe that Mozad655's actions are far more serious than anything I might have done some days ago. Problem with Mozad655 is instead of showing improvement, he blames others. I seriously doubt he should continue here. Newsboy39 (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Dane2007 WarMachineWildThing I've checked WarMachineWildThing's claim and properly investigated all the diffs, however most of the diffs are still reverts. It might not be clearly visible, but I checked the previous edits for verification that they are reverts. In his edits Mozad655 has changed content back to as it was before others made an edit on it. Here are the reverts:

• Revert no. 1 is a revert of Skyline12399's edit

• Revert No. 2 is another revert of Skyline12399's edit

• Revert no. 3 is a revert of Pbfreespace3's edit

• Revert no. 4 is a revert of Ahmedo Semsurî's edit.

• Revert No. 5 is again a revert of Skyline12399's edit

Mozad655 has made 5 reverts in one day. He should be blocked immediately. Newsboy39 (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

It would also appear that Skyline12399 in addition to Mozad655 has also violated WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#1RR. I have issued single-issue warnings to both users and notated the sanction violation. Any determination regarding blocking must be handled by an administrator. -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Both blocked for 72 hours. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Legal threat against User:NgYShung and User:Anna Frodesiak

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

---

Prior to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive931#Threats to User:NgYShung. User:81.174.178.207, probably also User:Countyjail make legal threat saying to report user to police if any information was known. The diffs are on User:NgYShung userpage, on User:Countyjail talk page and on commons User:NgYShung talk page. NgYShung ^huh? 01:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Already blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Now that's a legal threat! EEng 01:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Either the threats are bollocks, or the Malaysian police have way too much time on their hands. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    • If 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal is any indication… Airplaneman ✈ 02:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

It's things like this that have me tempted to publish a collection of badly formed legal threats from Wikipedia. But that might put me on "the wanted list of worldwide countries" as well! --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

There is a site called Chilling Effects ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Bizarrely, the IP is British. Black Kite (talk) 09:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

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

New user copies my userpage, name and all

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

---

I was kindly alerted by Kansas Bear that a new user has copied my userpage including real-world name, location, etc., and I would like to bring this to the notice of administrators so that appropriate actions can be undertaken. Constantine ✍ 07:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I think there's a guide on not impersonating someone else, and their edit history would lean towards WP:NOTHERE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. The account works in tandem with a two IPs to close the controversial Talk:Abkhazia#RfC on Infobox. I have reverted their latest attempt and contemplate drastic measures. Favonian (talk) 08:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

With an editing history that includes gems such as [74] and [75], suggest that contemplation morphs into action ;) _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Oranjelo100

• Oranjelo100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Oranjelo100 has a very long history of poor quality disruptive edits, characterized by dozens of uncommented tiny edits on pages (such as here) producing often incoherent and incomprehensible results (such as here and here). The user seems to have a special interest in ethnic and racial matters, as the majority of their significant edits seem to be on pages related to these topics. His edits also often use very poor sources, such as weblogs, out-of-context self-hosted Google docs spreadsheets, Google-translated foreign new sites, etc...

Other editors have tried to talk sense into Oranjelo100 numerous times (I mean dozens of times, always on the same issues) on his talk page, but their criticism seems to have been met with WP:IDHT because this pattern has been repeating itself for over three years. In 2013 there was an RfC related to this exact same issue, but RfCs probably aren't the right approach to this.

After his recent edits on Ethnic groups in Europe, which I reverted, I commented on his talk page telling him what the issues with the edit were and what he should do to fix them. He just dismissed most of my criticism and reverted my revert, and then moved his edit, which is a massive 4000-character 0-linebreak questionably sourced blurb, from the opening section of the article into a section of its own (along with half the original content of the opening section, presumably by mistake). Since it was at least not completely ruining the entire article anymore I left the issue at that, not wanting to engage in an edit war and to see if he'd carry out on his promises to fix it. However, when he did go back to the article, instead of fixing the blatant issues it had and make it readable, what he did was added a bloody 4chan link as a source.

I was in the process of improving it, as I said I'm still working on it. Oranjelo100 (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

This issue should've been brought to ANI years ago, but somehow has flown under the radar for over three years. Considering how long this has been going on for and how many different editors have tried to reason with the user, I'm pretty sure nothing will change without a stern talking to from a higher authority.

-- turdas^talk 13:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

A block under WP:Competence is required is certainly something to consider. There was a a previous discussion at Talk:Racism in Poland#Numerous references for various incidents. it was suggested there by User:Poeticbent that Oranjelo100's fragmentary contributions are due to use of machine translation to make his comments: "A quick look at his contributions shows that Oranjelo100 does not edit in full sentences and relies on Google translate for everything." The user has been warned numerous times on his talk, but until yesterday had never used his own talk page. They seldom use any talk page. I suggest that, since this might be considered to be a pattern of disruption, we might allow notification of people who have left warnings for Oranjelo100 in the past. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oh dear. I just reverted on Ethnic groups; Turdas, you may need to have a look to see if I undid your work. Ed has a good point: poor writing, incommunicado--and then the 4chan link and other general problems... Drmies (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

You should check the history of my commits again because the vast majority of my edits are unrelated to racism or any ethnic issues at all. These were hardly my most significant edits either so I don't see why you are suggesting I have some special interest in it. I just thought that it's a good idea to mention it because it does exist in Poland, nothing more and that article looked rather one sided to me but I didn't press the issue(also on Anti-Arabism page) page after my edits were reverted to avoid further conflict. I understand that is a very controversial and inflammatory topic especially for Poles. I was even accused of being an enemy of Poland by one user that's why I didn't respond then.Oranjelo100 (talk) 02:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I understand English and do not need to use Google Translate for it. My fragmentary contributions are mainly due to my computer being slow and freezing when the editing window is open for too long and I didn't know that you can be banned just for that, though I can try to limit that as much as I can. I wasn't very communicative because I'm rather shy and some users made in my opinion quite aggressive comments against me so I didn't want to exacerbate situation any further.Oranjelo100 (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

That was a link to 4chan's archive not 4chan and I did that as it is convenient and easy for me to link images through it. After that I then found and linked a study with those images anyway but I didn't know that linking to 4chan's archive is considered as such a big infraction here, especially as those pictures were unrelated to 4chan in general.Oranjelo100 (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support. WP:CIR applicable policies include virtually every category:

1. Language difficulty
2. Editing beyond their means
3. Lack of technical expertise
4. Grudges
5. Inability to talk about incremental changes

The bottom line

(direct quote, could not say it better myself): At the end of the day, it doesn't matter much whether someone's disruption is due to mischief or incompetence. There's no point trying to distinguish between fake or real incompetence—disruption is disruption, and it needs to be prevented. Poeticbent talk 17:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't hold any grudges but unfortunately it seems some people here apparently hold grudges against me. I am knowledgeable enough about topics I edited. However if you really think Wikipedia will be better without me and decide to ban me, then what can I say. I always tried to improve Wikipedia and the majority of my contributions are still in place, but if you feel they are worthless or just a disruption feel free to do what you want.Oranjelo100 (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The first time I have ever encountered you was after your edit on Ethnic groups in Europe two days ago, so I can assure you that if there are grudges involved, they would have to be very short-term ones. None of the editors who have previously left messages on your talk page have participated in this discussion. -- turdas^talk 19:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me for starting a new paragraph here, but the parts of this section above are turning into a real mess. My two cents on this matter are that Oranjelo100 has good intentions, but less in the way of competence. After I gave him feedback on his edits on the Ethnic groups in Europe page, I noticed he was actually in the process of fixing at least the line breaks in it when Drmies reverted it. There were still numerous issues with the edit, such as the poor use of sources (the first sentence had four citations after it, three of which were utterly frivolous; two 4chan /pol/ archive links and one imgur link) and generally poor language, but at least he did not ignore my criticism and made an effort to improve his contribution.

However, these are still clear CIR issues. The editor has been on Wikipedia for three years, and is still using user-generated content as sources, and writing simply unacceptably bad edits such as the aforementioned Ethnic groups in Europe one or this one on Racism in Poland. Not to mention their comments on this page here, which are haphazardly scattered around the section, and even abruptly inserted in the middle of other people's comments. If they haven't figured things out during the three years they've already spent here, can we really expect them to ever "get it"?

I'll leave any decisions to the admins, but I would prefer if what seems to happen to many other ANI issues doesn't happer here, and that the issue would be handled to its proper closure instead of being left up in the air until it gets automatically archived. -- turdas^talk 15:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I haven't fixed that upper comment in fear of being accused of making too many edits again, my bad but that's quite ruthless of you, mentioning that in this way. In regards to links and citations, I used that Imgur and that 4chan srchive links because it's convenient for me to link relevant images through it. I didn't know that it was such an offence, though now I see that was a mistake and I was planning to remove that links when Drmies reverted everything, as I found an article with the source of those images.

Wikipedia's rules are rather vague in general and it only says that links to things like blogs are generally unacceptable, and only in the case of living persons they are always unacceptable. In my opinion Eurogenes links are reliable as official researchers like Lazaridis used that data, and even in the case of lesser known blogs it should be permissible for PCA plots etc, because they use respected and readily available software. That's just my opinion tho. Oranjelo100 (talk) 02:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Your comments here are a stark difference to your history. I'm not saying that as a bad thing, as they have changed at least my opinion on the matter slightly, and I'm sure some of the admins would agree as well. That doesn't unfortunately change any of the issues already pointed out here. As another editor so eloquently put it on your talk page:

"The onus is upon you, to stop writing broken English and generally unreadable prose, and stop citing non-WP:RSes. Stop citing weblogs, spreadsheets, and other random stuff. Stop making tons of little edits, incomplete edits, and edits without comprehensively justifying descriptions. Stop doing these things, ever, under any circumstances. This is all I've ever seen you do for years, and it's totally unencyclopedic."

If you can improve on all of the issues other editors have been bugging you about on your talk page for years, then I think you can still make a good editor. When an experienced editor tells you something, even if they seem harsh, it's usually a good idea to listen. Your talk page is littered with criticism, often good criticism with pointers on how to improve, dating all the way back to 2013. Some have been less than tactful, but you have to understand that Wikipedia has no shortage of disruptive editors. That is what you have come across as to those people, and they have better things to do than to coach people on the very basic fundamentals, especially when there's a good chance their coaching would fall on deaf ears.

If you wish to keep editing, please start by (re)familiarizing yourself with the basics. If you are in doubt about how to write, consult the Manual of Style. Familiarize yourself with what constitutes reliable sources, and if you're still in doubt, ask the reliable sources noticeboard. Learn to use the preview button when editing so that you can avoid making dozens of tiny edits; it's still alright to make multiple edits in succession, but when your consecutive edits fill up an entire page in the edit history you've gone way overboard. If your computer has issues freezing during editing, you should sort that out: the Wikipedia editor (especially the old wikitext one) is not very heavy at all and even my dad's 8-year-old Celeron laptop can run it with no problems. And most importantly, listen to what other editors tell you, and reply to them if you disagree. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and the only way it can work is by discussing issues with other editors.

I would also tell you to use common sense, but I'm aware that not all people are very good at that, and most people who are would probably already have figured out by themselves to use it.

-- turdas^talk 14:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Tnguyen4321's vandalism

user:Tnguyen4321 is conducting vandalism (or at least disruptive editing) on the talk page of Battle of Ia Drang by reverting a well-ended RfC here.[76] Besides, he's also conducting intentional edit warring on the article.[77]. Dino nam (talk) 01:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You really must notify an editor when you report them. I have done it for you [78]. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

That's not really a closure - but a comment. SQL^{Query me!} 02:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Happysquirrel: @SQL: Fixed. I hope no one minds. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Argh! Sorry about that and thanks Hijiri88. Happy Squirrel (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

1. This is not vandalism. It is questionably disruptive talk page editing. WP:VANDALISM has a very specific meaning, and hardly ever occurs on talk pages.
2. The RFC question was in violation of WP:RFC (it was the OP's opinion, not a neutrally worded question). The same OP had previously done the same thing one month earlier.[79] Dino nam should explain their actions.
3. The RFC was very poorly formatted, with a bunch of extra sections added outside of the original RFC section when they should have been subsections. This makes me wonder whether AustralianRupert had actually noticed that the vast majority of the discussion was not where it should have been before analyzing what the consensus should be.
4. If what Tnguyen says is right, and the closer actually had misinterpreted the consensus, then what should be done is described at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE; reopening a closed RFC by replacing the template with a new date is not the right way to go.
5. The fact that the original disruption here appears to have been caused by Dino nam's repeated biased RFC questions, and Dino nam has now opened an ANI thread accusing another user of "vandalism" when vandalism is clearly not what is happening here, and failed to inform the accused party, makes me wonder if a WP:BOOMERANG is in order.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Agree that some words might have been fixed with that RfC. Thanks for elaborating my mistakes with it; many other admins haven't done that.
• I must also remind you that all of the relevant sections you're talking about are created by user:Tnguyen4321 himself (e.g this section [80]).
• According to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE:"For other procedures, whether formal RFCs or less formal ones such as merging or splitting, contact the editor who performed the closure and try to resolve the issue through discussion. If you are unable to resolve the issue through discussion with the closer, you may request review at the Administrators' Noticeboard." Therefore, user:Tnguyen4321 still failed to follow the procedures; instead he conducted disruptive editing and this should be stopped.
• Sorry for forgeting to remind the user about the issue on this noticeboard, but I have clearly stated in my allegation above that there is possibility that this could be disruptive editing instead of vandalism. Therefore, your boomerang accusation is not quite appropriate. Dino nam (talk) 03:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin, but if no one else told you that both of your RFC questions were in violation, then they may also be at fault. However, the onus is on you to make sure you have read and understood WP:RFC before you open your first RFC, and let alone your second.
• Again, I agree that Tnguyen's actions were not in line with CLOSECHALLENGE: I clearly read that page before you did, and you only noticed it when I pointed it out to you. However, your actions have been at least as out of line in this case, going back at least two months -- Tnguyen's not acting in accord with CLOSECHALLENGE is, as far as I can see, a minor infraction by comparison.
• My BOOMERANG proposal is based on your repeated disruptive abuse of the RFC process, and has very little to do with your failing to properly notify Tnguyen. The main concern about your failure to notify Tnguyen is that, like with your repeated RFC mess-ups and your repeated misrepresentations of the policies and guidelines you are quoting, you appear to have either not read or not understood the guidelines for using this noticeboard before using it. This kind of behaviour is understandable from a new editor (which arguably covers Tnguyen, whose first edit was last year), but you have been here since 2011.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I also add some info for you to consider about talk page vandalism on WP:VANDAL: "Illegitimately deleting or editing other users' comments. However, it is acceptable to blank comments constituting vandalism, internal spam, or harassment or a personal attack. It is also acceptable to identify an unsigned comment. Users are also permitted to remove comments from their own user talk pages. A policy of prohibiting users from removing warnings from their own talk pages was considered and rejected on the grounds that it would create more issues than it would solve." As the actions of User:AustralianRupert and other users can no way be described as vandalism, internal spam, harassment or personal attacks, the action of Tnguyen4321 (reverting the RfC closure without going through the legitimate procedures) soundly fits the definition of "illegitimately deleting or editing". Dino nam (talk) 04:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

You are starting to act like another user who recently got blocked for constantly citing policies and guidelines that he had apparently not understood. Vandalism must, by definition, be "a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia"; if someone reverts an RFC close because they legitimately believe the closer made the wrong decision, that is not vandalism, even if it is disruptive. You are honing in on a minor technicality that in reverting the close, he also removed the closer's consensus statement that in a manner of speaking kinda-sorta qualifies as "other users' comments"; this is what is called wikilawyering. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I think you should probably revert your mentioning of another editor above. It is unfair, too say the least, as he cannot answer here, and it is also unhelpful, as everyone's case can be different. Drawing parallels like that is misleading. Cheers, _Muffled ^Pocketed 05:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Done and done. I thought the parallel was apt, and the case is not that much different, but I see your overall point. And I hope you don't mind my moving your comment to directly below the comment you were talking about. Your comment doesn't seem to have anything to do with the proposed TBAN. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• I've protected the page for two weeks since there is definitely disruptive editing in the history page. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Frankly, I have to say I have real concerns about Tnguyen4321's edits here. Firstly, the editor attempts to close the RFC himself despite being involved [81] but then when I closed it they reverted citing no consensus [82]. That does not seem consistent with someone who is participating in an RFC in the spirit with which it is intended. I'm now involved so I will leave it up to others to make a decision. I wouldn't classify Tnguyen's edits as "vandalism", but frankly I feel that their edits here deserve closer scrutiny. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert: You may be right, and I appreciate your drawing attention to Tnguyen's having previously tried to close the RFC himself; Dino nam should have done this earlier. However, given the bad RFC question (the second by the same user) I think it's unsurprising that no one was able to gauge a fair consensus and give a decent close until after the template had been removed by the bot. The biased question invalidated the RFC from the beginning, so it was at best a talk page section that should not be treated like a bona fide RFC, and at worst a form of canvassing and forum-shopping by Dino nam. Assuming the former, it's my impression that closing off an expired talk page section, as long as one is not trying to make one's own "consensus" statement, is usually considered acceptable even for involved users. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Tnguyen4321 did previously attempt to close off the RfC with his own consensus statement (which, BTW, struck me at the time as wikilawyering) [83]. I also don't see any vandalism here. Difficult editor to work with, based on my first encounters, but not a vandal. FactotEm (talk) 23:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Precisely. Tnguyen4321 had tried to close the RFC themselves which I reverted. Involved users should never close a contentious RFC. I then requested AustralianRupert (who was uninvolved) to close the discussion. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: TBAN Dino nam from opening RFCs

The OP opened an RFC with a biased question accusing another user of OR and misrepresenting sources, and then when it was closed in a way they didn't like went on to open another RFC with another biased question. Whether Tnguyen is out of line as well can be decided above, but that Dino nam should not open any more RFCs is pretty obvious. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support as nom. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Dino nam might perhaps benefit from reading up on procedure, but banning them from opening RfCs seems a little harsh, especially when it would appear that there might be a case to be answered for less than perfect sourcing by Tnguyen4321. A little WP:AGF and patience might be the way forward here. FactotEm (talk) 10:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose One does not expect an editor to improve their skills by barring them from what they're weak at. Additionally, a topic ban would be reasonable only if an extensive history of poorly framed RFC's was evident. As it is, there is only one incidence of this. However, I would support a requirement that Dino nam seek a second opinion on any new RFC they intend to raise. Blackmane (talk) 07:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Uncivil behavior by 23 editor

23 editor started a discussion ("Ethnicity") at Talk:Davor Štefanek not because of article content, i.e. as discussion title imples the ethnicity of Davor Štefanek, about what editor even openly stated "I couldn't care less what he is" (and showed no intention to discuss it), but to openly discriminate other editor. He, as an experienced editor, deliberately ignores the fact that the sources which were given as an example (about another personality) were unreliable and the case controversial (the topic is also discussed at Talk:Branimir Štulić), all in order, as he says, the article content is "not the point", but the "point is one user insists... simply because the assertions they support don't match their POV". My personal point of view and activity have nothing to do with following WP:NPOV principles. However, the user did not stop the discussion and continued to ignore the fact those sources were unreliable for the claims they made (neither he participated in the related discussion), and incomprehensibly interpreted my replies as "chauvinist babbling", and that my whole activity is based on my "own Croatian nationalist world view". He ends it with "pathetic", but I don't think it is more pathetic than such behavior by contributor with Veteran Editor II level. I reported 23 editor not because I want him to be blocked, but because I will not reply to his personal attack, and to be warned that such behavior is not supported on Wikipedia.--Crovata (talk) 10:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

What can I say? Double standards and lame excuses are nothing short of pathetic. Pointing out double standards and lame excuses is not, despite teetering on the edges of WP:CIV. I stand by that. 23 editor (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Whilst 23 editor is definitely skirting the edges of civility, I do need to ask, Crovata; on that talk page, why have you removed the sections sourced to the three sources mentioned? Why do you believe they are not reliable? Just saying "they are" is insufficient. I am unsurprised that you have received so much antagonism when you don't appear to have done that anywhere. Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Black Kite there is no hypocrisy and excusing from my part - that are 23 editor's unjustified accusations, and instead to accept he was wrong or to move on, he called me a chauvinist. You don't understand the complex situation about the biography of Branimir Štulić, neither the political-nationalist pretentions about his ethnic-national origin or identity (and going into detail about that is not the point of the report), and 23 editor who generally edits Serbian or former-Yugoslavian articles should know that. I already explained, in the Serbian Glas Javnosti and Politika is claimed that it's "well-known that his father is a Serb from Niš, Dalmatian Zagora" (it's not a well-known fact, actually there only 2-3 sources to claim his Serbian ethnicity; his family is not from Dalmatian Zagora, neither in Dalmatian Zagora exist a settlement with that name), and that his father is a "Serb by origin from Nin near Zadar" (his family is from Nin, but father's ethnicity is unverified and non-factual information by the journalist with the only intention to reclaim Branimir's national identity, the news article is even pathetically titled "Kidnapping of Johnny"), as for the Croatian Index.hr (actually Bosnian-Herzegovinian Dnevni Avaz) it is claimed that allegedly told the journalist (but here can be seen that on the question "Do you write in Croatian language?" he replied "It is not Croatian language, it is literary Serbian language"). These claims like [84] ("I have not one Croatian blood cell nor am I a child Croatian-Serbian marriage") or Slobodna Dalmacija ("Croats do not exist at least 600 years") compared to the opposite claims (there is no need to source and cite everything here) where reliable sources confirm the genealogy of his family ("Croatian family Štulić lives in Nin for at least 500 years"), show his Yugoslavian-socialist point of view on ethnicity and nationality, rebellion against not what he is not (of Serbian origin, neither he or his cousins claimed any Serbian origin, actually noted there exist "strange statements, unverified information, all sorts of stupid caption" related to Branimir Štulić), but against what he is and where he comes from (the Croatian origin, Croatia), the history, the identity-crisis ("My family members are from Nin, Croats", "I am a Turk, and I am a Turk for myself, not for you, also I am a Macedonian", he is in Serbo-Croatian "anacionalan", meaning "nationally uncommitted"), to belong to nobody and nowhere, and so on. His father's ethnic origin, or Branimir's controversial (subjective) personal considerations, are out of scope for an encylopedic article on an artist. And like in the case of 23 editor's link, where IP said "content is dubious only for a Croat", the IP was warned by K.e.coffman that "calling out an editor's nationality in an edit summary is inappropriate", only that 23 editor is not an IP, but a Veteran Editor II level contributor who must know that. --Crovata (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Pretty much the same thing as here @Crovata: 141.138.54.39 (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Just a summary of that case which is virtually the same. Removing valid sources and making personal attacks [85] [86]. Requesting CU with intent to fish for users with the same ISP [87]. Opposing the sources material with no basis in sources of his own, he simply claims the only posted source is wrong [88], funny for someone that has the following stated on his user page:"This user believes in using Reliable Sources.". His opinion must be more reliable that a published source. He and several other users exhibit the same disruptive behavior. I made a record of that here 141.138.54.39 (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The only similarity with this case is the saying by 23 editor that ethnicity "it's irrelevant" or "The genealogical lineage is completely irrelevant" (which is generally not true), but that's a totally different article and talk page discussion, don't relate them.--Crovata (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

What about this "where you edit-warred with a host of IPs and sock-puppets pushing the opposite agenda" and this "Suzichi, don't resort to sockpuppets; I *will* report you".--141.138.54.39 (talk) 22:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The only IPs involved were 178.222.51.163, 212.200.247.167, and 79.101.66.244 and they were from Belgrade, Serbia. Whether those IPs were sock-puppets it's his conclusion, but it is obviously not related with the case of Suzichi. Please, don't relate the cases.--Crovata (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The similarity is in the behavior. 89.164.174.221 (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I collaborate with 23 editor on occasion, so I'm going to consider myself involved and won't close this thread. However, while the language cited is robust, it appears to be caused by understandable frustration, so I don't see any need for sanction on grounds of incivility. I recommend both parties compare and contrast reliable sources in the article rather than attempting to remove or discount a set of sources they don't agree with. The former method is what we do on en WP when reliable sources differ on an issue. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Peacemaker67 why is the frustration "understandable" when openly was no 23 editor's intention to discuss both articles sources and content except to attack fellow editor? By what criteria his frustration is understandable? Your recommendation is something we already know, it's basic logic, but whether there is a will among the editors to do it? Did I continue to discuss the topic with 87.184.138.221 IP? I moved on. --Crovata (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Contrary to what Asdisis's IP sock would have you believe, the IP that edit-warred with Crovata at the Štulić article—causing both to violate 3RR—was entirely unrelated to myself. I don't edit from Europe (or, more precisely, Belgrade) but from North America. I would like to ask for administrative assistance in dealing with Asdisis, who, as evidenced by this AN/I thread, has clearly been stalking me.

Crovata's troubling tendency to pick and choose between sources, deeming some reliable and others not, simply on the basis of how they conform to his own POV, especially in WP:BLP articles, should be subject to community scrutiny, my own remarks aside. If Crovata felt "discriminated" against (don't know why he would use that particular term, but OK), I apologize. But claiming to have your feelings hurt doesn't make one's own actions any less reprehensible. The fact is that Crovata deems both reliable Croatian and Serbian sources unreliable simply on the basis of the claim they make for an individual's ethnic background. If they claim a person has a Croat parent or is fully Croat, Crovata thinks this is by definition reliable. If they claim an individual has Serb ancestry or is fully Serb, Crovata feels the sources used to back this up are by definition unreliable. Those are the "double standards" and "lame excuses" that I was referring to, and I still wouldn't hesitate to describe them as such. 23 editor (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

You are being reported for such behavior and in this very own report you are repeating the very things you are being reported for? Strange thing to do. Bold, some may say, but it depends on which terms you are with admins. It's easy to attack an ip, but I didn't report you did I? I find your behavior generally disruptive because you think that your opinion is more important than sources and when someone questions that you personally attack him. I've tried to engage you in the discussion about sources in the talk page but you have just personally attacked me. I'm not interested in your personal attacks. If you don't want to discuss sources I will open a RfC. 89.164.174.221 (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, 23 editor, but as you continue to falsely accuse me I won't accept your apology. You crossed any measure of common sense. It is incredible that you're again openly lying - where is the evidence for my "troubling tendency... to conform own POV... on BLP articles"? It's incredible that you're still considering that, and not only that, but that mine edits were done because of Anti-Serb sentiment? Are you at all aware of what you say? Suddenly he became so interested about the proper "ethnical background", only that he finds it "irrelevant", and yet he continues to ignore the fact those claims are simply not true and never discussed both the information and sources "reliability", even "neutrality" - of course, how could I forget, because that is not even the "point" (his saying) of the whole talk page discussion - it is to discriminate other editor on the false grounds of "nationalism", "chauvinism" and "hypocrisy". You tried to make your intention to look like it's only about "reliable" sources, which you did not discuss, but you were a little too hasty and showed your transparent intentions.--Crovata (talk) 04:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Yep, he pretty much does that in every discussion where he can't beat the sources. He goes into personal accusations of nationalism and sock accusations with newer editors by fishing for isp with multiple cu requests.213.202.111.130 (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: A number of the IPs that have appeared here and are active on the articles in question have subsequently been blocked. There are probably also socks at work. I would pretty much ignore any IPs without a reasonable editing history when closing this report. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

What really puzzles me is why the Asdisis socks would swarm a random An/I? I made a two or three remarks at Talk:Novak Djokovic, sure, but nothing to make Asdisis have a vendetta against me. Curious. 23 editor (talk) 01:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a sock and among your edits on Novak Djokovic there's a clear personal attack against me. This isn't a random report but a report on your behavior that you also exhibit on the page where I'm involved. You are also pow pushing, by saying that all posted sources are wrong and that your opinion that isn't backed up by any source is right. You had also tried to remove the most valuable source posted there. When I saw you are being reported for virtually the same behavior by another user I had to mention that I had experienced the same behavior from you on another page. Stop calling me a sock,stop pow pushing and I won't have "vendetta" against you. Fishing for ISP providers to block other users is very disruptive and against rules [89]. Of course that you can find 2 editors with ips from the same block when you fish with cu requests. 213.202.111.130 (talk) 10:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikihounding/harassment by User:Drmargi

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

---

I'd prefer to get this addressed in a visible way and I think this is the best place to do it.

Last week, I removed a report from WP:AIV that I considered a blatantly bad-faith attack on a well-meaning user. This report was restored by a non-admin user, User:Drmargi, with whom I'd never interacted before; she showed up at my talk to scold me for what she perceived as a bad act on my part, instigating a contentious and unhelpful discussion that ended here with almost no substantial reaction from Drmargi regarding my concerns with her behavior.

A week later, she showed up completely out of the blue at Lisa Murkowski to restore an edit that another editor and I both agreed was bad. The IP editor's edit was imperfect, mine was imperfect, and we collaborated to re-word the sentence, which is now accurate. When I asked Drmargi why she just kept reverting me instead of, you know, working on smoothing out the content, I was ignored.

Just now, for the third time in just under two weeks, Drmargi showed up in an ongoing contentious dispute, completely out of the blue, to oppose me. In this case, she reinserted bright-line vandalism and she's been here long enough to know it: per WP:AVOIDEDITWAR, it doesn't matter if the text I'm reinserting is patently false: if it's a good-faith edit, repeated reverts of it constitute vandalism. That she's attempting, for the third time in two weeks, to reinsert content that isn't accurate is the icing on the cake.

I've never started an interaction with this person. She's never started an interaction with me that wasn't confrontational, scolding, completely out-of-nowhere, and at a minimum somewhat wrongheaded. When I ask questions regarding my issues, she declines to explain how I'm wrong and just reverts me. She doesn't respond to anything I say regarding her behavior. What is the appropriate way to deal with this? I'm truly at a loss for how to react to someone who is clearly monitoring me, looking for opportunities to contentiously revert stuff. RunnyAmiga (talk) 17:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

This editor has a vivid imagination, a battleground approach to editing, and a tendency to exaggerate the actions of others. Moreover, his abuse of the term vandalism is becoming increasingly problematic (see User talk:KrakatoaKatie#Clarification and Shaunae Miller as two examples). He's going to attract the attention of other editors who are interested in the pages his patrols from what I'm guessing is the new edits list, particularly given his tendency assume the worst in other editors, throw around template warnings like Mardi Gras beads, and generally act like a Wikipedia hall monitor. He is currently at 4RR at Shaunae Miller, an article I was looking at this morning following the subject's race with Allyson Felix and the somewhat controversial outcome. He can flatter himself that I'm following him if he cares to, but frankly, it doesn't make it so. --Drmargi (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

"if it's a good-faith edit, repeated reverts of it constitute vandalism" - absolutely incorrect and you are dangerously close to being blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: To be clear: this edit is not vandalism given its summary? You're looking at the contentious prose change, the blatantly dishonest edit summary, and that doesn't pass the definition of vandalism for you? RunnyAmiga (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Contentious = not vandalism (actually, it matches the source headline). Edit summary = not vandalism (it's just a default mobile interface edit summary) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: I never said contentious edits constitute vandalism. Feel free to strike the implication that I did.

The edit summary was a falsehood that came after it was explained to SirBartleMerryworth why his previous edits weren't going to stand and why their summaries showed he was violating policy. You're taking AGF awfully far, given that the editor repeatedly (and, because of a bad lock on the page, successfully) inserted the false claim that Miller dove. RunnyAmiga (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

It is not vandalism. You need to learn what constitutes vandalism here and only call edits vandalism that meet that definition. -- GB fan 17:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@GB fan: You aren't the first to see the edit, see its contentious nature, see its blatantly false explanation, then, instead of reacting to my assertion that contentiously editing while using a false, insidious summary and refusing to discuss is vandalizing, just demand I learn what vandalism is. I haven't gotten a single person to react in any substantial way to this.

I'm asking again: The user is edit-warring. (So am I! I've explained how my edits are different! One example would be that I don't lie in my edit summaries!) The user re-inserted a contentious edit. The user declined, not for the first time, to discuss anything. The user used an edit summary that included a blatant falsehood. What are you thinking is going on here? He doesn't know what the word "typo" means? Why are we extending WP:AGF to a user who has spent days showing he's editing in bad faith? If you're going to respond to this, please do so with more than this sort of tossed-off response because it's not showing me how I'm wrong. RunnyAmiga (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, let me be clear. The user was not editing in bad faith and their edits were not vandalism. Continuing to call them vandalism is going to get you blocked. Relying on the 3RR exemption for vandalism for that kind of edit is going to get you blocked. I'm saying this to you as an admin. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that your edits are not different. You both think you are improving the article and neither one of you is backing down or discussing it on the article talk page. The major concern here it's that you did not seen realize that the edits were not vandalism and continued to treat them as if they were. That is why you need to go back and learn what we call vandalism and then apply it. -- GB fan 19:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: Don't worry. I can't go on forever and I promise I'm dropping the stick after this. My assertion was that if we were talking about one of the group of issues raised (inserting a contentious claim that three other editors tried to remove, refusing to discuss the claim, edit-warring, and explaining edits with bad summaries), it wouldn't be worth a big fight but combined, these issues constituted vandalism. Enough circumstantial evidence can get you a guilty verdict, etc., etc. I concede that my assertion was wrong. And while I know that I'm wrong, I still can't see how. Can you explain what I'm missing? What are you seeing that I don't see? I don't want to make the mistakes I've made today in the future. RunnyAmiga (talk) 18:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@RunnyAmiga: What you're missing is WP:NOTVAND: "Disruptive editing or stubbornness", "Edit summary omission". Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to deface the encyclopedia. Attempting to change content so it matches the source is far, far from that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: Okay. I'll use this as a resource for how I should react to iffy editing from now on. Although I'm sincerely worried. Since we're talking about a combination of four distinct problems and NOTVAND doesn't address two, I can tell you that it won't be easy for me to let users ignore repeated efforts to discuss or lie in edit summaries. I hope my reactions to editors displaying behaviors like this doesn't end up getting me blocked but I have no issue with anybody monitoring me. (Well, except Drmargi. I kind of wish she'd leave me alone.) RunnyAmiga (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

You're under no obligation to respond to other people's behaviour, good or bad, or refute lies. Check this out: User:Dweller/Old Fashioned Wikipedian Values — Diannaa (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

RunnyAmiga, NOTVAND provides you with a list of points to help you decide if an edit is a deliberate attempt to deface the encyclopedia. "A deliberate attempt to deface the encyclopedia" is the key. You are not a pre-programmed robot. You are capable of reason and making logical deductions. We get thousands of edits with no or incorrect edit summaries per day. Some are good, some are not so good, and some are outright vandalism. If you want to judge these edits you're going to have to engage the reasoning skills you possess and look at the edit. In this case, it should have taken you about five seconds to see the replacement word matched the word in the source link. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Is no one going to address the original problem being brought here or are we just going to get stuck on what is and isn't vandalism? RunnyAmga came here because they felt hounded by Drmargi. I'm not seeing that subject being broached. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

There's not much to the accusation, I think. And even if Drmargi looked at RunnyAmiga's edits in the future, I believe it would be justified to make sure RunnyAmiga isn't incorrectly calling valid edits vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I understand RunnyAmga's concerns - especially when it comes to Drmargi suddenly showing up out of the blue to revert or voice opposition for apparently no good reason. It's happened to me with the same editor and soon after disagreeing with them or calling them out on a behavior that was non-productive. I see a similarity and that's what brought me here to comment. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN, Winkelvi, and Drmargi: It's not an issue that she appears out of nowhere. I do that all the time via, you guessed it, the recent changes page. (Also the pending changes page.) A bunch of people appeared out of nowhere in this very thread. The issue I had was that she appears out of nowhere specifically to confront me and undo my edits, doesn't walk back attacks she made (in, you guessed it, edit summaries) when I conclusively prove her wrong like at Lisa Murkowski, and categorically refuses to respond to anything I say, whether it's by reverting my attempts to discuss issues at her talk page or by just ignoring my entreaties to discuss things elsewhere. It's strange: her first reply in this thread, under my edit that started it, isn't a reply to me. It's a reply to the admins who hadn't even said anything yet.

I said on my talk that I encourage attempts to rein me in if anybody with more knowledge or experience than me thinks I'm getting out of line, but NeilN could have concluded my "accusation" didn't have much substance only by not reviewing the various times she's showed up out of the blue to confront. The Murkowski thing should have been the dealbreaker and I'm still owed an apology for how badly she behaved there. Instead, when I cooled off, re-worked the sentence with the third editor, and finalized the prose that solved every issue that all three of us had raised, she vanished. So yeah: if you have more knowledge than me about things, correct me when I'm wrong. That includes almost everybody in this thread but based on behavior and errors, it obviously excludes one person. And before anybody starts talking about years at Murkowski's page or whether I'm allowed to remove borderline-vandal reports at AIV, please know that this is regarding behavior, not content. It's interesting that she can repeatedly ignore at least a half dozen attempts to discuss and collaborate and fix things but when I mention that she does that, it's an "accusation" and "[t]here's not much to" it. RunnyAmiga (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You know, Winklevi, you have a habit of turning up any time something like this happens or when there's a contentious discussion that I'm party to, to grind some imaginary ax. Meanwhile, I prefer to avoid you like the plague. So, who's hounding whom? I'm done with this nonsense. --Drmargi (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Here's a problem: This is a rollbacker that apparently doesn't understand what rollback is for. RunnyAmiga was granted rollback less than a week ago and has used it multiple times in ways other than to revert clear vandalism. His contributions are littered with it. I believed I was clear on what vandalism is in that discussion on my talk page, but I guess I wasn't since Neil had to explain it again. I'd like to know why I shouldn't remove the rollback privilege right .now. Katie^talk 21:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support revocation of Rollback due to repeated instances in which the user has demonstrated that they do not understand what the privilege is for. Good call, KrakatoaKatie. As far as I can see there is no real "hounding" issue here at all, so once the right is revoked per WP:BOOMERANG this thread can be closed. Zero^talk 09:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support giving people an opportunity to rectify errors. I also support young, ambitious editors like Patient Zero not jumping on noticeboard bandwagons as they pass by in order to lead a song of "punity". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

My age does not in any way affect my judgement, Winkelvi. Besides, this is a preventative measure as it prevents further misuse of a tool. Zero^talk 16:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

As far as your age: If you say so. As far as your concept of Wiki-prevention: So can talking to someone and asking them to be more careful. As far as you missing the point, here's my final comment on it in this thread: I find your recent zeal to immediately take the extreme route with certain editors disturbing, to say the least. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

And yet we both reached the same conclusion re Hawkeye75 Winkelvi. When Widr granted RunnyAmiga the privilege he clearly outlined the policy page on what it is not to be used for; that to me is enough with regards to an explanation of the tool. There is also enough evidence for me to decide that this user cannot be trusted. And no, I am not disturbed, although thank you for your concern. Zero^talk 16:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

"I am not disturbed, although thank you for your concern." I hope you will re-read what I wrote (a little slower this time and without defensive glasses on) and realize that isn't what I said at all. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I've re-read your comment, and I do acknowledge I have mis-read it - if you are disturbed by my recent actions feel free to discuss them with me either on my talk page, or my email if you so wish. Admins, hat this exhange if needed. (Also, note I was mature enough to not make a joke about taking my actual glasses off in order to read that.) Zero^talk 17:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

"feel free to discuss them with me either on my talk page, or my email" I have discussed it with you at your talk page. More than once over the last couple of months. Apparently, to no avail. And no, I will not take this to email. I think at this point, transparency is needed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, Winkelvi, all I'm going to say is, I had it in my head you were willing to take the "agree to disagree" route. We discussed that on my talk page too. Zero^talk 17:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

On that issue, yes. But, as I stated above, I'm disturbed that you are continuing to take such a harsh approach with so many editors of late. Not just at noticeboards but at their talkpages, as well. That approach, in my opinion, does look like you go first for punitive over preventative. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Might I ask how revocation of Rollback would be punitive given the circumstances? Also are you referring to the Michael Hardy case? Read into that a bit more if you wish to comment on that, please. That was an admin who failed WP:ADMINCOND and resorted to personal attacks on the ArbCom case. My comments there were in order. Zero^talk 17:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

"Might I ask how revocation of Rollback would be punitive given the circumstances?" Allow me to request you recall previous discussions you've read and have been a part of in the past where a black mark on someone's Wikipedia editing career was talked about and how it affects an editor and how other editors treat them going forward. Actions in Wikipedia are rarely just in the here-and-now, rather, said actions have long-lasting consequences. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

If I may, perhaps this discussion is one where you are both part right and also part wrong. Winklevi, you are absolutely right that punitive punishments will get us nowhere, that said, losing a minor privilege is not so much punitive here as preventative. If an editor misuses a tool that they were entrusted with, even after it is explained to them, then that begins to fall under the purview of WP:CIR. That said, Zero, other options do exist to just removing the rights, perhaps you could take a look at KTruckerGirl's comments, they suggest an equally effective remedy that cannot be considered punitive at all. Why remove the rollbacker rights when we can have the editor agree to suspend the use of the rollbacker rights until they go through CVUA? and if issues persist afterwards, well, at that point we are firmly grounded in WP:CIR and should remove the rights, should act is often much better than can act, not always, but, often. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support I thought we were done with that edit from a month ago; I issued a friendly clarification to the originating editor, asked the other editor why, didn't get a response and moved on, but RA is still harassing Drmargi about this? Meanwhile, the edit made to Shaunae Miller is clearly just two people trying to work out the wording and not even anywhere near the neighborhood of vandalism. I have people following my edits (based on topic areas and the like) and sometimes they run into conflicts with me but I'm not going to fly off because of that; RunnyAmiga needs to learn to work with others here and learn to realize that they must do so. Going through some of their edits there's no indication they know how to use rollback, and going by the responses on their user talk page they really need to build up their composure; responding to anyone like this, even someone likely trolling until the block applied is completely uncalled for. Nate • (chatter) 11:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
• Weak support: I agree with those comments above, but I don't think that the admins can rekove RunnyAmiga's rollback rights, I think that he needs attending at WP:CVUA to understand what vandalism is, and when to use rollback. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 17:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• KGirlTrucker81, admins can certainly revoke rollback (and other) rights. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: (edit conflict) I know that NeilN, but just in my own opinion. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 18:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Allow the editor to process what vandalism is and isn't, issue a warning regarding rollback misuse and go forward from there. If they didn't get the message after acknowledging the warning and this discussion, then rollback should be removed - but not before. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
• Strong support There is nothing punitive about removing Rollback in this instance; it is a privilege, not a right. This editor has been registered since May, has yet to contribute original content, and is a self-appointed hall monitor and fixer. He is sarcastic and demeaning with other editors as is readily apparent when scanning his edit summaries. He's proven he does not have the appropriate understanding of EnWP policy, given the repeated issues with abuse of vandalism. He has also demonstrated a tendency toward drama, a failure to WP:AGF (he's literally declared me his mortal enemy for a very mundane revert and post on his talk page!) and a battleground approach to editing. Mentoring is all well and good when an editor is receptive, but we've seen rollback rights removed for far, far less. Until he demonstrates the temperament needed to work in an open, collaborative environment, his user rights should be very limited and highly scrutinized, particularly given his declaration that he wants to collect the icons on his user page. Troubling... --Drmargi (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@Drmargi: We all know that rollback as a privilege here, but first time misuse of rollback should been a warning and a reminider of WP:NOTVAND. Second offense, that's all rollback rights revoked. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 22:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support removal of rollback. The user has abandoned this thread and hasn't given the slightest indication that they understand what vandalism is or what they did wrong with rollback. I don't know who granted the rollback rights, but granting it to someone with such a low edit count was a mistake in the first place, in my opinion. Rollback is for experienced trusted users who know what they are doing. Remove the right and let the user learn about Wikipedia policies, guidelines, etc. Let them humbly learn from experienced editors instead of thinking they know everything. Softlavender (talk) 11:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'm going to AGF and make one last attempt to get RunnyAmiga to tell me why I shouldn't remove rollback. I've looked over his edit history and I see some improvement – at least he's undoing some edits rather than simply hitting the rollback button – but I want a clear articulation from him about what is and isn't vandalism, with some examples from his edit history. Otherwise, and particularly if he doesn't participate here further (in a thread he started), I'll remove it, as I have not been assured he will use it correctly once the spotlight is dimmed. Alerting Widr since he granted the privilege. Katie^talk 20:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• I've given RunnyAmiga more than 24 hours since this warning, during which he has been editing and ignoring this thread. Since he has not responded, I have removed rollback from his account. If he demonstrates clear understanding of WP:VANDAL, an administrator can restore it. I doubt that administrator will be me, but you never know. Katie^talk 00:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

OK thanks Katie. Are we done here (or is there some further sort of "boomerang" sanction)? If so, I think someone can close this thread. Softlavender (talk) 10:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

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

TeeTylerToe

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

---

TeeTylerToe is tenacious incompetent POV pusher who refuses to listen to anyone. Even after being block for two weeks. He also tries to trick other editors into edit wars. Which lead to him being blocked for two weeks for his edits on the Assault rifle & Talk:Assault rifle pages. During said period he repeatedly accused other editors of socking.

On July 2 2016. TTT began to add unreferenced edits for which he claimed that he had consensus to make on the Assault rifle page. However, his edits bared no similarity to the talk page discussion. And, were revert by myself and later other editors. TTT did not listen.

TTT the started a disscussion on Talk:Assault rifle, the Assault rifle article is full of "False, unsourced claim, and generally the article's a mess of Apocrypha and bias" Where he repeatedly claimed that "Burton Balloon Buster" was the first assault rifle. Not, the Sturmgewehr 44 that the article credits. His ideas were rejected by his fellow editors, as the article is full of reliable sources confirming that the Sturmgewehr 44 was the first assault rifle. TTT did not listen.

On July 4 2016, TTT added a requested comments from other editors for this discussion on the History and geography project [90] the only editor to respond User:Skyring who created an WP:RFC Was the StG-44 the first assault rifle, designed and employed as such? Skyring then completely rebuffed TTTs position. TTT did not listen.

TTT then began to forum shop for the first time at the Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities [91] Which resulted in only one referenced being added to the article. And, that reference completely refuted his position. [92] TTT did not listen.

Then he forum shopped for the second time at the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard [93] TTT was again rebuffed. [94] TTT did not listen.

He then began to edit the article again to match his POV. However, none of his edits to the article included the info discussed on the talk page (that the "Burton Balloon Buster" was the first assault rifle) and were unreferenced, TTT also removed references that were added to the article as a result of his forum shopping at the Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities. [95] As a result these edits were again reverted by myself and other editors. TTT did not listen.

TTT then forum shopped for the third time when he created a Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Assault rifle page. This request was denied within 30 minutes. TTT did not listen.

TTT then started to add random tags to the assault rifle article. Which were again reverted. And, he forum shopped for the forth time at the Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard [96] Where User:Scoobydunk told him..."Whatever you do, don't edit war to get the tag put in." And, User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris told him..."Most of the time it means that you should accept that you are wrong, and should retire with grace. See WP:1AM (which has nothing to do with late-night hours)." Again TTT did not listen.

TTT continued to add random tags to the article which were reverted by myself and other editors. User:Skyring then filed an complaint at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Which resulted in TTT being blocked for two weeks. [97] Once again TTT did not listen.

In fact during discussions on User talk:TeeTylerToe regarding the block not only did TTT continue his tenacious editing he again refuse to listen, resulting in a lost of his talk page access. He also, admitted that he was trying to trick his fellow editors into and edit war. To quote the discussion..."@Boing! said Zebedee: Not only was TeeTylerToe edit warring...If you read in between the lines of his own statements, he was trying to trick is fellow Users into an edit war. And, then claim that, "I wasn't edit warring, I was just adding tags to the article. Its those meat puppets that are edit warring by removing the tags." This behavior is intolerable on Wiki and I recommend a permanent block.--RAF910 (talk) 09:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)...Thanks for explaining that.TeeTylerToe (talk) 10:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)" [98] Again TTT did not listen.

TTT then manage to get User:Huon to lift the block. However, Huon maintained a two week topic ban on the assault rifle page. [99] TTT continued his tenacious editing and spent that two weeks accusing his fellow editors of wrongdoing, socking, meat puppetry, etc. Until Huon had enough and told him ..."I see no point in continuing this discussion. If you do not want to take my advice and drop the stick, bring it up at WP:AN and see what the wider community thinks of this issue. If I see another post like the above on my talk page without evidence in the forms of diffs backing it up, I'll re-block you for personal attacks. Huon (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)" This time TTT listened, for a very short time.

After his two week topic ban was lifted. TTT return to tenacious editing this time on the StG 44 page where he again claimed that the StG 44 is not assault rifle and again made unreferenced edits to that article. Those edits were again reverted by myself and other editors. On that article talk page discussion once again he accused and tried to trick a fellow editor into an edit war. Another editor told him..."Very well colleague, I will cut to the chase. You have just come off a two week block for tendentious editing on this very subject. Now you are straight back. The issue here is not how this bloody chunk of metal was used, but your behaviour pattern. Drop it. Irondome (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)" [100] This time he listened perhaps realizing that he could not win this fight, so soon off a two week block.

TTT then move on to the Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16 where he again tried add unreferenced info claiming that the StG 44 was not the first assault rifle, which I again reverted. [101] Then he did it again [102] Also see talk page [103] Then he tried something different. He took an existing reference in the article and cherry picked a quote out of that reference. He then altered the quote to fit his needs. He also took another reference and took a quote from that article that repeated info that was already mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. I was then forced to revert his edit add the full quote to the article once again refuting his position. [104]

TTT has now moved onto the Colt AR-15 where he insists that the Colt AR-15 has select fire versions. Which any knowledgeable person knows is not true. Where he claims that the Colt AR-15 is "A minor product line in the civilian ar-15 ecosystem." Even tough it was the first and only AR-type rifle for decades. And, by his own admission he was completely unaware that the Colt AR-15, Sporter, and SP-1 are the same semi-automatic rifle. [105] Also, he is again forum shopping this time on the Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team trying to get a consensus delete the article altogether or combine it with the M16 rifle page instead of the articles talk page where he knows he will lose. title=Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team&action=history He clearly believes that the ArmaLite AR-15, the Colt AR-15 and the M16 rifle are the same and again refuses to listen.

TTT has repeatedly shown a lack of basic firearms knowledge on almost every firearm page that he edits. Yet he refuses to listen to his fellow editor and continues to edit said pages. This forces knowledgeable editor to waste their time and efforts to correct his mistakes. Mistakes which he refuses to acknowledge and continues on the next article.

TTT has displayed this behavior on almost every article and User talk page that he edits. He has generally annoys and vexes every editor that he has makes contact with. He likes writing walls text where he asks multiple repetitive questions for which the answers are obvious.[106] And, which make it difficult for other editors to understand what he is talking about.[107] He comments on talk pages frequently go off topic. He demands that others answer his questions which he has no intention of listening to, causing others to waste their time and effort.[108] He make no effort to gain real consensus, he simply bulldozers the conversation until other editors give up.[109] He accuses other of wrongdoing when they disagree with him.[110] He refuses to accept any reference but his own.[111] Yet, he rarely includes references with his own edits. He dares and tricks others into edit warring.[112] He is not here to help, he is here to push his POV at all costs.

The following is a list of editors that have had to deal with TTT recently hopefully they will chime in....@Boing! said Zebedee: @Ohnoitsjamie: @Thomas.W: @Kudpung: @KrakatoaKatie: @Skyring: @Scoobydunk: @Shock Brigade Harvester Boris: @TransporterMan: @OuroborosCobra: @Erpert: @BilCat: @Mike Searson: @Starke Hathaway: @Irondome: @Herr Gruber: @Huon: --RAF910 (talk) 04:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:TLDR. Can you say in one paragraph, with five key diffs, what TTT has done, and what you think should be done about it? EEng 05:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Can you cite a case where one paragraph and five key diffs resulted in action? I don't recall seeing one, but I miss a lot on this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Are there anymore people that you think don't like TTT that you would like to invite to the conversation?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:COMPETENCE--Savonneux (talk) 06:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

If the complainant's prose is as poor in articles as it is here, he ought not be editing either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed.--Savonneux (talk) 07:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

If someone wants the cliff notes from an unbiased third party maybe ask huon for a quick summary, also, skyring, a member of that dispute was blocked subsequently for socking, although that does appear to have been unrelated. And on a side note, Is calling me "incompetent" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=735647383&oldid=735643460 a personal attack? I note raf910's comment "I believe TeeTylerToe is a troll." What about that?

The Assault Rifle article is, imo, a cesspit of pop history apocrypha, and the first Colt AR-15s sold were fully automatic and they were sold to the federation of Malay. I don't care if a strawberry danish was the first assault rifle, but I have 14 sources including an NRA journal (they're all just fart jokes /s) a published book, and popular mechanics that say that the 1917 winchester/burton was the first assault rifle. So... there's that. "he again claimed that the StG 44 is not assault rifle" I don't think I did that, but I have been trying to point out that the StG 44's primary mode of operation was semi-automatic. In effect, it was a semi-automatic rifle. German doctrine was to use the stg firing bursts only in emergencies. I of course have sources.

The AR-15 article was moved to "colt ar-15", and radically changed. What had been sort of a overview article for one of the most popular rifles in history was changed by raf910. Now it doesn't focus on any non-colt ar-15. It doesn't focus on any military colt AR-15. It doesn't focus on any law enforcement colt AR-15. It just focuses on the one ar-15 manufacturer's civilian sales who was AFAIK the only ar-15 manufacturer whose sales were so poor they drove the company to bankruptcy. So, as you can see in the talk page, I noted that with RAF910's changes, project assessments should be redone. the 1.0 editorial board should choose a different AR-15 article, I'd say the M-16 article as the armalite ar-15 article is a little threadbare atm. Also the firearms project should reassess, and it probably doesn't belong under military project anymore, although I suppose it could. I'm not trying to get the 1.0 editorial team to delete the article.

Roughly 5 million civilian AR-15s have been sold by pretty much anybody with a drill press. In the sea of the 5 million AR-15s sold by roughly 6 million different companies, colt's civilian product line is a drop in the bucket.

But yes. I did it in the solarium with the candlestick. And I would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for those meddling kids!TeeTylerToe (talk) 07:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Paragraphs--Savonneux (talk) 07:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

If you have a source which tells you it was first sold to the "Kingdom of Malay" you probably should throw in in the rubbish bin. There were things 100+ years ago which may sometimes be called Malay Kingdoms, but I don't think any of them are ever really called Kingdom of Malay. Malaya and Malaysia were/are constitutional monarchies, but they're not "Kingdom of Malay" any more than the United States of America is the "Republic of Americas". Nil Einne (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

It might have been federation of Malay, as this was in 1959. Here's one reference.TeeTylerToe (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

References

I admit that I'm not a good writer. I'm more of a just the facts guy. So, please forgive my lack of eloquence. TTTs comments above perfectly represent his editing style and what myself and other editors have been faced with.--RAF910 (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, by all means, let's discount the actual complaint because we don't like the prose.

TeeTylerToe is a serial edit warrior with an extensive block log. I think he feels strongly about the articles in which he's interested but can't seem to collaborate. I don't think he's a troll necessarily; he just wants to push his changes because he's right and everyone else is wrong.

If he's causing problems again after Huon unblocked him, maybe it's time for a topic ban. Katie^talk 13:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

You were the one that blocked me? How exactly do you figure that I'm a "serial edit warrior"? What edit warring did I do from '13 through, say, june this year? Or before '12? I demonstrably can collaborate. It's overly simplistic and wrong to just label me as someone who thinks I'm always right and other people are always wrong.

• I concur with KrakatoaKatie. The OP was a bit of an effort to get through, but it does outline a pattern of serious behavior including edit warring and refusal to listen to other people or back down once it's clear they are in the wrong. I'd support a topic ban from firearms, broadly construed. --Laser brain (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Do I have to go through all of that? I can go point by point if you like. From what I've seen, and as I tried to demonstrate it's quite divorced from reality. I mean, by the end it's gone completely off the rails. He accuses me of asking the wikipedia 1.0 editors to delete articles? "The AR-15 article was in, I think v0.8 and was reviewed for v1.0. Maybe change it to the m-16 article?" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team&diff=prev&oldid=735435756 You tell me. How is that asking the 1.0 editors or whatever that group is to delete an article.TeeTylerToe (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• 3? blocks in 800ish article space edits and back at ANI. Even if they are technically correct shows a lack of ability to interact constructively.--Savonneux (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

With short 4 year stretches with no incidents.TeeTylerToe (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• So is the problem narrowly focused to Assault Rifles or guns in general?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: This is far too big of a rap sheet and block log for someone who has only made less than 800 article-space edits. The amount of damage wreaked (including on his talk page after his many blocks), indicate to me this user lacks the competence to edit Wikipedia productively over time. Talk page iterations reveal a mind-numbing array of problems for such a low edit count: [113], [114], [115], [116], [117]. I'd send him back to indef-land. At the very least a very broad permanent topic ban. Softlavender (talk) 08:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Could you post diffs to make it clear what you're talking about? It looks like one of those is raising the dire, and ever-present threat of rhetorical questions that wikipedia has been facing for years that RAF910 brings up in this incident as well. Before now I didn't realize quite how serious the threat of posing rhetorical questions on wikipedia was. Also it seems like you're digging up stuff from 2012. I don't mind, because if that's the incident I remember from ~ 4 years ago it was a case of basically me saying "same to you." and at the time, as you can see, nothing came of it, for either side. Would you like me to just post a diff of every warning ever posted to my talk page?TeeTylerToe (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Agreed with Softlavender; they've had multiple chances. (non-admin) jcc (tea and biscuits) 09:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:GOODFAITHTeeTylerToe (talk) 10:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC); edited 10:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

AGF is not a suicide pact--Savonneux (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• RAF910 needs to learn that it's a violation of WP:CANVASS to only inform editors who might agree with him. The ping list that started this thread didn't include many of those who've had interactions with TTT. Felsic2 (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Most of his problems seem to ceter on the issue of the history of "Assault rifle" as a concept. Maybe the problem could be solved by a topic ban covering that article. Felsic2 (talk) 21:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• RAF910, WP:PINGs don't work unless you type four tildes at the same time you post them. I'm certainly no advocate of canvassing, but this editor's rap sheet is so alarming that I think it worthwhile to have the other editors weigh in. So I'm repeating your ping list of "editors that have had to deal with TeeTylerToe recently": @Ohnoitsjamie:, @Thomas.W:, @Kudpung:, @KrakatoaKatie:, @Skyring:, @Scoobydunk:, @Shock Brigade Harvester Boris:, @TransporterMan:, @OuroborosCobra:, @Erpert:, @BilCat:, @Mike Searson:, @Starke Hathaway:, @Irondome:, @Herr Gruber:, @Huon:. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

It may be difficult to find any editor who has been able to work constructively with TTT. I was called to the Assault Rifle article by an RfC, as were many other editors, none of whom agreed with TTT's position. We are a society that works constructively, although recognising differences, and our procedures demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach. TTT doesn't play well with others; that's the guts of it, and his staunchly defended positions are fringe. His proposal that a massive First World War anti-aircraft gun was the first infantry assault rifle speaks for itself. Time for a topic ban, I think. --Pete (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• Comment: Since I've now been pinged twice, I suppose I have to say something. Well, FWIW, after an hour of checking this saga out, TTT's editing history, his contribs, his block log, and my earlier interventions, I regretfully come to the conclusion that no amount of advice is going to improve his collaborative skills. I recommend a 6-month block with TPA revoked, no UTRS appeals during this time, and to come back on a further 6-month probation with one single mishap causing an indef requring no ANI discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Kudpung, can you clarify? With or without TPA? Or is "with TPA" admin jargon meaning "TPA revoked"? A little confusing there. Softlavender (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant TPA revoked. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• (ec) Support as the block sounds nuanced enough to cover the issues, and a 6 month probabation is fair. There is no compromise with this editor, which make collaboration impossible at this stage in the editors development here. I think Kudpung means talk page revoked b.t.w. as the editor tends to use those forums as continuations of endless dreary pointless argumentation. Irondome (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• I prefer to avoid ANI, but since I was pinged... my experience of working with TTT is that s/he is absolutely convinced of the correctness of whatever position s/he takes and is completely unmoved by contrary facts or arguments from Wikipedia policy. I have also noticed a tendency for her/him to simply drop lengthy copy-paste quotes from sources into arbitrary parts of articles (includingthe lede) without regard for whether the content of these quotes fits or the negative impact on readability. I have tried to compromise with TTT, most notably at StG-44, but s/he tends to respond to even the slightest disagreement with increasingly wordy and shrill talk page screeds. TTT is very difficult to work with, and I find myself avoiding pages where s/he is active. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support Kudpung's suggestion of 6-month block with TPA revoked and no UTRS recourse followed by a 6-month probation in which any mishap would result in an automatic indef. Softlavender (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support Makes sense. With a block log like that, something harsher is needed. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Is there any scope or room for mentoring here? Irondome (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Nope. Already attempted, back in January 2013 with Hasteur: [118], as a condition of his unblock appeal here: [119]. Didn't take or we wouldn't be here again. In fact Huon told him after his unblock a month ago that his next block would be indefinite: [120] -- Softlavender (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC); edited 16:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• I do not know if he or she is a POV pusher, I tried to work with him and he seemed to get it, but he did display a definite lack of knowledge about some very basic things concerning the Colt AR-15. He thought all pre-1986 rifles were select fire (they were not) and made the claim that Colt did not use the term AR-15 until recently when in fact the opposite was true (every Colt rifle of that type was marked AR-15 until around 2005 when it was replaced by the term M4 in order to circumvent state laws that banned the rifle by name as AR-15). I did not find the editor that difficult to work with, just not educated about the topic.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Here's a small point I'd like to clarify. Why does this: "His proposal that a massive First World War anti-aircraft gun was the first infantry assault rifle speaks for itself" trump 14 sources including an academic journal, a published book, and popular mechanics? Another thing I'm having trouble with is block policy. The letter of block policy, and the spirit of block policy both rule out both punitive blocks as well as "cooling off" blocks. Not to mention that this whole blocking because they were blocked before seems a little circular. And on that subject, glass houses. Starke? I quote a lot because, particularly on that page, some editors have trouble arguing against direct quotes from their own references. If there is any specific issues with my contributions or conduct I'd be perfectly happy to discuss it, although I can't say I'd be able to do the same if I were in other people's shoes. For some reason I don't think I'd get away with calling people trolls. And I have no trouble discussing and forming consensus with people like Herr Gruber, or Mike Searson, or countless others. People who don't counter 14 references with "but I think it looks too big" though can make forming consensus difficult. If nobody brings up anything specific I guess I can write a point by point response to raf910. And Softlavender, maybe don't take so many liberties? What Huon said was "the next block is likely to be indefinite." and the context was "If the issues that led to this block recur, and I'm more concerned about the forum shopping and accusations of bad faith than about the edit warring itself", so maybe let me know how that applies? Have I been accusing people in bad faith? Have I been forum shopping? Let me know.TeeTylerToe (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Here is Huon's unblock statement, from 20 July 2016: "Following a discussion with TeeTylerToe on the #wikipedia-en-unblock I will unblock him per WP:ROPE, with a topic ban for the Assault rifle article and definitions of "assault rifle", including talk page discussions, for two weeks from now (by then the block would have run out anyway). I also strongly encourage TeeTylerToe to drop the stick, accept that there is no consensus for his proposed changes to that article, and find another topic entirely. If the issues that led to this block recur, and I'm more concerned about the forum shopping and accusations of bad faith than about the edit warring itself, the next block is likely to be indefinite.": [121]. How you have continued to cause problems since that 20 July unblock has been detailed in the OP. -- Softlavender (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

And for instance see the two relevant threads (#7 and #9) on Huon's talk page: [122]. -- Softlavender (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• RAF910, can you please fix your diffs in the last paragraph of your OP (the one beginning "TTT has displayed this behavior on almost every article and User talk page that he edits"?) All but two don't make any sense. Plus you need to link to diffs, not edit histories. Softlavender (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: Raf910's OP. At first glance the entire first paragraph is wrong. On para 2, the edits were thoroughly referenced and the edit summary pointed to the talk page for summary of changes. Para 3 is false. Para 4 is false. Para 5 is false. Para 6, I don't think any uninvolved editor commented on the npov board, or at least not through 21 july. Para 7 is false. Para 9 is false. Para 10 is false. Para 11 is false. I could argue para 12 is false. Para 13 is false. Para 14 is debatable. Para 15 is false. Para 16 is false. Para 17 is false. If you want to throw around 6 month or indef blocks, maybe put a little more time into the due diligence.TeeTylerToe (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support block. TeeTylerToe is clearly suffering from competency issues. Huon's unblock warning spoke of an indefinite block if TTT went back to his/her bad habits; I think an indef block is justified here. -- llywrch (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Exactly what behavior are you talking about specifically?TeeTylerToe (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Does policy require you to include diffs with comments like that? Is there an exception for an/i and similar venues? Particularly considering your position?TeeTylerToe (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Update...TTT is once again forum shopping. Again he is not listening and trying to game the system. This time at the Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee [123]. Where he is "Asking for a friend" and is trying to overcome the inevitable block that will be imposed here. Enough is enough, I recommend an indefinite block, TPA revoked and no UTRS recourse. If not we will be back here again in short order, if he gets the block lifted.--RAF910 (talk) 10:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Has this all been a joke? Come on. You can tell me. I won't be mad. Has this all been a joke? Is this what AN/I does for fun on slow days?TeeTylerToe (talk) 11:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that's a little too extreme. I propose a 2 year block with TPA revoked and no UTRS recourse no UTRS recourse for 6 months ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support block - both parties have called on me to comment; sorry for not doing so earlier. In my opinion TeeTylerToe finds it extremely difficult to acknowledge that he might not be getting his way, or that he might be wrong. When several others disagree with him, that's a conspiracy. When I unblocked him, the problems concerned a single issue, and so imposing a topic ban instead of the block served to stop the disruption quite as efficiently. However, TeeTylerToe spent most of those two weeks arguing on my talk page about the other editors. He has since brought the case to the ArbCom talk page and asked about his problems in the current RfA. He has also expanded the scope of his campaign to downplay the role of the StG 44 to various related articles. I do not see that the problematic behaviour would stop for anything short of a topic ban or a block, and I fully expect that if TeeTylerToe were to switch to some other topics, the same issues would recur there. Thus I unfortunately have to support a block. I wouldn't mind a "no appeals for six months" rule, but I don't think this requires abandoning all hope of him ever becoming a valuable contributor. Huon (talk) 13:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Could you remind me? When did I ask you to comment? Have you looked at the arbcom talk page? I'm just asking about how, if I were to be blocked with the proviso that it couldn't be appealed at utrs, on my talk page, or, presumably, on irc, how I would be able to appeal it. And I don't really think that the harmless, and perfectly appropriate questions that I asked on the rfa quite justify a 2 year block. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm not quite sure what you mean by a 'campaign to downplay the role of the stg 44'. I did have a problem with "Unlike previous rifle designs, it introduced an over-the-barrel gas system, straight stock and pistol grip to reduce recoil and improve handling characteristics." which popped up on two or three pages, partly because, iirc, that reference doesn't support that assertion, and partly because, at best, I think it's worded in a way that wrongly implies that the stg-44 introduced any of those things, not to mention the debate on how unique or revolutionary a modified version of the winner of the machine carbine 42 competition was. You may notice that it's been weeks since I've edited about the stg 44 iirc, so maybe the threat may not be quite so dire. "When several others disagree with him, that's a conspiracy." that's a little reductionist, and I also think it's flat out wrong, but we've discussed that before and I guess I'm not going to change your mind.TeeTylerToe (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

This is not the place to argue the details of weapon systems. These things may be discussed in other, more appropriate places. What bothers me is your behaviour, where you seem unwilling to acknowledge the views of others, unless they are in exact accordance with your own. No expressions of regret for the disruption, no promises of better behaviour in future. We have to work together, and to treat each other with some degree of respect. There is no one source on which we rely; instead it is the richness and diversity of contributions that has made Wikipedia so valuable a resource, including the internal processes such as this page. If you think the facts are entirely on your side, then present them, and allow other editors to make up their own minds. I'm just not seeing acknowledgement of the rightness of any views other than your own, and in order to avoid continued disruption, you really should consider other activities for a while. --Pete (talk) 22:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

So I assume you've just done a 180 and have a newfound willingness to acknowledge things supported by 14 sources including an academic journal, a published book, and popular mechanics, even if the view presented by those 14 sources isn't in exact accordance with your view? You've decided to allow for the possibility of compromise? To respect well supported views that might not fully support your views? That maybe one or two sources supporting one rifle might not be the last word on the subject, and, instead, might only represent one view, and that the article should reflect these different views? You've decided that, as I have always been willing to accept the presentation of your point of view, as well as the sources supporting it on the article, now you've realized that you should do the same? You've accepted that even if you think that facts are entirely on your side that you've realized that the article can present both views as they both have support, they're both notable and verifiable?

I guess now, once we've put that all behind us, I guess now it's time for you to realize that while you and others have categorically refused to allow any view that you don't support to be mentioned in any way, and that while you and others have categorically refused to even allow tags that show that your views are in question. Refusing even to allow tags which suggest that your views could be, in any way assailable. The next step, as you so eloquently argued, that you should acknowledge the rightness of any views other than your own, and in order to avoid continued disruption, you should really consider other activities for a while. Particularly considering your immediate past history. Especially considering the tone of this incident discussion.TeeTylerToe (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

TTT, with respect, the difference between us is that I always like to get more eyes on a question, and if the wider community takes a different position than my own, I'll accept that with as good a grace as I can muster. It's always good to bring out fresh sources, but those sources aren't writing Wikipedia; we are, and we do it through consensus. --Pete (talk) 02:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Is that why you suppressed the tags with the instructions "Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met." that would bring more eyes onto the question? Why do you ignore the consensus I developed with Herr Gruber? Why do you ignore when Herr Gruber said "I've said several times that I don't approve of the current article implying that there was no history of development of similar weapons prior to the StG"?TeeTylerToe (talk) 02:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I direct any inquiry to the article talk page rather than rehash the discussion here. Incidentally, TTT, I suggest that you re-read Help:Minor_edit before marking substantial edits as minor.[124][125][126][127] --Pete (talk) 03:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

It was already brought up on the talk page, bringing it up again would serve no purpose. It would be pointless. As this is a talk page edit rather than articlespace, and as I was editing a comment, rather than adding a new comment, I used minor edit per Help:Minor_edit.TeeTylerToe (talk) 04:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

You wrote above: "If someone wants the cliff notes from an unbiased third party maybe ask huon for a quick summary". Sorry that quick summary turned out to not be to your liking. At this point you should have noticed that your behaviour seriously taxes the community's patience, and the way I read the ArbCom talk page, you are already preparing to appeal what seems the likely outcome of this thread in another venue despite rather strong suggestions that a timeout, without appeal, may be a good thing. Or to be more blunt: When this is decided, people don't want to re-argue it all over again. You may want to read WP:Standard offer, particularly the part about "six months". Huon (talk) 09:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I should probably start with this. On the topic of arbcom, from my point of view, the only things I really have to work with are things brought up by other users, e.g. the charges raf910 made against me. I'd hope you'd be in the best position to understand that a lot of the accusations raf910 make against me are unequivocally false. Overall, from my point of view, few tangible things have been brought up against me. But I had hoped that you would understand that, faced with the accusations leveled against me by raf910, I would obviously expect that if I were blocked, that I would immediately appeal and have every reason to believe that my appeal would be successful and that I would be unblocked without delay. In actuality, though, particularly due to my recent experiences, I expect my chances of arbcom taking up my appeal to be slim to none, and the chance that they would unblock me would be astronomical. But again, RAF910's accusations are like a ridiculous elephant standing in the middle of the room, demanding attention. And they've only gotten more ridiculous. Honestly, isn't someone going to bring that up? Even if I don't understand your objection though, I don't know why it bothers you. I never thought there was the tiniest chance they'd even take up the appeal in the first place. And it doesn't matter, but my intention there was making it a little easier to settle questions of fact, as raf910 had raised several points. I guess the best argument I have now is that other than bugging you on your talk page, I don't really see anything I've done since I was unblocked as damaging wikipedia or raising any significant issues. Maybe that's not a good argument, maybe I'm wrong, and I have been doing things that would merit an indef block. Looking at the standard offer, I don't see what would change 6 months hence, and why don't you put yourself in my shoes and imagine what I would think about waiting 6 months and starting another thread like this. And ignore the waiting six months bit. Imagine what you'd think, if you were in my shoes, if the standard offer was wait 1 day and start a thread in ani asking to be unblocked. And I can't really say that I've seen any diffs that indicate where and how I've taxed the community's patience. What is being made painfully clear to me, is that, from my point of view, that of someone not familiar with ani, there seems to be a strangely insistent group of people who seem to be trying to make sure that I'm blocked for 6 months with absolutely no chance whatsoever of getting unblocked, but it's also quite clear to me that, after, I think this ani incident has been up for roughly a week, they categorically seem to refuse to provide convincing diffs. Or even unconvincing diffs besides raf910, and raf910's accusations are just getting more and more ridiculous. Another thing that's obvious is that nobody seems willing to submit these proceedings to appeal. That's what it looks like from my point of view. Maybe it's because I'm unfamiliar with some sort of tradition of 6 month blocks for when admins get fed up and just want a problem to go away or something. But again, all I have to work with are RAF910's accusations and a smattering of "You're guilty because you're guilty." I guess this can't really hurt a case that never had a chance to begin with.TeeTylerToe (talk) 10:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support 6 month block with appeal avenues restricted. Otherwise, we will just get six months of argument about the injustice of it all and the behaviour of other editors. --Pete (talk) 22:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block with TPA revoked and no appeal until after 12 months per WP:CIR, WP:IDHT and many others. TTT never listens to other editors, doesn't respect that others don't share his very fringe opinions (such as insisting that a big heavy totally unknown weapon designed only to fire slow heavy indenciary bullets at World War I observation balloons was the first assault rifle...), lacks the competence needed to work on a collaborative project and is just a huge time sink for other editors. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 09:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Georges Koussouros and PROinvention

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

---

Hi,

Koussouros seems to be here and on Wikimedia Commons only to promote his inventions. He use images from and links to http://www.proinvention.com/. His contribution seems to be rarely in the interest of Wikipedia only.

• May 2007 [128] and [129]: promotion of his Selbolting door.
• January 2008 [130]: set his Selbolting door back on Door.
• June 2008 [131]: set his Selbolting door back on Door security.
• March 2016 [132]: here, he added "rollerball" pen and remove a link to Caran d'Ache; but the whole contribution aim seems to be adding his complexball pen inventions[133]
• March 2016 [134]: Added the image of his pen which his not listed.
• August 2016 [135]: replace an inexpensive ballpoint pen by his low cost ballpoint pen.

I think he should be banned from Wikipedia, from Commons and his proinvention.com added to spam blacklist.

Sincerely, --Lacrymocéphale 14:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Indef spamblocked. That's ridiculous. Note to OP that we can't do anything about Commons. If he has a sleeper or tries again to add the link we can add it to the blacklist, but there's no need to do that at this point. Katie^talk 14:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Seth Rich - restore category:living people

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

---

Hello,

I am a current editor on the Seth Rich article, which has been contentious lately. A new editor removed category:living people [136] and this needs to be restored. I am assuming this was a good faith edit. Hopefully, it is understandable why I don't want to do a revert, and maybe the other editors don't as well. I request an admin please restore this category to avoid needless argument (if that were to happen). This article is under BLP (WP:BDP - recently passed away) and Arbcom sanctions - American Politics 2. Thanks. Steve Quinn (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: If I understand correctly, Seth Rich (which redirects to Murder of Seth Rich), is about a recently deceased person. Why then would you wish to reinstate Category:Living People? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 16:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@Samtar: This person, as the victim, falls under BLP per WP:BDP specifically for (and I quote) "people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime".

The family has publicly expressed grief about his death and distress pertaining to Julian Assange's actions as noted by the press, and the rumor mongering and conspiracy theorizing occuring on the internet. Steve Quinn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

We still don't put dead people in a category which says they're living. An article does not have to be in the BLP category to be covered by BLP/BDP policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Steve Quinn, have you actually bothered to read Category:Living people, which explicitly states Possibly living people, missing people, and dead people are not included here, including the recently deceased? You are unquestionably the one in the wrong here, and you owe Politrukki (whom I note you haven't bothered to notify despite the enormous bright orange instruction you saw when you created this thread) a fairly grovelling apology. ‑ Iridescent 16:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Oh I agree entirely that BDP applies in this case Steve, wasn't disputing that - only the fact that the category is for living people, which this person is not. I don't see why we would want a deceased individual in a category for living people -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 16:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

To the admins -- Please see this: Talk:Murder_of_Seth_Rich#Administrative reminder re: BLP policy. ---Steve Quinn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, I am not interested in Iridescent's attitude - it is inappropriate in the venue. Steve Quinn (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

If that wiki link didn't work well try this [137] (it goes to the same intended place). Thank you. 16:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Quinn (talk • contribs)

OK. I am beginning to see your point. I will have a discussion with others related to this article. Apparently, I misunderstood why this category is in place.Steve Quinn (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you all for your input Steve Quinn (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

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

REVDEL

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

---

Hi all,

As my userpage and talkpage have come under attack lately, may I request an admin to revdel the IP edits on User:MeowMoon/Articles & User talk:MeowMoon. Thanks.

Also if an admin feels as though the IP's involved should be blocked they are:

• 2607:FB90:985:8733:2139:DA4C:33F7:C9BD (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2601:484:C102:1FA0:28E0:6D20:D68D:414F (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Thanks. MeowMoon (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Done. If it comes up again, the articles subpage can be semi-protected. Just ping me or something. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright, thanks Ricky81682! :-) MeowMoon (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Failure or refusal to "get the point" leading to Distructive, Tendentious, Edit warring, Accidental / Misinformation and Vandalism!

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

---

The user Kintetsubuffalo started a page called Boy Scout of Nigeria on November 28, 2005‎, though such organisation never existed in Nigeria as at that time. It took 10 years or constant edit for the user Kintetsubuffalo to know the name is not existing and it must be changed.

The History It was registered as Boy Scout Association of Nigeria in 1942. So, the name Boy Scout of Nigeria (BSN) was last used in was 1942. In 1999, Boy Scout Association of Nigeria was changed to The Scout Association of Nigeria, so as to accommodate all Genders both Boys, Girls, Men and Women.

Knowing fully that such name never existed in Nigeria again, In October 2007 I tried to start a page called The Scout Association of Nigeria but was nominated for deletion by the user Kintetsubuffalo, since I don't know how to argue or protest it, I let go.

Ever since then, I always try my best to correct the information available on Boy Scout of Nigeria (BSN). I added references and some notable facts but he (Kintetsubuffalo) will always undo it and add an insulting phrase under (Briefly describe your changes). Each time I try to ignore it.

Recently, I wrote a paper about scouting in Nigeria because I am a dual citizen, a Nigeria and a member of the association (a National Officer) and also an American, also a volunteer with BSA. Though I am living and working in the USA but I know 100% about scouting in Nigeria because I am still a trainer there. After written the paper and was delivered in Nigeria, people talked about Wikipedia and wrong information it has about scouting in Nigeria.

I was thinking I could correct some of those information but user Kintetsubuffalo will not allow it. Then I decided to re-started "The Scout Association of Nigeria" and I wrote true information about scouting in Nigeria with references, while I was waiting for more information and edit from those that know the history of scouting in Nigeria, Kintetsubuffalo nominated the article for deletion and also motivated speedy deletion. He achieves his aim only to use those information to form a new page but it was done wrongly. Two good heads are better than one but he believes more in lone input which is not Wikipedia policy. The policy of Wikipedia is "Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practices, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopaedia."

I contacted him to let him know my mission which was to only to pass true information about the association but he preferred to use bad words on "Briefly describe your changes" against me. I don't exchange words with people when I am educating because that will show to the world that I don't know what I was doing. I am a new and young editor and I have seen a lot of old editors encouraging people like me, correcting references / put it in order when it is added wrongly but Kintetsubuffalo prefers to discourage people instead of correcting.

The user Kintetsubuffalo claimed to know more about scouting worldwide "I am one of the founders of Scouting WikiProject" but that does not mean you know Bible than Pope. I was only trying to correct the accidental or Misinformation of 10 years he added on Wikipedia about Scouting In Nigeria and I was not doing it rudely. 90% of African scouting stories are not correct and new editors would be frustrated day in day out.

Even though he would not accept the correction but today, he has decided to form "Scout Association of Nigeria" with old Boy Scout of Nigeria story, he copied some of the stories on the page he nominated for deletion "The Scout Association of Nigeria" and redirect the page "The Scout Association of Nigeria" to "Scout Association of Nigeria". That shows that he did not even know about the association he was writing about. I don't know why he chose to be a sole editor or final decision maker for Wikipedia on scouting matters and he does the wrong things with impunity. He deleted the right name to form a new wrong name, the "The" has a meaning in the association name, but for a reason known to him, he would not let it be.

The questions are:- Does he want to form Scout Association of Nigeria or what association was he writing about? Why can't he edit the page "The Scout Association of Nigeria" rather than forming a new page? Was Wikipedia integrity upheld? Was the deletion of "The Scout Association of Nigeria" made in good faith?

Today, he has formed another wrong association on paper "Scout Association of Nigeria" and this may go for another 10 years. Does that promote Wikipedia in a good manner? What does it say about the editors and writers?

By these, I see Kintetsubuffalo action as:- Distructive, Tendentious, Failure or refusal to "get the point", Vandalism: Writing wrong stories about an organisation. Edit warring, Accidental or Misinformation.

I hereby appeal that "The Scout Association of Nigeria" should be made available to the public (recall back from deletion) and the wrong information or name about scouting in Nigeria should be deleted. Wikicontrol 07:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, could I as another member of the WikiProject Scouting try to calm this down a bit. The reason why the article was deleted is that there was already an article on the same association. We do not start new articles on the same topic. If the name is wrong, we move the article to the new name thus preserving all the history of the article. That has now been done and the name is Scout Association of Nigeria. Whether that title is preceded by a "The" or not is not really that important, but I think you will find that the "The" is not normally used in the title even if it is part of the official title of the organisation. So, the material in Scout Association of Nigeria is not going to be discarded, but the article can now be edited to correct any errors and add new material. In that way the history will be retained. So I suggest that you add to Talk: Scout Association of Nigeria any changes that you would like to be made and any new additions. The problem with your earlier edits was also that they were not really in an encyclopedic language, or they were too verbose or they were not supported by references. So put you ideas on the talk page and I will suggest what you should add to or change in the article. We will try to help you. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Bduke for the response. I did not start new article on the same association. His article was on "Boy Scout of Nigeria", mine was on "The Scout Association of Nigeria" but he deleted it on August 24th 2016 and started "Scout Association of Nigeria" on August 25th 2016 and directed the page I wrote to the new page he wrote. Lastly, I supported all my writings with references, I provided all those references in those page, some of those books where written by me. Wikicontrol 07:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

If there's no such thing as Boy Scout of Nigeria and the article was intended to be on the same organisation you were writing about then yes, it is the same thing. It's unfortunate the article was wrongly name but the correct course of action is to ask for a rename of the article supported by references not to start another article on the same organisation. If you believe there is still useful info on the organisation in the article you created, you can ask for the article you created to be undeleted to aide in recovery of that information and to preserve the edit history. Note you will need to appropriately transfer the info to the existing article which will still be the main article. Note also that provided your article is deleted, no one except you (for any parts you wrote by yourself) should copy any part of it to the existing article. It's possible for information or references to be taken provided it's not sufficient to be a copyright violation although even then it's IMO far better to keep the edit history to avoid doubt. Alternatively since the article you created is 9 years old, it may be simply better for you to rewrite any important parts, especially if what you wrote had the same problems highlighted by Bduke above. Nil Einne (talk) 07:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Scout Association of Nigeria, it's clear Wikicontrol is quite knowledgeable about the subject, but just as clear that he has no idea what is appropriate for Wikipedia. I started the original article, as I did about 80% of the national Scout organizations, over 10 years ago, but it is not a subject I care anything about nor is it on my watchlist. The only reason it came to my attention was because of Wikicontrol's persistent and insistent vanity additions to List of Scouts. I went down the list to see what else Wikicontrol had edited, and cleaned them up. The Scout Association of Nigeria was poorly written, and filled with hyperbole, honorifics, trivia and anachronisms (as is the rant about me above putting words in my mouth and skewering the chronology, which he has now plastered on a dozen admins' pages). I moved the parent article to the 1999-changed name Scout Association of Nigeria, and salvaged all relevant, verifiable, non-vanity information from the article being discussed. I further fact-tagged and inline-tagged it, the research is there but it is not added in where it should go. All other information must be left out. Wikicontrol's self-bio vanity article Soneye Philip was deleted as non-notable and should in no way be recreated.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

(EC) Looking a bit more, you already recreated the article here [138] a fewy days ago. That article has not been deleted, the edit history is still there. If you still think there is something in the 2007 article worth salvaging or if you believe that the may be other editors involved in the 2007 article then it could be undeleted as well, but otherwise I don't see any reason. As said above, any info in the 2016 article needs to be integrated into our existing article appropriately, your article will remain an undeleted redirect. Nil Einne (talk) 08:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you Nil Einne, yes I re-wrote it 4 days ago (not 9 years ago) with the correct name "The Scout Association of Nigeria" when he would not want the name on the old page (Boy Scout of Nigeria) to be changed. So, I wrote the new one on August 24th 2016 only for him to copy part of my writings and added it to the old page. He then change the name of the old page to "Scout Association of Nigeria" after he has deleted the one I created and also directed the page I created to the old one. Wikicontrol 08:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oh! fine Kintetsubuffalo, I understood the issue you have now, I was only writing latest information as per the organisation. I wrote about Bennet B. Shotade, Gabriel Ofotokun-Goodwill and Soneye Philip because they are missing in your 10 years article. Scouting in Nigeria has made history with references. Please, care to read those attached references/document before removing them and also try to respect other people hard work and contributions, we are in 2016 not 2005 for Christ sake. Even what you wrote 10 years ago was wrong about Nigeria, the name was wrong, the story was wrong,..yet, you don't like to be corrected. The trio I mentioned served in Nigeria and in the USA with award and history of Nigeria scouting will not be completed without them, even without their names, let us write true story about scouting in Nigeria not just formulated stories. Mr Kintetsubuffalo, you wrote wrong article 10 years ago and you still don't want people to correct the errors you made 10 years after. It will be wrong of you to think you can write scouting stories in about 160 countries without help from their NSO. c 16:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Could someone here distill this down to, I don't know, a paragraph or two? Brevity is a virtue, and massive walls of text detract from the point of the person writing them. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I thought I had distilled it down above, but that has been swamped by more rants. We should forget about what was done 10 years ago. We have an article with essentially the correct name. We need to update it with reliable data. Wikicontrol needs to learn more about wikipedia. He can not even sign his contributions correctly, even though several of us have shown him how. His contributions are clear examples of how people who are too close to the organisations can not distinguish between what should be included and what should not be included. We do not write articles about national Scout organisations with help from their NSO. We write them using reliable sources. Some of those may be written by the NSO. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I see now, not sure how I missed it before. I think you're spot on, and that Wikicontrol needs to back off and chill out. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• I would have love to know the reliable sources or whom in the NSO that gives such wrong or fake information about its NSO but when people failed to understand seven points; and all thinks just in one direction while those giving fake and wrong information rant and happy that they have misled people for over 10 years. It's better to be quiet rather than making them realize again and again because you can only give what you have anyway... Thank you all and bye Wikicontrol 05:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicontrol001 (talk • contribs)

• (Non-administrator comment) So ... this is at present a dispute about whether the "The" should be in the article title? Why is this not covered under WP:THE? (I know there was an earlier problem with the name being "Boy Scouts of Nigeria", but that appears to have been resolved before this thread was opened, and Wikicontrol001's current complaint is about the current article title not including "The".) And why is a content dispute and a TLDRwall of textbeing treated as a legitimate topic for ANI? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Disruptive promotional user

Kamalikachanda has created her auto-biography. After I nominated the article for AFD. She repeatedly calling me stupid, idiot joker on my talk page and Marchjuly's talk page. She is removing AFD template and also disrupting the AFD page. I am exhausted with her behaviour. The article was tagged by Jim carter, when she removed the tag, the edit showed on Huggle.

I had given her welcome message few hours ago, which she has blanked from her talk page. I am exhausted with her. I request Administrators to take suitable actions. Now after final warning about personal attacks, this is the reaction --Marvellous Spider-Man 09:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I would request indefinite not 72 hours for this. --Marvellous Spider-Man 09:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Though a personal attack was made, the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Marvellous_Spider-Man&diff=736414193&oldid=736413628 thing you are requesting indefinite for appears legit. Kamalika Chanda starred in Miss Teacher according to the article and the xvideos link they added to your talk page is to that (going by the URL, haven't actually visited it), presumably in an attempt to show notability. Please don't overreact. BethNaught (talk) 09:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Overreact!!! How many times before that she called me stupid, idiot, joker, before those comments. Xvideos is a porn site and the section heading was "notable breasts of Kamalika Chanda" Marvellous Spider-Man 09:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like one of those Neelix redirects. EEng 14:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

So she got pissed you AFDd her article and made personal attacks against you. Fine, they got a 72h block. But trying to prove a porn actor is notable by linking to porn is not indef-worthy. BethNaught (talk) 10:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Bethnaught, the article is not about a porn actress, it's mentioned "erotic drama". Something like a low budget "Basic Instinct" without any X rated scenes. Marvellous Spider-Man 10:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I understand your frustation Marvellous Spider-Man and think you warning this editor was appropriate. At the same time, I think what BethNaught is trying to say is that this is a new editor and sometimes new editors do things they shouldn't. There's nothing wrong with pointing that out, but sometimes a little tact is needed as explained in WP:BITE. Removing notability templates is not always a bad thing, and it seems from this edit sum that Kamaikachada felt the sources were sufficient and the tag unnecessary. Maybe at this point it would have been best to try and discuss things on the article talk page instead. As for the article being an auto-biography, Kamalikachanda posted on your user talk that they are not Kamalika Chanda. Of course, we cannot know that for sure, but we need to take them at their word for the time being. If they are telling the truth, then their choice of username is problematic WP:IMPERSONATE which actually can lead to an indefinite block. FWIW, this could just be an overzealous fan who just does not understand what Wikipedia is about. That doesn't excuse the PAs they made against you, but they have been blocked appropriately for those. If they continue this type of behavior after they are unblocked, then some administrator will step in and block them for even longer. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: check this welcome message and this and then you will know why it was not WP:BITE. And the welcome message was given before all this drama. Marvellous Spider-Man 10:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

And the first warning was level 1 warning. Marvellous Spider-Man 10:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

If you are checking her every edit on my talk page, how did you miss that she admitted on my talk page that she is editing for 3 years ? Marvellous Spider-Man 10:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I guess I missed that because you yourself removed it from your talk page with this edit. You also removed the previous discusion between you two from your user talk so I didn't notice them too. There's nothing wrong with any of that, but I didn't check your user talk's edit history as carefully as I should've so sorry for that. Anyway, I had your page on my watchlist because of my earlier post to you regarding something else, so I noticed this post. I then checked the other editor's talk page because of their user name and posted a username warning there. I then checked their edit history and noticed they had removed the AfD template from the article. I re-added the template and then posted something at the AfD about removing templates and personal attacks. Kamalikachanda posted on my user talk, and I advised them to to stop removing template and stop the personal attacks. I have Jo-Jo Eumerus's user talk on my watchlist because I often post there about image files. I noticed that Jo-Jo reverted the Kamalikachanda's blanking of the AfD and then saw your post on Jo-Jo's user talk; so, I commented there. I was informed about this AN by RainFall who responded to my post at User talk:Widr#User Kamalikachanda. I think that pretty much covers the extent of my invovement in this up until now.

FWIW, the fact the this person has been editing as an IP for three years does not mean they might not still be a "newbie" in some sense. Moreover, what is written in WP:BITE#How to avoid being a "biter" does not lose its relevance just because someone has been editing for a certain period of time. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I repeat again, I welcomed the user with welcome message (before she started her personal attacks) and the first warning I gave on her talk page was automated huggle warning for removing a template added by User:Jim Carter, which was a level 1 warning. And I am not going to waste my time anymore, discussing about this user. ThanksMarvellous Spider-Man 11:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, she moved her name well up in the billing for the two films she was in that were wikilinked. I've reverted that, and whatever the outcome, we don't allow autobiography on Wikipedia. MSJapan (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The editor has been indefinitely blocked for a username violation.. So, when their block for personal attacks is up, they can request a username change and return to editing if they wish to do so.

Finally, just for reference, they have stated they are not Kamalaki Chanda here. In the same post, however, they also wrote Even if you delete it I will again create it with the "it" being Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamalika Chanda, which is not a good thing. It's not certain whether they are trying to write an autobio; They could be a fan, relative, manager, etc. Moreover, even if it was an autobio, the statement "we don't allow autobiography on Wikipedia" is not correct per WP:AUTOBIO. Like COI editing, autobios are very strongly discouraged by Wikipedia, but they are not expressly prohibited. A person could try to write an article about themselves, but we would encourage them to do so via WP:AfC so that it could be reviewed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Murder of Seth Rich

The page protection came off of Murder of Seth Rich and they went right back to edit warring. As before, no one individual has so far reverted too many times, but we have a lot of individuals who have shown themselves to be willing to revert rather than discuss.

Clearly page protection won't work unless it is made permanent (or at least until the election). Could we possibly try issuing warnings to each edit warrior as he/she reverts? Better to have an uninvolved admin do that, not an involved editor such as myself. Would 1RR help? Related question: would this be under the American Politics discretionary sanctions? If so, could we tag the talk page and send DS notices to the participants? Again, best done by an uninvolved admin.

Full disclosure: I have taken a position regarding the content dispute behind this and there are some interesting interpretations of BLP policy regarding material that only implies something forbidden by BLP that may be worth admin scrutiny, but the edit warring is a separate issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

More edit warring, ignoring warnings

More edit warring[139] and we now have someone who is participating in the edit war (still no individual making too many reverts, just what looks like a restart of the previous bunch of people reverting), and doing it after being warned not to edit war.[140][141][142][143][144] This would be a good place to apply an admin warning. I don't see a need for stronger sanctions unless he repeats the behavior after the warning. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• I locked the page for four days back on August 22. I see that hasn't helped matters much, though there is an RFC now. I have no opinion on the inclusion or exclusion of the material, and I only edit politics articles in an administrative capacity.

Here's the way I see this. If you don't include the Wikileaks stuff, it's not an ARBAP2 issue – it's another unsolved crime where the victim was employed by a political group. If you do include it, it is an ARBAP2 issue because you've brought the email leak into it, and discretionary sanctions apply. That may be overly simplistic, but that's the way it appears to me. Katie^talk 21:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks! What if we only include the bare fact that Wikileaks offered a reward, with no mention of any of the email leak or any of the other online speculation concerning Seth Rich? Would just the bare mention of the reward being offered make it an ARBAP2 issue? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but yes, because that brings American politics into it. Does Wikileaks offer rewards for other unsolved murders? Nope, and they have only one reason to do so here. Others may have differing opinions, though. Katie^talk 02:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. It seems like a reasonable interpretation of policy.

(change of subject) I may have been unclear that I was asking specifically about ARBAP2 and that the page is already under NEWBLPBAN discretionary sanctions. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

This complaint seems to be weasel-worded aspersions and battleground ruminations from one of the very few editors on this page who has taken an aggressive, hostile, or argumentative stance. e.g. [145] [146] [147] The editing process was going reasonably well and the page did not require protection. The protection request and PP were precipitous. OP's recent actions are blockable per AEBAP2 and WP:NEWBLPBAN, but in lieu of enforcement, I suggest OP withdraw this and stand away from the article and the other editors for a week or so. Nothing more than semi-protection should be reinstated. Steve Quinn was not edit-warring. He undid a one-edit IP's drive-by. If semi-protection had been in place, we would not be here. SPECIFICO talk 22:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

What you are saying is simply not true. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Re: "OP's recent actions are blockable" I have made one edit to the article, over a week ago.[148] Please note that "weasel-worded aspersions and battleground ruminations" SPECIFICO was advised of the possibility of WP:BOOMERANG.[149] --Guy Macon (talk) 02:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Katie, thanks for weighing in. Two things. First, there are clearly BLP issues, so BLP DS are applicable (it is within the scope authorized by Arbcom). Secondly, one of the key points of contention at the article is exactly whether or not to include the Wikileaks content, so it seems to me that the DS for American politics are also at play (it is within the scope authorized by Arbcom) as long as that is an issue (and as long as the article exists, I reckon that will remain an issue). The only question is whether the subject matter of the article and discussion about it falls within the scope authorized by Arbcom, and for this article we have both. No DS have been applied by an admin (no editing restrictions like "1 revert per day per editor") and no one has yet been brought to AE over this; the only question The only question here (and it is not really a question to me) is clarifying that the subject matter is within the authorized scopes of two DS. Do you disagree that it is within the scope and if so why? And if you agree would you please confirm? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Okay. Guy asked if it fell under ARBAP2, and I gave my opinion. The BLP question wasn't posed. Since you have now asked, yes, this is absolutely a BLP.

SPECIFICO, we're not going to semi-protect a page that's undergoing a content dispute. I can put a 1RR on it under BLPDS. I'd rather not since I already locked the page once but hey, I don't flex the DS muscle very often. It feels like it could be stretched. Is it warranted right now? You guys tell me. Katie^talk 03:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Katie, I did not understand why the article was put under PP, since there was discussion on the talk page. Editors for the most part were disciplined and there was not edit-warring on the article page. In my opinion, the editor who requested PP was overreaching. The reason I raised semi-protection was simply that the edit which apparently prompted this complaint was Steve Quinn's undo of IP vandalism, an edit that I do not believe any of the registered editors would have made and which was a clear BLP violation that needed to be undone. I don't think any form of protection is warranted, especially now that editors can no longer deny that the two Arbcom remedies apply to this article. SPECIFICO talk 04:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Everything seems to be calm, so I don't think it is necessary for 1RR at this time. That is just imho. Steve Quinn (talk)

Editor not here to build an encyclopedia

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

---

• Part (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I have concerns about the conduct of an editor, Part, regarding claims that they have made about conducting research with a team on systemic bias on Wikipedia. While there is no problem on conducting research about Wikipedia, I believe they have crossed several serious ethical lines which had led to a significant disruption. Part has seemingly made these claims after they became involved in an edit war with other editors. In fact they have been blocked as recently as June 2016 for edit warring. Most troubling, every time an editor has engaged this editor over the current disputed content, Part has made comments like "thank you for participating" ([150] [151] [152] [153]) implicating their "research". I have followed the discussion as it has unfolded and I believe, along with several others, that these statements are actually being said to discourage them from participating in the discussion; threatening the use their usernames, comments, and other information without their consent in this so called "study": [154][155] [156] [157]. Part has alluded that they are apart of a "research group": [158]. Some editors have expressed they do not want to participate and other concerns have been brought up: [159] [160].

• Part initially disclosing they're collecting information on editors for their "research": [161].
• Part reiterating their research on systemic bias: [162]
• Part has on several occasions copied and pasted entire discussions from all over Wikipedia to Talk:Nelson Mandela -- sometimes not even in their entirety [163], [164]. In many of these cases, they have been done without the approval of the editors whom commented. I believe this misrepresents the context of some of these conversations which took place on user talk pages and away from the article Nelson Mandela.
• Part has adopted an attitude of WP:IDHT since coming off their last block. This is demonstrated by raising issues and then saying it's for the purposes of the study.

I'm concerned that this so called "research study", whether legitimate or not (as I'm also skeptical like Katie), is interfering with the process of building an encyclopedia. Their actions seem to be solely based upon the purposes of the study. As a result, it's causing distress to the other editors who are actually here to improve the article; while I don't believe Part is here to build an encyclopedia. Moreover, I believe we have a responsibility to the other editors to protect their privacy and protect their ability to work and discuss the article without being inhibited by being studied expressly against their will -- and certainly not by someone involved in the content dispute.

I'm asking the community to endorse an indefinite block. If this "research group" does indeed exist, they can request an unblock to which I would strongly urge them to consult with the community as to how this can be done if they're planning on being involved in the content and direction of an article. Additionally, as an ethical guideline, they should seek the consent of editors before their information and words are used in their study. Mkdw^talk 06:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oh, fabulous, just what we need -- another idiot "researcher". EEng 06:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• I highly doubt that there is any "research" occurring, in any real sense. What we have is an editor whose edits have been rejected on numerous occasions, and because it cannot possibly be him who is wrong it must be everyone else - therefore "systemic bias". From his talk page: This is real Ian.thomson, at some point I realized this is a good opportunity to study the dynamics and get some insights. It didn't start out as such but rich data has been generated. As pointed out above, any references to "research" only began after their edits had been rejected and the edit-warring had begun. Subsequent references to the "study" are little more than an attempt to say to editors who disagree with him: "I've got a little list, and you are going on it." Pure disruption, and I support the block proposal. --Begoon ^talk 07:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I was going to say all that, but too pooped. Agree. EEng 07:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• If Part is actually doing research without the consent of the users in question, then that is unethical and worthy of an indefinite block. If they are not actually doing research but are saying they are with the intent of intimidating the editors they are in a dispute with, then that is indefinite block worthy. Blackmane (talk) 07:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support block; on the grounds that threatening to put editors on lists* is clearly intended to displace discussion and have a chilling effect.

*...do they think they're Nixon or something?!_Muffled ^Pocketed 08:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Some action must be taken because Part's comments are outrageously inappropriate (suggesting that opponents have a systemic bias that Part will document off-wiki—see Talk:Nelson Mandela#Ancestry section and user's talk and the diffs in the OP). I have not checked the user's other contributions but imagine there is evidence that WP:NOTHERE does not apply, so an indefinite block may be a little extreme. Perhaps a six-month topic ban from all articles and talk pages that directly relate to Mandela, and an indefinite topic ban from mentioning any claimed research or anything else that may have a chilling effect, on any page including user pages? In case anyone wonders why I joined in, I have been following the article for a long time (example from December 2014). Johnuniq (talk) 09:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

  Except it isn't just the Mandela page. The "systemic bias" and "research" nonsense began in October 2015, and related to edit-warring and a block on the Philip Baker (obstetrician) article.[165] Part has continued to use the tactic in subsequent content disputes - "systemic bias" has become their standard explanation for why they are right and everyone else is wrong, and adding editors to the "research" the standard attempt to chill discussion. Further down that talk page, in a dispute over Jamie Vardy, they say, in an unblock request: Although technically I violated the three-revert rule, I was using the - "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.". This is part of my ongoing research (see above) to document systemic bias and how editors including administrators are involved in its perpetuation. Qed237, The Almightey Drill, Slakr. and I of course did not expect to be unblocked. I am collecting data Boing! said Zebedee and Ian.thomson. It's nothing more than disruption, and I don't see the circumstances being different in other areas unless Part can understand why the behaviour is unacceptable and convincingly undertake to desist. An indef block could be lifted in that eventuality. --Begoon ^talk 10:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks All for the comments. I along with a research group are indeed conducting a genuine study on systemic bias. Anonymity and confidentiality are guaranteed. Text as you know on Wikipedia is released under a CC BY-SA 3.0 license, we thus plan to conduct thematic analysis within the strict limitations of this license adhering to research ethics guidelines. I am here to build an encyclopedia. Part (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

No, dual claims of being here conducting a genuine study on systemic bias and to build an encyclopedia are dichotomous. Even if it were possible to achieve both, you seem unable to do so without threatening editors. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• In view of the above failure to grasp what other editors have said, I support an indefinite block. Johnuniq (talk) 11:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support block as per everyone above. If Part is genuinely trying to conduct a systemic bias survey by engaging furtively in editing/discussion on-wiki and then reporting it off-wiki, that is unethical and should be stopped. If it's genuine, they need to present their credentials and seek permission in advance (I confess I have no idea where, but I'm sure someone else can help with that). If it isn't genuine research, it's dishonesty and still warrants a block. Anyone is, of course, welcome to analyze Wikipedia's content any way they please off-wiki, but the CC BY-SA 3.0 license does not grant permission to make active edits in the course of research. Boing! said Zebedee (talk)

  This comment by User:Hpesoj00 captures the issue well. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• I apologise on my own behalf and the research group for unforeseen unintended consequences. Unfortunately it is a weekend and I do not have immediate access to research group members. All I can say is that a genuine study was being conducted and we tried to give advance notice of this. We will have more information during the working week. Part (talk) 12:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Note Thank you for your confirmation of organised WP:MEAT. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support block. I answered an {{admin-help}} yesterday at Talk:Nelson Mandela that wasn't so much a request for help as it was a request to fix all his problems. Then I got pinged back to ask about "possible abusive corruption of (his) username," which had been misspelled 'Prat' by another editor. (I was admittedly a bit snarky in my reply.) Part isn't here to build an encyclopedia; he's here to promote an agenda. I don't know what that agenda is, but the researchers I know don't call their data 'fodder' and don't insert themselves into the study by arguing with the participants. Katie^talk 13:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• I have managed to get hold of the protocol-chair. The study has been stopped with immediate effect. We apologise unreservedly for these unforeseen and unintended consequences and we would like to reiterate that confidentiality and anonymity were key aspects in the study's design. Part (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Why should we believe you? BethNaught (talk) 13:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

My instinctive question too. I think we would also need to know who the other members of this 'research group' (and / or 'Protocol chair'??) are on WP. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

We have done what we can to rectify our mistakes. We accept the consequences. Part (talk) 13:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Can you enlighten us as to precisely what you "have done ... to rectify [y]our mistakes" (apart from your extremely dubious post about the alleged "study" being allegedly "stopped")? Just for the cynical, like me, who don't believe a single word of this. --Begoon ^talk 13:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Part I suggest you email arbcom - arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org - with details of your study and how to contact your protocol-chair if you wish to repair your credibility. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Part, it's important to note that it is your conduct here on Wikipedia that is being discussed here. As far back as October 2015, in your several unblock requests that were reviewed by JamesBWatson, you stated "Thank you Huon, Ian.thomson, Nomoskedasticity, JamesBWatson and Erpert for participating in a Wikipedia experiment whose results will appear next year". You were in fact warned by Huon about WP:NOTHERE in that discussion. I see this latest series of behaviour in a long pattern of disruption. There is a unanimous consensus here for an indefinite block. All blocks can be appealed through unblock requests though I am going to mirror NeilN's advice that you should email arbcom about this situation if you wish to return to regular editing. Mkdw^talk 14:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: I have refactored out Part's overuse/misuse of the template {{outdent}} for readability. Mkdw^talk 14:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• For heaven's sake, stop addressing this jerk. Can't you see we're being trolled? Protocol-chair my ass. EEng 20:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

You've been watching ANI long enough to know quite well that being an obvious troll is not nearly enough to warrant a block. 207.38.154.23 (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Recommend a Ban

In view of the long pattern of disruptive behavior and the questionable claims about a study, I recommend a Site Ban for the following reason, which is a dilemma. Either there is a study, or there is not. If there is a study, then the conduct of the study is unethical, in that it is being done without consent, but isn't following the rules for an anonymous study. An anonymous study really should be done like a fly on the wall, without mentioning the study, and in this case the subject keeps mentioning it in ways that appear intended to have a chilling effect. If there is no study, then the claims that there is a study are lies, probably intended to have a chilling effect. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support as proposer - Robert McClenon (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - It looks as if I just was beaten to the punch and that there was consensus for an indef. Okay. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

A WP:CBAN can be placed overtop of a block. An indefinite block allows for the editor to submit an unblock request which can be reviewed and potentially granted by any sysop. A community ban requires a consensus from the community to unblock or through special process at ArbCom. There is a unanimous consensus for an indefinite block but I think this ANI should remain open to examine whether the community feels a community ban is required as well. Mkdw^talk 14:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support Ban on top of good block. It is true he has just been blocked indefinitely; but in this matter, the community itself was undermined, not just individual editors, as no-one will (presumably) ever know which of us was (or was not) subjected, ananalysed, assessed or critiquéd by this study (if indeed, as RMcC points out, there actually was one!). Since it is the community's confidence that has been hit, the community should be the arbitor in any future appeal. This is, perhaps, End of 'Part' One ;) _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support per my comments in the section above. --Begoon ^talk 15:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support as per me above. EEng 20:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support indefinite site ban per my earlier statement above. Blackmane (talk) 02:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support In light of evidence going back as far as 2015 and based upon the fact that the indefinite block was essentially endorsed by community consensus, then I think it should require community consensus for an unblock. Mkdw^talk 05:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support ban on top of block as per earlier comments. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Alleged "study" is flagrantly unethical (no consent of participants) and is admittedly non-compliant with WP:HERE, and edit-warring to "document systemic bias" and then claiming exemption under WP:IAR is particularly egregious. Diffs like this and those cited above are very revealing. GAB^gab 14:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support per FMI. TimothyJosephWood 14:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support I'm pretty sure there isn't a study and we have given them enough to eat. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - I am inclined to agree with RickinBaltimore and other editors that there probably never was a study, and that the talk of the study was merely intended to have a chilling effect, but it doesn't matter. I already expressed support, and was advised not to withdraw it. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support The "study" probably doesn't exist, and even if it does, then the above conversation and diffs show the way they're conducting it is unacceptable. Joseph2302 21:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support because, if there isn't a study, then they lied and intended to scare editors into complying with them. If there is a study, they had people participate in it without ever telling them they were and (likely) without getting authorization from the Wikimedia Foundation (If nobody else, they should've been told.) to conduct a study without telling us. That's rather unethical and I would consider it an invasion of privacy if I was told (or I found out) later that I participated in a study without my knowledge. Just ask Facebook users how they felt. I'm also wondering if WP:SNOW would apply to this discussion, as I'm counting 17 "supports" in bold (including mine) and no "Oppose"s at all. (I'm only quickly counting the bold not-votes.) I do realize WP:SNOW may not apply here because we're discussing a community ban. -- Gestrid (talk) 21:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Cassianto: incivility and rejecting community input at Talk:Noël Coward

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

---

There has been an RfC running at Talk:Noël Coward on whether the article should include an infobox. Cassianto (talk · contribs), who opposes inclusion, has been bludgeoning the process by making personal attacks against third-party editors !voting for inclusion, using WP:Uncivil language in violation of WP:5P4:

• What an immature, offensive, and down-right moronic thing to say. It's ironic that you should then predict that people may call you an idiot; with comments like that, "idiot" is certainly a word I'd use to describe you in the absence of there being a more suitable word elsewhere. Show some fucking respect!
• Are you even bothering to read the arguments?
• Quit your bullshit snark

I had no previous interactions with Cassianto [166], although I'd noticed and admired his content contributions. I saw the RfC and !voted for inclusion, and also objected to this language (without naming Cassianto),[167] as did others.[168][169] Cassianto responded, unbelievably, by asserting his opposition to the WP:Consensus and WP:Own policies:

• The main authors who took this to FAC should be the ones to have the last say on this; not a load of nobodies
• What gives the "community" the fucking right to enforce a piece of vandalism onto this article?
• After I reminded him that Consensus and Own are policies: I'm past caring what you think.

WP:DISRUPTSIGNS #5 states A disruptive editor is an editor who...rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment. Cassianto's behavior violates this guideline; the Civility, Ownership, and Consensus policies; and the Fourth Pillar. I suggest he be forbidden to edit Talk:Noël Coward until this RfC has been closed, with the ban to be enforced by short blocks if necessary. FourViolas (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• If FourViolas knows that infobox wars have raged for years they should not frame this report in the simplistic manner shown above. There is a long timeline from which people can cherrypick incidents to show their opponents are truly dreadful. However, it is actually the whole situation that is dreadful, not occasional lapses under siege. There is nothing ANI can/will do about the mess, but picking off content builders who become frustrated when the usual suspects descend on featured articles is not helpful for the encyclopedia. See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Infobox warring for an example of how entrenched are the positions, and how unwilling are participants to compromise. One side acts as if they OWN a particular article, while the other side acts as if they OWN the whole encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 10:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Indeed. AN/I is not another weapon in an arsenal to 'win' a dispute- or, for that matter, an arena in which to do so. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Why is this infobox issue so contentious? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

To quote Laser brain: This is a stupid waste of time and there is obviously no consensus for such a silly restriction. Infoboxes have already been through ArbCom and the war is still going. At this point the only way forward is to file an amendment request authorizing Discretionary Sanctions in this topic area. Please stop opening ANI threads about it. I think, in the interests of energy saving we should recyle his close. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I honestly do not care about infoboxes, and I"m not trying to win a content dispute. As the diffs show, Cassianto has been shockingly uncivil and disrespectful to third-party editors at this page; the editor being called an "idiot" noted that they have never engaged in the infobox wars, and so like me is hardly a "usual suspect". I've presented clear evidence of a conduct problem that clearly meets the definition of disruptive editing and violates three conduct policies; Cassianto has expressed no remorse or intention to desist from his disruptive behavior. That is precisely what AN/I is for: reporting incidents that are disrupting the encyclopedia and require admin action to resolve. FourViolas (talk) 11:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I am undoing Jaguar's hatting of this thread, as Infobox discussions are the sublect of an active Arbcom restriction, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Decorum, which reads in part "Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited." Also, Jaguar has participated in the discussion at Talk:Noël Coward, and is not an uninvolved person here — Diannaa (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

What a pointless move, generating yet more dramah.... At least Jaguar used common sense in bringing one part of the silliness to an end: you should take a leaf from his book Diannaa. – SchroCat (talk) 14:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe Cassianto's behavior at Talk:Nöel Coward is in violation of the Arbcom ruling on decorum during Infobox discussions, and would like more input on that point from the community, particularly admins experienced in enforcing Arbcom restrictions. — Diannaa (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

If you enjoy the dramah that much, then it's no wonder ANI is such a pointless sinkhole. – SchroCat (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

When you find some admins willing to enforce Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Examples_of_disruptive_editing, please ask them to deal with those who continue to open & reopen discussions and RFCs regarding infoboxes on articles like Coward's and deal with this page which appears to be a plan for starting infobox conflicts. We hope (talk) 14:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@We hope:. Yours is quite an apt username ;) that page is an bit of a Schlieffen Plan, eh odd thing to allow. _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

[Left] Perhaps mentor-ship by a friend would help here. We have to take into account not all have the debating skills we expect to see here...perhaps someone could help him with his wording? ..as in help him tweek his comments so they are productive in nature over offensive. The community should not try and burn this guy out ...but help him with the skills hes lacking....hes a great writer ...just bad debater. -- Moxy (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I note that I am one of the frequent editors at the Noël Coward article, and I have also collaborated on article improvement with Cassianto in the past. So this is just my 2 cents. I do not approve of the language used by Cassianto in this case, but he has been sorely provoked by the pro-infobox forces who are regularly driving by Featured Articles regarding arts biographies to try to force infoboxes into them by any means, including RfCs, canvassing, ANIs, and all other tactical dodges imaginable. Although some of Gerda's restrictions were lifted by ArbCom, I believe that she and her collaborators have been engaging in a long-term, bad-faith campaign to force infoboxes into these FAs over the objections of those who have contributed the most to the research and writing of these articles in violation of the spirit of the ArbCom case. As all long-term editors of Wikipedia know, persistence pays, and you can defeat others' point of view by being persistent over a long course of time. Cassianto is clearly impatient with this; Wikipedia punishes the impatient and rewards the patient, regardless of their motives. [Addition: The accusation above that Cassianto opposes our rules on WP:Consensus and WP:Own is not true; what he and others have repeatedly noted is that the pro-infobox folks have consistently accused anyone who opposes adding infoboxes to these articles to be asserting ownership, which is a spurious assertion. Cassianto obviously believes deeply in WP:Consensus, as he has collaborated successfully on numerous WP projects in which high-quality articles were created or expanded, and sometimes even promoted to FA. It is frustrating when one has spent hundred of hours on researching and writing an article, and then people who have no interest in that article, but only in infoboxes, come along to try to force a completely repetitive and unhelpful infobox into the article.] -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Cassianto has tenure, therefore all arguments against him are invalid.

This ANI thread is not about infoboxes, that's a separate matter. If we are to even have a working environment in which to discuss them, we first have to get rid of editors whose approach to CIVIL is along the lines of the diffs and edit summaries cited at the top of this section. This is not new behaviour for Cassianto (see Citroën 2CV and related, just this week). Andy Dingley (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

And what about those who engage in Wikipedia:Civil_POV_pushing? Those who are involved in Wikipedia:Civil_POV_pushing#Principles ("Civility is not limited to superficial politeness but includes the overall behavior of the user. Superficially polite behaviors still may be uncivil. Some examples are politely phrased baiting, frivolous or vexatious use of process, ill-considered but politely phrased accusations, unrelenting pestering,...") are violating the concept even though they haven't told someone to fuck off and may have caused an editor to make the comment. Personally, I'd prefer being told to fuck off as it's honest and straightforward. We hope (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

That's not much better. But one major difference is whether other editors are allowed to do it too. There are a range of "filibustering" tactics which any editor may use, as they are within policy. Even when, as you note, those tactics may themselves be considered disruptive. Cassianto, and a few other well-known editors, have extra tactics available to them as well, approaches which other editors would be insta-blocked for. This is wrong. We need to stop handing out get-out-of-gaol-free cards to favoured editors, because of who their friends are. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

See WP:UNBLOCKABLE. EEng 19:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I truly hope we can keep things in perspective and stay on point because Cassianto's behavior is a serious issue and I also doubt it begins and ends with infoboxes. He may well have tenure and he certainly does great work but it doesn't excuse the behavior. I ended up at Coward because of a BOT request [170], and I often participate in RfCs because I feel it's my "civic duty" as a WP editor. I wasn't there for any other reason. If other editors start behaving at other RfCs like Cassianto did at Coward, we'll be lucky to get 3 participants at any RfC. I don't see how this case has anything to do with the infobox war other than using it to divert attention away from the behavior issues where the focus should remain. His behavior has been acknowledged in the past as noted above but nothing was done about it, so as we should expect, the behavior hasn't changed and will continue. My experience at Coward was one of disbelief over the repeated insults and badgering, so here I am at AN/I - the last place in the world I want to be - hoping there will be some form of action taken to help Cassianto change for the better, but first he has to acknowledge that he was rude, belligerent, and noncompliant with civility policy and will change. If infoboxes are causing such behavior, I would certainly support a restriction of some sort - perhaps something like a 2 post limit at RfCs and similar discussions regarding infoboxes. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The noise generated by infoboxes is not one-sided, as can be seen by this recent AN/I discussion. A limit for BOTH factions of two comments may help to stem some of the issues. We hope (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Concur with Atsme above. RFC's are an important process and many struggle to attract commentators at the best of times. There are too many civilians who are just responding to a RFC getting caught up in the Infobox war. I understand that it is frustrating when you have put lots of work into an article and other editors want to change some small part of it that you disagree with, but that is unfortunately one of the prices for working on a collaborative project. Unlike some I also believe that good content contributors should be given a some slack, but there are limits. AIRcorn (talk) 00:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I stepped into the mess of the Infobox wars unknowingly from this request at AN/I. In fact, I had never heard the infobox wars prior to my involvement in that AN/I. Green_Cardamom (talk · contribs) made a compelling argument and request over a discussion that had gone stale. I reviewed the discussion and agreed on the RfC as a good way to get final resolution on this issue from the community. clpo13 suggested just opening the RfC and I was bold and opened the RfC in a good faith attempt to find resolution to this particular discussion. I have attempted to stay outside of the actual arguments - the closest i've gotten in the active RfC is contributing the second draft of the infobox others were proposing to provide a visual idea of what the proposal was. After reviewing the contributions of Cassianto (talk · contribs), I have to give some observations. He feels very strongly about his viewpoint on not only this particular infobox, but infoboxes in general. That being said, I think we should respect that Cassianto has a right to his own feelings about infoboxes and whether they belong here. I'm definitely in agreement that his involvement at this specific discussion is bludgeoning the process and not very civil - his viewpoint has been made extremely clear and I don't see why he is continuing to respond to every !vote or comment for inclusion. It has not contributed in any way to the discussion and may in fact cause someone to reconsider giving their input in the discussion. I don't know if I agree with a block of Cassianto because he does make great contributions to the encyclopedia but I would be in support of him voluntarily agreeing to withdraw from further comments at the talk page in question so that consensus can be achieved. -- Dane2007 ^talk 19:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

His valuable contributions elsewhere were the reason I proposed a temporary ban from Talk:Noël Coward specifically, rather than a simple incivility or disruption block. Cassianto has clearly expressed his unwillingness to voluntarily change his behavior in that discussion.[171][172] FourViolas (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:Requests for comment under the section Suggestions for responding specifically states Edits to content under RfC discussion may be particularly controversial. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring. Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RFC is resolved.^{Not the section I wanted to copy 22:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)} Disruptive editing is a guideline but when it becomes UNCIVIL, it becomes a policy violation which is where we are now. I do not support a block or anything along that line; however, something needs to be done - perhaps it should involve comment restrictions on both sides when an RfC is involved. The section I added below was an effort to keep things on topic and to encourage a positive road to resolution of further disruption. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Recommend 2 post restriction

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

---

As a means to avoid future disruption resulting from Cassianto's uncivil behavior during discussions about infoboxes, he should be restricted to a 2 post limit on that topic.

• Support ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC) ^{Adding that I also support the position that the restriction include both sides in the case of infoboxes. 22:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)}
• Oppose This does nothing about the civil POV pushers who follow you to your talk page after you've voiced an opinion which is counter to theirs. Limiting everyone to two comments would tone things down overall. We hope (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment If a limit of two comments becomes the norm, it should not just be for the Noël Coward talk page issue, but across the board for all discussions/RFCs of this nature which tend to bring out less than the best in those on both sides of the issue. We hope (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

This is a discussion about a single incident. Your suggested change would be a matter for WP:VPP or WT:RFC or something, per WP:CONLIMITED. FourViolas (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

If you read what the originator of the proposal has written above, it says there should be a limitation re: comments on the topic of infoboxes. We hope (talk) 21:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Agreed with We hope. I think this is unnecessary and should have been closed a while ago. JAGUAR  20:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose This is downright the most stupid proposal I have ever heard. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • What an uncivil response. You could have simply written "Oppose" and saved yourself lots of key-strokes. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as a general sanction on Cassianto. Support on the specific talk page of Noël Coward. As We hope has stated, it would not be a bad idea to explore this for everyone. -- Dane2007 ^talk 21:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support in the specific case of Talk:Noël Coward; Cassianto himself has acknowledged that the behavior is likely to discourage community input [173] and is therefore disruptive by definition. Oppose for Cassianto in general, as no evidence has been presented that his behavior is similarly disruptive in similar infobox discussions. Support establishing discretionary sanctions to enforce Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Decorum in general, although I don't know how to submit such a proposal myself. FourViolas (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

  FourViolas, I'm not well-versed on the basic infobox fiasco - never had a reason to be - but it would seem to me that it may be something AE could impose. I would not oppose such a restriction, especially if it's designed to end disruption and PAs on both sides. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose as unfair - now, everybody getting a 2 post limit, on the other hand..... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Cassianto's reaction to my comments, and others, on the subject felt like a form of Bludgeoning. In part or whole because of the confrontational nature (accusations of 'sheep' being one - though later retracted by editing out). I do not think a hard two post limit is necessarily useful without surrounding it with caveats but Cassianto should use judgement and care in their interactions with others, and realise when a response to another opinion is not actually constructive or that when trying to elicit a response that a harsh tone is less likely to gain a useful answer than a polite one. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, considering the silliness from people on both sides (which includes some baiting too); per Ritchie, if this was for everyone that would be better (although it would have been better if the disruptive IB thread hadn't been started in the first place). – SchroCat (talk) 22:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see this working, for one or both sides. It is too easily gamed (I see some big posts ensuing) and too restrictive as sometimes you need to respond (if you are asked a question or for clarification). IMO authorising discretionary sanctions in the topic area is the best way to go. AIRcorn (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

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

ArbCom Amendment Requested

I have officially made an ArbCom Request for Clarification or Amendment for a general sanction that will affect all parties and put a stop to the behavior that is causing the concerns resulting in these AN/I posts. Several administrators have commented that we would need some sort of action from ArbCom and i'm hoping we can have a fair outcome for all parties involved. -- Dane2007 ^talk 06:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

What an unbelievably one-sided selection of parties, with none of the trolls from the Warrior side selected. Even more of an attempt at a kangaroo court than normal. – SchroCat (talk) 07:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I apologize you feel that way. I attempted to find the most active parties in the AN/I's and in the specific example (Noël Coward). I would like for the request to be balanced on both sides -- if you feel other parties should be notified or involved to balance out the request, please notify them and link them to the page. Anyone can add statements. -- Dane2007 ^talk 07:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

No. If you want to open Pandora's Box, you do the work properly yourself and not cherry pick evidence that blackens the side you oppose (which the Arbs will see through). I will not be taking part – I've had my say on IBs to the Arbs recently and I am sick and tired of the harassment and bullying from a minority of aggressive, activised and organised warriors who prefer the darker and shadowy side of truth. – SchroCat (talk) 08:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

See also

WP:Administrators' noticeboard#Overdue RFC closure review, relating to further developments in this incident. FourViolas (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

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

IGI Global loss of history

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

---

IGI Global is a contested article and has been for a while, for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IGI Global. Both the article and the talk page appear to have lost their history somehow. Could that history please be restored in some fashion please? Stuartyeates (talk) 02:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)if the new ar

Stuartyeates, I'm not an administrator, so I can't be sure, but it's possible their histories were deleted on purpose by an administrator for some reason. There are many reasons why page history can be deleted. -- Gestrid (talk) 03:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The article was speedy deleted by JzG per WP:A7 last week. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Please note it was recreated as a new article IGI Global (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) on the 28th which is why Stuartyeates could not find the old edit history. It might be worth an admin comparing the two versions of the article to determine a course of action - ie merge the old and new one, delete again, or leave the new one as is. MarnetteD|Talk 04:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• There was no claim to notability. There still isn't. It exists, and that is literally all we can say about it. Guy (Help!) 06:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• It's only of the highest profile 'vampire presses.' Here are some sources with in-depth independent coverage https://copy-shake-paste.blogspot.co.nz/2007/12/write-only-publications.html http://bogost.com/writing/blog/writeonly_publication/ https://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2011/07/16/what%E2%80%99s-wrong-with-scholarly-publishing-new-journal-spam-and-%E2%80%9Copen-access%E2%80%9D/ Alas, these kinds of sources don't appear to last very long in the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Looks like it's getting the discussion it needs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IGI Global (2nd nomination). Stuartyeates (talk) 09:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Soteria place

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

---

Soteria place (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've come to report Soteria place for being WP:NOTHERE. For the past month, ever since a strange edit quickly reverted at a project page, I've been patrolling Special:CentralAuth/Soteria place for the utter nonsense test edits he/she's been doing in the sandboxes and occasionally on article pages, only to have them reverted. This user's also been testing, making nonsensical edits and misusing templates at Wikidata and Meta. The user's been warned repeatedly at these wikis, and it includes a block at Commons.

It's tiring chasing an editor around cross-wiki to cleanup. I've already issued a level4 warning, which the editor has ignored. I suggest the user has editing privileges removed from at least enwiki, and possibly locked for being NOTHERE on all projects, given the evidence in contributions. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 07:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked the en-wiki account. Global locks require a steward, see meta:Stewards to get you started. I can't seem to find a link to their noticeboard — Diannaa (talk) 04:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps meta:Steward requests/Global? That says "This page hosts requests for global (un)blocks, (un)locks and hidings." --Begoon ^talk 04:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Saint-Peterburg at Binding energy again

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

---

Re this, you might like to know that this same person 91.122.0.253 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (compare with 91.122.11.68 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) ) has now re-emerged with a string of similar edits at Binding energy. I have reverted the edits ([175]) and left a pointer to User talk:91.122.11.68 at User talk:91.122.0.253. I also left a message at user's EdJohnston‎ talk, but Ed might be on a leave.

Meanwhile anon already has restored their content ([176]) with yet another ip: 91.122.2.106 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)). In view of this, the article might need semi-protection. - DVdm (talk) 08:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

And reverted again: [177]. - DVdm (talk) 08:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

And again [178]. Also warned for 3RR at User talk:91.122.2.106. - DVdm (talk) 08:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Now taken to AN3: [179]. - DVdm (talk) 09:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• The relevant SPIs are
  • Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Systemizer/Archive
  • Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Antichristos/Archive
  • Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/8i347g8gl/Archive

These SPIs should be merged, if anyone thinks it's worth the time. The IP has caused the permanent semi-protection of at least one article. In March 2015, HJ Mitchell range-blocked 91.122.0.0/21 and 89.110.0.0/19 for one year.[180] I would suggest doing this again. Too bad for the people of Saint Petersberg using that Internet provider, but this is a fiercely dedicated edit warrior who has been inserting nonsense into articles for at least six years. Manul ~ talk 13:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added this at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Antichristos. - DVdm (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Ahem... we now have a message at User talk:EdJohnston‎, this here, an entry at AN3, and an entry at SPI. Talking about forum shopping, right... ah well . - DVdm (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Personal attack by user User:WWGB

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

---

User:WWGB has engaged in a personal attack against me, by calling me an idiot, in contravention to Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks, the time of the offense was 17:25, August, 29 2016 (UTC) please see further details. [[181]] --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 12:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Not particularly impressed by the behaviour of either of you. Yes that was a trifle pretty uncollegiate; but perhaps the editor was becoming increasingly exasperated by your line of argument? You fail to assume good faith, claim that reports from a Supreme Court are effectively not a reliable source, and finally say the subject's death was natural selection. I also see that after he says that, you say "And there were have it give someone enough rope and they'll hang themselves"; this suggests that you were intentionally provoking the other editor with the intention of getting the response you did, and the excuse to file at ANI. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

  Disagree with your "increasingly exasperated" reasoning. No one was forced to continue arguing with the OP. S/he could have been granted last word and the RfC allowed to play out. Granting last word is not concession, and there is no "persistent bad reasoning" exception in WP:NPA. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

As I said, it already followed an assumption of bad faith and a perceived misunderstanding of sourcing. (BTW, you mentioned '"persistent bad reasoning"'- not me) _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

As always, I oppose the deserved personal attack doctrine, which is not supported by any Wikipedia policy. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I merely observe that 'deserved' and 'understandable' are not synonymous. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Please point me to the policy that allows personal attack to be forgiven as "understandable". I don't see that provision in NPA. And again, the argument could have been cut short long before the point of exasperation. It takes at least two to keep an argument going. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

In this particular case, am echoing WP:IUC: A user who is baited is not excused by that if they attack in response, and a user who baits is not excused from their actions by the fact that the bait may be taken. There is undoubtedly responsibility to be allocated in this case, and that is to both parties (as, indeed I said in my first post here). As you say: it takes two. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

From that same page, baiting is "deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves." There is zero evidence that the OP was deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility. You are confusing persistent bad reasoning (and AGF failure, etc.) with baiting, with predictably poor results. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Please try and desist from the personal attacks yourself ("with predictably poor results", indeed). No I am not confusing the two. as I pointed out above, I never mentioned 'persistent bad reasoning': that is yet another misattribution on my words. I have already shown how the OP could be perceived to have shown bad faith towards the other editor, and also that they seem to have deliberately pushing towards this result. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree to disagree. I see nothing in the OP's comments other than an inability to let go and a bit of AGF failure. Since this has now devolved into equating a phrase like "with predictably poor results" with personal attack, I will follow my own advice and move on, lest I become increasingly exasperated and call you an idiot. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I note that 'a bit of AGF failure' is actually the same as 'incivility,' so that's snap. _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Whether or not the subject's death was natural selection is merely my opinion, as is wheather it was murder or not, the more accurate descriptions would be homicide. The basis for the claim is that it was murder originates from a claim by the Supreme Court of NSW, you maybe familiar that Wikipedia prefers secondary sources over primary sources. Nonetheless whether it was murder or not will depend upon the law, not Wikipedia policy, it is already reported that there was a conviction and the reader would be of the view that particular jurisdiction determined it to be murder. However from a encyclopedic view it should be described as a homicide. The user was getting sentimental about the facts, and resorted a personal attacks, a clear violation of Wikipeidia policy and ought to be reprimanded for that in accorance with policy.--Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 13:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• This isn't the forum to revist the content dispute, even your WP:STRAWMAN argument. The Supreme Court isn't the article's source; the various WP:RS that reported its verdict are. In any case, I stand by my original assessment of a breach of WP:CIVIL on both parties' parts.

_Muffled ^Pocketed 14:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, WWGB consider yourself chastised for using impolite language when responding to the OP's characterization of a murder victim (as described by secondary sources) as an "alleged victim". Eng.M.Bandara, please refrain from espousing what is merely your opinion. See WP:NOR. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I was merely using it to put in to perspective that WWGB claim even if supported by an RS, are an opinon of the facts, WP should report facts not options. This discussion should take place at the talk page, I would like to see policy put in place to maintain consistency globally around articles such as these. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 14:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

That is, unfortunately, very much not the case. _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Notation

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

---

I thought I'd make a note here in case I ever applied for an Administrator. [[182]], This edit here was made by someone whom accessed my account as I forget to log out of a shared school computer. (Yes. I know. Massively stupid mistake.) I am changing my password as a result of this. I just thought I'd note it here so that if I ever applied people would understand why this edit occurred. Thanks for your time. TheGRVOfLightning(talk) 00:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, you reverted it, it's a minor edit, and I doubt anyone would have cared. This notice board is for incidents that require administrator intervention. You probably would have been better off just pretending it never happened. --Tarage (talk) 00:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The edit was made on your userpage, I don't think a single person would have cared about it being made, let alone an administrator. This thread here would be far more detrimental to your application as an administrator than that relatively minor edit. As such I am going to pre-emptively close this thread as unneeded. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

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

• Or, you could have just noted the circumstances in the edit summary as you reverted it. EEng 01:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Kahala Hotel & Resort prod

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

---

The IP 70.190.226.235 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (geolocating to Tempe, Arizona) has been repeatedly prodding Kahala Hotel & Resort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for deletion (hotel is owned by Okura Nikko Hotels in Japan[183]). They initially used the prod argument that:

"The business, Kahala Hotel & Resort, is having an issue where this Wikipedia page is showing up on a Google search when searching "Kahala Hotel & Resort". This is negatively affecting the business. Removal of this page would make it so the Google My Business page shows up instead, which provides direct link for customers to book a room at the resort."

Later trimming the argument to being:

"The owners of the business, Kahala Hotel & Resort, would like this listing removed."

The IP has been warned over edit warring. My take is that it's highly suspicious for an Arizona IP to be claiming that the Japanese owners of a Hawaiian hotel are requesting deletion; and even if legitimate, I'm not seeing an applicable reason for deletion that fits within site policy. Even if true, the argument for deletion seems to center on a problem with a search engine, external to Wikipedia. However, I wanted to get other opinions on the request. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

A Google Books search for "Kahala Hilton", its historical name, shows that it is a highly notable resort hotel. Some are passing mentions but at least one book about the history of Hawaiian tourist resorts mentions it 19 times. Just as we should resist attempts to create promotional articles on non-notable topics, we should resist attempts to delete articles about notable topics to advance a search engine optimization campaign. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree; but wanted to bring it here for further discussion. There was a lot written about it in the Kahala Hilton days; but a quick Google News search turned up considerable coverage for the current name - some of which may be useful to expand the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

If the IP is claiming that the owners want the article removed, does this not indicate that the IP has a close connection with the owners? Especially give that it is a static IP address that has made no other edits. --Elektrik Fanne 11:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment There is no question that the Kahala Hotel, nee Kahala HIlton, is notable. If it is being repeatedly PRODded by an IP or IPs, wouldn't a simple solution be to semi-protect the article? --MelanieN (talk) 15:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

It appears that Guy already semi-protected the article. So, I think this thread can be closed. Nothing more to see here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

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

An editor needs counseling

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

---

50m race walk (talk · contribs) needs some advice about editing (which I offered), but it seems as if they are only willing to take counseling from someone with a mop.[184][185].·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

It's interesting that when a new editor commits some minor infraction, all of the friends of the person the infraction was committed against come out of the wood work to offer condescending 'advice' and accusations, and report them to noticeboards. Yet when infractions far worse are committed against that same newcomer, nobody gives a shit. And Wikipedia wonders why it has problems attracting and retaining new editors. 50m race walk (talk) 11:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

There is also some evidence, yet to be evaluated in detail, that this user is a sock of a banned user: see [186]. Admin eyes there are probably necessary as well. Not to mention they popped up at my RFA minutes after I warned them about WP:NPA, which does not suggest the healthiest attitude towards editing. Vanamonde (talk) 11:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

For the record I have never interacted with User:TheBanner, and does not count him as a "friend". And telling non-native speaking but clearly entirely fluent editors to leave the English wikipedia is not a minor infraction.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Your friend is clearly Vanamonde93, whose rescue you came to. 50m race walk (talk) 11:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Your record of the events is confused, you had not interacted with Vanamonde93 when I adviced you not to repeat the type of attack you made on TheBanner. Vanamonde then stepped in and said the same wherafter you went to their RfA to vote against them.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

You had to be following someones user page to see me edit it and then provide your 'advice.' If you want to call that a 'friend' whatever, you must know who he is if you're following his user page. And wanting to come to go to all this effort to help him. 50m race walk (talk) 11:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I saw your edits at Shaun king and then looked at your contribution history. The one I was trying to help was you, believe it or not.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, that seems plausible. If you were actually trying to give 'advice' and 'help' you should consider your tone and how you would perceive what you've done. You went looking through my history to find something I did wrong and then tell me I did something wrong, in an accusatory tone. Nobody is going to like that. That is not helping or giving advice. It's going to make people annoyed and defensive. Rather than looking for people violating rules and trying to 'help' them by scolding them, perhaps look for other ways you might be able to help them, that might be better received. 50m race walk (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

What you did, and did again after being warned, was a serious offense which could get you indefinitely blocked by an administrator with no need for a warning, I gave you that warning without notifying an administrator, that should be help enough. When you continue insulting other editors after being warned not to, then after that you are on your own. You did not offer anyone a nice conversational tone, so I find it a little odd that you would expect that from others. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Now your lie about 'help' and 'advice' is clear. You were playing Wiki Cop. As was obvious. Silly me for assuming good faith. 50m race walk (talk) 12:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I was playing wiki-cop in the sense that I was pointing out that your broke policy in a way that could produce negative consequences for you, that is true, I was helping you by offering you that observation (advice) without actually sanctioning you. That demonstrates good faith, in that I assume dyou were an adult who would change your behavior when told it was problematic. You made it very clear very quickly that you were not interested in abiding by our rules or accept my advice.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

What "infractions" does 50m race walk claim were committed against him? ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The Banner is harassing me, which started this. I've had tons of stuff done to me far worse than I've done here. Nobody says a word to those people. See this guy below? "Who cares." That is exactly the attitude when people make personal attacks on me, edit war with me, harass me. But I do one minor thing and the whole world comes down on me. 50m race walk (talk) 11:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Who cares? He edited another editor's userpage with an abusive edit summary. There is no justification. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Apparently they belived that User:TheBanner was harassing them because they reverted their edits at Shaun King.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh god, more of the 'they are not really black!' conspiracy crap... Another BLP to add to the monitoring list. I think thats the 4th one I have on my watchlist now. It seems to be the option of choice for discrediting opponents in racially-charged areas. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:AGF. Wikipedia relies on sources. There is only one very questionable source that says he is black. 50m race walk (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The subject says they are of black heritage. We do not use sources to disprove their racial heritage except in extreme cases. If there is conflict, it can be explored in the prose, but removing a subject's self-identity - on the back of Milo Yiannopoulos drummed-up racially-motivated claptrap - is never going to fly. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

That part I don't know, I was just discussing sources (on the talk page). Some people made arguments saying identifying as a race isn't like a religion etc. I don't know. 50m race walk (talk) 12:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Shaun King shouldn't be described simply as either. Like Rachel Dolezal, this is someone who is making a career in association with some political campaigns, such as Black Lives Matter, yet they're also being widely questioned [187] as to whether they're themselves black. We can report this question objectively, covering both sides in a balanced manner, and we need to do so, with a reasonably broad scope across the whole issue. Labelling them simply as one or the other is never going to be a neutral statement and omitting it would be to hide a significant aspect of the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense, King's identity is not being any more widely questoined than Barack Obama's place of birth is.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• 50m race walk - are you a new editor, have you previously been an editor, and are you subject to any sort of block or ban which caused you to abandon a previous account? I ask because your actions, and knowledge of WP arcana, are not typical for those for a new editor.

I am required to AGF. So welcome to Wikipedia. Please take a look at a few of the policies here, particularly WP:CIVIL and WP:TPO. If you are an editor, old or new, you are entitled to be treated equally by all, so let's hope that we can do more of that in the future. But editing other editor's user pages or other people's talk: comments, that's just a big no-no, so please don't do that. Even if it's "correcting an obvious mistake". Andy Dingley (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Finally somebody who asked me and assumed good faith rather than making a bunch of condescending accusations. I edited for a long time from IP addresses. People kept telling me to make an account, I did not see the need and I was finally sick of getting treated like a second class citizen and did. Only to discover new users are only treated slightly better than IP addresses. I'm aware I violated a minor rule. I do not think that if anybody else here had violated that minor rule on my user page, we would be here now doing this. 50m race walk (talk) 11:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Attack by user

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

---

I was attacked by Roksana Gantova at my talkpage (attack in my userpage). Roksana Gantova created an autobiographical article about herself and removed the CSD tag. I tried to be nice by giving a simple explanation why here article shouldn't be here (diff) (diff). Intervention is needed. Ayub407^talk 13:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Pretty clear cut personal attack - Talk:Roksana Gantova contains a couple more. This seems to be a case of a new editor getting rather upset that they cannot write about themselves, even though their talk page is filled with warnings and advice -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 13:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• also another attack at article mainspace of herself. Ayub407^talk 13:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

another attack at my my talkpage Ayub407^talk 13:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks to me like a single purpose account for self promotion and their attacks against you is further indicative of this. I don't see anything constructive coming of this user by just a glance of their contributions. —Mythdon 13:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Article has been salted for repeated creation attempts. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Justlettersandnumbers- biased user

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

---

Two days ago I inserted information reported on the New York Times "The museum is situated in a 150-year-old building that was transformed from an old, closed-down hotel into a museum after four years of renovation." to the page at Roberto Gagliardi

User:Justlettersandnumbers removed this insertion within minutes and once again censored information found on accredited sources for unclear and unjustifiable reasons. |User:Justlettersandnumbers then proceeded to remove the main points from the page, stripping it of its most important parts that are well-sourced and have been on the page for some time.

The actions of |User:Justlettersandnumbers are not based on facts but on personal presumptions and he does not act by the book but by his own standards.

|User:Justlettersandnumbers has continually censored (over several months), not only the sentence "The museum is situated in a 150-year-old building that was transformed from an old, closed-down hotel into a museum after four years of renovation" but other important facts from highly reputable sources known all around the world such as "La Nazione" (in the top 5 Italian newspapers) the Evening Standard, the Council of Chianciano Terme and Saatchi Museum's "Art and Music" official printed magazine (among other sources). These sources deemed the information in the public interest in Italy, the USA and the U.K. but |User:Justlettersandnumbers strangely decided that the information was irrelevant or found some other reason to remove it.

People on wikipedia are published due to their personal and professional achievements. Once a person is deemed as notable, personal and professional information of certain stature is relevant if, of course, is backed up by reliable sources. This user has disputed very prestigious publications (who deemed the information notable enough to publish) and has demoted information as not fit for an encyclopedia due to its professional and personal nature when such facts are exactly what a page about a notable "person" are all about.

This user's contributions seem to have been carried out with the intention to remove the foundations of this page with the aim of eventually having it totally removed. This user has failed to have the page removed already once but continues to undermine the page by gradually eroding the page of its content.

|User:Justlettersandnumbers undermines the foundations of Wikipedia and damages the integrity of thousands of other administrators, deleting the truth and betraying the bonafide of other wikipedia collaborators. In carrying out his censorship based on prejudice and in ignoring the facts, he is acting against the moral principles of Wikipedia.

|User:Justlettersandnumbers, from an analysis of his actions on this page, can be defined as unfit to collaborate with a serious organisation like Wikipedia due to lack of proper and independent judgement.

It has become clear that the desire to demonstrate his power as censor has overshadowed his important duty to remain unbiased and serve the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.238.35 (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Most of the information removed was unsuitable for a biography, as it was either concerned about the businesses they ran, or (as you say) about the building - a biography is about the person, not their possessions. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

ANI is not the place for content disputes, take it to the talk page of the article, Roberto Gagliardi, and make your case there why you think this content would be an improvement to the article. As for your accusations of Justlettersandnumbers being a "biased user", you haven't provided any diffs to back up your claim - so stop it.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Propose sanctions for an editor who made a blood libel statement

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

---

In 2010 Jenny Tonge, Baroness Tonge, then a member of the House of Lords, was sacked by Nick Clegg from her post as a spokesperson for the LibDem Party. Today, User:ZScarpia made a virtually identical statement on Wikipedia, in a discussion of the same issue, an accusation that Israeli medical personnel in Haiti to render aid after the 2010 earthquake were in fact in Haiti to harvest the organs of Haitian earthquake victims. Tongue was not sacked for spreading this blood libel, she was sacked for doubling down on it in her apology, an apology in which she implied that the Israeli medical team might indeed have been harvesting organs under the guise of rendering medical assistance to the injured."because no (at least public) investigation was carried out, nobody who was not directly involved can actually know for sure whether in fact the suspicions were 'baseless' or not." Those are User:ZScarpia's words.[188] Tonge said: "To prevent allegations such as these - which have already been posted on You Tube - going any further, the IDF and the Israeli Medical Association should establish an independent inquiry immediately to clear the names of the team in Haiti."[189] It was for making the same insinuation of guilt that User:ZScarpia has made here that she was sacked form her post. I propose that User:ZScarpia be permanently banned from editing Jewish-related and Israel-related articles or discussions for all the reasons that led Nick Clegg to sack [[Jenny Tonge.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

That single statement, though it appears misguided, does not seem to be making or supporting a claim of blood libel. Rather, it can be read as arguing that any source used to describe this particular blood libel claim as "baseless" should be a source in a position to know. I think we can all agree that bigoted beliefs are baseless and offensive. But take one, the Christian folk tradition that women have one more rib than men because God made woman out of man. If we wanted to say that this is an untrue belief, as obvious as this is we would want to cite a scientific source, not a schoolteacher. Simply not getting on the anti-racism bandwagon as much as desired is not itself racist. Are there any examples? Is this part of a long history? Unless this editor has a history of tendentiousness or supporting a racist agenda, why not err on the side of assuming good faith? - Wikidemon (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• The problem is not that ZScarpia is saying the allegation is true (he's not), it's that he's saying, essentially, that it's possible that it's true. That shows a disturbing credulity in a self-evidently anti-semitic rumor. While this report is certainly not baseless, my first inclination would be to apply Hanlon's Razor. I'd want to see more of a pattern than one really poorly thought out comment. If there is evidence of such a pattern, then my opinion would change rapidly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Civility issue / personal attacks

In the following comment User:SPACKlick stated "Did the word some hurt you as a child Quack because you have an unhealthy aversion to it I feel would benefit from discussion with a professional. Learn to English"

I consider this comment to be inappropriate and block worthy. Wondering other peoples thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm certainly surprised that the editor felt he had the high ground in telling people to learn English... But it seems intemperate rather than actually rude. _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict): Absolutely it was a petty comment. But no pettier than Quack's insistence across several articles that source phrasing like "there are bar like ones, and one's with lounges" cannot be paraphrased, as has been stable for months as "some are bar like and some have lounges". Across three articles Quack marked several instances of the word Some with failed verification and called it weasel words without ever being able to articulate a problem with the meaning of the word or showing any understanding of the meaning of the sentence. He posts discussions of these in talk page sections where he doesn't say which parts of the article or which sources he's talking about. Those commenting on this should be aware that the e-cigarettes area is subject to discretionary sanctions in which Quack was specifically warned about his pattern of editing being disruptive. So yeah, I snapped at Quack, after years of his bullshit editing, he's back to his old tricks.

As for the poor grammar, it's a common meme among language teachers I know used sarcastically to disparage.SPACKlick (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Right... So you intended 'sarcastically to disparage' that editor? In the vernacular, that's called Taking the piss (We even have an article on it...) and, honestly, doesn't particularly improve your case. _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I see little point in denying that I was grumpily sarcastic at Quack when it's plain on the face of it that I was grumpy and sarcastic at him. If it's block worthy, it's block worthy. I'm not going to waste someone's time by pretending I didn't do what I plainly did. SPACKlick (talk) 09:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I heartily deny its block-worthiness. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

And we appear to have a history of similar comments such as It's soul destroying reading Quack's gibberish. for which this user has been previously warned [190] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I see it as uncivil but it isn't a pattern of attacking random editors. I see someone who is reaching the end of their role with a particular editor, and that is the to repeated issues where the person is refusing to improve. I don't see anything worth action currently. Tivanir2 (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

QuackGuru is inclined to be obsessive over trivial matters, and to assert that tiny departures from his preferred content amount to wholesale violation of fundamental policies of Wikipedia (search QuackGuru in the archives for a long list of examples). Even people who agree with him on substantive issues, as I generally do, find it virtually impossible to get along with him. My reading is that SPACKlick is similarly dogmatic in certain areas. It may be time to separate these two from each other and from the bone over which they are fighting. Guy (Help!) 07:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• How about if any editor with more than ten edits to the subject area of e-cigs over the last month, is banned from the topic for three months? That would solve most of the problem. Guy (Help!) 06:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Second try here, re: long term unsourced edits

Last week I reported user 174.105.181.77 (talk · contribs) both here and at AIV, and neither report was deemed actionable, with the explanation that I hadn't provided diffs. Since then the account has continued unabated, despite accruing more warnings and being reported again tonight at AIV. I'm bringing this here again not so much to request a block--if we're still functioning at all, and working by the basic guidelines, that's inevitable, if long overdue. What I'm requesting is a review of all edits, not some half-dozen cherry-picked diffs. This is a textbook example of an account adding trivia anywhere and at random, without regard to scholarship or sources. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• For instance, some already rolled back: [191]; [192]; [193]; [194]; [195]; [196]; [197]. Some of hundreds of such nuisance edits. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

It is supposedly a dynamic IP. What would you have done? A sampling of their edits indicate that the things they are adding are not particularly contentious nor do they appear to be incorrect. Provide an indication of what you feel should be done. Other than that, you always have the option of citing the material yourself. This really doesn't seem like a matter for this board. If it really bugs you warn then incrementally and after 4 in one day report them to AIV. Or better yet, start a dialog with them to encourage them to do better.John from Idegon (talk) 04:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Then I give up. Thanks. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I've run out of the desire to chase down and revert crap like this [198]. At one time it was expected that a block would follow dozens of unsourced, nuisance and non sequitur edits like that--the terminology was 'disruptive' or 'incompetent'--especially when warnings from numerous editors had been persistently ignored, and the user hadn't responded. Reversions would be standard. But if the attitude has become 'they're not contentious edits, and why bother with a dynamic IP?', then I truly have wasted years here. That's my mistake, rather than the website's. Per your observations, John from Idegon, I've instructed the account to continue. There's no reason for them to stop. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

You missed the point entirely. First, AIV will not and should not (due to collateral damage and no punitive blocking) block an IP without 4 warnings in the last 24 hours. Second, TV is a subject of great interest to many and with expertise from nary a few. Wouldn't it be better to serve the project by teaching a new editor how to source his edits rather than just templating them on the fly then coming here (which is still not the right place) and pitching a bitch? Collaboration is a two way street. Four and a half years into this and I have no clue how to properly source a TV article, and I'd bet you would be similarly puzzled as to how to source an article on a high school. If you cultivate the new guys skills you've improved the project. How does your course do that? I realize there is an if in that statement, but without an attempt, how do you know? John from Idegon (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Not to respond contentiously, but I'd just as easily say my point is missed, as well. There are multiple problems with the user's hundreds of edits, some of which are evident in the diffs I chose. Lack of sources is the most obvious issue, but the insertion of trivia, sometimes in the wrong places, is another. Poor writing --the intent to copyedit for the sake of making changes, without discernible improvement to the article--is another. Most recently, edit warring with another editor in order to retain unsourced content. Surely I could have engaged the user in a different way, but my take from the start was that the user has no interest in conversation or collaboration, but merely in adding factoids, at their pleasure, encyclopedia be damned. Keep in mind, I'm no longer arguing on behalf of sanctions for the individual user, nor just for rolling back much of what they've done, but am addressing a broader weakness of the project, the lack of enforcement of a basic guideline. If the content can not be properly sourced--be it for a TV show, a biography or a high school--then it's not good to go. Otherwise the editing process is easily abused; it's not difficult for someone to make up dates and numbers in this circumstance, and I've reverted one or two such spurious edits by this account already. Given their volume, it's not unlikely there are many more. Finally, I brought this here twice because of persistence, scope and lack of response at AIV. Also, after the initial report, an administrator counseled that the problem was not having provided diffs; I've tried to do so now. So yes, I've pitched a bitch, as you say, and for that I'm not proud. But I'm amazed that I have to make a repeated and futile case on behalf of disallowing unsourced edits. If I'm correct in doing so, I have reason to be exasperated with the project and lack of response. If I'm incorrect, then I've misread the way we function, after casting around here for over a decade. Either way, I don't belong. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

"...AIV will not and should not (due to collateral damage and no punitive blocking) block an IP without 4 warnings in the last 24 hours" - right in specific cases but wrong as an absolute. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by PoetryFan

PoetryFan is a very new single-purpose account (self-described as such: [199]) exhibiting erratic, disruptive, and aggressive behavior.

1. It has twice replaced the entire content of another user's talk page with a warning template ([200] and [201] -- this second is my talk page). In my case, this was accompanied by the summary: "Final warning due to repeated insertion of unsourced / hoax material in poetry articles (Maryann Corbett, Wilbur Awards, Richard Wilbur Award -- see diffs)" Even if this were true, a final warning would have been far from appropriate, but it is objectively false. My total contributions to these articles are: [202], [203], [204] -- and once on a talk page: [205].

2. It has twice blanked a page it previously nominated for deletion ([206] and [207])

These edits, and at least 4 additional ones ([208], [209], [210], [211]) have all already been reverted (mainly by @Mooseandbruce1 and @Bonadea), bringing this editor's rate of disruptive and subsequently reverted edits to at least 42%.

Further, while I have no opinion on the quality or notability of the articles to which this editor objects, PoetryFan's characterization of Richard Wilbur Award is plainly (I have to believe deliberately) false: it is characterized as a "hoax" [212] and later as "pure vandalism" [213] -- despite the fact that it is quite obviously a thing [214].

I honestly can't tell what this editor WP:QUACKs like, but it seems to me that PoetryFan is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Phil wink (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree. There's no need for the jury to retire on this. As per WP:NOTHERE. _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I also agree. I was watching Recent Changes yesterday and noticed that PoetryFan blanked user Alicb's talk page and replaced it with a block notice, even though that user's block log was empty. Also, a few of the user's edits were pure vandalism (mostly blanking). Mooseandbruce1 (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I think this is somebody who does not quite understand what Wikipedia is for or how it works, and has very strong opinions; they dove into nominating articles for deletion without knowing the process at all and as a result the nominations were never completed. Believing that a week had gone by with nobody weighing in, they thought that they could delete the article, hence the article blanking. When I explained on their talk page that they were going about it the wrong way, they apologised and tried to fix things - still not quite knowing how to do it, but I think it shows some good faith anyway. This (blanking, fake block notice, edit summary) is of course unacceptable and shows no good faith at all, but unless they keep up the disruption after having been warned I'm not sure I see a reason to block them just yet. Just my non-admin two cents, of course. --bonadea contributions talk 11:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I've noticed a pattern of conduct on my talk page and apparently the talk page of a few other people. Earlier this month I was accused by a CheckUser of being a sockpuppet of the User Ryulong -- someone I have never heard of -- and a block message was placed on my talk page. I have also received received numerous unfair warnings and criticisms dropped off on my talk page without any attempt to engage with me or respond to my questions about the meaning of them. I don't know if this current issue is related to those but I thought it was context since this is not the first time that I have received a fake block.

As far as the current situation, I agree with Bonadea that the issue may take care of itself after she warned the user not to do this again. It may be that they are just overeager or aggressive and if they don't plan to do this again then I am also fine with not blocking them and only giving them a verbal warning. I also would like if an administrator would ask them not to post block notices to my talk page or to the talk page of any user ever again; I don't think that such a thing is ever appropriate. Alicb (talk) 13:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

PoetryFan has implied that they "and other reviewers" have been monitoring what they believe to be abuses for a while: suggesting either that they have some previous experience with WP, or that (again) they are being dishonest about the extent of their experience (and it is implied, authority). Well, we know from PoetryFan's first edit that PoetryFan is an extension of (at least the most recent edits from) IP: 128.177.40.53, which exhibit perfect continuity of habits. Given that we know PoetryFan previously posted on Alicb's talk page under an IP, it does seem appropriate to wonder if this and this extremely similar IP edit -- exhibiting not only the same overweening "administrative" agression, but even a familiar refactoring incompetence in the first example -- is also PoetryFan's work. If so, then it seems extremely likely that this corker, by the same IP, 2 minutes earlier, and with a familiarly cavalier attitude to blanking and edit summaries, is by the same hand. Should we be surprised to find that the edits made just previous to this near-total blanking of Buddy Roemer were by none other than Alicb? I don't know if Alicb's edits are good, bad, or indifferent, but it appears that he or she has gained an unhinged enemy. I fear that PoetryFan is a menace to WP, and deserves even deeper investigation than I have been able to manage. Phil wink (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think my edits are THAT bad. I mostly focus on relatively noncontroversial areas such as poetry. Buddy Roemer is a political figure but none of my edits seemed contentious at the time or even in retrospect -- mostly just clearing up some clunky sentences if I recall correctly. Alicb (talk)

• @Alicb: Perhaps poetry is not noncontroversial to a "poetry fan". ;-) But seriously, what other user talk pages have you seen similar recent activity on? I've seen the now familiar warnings posted to Maryannz by PoetryFan under their own account -- but are there others you're aware of? Phil wink (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
• @Phil wink: Not to my knowledge, but if we're dealing with IPs or multiple people (or one person with multiple accounts) I wouldn't be able to tell what they are saying to others. I haven't been in any major content disputes with anyone though and I don't think the edits that I made were controversial even within a poetry context -- I was mostly filling out awards that poets have won and bibliographies, and no one has even bothered to revert that content. Alicb (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

United States Commission on Civil Rights

Could I please get some additional eyes on this page? Thanks very much, GAB^gab 15:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I reverted back to your version. The issue I'm seeing, among the multiple "we are..." in the lede, was that a large part of the page was a copyvio from [215]. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

While the wording should be changed to reflect "we" to "It is", etc. Because the document is a government document there technically is no copyright issue. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Ashley Massaro, copyvio images, and tweets from the subject

• Ashley Massaro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tweets from @ashleymassaro11:
  • "Hey guys I have a big favor to ask.Can any one of you guys PLZ change my pic on Wikipedia 2 ANYTHING other than the horrible photo up now?"
  • "Thanks so much doll! Sent you a DM-lets change this 1 tho-I would pic 1 but it has 2 b licensed or something idk how"

So, apparently the barrage of image changes today, which were all scraped from elsewhere on the web, was set off by Massaro herself. Do we have some way to handle situations like this to reach out to the subject (or her agents) about properly donating an image, if she'd like to change it? Since, as far as I can tell, Massaro herself wasn't directly involved, there's no way to do it on-Wiki. And off-Wiki, I'll leave that to WP:VRT and others further up the food chain. —C.Fred (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Semi-protected the page. A publicity photo has to be freely licensed, and they invariably aren't. As you said, we can't do it here, and OTRS is available if Massaro wants to do it herself. Katie^talk 20:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

There's an FAQ about that. She did notice Katie's semi-protection: "Welp, the moderator came in and kicked us all out lol everything is back the way it was now I guess we are gonna have a hard time changin it" I also see that a reasonable response to her was from Nat Gertler, but she seems to have ignored it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Being the idiot I am, I also gave my two cents. I don't think it'll be regarded as everybody is insisting that the picture should be changed. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

What is striking is that there has been no discussion on the article's talk page for nearly 3-1/2 years. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Ryecatcher773 is abusing Brecksville,OH edits

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

---

Ryecatcher773 is using abusive and bulling language on his incorrect edits. I want him blocked from editing Brecksville, OH.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfo1980 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Notified. TimothyJosephWood 17:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll dispute this claim on the grounds that the edits are not 'incorrect'. You don't like the edit -- and I get that -- but that doesn't mean that by definition that they are incorrect. Also, you never even bothered to look at the article talk page, where I clearly explained the issue. And you are exhibiting serious ownership issues -- especially by demanding that I be banned from editing this particular article.

and as JohnInDC explained in your last complaint (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Brecksville.2C_Ohio ) he concurred with the edit I made, as did MrOllie on the article itself when he reverted your edit.Ryecatcher773 (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Rangeblock request for 2601:81:C400:662C*

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

---

Below is evidence I've gathered of disruption by what appears to be a single user Special:Contributions/2601:81:C400:662C* range. I'm not terribly familiar with CIDR ranges, but I think the range is 2601:81:c400:662c::/64. Table below includes some IPs out of this range, but ones that maintain the pattern of abuse. Today, an SPI for Maelbros was filed for the most recent IP. (Also see Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Maelbros). The behavior is similar, but the geolocation is different. Someone more familiar with Maelbros (Bbb23 or Blakegripling ph perhaps?) might be able to determine if this is the same person.

This user obsesses on editing categories and infoboxes regarding animation producers/distributors/owners. Also edits on company pages like List of assets owned by Disney. Likes to add Warner Bros. Entertainment ([216]) and remove historical info ([217]). Sometimes has Mobile edit, Mobile web edit tags. User is proficient with wiki syntax, including tables.

IPv6 have an ISP of Comcast IP Services. From what I can tell, Mount Laurel is the Comcast headquarters, so I doubt the user is actually in Mount Laurel, NJ.

Table taken from User:EvergreenFir/socks#Animation_producers_and_distributors_-_New_Jersey.2C_Comcast.

Thank you for your consideration. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Let's assume for argument sake that the geolocation isn't wholly reliable. Comcast doesn't even operate in the country that Maelbros edits from. I've been closing, sometimes without comment, SPIs brought with these IPs because of the technical issues. That doesn't prevent an administrator from blocking the IPs but without connecting them to Maelbros.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

BTW, Comcast's corporate headquarters are in Philadelphia.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with Maelbros to know whether this is them or not, but if this is suspected to be them, this should be at SPI rather than here. I see, though, that Bbb23 closed a report of one of the Comcast IPs for insufficient evidence.

1. Geolocation for Comcast IPv6 addresses is typically useless, so that information should be ignored.
2. Comcast (and many other non-mobile ISPs) assign a /64 block of addresses to each subscriber.
3. Blocks of single IPv6 addresses are rarely, if ever, effective.

I did take a look at the /64 and see that all the edits were made using the same device, so if a block is warranted, it won't affect anyone else. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@DoRD: I'm familiar with Maelbros. For this to be Maelbros, he would have had to (a) travel to the U.S., which he's never done before and (b) use a different device to edit with, which he's never done before. My "insufficient evidence" closure was frustration. I should have just said something more along the lines I'm saying here and closed it on that basis. It didn't help that the filer is not someone I trust, either at SPI or elsewhere. I of course have zero objections to the range block.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Blocked the /64 for one week. The disruption is significant enough to warrant it, IMO. Katie^talk 13:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Block over. Vandalism renewed.

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

---

Please review this edit. It's from an IP address that was blocked for three months in May 2016, after a couple of years worth of vandalism warnings. In this account's first edit since the block expired, more vandalism. David in DC (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a school, and school has resumed. Blocked six months. In the future, please report vandalism to WP:AIV. Katie^talk 14:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Genre warring and blanking

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

---

There's been a disruptive IP editor blanking content, mostly in film-related articles. I first noticed this in late July, when 187.205.65.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) engaged in a spree of disruptive genre warring by way of blanking Category:Slasher films from several dozen film articles. I reverted the ones that were sourced, added a few sources to obvious examples, and just left the rest alone. I'm not interested in genre warring over whether something is a slasher film, just reverting IP editors who blank content. In August, I noticed the same editor has been blanking more content, mostly from infoboxes:

• 187.205.34.241: [218]
• 187.205.38.181: [219], [220], [221]
• 187.205.43.192: [222], [223]
• 187.205.43.108: [224], [225], [226]
• 187.205.52.47: [227]
• 187.205.62.201: [228]
• 187.205.73.16: [229]
• 187.205.95.112: [230]
• 187.205.128.12: [231], [232]
• 187.205.124.142: [233], [234], [235]

Note that this comprises the majority of edits made from this range in the past four weeks. If there's essentially nobody else editing, and there's extensive, ongoing blanking, I think a really wide range block might be warranted; there's virtually no collateral damage even on a /16. If that's not possible, I guess maybe semi-protection for Hellbound: Hellraiser II and Tintorera might suffice, as those are the most commonly targeted articles. However, it won't stop the ongoing genre warring and blanking in other articles. I guess I can keep checking the range contribs every few days, but it's a tedious time sink. On the positive side, I rediscovered an article I wrote three years ago that I never put my on my watchlist. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Range blocked. I agree the range seems to be used for little else than unsourced changes on film articles — certainly not for anything useful, that I can see. Of course I haven't clicked on every single diff, just a good sample. I've blocked 187.205.0.0/16 for two weeks. If it just starts up in the same way after the two weeks, please let me know, NinjaRobotPirate. Or if you should see similar edits from outside the /16 range. Psychologically, /16 may be something of a limit for me, though. And I'd appreciate if another admin, who actually understands about IP ranges (I pretty much only pretend to), could take a look here. Pinging the little @Ponyo:. Bishonen | talk 15:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC).

@Bishonen: This IP hopper has been editing disruptively on the range for months. There's minimal collateral on the range block placed, so no worries there.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

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

The Frankfurt School section "Cultural Marxism"

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

---

Hi, I'm just looking to get Last Contrarian banned from further editing the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory section of The Frankfurt School page. Having called an RfC on removing 'conspiracy theory' from the lead Last Contrarian soon found out there was a unanimous uninvolved editorial WP:consensus against their personal viewpoint that Cultural Marxism is not a conspiracy theory. Regardless of this fact they've continued to edit war (barely avoiding 3RR) [236], [237], [238], [239], and they continue to perform persistent disruptive edits against consensus. Something must be done, and administrative action would be appreciated. --Jobrot (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment

1. It seems you read my mind. I was just about to report you. You accuse me of a possible 3RR violation. I suspected a WP:TAGTEAM ( [240] [241] [242] [243]) between you and User:Ian.thomson yesterday but didn't report it because I forced myself to assume WP:GOODFAITH.

2. People are free to look at the discussion and RfC over at Talk:Frankfurt School. The page is absolutely plastered with long-winded comments by Jobrot which fail to address my original question.

3. Jobrot consistently reverted the NPOV template on flimsy reasons and by claiming a fictitious three editor consensus when most comments on the RfC there were votes without any substantive discussion.

4. Looks like Jobrot believes he owns the article, and content added using reliable sources that do not support his bias look like disruptive editing to him.

5. It looks like this issue was not urgent enough to be reported. Jobrot spent a better part of half an hour [244] leaving replies to comments not addressed to him before deciding to revert my reliably sourced "disruptive edit."

6. This is what Jobrot considers to be a disruptive edit: [245]. Well-sourced quotes and statements backed by reliable sources. Last Contrarian (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

This is pretty common for the article: someone comes in, claims that we're relying too much on "leftist" sources that that Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory, further evidence is provided that it is a conspiracy theory, those sources are rejected as "leftist," and no counter sources are ever provided to show that anyone outside of the far-right regards it as a reality. However, it's usually new and/or anon editors who don't know how (or don't care) to nominally go through process. We have an editor going through the process, consensus isn't going his way, but there's one editor who is continually countering his arguments so that must be the problem. Seriously, though, is Jobrot handling things perfectly? No. But is he the one ignoring consensus here? Not that I'm seeing...

@Last Contrarian: I've only ever encountered Jobrot on this site, I've only ever really crossed paths with him at The Frankfurt School article and talk page, and his talk page isn't even on my watchlist -- so accusations of tag teaming would indeed go against WP:AGF. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Does the absence of a consensus mean I stay away from the article altogether (Barring substantive discussion from commenting editors, I still consider it to be a majority vote)? Have I added any batshit crazy stuff to the section to your knowledge?

Once the NPOV tag was reverted by Jobrot's and your actions, I continued discussions on the talk page. After discovering a WP:RS source (Gottfried) who had an opinion on the theory, I first added him to the discussion and then decided to improve the article by adding his views on the matter. If this is what you guys consider disruptive editing, the only conclusion I can draw from this is that you assert ownership over the section and only certain wording and certain kinds of sources are allowed. And anyone displeasing you guys will be sent to the principal's office. Last Contrarian (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

--

I still consider the lede to be a case of WP:SYNTHESIS. I didn't touch it though, when I edited the section. My plan was to eventually involve some unbiased editors. When three different sources (one of them an admin) have noticed biased editing on the article over the last two years, who am I to claim otherwise:

• http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/misadventuring-on-wikipedia/
• http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/12/wikipedia_editing_disputes_the_crowdsourced_encyclopedia_has_become_a_rancorous.html
• https://theconversation.com/cultural-marxism-and-our-current-culture-wars-part-1-45299 Last Contrarian (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

As I'd mentioned on the talk page, and as can be found in the talk page archives - Gottfried is WP:UNDUE as he holds a tiny minority opinion (and especially can't be used for Lind's views), his inclusion in the lead violates WP:LEADCITE and you're only trying to include it there to further violate the strong editorial consensus produced by your own RfC that the mainstream view is that Cultural Marxism is a CONSPIRACY THEORY. Making the section subject to WP:FRINGE:

Main page: WP:FRINGE

"A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight"

Also; if I want to spend half an hour on Wikipedia refuting your claims via proper policy, editorial consensus and quality sourcing in line with policy, that's up to me. --Jobrot (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Several mainstream sources were provided on the talk page that referred to the idea as a conspiracy theory. You didn't accept them. You were asked for counter sources that demonstrate that any moderates or leftists regard it as a reality. You've previously refused to even acknowledge the request beyond claiming that it's "proving a negative", but I will note that you have just now cited a Slate article written by someone who has WP:HOUNDed Arbcom, called an admin a "capo" on Twitter, and generally not behaved reasonably toward anyone affiliated with this site over something a single (and now topic-banned) editor did years ago. You have instead called for treating something that only the fringe right regards as reality as equally plausible as the mainstream assessment of it. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not a Wikipedia scholar. I don't spend my days and nights following news about who attack Wikipedia and for what reason. That the "Cultural Marxism" article has seen heavily biased editing is a known thing. The New York Times may not care enough to write articles about it, but the fact than we are here (and someone like me who has spent 8 years on wikipedia without ever encountering an admin) is here and the pages and pages of debate pretty much proves it.

You keep bringing up WP:GEVAL as if it means something in this context. When you label a political belief a conspiracy theory, you need to provide evidence from sources other than their opponents. The section is a case of WP:NPOV violation and the lede is a case of WP:SYNTHESIS based on the views of purely left-wing sources. Left-wing academics and left-wing op-ed writers for left-wing newspapers might believe Cultural Marxism to be a conspiracy theory, but it doesn't become one simply on their say so. There are right-wing sources that use the phrase in a non-ironic fasion all the time. There is an exceedingly well-known philosopher like Gottfried who has written a book on the Frankfurt school and who actually claims that Lind does not believe in the conspiracy theory but Jobrot is trying to have him excluded using WP:DUE in spite of him being a WP:RS. Last Contrarian (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

As shown 2 comments above, WP:FRINGE requires independent reliable sources; I'd hardly call an article from The American Conservative in which the author specifically says he's friends with William S. Lind and is specifically attacking Wikipedia (albeit a 2 year old article on the topic that no longer exists); independent. Apart from that, you should be using Gottfried's book, but even then he is WP:UNDUE and including him in the lead violates WP:CITELEAD (as stated above WP:LISTEN).

There's no reason to include Gottfried's minority opinion, and nowhere in the article does it claim that Lind says Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory; it in fact says he's a proponent of the theory. And as I've stated on the talk page Lind repeatedly talks of unmasking the hidden agenda of the left to reveal old Karl Marx himself. Proponents of the moon landing hoax or NWO conspiracy theory ALSO don't state that they're conspiracy theorists. So no; WP:UNDUE opinions will not be included in the lead, and you WILL respect the consensus of your fellow editors. --Jobrot (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

For people who would not bother to wade through the wall of text, this is what Paul Gottfried says [246]:

Neither one of us has argued that there is a Frankfurt School or Cultural Marxist “conspiracy.” Indeed we have stressed the opposite view, namely, that certain Frankfurt School social teachings have become so widespread and deeply ingrained that they have shaped the dominant post-Christian ideology of the Western world.

So, Gottfried is not claiming that Lind is not a conspiracy theorist, only that Lind does not believe that a conspiracy exists, which is the exact opposite of what Wikipedia is claiming. Quoting Gottfried weakens the current lead paragraph. Perhaps that's why Jobrot doesn't want it there. Last Contrarian (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Gottfried also states in his book: "Nothing intrinsically Marxist, that is to say, defines "cultural Marxism," save for the evocation or hope of a postbourgeois society." going on to say; "The mistake of those who see one position segueing into another is to confuse contents with personalities." [247] and I wouldn't put that in there either (unless I'm pushed to cover his viewpoint fully). But I wouldn't put it in of my own accord because it's WP:UNDUE and in the case of your quote (due to where it appears and what else is said in that article) it's not an independent reliable source (as explained above and below) - we've already covered this on the talk page. Maybe you should WP:LISTEN to what people are actually saying rather than just making up the reasons they're saying it in your head. --Jobrot (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The depth, breadth and unanimous consensus formed in the very long and conclusive discussion on the talk page makes this a WP:DEADHORSE and WP:LISTEN issue, in which Last Contrarian is failing to regard policy or their fellow Wikipedia editors with any respect. Violating several policies and ignoring WP:GOODFAITH multiple times in the discussion. They've claimed that rabid left-wing editors are stopping them from resurrecting the previous article (which in fact was salted WP:SALT as part of closing the AfD to prevent this exact type of behavior), and they've also claimed they wish users to come away with a positive interpretation of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory.

From the talk page: "This is pure WP:OR and you cannot finish reading the article and still end up with a positive interpretation of "Cultural Marxism." If that were not the case, one should be able to resurrect the article on Cultural Marxism easily without being attacked by rabid left-wing editors."

In short they're not WP:HERE for the right reasons, and instead seek to use Wikipedia as a personal political WP:SOAPBOX --Jobrot (talk) 20:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hang on a second Last Contrarian the accusations you've made against Ian.thomson seem to lack evidence. I know I've seen editors blocked for such accusations against other editors in the past with out diff's to support the accusation per WP:NPA. Your lack of WP:AGF and automatically accusing another editor of something else in an attempt to deflect scrutiny from yourself is inappropriate. Regardless you do appear to be edit warring based on the diffs provided You also need to begin to follow what the WP:CONSENSUS is at the article. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

accusations you've made against Ian.thomson seem to lack evidence. I don't care about thomson. He didn't revert my reliably sourced edit for being disruptive. The problem is Jobrot who is guarding the article like Cerberus guarding the Underworld.

You also need to begin to follow what the WP:CONSENSUS is at the article. Do you notice a consensus there? There are a couple of discussions. Everything else is a vote. All you see there are comments primarily by Jobrot that evade my questions, ignore propositional logic (thereby constructing ledes based on false syllogisms) and replies that are a wall of text to drown out any adventuring editor. Further, what does following the consensus mean? That I cannot add any matter to the article even if reliably sourced if it happens to go against the articles current statement? Last Contrarian (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

As stated above multiple times, as well as on the talk page; it's not reliably sourced as per WP:FRINGE, WP:DUE and WP:CITELEAD (WP:LISTEN, WP:DEADHORSE). "what does following the consensus mean? That I cannot add any matter to the article even if reliably sourced"; in this case the consensus means you should acknowledge that MOST PEOPLE don't hold your views, so you should check your edits against the consensus that Cultural Marxism is in fact; a conspiracy theory (regardless of the claims of proponents). If you'd wished to include Gottfried, you'd need something more independent than right-wing political websites (he has a book you know), and even then it's not WP:DUE and obviously it cannot be put in the lead WP:CITELEAD. You should have respected the WP:CONSENSUS you've brought upon yourself via your own RfC. --Jobrot (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

1. Claim that Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory using purely left-wing sources.

2. Obtain a consensus using 1. Make things impossible so that Wikipedia admins have a massive headache and give up. Things deteriorate so much that new mdia across the political spectrum write articles on it.

3. Use consensus obtained above to bar reliable right-wing sources from supporting statements against the so-called "common" mainstream view by claiming they are not independent.

You think that convinces anybody? And you think you're not biased at all. Last Contrarian (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• I support a topic ban, this has gone on far too long and the article is a honeypot for ideologues even without this. Guy (Help!) 21:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Ideologues on both both sides. I'd like you to take a look at Jobrot's history and the history of the present conflict before coming to a conclusion. I know people don't have the time to do this, but this is how bias grows, by refusing to consider the possibility that the status quo is wrong. Last Contrarian (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTTHEM. Oh, and law of holes. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

This road has been trodden before by SecondDark, Kaffeburk, Achinoam, Ideloctober and various IP users. There's a reason decisions go against people who approach the article from a political perspective and violate WP:consensus. It isn't due to a conspiracy, admins being brainwashed, or other editors being rabid left-wing shills: It's due to the fact that The Frankfurt School were interested in analyzing Culture; not in taking it over. They'd seen the rise of Nazism in their own country; a force they had to flee from. They were anti-fascists more than anything else; not communists and not plotting the downfall of America - in fact members wrote AGAINST Soviet Marxism, they even helped determine the protocols at the Nuremberg Trials and worked for the OSS during the war. They even advised the US government during the Cold War. Their aim wasn't to take over or destroy; their aim was to teach what they'd learned from having to flee fascism; in order to IMPROVE democracy, not destroy it. Blaming modern progressive politics on The Frankfurt School makes no more sense than blaming it on Hitler. The whole world has changed since then - especially since the fall of the USSR. Politics needs to move on too. --Jobrot (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment It's nearing 3:30AM in India and I have to sleep. Will revisit this in about 18 hours. Hope admins take their time before coming to a decision. Last Contrarian (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Well I support a page ban. At this point the editor isn't listening. They've had enough ROPE and seem to be talking them selves into a page ban. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 22:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Here is my edit history: [248]. Do you see anything there that supports a ban? Or, does every single person who opposes Jobrot's stranglehold on the article (the guy has more edits [249] on the article than the next three editors combined, all of whom are inactive since forever) get banned even if reliable sources are used to provide a balance to the slanted claims? They way things stand at present, unless ten people gang up together (an unlikely event) to form a consensus in the opposite direction, Jobrot's version of events will be the de facto Wikipedia version as he seems to be omnipresent on Wikipedia. Anyone going against the status quo will be crushed by the consensus of 2 editors and 4 voters, reliable sources be damned. Last Contrarian (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, your edit history is why people are going for a page/topic ban instead of a block: you do have a lot of good edits to stuff relating to India and Indian entertainment, but your foray into American politics has been problematic. In fact, the two year gap between your diverse Indian edits to your rather sudden and singular interest in this topic, combined with the drastic increase in loquaciousness, almost looks like a WP:COMPROMISED account. Were it not for this and this, I'd've called for a block on those grounds instead of explaining this. Your edit history does show that you've had almost no practice in forming consensus or collaborating as well, which means you should stay away from contentious topics until you've learned to do so. You say you've been here "without ever encountering an admin" like that's a bad thing. That means you haven't engaged the community here, and it shows. While you appear to have done good work with India related topics, you've accomplished about as much in eight years as many editors accomplish in their first year and what some regulars accomplish in a month -- and that's in total, not taking into account that you've barely interacted with the community at all before this. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

the two year gap between your diverse Indian edits to your rather sudden and singular interest in this topic Every major article I have involved myself in is due to a singular interest in the subject matter. The articles on Satya (film), Chanakya (TV series) and Anurag Kashyap needed a lot of improvement. The one on the Tata Tapes controversy didn't exist till I created it.

While you appear to have done good work with India related topics, you've accomplished about as much in eight years as many editors accomplish in their first year and what some regulars accomplish in a month I guess you are used to articles and editors for which sources are available quite easily. The articles I worked on are India-specific and the number of easily accessible digital sources on the subject matter and time period (1980s-1990s) are very few. The only way you could perhaps make them better is by visiting newspaper morgues in some of the major Indian cities.

rather sudden and singular interest in this topic Not sudden at all. Here's my user page from 2008: [250]:

• atheist
• libertarian
• interested in politics
• believes in logic
• is opposed to online censorship

So my "suddenly" visiting the Cultural Marxism page should make sense given the context.

drastic increase in loquaciousness On Wikipedia, sure. Doesn't mean this is the only handle I use on the internet. Further, technical subjects or subjects with some basis to them don't require long-winded discussions. Only politics and philosophy do.

Your edit history does show that you've had almost no practice in forming consensus or collaborating as well, Consensus and collaboration work when the differences between editors are such that an agreement is possible. In case of controversial topics, they might work if others are willing to at least listen to you. I don't see it happening when it comes to this topic. When I raise a question regarding sentence construction, propositional logic and citations, and the only replies I get are those influenced by previous controversies or those simply voting for a position, what are the chances that a consensus based on substantive discussion would be arrived at?

In this instance, it's very easy to change the lede by using WP:INTEXT. But some editors seem to believe that the conspiracy theoretic position is so common, that in-text attribution is something that should be absolutely avoided. Last Contrarian (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:INTEXT argues against you; sighting this as an example of what not to do: "Charles Darwin says that human beings evolved through natural selection, but John Smith writes that we arrived here in pods from Mars." - that's EXACTLY what you attempted with the lead: "Cultural Marxism in mainstream parlance is considered a conspiracy theory; but <insert name here> doesn't think it is!" WP:GEVAL WP:DEADHORSE WP:LISTEN WP:CONSENSUS. --Jobrot (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if you misread my comments unintentionally or on purpose. This is what I said FOUR days back (see the talkpage):

What does "common usage" mean in this context? Who, exactly, "commonly refers" to Cultural Marxism as a conspiracy theory? If it's the SPLC, then reword the sentence so that it states so explicitly. If it is left-wing academics, X, Y & Z who research right-wing movements, then use their names there. What we have here is the use of weasel words (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Weasel_word) to make a claim appear larger than it actually is.

If I had done that myself, you would have still called it disruptive editing—or by claiming that WP:INTEXT is not necessary as the conspiracy theoretic view is universal—because you don't want the section's basic claim to change. I began adding Gottfried's claims BECAUSE the entire section is based on left-wing name-calling with right-wing primary sources only being used for WP:SYNTHESIS.

Your verbose comments don't lead anywhere, and are often designed to tire the reader, or worse, change the focus away from a particular topic. Your actions seem to be designed to push away editors who don't share your bias or world view. This makes it impossible for anyone to significantly edit the article without being obstructed by you. Anyone who doesn't enter the fray with preconceived notions will find the state of the article and your behavior unacceptable to say the very least. Here's User:N-HH (see talk page) who thinks the section suffers from lack of balance and misdirected emphasis. saying he's unwilling to enter the trenches:

The term goes beyond the Frankfurt School, and beyond the modern "conspiracy theory", so it shouldn't be a subsection on this page, or be focused on modern politics wherever it is. It's connected to this page, to US Culture war and to Critical theory, and there are overlaps, but is a discrete and substantive topic in its own right; a disambiguation page might help, but I think it needs more than that. That said, I don't have the time to invest in what would no doubt be an extended rerun of old debates which would probably end anyway with this unhappy compromise outcome all over again, or something similar. Plus this has slightly gone beyond the RfC ambit, so I'll leave it there.

That's on you, and editors like you who are unable to tolerate an NPOV tag on an obviously controversial section. Last Contrarian (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I've already explained multiple times that it's a) a conspiracy theory to relevant sources cited in the section, b) a theory about a conspiracy to the paleoconservative minority viewpoint, c) that the sighted source for the statement is talking about the mainstream/common usage as being a conspiracy theory and d) that there are multiple examples of it being talked about as a conspiracy theory in the mainstream media:

The Guardian [251], Al Jazeera [252], Salon [253], Fair Observer [254], The New Matilda [255], ArtNet [256], Buzzfeed [257], The Huffington Post [258].

These reoccurring discussions you wish to have will always illicit this same response from me, each and every time, and User:N-HH was saying there wasn't enough left-wing ACADEMIC coverage of the original meaning; the polar opposite of your claim that there isn't enough paleoconservative coverage (even though it already makes up a substantial chunk of the current section); and User:N-HH was quickly able to understand that the section was specifically for the conspiracy theory version of the term (as is explained on the talk page) and to ascertain that I wasn't there to push a political agenda. Unlike yourself versus those horrible rabid left-wing editors. You're grasping at straws here and showing off your failure to WP:LISTEN. --Jobrot (talk) 03:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support Topic/Page ban. Topic ban from Cultural Marxism would be the easiest to manage. I find specific page bans tend to lead to the editor having the same dispute about markedly similar content on a different page. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Ban Jobrot already and topic-ban Ian Thompson and JzG from American Politics for defending him. He does act like he owns the page, he cannot tell the difference between the 1) school of Cultural Marxism 2) tactic commonly known as Cultural Marxism and 3) allegations about the use of the tactic, he judges the reliability of sources by whether they support what he wants the page to say, he takes a battleground stance against anyone who disagrees with him, he refuses to listen, he has never had consensus, he has his pet admins ban dissenters to maintain a false illusion of consensus, and now he shows off the severed heads of banned users to threaten another editor. Jobrot is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. How much more of this is Wikipedia going to take? 71.198.247.231 (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd tag you as an SPA, but it seems more obvious that you're a sock of some editor who didn't get his way. Also, pretending for a moment you're not just WP:HOUNDing Jobrot over some past grievance, recommending that two administrators who've each been here a decade be topic banned from the very broad field of American politics would require some serious evidence of serious misbehavior all around that field. Assuming you're not just trolling or socking around some sort of ban yourself, either you're totally unaware of process here or you're throwing a politically motivated tantrum. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• oppose page ban User:Last Contrarian is a long-standing Wiki editor since 2008. He arrived at the Cultural Marxism just a few days ago, made obviously good faith edits, and appropriately withdrew to an RFC when it became clear that his edits were opposed by two editors. Jobrot is too quick to declare consensus on that RFC, it's only been open three days. There is also an interesting discussion developing at Fringe theories noticeboard. Jobrot argues for guilt by association: i.e. other editors have 'been down this path' (whatever that means), therefore Lost Contrarian must be stopped now? Doesn't make sense. Nothing about his behavior would merit any sort of ban. Also oppose any boomerang, Jobrot's expertise is much appreciated. JerryRussell (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your support re: a boomerang. On that note; I hadn't seen the discussion on the fringe theories board (so thank you for bringing it to my attention) and I've actually now gone to the user page of the one descenting opinion and tried to clarify Marcuses meaning in Repressive Tolerance; as I believe their personal opinion of what he was saying is most certainly a misreading of his actual statements.

As for User:Last Contrarian "withdrawing" to an RfC; expanding to an RfC would be more accurate; and given that they're now repeating the discussion here, and continue to repeat their arguments only to find the same counter-points; I'd hardly say they're a bastion of self-control or having a good editorial nature. Especially considering their numerous violations of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:GOODFAITH on top of the standard failure to WP:LISTEN. As I stated earlier; something must be done. Otherwise this repetitive discussion (which he's now continuing directly above us with me pasting the mainstream media links I already have for the third time now) will simply never ever end. Wikipedia is WP:NOTFORUM, editors have to be WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia on WP:CONSENSUS and not to WP:SOAPBOX without evidence or the capacity to WP:LISTEN to others; as I believe is the case with Last Contrarian. --Jobrot (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support Topic ban from Cultural Marxism. Being competent and experienced means you have the common sense to read the archives on controversial articles and to be in dialogue with the work the community has already done; this exact point has been gone over zillions of times in that article already. Jytdog (talk) 01:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• Editor behaviour is not the primary issue here, the odd set-up of the content is (there was a brief bit of edit-warring, but that seems to be done now). Criticism of this user on the basis that lots of people have gone down "this road" before rather suggests there is a problem with it, doesn't it? As I noted on the talk page after seeing this thread here, it's frankly bizarre that there is no standalone page for a widely referenced concept such as "Cultural Marxism". That would focus on the original, primary use – and the one most commonly encountered in academic and book sources – to describe a trend in Marxist studies to focus on cultural issues as much as economic ones (in part associated with the Frankurt school, but not exclusively so) but also note the modern use of it as a pejorative in some US right-wing circles. I struggle to understand why the original article on the concept was deleted, and why anyone searching for the term on WP (whether they wish to understand more about arcane mid-20th century Marxist theories or uncover more about the pernicious influence of political correctness) instead now ends up on a subsection of the Frankfurt School page debating alleged conspiracy theories. N-HH talk/edits 09:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support page ban. Editor behaviour is most definitely the issue in this case (that's why we're here). Anyone whose seen how often things need to be repeated to Last Contrarian (WP:LISTEN), or noticed their violations of the strong WP:CONSENSUS to refer to Cultural Marxism as a conspiracy theory (reflecting the sources used and mainstream media coverage discussed on the talk page), or who has noted Last Contrarian's description of rabid left wing editors for anyone who disagrees with them in violation of WP:GOODFAITH, or their specific desire to have the audience come away with a positive interpretation of the conspiracy theory (violating WP:NPOV and WP:GEVAL) can clearly see that behaviour is most definitely the issue here. User:N-HH as I stated to you on the talk page; you're welcome to pursue the recreation of the previous page (which had all of 3 sources using the term explicitly) by the usual means but this is not the place to do so. Finally I'd like to note that Culture War topics, as well as Conspiracy Theories attract a higher amount of disruptive editing; this case is no exception; and is most definitely a behavior problem of an editor who is WP:NOTGETTINGIT. --Jobrot (talk) 10:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

...and you should really read WP:NOTGETTINGIT, as it describes this situation perfectly. Hence the blow out of text here and on the talk page; which prior to Last Contrarian's involvement had become relatively sedate and inactive (a 3 month period of relative quiet on the matter dating back to the last Split Proposal in May). --Jobrot (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't deny there might be an issue with editor behaviour, I just said it's not the primary one. The point is any such problems often relate to underlying content problems, especially when that content is an unhappy compromise which people are nonetheless overly invested in, having been immersed in the debate for so long. We're now stuck at "This is what one or two of us have agreed, and we spent ages doing it, so that's that" rather than asking what actually has been agreed and whether it's the right decision (and relying on WP:NOTGETTINGIT to rebut questions can compound this kind of problem). There's also the problem, which afflicts most of WP's politics pages, that people seem more interested in scoring political points than presenting information. Here, we have people who want the page (or rather the section, currently) to go into great detail about how "godless Marxists are taking over" and others, who may indeed currently represent the consensus view, who want it to say "this is all a nutty right-wing conspiracy theory". Some of us just want a clear page explaining Marxist cultural theories and the subsequent polemical use of the term, without judgment and without the topic being buried in modern-day, real-world culture wars. But that's not for ANI of course. N-HH talk/edits 10:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

To clarify; on the talk page currently there is (by my count) an 8 vs 2 consensus in favor of the current section title and lead, and only Last Contrarian is WP:NOTGETTINGIT. That's why I'm here. --Jobrot (talk) 10:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, there's no law against questioning a dubious position that happens to be held by eight random, anonymous WP contributors even if it does amount to a temporary consensus (and let's not forget that the consensus for about eight years previously was to have a separate Cultural Marxism page of the sort I would favour, until all this oddness started a couple of years ago). As I've said, I think the current structure and content is terrible, even if maybe for different reasons to Last Contrarian. Anyway, just as ANI is not the venue for my opinions above about broader problems with WP politics pages, nor should it be a place to get a longstanding editor barred from a page for being on the "wrong" side of a content dispute, absent genuine disruption, abuse or continued edit-warring. N-HH talk/edits 12:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

ANI is the venue to have administrative experts decide on these matters; and I've highlighted the genuine disruptions, bad behavior and violations of policy above. FYI the oddness started around the time that GamerGate (its self a topic that's attracted a large amount of ArbCom sanctions) brought the Culture War to the AfD as "Cultural Marxism" was a favoured explanation of theirs for why feminism had brainwashed society into allowing women to comment on video games. Don't mistake the popularity of the topic outside of Wikipedia for something caused by Wikipedians; if a topic gets attention in the public - it will get attention on Wikipedia. But thank you for clarifying "the law" and that you're "just asking questions". Albeit in the wrong venue as you keep saying; perhaps you should find the right venue. --Jobrot (talk) 13:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you may be missing N-HH's central point here which, if I am reading him correctly, is that we should not put the cart before the horse here. Having looked at the section, the talk page discussion and the history a bit here, I'm inclined to agree that LC may very well be WP:NOTHERE (he's certainly at the least inclined to view both the sources and the editorial decisions of those who oppose his approach through a highly politicized lens). But there are larger issues here, issues which must be resolved on the talk page or other content-oriented areas ultimately, but which are difficult to disentangle from the issues being examined here. To second N-HH's observations and to just be blunt, that section is absolutely awful. The first paragraph is just atrocious, frankly--it's a dense mat of nearly un-parseable academese that is virtually useless to our average reader and seems like it is lifted from someone's (poorly written) personal essay for an undergrad sociology course, in blatant violation of WP:NOTJARGON/WP:NOTESSAY, MOS:JARGON, and just the basic principle of encyclopedic tone. The language then becomes more plain as the section proceeds, but degenerates into a poorly organized and confused narrative of events and perspectives that have impacted the reception of the term.

Now, I don't know how the apparently long-standing independent article looked, but I'm inclined to agree with N-HH on another point--given the breadth of the topic, the multiple over-lapping definitions and usages, and the fact that is not, in even the remotest sense, particular to the Frankfurt School alone in it's relevance, there really should be an independent article. And any content on the subject absolutely must be written in plain, encyclopedic language, not the kind of obtuse sociological idiolect/argot that dominates the early part of the section and reduces it (for all intents and purposes of readers not steeped in that academic culture and its many idioms and idiosyncrasies) to near gibberish. Whatever consensus the regular editors of that article come to regarding what the weight of reliable sources say about the topic--valid cultural term or hyperbolic ultra-con rhetoric, it has to be presented in a better way than it is now. So sure, we could just address the strong and/or outright disruptive outlook of one editor and the potentially polemic nature of the content he wants to add. But what's the point in sorting that out if we are still left with a chunk of prose that still falls well below our quality standards, and is shoe-horned into another article in such a manner as to almost certainly guarantee further arguments on the topic? Snow ^{let's rap} 23:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

If you have looked at the talk page you might note that I've already had this discussion with User:N-HH there, in which I've referred them to previous discussions involving editors sympathetic to your cause; I would suggest that gives you both ample opportunity to collaborate on a draft or other means of achieving your goal should you wish to do so. But as I've stated above (and perhaps you've missed my point here) this is not the venue for that discussion. --Jobrot (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

If we have the time for that. Not everyone does, and as noted it will probably all end up buried anyway under renewed spats involving people obsessed with what they read last week online and wanting to use WP to carry on those fights rather than wanting to understand, let alone explain factually and soberly, the actual history and context of a term and topic. Anyway, I acknowledged that much of this has got beyond the remit of ANI and relates to pretty much insoluble problems with WP, which no venue exists for. Given that, and given that I was also simply trying to point out what ANI is here for and what you or anyone else is likely to get help with, I don't quite see the need for some of the snarkier comments in your previous post. N-HH talk/edits 09:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

It's frustrating to see everyone agreeing that this isn't the appropriate place for this discussion; only to continue the discussion regardless (albeit whilst reminding everyone this isn't the right place). I've made my purpose here clear, and I don't desire to use this ANI as a WP:FORUM. My understanding is that the appropriate place for such discussions would be on talk:Frankfurt School, within a Wikipedia talk:Deletion review or by following the advice given at WP:SALT (ie. speaking to an appropriate admin). But to continue to comment with the protective caveat of "I know this isn't the right place but..." is inappropriate, and as we all agree; falls outside of the scope of this discussion. Frankly the repetition did get to me; so I apologize for any snarkiness in my previous comments. I probably don't need to repeat this again, but just to be absolutely clear; this isn't the right venue and my issue here is with Last Contrarian's behavior, attitude and policy violations on talk:Frankfurt School. --Jobrot (talk) 10:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Well yes, but the point of my acknowledging the discussion had gone off on a bit of a tangent (while nonetheless providing some context to the problem) was precisely to put an end to it, not to be cover for continuing it regardless or to elicit yet more responses in turn. And it takes two to continue a discussion of course. Anyway, any admin reviewing this can probably stop half-way down this thread, review your evidence against LC and make a decision either way about what to do with them. They don't seem to have edited for a few days now anyway. N-HH talk/edits 10:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Jobrot, just because the content issues are ultimately likely to be addressed in talk space does not mean that some discussion of those issues is not necessary for establishing and considering the relevant behavioural issues here--please keep that in mind. Nobody is suggesting ironing the content issues out here, longform, not that I've seen anyway. Nor is anyone suggesting creating a consensus to supplant that generated on the talk page. There's nothing "inappropriate" in the least in referencing the content dispute here to understand the matter better, or even to provide insight that may help the parties sort their differences or consider a compromise solution that will stand them in better and more productive relation to eachother. This just isn't the place where the ultimate consensus needs to be formed and confirmed. But I think everyone presently participating in the discussion is experienced enough to understand that nuance. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

This is a classic attempt to WP:POV_RAILROAD a non-disruptive editor for having the "wrong" ideas. There is at this time no behavioral issue for an administrator to act upon. Jobrot and I had a nice conversation about the Frankfurt school on my talk page recently, so I'm disappointed to see this personalization of a disagreement with another editor on the same topic. One might begin to think that summarizing the reliable sources is taking a back seat in favor of trying to evangelize to editors about the merits of the Frankfurt school. Rhoark (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Rhoark, thanks for this very perceptive comment. I hadn't seen WP:POV_RAILROAD before, and it seems very apropos. I was rather stunned above when, in response to my defense of Last Contrarian, Jobrot piled on with more unmerited accusations of bad faith against LC, and then he went to your talk page to have that 'nice conversation' with you!! I stand by my point, though, that Wiki needs Jobrot's obvious expertise. The essay on POV_RAILROAD pointed to another essay I hadn't seen, as the best answer to a railroad: WP:WIKILOVE, "a term that refers to a general spirit of collegiality and mutual understanding among wikiusers.... if we concentrate on achieving a neutral point of view even when it is difficult, and if we try to actually understand what the other side has to say, then we can reach the state of "WikiLove". JerryRussell (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - On the Frankfurt School talk page Last Contrarian has accused editors of blindly supporting me, and has accused me of making content-less and unmerited replies and of having extreme bias for not supporting the conspiracy theory viewpoint, they've also suggested I was one of the rabid left-wing editors conducting rabid left-wing activity by preventing them from being able to resurrect the article (even though that was an administrative action I'm not capable of), as well as having blamed the current section on stupid editors. All of this is on the talk page should you wish to search it, and is on top of our discussions having been extremely repetitive (due to WP:LISTEN issues). That should go some way to explaining why I'm making the above request for administrative action, and why I'm able to be WP:CIVIL with other editors (as all Wikipedians should be). Even within this AN/I Last Contrarian has accused me of the egregious crime of spending the better part of half an hour [55] leaving replies to comments not addressed to me. I hope this clears up who here is employing the bullying tactics mentioned in WP:POV_RAILROAD, and illustrates that Last Contrarian is not WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia based on WP:CONSENSUS or WP:GOODFAITH. --Jobrot (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jobrot, of course you're right that LC's comments were not perfectly WP:CIVIL. I hope he'll reconsider and apologize. But, his point was logically valid about mainstream right-wing views of CM, and I had to do quite a bit of searching before coming down on the other side of that question. You could easily make a case that there are enough mainstream mentions of CM in a favorable context, to justify his view. I thought the discussion was not so much repetitive, as it was a continuing exploration of the issue. And, a lack of optimum civility is not evidence of lack of good faith, or lack of willingness to respect consensus. You also mentioned that although LC has been around Wiki a long time, he hasn't done so much editing around highly controversial topics. So, perhaps 'keep experienced editors' and 'don't bite the newbies' would both apply?

I'm not that much of an old hand around here, either. This is the first time I've participated in one of these ANI discussions. What sort of ban would be typical? Are we talking about just a few days, a month, a year, forever? JerryRussell (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Personally I'd say their attitude towards other users is endemic of having bad faith, and that their stated desire to give the audience a positive interpretation of the conspiracy theory version of Cultural Marxism is WP:NPOV and seeks to go against WP:CONSENSUS. Given they only sporadically edit wikipedia (with 1 and 2 year gaps in their history); I'd say a page ban would probably benefit the community without hindering Last Contrarian's efforts elsewhere. The duration is at the discretion of the admins, I just feel it's necessary due to the volume and spread of their comments and actions (with Last Contrarian having made derogatory comments to all editors and not just myself). --Jobrot (talk) 06:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

• Findings: (1) This is a content dispute. (2) The RfC was only started on 16 August, only two days prior to the filing of this ANI. (3) Edit-warring is dealt with at WP:ANEW, not at ANI. Please let the RfC run its full 30 days, and then have an uninvolved admin close it. Simple. Now can an admin close this thread before it grows another 60,000 bytes? -- Softlavender (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The consensus here (Guy, Cameron11598, Only in death does duty end, Jytdog and myself all supporting a page ban) goes against your "findings"; also I put in a request for admin closure days ago (on the required noticeboard). Replying to this thread after 2 days of quiet is not likely to make it shorter or quieter. --Jobrot (talk) 22:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

To repeat, the RfC was opened 16 August, and needs to run the full 30 days. It's not a clear-cut issue and there should not be an assessment or declaration of "consensus" until that 30-day period is complete. An ANI should not have been opened while an RfC is running, much less after it has only been open 2 days. If anyone is edit-warring on the article, that should be dealt with at WP:ANEW. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

30 days is the maximum default time frame for an RfC due to bot-intervention; it's not a required time frame (see WP:RFCEND). Anyone (admin or user) can close the RfC (due to overwhelming consensus in favor of keep) and then an admin can close the ANI. --Jobrot (talk) 01:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: RfCs usually run for 30 days. There's no need to hurry. Wait for people to weigh in. All other drama is beside the point. While the RfC is going on, the article must stay in the prior stable version: edit-warring isn't permitted. WP:EW noticeboard handles requests which fall short of violating WP:3RR as well. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

1. Jobrot slyly called Last Contrarian a Nazi

Above where Jobrot threatens to have Last Contrarian banned, he says "This road has been trodden before by SecondDark, Kaffeburk, Achinoam, Ideloctober and various IP users." Achinoam has not participated in the Cultural Marxism dispute. Achinoam has participated in the subjects of Stormfront, David Duke, and Jewish Bolshevism. By including Achinoam in that list, Jobrot implies that Last Contrarian and the others are Nazis. This is the propaganda method of association.

Jobrot did not participate in the Achinoam ANI thread. That thread was started by Dave Dial who also appeared at Jobrot's last ANI thread to support Jobrot's call to ban Second Dark and to accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist. This suggests offsite tag-teaming. 71.198.247.231 (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Here is Achinoam disputing your claim [259]. --Jobrot (talk) 10:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

2. Jobrot is here to fight a Gamergate war and not to build an encyclopedia

In the last thread I noted that the changes to the Cultural Marxism page were so bad they made the news. Jobrot responded by describing the news article's author David Auerbach as a "GamerGate" conspiracy theorist. I have also been told that the changes to the Cultural Marxism article began after Alexander Macris, editor of The Escapist, described a political tactic used in GamerGate as "Cultural Marxism" and cited sources to support his position.

Information which has been brought to my attention, which I will not link to due to the outing policy, connects Jobrot to an offsite account that participates in the anti-GamerGate community "GamerGhazi" and has a history of trolling the GamerGate community "KotakuInAction" and trolling people in other forums who use the phrase "Cultural Marxism" as if he searches the site for anyone using the term so that he can troll them.

Between this and the attempt to merge Cultural Marxism with Cultural Bolshevism it is clear that Jobrot is here on a political mission to make Wikipedia redefine Cultural Marxism as "a conspiracy theory used by Nazis" so as to prematurely discredit anyone who discusses the use of the tactic. He came here, or was brought here, because of Gamergate. 71.198.247.231 (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Every single one of those sources has been addressed on the talk page/archives and in the AfD. In summary; Weiner states he's sighting people who "fall ideologically outside the cultural Marxism movement" - Dennis Dworkin states that his "…account is the first intellectual history to study British cultural Marxism conceived as a coherent intellectual discipline" - the Jameson source doesn't use the term "Cultural Marxism" at all except for in the title. Frederic Miller and Agnes F. Vandome states on the cover "Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia"… besides which the current section already covers the academic sense of the term and is (as the title suggests) dedicated to the conspiracy theory version of the term. If you want to re-create the old article; you should do that through the usual means. But yes; "Cultural Marxism" was an informal WP:UNDUE term that pre-dated the Culture War usage as described here and in the current section. Pointing to Area 51 does not prove Roswell aliens exist. Pointing to the existence of the World Trade Center doesn't prove the New World Order exists. If you really want to know what the Frankfurt School were about; I recommend this 8 part series by Peter Thompson: [260], [261], [262], [263], [264], [265], [266], [267]. But you won't find anything about them being responsible for modern politics, taking over Hollywood and the media or trying to dominate the world written in there. They were in fact; individual anti-fascist Cultural Theorists from the 1960s. Nothing more, nothing less, and definitely not a communist nor feminist plot to bring down western society as the conspiracy theory or GamerGate claims. --Jobrot (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

3. Jobrot lies about everything

• "unambiguous" - wrong
• "uninvolved" - wrong
• "consensus" - wrong
• "personal viewpoint" - wrong
• "disruptive" - wrong

Jobrot proves the lack of consensus with his own list of editors he had banned or scared away. The opening paragraph to this section looks a lot different if you read it as "There is longstanding support for Last Contrarian's position and a wide variety of sources supporting him but I had my friends ban everyone who said so by claiming they were Nazis." 71.198.247.231 (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

4. Ian Thomson refuses to listen

Above, Ian Thomson says "no counter sources are ever provided to show that anyone outside of the far-right regards it as a reality." Anyone reading the discussions from afd onward can see that at least a dozen sources have been provided from across the political spectrum. The entire edit war began after Macris gave a list of sources. Rhoark posted ten sources on the Fringe Theories noticeboard. I have given a source from the 1950s which said that the same tactic we call Cultural Marxism today was well known and hardly needed an introduction and gave an example of its use in Eastern Europe. Several people said that their political science classes covered it. This is neither fringe nor far-right. 71.198.247.231 (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Rhoark pasted 10 links with an WP:OR claim attached, the issue was later discussed and clarified on their user talk page. --Jobrot (talk) 10:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

5. Ian Thomson is Jobrot's meatpuppet

Have another look at the Kaffeburk and Ideloctober threads. After Kaffeburk and Ideloctober explain how Jobrot is violating policy, Ian Thomson jumps in to accuse them of a lack of competence and not being here to build the encyclopedia. These personal attacks from an admin heavily taint the discussions against these users. 71.198.247.231 (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh look, this thread has been posted on an outside GamerGate related forum: [268]. --Jobrot (talk) 01:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to ban 71.198.247.231?

He's an SPA whose only purpose here seems to be to get Jobrot banned. Likely a sock of someone Job annoyed in the past.74.70.146.1 (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

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

User:MTrilochan: violation of unblock conditions

I blocked this user for spamming last week. Following this, they were unblocked after explicitly agreeing to not write about their business. However, User:MTrilochan/sandbox does exactly that.

Please also revoke talk page access for blatant dishonesty. MER-C 10:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

While it's true they agreed not to write about their business, their sandbox article is a considerably improved attempt over their deleted Draft. I'd be willing to AGF and let them work on/submit that; a sandbox article isn't causing any harm and I wouldn't even say it qualifies for G11. Sam Walton (talk) 11:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• As Sam Walton says: they agreed not to write about their business; that seems pretty explicit, and as such, a pretty explicit breach of their assurances. As we say to everyone else- if it's notable, someone(else) will write about it. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

While I don't disagree, they agreed not to write about their business because they weren't doing so neutrally. They have now written a fairly neutral - if not great - article, so I think that while the literal word of the unblock condition has indeed been violated, re-blocking them would accomplish very little. Sam Walton (talk) 11:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. Having now actually looked at the page you link to, I see it's not bad (and, indeed, there's far worse here already). Think it could probably do without most of the stuff below the 'History' section, condensed into a sentence or two perhaps, and that that opening section itself needs to avoid terms like "They successfully XYZ". As for the block question, yep, it would probably be punative now. Cheers, _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I am currently helping the user on IRC. He is writing in a neutral fashion. He misinterpreted what an admin told him, that's why he made the draft. But, I don't see a point in blocking him, as he is editing constructively. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

In that case I would advise making the edits suggested. From one content contributor to another :) _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Worth a note that I stumbled upon this after the editor asked on IRC - I moved to draftspace before realising the user's history (resulting in a bit of a mess). They seem confused as to why this is going on -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 11:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

In an effort to assume some good faith (with understanding that I am unfamilar with the reasons why the editor was blocked in the first place), I have removed the CSD tags placed upon the sandbox -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 11:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Patrick.net

I wanted to request some additional eyes at Patrick.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as well as the related AfD discussion.

The article was nominated for AfD; since then some additional third-party refs have been added to the article, and article improvement appears to be ongoing. But, over the weekend, the forum posted a discussion soliciting their members to comment in the AfD.[269] I tagged the AfD discussion with {{not a ballot}}; but also had to purge some cruft that had been added by one of the contributors to that website.[270] Given those developments, some additional monitoring of the pages would be helpful. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, be prepared for the flood of SPA's. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I've watchlisted it, and I'll try to revert any more of the SPAs that keep adding poor sources to the article. Omni Flames (talk) 11:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Patrick.net

I wanted to request some additional eyes at Patrick.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as well as the related AfD discussion.

The article was nominated for AfD; since then some additional third-party refs have been added to the article, and article improvement appears to be ongoing. But, over the weekend, the forum posted a discussion soliciting their members to comment in the AfD.[271] I tagged the AfD discussion with {{not a ballot}}; but also had to purge some cruft that had been added by one of the contributors to that website.[272] Given those developments, some additional monitoring of the pages would be helpful. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, be prepared for the flood of SPA's. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I've watchlisted it, and I'll try to revert any more of the SPAs that keep adding poor sources to the article. Omni Flames (talk) 11:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Vandal IP (104.174.75.136)

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

---

With a background of vandalism on different pages, he recently made another vandal edit here. I think he needs to be taken care of by an admin. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

That's not a vandal edit, and I'm not convinced it is incorrect. The word "without" was odd there and doesn't seem to belong; the sentence certainly makes more sense in the absence of that word. Softlavender (talk) 05:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

On the article TP, I explained why it was a vandal edit and why your revert were wrong. In fact you changed a long standing version, into a sentence with a completely different meaning. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, we've now got that confusing wording sorted out with entirely new wording per the citation. However, the IP's edit wasn't vandalism per se as far as I can tell. They had a history of vandalism up until their last block, but this single edit since the block expired proves nothing. Perhaps they got the message or they've had a change of heart. Either way, it would take actual repeated vandalism to block them at present, in my opinion. And if that happens, the place to report it is WP:AIV. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I had not checked his block log. Anyway thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Militant IP "can't accept" IOC removing medals from Russia due to doping

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

---

Some sort of pro-Russia IP 95.133.211.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just doesn't like to see Russia being stripped of medals due to doping by the IOC (International Olympic Committee). He will keep reverting compulsively any update people will do trying to conform with new IOC rulings. It doesn't matter if multiple sources have said that Russia has been stripped of medals and other countries have been upgraded in the ranking after that, he will claim that the medals are not with the athletes yet, or something alike. At first, I thought that he had a poor grasp of the idiom of the sources (English), but after seeing the multiple conflicts in his talk page, which he deletes, I have no doubt that he is just a militant IP, not concerned with facts, but with a political agenda. Any medal stripped from Russia and, voilà, our friend will be there reverting the edit and telling people that it's not really like that, that the medals are still with Russia somehow. Thanks. MarcosPassos (talk)

MarcosPassos, diffs please? This revert looks reasonable - where's the IOC confirmation? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Neil, the IOC did strip the wrestler of his medal: [273], [274]. That 2nd article also says that the silver was award to Dutt. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Situation about India is non-confirmed officially also. [275] "However, the official confirmation will have to come from UWW and IOC". See history of India at the 2012 Summer Olympics and talk page. Some editors wrongly change India's silver medals count in the different articles. 95.133.211.190 (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Hello! The Russian women's 4 × 100 metres and 4 × 400 metres relay teams were disqualified for doping from 2008 Summer Olympics. But the redistribution of medals has not yet been announced! The official statements: [276] [277] Any words about the redistribution. Stripping of the medals doesn't mean the redistribution of that medals by default. It's need the official confirmation. So, if IOC or IAAF confirm the redistribution, we will change the medal table accordingly. As of now, there no official sources which say about the upgraded medals. The medals were stripped from Russia only, and this fact was reflected in all related wikipedia articles, see Russia at the 2008 Summer Olympics, Athletics at the 2008 Summer Olympics, Athletics at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Women's 4 × 100 metres relay, Athletics at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Women's 4 × 400 metres relay. But the medals have not been redistributed as of now. Official sources [278] [279] say, The Russian Federation Team is disqualified from the Women’s 4x100m / 4x400m relay. The corresponding medals and diplomas are withdrawn and shall be returned. The IAAF is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned events accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence. There are no any words about the upgraded medals for Brazil, Nigeria, etc. In the 2008 Summer Olympics medal table, you can see the stripped from Russia medal in the "List of official changes" and other possible changes in the "List of possible changes". It's a correct. The sources cited by MarcosPassos [280] [281] say, Belgium stand to be upgraded to gold and Nigeria to silver with Brazil taking bronze. So, await for the official confirmation of the "any further action" from IAAF. 95.133.211.190 (talk) 20:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the stripping can be obviously sourced and the redistribution can't (yet). This does not look like a matter for ANI. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Can't yet? What is "The IAAF is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned events accordingly" supposed to mean? It's done, the IOC won't comment anymore on that. MarcosPassos (talk)

It means, the medals were stripped from Russia, and the IAAF is requested to modify the Russia's results as noted above. As of now, it does not mean "Brazil received a bronze medals". It means, await for official confirmation from IAAF. For example, in some events (Women's 53 kg, Women's 63 kg, Women's 75 kg etc.) more than one medalists are under the investigation due to the doping cases. Read Athletics at the 2000 Summer Olympics – Women's 100 metres, for example, very interesting historical nonsense. 95.133.211.190 (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) According to whatever process they have in place (e.g., testing the potential new winners). The IP wants clearer sources and that is a content dispute, not something for ANI. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The sources are clear. And I'm not talking about a particular weightlifting event in which there are multiple doping cases STILL being investigated, the events above have had their medals already reallocated to other countries, the cases are closed, and the IAAF doesn't have to "confirm" anything, because they just "obey" the IOC, and the order of the IOC was very clear. If we accept what the ip wants, these pages won't ever be updated. MarcosPassos (talk)

Here is the example of the similar situation. On 24 March 2016, the Court of Arbitration for Sport disqualified Yuliya Zaripova for doping and confirmed that she would be stripped of her gold medal in women's 3000 metres steeplechase. [282] On 4 June 2016, the gold medal was officially reallocated to second place Habiba Ghribi from Tunisia by IOC, [283] and IAAF updated the results. [284]. So, we have two different cases: 1) stripping, 2) redistribution. 95.133.211.190 (talk) 21:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

MarcosPassos, so all you have to do is use the good sources that clearly state who has officially received the medals (not who is likely going to) in the article or present them on the articles' talk pages for discussion. Whatever the case, we're not going to sanction the IP for bringing up points that can be considered valid. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

But I've already done that several times. To no avail. Pretty much all situations above have articles telling which countries have received the medals. This one, for example. It's stated there, very clearly, "Belgium will now be listed as the gold medal winner, with Nigeria winning silver and Brazil now winning bronze.", yet if I change the page, he will almost automatically revert it, because Russia. If that's not vandalism, I don't know what it is. But it's alright, I rest my case. MarcosPassos (talk)

Okay, that source makes a definitive statement. Have you used it before? I briefly scanned your edits and the sources you were using were less clear. And before posting here, perhaps you could posted to somewhere like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics to see what other editors thought? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Will be listed are the keywords. Will be listed or not, it's a crystall ball. That's why Brazil and Nigeria are in the list of possible changes in medal standings. The reliable sources here are not the tabloids but IOC and IAAF only. IOC did not change anything [285] [286] and IAAF did not change anything [287] [288]. Wait until the confirmation from IOC or IAAF. I think it will take a month or two. 95.133.211.190 (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

And that can be discussed elsewhere, yes? Anyone else think behavior needs to be addressed here? If not, perhaps this thread can be closed? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I've only brought this here because everyone has been trying to update the medals for days now, given the IOC new rulings, but this single IP keeps reverting the updates like crazy, he's the only one doing that. He's been reverting pretty much all medal updates involving Russia for days, just check his edits. And he will just keep doing that, sources are of no use for him, because he always find a way to ignore them. Thus, the Russian medals have been stripped and given to other countries in the real world, but I guess just not in wikipedia. Why? Because this ip feels sad when Russia loses a medal. It's hilarious, actually. LOL. MarcosPassos (talk)

Saying something "will be" done is not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL as there is a source for it. Saying some thing will be done without any reliable sources would be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. The IP, which geolocates to the Ukraine, may want to mull on that. It'd make sense to have a mention of the decision in the text of the article but once the transfer has been completed, then the table can be updated. Blackmane (talk) 02:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not "will be done", because the medals have already been stripped from Russia in the cases above, and they are given automatically to the next countries in the ranking after the final report on the removal of the medal. So, the correct thing to do, the thing that everyone was actually doing (just not our friendly ip) is to update the medals using the multiple sources available. When the IOC says something like "The IAAF is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned events accordingly", the case is closed, but the ip's strategy is to keep waiting for something that we don't quite know what it is, so his Russia will keep the medals until we find what he wants, which is never. And thanks for saying that he is from Ukraine, it makes even more sense now. MarcosPassos (talk)

It's a direct quote of the source, is what I'm getting at. My point that there is no two ways about it as it is a sourced statement. Blackmane (talk) 03:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Again to MarcosPassos. I don't like Russia or Brazil, I like the correct information only. Medals were stripped from Russia, and this fact was reflected in all articles already: Russia at the 2008 Summer Olympics, Athletics at the 2008 Summer Olympics, Athletics at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Women's 4 × 100 metres relay, Athletics at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Women's 4 × 400 metres relay. False to say "Russia will keep the medals per IP" (please show, in which article??) In all articles Russia' medals count was decreased. But the medals are not given automatically to the next countries in the ranking (simlar how the summer rumors in football are not the transfers). You are from Brazil and you want to add bronze medal to Brazil, of course. But it's need the IOC or IAAF special decision about redistribution. Do you have the sources from IOC or IAAF about "Brazil was awarded bronze". No. As of now, all posible changes listed in the "List of possible changes in medal standings". Also, typical event articles say, for example: "If confirmed, Yogeshwar Dutt of India will have his bronze medal upgraded to silver". Nothing wrong. Your edits were reverted also by another users [289] For similar situation, see also: India at the 2012 Summer Olympics, page history and talk page. 95.133.211.190 (talk) 10:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. This dispute has been flickering on my watchlist for a while. Basically, it appears to boil down to: A) one group of people who believe Olympic medal lists and counts should be updated as soon as the IOC issues a final ruling announcing that an athlete should be stripped of their medal for doping, and B) an IP (and maybe a couple others) who believe that medal lists and counts should always match the medal tables appearing on the IOC's website. Honestly, I stayed out of it because I feel sympathy for both sides. It appears that the IOC's info pages about past outcomes are not quickly updated to match the IOC's own proclamations about disqualifications. I'm not sure if the delay is meaningful, e.g. that the delay is there to allow for a possible appeal to the Court of Arbitration of Sport and/or other details to be ironed out, or if the delay is merely because whoever manages the IOC's info pages only performs updates sporadically. (Personally, I would tend to guess the latter, but I don't really know.) Unfortunately, our medal tables and counts don't provide much room for nuance. Either country X has Y medals or they have Y-1 medals. Either approach can make a claim towards being accurate, reasonable, and supported by IOC sources. An approach that relies of IOC judgment announcements is perhaps more timely, but would be more difficult to verify than an approach that relies on the IOC summary tables. I'm not sure which approach is better, but I do think there needs to be a consensus on which approach Wikipedia is going to use. That consensus should be documented somewhere, and both sides would need to respect it. Dragons flight (talk) 10:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Bad bot edits

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

---

• 2016-08-29T02:39:41 User:GreenC bot deleted a working archive link! (I undid it.)
• 2016-08-29T23:19:29 It kept on doing it!
• I'm asking administrators to pull the plug and not give it back until GreenC bot reviews and repairs EVERY page it damaged. (Most are easy to find - look for reduced byte count.) -A876 (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The above is an over-reaction to a single (1) error (the "kept on doing it" is not an error). Bot problems should first be reported to the bot operator and attempt to work it out. If that can't be resolved, then it should be taken to the Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group. This bot has been approved and extensively tested on 100s of thousands of articles. If there are errors please report them and I will research and correct it. This is the first you have reported the problem, and the first interaction I have ever had with you. -- GreenC 17:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Update: You found "a cluster of about 20 articles, in a row, that had false-positive deletion of links" due to "bad data from the Wayback API". And then you (not the bot) "reverted the edits by the bot".
• I found no place to report a bot! I refuse to search in vain forever, so I dropped it here. The BAG page is no place to report a bot, and it links to no such place. Administration goes authorizing bots, but then doesn't bother to keep score or invite feedback.
  • A876 you can report bots at the Bot owners' noticeboard if discussion with the owner proves unproductive or the issue is urgent for example. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 05:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
• Perhaps I over-reacted. It's not all you. The last time I saw someone try to stop a robot, the operator basically replied "blow me". I essayed about it. The operator didn't grace it with a reply, and then archived it. The operator was making [unnecessary] changes in anticipation of a change that (get this) he happened to be refereeing. (Never heard the word "recuse"?) (When you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.) That's why I raised a broader alarm this time. Attempt[ing] to work it out was simply a joke on me.
• The lack of STOP buttons that anyone can edit (instant off, and then the owner can turn it back on after checking) still galls me. The current scheme (robot stays on until its owner sees the humble STOP plea, deigns to read it, and might deign to agree) is insane. (So I felt obliged to place my humble STOP plea in two locations.) I don't get to automate my mistakes and fill up other people's hard drives, and I sure have a STOP button. I had deduced that the bot was idle, but not from viewing User:GreenC bot, where you hadn't marked the current run "Job completed" and still haven't, except oops, it's running again, so I guess the job was only paused.
  • The bot is AWB-based, posting on its talk causes it to halt. That's the stop button, simply posting a message. -- GreenC 14:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
• I notice that GreenC bot does useful work that resembles the errant work. My report of its "Antioch, California" edit was incorrect. The removal of archive there is probably helpful because Wayback no longer serves the [still-archived] page because the original site changed its "robots.txt", like many sites have been doing. (But I didn't learn that from your reaction. You ambiguously referred to my report as 'the "kept on doing it"' (as if it was something I emitted rather than said), which led me to mis-parse it as you saying that keeping on doing an error is not another error. I checked the page, saw the edit un-reverted, and then checked the archive link myself.) -A876 (talk) 03:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• GreenC, can I recommend before you put this bot into fifth gear, could you modify its edit summaries to mean something useful per other bots which justify an action and tag it with a reference code? My mind-reading skills aren't so good these days, I'm afraid. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The bot is AWB external process based, I have asked for a feature to allow for external scripts to send an edit summary but to no avail so far. There is a link to the bot page, which describes what it does. Not sure what a ref code is. -- GreenC 14:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

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

IP-hopping stalker is back

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

---

86.187.171.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the latest IP of the troll described here on ANI and and here on WP:EFR. AccountForANI (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Rollbacked, that's all I can do, admins? -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 17:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. CIreland (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• 86.187.168.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) And there's another one. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 18:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
• 86.187.171.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Wackamole continues! -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 19:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Pages protected by Thehelpfulone and by Widr. I've left a note at EFR to see if they can get that filter working. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 19:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Couple of issues with false positives, but its still got our attention and we're trying a couple of different things -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 19:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Live and disallowing at Special:AbuseFilter/792 with thanks to MusikAnimal. Please do let us know if anything gets through -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 19:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Think one got through: 86.187.170.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) AccountForANI (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
        • Noted, looks like MA has already updated the filter, and a batch test looks good -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 20:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Clinton Foundation

Many editors are raising concerns about the biased writing that had turned the Clinton Foundation article into a fluff piece. Some much-needed editing has begun to be undertaken to eliminate the fluff from the article. However, after I suggested that we consider an RfC to make sure that the needed clean-up to the article will be made by unbiased editors, an editor shut down the entire talk page thread. Can somebody look into this ? Given that the talk page thread got shut down exactly points to why I though that there was a need for an RfC.. Thank you. --maslowsneeds🌈 16:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• FWIW, I had a bit of a run in with this user a few days ago when they attempted to simply remove another user's comment because they disagreed with it. It does seem they are a touch overzealous when it comes to attempts at unofficially moderating talk page discussion. TimothyJosephWood 17:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • That first thread should have been deleted, closed, or archived, and the editor starting it (and this complaint) either warned, or depending on their editing history, blocked, indeffed, topic banned, or referred to SPI — a familiar screed against the editors on the page, accusing them of working for the Clinton campaign or some similar nonsense that plagues the American politics articles every four years. The second thread deletion was perhaps overzealous in removing what was becoming a BLPVIO. A warning, proposed close, and archive might have worked better, but that second editor too is getting out of hand on the political articles. Several editors had to repeatedly redact, and ultimately close, that thread because the promoter of that thread was getting into conspiracy theories involving Hillary Clinton, the Orlando shooter, and the shooter's father. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Given that you apparently think that everybody is running an agenda on the Clinton Foundation article, don't you then therefore believe that the fair course of action to take would be to raise an RfC, so that outside editors can suggest/make edits ? --maslowsneeds🌈 17:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
    • The first thread seems a great deal like "ending a discussion over the objections of other editors" by someone who is already fairly involved in the discussion. The second was simply contrary to WP:TPO, and ended up being a protracted discussion and a currently open RfC. The RfC seems likely to fail, which is fine, but that's how you decide consensus, not by unilaterally dictating what discussions are and are not worth having. TimothyJosephWood 17:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Why come to the defense of the disruptive editors? Involved or not, cleaning a talk page of content-free screeds accusing the editing community of bad faith is necessary work. Similarly, dealing with people proposing BLP-violating conspiracy theories is necessary work — the editor proposing the nonsense promoted the pointless RfC, not the editors dealing with it. The decision on which discussions are worth having is set by policy and talk page guidelines having to do with collaborative editing an encyclopedia. Article talk pages are not forums for editors to taunt and swipe at each other. That's what AN/I is for. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
        • Because both actions were fairly evidently against 1) guidance on the use of Template:Collapse, and 2) policy regarding editing other's comments? I figured that would have been fairly clear from my comment above. TimothyJosephWood 18:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
          • In the present case, deleting, collapsing, or archiving a clearly disruptive thread is the preferred action. In the earlier case, the disruptive editor could possibly use some mentorship, guidance, or administrative caution. In both, coming to the defense of the disruption, or trying to scold the editors who are doing something about it, only encourages it. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
            • In the present case, the thread was started by a user with 22k edits and a clean block log, so I think it's a little presumptuous to stamp it as clearly disruptive and stifle discussion. They certainly could have gone about things in a more constructive way, and that can be addressed, but if someone wants to open a discussion about POV, there's nothing self-evidently inappropriate about that.

At the end of the day, circumventing policy to end personally distasteful discussion, is probably part of the reason frustrated editors end up resorting to accusations of systemic bias in the first place...because...well...if stifling discussion in this way is a recurring theme, that's pretty much the definition of a systemic bias. Either way, it's fairly clearly against policy. TimothyJosephWood 18:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Managing talk page discussions is clearly supported by policy. Further, if you compare outcomes, your interpretation of coddling disruptive editors increases disruption; mine avoids it. That's the point of policy to begin with. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you need to take some time to actually review the relevant policies and guidelines I've linked to. TimothyJosephWood 19:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

So you've run out of arguments? Fair enough. My point stands. Broad screeds accusing the body of editors of being paid employees of a political party have no place on political article talk pages. The correct response to minimize disruption and encourage orderly article editing is to remove, archive, or collapse these promptly. Personally, I would archive in place after a warning, but if the editor is a repeat offender best to follow the lessons of WP:DENY. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

And DENY is an essay (not policy) about vandalism (which this isn't). Please see WP:RTP and note that both the refactoring and the failure of the editor to self revert when someone took issue are both against guidance there. Please review guidance at WP:TPO and note that refactoring should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors. TimothyJosephWood 19:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

No, you have it backwards. Broadside attacks on other editors should be archived and BLP violations removed, even if over the obvious and inevitable objections of editors causing the disruption. Throwing up a wall of misplaced policy defenses to clearly inappropriate use of the talk pages simply encourages disruption, and doing so here on AN/I encourages people to waste our time with frivolous reports. The bottom line of this incident is that an editor who should know better shouldn't be making those accusations on article talk pages, there is some concern there about possible sockpuppeting, and as we've discussed on other pages it sometimes takes a little patience and finesse to keep the talk pages in order without unduly biting or inciting the people who don't have the hang of it. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Point of order : I'm not requesting a RfC about the breakdown in communication on the Talk Page. I'm requesting the RfC for editors without a vested interest in keeping the fluff in the article to ensure neutrality of the article. That is what an RfC is supposed to achieve : Bring in outsiders to offer an uninterested perspective. maslowsneeds🌈 20:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

You're requesting a conduct RfC which is pointless. If you have a specific edit you'd like made, either to remove or add content, then start an RFC on that. If you have numerous edits that you think would make the article more neutral, start a complex RFC on that. Otherwise, if you want to just gripe about whether or not there is a class of editors with a bias on that page, that's not the appropriate place. If it's sockpuppetry, that's for WP:SPI. If it's NPOV, then it's a content issue. If it's purely one-sided disruptive behavior from someone, then WP:AE can be a remedy. It is subject to general sanctions so if there's a violation of 1RR or other issues, then it's best to just let non-involved admins police it but general complaints about "bias" go nowhere. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not a conduct RfC. This article needs to be updated. If I were to make updates to improve its neutrality, I would be flagged and reported, and the article would be put on lockdown, and you know it. I have asked for extra eyes from this page, because of indication that there have been bias edits made to that article that turned the article into a fluff piece. I came here in good faith prior to making a request for an RfC, bc somebody, who is independent of the politics of that page should update the article. As it stands, since I have mentioned the need for an RfC, the relevant thread on the Talk Page was shut down, and now who knows how many other threads were just purged from the Talk Page. Does Wikipedia countenance this kind of obvious shilling ? maslowsneeds🌈 22:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Just a heads up but pulling the ole shill gambit generally doesn't end well. Capeo (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. If you aren't going to even start an RFC and tell people what content you want changed, this will go nowhere fast. There is no point to an RFC that is basically "hmm, this article is bad, right?" -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

An article on the Clinton Foundation that makes no mention of the Clinton Family Foundation? I think I will look elsewhere for information on the topic. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Not sure why that should be mentioned, aside from a "not to be confused with" kind of disclaimer.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• I don't know anything about the specific discussion in question (I'm not masochistic enough to look at it) but it's well known and documented that the Clinton campaign (more accurately I believe it's being done by a separate PAC) has a large internet operation (sometimes called a "troll army") working to push a pro-Clinton POV on various social media sites and stifle criticism. We have a brief mention at Correct the Record and there's more info here. It would surprise me if they're not also active on Wikipedia. So if someone is acting that way, then thinking they might be connected with CTR is a plausible and defensible belief. 50.0.205.96 (talk) 08:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not "well known", it's an idiotic conspiracy theory. Gawd, the stupidest things on the internet are exactly those which are "well known".Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Article talk pages are for discussing article improvement, not for voicing allegations about editor behavior and making claims about the influence of outside organizations. So I hatted (not deleted) the discussion. If any administrator disagrees with this action and/or needs a response from me, please leave a comment on my talk page because I am not going to be monitoring this silly discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

This has gotten ridiculous. User:Maslowsneeds (and one or two other ... over-zealous, editors) has managed to convince themselves that there are super-sekrit-Clinton-operatives busy editing the Clinton Foundation article. Here are some of the relevant personal attacks and comments which accuse others of bad faith: [290], [291], [292] (a reference to a Clinton PAC which conspiracy theorists believe is editing Wikipedia - it's an accusations that other editors are "paid shills"), [293] (ditto), [294], [295] and few others. Another user who has been doing the same thing is User:Bloodofox.

I've asked the user to stop doing this as, to put it mildly, it's sort of annoying to be constantly accused of some nefarious doings, and to have your good faith questioned. They haven't gotten the message, engaging in your good ol' WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. So yeah, it's not surprising that the talk page discussion hasn't gotten anywhere.

There's really three ways this is going to end. One: the best outcome - that someone successfully explains to maslowneeds and bloodoffox that this is unacceptable behavior, they listen, and they stop. It looks like this will have to be done by someone other than myself, since they've convinced themselves I worked for the Clinton campaign or something (obviously, I don't). Two: this behavior continues and we wind up going to WP:AE, where the user is most likely to be topic-banned. WP:AE reports are a pain to write up and there's always lots of acrimonious discussion so this outcome is best avoided. Three: this WP:BOOMERANGs on the original poster right here, they get a short block and hopefully this gets it through to them that not everyone who disagrees with them is paid to do so.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I would be surprised if there are no editors on the Clinton campaign's payroll editing the article - would seem like a sloppy campaign if they leave that to coincidence.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I think as Wikipedia editors we often overestimate our importance. And I really haven't seen anything suspicious, so if there are they're probably doing minor clean up things or something.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

User not assuming good faith

Abcmaxx doesn't seem to be assuming good faith. Four good examples are as follows:

1. In the first example, they, in their own way, say that most editors on Wikipedia are "holier than thou". (That's what I got from the first part, anyway.) I've clarified this point and a couple other things below. See my comment with the green text. -- Gestrid (talk) 01:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
2. In my second example, the editor is not assuming good faith with another editor. He seems to go so far as (in my opinion) insulting the other editor. The discussion also shows that the other editor knows what AGF is, as they use it as a defense.
3. In the third example, the editor borderline insults (in my opinion) an editor who reviewed their draft, Draft:Adana derby (The draft was deleted moments ago under WP:G4 while I was preparing this. I apologize for the inconvenience.), which is apparently a recreation of a deleted page (Adana derby). There was a discussion related to this draft at WP:THQ#Draft: Adana derby and previous deletions, where I found out about Abcmaxx.
4. In my final example, I left a template warning about the third example on Abcmaxx's talk page. Because I was personally involved in this example, I'll leave it up to your interpretation.

-- Gestrid (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

In an effort to keep this discussion as fair as possible, I have not pinged any other involved editors, other than the editor this discussion is about. If someone else believes they should be pinged, feel free to do so. -- Gestrid (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what the hell the problem is. Any edit (and none of them qualify for vandalism or disruprive or any of the other crap I get accussed) I do seems warrant a warning mesaage and an immediate threat without an explanation. Any reaction it is just taken as an insult. Either take the time to explain stuff without having to resort to questioning/threatening me on every edit I make or just leave me the alone. I'm allowed to submit as many drafts as I like btw and what I like and if you reject them it should be for a different reason than "i don't like it" or "i re-hased the same argument over again" Abcmaxx (talk) 21:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Abcmaxx, you appear to be an experienced editor who has created many articles, so why still use AfC? You could move the article to mainspace yourself and not have to go through the hassle of review. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The reason why User:Abcmaxx submitted the draft via AfC is obvious. Their article had already been deleted three times, so that, by submitting it to AfC, they were trying to game the system and get it past a reviewer. They knew that if they just moved the draft to mainspace, it would probably get another WP:G4, or at least a third nomination for deletion, and were trying to pull a fast one. When the reviewer noticed that it had been deleted three times, and as a result declined it, they chose to insult the reviewer, saying that I hadn't reviewed it (which I had). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

As has been noted many times before, White Arabian Filly there is no need to place "non-admin comment" in front of your comment. Feel free to remove this notice (I guess?) and preferably redact your NAC declaration. Most comments on this page would have that pointless template if it were needed. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

That's what I got from the first part, anyway and in my opinion are not phrases one should ever see in an accusation that another user is violating AGF. It essentially says "I am assuming this user is acting in bad faith". Saying that many editors on Wikipedia holier-than-thou is not an AGF-violation, and that isn't even what is there. Criticizing another editor for what in one's view was a faulty review is not an AGF-violation, or even an insult. I am now a little afraid I will get a new ANI thread opened about how I am assuming bad faith, even though all I did was check the links and form an opinion about whether the OP's claims were accurate. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

No, criticizing another editor for what is in one's view a faulty review is not an AGF violation, but suggesting that they didn't review the article is an AGF violation and is insulting. Submitting an article that was identical to a deleted article via AfC was an attempt to game the system also. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Yes, I now see that your rationale for rejecting the draft was not just because the article didn't include inline citations, but the OP didn't present any evidence of that in the form of diffs, so I commented based on the evidence that had been presented to me. You then responded, and still did not present any evidence, so I had to go hunting for what actually happened in the contribs of you and Abcmaxx. I have seen plenty of people who accept or reject all sorts of things based on them being well-referenced or poorly-referenced, when it really didn't look like they had even reviewed the page. So when all I see is one user saying "you didn't review it, did you?", all I can do is assume good faith on their part. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I had no obligation to review the draft, although I did review it. I could see that the draft had already been deleted. One of the questions for a reviewer is whether the draft will survive a deletion discussion. I could see that it already had been deleted three times. Their resubmission of the draft in the exact state in which it had been deleted was not a good faith act. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I do now realize that my initial post could've been worded better, Hijiri88. With the "my opinion" stuff, I meant that that's what I got from it and others may read it differently. This was my first time starting a discussion at ANI, though I have participated in some ANI discussions. As for the thing about their user page, there was, as an example, this from the opening paragraph: Wikipedia used to be for everyone, now it has just been narrowed down to small a group of frequent contributors who steamroll every decision that they don't agree with, and seek the self-destruction of Wikipedia, hence the rising number of stubs and declining number of articles. This says that frequent editors of Wikipedia essentially shoot down everything new contributors (later referred to as "outsiders" on that page) do that they don't like, no matter what. -- Gestrid (talk) 01:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and if eight years into your Wikipedia career you had a stalker force you off Wikipedia for a while, and when you came back you were reluctant to log into your account and had to edit from a shifting IP for personal safety reasons, and every couple of days someone referred to you as a "new editor" or "the IP", you would know that, yes, new contributors and "outsiders" are treated differently. But I acknowledge that your opening comment was poorly formatted and you may have had a point. I don't want to go hunting down diffs to find out if what you said is accurate or not, so I'm just going to recuse myself from the rest of this discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

What's more worrying is that this isn't a new problem but rather a long-term incivility problem. Here's collection of some of their comments:

Fucking joke really is (diff)

you guys just like being irrational by posting stupid messages like this (diff)

you just hashed out the same old stupid argument. (diff

you're too far up your own arse to admit it (diff)

everyone is a little butthurt that they didn't get their way beforehand (diff)

AFC wank wank wank (diff)

I referenced it you idiot (diff)

Stop being a complete idiot please. (diff)

it's usually the more active "contributors" who just go round AfD debates going "delete" (diff)

I wouldn't class "Dead Bull Drinks FC" as a Leipziger club (diff, this is insult directed at RB Leipzig)

The last of these is particularly worrying since it suggests that this not just a simple matter of not keeping a cool head in a dispute. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm allowed to be frustrated when every edit seems to be reverted, slapped a warning message on and then assuming bad faith. If you can't accept criticism or bother to explain stuff just going for the straight "gung ho" approach then that's how any normal person would react. I don't know why everyone is so sentitive, I'm assuming everyone is an adult and hears much worse in the real world. Also I explained my position in User talk:Abcmaxx#Edit summaries. I'm allowed to express opinions as much as I like, not classing RB Leipzig as Leipziger club or being of the opinion articles are deleted far too often are ones I'm perfectly entitled to. Also double standards, look at any MK Dons related discussion, there's at least a few people directing all sorts of anti-Dons stuff even seen a ridulous userbox once "say no franchising like MK Dons" - that's pretty much is an insult, but I don't go crying about it. Despite the best attempts to delegitimise my edits none of them have ever been in bad faith. I've made articles, I've hugely expanded some - Relocation of professional sports teams and Relocation of sports teams in the United Kingdom, Górnik Konin, I cleared up the BSG Chemie Leipzig/FC Sachsen Leipzig mess. - just a few out of many examples and in fact in the contributions list you'll see that in fact I've contributed more than a lot of people. If you want to force me off Wikipedia then fine, I don't really want to be hounded and waste my time on discussions like this. Like I've pointed out, this is not a job, I don't get paid, I don't have a boss and there's no point me doing something that I do just for a little fun to wind down if I'm just going to cause me grief and be nit picked all the time. Abcmaxx (talk) 06:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

You're allowed to be frustrated, but when frustration gives way to incivility we have problem. Civility is one of the core policies of Wikipedia, and you need to find a way to work within it. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Without civility, Wikipedia would've gone down the drain a long time ago. Not being civil leads to a lot of angry editors, and its probably the very reason ANI and other boards like it were created. Incivility leads to edit-warring and personal attacks, among other things. -- Gestrid (talk) 02:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Tjdrum2000

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

---

Not heeding warnings, genre warring, overlinking. Just a major pain, as is. Mlpearc (open channel) 16:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Could probably do with a bit more that that mate ;) _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the user is obviously a newbie, and I believe is making edits in good faith, not realising they go against policy. I don't believe he/she has been warned prior to now about genre warring, for example. 16:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Popcornduff: Since they have continued the same "newbie" disruption, maybe you would be so kind to "School them". I've tried. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Ha, I've tried too. See their talk page! Popcornduff (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I've added a welcome notice and requested that this editor reads the linked pages. Let's try not to bite newbies eh? Mjroots (talk) 18:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Concerns on new editor and multiple AfD nominations

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

---

The user User:KATMAKROFAN seems to be one with their heart in the right place, but a bit over eager in their editing. They have nominated multiple articles that are clearly CSD worthy at AfD, including articles that already have CSD tags on them. (Examples here, here, here and here) There has been discussion on the user's talk page regarding this, I even advised them to NOT tag pages that were already tagged with a CSD tag. Additionally there appears to be other issues with unsubstantiated claims of harassment on their talk page, as well as other editors advising them to slow down with their tagging.

It seems that they haven't listened to the advice given, and perhaps an admin could step in to advise them to be more mindful? RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I've already told them to stop doing what they're doing, more specifically don't nominate articles for AfD and don't tag articles for speedy deletion. Another thing they do, besides get in battles with other editors and then half-heartedly apologize, is revert vandalism. I haven't checked to see if those reverts are deserved. The crux of the matter is, despite some constructive edits, they are way too inexperienced to be doing the kinds of things they are doing, but they seem intent on doing it, regardless. Sometimes, they'll set up a speedy tag, e.g., remove material and then tag with A3. I'm not going to dredge up diffs. Finally, their English isn't all that great. If they persist along these lines, I would recommend a NOTHERE block.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Carptrash and Junior5a in case they have anything to add. Graham (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I am attempting, on their user page, to lure this editor into more constructive editing. So far, no reply. I didn't get the sense that this editor (who I am going to call "he" or "him" because that is how I stereotype him) does not speak English well, rather . . .... he is inclined to define words to suit his emotional needs. But if he does not change his ways, and I am still hoping he does, he will (opinion) need to be slowed down or stopped. Carptrash (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, when Rick first posted the warning on their talk two days ago, I think I counted nine AfD templates on articles that had already been CSDed or PRODed. I don't even want to know what the count is now. At the time it didn't seem like much needed done, because they had been advised, and it looked like the deleting admins were closing the unneeded AfDs as they deleted the articles. TimothyJosephWood 20:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Another issue that many of this editor's deletion nominations come within a few minutes of article creation, not allowing the creators to finish writing. I haven't seen anything that could be described as bad faith, but some of the deletion tagging is very inaccurate and has probably already driven some new editors away from Wikipedia. Someone (and, given the prejudice against people who choose to reveal where they are editing from rather than anonymise themselves with a pseudonym, it can't be me) needs to be firm with this editor that a bit of clue is needed before deletion nominations are made. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

That's why I offered to help mentor them on properly tagging articles actually. (And there's a prejudice against people who choose to reveal where the edit from? Man am I screwed then!) RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Several hours later, they are still patroling articles at an alarming pace and still getting it very wrong. I have left them another message but if they don't stop forthwith, I will take a preventative measure without further discussion. This is precisely why we are having the RfC at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC for patroller right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
• Bbb23 has asked them to stop tagging articles, and strongly advised against nominating articles for deletion, yet they persist. I suspect this is a sock of another user (who I've long since forgot) who had a similar contribution history. There is an obvious competence problem. They should either be given a final warning to stay away from patrolling articles, or they should be blocked. The later is probably the path of least disruption.- MrX 23:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

They've been given that a few hours ago, see User talk:KATMAKROFAN#ANI Notice. They seem to have taken the advice and are doing vandalism reverts which appear to be OK. ::Perhaps this can now be closed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

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

98.218.179.232

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

---

This user continues to make edits as a conflict-of-interest. He accuses me of vandalism when I use rollback on him, and is now accusing me of using a sock called Justin Malik to give myself barnstars. Frankly, I think this is all a bit ridiculous as I haven't vandalized wikipedia in my life and am trusted enough to be granted Pending changes reviewer. Can you please help me sort this mess out? Joel.Miles925 19:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• I think it's a good idea to start talking to the editor rather than leaving templated warnings. The editor took 29 edits to do this, and all you had to say was "Reverted edits". There are plenty of problems with the IP's edits, but this is not the way to solve it. Drmies (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
• The IPs edits to Istanbul Bilgi University are not ideal, but they are trying to source them and I don't see an obvious COI, yet you felt you needed to break WP:3RR today by reverting them four times without any edit summary at all? (yes, I am aware the IP has also broken 3RR now as well). You should both be discussing this on the talk page. Black Kite (talk) 19:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks Black Kite. Silly edit war, entirely preventable. I've gone through the article and pruned it some. Whether the IP had a COI with the university is doubtful since they included information about the resignation of the rector and a very critical quote. This is not some straightforward COI from the PR department, at the very least. Drmies (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I knewe you would probably say that this is silly when I reported. However, I have tried to discuss this on the talk page and he makes no attempt to respond (other than calling me a vandal). Also, I believe he does have a COI, as does the other user involved in the dimpute. Look at this user's contribs. He has edited exclusively on 2 articles, both pertaining to college. And those edits, particularly on Bilgi, were not neutral. While I understand the 3R rule, I think that this user has made edits bordering on vandalism. Joel.Miles925 20:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

You're suggesting that the editor has a COI for editing Istanbul Bilgi University, Walden University and National Hispanic University among several others? Universities on opposite ends of the Earth? unless you're suggesting paid editing I can't possibly see a COI. Clearly, the editor is interested in educational institutions, like I am in ancient history and edit almost exclusively in that area. Do I suddenly have a COI because of this? I took a look at the IP's edits, they're on universities, yes, but on more than just two articles. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Mr rnddude To clarify, it was not me who thought initially there was a coi. That was User:Woodstop45. I also apologize for suggesting that. COIs (as you can probably tell) are not my usual area of editing. I typically vandalfight and patrol new pages here (and occasionally pending changes). However, I don't believe this editor was in the right, and clearly MALIK JUSTIN isn't a sock of mine. He has been incorrigible, but I haven't been completely right in all of this myself, and for that, I am sorry. Joel.Miles925 20:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I took a look at the contentious edit where you both broke 3RR, I see several references being expanded which is good, I see a few minor corrections and additions which is fine and I see the considerable additions after one of the professors was fired which is well referenced and not indicative of a COI to me. I then looked at the article talk page, I don't see anybody trying to discuss with the IP editor on there, which should have been the first thing to do before templating the IP editor. I don't know, it seems to me that the discussion was mishandled and that this led to some escalation. In the future, when you find that an edit-war is about to start, ping the editor on the talk page and discuss. I also saw your userpage and the reference to "Mr. Malik", is it possible that perhaps they read Malik on the barnstar on your userpage (which has no description, just a signature) and thought it was their page, given that you yourself are Miles and the IP's English is at around the EN-3 level also, they removed that reference as well, perhaps they realized their mistake about an hour later and after your and Woodstop's responses. Additionally, even Woodstop was a bit more cautious with declaring COI, seems to be a COI except for the fact he seems to be in Washington D.C., unlikely though with that English. If anything, the IP seems interested in the events at Bilgi University rather than the University itself. That said, the accusations of vandalism by the IP were also not helpful. All in all, I'd say two editors were a bit quick on their judgement and escalated a rather mild issue. Dunno, I don't see any action being required yet, just get back to whatever you were doing. The IP is already on the radar now so if anything does happen there's this thread to deal with it. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I suppose that's back to vandalfighting for me then! Joel.Miles925 21:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• I wish that "vandalfighters" would try talking more and templating less. The IP left a bunch of edit summaries in their first batch of edits; there is no warrant whatsoever for just clicking "rollback" or whatever thing you're using. Joel.Miles925, I would like to ask you to reread this section on your talk page, User_talk:Joel.Miles925#Revert_on_Maderia_Beach, esp. the "you deleted a section without providing a valid edit summary" bit, and compare that to this edit. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Funnily enough I came here today to see Joel.Miles925 reverted a perfectly fine edit I made and templeted me. He is far to quick to fire away when he sees an edit made by an IP, seems to automatically assume the worst. 97.104.138.227 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I know, and for that, I'm sorry. I need to learn more about policies, and I'll try to get better with what edits I template. I have gotten into a habit lately of templating editors whose edits had been revdeled by the abuse log, which is one that I need to break. Sorry for all the trouble I've caused. Joel.Miles925 23:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

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

User: TheDeviantPro

I have been going through the Open world games category and double checking whether each game has valid sources to backup their being in the category itself. This includes older games such as Grand Theft Auto 1 and 2 as well as Fallout 2. I haven't found any valid sources to backup these games being in the category, so I removed them. However, recently, TheDeviantPro has been going and reverting my edits due to each game having an open world design and he says they don't need sources because of that. He refuses to acknowledge that they need sources to backup their claims, as I have tried discussing it with him on his talk page, but his viewpoint is that they are clearly open world games. The problem is, he hasn't provided any sources to back this up, and when I go to revert his edits, he reverts it back and states they don't need sources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TheDeviantPro#Open_world_games https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grand_Theft_Auto_2&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dohvahkiin (talk • contribs) 12:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Look, revert my edits if you want and I promise that I won't revert them back. I just find it a bit annoying that you need a source for a category especially when games like Grand Theft Auto series always been open world. TheDeviantPro (talk) 14:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll try to dig a little deeper and see if I can find anything concrete. In the mean time, I think the category is out of alphabetical order now. I've got no idea how to fix that.Dohvahkiin (talk) 14:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Dohvahkiin: That's probably related to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Sorting in categories unreliable for a few days and should resolve itself in a few days. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Ownership behaviour at Amway

Dear administrators, I am asking you to ban the User:Rhode Island Red. This editor seems to be engaged in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR and negative WP:POV pushing regarding the article about Amway (and other MLM companies). He constantly reverts all edits I make, trying to keep only the negative information about the company and holding back important information from the readers such as the most recent one, which was my addition of upcoming legislation in India to the paragraph about Amway cases in India which got reverted with an explanation that "It's out of context, having no connection with the rest of the details in that section regarding legal cases against Amway India" which is not true and I explained that on the Talk:Amway. I have provided more sources that refer to Amway cases, but each time I add something to balance the biased information in the article, it gets reverted by the very same user using apparently fabricated arguments. I have experienced this type of behaviour several months ago. I have also noticed that the very same user has a long history of this kind of behaviour in many articles about MLM companies on Wikipedia including for example USANA Health Sciences, Protandim, Juice Plus, MonaVie... to name a few. His edits are characteristic by adding only negative information and not allowing other editors to add anything positive. He had been notified by other editors in the past about his behaviour, including User:Lord Roem, User:Wikiwiserick, User:Leef5... According to User:TraceyR on Talk:Juice_Plus, he has been banned previously (verified here: User_talk:Rhode_Island_Red/Archive_1#You_are_now_blocked). But I can tell I can see no improvement in his behaviour over the years.--Historik75 (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC) — Historik75 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

RIR was blocked, not banned. That was also six years ago. You should also provide diffs of problematic behavior to support the claim that things haven't changed since then. clpo13_(talk) 18:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: This report originated here, until I closed it for being in the wrong place. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 19:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

You have not provided any evidence that RIR is being disruptive. To me this looks like a content dispute. You want to add content and RIR does not believe it belongs. Please read WP:BRD. You took the Bold action of adding new content that you feel improved the article. RIR then Reverted you with the opinion the content does not belong in the article. This should have initiated the Discuss portion of Bold Revert Discuss. Then when there is consensus to include the information it is readded. Instead you discuss and revert the removal at the same time. Two editors have removed the content saying it does not belong in the article and you are the only one arguing that it belongs. If you believe you need help resolving this content dispute, you can use one of the dispute resolution options that are available, if you do you will need to convince editors that the information belongs in the article. -- GB fan 19:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Linguist111, I've re-opened this thread since there are several other options beyond the mere two you posted, and you (WP:BOLDly) closed it before it had been open even six hours, and you are not (as you noted) an administrator, and nothing had been resolved or even discussed. The OP made claims that the problem existed across several articles and that the user in question had been warned by certain other editors, and that the issue is behavioral rather than strictly content related. Talk-page discussion was already proceeding, and DRN had already been initiated at least once for this article, in March. I think it will be instructional for the OP to let this thread run its course. The OP has been requested to show diffs. Softlavender (talk) 08:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Historik75, you absolutely need to provide WP:DIFFs of the problematic behaviors you claim in your OP, or else this thread is going nowhere. Also provide diffs of the warnings from other editors. Also, bear in mind the fact that as someone with a conflict of interest, and as a single-purpose account, your behavior will come under scrutiny here as well (so you may want to withdraw this ANI filing before proceeding further). Softlavender (talk) 08:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Additional comments: I'm going to ping Collect, who appears to be a neutral occasional editor at that article (at least I see that he has participated on the talk page). I'm also going to mention that if it is eventually generally determined that this is indeed mainly a content dispute, that Historik75 should note that there are many options available at WP:DR (in other words, not just DRN). Softlavender (talk) 08:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Softlavender, for providing me with details of what I exactly need to do. As I am relatively new to Wikipedia, I do not know all the rules and routines. I am just trying to use common sense and learn on the way. Right now I am busy and I will get to this discussion later. I will provide detailed information about the behaviour (diffs) of RIR in the next 24 hours. And yes, I have a conflict of interest and I am, for the present, an SPA (as virtually every newcomer I believe is), but I believe I have information that could improve the article. I am not trying to hide anything, I just want to present both sides of the stories, not just half-truths and twisted information. Best regards, --Historik75 (talk) 09:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

No, "virtually every newcomer" is most decidedly not an SPA, especially not for 300+ edits across seven months. Softlavender (talk) 10:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I don't have the exact statistics. What I'm trying to say is that RIR started the same way, editing only Juice Plus (MLM company) article for 10 months before he has moved to article about Oxidative stress (and I believe it was only because oxidative stress was mentioned on Juice Plus page). Every newcomer choses the first article he/she starts to edit. When he/she experiences the same kind of behaviour I have experienced (and this is I assume most of the time in the case of controversial topics), then it is only logical that he/she becomes discouraged (which makes him an SPA) and finally disappears. It happened to other users such as for example User:Icerat. I now have more duties but I will get back later and will provide the requested details. Best regards, --Historik75 (talk) 11:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

You're making nonsensical claims and conclusions based on two users' edit histories, apparently to deflect from your COI. Most new users do not have a COI and are not SPAs. I wouldn't continue in this vein if you want this ANI case to hold much water. Softlavender (talk) 12:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Amway is a horrid article. It includes editorial opinions that it is a "religion" of some sort, and material unworthy of Wikipedia has repeatedly been added. Material about a non-notable living person is prominently used, etc. I recommend TNT on this article, that it might be created with some semblance of neutrality. It contains SYNTH galore. RIR has, indeed, over an extended period of time, been extremely interested in this article, and, IMO, has contributed to rancor in discussions. Historik75 is a newcomer to this cf, and seems to be trying to wage an uphill battle. Inshort, a vacation from this article would be wise for RIR, to say the least, and I would hope someone like Arthur Rubin or Newyorkbrad might be able to assemble some actually unconflicted editors to clean up this spelendid example of the Augean Stables. Collect (talk) 13:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

So, Collect, instead of commenting on the issue at hand – which boils down to a content dispute (misdirected as a baseless WP:OWN complaint) from an SPA with an undisclosed COI – you opine that you don’t like the article and that because I have shown interest in it, I should take a vacation? That convoluted logic reminds me of the kind of editing disputes we had when locking horns over the Melaleuca article (an important detail which you inexplicably failed to mention). Not impressed. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that Historik, while definitely an SPA, does not appear to be a "newcomer" at all based on their editing history -- i.e., from their first edit showing a fairly deep understanding of WP policy and procedure well beyond what would be expected of a true newcomer.[296] I ain't buying this "newcomer" angle. Seems a lot more like a WP:SOCK.[297] Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Have you raised your sockpuppet concerns at WP:SPI? This isn't the place to raise sockpuppet concerns. Unsupported allegations of sockpuppetry are a personal attack, and, in my view, one warranting a block. So take the sock concerns to SPI, or drop them, and stop using them as aspersions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't intend it to be an aspersion. I felt that it was no less important than the concerns that others on this thread raised about WP:COI and WP:SPA with this user. Nonetheless, I will take up the issue at the noticeboard rather than continuing to mention it here. I ask you to show the same level of concern about Historik's personal attacks, like mis-characterizing the reversion of his edits by consensus as WP:OWN or when he digs through my edit history in an attempt to besmirch my reputation and makes a false claim that I was banned 6 years ago. These personal attacks offend me deeply. In fact, the entire basis of Historik's complaint has been nothing more than a content dispute masquerading as a series of personal attacks. Thanks in advance for providing equal protection. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I would point out that the place to voice accusations of socking is at WP:SPI and not here. In fact, one might be sanctioned for making such a deliberate accusation on this noticeboard in this manner. Collect (talk) 12:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I already obviously know where to raise concerns about socking, since it was me who filed the sock report that uncovered a disturbing pattern suggestive of sockpuppetry (although the outcome was ultimately inconclusive due to steps taken by the SPA accounts in question to mask their IP addresses). There is nothing unreasonable about casually mentioning WP:SOCK as I did, just as it wasn't unreasonable when other editors raised concerns on this thread about WP:SPA and WP:COI, especially in the midst of these wildly off-base accusations about WP:OWN flying around. Sanctions? That's a pretty ridiculous thing to say over such an innocuous remark -- it borders on concern trolling. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, where should I start?

First, let me tell something about continuing personal attacks from RIR. I was labeled by him as a WP:SOCK here and elsewhere. This is simply not true. I don't know how to provide differential edit for archived page, but read the Ivanvector's conclusion here.[298] Despite the outcome, I am still accused of being WP:SOCK. It is sad that this type of behaviour on RIR's part still continues after more than 3 months from the day the investigation was closed. However, I am not surprised, because I have found that similar unfounded claims were made by RIR about other users too. Again, it is an archived page and I don't know how to provide differential edits, but you can read the paragraph. It seems to be RIR's way of trying to discredit editors and it continues to these days. Other editors had problems with RIR too in the past, which was the reason why he was blocked [299] (sorry for that ban accusation, I didn't know there is a difference between the two terms).

It is no wonder that User:Collect said what he said about the rancor in discussions and I agree with him.

Now about the Amway article. As User:Collect concludes, the article about Amway is everything but neutral, and I and User:Icerat agree with him which is apparent from RfC on Talk:Amway. The problem is that when we try to put information to balance the article, it is always reverted. Always. WP:OWNBEHAVIOR is characterized by:

An editor reverts justified article changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not.

RIR has been repeatedly reverting sourced statements that I and other editor put there not even trying to improve the text. Just reverted it using always the same claim: unjustified, irrelevant, whitewashing, etc. When asked to answer the question, he does not do so. Let me remind you that the whole debate started over this recommendation by User:Arthur Rubin here [300]:

I object to the (present) FTC finding that Amway is not a pyramid scheme being in the lead, because some other countries' judicial or administrative systems have found that Amway to be a pyramid scheme.

RIR immediately agreed with this unsourced statement and this resulted in the removal of FTC case from the leading paragraph keeping only the accusation and not the outcome. RIR simply didn't answer the question and pushed the POV to the lead. I repeatedly asked (the last time here: [301]) whether there is one court decision proving that Amway was a pyramid scheme to justify the overall tone of the first paragraph which only cites the charges and not the outcomes or the court decisions. No answer. When we started to have an NPOV dispute, RIR even removed the POV template from the page that I had put in [302]. The tag was re-added by another editor [303], but was again immediately removed again by RIR [304] and it stayed removed even when the NPOV dispute was running.

User:Robert McClenon then offered help with mediation. Unfortunately, it went nowhere, so the RfC was started. Again, no consensus was reached. But I suggest you read the whole RfC (yes, it's a little bit long, but worth it) to make a picture of what has happened to the Amway article and what I and other editors consider to be a negative POV pushing campaign.

I don't know what TNT means, but I assume it means something that the article should be completely overwritten. If this is the case, I strongly agree with User:Collect. I am not insisting that I must be the one who does this, but I am willing to provide the materials I have to anyone who is willing to do that. But IMO it should be someone who is not biased or who is at least willing to write unbiased article and who will present all the sides of the story.

This is the first time I am writing such statement, so if you find something is missing from my statement, please let me know. Contrary to what RIR says about me, I am a newcomer to Wikipedia. I really didn't expect that the first thing I would be doing here, is to study all the terms WP:IDONTKNOWWHAT that RIR and other editors use. But if there isn't any other way, I am willing to do that. The last thing - you have probably noticed that before from the way I am writing, but I am not a native speaker. So if you have problems with my English, I apologize. Best regards, --Historik75 (talk) 09:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Historik, the fact is that this is simply an editorial dispute over content and not even remotely an issue of WP:OWN. Several editors looked into the disputed edits and agreed that the content you were trying to insert did not improve the article, and they raised concerns about your conflict of interest. This includes Grayfell[305] and Richard Keatinge[306], and Lemongirl942 who said: “you seem to have a conflict of interest here and you are clearly not able to edit neutrally.”[307] Noq reverted your edit as well.[308] Softlavendar said: “You're making nonsensical claims and conclusions based on two users' edit histories, apparently to deflect from your COI.”[309] GBFan said: “Two editors have removed the content saying it does not belong in the article and you are the only one arguing that it belongs.”.[310]

So clearly, there is a consensus weighing against your edits and raising concerns about your COI, yet you persist in misrepresenting the situation as an issue of WP:OWN on my part when it is in fact an issue of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on yours. When you continue making this accusation when it is so wildly off-base it becomes a personal attack. As for your status as an WP:SPA, bringing that up is a legitimate concern in line with WP policy, as were the concerns raised about apparent sockpuppetry. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Since I was pinged, I will comment. The dispute over Amway has gone on a long time. A request was made by User:Historik75 in March 2016 for moderated dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard, which is where I became involved. I soon concluded that there were issues about the wording of the lede paragraph, and no compromise. The next step was a Request for Comments. The Request for Comments was just as inconclusive as prior discussion, and was closed with No Consensus in May 2016. I tried to be neutral and will continue to try to be neutral. I agree that the article is a mess, as are many articles about contentious topics. The most common reason for messy articles on contentious topics is the repeated addition and removal of slanted content; I haven’t studied the history. Yes, TNT refers to a high explosive, sometimes used to demolish ugly buildings, and means to blow the article up and start it over. I wouldn’t recommend that an editor whose first language is not English take the lead in blowing up an article and starting it over. This dispute is fundamentally a content dispute. I would suggest either that the editors agree on who will take the lead on the article, or that the editors request formal mediation, in which case a reworking can be done with a neutral mediator. (I am not a member of the mediation committee and don’t do formal mediation.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Robert, I am totally OK with formal mediation if need be. It will allow us to bypass all petty squawking and focus dispassionately on content. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, just to clarify - I meant moderated dispute resolution when I said that you had helped with mediation. Still learning the terms used on Wikipedia. --Historik75 (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

RIR, You constantly call me WP:SOCK even when the investigation was closed 3 months ago with no result that would support your opinion. Do you find it necessary to continue in these personal attacks? I remember that User:Icerat admitted that he stopped editing Wikipedia mainly because of you. If anybody can ping User:Icerat (don't know if and how I can ping him from here) I would be glad if shares his opinion here. The problem is much wider than just recent few edits. The problems arose in March and they continue to this day. You are not allowing anybody to edit the article unless they agree with your negative POV pushing campaign. However, when they do, then you quickly agree even with unsourced statements.[311] How you can agree with unsourced statement that Amway was found to be a pyramid scheme when there is not a single court decision which would prove that is really beyond me. Is this what you call a consensus? How many times I have challenged you to back it up with a source? The last time here.[312] No answer. Isn't this called WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? And when I question the argument and put an NPOV template you simply remove it? Isn't that at least a sign that you are not so unbiased as you try to present yourself to be? This is not a content dispute, this is about your behaviour and as User:Collect says you "contributed to rancor in discussions" which is a statement I fully agree with. I don't know why you do it, but you do it. Again I repeat that I agree with both User:Collect and User:Robert McClenon that the article is a mess and from my point of view you have contributed to that more than anyone else with your one-sided view of the whole MLM industry. --Historik75 (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not the article is a mess, as you allege, is irrelevant to your wild accusation of WP:OWN and inane request to have me banned, which was the sole basis of the ANI you filed. If we are going to reach a resolution, then the onus is on you to admit that the accusation was misplaced and that what we were really dealing was a refusal on your part to accept that the changes you proposed making were negated by consensus. If you can admit that, then we can move past the pettiness and discuss, in good faith, the larger issue of overall article quality, which is much broader than the narrow issue we were dealing with from the outset (i.e., your reverted edits on Amway India). Content disputes should not be personal, yet you made it so with your baseless accusation of WP:OWN. Recant and move on. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

RIR, you again completely fail to address the behavioural issues. Instead you focus on the last couple of edits. How can you talk about consensus? RfC was closed with no consensus at all. Yet, you pushed your unfounded and unsourced WP:POV version to Wikipedia and didn't provide a single document which would prove the edit was justified. You completely skipped all the points I made towards you, such as if you find it necessary to call me WP:SOCK, or WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when it comes to answering my and Icerat's questions, or your removal of POV template and your apparent unwillingness to let others edit the article unless they agree with your negative opinion (again, this is not a matter of recent edits only - it spans over a long period of time). It may seem funny to other editors that you call my request to be "inane" but it doesn't seem funny to me. After several months, my patience has come to an end when it comes to personal attacks made by you. Some may consider it a compliment to hear from you that from the first edit they "show a fairly deep understanding of WP policy and procedure well beyond what would be expected of a true newcomer", but not me. Just because I can read and understand a written text doesn't mean I have to be a WP:SOCK. I consider this as a personal attack because in other words you are saying that I lie about myself. Perhaps to block you from editing the article would solve the problem and will save much frustration to other editors. After reading some of the discussions between you and other editors, I can only tell that even though several years have passed since then, nothing has changed in the way how you interact with others. So, let others decide if a complete ban or at least a block is necessary, but in my opinion you deserve it.--Historik75 (talk) 03:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

As far as WP:OWNBEHAVIOR is concerned here are just few examples of RIR's behaviour:

• On March 8, 2016 17:15 I re-added the FTC case into the leading paragraph because the previous deletion was based upon a false argument - immediately reverted by RIR without proving that the basis for the original edit (removal of FTC case) was substantiated. In this case, shouldn't we revert to the original edit (before the edit based on a false argument took place)?

• On March 10, 2016 16:42 I have added POV template - immediately removed by RIR; User:Icerat re-added it and RIR again removed it. NPOV dispute was running, still the POV template remained removed. Is this acceptable?

• On March 12, 2016 14:44 User:Icerat removed claim not supported by supplied sources and updated the text with the latest court decision - immediately reverted by RIR.

• On March 12, 2016 15:09 User:Icerat added a sourced text about a class action case in Canada. It was again removed by RIR. Later, User:Icerat re-added it after the sources were found to be acceptable on RSN which makes RIR's original reversion unjustified.

These are just 4 examples from 5 initial days of our interaction but I could go on and on. Basically, almost every edit I or User:Icerat made and backed it up with RS has been immediately reverted by RIR. One of the weirdest claims by RIR was made on March 25, 2016 15:22 when he removed my edit on the basis that www.quixtarresponse.com site "is not registered to Amway or any of its affiliates" which, of course, was later proven not to be true. This is not a simple content dispute, it is a pattern of behaviour - immediately remove all the information RIR disagrees with not taking into account the sources. However, RIR at the same time accepts the unfounded and unsourced claim that Amway was found to be a pyramid scheme and "justifies" the removal of FTC case from the lead making the lead biased, unbalanced and WP:POV. WP:OWNERSHIP says:

An editor reverts justified article changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not.

If this is not a classic example of WP:OWNERSHIP, then what is? --Historik75 (talk) 12:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Now you are simply grasping at straws. The simple fact is that the dispute in question that led to you bringing us all here pertained to the Amway India section of the article, and the reversion of your edits by two different editors (myself and Noq). There must be at least half a dozen experienced editors that have now told you that your edits were inappropriate, and yet you persist with this canard of a WP:OWN accusation, even though the feedback you have received is loudly telling you that you are off base.

Rather than admitting that your accusation was unfounded, you are now trying to support your ongoing accusations by flailing around complaining that a few edits on Amway by a WP:SPA/WP:SLEEPER were reverted 6 months ago, even though that has nothing to do the reversion of your edits about Amway India that enraged you so much and led to us all being dragged here in the first place. That’s highly disingenuous to say the least, not to mention counterproductive. Going through pointless fire drills like this every time you don’t get your way is a colossal waste of time and resources. To make matters worse, even your latest attempt to re-litigate innocuous edits from 6 months ago is purposely deceptive, as you failed to mention that those very same edits you are now complaining about were reverted at that time by two other editors.[313][314] Even the removal of the drive-by POV tag that the SPA/sleeper added, which you complained about in your most recent comment above, was reverted by another editor.[315] In other words, none of the mud you are slinging even vaguely supports your accusations of WP:OWN.

I’m OK with any kind of informal or formal dispute resolution to settle disagreements about content, as it brings more uninvolved editors to the article (rather than the narrowly focused SPA/COI types that have been weighing in so far) and that’s a good thing. What I am not OK with is your persistence in making this baseless WP:OWN a personal attack. I am asking you now, nicely, to stop. So stop.

As WP:NPA policy states, “comment on content, not on the contributor”. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I would add that I and User:Icerat were not the only ones who challenged RIR to prove there is a decision which would rule against Amway regarding the pyramid issue. User:Robert McClenon challenged him on DRN here as well. No answer. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? Perhaps, but not on my part. As far as I know, RIR still has not provide one such case. However, all the time he insists that the change was justified. Is this the way how consensus should be used? Not taking into the account the reliability of source(s)? Just gather one or two other people with apparent POV that "agree" regardless of sources and it's done - we will revert everyone who disagrees with us regardless of sources he/she provides. As I said, I am a newcomer to Wikipedia but I certainly hope this is not the way it works. I believe I have read somewhere that revert should be the last option and the first option should be tp improve the added text. It clearly didn't work here that way.

I would stress that above were only few examples and certainly not a complete list. I don't know how many examples I have to bring here, so if somebody finds it necessary, please let me know. I can provide more examples of the same pattern of behaviour.

While looking for the User:Icerat's reaction, I have found his diff where he provides another example of RIR's behaviour:

The two "opposing" users here are reverting virtually every edit I do, no matter how well sourced or "balanced". I replaced a section that was using a Sri Lanken newspaper opinion column with one using a published trade magazine and a John Wiley book, and it was all reverted.

I suppose I do not have to specify that RIR was one of the "two opposing users". User:Icerat also admits here that he quit editing Wikipedia for 2 years because of "constant battling to make any contribution done with tag team reversions (clearly to avoid 3RR) by users who don't like the edits".

In other words, he had experienced the same kind of behaviour as I did in the past several months.

The last thing, as I am trying to address behavioural issues of a certain editor, not content issues, I assume I can tell something about the editor's behaviour. It is surely not meant as a personal attack, it just doesn't make sense to me to comment on content when trying to address the behavioural issues. As far as WP:OWN is concerned - it doesn't make a sense to me to retract the case. After all, we are here to find out whether RIR was or wasn't involved in WP:OWN or disruptive editing and I think that's on others to decide. Again, it is not meant as a personal attack. --Historik75 (talk) 07:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I will reiterate again, the current dispute that led you to drag us here was the recent reversion of your edits on the Amway India section of the article. Your edits were reverted by two different editors and the consensus of multiple editors, after you complained about it, was that your edits were inappropriate. That non-incident gave you no basis whatsoever to make your accusation of WP:OWN. Instead of recognizing that fact and withdrawing your complaint, as suggested by Softlavendar,[316] you are now changing direction and trying to re-litigate a different stale dispute from 6 months ago on behalf of Icerat (an Amway SPA who has been editing the Amway article since 2006 despite having a COI[317][318]), who isn’t even participating in editing or discussing the article. In other words, this is degenerating rapidly.

I repeat – this has devolved into a pointless personal attack, so again, I ask you nicely to withdraw your malformed complaint, as it has now crossed the line into harassment, not to mention being a waste of time and resources. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

RIR, you apparently fail to understand that there was much more than just recent few edits that led me to file this case here. There is a saying "The pitcher goes so often to the well, that it is broken at last." You can't just put a dividing line between your actions. It is sad that I was not able to explain to you all the reasons that had convinced me that this was necessary. Now it's up to others to decide. --Historik75 (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

What is readily apparent Historic is that the recent non-incident you tried to label as WP:OWN on my part is clearly not WP:OWN – that much is certain based on the fact that your edit was reverted by more than one editor, and that the reversion was supported by multiple editors. You were wrong but stubbornly refuse to admit it. Now you are trying to deflect from the fact that your charge was misplaced by vaguely pointing to some edit of yours that may have been reverted 6 months ago and trying to call that WP:OWN. Give up this futile witch-hunt and apologize. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

So now that you admit that there were edits which had been reverted, let's focus on the way you allowed the initial edit which started the whole dispute. Would you please explain how can you agree with an unsourced statement which led to the removal of FTC case from the lead? Based on what? Again, this is not a matter of a particular edit or a content, this is about your way of reviewing information and a misuse of WP:CONSENSUS to help you push your apparent WP:POV. Also, you have tried to discredit me by calling me a WP:SOCK even after the investigation was closed - and I am the one who should apologize? Okay, I apologize - I am not an experienced editor, so in my initial complaint here I forgot to add few other of your misconducts as well, such as WP:PA (WP:SOCK and "not a newcomer" accusations), WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT or WP:POV. I am sorry for that.--Historik75 (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I've been pinged on this too, and just want to support most of what Historik75 is saying. RIR seems to have unlimtied time to monitor and edit the articles he is obviously passionate about and it is virtually impossible to contribute as he constantly reverts edits he disagrees with - which is anything that doesn't paint Amway (or other MLMs) in a negative light. I previously had to run Amway through mediation to get some kind of semblance of balance to the article but it remains a mess that does not even come close to reflecting WP:DUE - "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published". The vast majority of RS sources for the topic make little or no mention of the "controversies" around the company, yet they make up a significant portion of the article, and attempts to address this balance are vigorously fought by RIR to the extent that editors like myself simply give up. --Icerat (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, the WP:SLEEPER awakes! This thread concerns a specific accusation of WP:OWN based on the recent reversion of Historik’s edits on the India section of the Amway article. He complained that it was WP:OWN on my part, which was a misplaced accusation because his edits were reverted by more than one editor and the reversion was supported by multiple editors. In short, that non-incident is clearly not WP:OWN. If you are suggesting otherwise, then you are being dishonest. This incident report is not a general discussion about article quality. Please focus on the issue at hand and don’t try to divert the discussion where it doesn’t belong. Also, it would behoove you to be forthcoming about your WP:COI issue. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Icerat, if the article has any quality deficiencies, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to suggest that you and Historik together shoulder the lion’s share of the blame. You have made a total of 220 non-minor edits to the article; Historik has made 60; I have made only 196. You have added 28.7 Mb to the article; Historik has added 14.6 Mb; I have added 24.8 Mb. In other words, my contributions to the article amount to slightly more than half of what you and Historik added. You have made 290 non-minor edits to the Talk page; Historik has made 148; I have made 107 (roughly a quarter of the number of edits that you and Historik made). It’s clear that together, you and Historik have contributed most to the article and have monopolized the article’s talk page. And yet, mind-bogglingly, you two WP:SPA’s (both with WP:COI’s) have the unmitigated gall to accuse me of ownership??? And what precipitated the accusation? Historik’s recent edits to the Amway India section of the article got reverted by two different editors, and the other editors who weighed in supported the reversions. Your campaign here is ridiculous; a waste of time and resources, yet again. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I would say that the main problem is that you do not add anything that is not painting Amway in the negative light. And also, have you counted how many Mb you have removed? The POV resulting in a biased article is not only done by addition, but also by removal of things you do not like. --Historik75 (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Now to your argument that I and User:Icerat are responsible for the way the article looks now. I have done my own checking. Overall, I have made 60 changes to the article, some of which were minor changes which I forgot to designate as ones. Icerat made a total of 240 changes. You made a total of 259 changes. The question is, however, how many of those changes made by us are still present in the article when virtually every change we made has been reverted by you? That is the number which is relevant in order to say who contributed to the mess, not the total count of edits or non-minor edits. And, by the way, the number of edits on a Talk page do not relate to who contributed most to the article.--Historik75 (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Still stridently refusing to get the point. First, as I have now repeated several times, it is clearly was not article ownership on my part when your edits got reverted by more than one editor and those reversions were supported unanimously by several other editors. You need to acknowledge this before moving on to the next part of your witch hunt. Secondly, when the statistics show that you and Icerat together have contributed more non-minor edits to the article than any other single editor, it makes your accusation of article ownership seem all the more absurd. Third, you are now complaining about POV instead of WP:OWN, which is an entirely different issue, and if you wish to pursue it, withdraw the current complaint (as suggested by Softlavendar) and start a new one. Your WP:OWN accusation would be laughable if it weren't such a waste of time and resources. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

To recap, here is the sum total of the feedback that Historik received in response to his recent edits on the India section of the Amway article (aside from my reversion).

Noq: “Reverted 1 edit by Historik75: Not really appropriate here.”[319]

“Support Rhode Island Red's comments. I'd also add that the article already contains far too much un-encyclopedic advertorial - all of the eSpring section for a start. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)”[320]

“Historik75, you seem to have a conflict of interest here and you are clearly not able to edit neutrally…I suggest you move away from this article and contribute positively elsewhere. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)”[321]

“Accusations of ownership are misplaced and missing the point. Just because another editor is active and disagrees with you doesn't make them an owner. COI editing is a problem in part because it makes it hard for editors to assess an article's neutrally. Many editors, some very gently, some not so gently, have been trying to guide you away from this article for good reason. It's time to listen to them. Grayfell (talk) 08:34, 25 August 2016”[ (UTC)[322]

In other words Historik, your edit was reverted by two editors. Those reversions were unanimously supported by 3 out of 3 editors who commented. And yet you have the temerity to accuse me of WP:OWN? The problem, clearly, is your refusal to get the point (as well as your COI and inability to understand what WP:OWN means). I suggest you heed their advice and find a new page to grouse about. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

You have probably overlooked my questions regarding the way you acted. So I will just copy them here: So now that you admit that there were edits which had been reverted, let's focus on the way you allowed the initial edit which started the whole dispute. Would you please explain how can you agree with an unsourced statement which led to the removal of FTC case from the lead? Based on what? Again, this is not a matter of a particular edit or a content, this is about your way of reviewing information and a misuse of WP:CONSENSUS to help you push your apparent WP:POV. Also, you have tried to discredit me by calling me a WP:SOCK even after the investigation was closed - and I am the one who should apologize? Okay, I apologize - I am not an experienced editor, so in my initial complaint here I forgot to add few other of your misconducts as well, such as WP:PA (WP:SOCK and "not a newcomer" accusations), WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT or WP:POV. I am sorry for that. Again, this complaint is not about a particular edit, it is about your behaviour.--Historik75 (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Um, no -- I have zero interest in answering any of your malformed insipid questions here. That's not the purpose of the ANI board. I have already wasted enough time simply proving (conclusively) that your WP:OWN accusation was baseless. Retract the baseless complaint; then apologize PROPERLY. End of story. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I see. Perhaps my questions are really malformed and insipid as RIR wrote. I don't know - that's on others to judge. This is the first time I came to ANI and I am trying to do my best. But perhaps if RIR answered the questions we would save much time and resources he is now talking about. I must say that I too do not have a desire to repeat the same questions over and over again just to have them fall into deaf ears. As this debate is going nowhere, let's summarize:

• I have provided 4+1 examples of RIR's behaviour where he reverted justified article changes by different editors (and I am willing to provide more examples if necessary). No answer. Instead, there is a constant RIR's effort to turn this behavioural issue into a content dispute.
• I have then showed there was also another editor who had had exactly the same problem with RIR and have provided another example of unjustified revert.[323]
• I have challenged RIR to explain on what basis he justified the removal of FTC case from the lead (which was the core of our dispute) and to provide the source(s) for his "agreement". The answer: RIR has a zero interest in answering my questions. It should be stressed that the question was asked even by Robert McClenon during the DRN.[324] So I hope that at least this question is not so malformed and insipid because Robert is apparently much more experienced editor than I am.
• Several months after the WP:SPI was closed, RIR is still calling me WP:SOCK.

If somebody thinks I should provide more proofs of what led me to file this case, please let me know.--Historik75 (talk) 05:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually Historik, the only example of alleged ownership that you provided details on was the revert of your Amway India edits, and I have explained to you quite clearly many times over why you are mistaken in calling it an example of article ownership – it’s not; your edit was reverted by multiple editors and the reversion was supported by multiple editors. It’s now clear that you don’t know what WP:OWN means and it is mind boggling that at this point you still won’t admit that your accusation was misplaced.

I have no interest in answering any further questions from you about stale content issues from 6 months ago (that have already been discussed exhaustively despite you implying otherwise) on an ANI thread devoted to an incident that didn’t happen. You have the right to present your WP:OWN case to the WP community, which you did, unsuccessfully here on this misplaced ANI -- and now, in the aftermath, you have no reason to prolong it, nor do you have the right to expect to cross-examine me after you failed to prove your case in spectacular fashion. Retract the ANI as Softlavendar advised and you can pose any questions you have about content on the article Talk page or an appropriate DR forum.

As for sockpuppetry, I said here that you “seemed” like a sock and provided a link to the details of the sock investigation. I assumed this was the right time and place to do it, as others were raising similar concerns about your COI and SPA status. Robert advised against doing so in this forum, and since he did, I haven’t mentioned it again (although I might consider filing a follow-up report at some point if necessary to see if that can be sorted out once and for all). Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Steps Forward?

It isn’t obvious how to go forward from here, but we need to do something other than just continue the unproductive exchange. This is primarily a content dispute about a controversial topic, but it involves strong feelings that lead to conduct issues that make it difficult to resolve the content dispute. One option that hasn’t been tried is formal mediation, but that will only work if a majority of the parties agree, and if the parties are willing to put aside their allegations of conduct issues (even if the allegations are true) and work on the content. Another option that hasn’t been tried yet is the draconian remedy of community general sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I will mention as an aside that this case and some others illustrate one of the least attractive features of the current Wikipedia environment with respect to controversial topics and new editors. That is that it is the standard practice when a new editor shows up who edits primarily in a controversial area and seems to know the rules, an established editor throws in an accusation of sockpuppetry. There should be a rule that any claim of sockpuppetry anywhere other than at WP:SPI should be treated as a personal attack calling for a 24-hour block (or longer block if necessary). Give new editors who happen to have learned the rules a chance without idly making the cheap claim of sock, by making it an expensive claim. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

This exchange isn’t going anywhere here. Should it just be closed, or closed with warnings? Does anyone have a better idea for how to resolve this? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm pretty much done here Robert. I have blown the WP:OWN accusation out of the water and I have expressed potential openness to some alternative form of dispute resolution, if necessary, once this ANI is closed. Beyond that, there's really nothing left to say. No warning necessary on my part. I heard what you said about the need for sensitivity in raising sock issues lest they be interpreted as personal attacks. I hadn't really thought of that but once you alerted me to it, your point was well taken. I don't think it's fair to call it a "cheap claim", since in this case the sock investigation revealed a possible link and attempts at IP obfuscation. But nonetheless, your overarching point has been heard. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I shouldn't have said that any particular editor made a cheap claim of sockpuppetry. In this case there was an actual SPI. However, it is almost the rule in cases where a new editor edits a controversial article and knows what they are doing for an established editor to make a cheap allegation of sockpuppetry. In any case, I suggest that this thread be closed somehow. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

• Historik75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) topic banned from Amway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) due to disruptive and promotional editing, and failure to follow community norms in respect of conflict of interest. Guy (Help!) 23:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks by anon

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

---

The anon, 190.158.28.246, is essentially attacking anyone who reverts them or adds a "citation needed" template to their claims. The user was previously warned against this by Favre1fan93. Although I'm personally not offended, this is unacceptable behaviour nevertheless. DarkKnight2149 17:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)‹

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

SALT George Arabadzhiev

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

---

Hi. Can someone please salt this article and stop it from being recreated? Minutes after being speedied it was back Gbawden (talk) 06:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Removed it again. Only created twice so I haven't salted it yet, but let me know if the same article . -- Euryalus (talk) 06:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

It has reappeared. While the deleted article asserted that Arabadzhiev was "in 1978 was awarded with the Order of "the Red Banner of Labour" for his outstanding contribution to the Bulgarian People's Army" - presumably one of of the "Orders, decorations, and medals of Bulgaria" when it was under Communist rule. I also note that bg:Георги Арабаджиев on the Bulgarian language Wikipedia has been proposed for deletion.

(Which of course reminds me that Orwell described "Arms and the Man" as Bernard Shaw at the height of his powers.)

Pete "Hello, my name is Peter, and I am a recovering Eng. Lit. nerd" AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks

IP being rude and threatening to other IP: page history First reported at the Teahouse, but it's an ANI matter. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I've revdelled the blatantly offensive edit summary. If they come back and resume, a block is probably in order. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Neil, I'm pretty sure 85.227.140.95, whose edits 213.114.171.165 restored with the rude edit summary, is used by the same person. The context suggests it, if you look at the article history, and it's the same fairly exotic ISP and location, namely Bredbandsbolaget, Huddinge, Sweden. I'll try to keep an eye on them both and any IPs that look related. Bishonen | talk 22:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC).

Bishonen, 85.227.140.95 was trying to put 2nd september instead of 1st for ba tehran resumption who i undid. Then 213.114.171.165 restored with rude summmaries. Isn't there a rule requiring both to be banned, especially 213.114.171.165 as his words "don't walk down this alley" was a threat and made offensive abuse, I would be suprised if they were the same person although their words where similar in edit summaries.86.190.240.190 (talk) 11:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

There's no rule requiring editors to be banned - it's a community matter. Even making a legal threat is not a bannable offence, although you may be temporarily blocked until you withdraw. 78.145.17.85 (talk) 11:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Requesting Mass Deletion (User:Epassinc)

Epassinc (talk · contribs) had created 11 pages and was indef blocked. All of the pages can be listed as WP:G5 so I would request a WP:NUKE on all of the pages. NgYShung ^huh? 09:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Which block or ban were they violating? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. WP:G5 is inapplicable here as they were softblocked for a username violation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

It is a username soft block. But still some of its pages does not have enough notability and in WP:PROMO tone. Also most of them was PRODed and AfDed by User:Zackmann08 (see the talk page, maybe also help deleting or discussing). NgYShung ^huh? 09:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't doubt some or all should be deleted, but there are more appropriate methods for that than G5, including those you mentioned. I have just closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Epassinc without action. I was wondering, NeilN, whether there is an answer in Special:Contributions/49.200.77.11, who is obviously the same user. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

My mistake. I knew the registered account had been softblocked so the IP was free to edit. I have undone my reverts of their removal of PRODs but have asked them to stop removing AFD notices. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I've had a look at the articles - some have been listed at AfD, some retain PROD, some have been saved, basically kept already. I couldn't find one to speedy delete. Shout out also to User:Zackmann08 to look up the definition of 'banned'.[325] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

CSD

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

---

What's going on? There are currently over 200 pages in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion.--Launchballer 23:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter how many pages there are in that cat (or indeed any cat), does it? Everymorning (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I thought I might enquire since over 50 constitutes a backlog.--Launchballer 00:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

There's actually nearly three hundred as of now, so if a few admins could pop over there and do a few that would be great. This tool sorts by age, and there's some that have been listed for over a week. — Diannaa (talk) 00:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:DEADLINE. --Jayron32 00:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• I took care of Category:Cats that are obese. Drmies (talk) 03:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you for safeguarding Category:Cats that are thin. Purrr. Thincat (talk) 06:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Help needed with paid editing/username violation

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

---

Coconutdigital (talk · contribs) has created Jeet Rai Singh which I deleted as G11. On the talk page they stated "We are an Talent Management Company based in Mumbai, and we have created this page on behalf of our artist named Jeet Rai Singh, He is a Bollywood actor and a model." They also created Draft:Dipna Patel which is better written and less promotional, which along with their talk page message indicates a shared account to me. A quick google search shows that Coconut digital is "a small pro-active Pay Per Click agency" based in the UK.

I am not familiar enough with username policy and the rules around paid editing to know whether this user should be warned or blocked, and if so should it be a hard or soft block. Could someone more knowledgeable in this area please advise me on the best way to deal with a situation like this. Thanks. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sarahj2107: Hardblocked. The block message explains why. If you have further questions, please let me know. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Sarahj2107 and NeilN, an appropriate block in my view, but note that the account does not relate to the Pay Per Click agency based in the UK (Coconut Digital). It appears to be related to the India-based Coconut Talent Artist Management a division of Coconut Media Box. Voceditenore (talk) 09:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks both. @NeilN: the thing that made me hesitant to do a promotional username hard block was the part of the username policy that states "A user who both adopts a promotional username and also engages in inappropriately promotional behaviors in articles about the company, group, or product, can be blocked" (my bolding). Would this fall under promoting their product? Or can a user with a promotional username be block with this rational if they are not promoting themselves? Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Sarahj2107, yes, their clients are their "product". Users can be blocked with this rationale for promoting anything. For example, WhoopdeeddooLiteraryAgency can be blocked for promoting books or their signed clients. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

That make sense, I was probably being too cautious. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahj2107 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Sammy1339

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

---

Sammy1339 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been agitating at Michael Greger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for removal of a source critical of Greger's more inflated claims. He has been doing this since January. Consensus is clearly and consistently for inclusion of the source, but he doesn't want to hear that. After another round of forum shopping he has now initiated RfC with exactly the same substance as the rejected demands in January.

I think it is unlikely that Sammy1339 will drop the WP:STICK voluntarily. He has several times said he's going to drop it, and each time come back. I think this user needs to be separated from the article. Guy (Help!) 08:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Agreed. But since the article is under ARBPS discretionary sanctions and Sammy1339 has had the notice at least twice, why not just use AE? Black Kite (talk) 10:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Could do. It takes a while and we're only talking abut one article. If this was across multiple articles then AE would definitely be the right place. I could be persuaded easily enough. Anyone else have a view? Guy (Help!) 12:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Its 'discretionary sanctions'. You could just ban them from discussing or starting new discussions on SBM/Hall for 6 months. If they keep going, escalate from there. Although given the previous discussions on their talk page, a ban from BLP's in general might be considered. (Their issues with living people have not been restricted to just one topic area) Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• According to his talk page, he is taking a long wikibreak.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Topic banned. Guy can't sanction the user because he's involved on the article. I can, though. Topic banned indefinitely from Michael Greger and related pages, broadly construed. Bishonen | talk 19:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC).

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

Administrators Nyttend and Jehochman

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

---

• Nyttend (talk · contribs)
• Jehochman (talk · contribs)

Administrator Jehochman (Or JHM for brevity) redacted[326] part of a comment I made at RFA after Nyttend came to his talk page[327]. Nyttend came to JHM seeking a block of me on basis of this[328] from November of last year. In it JHM wrote 'I could indef block your account right now'. Before that, JHM cited these two examples- [329][330].

An indefinite block for telling Nyttend not to violate WP:NPA after Nyttend called me[331] a stalker. That seems more than a little extreme.

Let's examine the more recent post first.

Nyttend wrote- "He's even attacked me at an RFA page over an incident more than a year ago. When you're demonstrably holding grudges over a period of years, attacking others' actions as "colossal failures" for no good reason, it's beyond time for assumptions of good faith, beyond time for additional warnings."

Nyttend blocked 20 accounts by his own admission for sockpuppetry that proved to be wrong. That's a failure all right. My post to the RFA didn't just single out Nyttend but another administrator also who I thought overstepped.

Where is it said at RFA you can't criticize anyone? JHM writes at his talk page- 'That RFA isn't the place to rehash an old incident.' Old incidents are rehashed at RFA every time once of these comes up.

Nyttend has a long history of not taking criticism of any type well. He actually gave me a uw-npa3 once for personal attacks over this[332]. Was anything I wrote in that thread a violation of NPA? He's accusing me of harboring grudges but his behavior (and I can give more examples. Like his going off wiki[333] to seek a block of me and using his backup account another time[334] for the same purpose where moments later he was back in his main account, plus his threat[335] to seek sanctions against me for something he in his own words to not occur[336].) can be called questionable. The two cases I cite above may or may not constitute administrator shopping especially after his categorical dismissal at Commons and his citing it when using it in his backup account post.

In a recent ANI thread here[337] Nyttend was told to drop the stick.

JHM seems on the verge of taking action against me. See edit summary here[338].He told me not to follow Nyttend. I haven't and Nyttend has supplied no proof of such. I, like all wikipedia users, get notified of RFAs. I have participated there before on at least one occasion. Nyttend and my paths cross sometimes but like here[339] he said it was coincidence. A threat of an indefinite block for trivial actions seems like administrator overstep. Nyttend's persistence to get me blocked needs to be examined. Nothing I've done at RFA constitutes a violation of any warning given to me....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I am aware of this thread and will not be taking any actions other than to say that William's comment speaks for itself. Jehochman ^Talk 14:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

JHM here[340] says I'm wiki lawyering based on my request of proof I did something wrong at RFA. Ironically in that RFA thread I had an administrator asking me to cite WP policy to justify why I said something was wrong....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Please note Both Nyttend and JHM were notified of this thread. JHM subsequently deleted[341] my notification of him....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Question @WilliamJE: do you read ANI threads that you have started? Vis-à-vis, Jehochman acknowledged your notice by commenting above. It looks rather as if you wish to portray his every edit to be either at fault or a personal attack. As a seasoned user, you know that editors are allowed to remove (almost) whatever they like from their own talk pages. FYI. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

First, your RFA comment was redacted because it was completely off-topic and way out of line. You discuss the behavior of the candidate at RFA, not the behavior of a third party. You found an excuse to criticize Nyttend and took it. If you think the candidate is somehow soft on sockpuppetry or too hard on it, say so, but leave others out of it. Second, I take that ANI thread as telling both of you to drop the stick. You picked it up again, not Nyttend. I'm not going to block you because I'm the co-nom on that RFA and I think it would be improper, but I certainly think you deserve it. Katie^talk 15:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

And how is not Nyttend not picking up the stick by going to JHM and trying to get me blocked? Nyttend didn't cite the ANI thread but something else. My being critical of administrators around here has a long history and in a recent case[342] justified....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I put the 'please note' in to make sure people know I did notify JHM as required. It was done innocently. He had the right to remove it, I wanted to prevent my being accused of not informing him. How about showing WP:AGF?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

If he hadn't posted here immediately above you, then it would be a valid point. But he did, so it isn't. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Not this again ... This is an attempt to reinvigorate WilliamJE's long-term grudge-farming against Nyttend, which I had hoped had subsided. William really should know better. Acroterion (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Unrelated to most of the issues concerning Nyttend and WilliamJE's bad blood, but to chime in if I may, but keeping old grudges fresh goes directly in contravention of our principles against personal attacks and battleground conduct. Whatever the history between Nyttend and WilliamJe, that is absolutely zero excuse to bring up Nyttend into unrelated venues. What does Nyttend have to do with Oshwah's RFA. There was entirely no constructive purpose in WilliamJE's comments and a good move on Jehochman's part for redacting that comment. One shouldn't be going out of their way to criticize an editor whom they have a "history" with, whatever their reasons might be. I think the core difference here is WilliamJE brought it back up, not Nyttend. This thread is an attack on both Nyttend and Jehochman for calling out his behavior. I would strongly suggest WilliamJE to cease commenting on Nyttend ever again and to go find something else to do. This has gone on long enough. —Mythdon 17:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• William has spent years demonstrating that he will not drop this grudge. When his attacks are reverted, he restores them. Why do we permit this person to remain a member of the community? PS, just to ward off any accusations to the contrary: I'm not following William. I voted in the RFA, and someone else pinged me, so I went back and searched for my username and found this attack by coincidence. Had he left it after I went to look at the ping, I doubt that I would have ever noticed. Nyttend (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Then he should receive a block on both the grounds of edit warring and for restoration of the gratuitous comments. I haven't followed up on all of the history, but judging from the diffs, its blatantly clear that WilliamJE is just not going to drop the stick. His editing demonstrates a fascination with the edits of another user (in this case, with yours), following you around. I can't fathom how he's been allowed to do this for years. I've seen less severe cases in the past and those editors had already gotten interaction banned or indeffed for doing far less severe cases of harassment and personal attacks. —Mythdon 23:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Nyttend went to Commons over a year ago and where I had never edited before in order to get Sphilbrick to block me here for harrassment. Sphilbrick replied back here[343]. I'll quote SP's reading of the WP harrasment policy, SP's reply to one of Nyttend's charges and his overall summary and let you go. First-

"

the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor

You've demonstrated that the first part of this statement is true. There is no question that William is not randomly choosing articles to edit which occasionally include articles you have edited. We don't even have to invoke statistical evidence; he said he was going to watch your edits and he has. But the policy doesn't simply say it is inappropriate to follow someone else around. As I noted earlier and can explain again if necessary, there are many legitimate reasons one might identify a particular editor and choose to examine all or a significant portion of their edits. However, we have to look at the second part of the quotation. Are these actions done (mainly) "to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work"?"

Second- "In Monticello, Arkansas William change the heading from "notable residents" to "notable people". He has stated elsewhere that he believes this is the better choice. I concur. His edit did not affect your edit, modify or in any way challenge or inhibit your edit. It was an improvement to the article. No rational person could possibly see an edit by you making some improvements of the article, followed by an edit by William making different improvements of the article and think to themselves that William was confronting or inhibiting you." Bold added by me

Third- "I stopped looking at diffs at this point. If the best argument you can make is that William likes to improve articles where you've contributed, we should be debating which barnstar to award not talking about a block."- End of SP's reply. SP reviewed Nyttend's behavior involving me on another occasion. Here it is.[344] Read the whole thing but one SP quote 'it is the responsibility of admins to set a good example, and I don't think your interaction with WilliamJE meets that standard'.

One last thing and I have raised it many times (SP, JHM, and Acroterion have all heard it) and gotten silence. Why is it acceptable for Nyttend to threaten[345] to get sanctions against me for something he himself said[346] wasn't what occurred? For more context, here is another post[347] backing up what did occur. Is an editor supposed to tolerate that conduct or just take it because they fear they'll be made into the bad party?

What I am mad about is Nyttend got Orlady to block me in 2014 for BS and the block was overturned. However it is still on my block log. As goes for every editor ever blocked including a 2016 case where it was termed by an administrator 'the worst block I have ever seen' I have written before and SP has shown sympathy about bad blocks on an editor's history. Administrators read the history and make foolish judgments of my intentions based on it. Case in point Administrator Fram on SP's talk page not too long ago where SP replied in part 'I've had a long interaction with William — to oversimplify, he thinks there is admin abuse on this project, and I think admin abuse is something we have to be very careful about and make sure it doesn't occur, so I promised William I would look into such allegations. As William noted, I don't always agree with his assessment. On some occasions I think he has made a good point, and in other situations I have sharply disagreed with William.". You say I'm carrying a grudge? Is WP not carrying a grudge when a editor's block log shows a block that was wrong, universally condemned, and saw a administrator say it was the worst block he ever saw instead of having it deleted?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• I think it's long since time you two stopped interacting. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 00:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

WilliamJE editing restriction

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

---

• Propose swift and short WP:BOOMERANG block against the filer: having been advised repeatedly to drop the stick, deliberately does not wish to WP:GETOVERIT. _Muffled ^Pocketed 07:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• I oppose a block as excessive force, and likely to be ineffective once it expires. I think WilliamJE should be restricted from interacting with or talking about (directly or indirectly) Nyttend, with the usual exception that if Nyttend mentions WilliamJE, then WilliamJE is allowed to respond, or request assistance. This is what WilliamJE should do voluntarily, but if they won't agree to it, then we should make it a formal restriction. Jehochman ^Talk 14:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• I also think an interaction ban should be an order. History demonstrates that this user will only continue to harass Nyttend, as demonstrated in their 3 year long history, and blocks alone are generally ineffective with harassing users without the teeth of an interaction ban. —Mythdon 14:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• I would support an interaction ban, but not a block. I have been involved with both editors and their interactions. Both editors are prolific contributors and this encyclopedia owes each of them a debt of thanks for their significant contributions. For reasons I have not been able to fully tease out, they don't play well together. This place is big enough that both can contribute without having to interact. It has been my impression that both have been voluntarily doing this, so I ask both to redouble their efforts to stay away from each other. (I do commend Nyytend for asking another admin to take action, rather than taking action themselves, although I suspect that may not be viewed as positively by William as I viewed it.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• A formal interaction ban is needed. This latest incident and WilliamJE's latest contribution to this thread indicates that William is not interested in leaving years-ago events alone and continues to seek out opportunities to air this grudge. I don't understand why he thinks that appearing at ANI every three months is a good way to clear his record, it's doing the opposite and tends to support the assertion that there was a problem with his behavior during the conflict he so resents. I agree with Sphilbrick that asking for sanctions rather than applying them oneself shows restraint on the part of Nyttend in the face of repeated provocation. WilliamJE is a prolific editor whom I've helped from time to time and wish him well. The only thing standing in his way is this tendency to cherish grudges. Acroterion (talk) 11:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• FIM is way too rash in choosing a side and carrying a stick for rough action. A block would barely do good here - rather the IBANs proposed by the other seem to be a much better course of action and I personally suppose a formal one will finally lead him to drop the stick. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 21:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Can we get an admin to close this discussion? It looks like we've got all the comments that there will be. Jehochman ^Talk 14:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Not right now, I want to comment first: I support a one-way interaction ban on WilliamJE mentioning, or hinting at, Nyttend. Airing his grudge at Oshwah's RFA was head-spinningly irrelevant. There should not be a ban on Nyttend mentioning WilliamJC. That's probably what people meant above, too, but I want to spell it out because one-way IBANs are quite unusual. Warranted in this case, though. Bishonen | talk 11:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC).

• Plus a two way ban would be far too open to gaming, given WilliamJE's history of wikilawyering, WilliamJE would probably try to game around a two way ban. That being said, I agree with your sentiment that a one way ban is the direction to go in this unusual circumstance. —Mythdon (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

User:John Jaffar Janardan

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

---

first of all, i dont know this user at all, I am in Mumbai, and my IP is 120.63.148.3. I am not supporting John Jaffar here, I am questioning the guy who blocked him... a six year old account with checkuser rights, @Bbb23:.. this guy just blocked him without leaving any proper reason behind his blockage.... john jaffar appealed but Bbb23 didn't respond to him (as if he is a god)... Now you people check why this guy was blocked?? Checkuser block..under which investigation??? why Bbb23 has rights to block people without letting them know the reason...Who the hell is Bbb23?? He snatched rights to edit wikipedia without proper reason...he can block me too...why he does not need to leave reasons behind??? I work at Microsoft..i am good at computers,, I know how Wikipedia works... who is this guy?? why is he allowed to manipulate Wikipedia? This is not a troll...I need proper answers...I can produce several instances of Bbb23 abusing his checkuser rights ToddyWiper (talk) 02:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Its a Check User Block which means that the user was probably confirmed to have used multiple accounts in an abusive manner. Have you tried asking Bbb23 directly? They are pretty reasonable and might be willing to provide a better answer providing it would be inline with the privacy policy, and access to non-public information policy. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 02:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

You may check Bbb23 talk page...there is a section related to John Jaffer... Bbb23 is yet to disclose his intentions .... By the way..who is the master sock??? If john jaffer is a master sock then who is the puppet... why was he blocked????? Blocking admin should answer that.... PROPERLY....ToddyWiper (talk) 03:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

First, it is a holiday weekend and many US based editors will be doing other things. Next, you only asked your question a few hours ago so running here to open a thread rather than waiting for a reply was unnecessary. What that does lead to is a question as to why ToddyWiper (talk · contribs) with eight edits is asking about this. Ah I see that a boomerang has been used while I was typing so this thread can be closed. MarnetteD|Talk 03:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Actually, if it's not too much of a bother to ask, who is JJJ a sockpuppet of? I was very intrigued when I heard they were blocked. GAB^gab 21:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Insults from User:F1lover22 after talk page discussion

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

---

I recently had a dispute with F1lover22 (talk · contribs) about his formatting of wikitables on List of number-one singles of 2016 (Ireland) (using rowspans whereas the standard for these types of articles is separate rows for each entry) and assumed because of his national ties to the topic, that's why he was editing that page (and the corresponding albums page) and not formatting others. Nothing very untoward or any incivility on my part. I self-reverted on those pages after leaving two messages at his talk page, and he responded by being very uncivil and outright insulting me, calling me a "sad loner" for a mere harmless assumption and a "keyboard warrior" in the same edit. I've been here before reporting users and I feel like this is a user who knows he shouldn't be carrying on like this. He has thousands of edits, and obviously thinks it's acceptable to insult other users when they say something you don't like. I'm astounded that people conduct themselves like this to begin with and have somehow made it through years of edits with this vicious mentality. Ss112 11:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

How you can presume I have a "vicious mentality" from one "insult" is a mystery to me anyway. I could get offended about your snide comments accusing me of editing something because of some nationalistic ties I have to my country but 1) don't know you and 2) don't let random Wikipedia comments get to me. If you had an issue with my editing style, all you had to do was start a discussion on the relevant talk page(s).--F1lover22 talk 11:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I was speaking generally about users who insult others with that last sentence. It seemed vicious to lash out and insult me because you misinterpreted my second message as a snide remark. It was an assumption, and perhaps a naive one, but I didn't mean it with any will at all. I was a bit annoyed upon self-reverting, but I said that on your talk page after doing that and thus it wasn't intended as you took it. Ss112 12:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Fair points, but by reverting the edits you are only adding fuel to the fire. If you had just started a discussion saying that the formatting was in line with other similar pages instead of instigating a personal attack on my talk page, this whole mess could have been avoided. Again, apologies if you took offence to my comments.--F1lover22 talk 12:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Apologies if my phrasing was taken as a personal attack. That sentence should have been broken up, because it reads as if I'm connecting the two, but I really didn't think of that when I wrote it. I don't think national ties are a bad thing, so the part about feeling strongly wasn't meant negatively, only the "edit war" bit. I just wrote it as one conjoined sentence. Definitely needed to think that one through better. Ss112 12:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Glad that it is sorted --F1lover22 talk 12:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Atul Keshap

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

---

The diff shows, image removal on the above subject by User:Mdpperera who has created the page. I asked explanation on his talk page and the talk page of the subject, but never heeded. I am not sure whether he/she is inclined of ownership mentality. I need opinion on the subject's talk page whether the image is eligible to be added on the article.Lapmaster (talk) 12:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Lapmaster, where did you get the picture from? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The image has been deleted as a copyright violation at Commons. Whilst User:Mdpperera may not have been reverting for that reason, their deletion of such an image was actually correct. Lapmaster, you should know by now that uploading copyrighted images as your own work is completely wrong as it appears to have happened once before. Even if the image had been uploaded as non-free, its use in an article about a living person is unlikely to pass our non-free image policies. Closing this. Black Kite (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

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

clear WP:OWN at Mike Rann

Timeshift9 (talk · contribs) is displaying clear WP:OWN at Mike Rann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). he refuses to let me edit the article, even when correcting for factual uncited errors that I discussed on the talk page, as per [348] and [349]. he had previously claimed relevant citations were on Rann Government which they are not. he has now insisted I will continue to revert until such time. In my years on Wikipedia this is clear WP:OWN , insisting that all edits must be pre-approved by one user. he accuses me of WP:POINT when I am correcting errors of fact.

A few days he made repeated attempts to discourage me from editing [350] and also threatened for admins to sort me out LibStar (talk) 03:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I can't believe this contributor is so one-eyed! I am disputing the changes considering their repeatedly mischievous and increasingly POINTy past-few-days-of-history with the article (see article edit summaries and article talk page contributions - ensure when doing this everything is noted rather than skim-reading it and forming a potentially misguided conclusion). As their changes are disputed they require a consensus. If they believe their intentions have been and shown to be consistently pure and they have displayed required valid corrections, then perhaps they should wonder why after all this time, still nobody else has come along and agreed with them yet. Where's the consensus replies from other contributors that they believe they deserve? "Build it and they will come"... or WP:DONTBEADICK and they will come? Clearly they have not convinced anyone... perhaps they should reflect on their behaviour as to why this is. Their initial attempts to make changes were met with evidence to the contrary, having to correct them around six separate times for six separate wikipedia guidelines! It is clear that once this decade-long user experienced six guideline corrections in a row, they increasingly turned POINTy. Again, to anyone who looks in to this, I implore them to read the article edit summaries and article talk page contributions to see how much this user continued to change trajectory after each guideline correction. Massive glass jaw/pride it would seem... it's clear they just cannot handle being corrected, particularly repeatedly. If they're right, they would get that consensus and this would all go away. So they should ask themselves why that hasn't and isn't happening...? Timeshift (talk) 03:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I've added my two cents to the talk page of the relevant article. You should both be discussing sources there. I don't see any WP:OWN issues but there has not been best practice editing. SPACKlick (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I did put an edit warring warning on both your talk pages because both parties are warring. This is a content dispute that should be handled through dispute resolution as the talk page hasn't had input from outside editors and the issue isn't getting anywhere by the constant reverts and changes. -- Dane2007 ^talk 04:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

But it is clear that when a change to the status quo is disputed/reverted, it is up to the user making that change to gain talkpage consensus, and until that time, they are required to leave out their change. I'm not going to play their increasingly tedious POINTy games. I corrected them on the first six issues they raised with the correct guidelines - six times - which they didn't even acknowledge each and every time, and became increasingly POINTy which is clearly observable on the article's talk page. After the first six times correcting their incorrect understanding of wikipedia's article guidelines which made them increasingly POINTy, I had every right to disengage. I don't deal with tantrums nor should I. If they are so sure they're right and not being underhanded then they should be able to easily manage consensus without me. As they're so sure of themselves, they shouldn't have any issue waiting for consensus from other users - very reasonable. I drew the line and refused to continue to play their increasingly tedious games. After I provided half a dozen corrections to their first half dozen issues, they admitted you were encouraged to look deeper/be POINTy. I'm not going to and am not required to continue playing their games. I'm not going to go around playing your reference games. If they're right they'll get consensus from others. But it won't be from me which all things considered is justifiable - if anyone disagrees, just read the article's edit summaries and article talk page contents. No reasonable person would continue to hit their head against that particular brick wall. Timeshift (talk) 04:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment I suggest both editors take a deep breath and drop the edit-warring behaviour. Skirting around 3RR will just get you sanctioned. Might I suggest an RfC or other DR approach? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

User: Ruud Koot discrediting nature-based metaheuristics and authors

Biasing the discussion
User: Ruud Koot has made extensive changes to nearly all Wikipedia pages concerning Swarm Intelligence, removing a lot of scholarly material and links,and replacing them with a copy and paste of disparaging remarks on the topic. Amongst the pages affected by his changes there are those related to the Bees algorithm, Artificial bee colony algorithm, Harmony search, Cuckoo search, Glowworm swarm optimization, and Firefly algorithm. He also re-arranged the Swarm Intelligence page, moving arbitrarily a large number of sections to a separate page (List of metaphor-based metaheuristics), and introducing them with a long section of disparaging remarks, often misrepresenting the views of the authors he cites (see Talk:List of metaphor-based metaheuristics).
By removing a vast quantity of information documenting the success of nature-based metaheuristics, and replacing it with his own negative opinion, he effectively biased the entire presentation on Wikipedia of an important and thriving field (6000 citations in 2015 according to the Web of Science).

Trying to have Wikipedia pages deleted
He proposed deletion of the following articles: Bees algorithm, Artificial bee colony algorithm , Glowworm swarm optimization, Intelligent Water Drops algorithm, Cuckoo search, Imperialist competitive algorithm , Fish School Search. Many of these techniques are very popular and successful optimisation techniques.

Preventing other users from restoring material / changing his edits
Myself and other colleagues in the field were impeded to reinstate our deleted contribution, as he promptly removes or undoes any change. He has also semi-protected Swarm Intelligence to hinder other contributors from making changes. When one user hijacks the entire presentation of a wide topic on several Wikipedia articles, I believe we have a democracy problem.

Lack of any will to reach agreement
Myself and other authors (User:Zwgeem and User: Aheedar) tried to no avail to ask him to respect our contributions and present the topic in a fair and impartial way on Talk:Swarm intelligence, Talk:Bees algorithm, Talk:List of metaphor-based metaheuristics, on User talk:Marco castellani 1965, and on the motivations for undos/changes in the articles.

Personal attacks / Attempts to discredit other editors

• User: Ruud Koot accused me of Conflict of Interest in User talk:Marco castellani 1965 (I rebutted his accusations), and after my rebuttal he accused me again on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marco castellani 1965.
• He accused User:Zwgeem of Conflict of Interest (Talk:Harmony search)
• He accused User: Metafun of Conflict of Interest (Talk:Cuckoo search)
• He accused User talk:Aheedar of being a sockpuppet of mine (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marco castellani 1965)
• He accused User talk:Aheedar of being a sockpuppet of User:Zwgeem
• He blocked indefinitely User: Aheedar who supported my objections on Talk:Swarm intelligence. Although User: Aheedar might have made a procedural mistake in good faith (he apparently tagged both title and content of one page), I believe his comments reflected genuine concerns and did not constitute personal attacks. I also question the rationale for banning indefinitely an inexperienced user without warnings.
• If I understood correctly, he accused User: Metafun of having 105(!) sockpuppets Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Metafun/Archive.

Interestingly, he had similar quarrels (destroyed contributions) with User: Gogol 1367 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ruud_Koot&oldid=732258826), and got him banned too. He seems to have a knack at upsetting people and having them banned once they make a wrong move.
I added further comments on Talk:List of metaphor-based metaheuristics and Talk:Swarm intelligence to clarify my objections, and tagged Swarm intelligence for neutrality. However, I believe this is a question of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Should I open a separate section on that noticeboard?
Thanks Marco castellani 1965 (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Just a few observations:

• user:Gogol 1367 made three edits, all to Koot's userpage, none of them were appropriate. So he got banned.
• Requesting a SPI isn't a bannable offence (unless disruptive)
• User:Aheedar was blocked for personal attacks and disruptive editing. A block appeal failed.
• You write "Myself and other colleagues in the field...". To me that implies you do have a conflict of interest, especially if I see the name Castellani appearing as a reference in your contributions.

Kleuske (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• I think I have a problem with Ruud's actions here. At Swarm intelligence, on July 26, he indefinitely semi-protected the page with the rationale 'persistent spamming,' but the only link in question was a link to another Wikipedia article that was inlined instead of wikilinked. That's not spamming, and indefinite protection is certainly not warranted on an article that had no previous protection log. And the block of Aheedar for NPA is excessive at least and punitive at most, not to mention these alleged personal attacks were on the talk page of an article Ruud has heavily edited. I saw a UTRS appeal of Aheedar's block and sent it back to be addressed on-wiki, and it struck me at the time as a weird block. I'd like Ruud to address these issues and explain how he believes he's not involved. Katie^talk 18:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Marco and colleagues have been spamming their research fairly widely on Wikipedia for years (see several of the links and contributions of account mentioned in Marco's report; these are rarely external links but instead inappropriate citations or mentions of their work). There's a line between cleaning up spam being introduced by single-purpose accounts with a conflict-of-interest and being involved, and I don't think I've crossed that line. The User:Aheedar account, like the User:Gogol 1367 account, has made little contributions beside making some personal attacks. (I'm intrigued why Marco picked out the User:Gogol 1367 account from all those who I've ever had a "squabble" with. This was a month ago, do they know each other?)—Ruud 19:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I would like to see User: Ruud Koot to back up his claims.
I have re-written Bees algorithm a couple of years ago, fixing broken links and updating the list of references. Out of 31 citations, 6 were to my works, the other 25 from the team of creators and sources found in the literature (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bees_algorithm&oldid=728207831). My 6 self-citations were the first journal article on the topic, two articles on the benchmarking of the algorithm, and 3 applications of the Bees Algorithm.
I also added one section on the Bees Algorithm to Swarm Intelligence, with two citations, one was the first and most cited publication on the algorithm, the other the first journal paper on the topic (see above).
I don’t believe this is inappropriate citations of my work. According to the definition:
“Citation spamming is a form of search engine optimization or promotion that typically involves the repeated insertion of a particular citation or reference in multiple articles by a single contributor. Often these are added not to verify article content but rather to populate numerous articles with a particular citation”.
If the problem was an excessive number of citations of mine, User: Ruud Koot would have been very welcome to remove the inappropriate material, and explain the reason in the motivation for changes.
My complaint is actually about him making radical changes to several articles, presenting an entire topic under his very personal negative slant, blocking other users from making changes, and abusing of his admin role to block and harass other editors.
User:Kleuske, if you believe that it is proper that an editor requests an SPI for whoever disagrees with him, and doesn't constitute an attempt to intimidate/harass other contributors, that's fine with me. I am relatively new here, I trust the judgement of more experienced admins. However, I still believe the indefinite ban of unexperienced User talk:Aheedar without warning was excessive and retaliatory (Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers).
Regarding my conflict of interest, I have worked 20 years on Evolutionary and Swarm Algorithms, I am an active researcher on the topic, and I lecture on it. I have written several articles on the Bees Algorithm, and collaborated in several occasions with the creators. That's why I contributed on the topic on Wikipedia. If a practitioner is not supposed to write in his field of expertise, please let me know and I will refrain to contribute again on the topic. However, I find very unfair User: Ruud Koot's accusation of our contributions being "spam being introduced by single-purpose accounts with a conflict-of-interest". Most of us are experts who are here to disseminate their knowledge and findings. User: Ruud Koot is free to have his opinion on nature-inspired metaheuristics, but shouldn't hijack the entire presentation of this field on Wikipedia, and discredit the work of hundreds of researchers in this area (see also my objections to the neutrality of his edits in Talk:List of metaphor-based metaheuristics and Talk:Swarm intelligence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco castellani 1965 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• I developed an interest in this field some years ago. When I first saw examples of "nature inspired" heuristics they seemed interesting and overdue. I wrote Wikipedia articles related to this area such as shoaling and schooling, self-propelled particles and swarm behaviour and helped maintain some integrity in articles such as swarm intelligence. Most of the heuristics involved revolve around some form of collective animal behaviour. However, it has become evident that this field has been progressively spiralling out of control. Authors, often from certain regions in India, have discovered this is a way to endlessly generate articles with an appearance of academic respectability. All you need is to take some sort of interactive animal behaviour, such as shuffled frog-leaping, set up a heuristic, and you're away. However, this is at base an area of applied mathematics. Many of these heuristics have a related underlying mathematical structure, and it is these underlying structures that should really be the focus of inquiry. This is a field that will sort itself out eventually, but in the meantime it has become somewhat ragged and disorganised. In my view Ruud Koot has done the right thing by creating a new article, List of metaphor-based metaheuristics, which attempts to keep these seemingly disparate but frequently related offerings together. I gave him a barnstar for this inspiration. However I have a reservation; it is not really Wikipedia's job to sort out this academic mess. The academics need to sort it out themselves. We should merely be reporting the mess they seem to have got themselves into. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. To summarize the situation: there's a group A of academics and journals who believe these nature-inspired/metaphor-based metaheuristcs to be the best thing since sliced bread and a group B of academics and journals who see it as little more than junk science. It has been group A who has been controlling the articles in questions for the past decade (using throw-away accounts, without declaring their conflict-of-interest, and generally responding with insults to anyone who obstructs them). Macro's comments above imply they have not only been doing that, but also been doing that in a somewhat organized fashion. This is all highly undesirable. —Ruud 11:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

User: Epipelagic every new rising scientific field has good science and bad science, original and derivative work, gaps in knowledge, serious practitioners and opportunists who jump on the bandwagon. To tar a whole are under the brush “authors, often from certain regions in India…” seems to me extremely unfair (by the way, none of the affected pages seems to correspond to your description). In any case, I believe you are not addressing the problem here. If this was a content-related issue, I would have reported it elsewhere. If you are interested in my scientific objections to User: Ruud Koot’s modifications, you are welcome to visit Talk:List of metaphor-based metaheuristics and Talk:Swarm intelligence.
My complaint is about one admin slanting the entire presentation of an area, removing a lot of other user’s contributions, blocking other people from contributing, banning critics for specious reasons. There is no neutrality and no consensus now in the presentation of metaphor-based metaheuristics, and nobody is able to change User: Ruud Koot’s slant. Katie has pointed out as well the inappropriateness of User: Ruud Koot’s actions.
I also would be grateful if User: Ruud Koot started addressing his behaviour issues seriously, instead of smearing whoever disagrees with his views with accusations of sockpuppeting, using throw-away accounts, being single-purpose accounts spammers, insulting him, acting in organised fashion.
As a relatively new contributor to this encyclopaedia, I don’t feel this continuous sort of bullying and smearing makes me want to stay here much longer.Marco castellani 1965 (talk) 13:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

tl;dr. Also, bolding excessively is very annoying. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with Katie's comments about the "weird" block of Aheedar, in fact caling it "weird" is perhaps rather an understatement. The block was in part for "personal attacks" which looked to me more like criticisms of an editor's editing than personal attacks. Those edits were criticisms of (or, if you prefer, personal attacks on) Ruud Koot, so he is an involved editor, and should not have blocked, but should ahve sought the opinion of an independent, uninvolved, administrator. Even if one does share Ruud Koot's view that the edits in question were "personal attacks", they were not such gross and extreme attacks as to justify an immediate indefinite block on a new editor who had never received any warning at all that his or her editing had problems. Apart from the "personal attacks", the other reason given for the block was this edit, which Ruud Koot described as "tag bombing/disrupive [sic] editing". Yes, it was excessive tagging, but even for an experienced editor who might have been expected to know better, it would have warranted a friendly message, not a block, and to use it as part of the reason for an immediate indefintie block on a new editor is absurd. In addition to all this, Ruud Koot has protected an article where he is involved in editing on disputed issues, which he should not have done.

• On the substance of the content dispute, I don't know enough to judge the rights and wrongs of the case, but on the substance of Ruud Koot's handling of the dispute, he is way out of line. He should not be acting as an administrator in a disputed case where he is involved as an editor. His complete misjudgement of the seriousness of what he called "personal attacks" and "disrupive editing", where he imposed an immediate indefinite block for what at most warranted a friendly message, is an indication of exactly the sort of reason why we have the policy WP:INVOLVED: in a case where one is involved, one is likely to find it difficult to see things from a balanced perspective. I have unblocked Aheedar, who should never have been blocked, and I also wonder about unprotecting the article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• In light of the above discussion, and similar comments made at Talk:List of metaphor-based metaheuristics, I have reviewed the content and POV dispute. I find that some of the complaints about Ruud's contributions have merit. I think he has misrepresented sources to some degree, and has inserted material or structured articles in such a way as to poison the well. However, I am not ready to assume that this was done out of bad faith. Also, these content and presentational issues alone are not matters for the administrators; they're just run-of-the-mill content disputes. I have gone through and removed, revised, or restructured material that seemed to be factually incorrect or to violate WP:NPOV. Hopefully the edits (and my explanations in edit summaries and on Talk:List of metaphor-based metaheuristics) will be to everyone's general satisfaction.
  Of course, Ruud's use of administrator tools during this dispute is another matter entirely. This seems to be a very serious breach of WP:INVOLVED. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie, JamesBWatson, and Psychonaut: I think I should acknowledge that I was in violation of WP:INVOLVED when I blocked User:Aheedar. I'm not sure if giving the full chain of reasoning that led me to make the decision to block them seems overly defensive, or if omitting it makes this admission seem shallow. At this point I'll just say that I'll try not to let this happen again in the future. Feel free to ask if you desire a longer response.

I'll also unprotect Swarm intelligence. If anyone wants to keep this page on their watchlist, then that would be appreciated. I expect there will not be any objections to leaving User:Gogol 1367 blocked.

—Ruud 17:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. FWIW, I do agree that (1) a lot of these algorithms are indeed junk science, and (2) their originators may be adding citations to them on Wikipedia. The problem with #1 is that determining which research is junk science is really none of our business; that's a job for academia. The best we can do is report on the criticisms that have already passed academic peer review—and when we do, we need to make sure that the tar brush this grants us is applied neither too broadly nor too selectively. The problem with #2 is that our guidelines make it clear that not every instance of self-citation is promotional or problematic. If the topic itself is notable, and the self-citations are clearly relevant, then I've found that it can be very hard to make an actionable case for wrongdoing. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I thank you as well. Katie^talk 21:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Psychonaut for solving the POV dispute, I think you have done an excellent job. I added a few minor comments in Talk:List of metaphor-based metaheuristics. Thank you also Katie and JamesBWatson for being the first to see the problem. I was wondering whether it would be possible to track who was banned in the past by Ruud, and check whether the correct procedures were followed. I came across User:Gogol 1367's case by chance, and it struck me that he had a content issue (removed material) with Ruud too. I don't question User:Gogol 1367 acted inappropriately (vandalised Ruud's page), but I wonder whether he should have been first warned, had been warned, and whether the ban should have been limited to a fixed period. If any of these objections applies, we may have a pattern here. Marco castellani 1965 (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Do you really want to go there? You got what you wanted, which I assume was scrutiny of Ruud's actions in this particular area, and I'd advise you to drop the stick. If you decide to keep digging in, you can find all the public logs by going to Special:Log and entering Ruud Koot's username. I'll warn you right now, however, that any accusation of bad faith needs to be backed up with evidence and diffs. Again, my advice is to step away from the abyss and go edit an article. Katie^talk 12:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest

I'd remind user:Marco castellani 1965 that citing your own research in Wikipedia edits is usually considered a conflict of interest according to Wikipedia's mores. If you want to include text based on your own research then you should always propose it on the article's Talk page and let an independent editor review it and make the change. There have been instances where people's real-world reputation has suffered damage as a result of being seen to abuse Wikipedia for self-promotion. Wikipedia is very different from academic publishing: citing yourself is fine in academia, not here. And if you repeatedly push your own work then it can backfire rather badly, so I strongly suggest you take the ethical approach and leave it to others to decide whether it should be included or not. Guy (Help!) 12:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

citing your own research in Wikipedia edits is usually considered a conflict of interest according to Wikipedia's mores. If you want to include text based on your research then you should always propose it on the article's Talk page... That's just not true, according to the very guideline you're linking. EEng 13:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Damn these guidelines, they keep being faffed with. Pretty clear that this is the ethical way to do it though. Guy (Help!) 14:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

You are thinking of WP:PROMO from the wikipedia policy What Wikipedia is not which directly links to COI. Someone self-citing will have a conflict of interest, but as long as the material is neutral and relevant its not prohibited. Its actually on the bottom end of the scale when it comes to COI issues. The COI policy (WP:SELFCITE) just says you can cite youself, but you should seek community consensus if in doubt. This however is taken by some hardliners to mean that all self-cited material should be proposed on the talkpage. From taking a look at Marco's (and the articles) history, I cant see an accusation of 'link/refspamming' holds up. Its not excessive given the length of time and material and its relevant (and as far as I can tell, neutral) to the articles. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Guy, the problem I raised here had nothing to do with self-citation. In reply, I was portrayed as a citation spammer and many of you here seem to have found this picture reassuring. I found this quarrel tiring and time-consuming, and I have no wish to take it any further. However, it gave me a good inside view into the workings of Wikipedia. Do not worry about my real-world reputation, since Wikipedia has no part in the academic debate. I will refrain from making any future contribution, and I believe this will solve all problems. Marco castellani 1965 (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't be driven away. Your contributions are valuable. Read WP:SELFCITE, take it to heart, and always err on the side of discussing first. If there are alternatives to citing yourself, use them instead. EEng 14:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Earl King Jr.

Earl King Jr. fails to assume good faith and resorts to personal attacks instead of discussing edits properly:

• edit by Earl King Jr. insulting Jtbobwaysf [351]

• response from Jtbobwaysf trying to calm down the discussion [352]

• subsequent edit by Earl King Jr. insulting Jtbobwaysf [353]

• comment by N2e trying to calm down the discussion [354]

• user talk page warning by N2e [355]

• edit by Earl King Jr. failing to discuss an issue at talk page and assume good faith [356]

• edit by Earl King Jr. failing to discuss the issue at the talk page and assume good faith [357]

• edit by Earl King Jr. failing to discuss the issue at the talk page and assume good faith [358]

• edit by Earl King Jr. failing to assume good faith [359]

• edit by Earl King Jr. failing to assume good faith and discuss the issue at talk page [360]

• edit by Earl King Jr. failing to assume good faith [361]

• edit by Earl King Jr. failing to assume good faith [362]

• edit by Earl King Jr. failing to assume good faith and discuss the issue at talk page [363]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladislav Mecir (talk • contribs)

• edit by Earl King Jr. vandalizing N2e's talk page (deleting discussion relating to his behavior on other pages [364]

• history of cleanup by Earl King Jr. of his own talk page to quickly removing warnings, including one he received a couple days ago from N2e. Appears King may has been the subject of previous ANI's as well from looking at edit summaries. [365]

Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comments A couple of things, and I'm uninvolved other than that I have Earl's talk on my watchlist as well as ANI. I don't see those diffs as personal attacks. Finally, one is free to remove warnings from one's talk page. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Earl King Jr. uses thinly-veiled unsupported ad hominem attacks in content debate. Here and here, EKJ accuses those who disagree with EKJ of having a commercial COI on with a BitCoin journal. Here, EKJ accuses me of being a Holocaust denier. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 23:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Threat of violence

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

---

Could an admin please deal with the threat of violence posted here? StAnselm (talk) 06:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, for fuck's sake, when a non-native speaker says, "Hindus will not forgive editer . And result would be not peceful for any one. So please ensure your self before editing", it's not a threat of violence. Honestly, what a bunch of crybabies we have here at ANI. EEng 06:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

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

User:UW Dawgs: You smell like poo!

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

---

Does anyone think that the contents of User:UW Dawgs is appropriate? It has been removed 3 times: [366], [367], [368] and proposed for deletion as vandalism [369] but UW dogs insists on restoring the content and greeting every visitor to his/her user page by telling them that they smell like poo. I believe this is completely inappropriate and the discussion on his/her talk page has gone nowhere. Toddst1 (talk) 06:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Again with the nannying of the user pages. Can we just go back to editing articles? (I haven't opened the linked JPG and don't plan to, but unless it's something egregious my prior comment still applies.) EEng 06:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

In any case, I wouldn't want to question the accuracy of his assessment. _Muffled ^Pocketed 07:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Are you following me, Mr. Muffled Mundi? EEng 08:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

In the future, everyone will be a Wikipedia editor for 15 minutes. –EEng

Dear User:Toddst1; I strongly suggest that you use the unwatch button at the top if the page so that you no longer see user pages that displease you.

If, by some chance, you are strapped to a chair with your eyelids tied open in front of a monitor with User:UW Dawgs on the screen and the Poo Song blasting in the background, then let me address this message to your captors: First of all, keep up the good work. Secondly, please take away his keyboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe stop clicking on their userpage and go and build an encyclopedia would be something to try. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I decided to download the linked image so you don't have to, and all it is is a picture of a poo plushie. All in all, I don't really think there's a problem. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 16:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Disruptive edits by RolandSupreme

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

---

Ever since this user came onto Wikipedia, he/she has been making pointless and disruptive edits that have wound up being undone. Literally his/her entire history is made up of such edits. While a number of editors have undone his/her edits, ZeEnergizer has dealt with this user the most.

For example, RolandSupreme made this edit, claiming to be fixing "missing info", but the sources do not seem to verify this and ZeEnergizer ultimately undid the edit. He/She also seems to have a temper tantrum, judging by the edit summaries of these edits.

RolandSupreme has been here for a day and already is he/she causing problems for every article he/she has edited on. Of course, it can be attributed to him/her being a new user and being unaware of the rules. But this disruptive practice has been pretty consistent so far and I think it's already time for him/her to learn the consequences of his/her behavior, whatever that may be. Parsley Man (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The first thing I notice is a total absence of any attempt to communicate with this new editor on their talk page to try to help them - just a welcome, followed by an ANI notification. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Note also, the time between the welcome and AN/I notifications is literally less than 24 hours. Here's a several step solution that should have been enacted prior to bringing them to this noticeboard. Step 1, talk to the editor. Step 2, if the editor refuses to communicate drop them a personalized message on their talk page that they are being disruptive and should try to communicate with other editors. Step 3, notify a friendly admin and see if they can't possibly give a helpful suggestion or leave a note on the editor's talk page. Step 4, if the disruption has continued and is continuing after all of the previous steps have been taken, bring it to the administrator's noticeboard. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Good point Boing. Also, I think we should cherish anyone who is willing to work on the Transformer articles, which suffer from a serious dearth of interested editors. We're missing out on a lot of content. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
• And seriously, we have 181k worth of List of Transformers film series characters? Drmies (talk) 01:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, my bad. I didn't notice it at first, but yes, it does seem like communication hasn't been established with the editor first. Sorry. I advocate for this discussion to be closed now. Should this user continue to be disruptive even after a warning, I will bring this back to ANI. Parsley Man (talk) 03:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Blocked indef for vandalism. Nakon 04:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Pardon me, but why, when the conversation was "OK, let's be sure this new user understands how we do things here, we'll meet back if there's further disruption", does suddenly the user get blocked 30 minutes later, having made no further edits? EEng 05:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Dane2007, I can't believe I'm saying this, but I seem to agree with EEng on this one. Is there some additional context missing here? TimothyJosephWood 11:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

This is maybe the third time today I'm getting the "Impossible-as-it-may-seem-I-agree-with-EEng" treatment. When did I become the personification of heterodoxy? EEng 15:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

You can...come off as...abrasive... TimothyJosephWood 23:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I prefer to think of it as being "direct". Have you visited The Museums? EEng 02:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

You can...also...come off as...self absorbed. TimothyJosephWood 00:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Your comments compel me to undertake a searching and fearless moral inventory of myself – crowd-sourced, of course [370]. EEng 01:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Nakon, I'm questioning your block. Have you lot heard of WP:BITE or did that one float by without anybody noticing. The user was bitten by one user who went from "welcome" to "warning" in less than 24 hours. Now, rather than try to talk to the editor, an admin joins in the fray and bites the editor's head off completely with an indef block. Since when do we go from no block to indefinite block for non-blatant vandalism. That is a poor block. Please consider reversing it, new editors have enough to deal with, without rash actions by an administrator. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
• Yep, that's pretty bad. There was clearly an understanding here of what should've happened and what was intended to happen, and that crappy block just rides roughshod over the community. Cheers, _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
• I feel compelled to point out that this isn't the first time this has happened. EEng 15:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, quite. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• I've unblocked the editor and will leave a message on their talk page apologizing for biting and regarding the need to discuss these edits. Thanks, Nakon 15:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Gravuritas

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

---

• Impact of the privatisation of British Rail (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Gravuritas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mathmensch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After being asked not to do so, User:Gravuritas broke the three-edit rule (diff) with an inappropriate summary line. Furthermore, his response on his talk page was not the most polite of all, and I consider it to be inappropriate, violating Wikipedia principles such as WP:AGF and addressing me as "sonny", and I'm not sure whether this already crosses the line of an insult, albeit a very harmless one.--Mathmensch (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule: Violating this rule "often leads to blocks"--Mathmensch (talk) 15:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, it may be not the first time: User_talk:Gravuritas#Peak_oil--Mathmensch (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Gravuritas and User:Mathmensch have each got up to three reverts and are risking a block if either of them goes further. Mathmensch has applied a WP:PROD template to this article which is not very sensible, since it's a decent article on an important topic. If you disagree with the article content try to get agreement on how to change it. EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I only did two reverts [371].--Mathmensch (talk) 18:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

User:EdJohnston has since agreed that I only did two reverts. --Mathmensch (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The offended editor believes the whole article to be "bullshit". He edited the article in such a way as to throw doubt on pretty much all of it, with a single source. When reverted he seemed to believe that if he postulated something on the Talk page, that would constitute the entire discussion. Further, any opposition to one of his edits appears to engender a belief that it can only be due to ideological opposition to his own position. As he has been temporarily slightly thwarted, he would now like the entire article deleted.

Gravuritas (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the PROD. Clearly it was not going to be an "uncontroversial deletion" Meters (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@Gravuritas: You are really not being nice. I don't know what else to say.--Mathmensch (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mathmensch: Well, I've been less than polite: the triggers being that you've imputed a load of opinions to me that I haven't expressed; and you've tried to educate me that 'correlation does not mean causation'. I suspect I learnt the latter before you were born, so posting it on my talk page was pretty insulting. How about saying sorry?

Gravuritas (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Despite being somewhat discontent with the behaviour of Gravuritas, I have to retract this complaint due to a misunderstanding of the 3RR on my part: I thought three edits were already the threshold, but apparently, four are. I would like to apologise for any unneeded effort.--Mathmensch (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Although this edit could be rated as offensive and, perhaps, more. --Mathmensch (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

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

IP user edit warring on multiple accounts

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

---

IP user 86.187.169.29 , 86.187.162.52 , 86.187.171.148 , 86.187.170.137 , is edit warring on the Mini-14 page.[372] [373] [374] [375] [376] [377] [378]--RAF910 (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Per User:BilCat This sockmaster has a long history, see User:Guliolopez/Draft. [379]--RAF910 (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• It's actually a different sockmaster - mentioned here and in numerous ANI reports redux. Black Kite (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Personal attack by user Malik Shabbaz

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

---

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

---

Hi, I am an anonymous Wikipedia editor and yesterday I have started a COI thread against Dan Eisenberg, suspecting he may be an antisemite and bringing the issue to discussion at COI. The issue I want to report here is an offensive behaviour of user Malik Shabbaz who called my original COI threadpost a "load of horseshit" and asserted that my opinion belongs to "trash". Here is his offensive comment: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AConflict_of_interest%2FNoticeboard&type=revision&diff=737607196&oldid=737593291 I don't know who he is and why he behaved so desctructively (probably he thought that an anonymous user won't find where to file a complaint against him) but I ask you here to overview this personal attack by him and punish him in accordance with Wikipedia's Civility Guidelines, which may have been violated here.

As for me being anonymous: I don't edit Wikipedia, and thus I see no point in the creation of a user account. This is totally my right and I strongly warn anyone against acting abusively against me and my anonymity and warn you against forcing me into the creation of an account which I do not need. I urge everyone to stay civilized and calm. -- 37.44.65.39 (talk) 22:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't edit Wikipedia, WP:NOTHERE. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The IP doth protest too much, methinks. You "don't edit" Wikipedia but know your way around it very well. Yeah, okay. Recommend speedy close. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Wait, wait, wait, not too fast. So if I don't edit Wikipedia, but I read it and sometimes intervene when I see POV push, like it happened here and I get verbally attacked I have no way to defend myself? Sounds unreasonable. Confirm this or decline this -- 37.44.65.39 (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

It's been declined because your claim that you don't edit Wikipedia is being viewed as unlikely to the point of impossible. How do you know about the Conflict of Interest noticeboard if you've never edited here? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 23:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Because I read Wikipedia sufficiently long enough to know more or less how it works. Remember that all Wikipedia: prefixed pages are available to anonymous users as well, and this is what you exactly see when you see me editing these pages. So are talk pages available for everyone. And so is every user's contribution. Yesterday I started searching through pages with search queries like "abusive users" and eventually came across COI. Today when I saw MShabbaz's incivility I started searching through pages like "Wikipedia incivility" etc and came across this way. This is not rocket science to find these pages. What I see right here is a shocking discrimination against anonymous users, which I urge you to stop and review my case and get it to a lawful resolution, not rude disregard simply for the fact I am anonymous. Anonymous users exist for a reason. -- 37.44.65.39 (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by Dogs1420

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

---

Dogs1420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Removed sourced content (I have not verified) and left a legal threat in the edit summary: There was defamatory information included. If it is added again legal action may be pursued. Exclude it. Jim1138 (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. Source is high quality and backs up article content. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

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

New try to force the rule of incivility being upheld against MShabbaz

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

---

As the previous argument was closed one-way without even letting me explain anything and a shocking incivility by user RunAmiga, who reverted my reply with a comment similar to "blabla you are not convincing anyone we don't listen" I ask you to carefully read that discussion and consider it from the point of Wikipedia rules, not your personal preferences.

My explanation of how I know about these Wikipedia: prefixed pages (that user RunAmiga has rudely erased) goes as following:

Because I read Wikipedia sufficiently long enough to know more or less how it works. Remember that all Wikipedia: prefixed pages are available to anonymous users as well, and this is what you exactly see when you see me editing these pages. So are talk pages available for everyone. And so is every user's contribution. Yesterday I started searching through pages with search queries like "abusive users" and eventually came across COI. Today when I saw MShabbaz's incivility I started searching through pages like "Wikipedia incivility" etc and came across this way. This is not rocket science to find these pages. What I see right here is a shocking discrimination against anonymous users, which I urge you to stop and review my case and get it to a lawful resolution, not rude disregard simply for the fact I am anonymous. Anonymous users exist for a reason. -- 37.44.65.39 (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)−

It's in fact frustrating to see Wikipedians being so sure that all their tools are only available or, what is even more frustrating, can be understood only by them. Guys, all this engine is PHP, all the inner workings (which I, to say, don't know) even of the wiki engine can be understood by any php coder in the world in the matter of an hour or two, this is the most widespread web programming language in the world. Wikipedia is no exception to this rule. This is simply a CMS written in PHP that everyone capable of some cognition can get a good grasp of in a matter of few hours if not less. And I am reading wikipedia for years. smh

I ask for wider arbitration. I also ask for precise rules that were used to make final resolution to be listed. My complaint now also includes user RunAmiga who allowed such an abusive comment against me. If you have any further questions about how a guy can know how to edit Wikipedia and yet not be an editor but a reader - be free to ask them. Though I don't know what could not be possibly clear from my previous explanation. Wikipedia is not a rocket science to learn how to use it almost instantly.

My original complaint was that user MShabbaz called an opinion of another user (me) a "horseshit" and "trash", which can not be tolerated I guess. When you make a decision explain why this can or cannot be tolerated in Wikipedia. I expect such kind of words to be heard on the street from some uncivilized people, not from the editors of Wikipedia. -- 37.44.65.39 (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

You can argue about whether or not it should be tolerated but at this point, you're still claiming you've never edited here before and you don't seem to realize why you need to stop. I can't put this any plainer: nobody believes that. It's actually funny: whether or not it's true is beside the point. What matters is that you're doing an absolutely terrible job of convincing anybody that you're not editing under a sockpuppet identity. If I were you, I would drop the issue since it only takes one admin to run out of patience with you and issue a block. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 00:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

37.44.65.39 just a personal observation here... I have always believed that when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you want to do, is stop digging. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

 Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. Definitely WP:BOOMERANG material. This seems like it could be a sockpuppet with the way they know wikipedia policies. -- Dane2007 ^talk 01:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Without speculating on the legitimacy of the complaint, the wall you are running into here is "suspension of disbelief". Several editors have responded here and not one thinks that there is even the most remote possibility that you have never edited Wikipedia. It may only take a few hours to learn how to do it, but, that still requires a few hours worth of actual editing. I could possibly be convinced that you came across the noticeboards by using the search engine, I could possibly even be convinced that you reviewed our policies and guidelines before posting, but, what you cannot convince me of is that you figured out how to do this without even a single test edit, and that you did it near perfectly without even forgetting to sign or having to do even a single copy-edit for some error. I've seen brand new editors on this noticeboard many times, not one of them figured out how to link a diff, not one of them had reviewed our policies (let alone to the depth which you seem to have) and very few of them actually knew how to, or at least remembered to, sign their posts. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Bomb threat

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

---

There has been a threat made here: [380].

I've taken the liberty of emailing the Wikimedia Foundation. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 05:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

DeltaQuad/Amanda appears to have dealt with the situation; the threat has been oversighted and the user's been blocked indefinitely. Thank you for acting quickly to bring awareness of this situation to the WMF and WP administrators; I suspect they were trolling, but we're always better safe than sorry. Kurtis ^(talk) 06:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Vandalism of Victoria Bitter article

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

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Bitter

"A hard earned thirst once needed a VB, but after the 55 CUB workers were sacked after refusing a 65% wage cut, the product has been boycotted by working Australian men and women until the 55 are re-instated."

In Australia there's industrial dispute with the brewing company (Carlton & United Breweries),that owns Victoria Bitter, the Electrical Trades Union posted this on their facebook account.

Maybe protect associated articles until the dispute is over? --Previous unsigned comment left by User:101.167.45.21.

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

Side to Side (song)

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

---

Side to Side (song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article has been recreated yet again after AfD consensus to delete. A requested move is currently in progress, I suggest a procedural close as it's not the right venue for this, it should be taken to WP:DRV. (And a move would be problematic anyway with so many different parallel histories, not sure how that mess is going to be sorted out, probably just the new one moved to the main title and the rest retained as {{R with history}}.) – nyuszika7h (talk) 10:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Your link is bad. Looks like AFD had consensus to redirect and it is a redirect. If they make a local consensus of a dozen people to recreate, that won't override the larger consensus at AFD, and you might tell them that, but right now there isn't anything for an admin to do. If they think the AFD was defective, I guess they could take it to WP:DRV. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • That's because I redirected it, though now I reverted myself because it seems it isn't exactly the same so might not qualify under G4 either, but I don't mind if someone else redirects it again either... I did leave a note there too, suggesting to take it to DRV. nyuszika7h (talk) 11:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I redirected to reflect the closing of the AFD in an administrative capacity, don't really care about the content one way or another but it should match the AFD for now. Left a note, more or less saying what you said, DRV is the right venue. Two people saying as much should get it steered to the right place. This is really not an admin issue and instead a content issue, so I'm guessing we're done here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Repeated WP:NPA and WP:Civility violation

• Ktrimi991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

With this comment comment (diff) Ktrimi991 wrote to another editor: assuming you are not mentally disabled....

I politely explained them (diff) that this comment is violation of WP:NPA and Wikipedia:Civility. Instead to acknowledge the issue with their editing and/or refrain from repeating it, they replied (diff) with a comment about the same editor: Only someone who has problems with their brain control can do such things. and this (diff) It is not your fault, everyone knows what means to come from a country like Serbia, a society which is mostly famous for nationalism and propaganda.

I notified them with this edit (diff).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• "What means to come from Serbia"? Are they paying attention to what they're typing? White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 19:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Looking at their posting history, they're an Albanian nationalist, which could explain why they seem to hate Serbs so much.74.70.146.1 (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I have been told to die and fuck off, but this is extreme. Guess they won't like me since I am part Serbian. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 19:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• EdJohnston just gave him a clear warning [381] and there have been no edits since. I suggest leaving this open a day or two, as the line has already been clearly drawn and anything that encroaches on WP:NPA now will likely result in a block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Abkhazia

I closed that RFC on the page some time ago(the IP that closed the discussion was me, obviously) The closure was reverted, without any reason against the closure itself, the only reason being an argument against me. After an Adminstrators noticeboard discussion(Link) it was said get an account. I even did it to avoid further complications, and after nothing happened, I reclosed it. It got reverted even then, and User:Favonian denied to revert himself.[link

1. Assuming someone is involved just because he or she is an IP/has a low edit count is assuming bad faith
2. Someone with a high edit count could be involved in the discussion with another account as well. We don't assume that everytime a discussion is closed by someone with a high edit count.
3. Wikipedia:Closing discussions does not set any restrictions on edit counts for closing RFCs
4. These who didn't like the closure didn't even talk with the me, and presented no reasons why the close would be bad
5. Further reverts are not helpful, talking to the reverters didn't help, so I went here instead.Lurking shadow (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've notified Sro23 for you. On a sidenote, that is some top-notch knowledge of policy for an account so new. SQL^{Query me!} 15:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks like you were able to notify them - removed mine. SQL^{Query me!} 15:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

It is best when experienced editors close RfCs. This one is for the moment still open, and it is listed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:Abkhazia#RfC on Infobox. The RfC was opened on June 21, but was still receiving a few comments as late as Aug. 26. The status of Abkhazia as a breakaway from Georgia is obviously controversial, and the infobox contains wording about status. If it had to be closed today, the RfC would probably would be deemed to be no consensus (numerical vote is about 17:13 for the new infobox), but a good closer would come up with suggestions for what to do next. For example, raise more precise questions about status. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

If someone closes a discussion, you do not revert if it isn't vandalism or such. You talk to the closer, and if you do not convince them, you go to WP:AN to challenge the closure. But you don't revert closures until someone closes it in the way you like.Lurking shadow (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Admin (and sometimes very experienced users) will revert closes when doing so is with the understanding the larger consensus would agree that there is a policy problem with the close. This is standard procedure. Reverting that close back yourself without a larger discussion is considered a form of edit warring. You lack the experience to be closing any discussions, frankly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Pablothepenguin violation of topic ban (second time)

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

---

• Topic banned in early May on the topic of Scotland in relation to Great Britain/United Kingdom, broadly construed, after disruptive editing on the subject.
• Warned on May 9 reminding him of his topic ban, after violating it.
• Violated it again next month and was blocked for it.
• Violates it again today: [382], "ordering" someone to stop posting about a poll on Scottish independence he doesn't like.

He isn't very active besides violating his topic ban and this would be his fifth block in 2016 for all sorts of disruption. At some point we have to consider WP:CIR, especially considering this is the behavior after returning from an indefinite block in 2014.--Atlan (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Continues even after being notified of this thread[383].--Atlan (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Looks like a case of persistent and deliberate violations of a TBAN as well as disruptive editing. I note the TBAN is for six months. perhaps it should be made permament. I also think a long term block (at least 30 days) may be in order. I'm not a fan of indef blocks as a rule but if Pablothepenguin refuses to take the hint, that may be all that's left. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Edit summaries like this confirm to me his/her refusal to get the point. And considering that s/he had been indeffed before but then returns and continues the same kind of behavior, I also support another block (but with no standard offer). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 22:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by Jytdog; possibly article ownership or edit warring

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

---

I am reporting the following incident of disruptive editing:

Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has reverted me 2 times without stating any justification in the article Empathogen-entactogen (diffs: 1, 2). Before his second revert, he received a warning on his talk page (diff). He insists that this content dispute should be settled within his favorite wikiproject which appears to be WP:MED. Per WP:Local consensus, Wikiprojects have no power to decide unilaterally the content on article-space pages nor to require that discussion of article-space content is held within its talk pages. The discussion should be held at the article's talk page, as I told to Jytdog (see my comment in his talk page and my edit summary) but he refuses to do so.

(added 02:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)): Apparently this editor has been blocked per ARBCOM decision and subsequently unblocked after an appeal. Also, the editor has recently received a warning for disruptive editing (additional note: I did not participate in that dispute; therefore, I can not comment on the significance of this previous user warning).

Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 02:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC).

This is not the correct venue for this content dispute. Your edits were reverted, so the onus is on you to achieve consensus for them. I suggest continuing the discussion at WT:MED. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The initiating editor has made bold changes to an article; they were reverted, and a discussion on the edits has been opened in a relevant location. Rather than engage in that discussion and gain consensus, the editor has chosen to open an ANI filing complaining about the reverting editor. I suggest this be closed with no action, and the editor be directed to gain consensus at the relevant talk page, or in the alternative, to open a discussion on the article talk page (though this would seem needlessly duplicative). NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Mario Castelán Castro I suggest you read Don't template the regulars while not policy it sure does make those of us who have been around a while a lot more open to discussing things. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 04:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I am challenging the closure of this discussion. I request that this case is addressed by an administrator. This is the administrators' noticeboard for incidents after all.

My report is about user behavior, not content. The main point of my report is that Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) insists that a consensus is determined within the scope of his favorite wikiproject, which is a blatant violation of WP:local consensus and WP:ADVICEPAGE.

Note that I invited the editor to hold a discussion at the talk page of the article in question (diff), but he refused, insisting that the discussion is held within his favorite wikiproject (diff).

Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC).

The categorytree issue appears to be a content dispute broader than one specific article, so it's reasonable to discuss it in a more centralized place. Feel free to post a neutrally worded pointer to wherever that centralized place is on the talkpage of another project or two if you think it deserves input from a wider range of voices. The issues of objection being raised do not seem highly related to the pharm/med aspect, but instead include concerns about sitewide guidelines and technical features of WP software, so I'm not seeing inherent localconsensus problems. That the discussion unfolding on a localproject's talkpage has gone in that direction is evidence that that project is not its own fiefdom running in conflict or to the exclusion with others, but instead does recognize the broader picture. But that does lead to some obvious other projects that might want to participate "wherever that discussion is". DMacks (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Jytdog's behavior seems entirely appropriate and in accord with WP:BRD. Mario's bold edit was reverted, so now it is time to discuss, and Mario's second diff shows that Jytdog directed him to the discussion which is taking place on this issue. It makes sense since this is an issue that affects multiple articles to build consensus in a central discussion instead of having several unconnected local discussions. Reverting to the last uncontroversial edit (the one before Mario's) is exactly in compliance with WP:BRD. Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Breach of Wikipedia:local consensus and WP:own from Jytdog and Doc James

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

---

The editors User:Jytdog and User:Doc James are enganging in WP:disruptive editing by requiring that a content dispute is settled within their favorite wikiproject which is WP:MED. I have invited both of these editors (diff 1, see my edit summary; diff 2) to discuss the matter on the article's talk page (as is the custom per the WP:BRD essay), but they refuse to accept any consensus other than the reached within the realm of their favorite wikiproject (diff 1; diff 2, see his edit summary).

• Per WP:local consensus and WP:own a single editor or group of editors, including wikiprojects, can't hold their locally reached consensus to apply Wikipedia-guide. That is exactly what these editors attempt to do: To reach a local consensus in WP:MED and then hold it as binding for article-space content.

My claim is that the content dispute should be settled in the talk page of any of the involved article-space articles or any one of the Wikipedia-wide dispute resolution venues, not locally within any wikiproject (although wikiprojects can be used to notify possibly interested editors). This dispute is not wikiproject-specific and WP:MED does not owns any article-space page.

Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 15:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC).

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

Request to review closure of report of incident.

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

---

Following the relevant procedure, this is a request to review the close at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Breach of Wikipedia:local consensus and WP:own from Jytdog and Doc James. I discussed this with the closer here.

The comments received in the discussion before closure have been unhelpful and completely evaded the point. This is a matter of user conduct, not content. Like I have stated in that report, I have invited Jytdog to discuss the issue in the talk page; however, he refused to hold the discussion anywhere but in his preferred wikiproject. The report is about Jytdog's refusal to discuss the issue on the talk page and his insistence in discussing it at WP:MED; therefore it is about behavior. It is not about the content of the article, as the closer incorrectly assumed.

The course of action in which Jytdog insists would only arrive at a local consensus pertaining to WP:MED and therefore holding this local consensus as binding for an article-space page is a breach of WP:local consensus.

Note: Since the closure, Doc James appears to have ceased in his claim that a local consensus is reached in WP:MED. Nonetheless, the report against Jytdog stands.

Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC).

This is the third time you've tried to push this. You're Forum Shopping here, and if you don't drop this, you're going to get yourself blocked. Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

This is disruptive. User:Mario Castelán Castro appears to be unable to drop the stick.

I would like to propose a topic ban of Mario from the area of medicine and pharmacology widely construed for 6 months.

I have never made a claim that a local consensus could be reached at WT:MED. What I did state is here They have been told multiple times by multiple people to take it to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)[384][385] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Johnpacklambert

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

---

I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Beauty pageants yesterday to create a central place to view AFD nominations relating to beauty pageants. Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs) @Johnpacklambert: has listed approximately 70 biographies for deletion over the past week or so - that is only those that are open and not those that have already been closed of which there are many, many more. There is a consistent pattern here of nominating articles en masse (not a mass nomination but 5+ can be nominated in an hour, as an example) with significant issues - a person's state is mentioned incorrectly [386] (person was Miss Alabama USA not Georgia), [387] (person was Miss Colorado USA not Nevada - name also spelled incorrectly), or the title is incorrect [388] (contestant was in the Miss America system not Miss USA) - evidencing that little effort has been put into reading or researching the article at hand. There are numerous examples of other editors questioning these AFDS [389] [390] [391] [392] [393]. Johnpacklambert is extremely dismissive and appears biased towards the subject and often ignores the sources available - a prime example is nominating an article about the current Miss USA national titleholder [394]. Some of the notifications - like that of Natalie Pack above [395] completely overlook the main reason for notability and show zero evidence of even a simple Google search.

He is currently making claims as to how to view their notability and acting on them without any prior discussion - e.g. "For state pageant winners we should require sources that cover the person without any regard to their winning a state pageant." [396]. There are accusations made about sourcing in these articles that are blatantly untrue - see [397] where he claims "Others are from Diamond Bar sources, which is where she is from, and is the ultimate in local coverage. Another is a media interview with her. Interviews with the subject do not count for passing GNG, only articles about the subject." whilst ignoring articles from People and Daily Mail.

Numerous editors have tried to discuss this with him but he invariably just deletes the discussion from his talk page. I will admit I did revert one instance of this earlier today without realising that that is not allowed - I've taken a very long hiatus from Wikipedia and wasn't aware of that. However I find this behavior very poor because in my eyes he's trying to dodge attempts at discussion rather than engaging on it. See [398] [399]. He has a habit of doing this on other issues as well [400].

It looked like attempts to reason with Johnpacklambert to slow down and allow editors to assess and work through the backlog of AFDs had succeeded as there were none made between 28 August and today, however it has started again with six created today, including one nomination that does not explain what has changed from a previous AFD that is only a few months old [401]. With every day - literally every hour it is getting harder to get control of this out of control AFD situation and work through and research each article. At the current time there are 77 open AFDs. I accept that not all meet WP:GNG but they are all being treated by Johnpacklambert as though they are equally non-notable with dismissive nominations which in many cases contain inaccuracies and evidence of no attempts at research. The Wikiproject has been exploring a guideline but thus far isn't getting anywhere [402].

I will be the first to admit I haven't always handled myself very well in this situation - I've said some things that weren't overly polite which is poor. However I'm frustrated and feeling like I've been hit with the proverbial hurricane with this battering of AFDs and trying to cope with so many. We badly need some time out to take stock of where we're at with this without further AFDs being created at such alarming speed and I request assistance with this. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 07:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

So, what are you asking us to do? Ban Johnpacklambert from opening AFDs because their opinion as to who meets GNG differs from yours? The above are all listed as separate AFD pages, so anyone is free to express a conflicting opinion on any or all of these pages (it's not like a mass RM where a bunch of dubious requests were piled in with some good ones with the clear intention of forcing them all through together). None of the pages will be deleted unless there is consensus to delete them (or at least, I don't think the majority of admins would delete an article based on a nomination that they determine to be flimsy and that received no traction among other editors). If it turns out that a lot of people agree with your interpretation of GNG and disagree with Johnpacklambert, then maybe opening a bunch of AFDs with a rationale that others disagree with can be brought up as a reason for potential sanctions, but I'm not seeing anything here but one user's opinion that this or that article should not be deleted. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC) (Comment withdrawn 13:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC) )

• I support a block or a moratorium on the amount of nomination Johnpacklambert can do. Or a temporary topic ban from nominating pages for deletion. His editing pattern seems disruptive because the rapid-fire nature of his nominations appear to suggest he has not done sufficient research on whether a page is notable. Inevitably this leaves the researching to the content creator who may have a short wiki-break and may not be able to contribute. Or it leaves the hard work to editors who may wish to save the pages. However raid-fire nominations are almost always bad because trying to save a single page takes enough time as it is but trying to save dozens or scores in a matter of days is impossible. He also deceptively engages in double voting (see here). Such editing patterns exhibit a disrespect for content creators and frankly I believe that not doing anything about Johnpacklambert is a disservice to content creators. Pwolit iets (talk) 11:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment yes a block or moratorium or both is exactly the sort of thing I am requesting. Sorry it wasn't more obvious, I had thought that would be clear but I guess not. And yes a lot of my frustration comes from the fact that if he channeled all his time & efforts into being constructive and improving articles he sees issues with we could get somewhere, instead I'm spending a large part of my spare time at present sourcing articles and dealing with this stuff - where it's clear he hadn't even bothered to ready or consider an article on its merits and is still arguing the point in the face of overwhelming opposition and what seems like clear common sense it gets pretty irritating. Not everything is worth saving there are definitely those that don't have enough coverage to pass GNG and they can be deleted or redirected., I'm putting time into those where there is a clear claim to notability but I simply cannot keep up with the stream of new nominations to figure out what belongs in which group and then make the necessary edits. 77 nominations is clearly a huge backlog and it seems never ending because it jumps every day. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
• Wow, bad editor makes bad edits. We're talking about a guy who was almost indeffed for the Amanda Filipacchi mess he created, and then almost indeffed for BLP violations and edit warring. And now he's AfDed more pages in a month than I've AfDed in two years, or than most people AfD ever. While AfDing a lot of articles in a short amount of time isn't in and of itself a reason for sanctions, there are a number of troubling things here.

1. Most of the AfDs are in a single topic, burdening people like PageantEditor who edit in that topic
2. Factual errors in the AfD such as not even getting the state of the pageant right
3. Nominating people solely because they won a state beauty pageant, even if their noteriety comes from other things
4. Renominating articles that have been kept kept (i.e. closed as "keep" rather than "no consensus") within the last year
5. A complete lack of WP:BEFORE that segues into a complete ignorance of GNG. Even if you don't do the Google check for sources, you should at least examine the sources in the article. He's nominating articles that are sourced from such places as People and Vanity Fair magazines, the Today Show and CBS. It appears his mass AfDing is motivated by a personal belief that state-level beauty pageant winners don't belong on Wikipedia even if the source material in their articles would pass GNG. (And, FWIW, @Hijiri88:, there IS a strong backlash by editors to this interpretation of GNG)

At a minimum, I support Powlit iets's suggestion that a moratorium be placed on his AfDing, and perhaps that a moratorium of 2-4 weeks be placed on his editing period. pbp 13:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I didn't actually look at many of the AFDs, and the topic area is so far outside my area of interest that I don't think I would have understood the rationales anyway. I just didn't see much of merit to the OP's essentially saying "this user made a bunch of AFDs in a short period of time and I don't think the pages should be deleted". Obviously I agree that, at least in theory, opening a bunch of AFDs at the same time is not a good idea, but sometimes people have opinions about GNG that can actually prove the better interpretations of the policy, so sanctions solely because of a bunch of AFDs that haven't been closed yet seemed inappropriate.

That said, I wrote the above without trawling through the subject's prior edit history so I had no way of knowing, for instance, that he narrowly escaped an indeffed twice. You appear to know more about this than me, so I'm gonna guess that you're probably right. Stricken.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:Fait accompli would seem to apply here, which came out of a similar situation of mass AFD noms in the same project area. --MASEM (t) 16:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@Masem: Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't the application of this something like, "Just because one article is deleted, doesn't give an editor license to nominate similar articles for deletion so quickly that they can't be fixed or even assessed?" pbp 17:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Going off the first diff in the second paragraph above ( specifically [403]), I read this as Johnpacklambert asserting there is clear grounds to delete these based on an established guideline, and going at nominating en masse, despite several problems with said nominations (either easily fixed things in articles or improper nominations) that cannot be addressed reasonably en masse at the volume they are being put to AFD, thus forcing the fait accopli. --MASEM (t) 19:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I want to comment as someone who has dipped a toe into this arcane and highly contested area after coming in via AFD. I see the fundamental problem as a conflict between a very small number of editors who are intensely committed to beauty pageants, and what appears to me to be an even smaller number of editors who cannot see notability here, and who get so irked with editors who create pages on pageant winners that they sometimes work to delete without assessing the individual beauty claims (honestly until I waded into this I had no idea how many beauty pageants there are, most are multiplied by 50, and are annual, so....). I personally view winners of state and of minor national pageants as non-notable - except as a list of names on a page for the pageant, but when I happen on one I do try to assess it honestly, because some of them have a quirk that garners extraordinary coverage, and others go on to have significant careers. But here's the point: I always regret weighing in; the Sturm und Drang in some of these discussions is extraordinary, and to me it always feels like a great fuss over a very insignificant quesiton. The ONLY solution I can see is to BEG more editors to look at that discussion, in the hope that by bringing in enough people with a wider perspective and no horse in this race, we can come to some sort of consensus on what the outcome should be in a typical AFD in which a young woman wins a state pageant title, is covered in her home state and in one handful of national articles, then is mentioned a year or 2 or later in the context of the title she once won. e.g. Kaitlyn Tarpey, a current AFD. Perhaps a significant number of editors weighing in could create a consensus and reduce the recurring ability of this area to waste time and generate an enormous amount of anger and resentment.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - Having seen this sort of thing with several tiers of Filipino pageants and lists of unrelated participants I AfDed (mainly due to the fact that they were promotional for the "franchise holder" more so than they had useful information to ascertain the level of the pageant as required), there are specific policies in place for notability of beauty pageant contestants, and what happens is that the people who really like the whole pageant thing disregard them entirely. We have many articles that say literally nothing about a contestant other than she won a state-level pageant and competed in Miss USA. Our policies say that isn't acceptable (one needs to place, if not win), and as a general rule, being a contestant doesn't guarantee an article. A lot of these contestants fade into relative obscurity afterwards, so there's just nothing there that isn't effectively FANCRUFT from dredging personal data. What this is indicative of is a war of content - you either have content that should be here because it exists somewhere, or you have content here because it meets the policies set forth for content. Instead of nitpicking at an AfD for an incorrect state, maybe that's indicative of a basic factual problem with the article? Multi-noms certainly mean other people had issues with the article in question as well. In short, an editor's behavior and the quality of an article are two different things, and if the article itself is not in accordance with the policies it should be in accordance with, then any editor has the right to AfD it, regardless of what their behavior is perceived to be. If the articles are bad, they'll disappear. If they aren't, they'll stay. MSJapan (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I have no issue with articles where there is little or no coverage and thus no hope of passing being nominated, most are being redirected at present and that's fine. That's not the issue here. What there is a problem with is that in amongst the 70 odd nominations are many that are being dismissed out of hand by JPL, where there are plenty of sources, and notability can be established, but with so many to trawl through they are falling through the gaps. We need time to sort out the current lot. Often we're told that there is no news coverage in the nomination yet I can find 10+ articles. Some of the nominations are for clearly notable people but he's made up his mind that because they are titleholders there's no notability - ignoring many other factors. See Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Deshauna Barber Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Natalie Pack, Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Nancy Redd Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Nicole Johnson (Miss California USA). --- PageantUpdater (talk) 21:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

IMO, the piece de resistance is still Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talyah PoleeWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talyah Polee (3rd nomination), where he a) nominated something that was only recently closed as keep, b) mixed up the states, and c) initially misspelled in the nomination. Two and a half weeks in and with eight keep votes and only JPL expressing a deletionist stance, I don't understand why Nancy Redd was still open. I have closed it as SNOW keep. pbp 22:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I actually can't believe I forgot that one but that's a symptom of how many there are and how hard they all are to keep track of. Agree that Talyah Polee is the best example of his clear bias here --- PageantUpdater (talk) 22:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I think you mean Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talyah Polee (3rd nomination). Nil Einne (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that. pbp 22:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

As far as bias goes, all I'll say here is to check out the language used here in this AfD nomination. FWIW, there were references from NPR, People Magazine, the BBC, the UK Daily Mail, the New York Daily News, the London Daily Telegraph, and Today that were already in the article at the time the AfD nomination was opened. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• I do see what you mean, I weighed in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Redd and it is a perfect example of what goes on with these articles, not least the fact that the article was kept because of the random fact that I stumbled on it and invested time looking for sources sources; something that happens less often than one might imagine. JohnPackerLambert not only brought it to AFD, he returned at my request only to dismiss what I thought were persuasive sources, but did not return again when I brought even more persuasive sources and requested that he take a 3rd look. However, there is less than exemplary behavior on both sides. User:NewYorkActuary weighed in with this comment [404] not only at Nancy Redd, but at what I took to be every pageant-related AFD then active, but note that she did not leave a link ot the discussion she mentioned. This has the effect of making editors back off, but does not bring editors into the tiny circle that discusses these issues at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beauty Pageants.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• I referred above to an active RFC on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beauty Pageants, which drew only 8 editors, 4 pro and pro con. I truly think that a few more editors weighing in might establish some sort of consensus, or rule of thumb on what it likely to make a pageant winner notable. Or not.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Done, and, I likewise encourage others to do same. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment A-the notice of this discussion was placed in a manner that I had to scroll way down the page to find it. B-the attempt to say that making a mistake here or there should disqualify my participation in AfD as a nominator ignores the fact that over and over again these pages that I have nominated have been deleted. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelyn Butler, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robyn Johnson, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melissa Ann Young and I could go on and on and on. Attacking me on the Tara Wheeler nomination is particularly odd since in that case the article was deleted because the article was found to not be worth having. On the more general issue of stating my views on inclusion well, A-I stated them at an RfC seeking a general consensus on this matter, B-there is no rule against stating a coherent policy, and it is better than just leaving people in the dark as to your thinking. Considering in the case of the Natalie Pack article I mentioned and linked to source not in the article, claiming this shows no evidence of any searching is incorrect. I am still not sure how it is "blatently untrue" when I correctly state the sources include extremely local coverage and a source that is just an interview with the subject. Making incorrect edits on Wikipedia is not grounds for banning a user. To treat nominating articles for deletion as something we should penalize is a horrible idea. It is far too easy to create articles on Wikipedia, much easier than to delete them. It does not require editing 3 pages, posting some sort of reasoned reason, and waiting weeks to see if there is some sort of consensus. Nominating articles for deletion is so difficult that for years I would come across articles that I was 100% sure came no where near meeting the inclusion criteria but I would do nothing because the 3 step process is so much a hassle. So allowing such a discussion to exist just as an attack on someone for nominating lots of articles for deletion makes no sense at all. The "numerous" editors mentions are 3, one of which has previously been told to stop placing any edits on my page, and this one engaged in such behavior as calling me "childish" and saying I needed to grow a "spine". Purplebackpack has again showed his hate toward me. He previously called my intrepretation of GNG "perverted". Now he has called me a "bad editor". This is the editor who created a nomination to block me from editing Wikipedia on Christmas day, in a way that suspiciously suggested he was hoping to rush it through during the hollidays. He comes back and is constantly trying to drum up hate against me. How else can I interpret him refering to me as a "bad editor". It was recently shown in the discussions on Hugo E. Martinez and Carol F. McConkie that his interpretation of GNG is not the one that is generally accepted. A review of those discussions will show Purplebackpack engaging in hounding editors with whom he disagrees. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brenda Brabham shows a discussion where I make a nomination and never make any sort of comment in response to later comments. So if we have someone engaged in disruptive behavior, it is not me, but Purplebackpack. If we have someone engaged in behavior that should not be allowed, it is PageantUpdater who calls another editor "childish" for removing insulting posts from his talk page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Only three editors? Since August 16, the following editors complained about your AfDing of articles, or the related issue of mass-redirecting pageant holders, at your talk page: 1 (MYS77), 2 (Fenix down), 3 (NewYorkActuary), 4 (PageantUpdater), 5 (me), 6 (GRuban), 7 (PratyushSinha101). Maybe you've lost count because you delete the comments on your talk page without addressing their concerns. Setting aside the fact that you've nominated 77 articles for deletion this month and I've nominated 50 articles in the past two years, I can point to plenty of discussions where similar articles to McCorkie and Martinez were deleted. But my behavior isn't the issue here. Yours is. And, yes, considering your block for a gross BLP violation (a BLP violation that would have gotten most other editors indeffed), I think the characterization of "bad editor" is quite fitting. Considering your push for deletion of articles that are sourced from such sources as GQ, People and Vanity Fair magazines (at least one of which was in the article you claim had only local coverage, hence PageantUpdater's blatently untrue), "perversion" of GNG seems appropriate. It speaks volumes to me that you haven't even address the most egregious allegations (namely, the complete shoddiness of your nominations), instead basically saying "Hey, look over there!". pbp 02:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC) PS: deletion is a lot faster with Twinkle

• • A - I copy pasted the coding above. I'm sorry if I hurt your scroll finger.
  • B - That's not the issue. The issue is the speed with which you are nominating these articles without regard to checking for sourcing etc. You're making it impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff. Not all articles are worthy of being kept but some are and you're making almost no effort to check for that. Re the Tara Wheeler deletion - my comment is nothing to do with the result of the deletion, simply that it's further proof you do not read the article properly before nominating as you have very clearly put the wrong competition. It wouldn't have made a difference in the outcome but it shows how indiscriminate you are.
  • C - I do find it highly childish that you choose to delete unfavourable comments on your talk page. But I have stated at least five different times that I was totally unaware about the policy surrounding this. I am sorry for the undo but I did not know that I was not allowed to do that. I do accept that policy but I don't have to like it. I find it disturbing that it allows you to present a very one sided and false image to those who visit your talk page. The very many disagreements that other editors have from you have essentially been expunged to show yourself in a more positive light. Well that's how I view it anyway. I would have had more respect for you if you had engaged in the discussion rather than deleting it. Those are simply my views though, the only part of that relevant to this discussion is that you choose to delete discussions rather than discussing with other editors. You might have the right to do that but it shows a lack of willingness to cooperate with others. As PBP says, maybe that's one reason you can't remember just how many other editors have taken issue with your deletions.
  • D - I'm not asking you to stop making deletions indefinitely, just to hold off to allow the current backlog to be properly researched. And I'm asking you to be more careful in making nominations and to actually bother to do some research yourself first per WP:BEFORE which you clearly have not been following. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment -- I would not support a ban for someone doing AfD work; it's counterproductive (one look at CAT:NN will suffice). However, I would suggest letting the backlog at beauty pageants page work itself down to at least half of the current size before nominating more (let's say 35). It appears that several editors have some frustration that there are too many nominations to be able to review them properly.

Side comment: It's a shame that participate at AfD is so low; I would encourage everyone reading this thread to take some time and review a few nominations a day. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• • I wouldn't support a ban for someone doing AFD work either but that's not what we're talking about here: we're talking about abusing AFD work or at the very least being highly negligent with their AFD work. Otherwise I agree with your comments. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 05:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• I do not find the editor's work to be "highly negligent". That's an over-statement, IMO, having observed their nominations for a while. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment It is really time someone calls Purplebackpack on his continued insulting of other editors. His calling people "bad editors" is just not acceptable behavior. I sometimes think that some of his bigotted and hateful language only appears that way, but when called on it he never tries to explain that he did not mean it to be as insulting as it came off as, he always just tries to justify it. And yes, his behavior should be called into question. If people can object to creating AfD discussions then they should expect other people to call them on the attack behavior they engage in. Multiple editors specifically called Purplebackpack's behavior with regards to the deletion discussion on Octaviano Tenorio unacceptable attacks on editors with the potential effect of diminishing contributions. That is the sort of behavior that should be talked about here, not typos in nominations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

While I did make a lot of contributions to that AfD, you'd have to twist NPA to find anything that was a personal attack. As I seem to recall, JPL, there were a lot of people who weren't a fan of your behavior on Octaviano Tenorio either. Or of Carrite's (who went around refactoring my comments for kicks). Or of a lot of other peoples'. And instead of addressing why it was somehow acceptable to do the things you've done, you've called me bigoted without any diffs. pbp 13:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Carrite did not do it for 'kicks', they did it because you kept Bolding your Delete comments which gives the impression of voting multiple times. Given your badering there, (and yes you were not the only one) that was the least of the issues. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

What's all this then? pbp 13:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment As is common from Pageantupdater he engages in disingenous bait and switch tactics that are designed to be as insulting as possible. Some of the people he mentioned above said absolutely nothing about nominations related to beauty pageant winners. They were related to one line, one source articles on football players. If PBP is going to insist that the one and only criteria is GNG, then there is no way these articles passed GNG, and thus no way for him to attack my nominations. However more to the point, this was about articles related to one particular topic. To through in nominations related to another topic is entirely unfair. Of course fairness is not expected from a person who at one point joined in trying to ban me from Wikipedia because I had added to the a pornographic actress category a person whose biography said in the text of the biography they were a pornographic actress. Closely connected to this is the assumption that saying that about a person is a BLP violation, yet if one expects articles on pornographic actresses to actually be held to BLP standards and need sourcing from reliable sources they are accused of trying to "censor Wikipedia."John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment at issue is your abuse or negligence of the AFD process. I can only speak on the issue of pageants because that is where my interest likes however it is highly relevant that others have reported similar behaviour regarding other topics. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 05:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what pornography has to do with this. Also, diffs please instead of just innuendo. As for football players, the reason they are getting kept is that there is an SNG, based in the fact that, while the sources may not be in the article for even "cup of coffee" players, they exist somewhere. Did you even try to look for the sources before AfDing? pbp 13:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - having read some of these articles, they really often aren't of notable people. I don't think winning a non-national beauty pageant makes you notable on its own, any more than winning a state prize for best watercolours or best athletics performance would. To PageantUpdater, I suggest discussing the biographical details of these winners in the articles for the pageants they won. Blythwood (talk) 08:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with you, that's not the issue here. The thing is some are notable for other things or for some other reason and they are being given the same treatment. The afd-Ing is too fast and indiscriminate. Each page is not being given due consideration before being nominated. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 08:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Although, the comparison you made isn't valid. With those two examples, the competition is a one-off, when it's over it's over. These titleholders win on one night, but then spend months making appearances, doing media etc. And they also go on to compete a second time in a nationally televised event. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 09:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
    • and he's at it again, with the wrong state mentioned in a comment. Which just goes to show he's not taking enough care [405] --- PageantUpdater (talk) 08:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Blythwood: Do you believe that even if there's a lot of source material? Also, why don't you vote in more of those AfDs? pbp 13:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: JPL isn't really answering the accusations here. In particular, he hasn't given a reason why so many articles need to be deleted so quickly (See the note about Fait accompli above) that you can't even spell the name right and get the right state of the pageant. It's not like Bill Shaheen, which had to be deleted after 24 hours as an attack page that violates BLP policy. It's not like adding language which violates BLP policy to an article about a U.S. Senator. No, waiting 2-3 weeks (thereby giving PageantUpdater or GRuban more time to try and fix them) instead of just one seems reasonable.

Instead of defending his bad editing, JPL's doing what he always does when criticized: make spurious accusations. He's accused me of being a bigot above without any diffs to prove it. IMO, calling somebody a bigot without any diffs is the kind of personal attack that warrants a one-week vacation (Maybe more, since he's done it many times. Also, that would solve the pageant backlog, provided he didn't nominate another 6 dozen articles immediately following unblock). pbp 13:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Well, there is a reason so many articles need to be deleted so quickly. In some of the Discussions on winners of Miss USA state competitions in 2004 the fact that we had articles on virtually all winners of Miss USA state competitions in 2004 was used as justification to keep the particular article. This type of circular argument from what existed was being used to argue for keeping not very good articles. So it seemed logical to nominate more no good articles for deletion. Also, the circular argument was propped up by the fact that a lot of the articles that exxisted as links from the template were really redirects to the page for that particular state competition. In searching out which articles were redirects I kept on coming across truly not notable articles. Biography of living people principals dictate we should not keep articles on non-notable living people. Add to this some of these articles litterally had severe content problems that begged for immediate action. Some of them were plagued by tabloid prose about the subject having been seen dancing with some sportsman in dance formation others thought was too intimate. I could multiply the issues involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment To hunt down the diffs would take a long time, and the last time I tried to find diffs I could not even figure out how to transfer them when I found the edits. However the basic gist is he has said things like '"Latter-day Saint writers tend to be of poor quality", but his exact wording was much more inflamatory. The attempt to define a whole set of writers in a negative way based on their religion, and then use this as an argument to delete articles on people who fit that discription because you presume people of that religion do poor writing is to me a bigoted argument. The whole issue is largely built around the exact wording. Thus he has persisted in saying I have a "perverted" interpetation of GNG. That is a strong, attack word. True, a lot of my negative reaction relates to his strong attack words, but as I said I could not figure out how to come up with diffs when I last did the search. However since "bad editor" is a term he used in this discussion, I think I have every write to react negatively to it. My point is that GNG engages in overly attack language, calling other people "bad", and saying they have a "perverted interpretation". The first is a direct modification of the person, which is attack language. The later is so inflamatory a word, that even if in theory it is being used about ideas it comes off as an attack. Beyond this, PBP is dredging up events from April of 2013 and misrepresenting what happened there. I was also one of the key people in creating and filling categories like Category:20th-century American novelists, which made it so Category:American women novelists would not be in violation of principals to not overly seperate out articles into only ERGS based categories. I also created and supportede nominations to upmerge some ERGS categories that were not easily workable with our policies. In some of these discussions I was called sexists because I didn't think a category like Category:American women essayists was a good idea. While there may be valid arguments that women essayists as a group create different work than men, the arguemtns that Filipacci engaged in, which was that putting women in a different group as women while leaving men in the general category, implies women are not "fully essayists" would if anything be more potentially inflamatory. The fact that over three years later a selective understanding that misrepresents my contributions to the whole matter is used to attack me is totally out of line. More on this in a little.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Johnpacklambert: I'm not sure you quite understand what the word "perverted" means. Wiktionary gives its definition as "deviating from what is normally considered right, normal or correct". The way you apply (or don't apply) GNG to AfDs deviates from what is normally considered right, normal or correct. The way you apply (or don't apply) basic checks on sourcing on your AfDs deviates from what is normally considered right, normal or correct. As for this ridiculous claim of bigotry, a) where the hell are the diffs? Diffs or it didn't happen, and b) why's it a bad thing to be suspicious of an article on a mid-level LDS church official coming from sources all associated with the LDS church, especially if said sources have been routinely criticized for lack of neutrality? If this were a band or a business executive sourced from similarly not-independent sources, it would be summarily deleted. Also, I'm pretty sure GNG does not engage in personal attacks. pbp 15:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

You consistently ignore the issues of how the words you use feel. It is the tone invoked by saying someone has a "perverted" anything that is at issue here. Dictonary definitions do not capture the full length of meaning. "sources all associatedwith the LDS church" and "routinely criticized for lack of neutrality". I still challenge you to produce anything anywhere where someone claims that the biographies the Deseret News creates are anything less than factual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not necessarily an issue of factuality, but one of independence and neutrality. I don't necessarily dispute the factuality of what's on a bands's page or a company's website, but I still wouldn't use it as the only source of an article about a bandleader or executive. And I can find challenges to the scholarship of the LDS Church (of which Deseret News prints press releases almost verbatim) and of BYU pretty quickly and easily. As for challenges, I also challenge your claim that I only nominate articles because they are of Mormons. There are plenty of non-Mormon articles which I have voted delete on, whereas there are not very many (perhaps very few) articles on other religions which I have voted keep on. And there are a great many Mormon articles I have not deleted, nor have any intent to do so, because they are sourced well enough to pass GNG. pbp 15:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I just want to clarify since I have seen numerous comments which misconstrue my intent: I understand that many, if not the majority of articles may not meet GNG and are good to be deleted. I do not take issue with that at all. What I do take issue with is how fast these have been nominated with little attention paid to WP:BEFORE evidenced by articles being nominated with inaccurate details or in close to a dozen situations now where it is clear no research has been done or sourcing considered. There's wheat and chaff here and at the speed JPL was nominating no time to separate the two. I would like to see: (a) censure for the sloppiness of this work - I maintain either abuse of process or negligence (b) a promise to slow down in future and pay due consideration to each article nominated (c) a promise to consider WP:BEFORE rather than simply taking the blanket belief that pageant contestants cannot be notable in any sense. We've already seen the slowdown mentioned in (b) which is positive but that has happened previously and he later resumed in the same fashion. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 11:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment  I did some more review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Johnson (Miss California USA).  Nicole Johnson and her baby have been featured recently on TV in the coverage of the August 2016 Olympics, in association with all-time Gold medal winner Michael Phelps (reference: Google news search on ["nicole johnson" olympics NBC].  This nomination makes no pretense to having done anything more than review the sources in the article.  This is exactly where it is the responsibility of editors to improve the article.  WP:BEFORE B1 states, "If there are ...notability...concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources." WP:BEFORE D3 states, "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination."  So we have it on record that JPL is making improper nominations.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

JPL's proposal

• Proposal I am going to not nominate any more articles related to pageants for deletion until the current number of nominations goes down. Last night in going through the lists at Miss Kansas USA and Miss Michigan USA it was all I could do to not nominate some of these articles, especially one line, one source articles, for deletion. I was going through the pageant lists because from doing so I learned we still have a few links that go to articles on people who had nothing to do with the pageants, and having on the order of 50 red links from one page is just not a reasonable way. If a user feels that an article should be created, recreating the link is easy, whereas from what I found this massive number of fake links ends up at times creating links to articles on people who were not the competitor in the pageant but some other person who just shared the same name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

That's a start. And if you want to remove bad red links, I don't think anybody would have problem with that. I believe BLP policy actually encourages the unlinking of red links to presumed BLPs. pbp 15:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

A halt to the damage is commendable. We should also stop the proceedings on all those existing AfDs, divide them up so they can be tackled in a reasonable manner. JPL is a sufficiently experienced editor to know this many nominations in the same subject would overwhelm any sort of defense. It was a deliberate attack on the subject, to achieve an WP:AGENDA. In the least, this kind of bad behavior should not be rewarded with success. Additionally, this was done making incomplete representations at best, though with his agenda to remove non-intellectual content from wikipedia en masse, I think it is more malicious. If a WP:BEFORE was done, it was at best poorly done. I've only had a chance to sample the articles. I have been able to add significant sourcing to every one I have sampled. Lets take Mekayla Diehl. JPL says: I think it is now agreed that winners of Miss Indiana USA are not notable for that in and of itself. The article hypes that Diehl is Native American. However since 0.3% of Indiana's population is Native American, it would not be unexpected that no winners of Miss Indiana USA had been Native American until the pageant had existed for over 200 years. Since Miss USA started in 1951 and not 1816, this does not make her notable. I also do not think the gossipy sources about her body size constitute the type of RS sources we would need to justify actually having an article. The gossipy sources he dismissed include every major American television network CBS, Fox and Friends, The Today Show, Good Morning America and Entertainment Tonight. And these were generally not casual mentions but involved on camera personal interviews. I sourced every one of them from a simple google search. Since he mentioned them, he had to have known about them but tactically neglected to add them to the article, I suggest deliberately in order to make for a weaker presentation of the subject at AfD. Every article I have looked at so far now has ten or close to ten sources. I've added most of them. None of them should fail WP:GNG, which is our ultimate standard, although JPL has North America dittoing his nominations with the same kind of thoughtful consideration that these nominations were made from, sarcastically meaning they both ignore the sources that are available from a simple google search. In our very low traffic court of AfD opinion, he could very well get away with this pack of disingenuous nominations. Don't just throw up your hands and give up WP:Fait accompli. Something additional needs done both to protect these specific subjects that he nominated in bulk, and to prevent future bad behavior. Trackinfo (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Trackinfo: Feel free to notify me of any discussions I have !voted in that you disagree with on my talk page. I'm always willing to reconsider. For example, see this AfD discussion. I consider many of these to be WP:BLP1E situations when sources only cover the subject in the context of one event. When sources that provide significant coverage are available about more than one event, then it's not a BLP1E situation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment There is no reason to halt the proceedings. The article on Jaci Stofferahn has 6 sources, one is facebook, and she actually ran for the US house. Abby Norman has 4 sources. The claim about "10 or close to 10" is not true, and even if it were true, that is not the same as saying 10 sources that are reliable, 3rd party and not from extremely local publications. It is multiple people who agree with the fact that many of these people are not notable. In the case of Abby Norman 9 editors have supported the notion that the article should either be redirected or deleted, one has said "keep for now", but not given any policy based reasons to keep the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • OK, I recounted and it is 8 editors who have supported deleting or redirecting the article. Still this is as opposed to one who has supported keeping the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Even Talyah Polee who some people seemed to think was an open and shut case so much that they argued to speedy keep the article has seen a delete vote that presents various reasons to delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• I think that this response is offensive to editors trying to get you to see what you are doing.  First, I want to put this Polee AfD in context. 

  On 12 Aug 2016, you redirected Talyah Polee, without discussion on the talk page, to Miss Colorado USA.  An editor reverted, citing that notability had been confirmed at AfD. 

  On 1 Sep at 01:55 , you close a discussion on your talk page to slow down the rapid fire nominations. 

  By 1 Sep at 02:20, you've posted the Talyah Polee AfD. 

  Your workmanship was sufficiently flawed that you've misrepresented both the article and one of the AfDs.  (However, to be fair, to show enough work to make two mistakes is probably above average quality for an AfD nomination, in spite of the previously mentioned lack of a good faith attempt to determine notability.)  There is a third error in the nomination because it believes that this is a one event, when the article references five different beauty contests, one of which came with a one-year reign. 

  When the problem with reading the article is mentioned, your reply is, "This is clearly a sign of failing to assume good faith. The first line is very confusing mentioning Miss Nevada before mentioning Miss Colorado.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)"  "Very confusing"?  No, I trust that your English reading skills are just fine, and that you are deceiving yourself more than anyone else here, but for the rest of us the concern is that you've not been able to reflect that the messenger was not the problem.  What was wrong with an "Oops, my bad, I'll plan to be more careful."? 

  But the denial continues with the misrepresentation of one of the AfDs, "The way the second nomination is written makes it on first glance make it look like it is a mass nomination... John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)"  Again, to be fair, the fact that you've responded in detail to the concern is appreciated, and it is easy in this situation to be an arm chair quarterback.  But what was the problem with "Uh oh, a second mistake in my nomination, sorry about that.  I don't like to see that and want to avoid such in the future." and then plan to double check facts in AfD nominations?

  Now here is this response at ANI drawing attention to one delete !vote, while disregarding a Speedy keep statement from an administrator, "The previous AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talyah Polee (2nd nomination)) established notability, and the nominator makes no prima facie case for what has changed since then."  Technically, this ANI response doesn't show understanding of the difference between a speedy keep, and a strong keep.  Where is the feedback process?  Unscintillating (talk) 23:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Then there is the articles on Natasha Barnard which still has as its only source a link to facebook.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The was only one source why? Because you didn't look for any support before you nominated it? Challenge accepted, I've added 14. Sure there isn't a lot of substance to the article, she's a model. Her notability does not come from her intellectual pursuits. I'm not searching for a Nobel nomination. However, she clearly is a notable model. Trackinfo (talk) 05:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Shaletta Porterfield has 5 sources, which is no where near ten, and one of them is actually about Miss Wisconsin USA with no reference to Porterfield, it is there to explain who franchises this organizations, in a total act of coatracking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

You are kidding, right? You couldn't find the reports of her arrest and resignation? The story was already in the article. You suggest that bizarre situation, reported in multiple sources doesn't make her notable? And now you point that out as an example of an article that needs sourcing. Its like shooting fish in a barrel. It just goes to show how little you know about the subjects you are nominating for AfD even now. Trackinfo (talk) 08:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorta getting the feeling that JPL has started with the blanket assumption that all of these articles are non-notable, then, when challenged on it, grasps for reasons that each article must be deleted. If he had not rifled these off so quickly without greater examination of the sources available, he would not have this problem. pbp 01:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Exactly correct. Personally, my time is very limited. I am not choosing to defend the articles that have few sources to back them up. But I do my research first. What offends me, often, is the thoughtlessness of editors like this, who do not do the due diligence of looking for sources, of informing themselves about a subject they are commenting on. Its been on my user page for years Many of the "delete" respondents didn't even know about the subject. If you are able to read the article and understand the subject, then you should be speaking about its content. If you don't, butt out. Trackinfo (talk) 02:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Just like this editor who voted delete whilst repeating JPL's incorrect statement that the titleholder was from Georgia [406] --- PageantUpdater (talk) 03:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment -- I do not support suspension of any AfDs in progress, as many have already been !voted on. I believe editor Johnpacklambert has shown plenty of good faith by suggesting they do not nominate further articles while the backlog takes care of itself. In any case, the real problem is that there are too far many BLP articles on (apparently) non notable individuals, the problem that JPL is addressing. Slowing down the process in progress is counter productive. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. I wouldn't mind JPL's mass-Afd-ing machine-gun style of beauty pageant articles if (1) JPL did a minimal amount of beforehand source checking (even a quick minute on each one and (2) listened to other contributors and was open to changing his mind when a particular subject met the general notability guideline. Nuff said.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment And the article on Porterfield has now been closed as a redirect. I never bothered hunting down information on the criminal charages against her, because charges of identity theft against an individual almost never make the person perpetrating the crime notable. There was probably a source on the issue at an earlier point, but some editor, not me, but probably wisely, had decided to remove the whole mention of the criminal charges on the grounds that having it in the article was a violation of our rules on sourcing and undue weight for negative information on living people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment JPL has repeated numerous times that "well x y z articles have closed as delete so what I'm doing is justified". I'd like to present the other side to that:
  • Julie Donaldson closed as keep - 3 keep votes/0 delete votes - nomination by JPL: "Donaldson is a former Miss Florida USA, but this on its own is not enough to make her notable. Donaldson's career in journalism is just not at a level to make her notable. The article is a horrible example of coatracking, which is one reason to avoid articles on unnotable people. Half the article goes into allegations against her non-notable then boyfriend. It is possibly a violation of biography of living people guidelines, since such guidelines apply to defamatory material against non-subjects as well as subjects. Wikipedia's purpose is not to right great wrongs, which means that Wikipedia articles are not the place to carry out diatribes against those accused of domestic abuse."
  • Nancy Redd closed as keep - 6 keep votes/1 weak keep/0 delete votes - Redd is notable for basically 2 things. One she was Miss Virginia, but it seems consensus is moving that winners of state beauty pageants are not notable for such. The other is she wrote a book, but there is no evidence that she passes the notability guidelines for writers
  • Katie Blair closed as keep - 8 keep votes/0 delete votes. - "Blair was Miss Teen USA in 2006. I do not think there is any indication that the winners of teen titles like this are notable, and no other coverage of her comes even close to showing her to be notable."
  • Tami Farrell closed as keep - 6 keep votes/0 delete votes "is only really notable for being Miss Teen USA, but that is not enough on itself to make her notable"
  • Natalie Pack closed as keep: 6 keep votes/1 strong keep/0 delete votes "At some level I wish we could keep all articles on female doctors. However, Pack is not a female doctor as far as I can tell, and clearly no where near being a notable one. She was in her 3rd year of undergraduate studies at UC Irvine in 2012. She might be in her 3rd year of medical school, although the interview I found with her from 2014 in a totally non-reliable source did not seem to suggest she was in medical school, it mainly spent time posting pictures of her in bikinis. Her role as Miss California USA is not enough to be notable, and her role in America's next top model, does not seem to cut it either. Her modeling career to date also does not seem to rise to the level of notability" (see comment by Gruban: "I haven't even looked at the subsequent pages, these are three non-trivial articles by three national publications, over three years. And she was Miss California 2012. And she was on America's Next Top Model, a national TV show. Honestly: "I wish we could keep all articles on female doctors"? She's not a doctor, she's a model. Sure, she doesn't meet notability standards as a notable doctor. Well, neither does Barack Obama meet notability standards as a lawyer. Strangely enough, not everyone becomes notable as what they went for university for. That's not a reason to delete an article about someone who clearly meets WP:GNG")

I think these are clear evidence that an open mind and appropriate research have not been employed before nominating these articles with what amounts to boilerplate. As I've said numerous times before: many if not the majority of these articles do not meet notability but there are others that do and they are not being appropriately filtered by the nominator, buried as they were amongst an overload of nominations --- PageantUpdater (talk) 03:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm probably one of the few commentators here who has not already decided whether state-level pageant winners are notable, being cursed as I am by seeing merit in both sides of the debate. But I see no reasonable debate as to whether Mr. Lambert's actions have been disruptive. They most certainly have been, and on a massive scale. But rather than echo many of the comments that have already been made, I'll restrict myself to an observation that seemed to have been overlooked by others.

Aside from the disruptive nature of these nominations and re-directs, I'm struck by the fact that they are utterly pointless. We have already begun a centralized discussion about the issues raised by these articles. No one here can predict precisely what will come out of those discussions over at the Beauty Pageant project, but something will. And when it does, all of the associated articles are going to be conformed to that consensus decision. And what does it matter if it takes another month to reach that consensus -- there's no deadline here. But rather than respect the time-honoured process of building a broad consensus, Mr. Lambert has chosen to inundate us with dozens of individual deletion nominations and an almost-equal number of undiscussed re-directs, and has continued to do so at the same time that the centralized discussion is taking place. This is an enormous waste of volunteer resources, the more so if the consensus that emerges at the Pageant project calls for the restoration of any articles that have been deleted or re-directed. It is unclear to me what exactly Mr. Lambert hopes to achieve by not waiting for the centralized discussion to run its course, but it is clear to me that his actions demonstrate his disdain for that consensus-building process.

In view of the long-established finding by ArbCom noted at WP:Fait accompli, sanctions against Mr. Lambert, such as blocks or topic bans, are entirely appropriate. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I say let's just close the open AfDs as "no consensus pending ongoing debate" and if JPL agrees to not nominate any more beauty pageant articles (or maybe just any more USA beauty pageant articles) for deletion until a consensus on notability is reached, I see no reason for sanctions now. He overdid it, but I think he actually had a sincere intent of clearing wiki of cruft, ad god knows we do have a cruft problem here. But frankly, we also have VERY inconsistent application of GNG standards...I was surprised at how hard it can be for a full professor at a university to get an article here, while a fairly obscure pageant winner is in like Flynn-- that disconnect isn't right, but it does take the pageants project, working with WP:N folks, to sort out a consistent policy. Montanabw^(talk) 06:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment -- I would not support closing existing AfDs as "no consensus" for two reasons: (1) god knows how difficult it's to get an article through AfD and some have been open since mid-Aug; (2) I would not support any SNG/essay that would override GNG, and that's what the current articles in AfD are being evaluated on. So let's the AfDs proceed as they are, and deal with the essay / SNG separately. I actually advocate an essay, to make any guideline align with GNG. I started a thread on this on the project page here to discuss further. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Pageant Updater's Proposed solution

Since this thread has now got very long, and appears to be in limbo despite a number of editors agreeing there is a history of disruptive AFD-ing, here's a proposal:

1. That John Pack Lambert is reprimanded for his inappropriate use of the AFD process.
2. That he is restricted to a maximum of 10 AFDs a week in a single topic space.
3. Such AFDs are to consider each article on its merits and with appropriate use of WP:BEFORE.
4. Any violation of this be met with a ban on AFDs or editing block as appropriate. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 15:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Strong support: pbp 16:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Pwolit iets (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: JPL is far from the biggest mass-deletion nominator. AfD in general has a lot of issues with a lack of BEFORE on the part of a number of people, but there is a legitimate reason to delete a lot of the rather useless cruft that does get created... people's obituaties, pet biographies, garage bands... Montanabw^(talk) 05:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose -- please see the below section for more details. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Alternate to Pageant Updater's Proposed solution

1. John Pack Lambert is reprimanded for his inappropriate use of the AFD process, while recognizing that he has put the effort to show his work in his nominations.
2. He is restricted to a maximum of 10 AFD !votes and nominations a week in a single topic space.
3. Each !vote to delete or AfD nomination shall specify a WP:DEL-REASON.
4. WP:DEL8 (notability) opinions shall show visible work for WP:BEFORE D1 (minimal Google searches), and WP:BEFORE C4 analysis (redirect and merge alternatives).
5. This sanction shall be in place for eight twelve weeks.  A determination of a violation by an administrator shall result in a complete AfD ban for nine sixteen following weeks, at which time no formal restrictions shall exist.

Submitted, Unscintillating (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

What happens if he violates the sanction, serves the nine weeks, then goes back to his old ways? What happens if he violates the sanction and then violates the AfD ban? pbp 17:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

(1) The goal is behavior change without someone looking over his shoulder.  If we don't get that, then it has to come back here.  What is the point of a permanent restriction?  Maybe I'm missing something. 

(2) As for violating an AfD ban put in place by an administrator, that would be up to the administrator.  I expect that the community would have little tolerance for such behavior.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I think I could support this bit wanted to point out a couple of things. Firstly, nothing from this discussion gives me any inkling that JPL accepts his behaviour was disruptive or wrong. If he cannot recognise the problem, it's going to be difficult to expect changed behaviour. Secondly, whilst trying to assume good faith, the last time we reached out to him before it came to ANI it appeared he suspended nominations. No sooner had this been pointed out, then the rush started again. My concern is that eight weeks isn't long enough for him to get the message and that he will go on to be a nuisance for editors specialising in another topic. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

True, the literal part of JPL's proposal was to wait until one AfD had been closed before resuming.  And after all of this discussion, he couldn't wait to AfD articles for notability because they had one-line entries, as if he still doesn't know that notability is defined outside of Wikipedia.  But that is part of the WP:BEFORE D1 requirement, by which he would have to report external results from several searches for every AfD.  Another point that is disturbing to me is that he believes he has a role to complain about, not to fix, problems in articles, especially for merges.  I don't have a proposal for that part of the problem.  As for the eight weeks, I'm not a professional, but a professional told me one time that a behavior a person can change for eight weeks can become permanent.  I'll move it to 12 weeks for the sanction and 16 weeks for the optional AfD ban.  I don't think the numbers matter much from 8 to 26 weeks for the sanction.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

If I understand the above correctly, this is attacking me for stating the view that I used a lot of restraint to avoid nominating the article on Alicia Cabrera for deletion. I think some of this animosity comes from the fact that I did not fully explain it was that article. I am the person who created the article, so am well aware of the full nature of sources involved on the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

For the record I have no actual intention of nominating the article on Alicia Cabrera for deletion anytime soon.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I almost certainly could make a G7 author request delete on the article on Cabrera since all the edits did by others only altered to categorization of the article and never made any change at all to the text itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I would see no harm in that, there's not much in the way of sources available, if any. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 08:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• support. I support this proposal. Pwolit iets (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support  as proposer.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support - It seems pretty obvious that some kind of official sanction (or threat of a future sanction) has to be put in place to resolve this kind of disruptive behavior. Guy1890 (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support: pbp 00:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support as amended. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose -- I've observed JPL's nominations and most of them have been spot on. The real problem is that there are too many poorly sourced, WP:PSEUDO BLPs on pageant winners. This proposal would have a chilling effect on other editors who are thinking of contributing to AfD. One only needs to check CAT:NN to see the backlog of 60 000+ articles tagged for notability. JPL has shown goodwill in voluntarily halting the nominations, and further sanctions are unnecessary. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: His batch of AfDs included people notable for something else entirely who also happen to be pageant winners. Several of his AfDs have been rife with factual inaccuracies, impinging people's ability to assess the AfDs properly. Also, per fait accompli, you just can't nominate articles faster than they can be assessed or fixed. pbp 14:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: JPL has shown willingness to let the general discussion play out. Plus, we all know there are a lot of franchise cruft articles out there, I'm kind of appalled at how many not-even-notable "pageants" exist. So let's put away the torches and pitchforks and let the process play out. Might be wise to close the pageant AfDs en masse as "no consensus based on ongoing GNG debate." 05:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The bias against the topic across Wikipedia is utterly appalling. If you and others don't see the issue with the nominations I highlighted above or the fact they were buried among 70 other nominations, or the other disruptive behaviour that others have highlighted then I really don't know why I bother with this place. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 08:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. While JPL's nominations violated the fair accompli principle, he has agreed to stop, and recognizes the community's concerns. There has been absolutely no showing of general abuse in participating in the AFD process, and limiting his ability to !vote in AFDs would be a punitive action unjustified by any evidence. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: You don't consider factual inaccuracies to be "general abuse?" pbp 14:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. JPL has agreed to ease off. Sanctions would be punitive. I agree with K.e.coffman about the real problem here, and echo the call that torches and pitchforks be put down. -- Begoon 13:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment directed at those voting oppose: JPL's past history is that of a volume editor who makes edits rapidly and on a large scale. What's going to stop JPL from nomination 100 articles next week? He was asked by User:PageantUpdater to stop before: he stopped for 24 hours and then nominated another big batch of articles. What's going to stop him from creating AfDs so fast they are rife with factual inaccuracies? pbp 14:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

A Different Viewpoint: Need for a Notability Guideline

In looking over this issue, it occurs to me that the underlying problem is that there are no ipso facto notability guidelines for beauty pageants. Some editors, including User:Johnpacklambert, have a history of nominating articles on pageant winners for deletion as not notable. He isn’t the only editor who thinks that many beauty queens are not inherently notable, but there are other editors who think that they are notable. I haven’t yet read the case against JPL a second time, and so don’t have a well-formed opinion as to whether he has been negligent or reckless in his nominations. However, this case is symptomatic of the larger problem, which is the lack of a notability guideline. My suggestion is that, rather than or in addition to sanctioning a particular editor, someone or a group of editors should put together a draft notability guideline, and then run a Request for Comments to make it policy. I don’t have an opinion at this time as to whether state title holders should be notable, but there should be a notability guideline that minimizes contention about deletion of articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Agreed A simple solution would be create a subsection to WP:NPERSON dealing with Beauty Pageant contestants. I think it could be written to parallel WP:NSPORT on Olympic athletes that I deal with so often. Certain pageants, just as certain sport specific events or leagues, are the highest level for these performers. Each entrant to the highest level gets massive coverage as a condition of getting to that pageant. This is demonstrable and repetitive, but it is always individualized so it is not WP:ROUTINE. These major pageants have a long standing tradition. Their established history could certainly e used to demonstrate the significance of advancing to that level. And the advancement process, the requirement to be selected from a chain of previous tournaments (City/State/National) eliminates the oft incorrectly cited WP:BLP1E. All of these steps in each performer's history receive coverage, usually in local press, so WP:GNG is always met. We can state that in the guideline and reverse the onus for future AfD nominations; Prove there is not GNG for this individual. Trackinfo (talk) 18:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Except, to me, pageant contestants seem more similar to American college athletes than they are to Olympic athletes in that Olympic athletes are often full-time professionals, subsidized by national governments.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Reply discussions have been underway for a number of weeks at the Wikiproject. While the discussion is still underway, JPL has AFD-ed well over 70 related articles (that was just the number open at one time, there were plenty that came before) and redirected many more without any discussion whatsoever. Whilst most were justified many were not: some of those articles closed as keep with no votes to delete, evidence that the nominations were flawed. Requests to him to slow down met with only the briefest of hiatuses. This flood of activity whilst discussion is ongoing is ripe to cause massive headaches later. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I was the one who opened an RfC about the creation of a WP:NPAGEANT page. The discussion has been derailed on the topic of state pageant contestant notability, but the proposal is precisely what Trackinfo suggests. Montanabw^(talk) 05:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

And I should add this was just a poor attempt at summarising NewYorkActuary's previous comment --- PageantUpdater (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Either two or three editors told me I should engage in unilateral redirecting of the articles, and I believe that happened before anyone felt like opening the more broad discussion. After some other people made it clear that they did not agree with the redirects, I went back to nominating articles for deletion. The chronology involved is far more complex than the above comment suggests.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• • Comment: I think JPL is making a good-faith effort to engage on this issue, and I recommend that people put away the torches and pitchforks. Montanabw^(talk) 05:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment Because JPL approached me on my talk page, and some may construe that as canvassing, I will neither support nor oppose any sanctions at this time. I have disagreed quite forcibly with this editor's conduct on a couple of occasions. On the other hand, I have agreed with JPL on some matters, especially when he was being besieged by sanctimonious opposers, as I saw the matter. I have never doubted his good faith or his commitment to building this encyclopedia though his overly emotional reactions sometimes cloud the evidence for it. I encourage JPL to recommit to WP:BEFORE and scrupulous accuracy in AfD nominations. And I encourage his opponents to avoid vehemence in defense of articles which fail to comply with our core content policies. Any proposed "special notability guideline" for beauty pageant winners which encourages the creation of new articles which do not comply with our core content policies does a disservice to this encyclopedia. Sincere, respectful debate is always better than throwing down the gauntlet, and that piece of advice is directed at both sides here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is proposing a " "special notability guideline" for beauty pageant winners which encourages the creation of new articles which do not comply with our core content policies " and the fact that other editors are still making that suggestion is frustrating and shows a lack of understanding. Nor can I see the "vehemence in defence of articles which fail to comply" of which you speak. Would you like to give examples? --- PageantUpdater (talk) 07:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The phrasing we use in WP:NSPORT is likely to meet the general notability guideline, What that means is people meeting these standards will usually have sources that will support their notability. It saves unnecessary AfD nominations and labor to prove a repetitive fact. I am not suggesting any sort of "special" treatment. I've sourced many of the articles in question. I know what is there . . . in most cases. Certain newspapers and websites do thorough coverage of certain major pageants. Each contestant gets their own photo series, so it is not a casual mention. Most of their prepared bio is repeated in various forms, so their vital statistics, which frankly is what they are known for, are well distributed. Depending on the pageant, when there are upwards of a dozen of the same sources available for every contestant, GNG is going to get met, the likelihood is fulfilled. And we don't have to go through the headache of chasing down a mass of articles. With each major pageant, there might be several dozen local pageant winners, qualifiers to each. 50 states and more entities to Miss America and Miss USA; and many countries to Miss Universe or Miss World. The guideline should define which pageants get this kind of coverage. And the local winners to such a high level major pageant will get local coverage of their win and the publicity events of the one year reign, all adding to the sources and GNG. If there is a fluke subject that does not meet the standard, then challenge that one, but don't challenge the entire class of subjects. Trackinfo (talk) 10:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

CFB similarities

How does College Football relate to pageants? Simple! The Wikipedia College Football Project has gone through a similar incident in the past (September 2008). It's not exactly the same, but I encourage interested editors to review WP:CFBWEST which outlines the details of the "West Incident" case. In this matter, 79 articles were nominated for deletion and 62 were actually deleted after one article Walter J. West was deleted and then cited in AFDs as "precedent" in many of the discussions. Since that time 100% of the articles were either restored or merged. I hope we can all learn from it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Could you give us the short course on what sort of guidelines apply to notability for college athletes. I can see some similarity between a college ball player and a pageant contestant (similar age; both are more like a student activity than a career). @Paulmcdonald:E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The above claims include the "or merged". Since many of the beauty pageant winner articles were merged, that is an odd thing to mention. Beyond that, the first articles deleted or merged were done so no later than January of this year, but I think it was atually early 2015. Even my contributions to the deletion discussions begin in June of this year with my nomination of the article on Sloan Bailey, which I also created many years ago. The college football players example is also misleading because the fact that we have articles on the people now in no way proves that they were notable back in September 2008. A sizeable number of college football players go on to play professionally, and in many cases such people are only notable once they start playing professionally. The fact that a person is notable today does not mean they were notable 8 years ago. On an example I know a whole lot about, when I began the article on Mia Love she was the mayor of a city with 16,000 people in Utah. She may or may not have passed the GNG then, I believed she did. That was in January 2010. Today that city has 26,000 or maybe a little more people, but since Love is now a member of congress she is without question notable. If the article had been deleted back in February of 2010, it would have been surely recreated no later than January 2015, and probably in November of 2014 if not sooner. That would not be at all evidence that the deletion in February of 2010 had been a flawed action. We can only judge articles based on present situations. I will fully accept that some of the non-notable Miss Nebraska USA or Miss Illinois USA winners will be notable in the future, but we cannot at this time know which ones they are and thus cannot maintain these articles with a lack of reliable sources just because at some future point we may have enough sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Response the cases highlighted above were centered around college football coaches--specifically coaches at smaller schools. And no, it's not a perfect fit. And yes, it includes "or merged" articles. As for notability for college football players, we have an essay at WP:CFBN that helps but the most common reference for the last few years is the general notability guideline. The notability essay has helped many of us come to a general understanding of what GNG means through the framework of college football. There is still disagreement from time to time, but we tend to avoid a large number of AFDs all at once.--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
    • The precedent was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter J. West. The article was restored afterwards because only then it became clear that he had played professionally in the National Football League. Many of the others were also restored for similar reasons. None were restored because there was a consensus that being a head coach was sufficient or that the notability essay from College Football was acceptable. We still have AfD debates about these, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N. H. Skyles. Using the West precedent here would mean that all pageant contestant articles should be deleted until the contestants can be shonw to be otherwise notable. I don't think that was your intention. By the way, your 100% restored or merged includes things like Joe Banks, which was redeleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Banks. Fram (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
      • My intent was to show a reasonably similar situation and how it was handled so we can learn from it. Feel free to ignore it if you like.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• The main similarity is that mass AfDs created a massive headache later on. They so often do. That's why mass AfDs are discouraged. pbp 14:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

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