Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive940

BLP violations at AE

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.

---

Hidden Tempo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a single purpose account who has been focused on writing and advocating for positive content about Donald Trump and negative content about Hillary Clinton. That in itself is not an offence, as other editors hold diametrically opposed views; however, the area of US politics is subject to discretionary sanctions. The problem has been Hidden Tempo's interaction with other editors and his refusal or inability to comply with the standards of editing Wikipedia which our policies demand. He has received notice of DS and been further warned on his talk page by multiple editors. He is now subject to a topic ban from US Politics, the last straw being his edit summary describing another editor's post as "more filth".

In the process of appealing his topic ban, he has taken the opportunity to repeatedly attack Clinton, describing her trustworthiness poll results as "feeble" on the AE appeal page [1][2]. Despite being given the text of WP:BLP, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.", and having it explained that BLP policy applies to any page on Wikipedia, he defends his action by citing NBC News - which never once mentions the word "feeble", but neutrally states "Trump does better than Clinton in the honesty category, but she still does not score particularly high marks. Just 16 percent of voters say that Trump is honest and trustworthy, but only 11 percent believe the same about Clinton." The choice of the word "feeble" is Hidden Tempo's and his alone. He argues that it is "allegedly" contentious and seems to either not understand our policies or thinks he can wikilawyer his way out of any BLP violation.

To prevent further BLP violations, I'm requesting administrative action to block Hidden Tempo until he can convincingly demonstrate that he understands WP:BLP and undertakes not to repeat his violations. --RexxS (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I find it highly peculiar that RexxS has opened this ANI report while there is an active/ongoing AE report about Hidden Tempo (HT) going on which has not yet been closed. The AE report is because of exactly the same reason that Rex gives for opening the ANI report with the additional reason given that a BLP violation(s) has taken place at AE by HT. Surely if any BLP violation has taken place in the AE report by HT then the Admins in AE will take care of the problem. As for whether any BLP violation by HT has taken place at AE, see this: diff. Soham321 (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• I've blocked for 31 hours with this additional warning. Having an AE appeal open does not excuse an editor from having to adhere to BLP policy. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I should add that I most definitely do consider the use of derogatory adjectives (which are not used by the provided sources) to describe living people, and the repetition of that same personal editorializing in an AE appeal, to be a breach of BLP policy. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• After discussion on Hidden Tempo's talk page, the problem of introducing personal interpretation seems to be understood, and I have unblocked. I suggest this section can be closed now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Now that Hidden Tempo has posted an unblock request indicating a better understanding of the issue and Boing! said Zebedee has accepted that, I'm happy to ask for this thread to be closed as resolved. --RexxS (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Question about closed discussion

This is 2002 U.S. Senate candidate Kurt Evans. There's a closed discussion above under the header "Disruptive editing and BLP accusations with United States Senate election in South Dakota, 2016"... Is that discussion going to be removed from this page? If so, is it going to be reposted somewhere else? If so, where? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.253.21 (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Three days after the last post to the thread, it will be automatically removed from this page and moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive939. Sometimes people manually move old discussions to the archive before three days, so it might not take that long. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. —KE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.255.182 (talk) 05:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

3 days? I remember when it took 24h for a discussion to be archived. Rah rah rah rabble rabble rabble rhubarb rhubarb... —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 05:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

This is Kurt Evans. In view of the fact that the regular Wikipedia users involved in this dispute had all been refusing to comment since Tuesday evening, may I ask for the discussion to be immediately archived in its final resting place? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_and_BLP_accusations_with_United_States_Senate_election_in_South_Dakota.2C_2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.246.37 (talk) 23:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeh sure, I'll oblige. Archiving in a sec.  Done - I had it on my radar anyway. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. —KE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.244.16 (talk) 03:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

This is Kurt Evans again. When the discussion was closed, "Ks0stm" suggested holding an RfC on the article's "Talk" page, and "Dane2007" apparently tried to set one up about 48 hours ago, but so far there are only two comments besides mine. Is this normal? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_Senate_election_in_South_Dakota,_2016#Request_for_Comment:_Should_Kurt_Evans_be_listed_as_.22Failed_to_Qualify.22.3F — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.231.110 (talk) 00:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is. RfC's are run for 30 days - usually - during which period interested editors can come in and put their !vote for or against the proposal. At the end of this period an uninvolved administrator will come in and read through the !votes and decide whose arguments are weightier. The tally is of no import, or at least should be treated as such. The decision should (and generally will) always be made with respect to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Not the number for or against the motion. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

That's both informative and encouraging. Thank you very much. —KE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.231.110 (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Odd 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.

---

Someone please look at recent very similar edits to Cecilia of Sweden (my comment is on the talk page there), Catherine Vasa, Princess Sophia of Sweden and Catherine Stenbock. It's hard to find good faith in that kind of editing, even though the 2 editors (one an IP) are experienced and have done good work for years. They often work on the same historical articles. Besides that long repetitious list now added to the end of each of he articles, what I find the most disturbing is the second IP edit, in all 4 cases, which looks like it's merely intended to prevent reversal. I could have rolled them all back, but I thought maybe an admin should have a closer look. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 06:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

PS I chose not to mention names here yet, in case I've overreacted. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 06:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

It is a puzzling pattern. Aciram adding dozens of instances of the same reference, and then an IP doing a minor edit. I hope Aciram will visit us here and tell us what it's all about. If the refs are legit, then there are better ways of adding them - specifically by using named references. Certainly what we see right now has all the makings of a very odd edit which someone is trying deliberately to hide from watchlists. --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I have alerted both editors to this discussion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

In any case, that needs to be collapsed to a single call to the same named ref at the end of each paragraph, at the most. My eyes set in their sockets looking at the current state of these articles.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The explanation is very simple. If you look at the edit history of the article, it was me who originally wrote almost all of the article. I used the reference in question, which is a perfectly good reference, for the text. Everything can be checked by anyone - though, unfortunately, it is in Swedish, but the reference is used in the article in Swedish wiki as well. However, when I originally wrote the articles, I did not cite the references. Reading them again recently, I realized that I should have, and acknowledged my past mistake: of course I should have cited the references so that everyone could check the information I have added and see what references I used. Therefore, I cited the information I have added now instead - unfortunately long after I wrote the information, but better late than never, I thought, since it was I who added the text and information originally, and of course now which reference I used. I assure you, there is nothing strange, odd or suspicious about this: only me adding references I should have added already when I wrote the articles in the first place. Surely it is alright to amend past neglects and reference the information you have added, as you always should, even if it was, in my case, a bit to long time between my addition of information and referencing the source of that information? It was not more odd than that.

I apologize for not properly formatting the references - I am afraid I am a bit of an idiot when it comes to these technical things!

The reason as to why I made a single edit in an IP-number afterward is embarrassing: the reason was to avoid any potential confrontation with the User:Sergewoodzing. I am ashamed to say, that during the course of about four or five years, my experience of this user have made me prefer to avoid encountering him on Wikipedia. This is not because he has the ability to "catch me in the act" of doing something wrong. This is rather because my experience have told me that he likes to question me regardless of what edits I make in the articles of Swedish royalty. This is mentioned in Swedish Wikipedia, where User: SergeWoodzing have been permanently blocked:[[3]]. The reason stated for the block was partially a tendency to criticize any edit made to an article of a Swedish royal not to his taste, whether referenced or not: you may see some of the reasons stated there in English, and can verify it for yourself. In the discussion about the block of Sergewoodzing, his harassment of me in particular in this regard was also mentioned: [[4]], and he has previously been told in Swedish Wikipedia to "leave me alone", as his criticism of my edits have been viewed as personal hostility.

I apologize for mentioning this matter here; I feel embarrassed to do so, and I would have preferred not do, especially in reply toward a fellow editor voicing concerns, ans since I harbor no ill feelings toward this user myself, have no wish to be involved in any conflict with a fellow editor at Wikipedia, and would only wish to work in peace. But this matter have compelled me to do so, and I apologize if it was unsuitable.

I assure you again: there is nothing unsuitable in my edits, I have simply added my references to the information I have myself written to the article (If a little to late), and my last edit was made because I was afraid of User:Sergewoodzing tendency to make all edits I make seem suspicious, a conclusion I am deeply ashamed and embarrassed to voice, but which I am compelled to mention here because of past history and experience, and for which I have support by the reasons made for the permanent ban on Sergewoodzing in Swedish Wikipedia.

I would like to appeal to Sergewoodzing not to take this personally, and to be assured, that I am here on Wikipedia to contribute to knowledge, and to do so in honesty to the best of my ability, and I have no other agenda than that: I do not mention your ban in Swedish wiki out of malice, and I hope you can excuse me for doing so, but I do it only because I feel it to be necessary. I am currently ill and recovering form surgery, and I have no strength at all for any great conflicts. I do hope that I have managed to explain my edits sufficiently and explain any concerns that may have occurred. And once again, I apologize for having mention what may seem to be an accusation of personal hostility toward the user who voiced concerns, but I have done so because I past experience have made it seem necessary to mention. --Aciram (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I am a Swedish admin, and Aciram asked someone to tell you here about what happened on svwp that has made the user worried about all contact with SergeWoodzing. As you can see on Acrimas links there are a permanent ban on svwp for SW among other reasons because of edits about Swedish royalties and edits against Acriam. That ban has slightly spinned over here too for a while with a small conflict about a bad source (I was in that conflict too. (just to make all understand my position: I try always to be neutral even if I have been in a conflict with a user. I discuss sources and fact) In this specific case I understand the questions from Sergewoodzing completely, and I think he did correct to not questioning himself the edits - due to the circumstances that it was an user ha has been in many conflicts with. This gave other users a chans to see and think about it, and Acriam gave an explanation which I can assure everyone is true. I can also assure you what the user says about being a "technical idiot" (sorry for using that term). On Acriams discussion page another of the editors that have been in conflict with SW, Elzo 90, writes about the citing and that he is sure that it is that that is the problem. After that he corrected the citing (and another user from svwp also corrected some articles). The problem here was simply a user that du not know the citing technic very good, and a worry about a user. I hope you take this in consideration and accept the users apologizes, while I thanks Sergewoodzing for taking this step instead of questioning Acriam himself to avoid a conflict. Adville (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Aciram. The repetitive ref format issue has been fixed on all of the articles - thanks Boivie. I hope we can now close this issue without drama - is that okay with you, SergeWoodzing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Great! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Ch.au that one dot

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.

---

Someone should probably revoke talk page access for Ch.au that one dot (talk · contribs) unless admins want to deal with repeated unblock requests. APK whisper in my ear 05:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Sk8erPrince not using edit summaries when nominating articles for deletion

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.

---

Sk8erPrince (talk · contribs) very rarely uses edit summaries, including not using them when nominating articles for AFD. I've asked him to at least use them when nominating articles for deletion [5], but he has not responded to my comment and has continued to not usually use edit summaries, including when nominating articles for deletion [6] [7]. For full context, mandy people, including me, find his behavior hostile and uncooperative in general (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 November 20#Nanaho_Katsuragi for a recent example). My understanding is that using edit summaries when nominating an article for deletion is not optional (WP:AFDHOW says to give edit summaries, and I've seen people blocked before for not using them). I'm hoping an admin can get him to at the very least use edit summaries when nominating articles for AFD, if not be more cooperative in general. Calathan (talk) 07:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, first off: Is this merely about me not using edit summaries, or is it about me being "uncooperative" to a greater extent (I honestly don't see how I am uncooperative if I'm just following by the rules in pretty much every procedure I do)? WP:AFDHOW never once stated that not using edit summaries as an offense. If it did, I will be doing it. I have also deleted 29 articles thus far without using edit summaries, and nobody up until now has informed me that it is necessary... or is it? Until clarification on this so called matter (it's honestly so trivial that this discussion should be closed immediately) is addressed, I see no reason why I should be lectured by another non-admin level member. Also, I have the right to choose whether or not I'd like to reply when you post on my talk page, ie. my territory. Choosing to report me for such a teeny thing... you honestly have nothing better to do. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 08:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Sk8erPrince, not using edit summaries is in and of itself uncooperative. You also respond with hostility to any criticism (such as the long angry rant you gave at the deletion review I linked to). I don't see how that can be considered cooperative editing. You seem to care much more about bragging about how many articles you've gotten deleted than actually working constructively with anyone else, and basically seem to have a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude to everything you do here. While I particularly want you to start using edit summaries so I can tell when you've nominated a page on my watch list for deletion, I'd also really like you to just stop being so hostile in general. So I guess both are issues here. Calathan (talk) 08:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

While I particularly want you to start using edit summaries so I can tell when you've nominated a page on my watch list for deletion

*I see, so that's how it is... basically, you want me to start using edit summaries just to make it easier for you, for your own personal convenience. In other words, Idegon is right - it's not a matter of policy, it's about wanting me to make your life easier. Yeah, no. Overturned. I have no obligation to make life easy for you. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 09:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Calathan, there is absolutely nothing requiring the use of edit summaries at anytime, for anything. The only thing you've provided diffs for is not using edit summaries, which although certainly a great idea, are unambiguously not required. So if you're complaining about something else, please provide diffs. John from Idegon (talk) 09:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

There is indeed no policy requiring edit summaries for any edit. That said there is a clear consensus expressed in guidelines and how to documents that edit summaries should be used for some types of edit. One such category is nominations for deletion, as described at WP:AFDHOW. So no, Sk8erPrince doesn't have to do this, but yes he ought to do it anyway. Perhaps he could just agree to use edit summaries for future AFDs, and then we can all move on to something more interesting? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

+1 - Edit summaries aren't compulsory however one should be added after every edit you make otherwise you're more prone to being reverted quicker, But it's up to Sk8, I suggest this gets speedy closed as no admin intervention is needed. –Davey2010^Talk 11:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Good. Nice to see that I'm getting support. Though I must say - none of my edits have been reverted as a result of not putting in any edit summaries. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 11:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, I'd like to see Sk8er start using edit summaries for at the very least AfD. Though I am feeling that battleground mentality in Sk8er's comment. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jauerback and Sk8erPrince: I am not certain that I agree with closing the thread at this time. A request that experienced editors provide some form of edit summary for substantive edits is a reasonable one, which has been seconded by several people commenting here, and I see no meaningful explanation from Sk8erPrince for why he is declining to do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Can we please move on? An admin has already stipulated that it is not compulsory. Given that is true, why are you still dwelling on it? Oh wait, you're an admin, too. Well, we're not gonna continue this discussion. The end. Stop bothering me about it. It's my choice whether or not I want to use edit summaries, and honestly, if I see one more person nag me about it again, I'm reporting y'all as harassment. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

No, I for one agree with Newyorkbrad, this needs a bit more discussion. @Sk8erPrince: I'm entirely unsatisfied with your responses here: by not giving an edit summary mentioning nomination for deletion, you're hiding from those who have the article on their watchlist that the article has been put up for deletion, and you do actually have an obligation to edit collegially here; not doing so is called disruptive editing, and it's grounds for blocking. Your user page also displays a battleground attitude (although I was happy to note that you have not personally deleted any of the articles you claim there to have deleted, just "won" the deletion debate. Is there any way we can persuade you to use the edit summary box at least when nominating an article for deletion? Yngvadottir (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Sk8erPrince, please doublecheck where you are. This is ANI, a place where an editor comes here to complain about another editor for whatever reason. The OP and the reported user are both equally investigated in the complaint. If I were to complain about a user, my actions also come into question. To call it harrasment seriously shows that you need a refresh on policies and guidelines. Should a user question your editing, they are allowed to (re)open a discussion, whether you like it or not. It's not harrasment. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

This response wasn't really helpful and is bordering WP:IDHT. Our work here is to improve the encyclopaedia. Using edit summaries helps other editors to quickly get an idea about the edit, without a need to examine the edit itself. While not compulsory, it is considered good practice to leave an edit summary for each edit. I would urge you to take the advice which multiple editors are giving you here. I see that you do good work in AfDs and are a productive editor otherwise, so adding edit summaries should't hurt. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Edit summaries aren't always required, but no reason has been given why they aren't being added. Hobit (talk) 03:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Also agreed. Edit summaries are not currently required for all edits. However, we are all volunteers here, and as someone else mentioned, most/all of us lack the ability to read minds. An edit summary (even a quick one like "typo") can help enormously when an edit pops up on a watch list and doesn't seem to make sense at first glance. Knowing why someone made the edit can go a long way toward smoothing relationships on the site (including the avoidance of potential edit wars). Help:Edit summary clearly states that "it is good practice to fill in the Edit summary field, or add to it in the case of section editing, as this helps others to understand the intention of your edit." (emphasis added) ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I've undone my closure and I apologize for closing the thread as I didn't think it was going to lead to anything productive. Obviously, I was wrong in that assumption. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to require edit summaries

Propose that we add an editing restriction on Sk8erPrince. Specifically that he be required to use clear edit summaries that indicate what action is he is taking/proposing when initiating a deletion action. This includes but is not limited to PRODs, speedies, and AfD nominations.

Support

1. Support as nom It's at the point of being disruptive and he seems unwilling to do so on his own unless it's specifically required of him. Hobit (talk) 03:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
2. Support - Having read the discussion above what I didn't think about at the time of writing my comment was that the editor can easily AFD/CSD/PROD any article of their choosing and no one would ever know - That's disruptive on all forms, Although it isn't compulsory to use edit summaries it is extremely helpful and one should always be used when nominating/csding/proding any article, Unless the editor agrees to start using edit summaries for everything they do then they should be restricted for now. –Davey2010^Talk 03:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
3. Support - I definitely support this since Sk8erPrince seems unwilling to use edit summaries unless required to do so. I initially missed that he had nominated an article on my watch list for deletion, and only noticed that it was up for deletion because I was also watching a deletion sorting page where it got listed by someone else. Sk8erPrince, I still am completely baffled as to why you would think making things easier for other users is not a good enough reason to use edit summaries. Calathan (talk) 05:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
4. Support - if a vote will do anything to help. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
5. Support Wikipedia relies on collaboration. Rules cannot impose common sense, but the community can recognize when a problem exists and require minimum standards. Johnuniq (talk) 06:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
6. Support WP:AFDHOWTO definitely instructs users to use edit summaries. While it never clarifies if this step is optional or not, the entire process seems pretty self-explanatory to me, and it doesn't seem to leave any room for people to regard certain instructions as optional. Parsley Man (talk) 07:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
7. Support - Sk8er has developed a battleground mentality, they talk down to other editors who disagree with their approach without actually listening. Perhaps enforcing an edit summary requirement for them at AfD, CSD and PROD will teach them to collaborate a little better and kill some of the attitude. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
8. Support To be honest I would actually prefer that Sk8er leave edit summaries for everything. Edit summaries are always helpful. Another reason for supporting this is that it will help remind Sk8er that we do stuff by consensus here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
9. Support A lack of edit summaries drives me up the wall. I am not a mind reader and cannot guess what the intent of people's edits are, and get annoyed at wasting time looking at the diffs to work it out. If I revert your edit with "not an improvement, no edit summary", it means I couldn't understand how you were trying to improve the encyclopedia, and is a cue to explain yourself more thoroughly next time. (As a bit of blatant advertising : support voters, consider adding {{User:Ritchie333/Userbox ES}} to your userpage :-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
10. Support - Per Ritchie333. People not using edit summaries also drives me up the wall and i often warn people for not using edit summaries when they need to. Class455 (talk) 11:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
11. Strong support per Mr rnddude and Ritchie. I might nick that userbox for my user page :D Patient Zero^talk 13:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
12. Conditional Support - Edit summaries are not always needed but are preferred. For minor edits (such as typos, adding commas or the like) we should give a pass, but for major edits (AfDs, adding/removing bulk/possibly disputed content) they should be added. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
13. Support for AFD - Speaking for myself I don't always leave an edit summary for trivial edits (unless it's to fix an issue I myself created such as broken syntax) but I think most people would be fine with that. For substantial edits like removing OR or for xdd/prods I think it's quite reasonable to request edit summaries. However I think the issue would be avoided if using the xFD tab to handle the nomination procedure as it will auto fill the summary and make the issue non existent - this may require the user to change their site optiionsSephyTheThird (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

    @SephyTheThird: Yep, but twinkle is required to do this but may change their preferences via Special:Preferences. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 19:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

14. Support: Almost everyday I see no edit summaries in my lifetime mostly by IPs, newbies and some inexperienced editors. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 19:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

    I think you may have misunderstood KGirlTrucker81. This restriction is only for this single editor as opposed to all editors. I do agree with you to a degree, in all fairness, but I will point out one flaw in your findings; a lot of experienced users don't use edit summaries all the time, especially when they're deemed unnecessary. I, for one, don't always use an ES when replying on a talk page, or my summaries are vague ("re" for reply, "ec" = edit conflict, "ce" = copyedit and so on and so forth). I don't think grouping IPs and new editors was a wise move on your part, either, as a lot of IP editors are experienced in editing. Patient Zero^talk 12:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

    Oh, I did misunderstood this a little hehehe :D KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 12:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

    Indeed - thanks for correcting my formatting, as well as responding in a civil and gracious manner. Patient Zero^talk 12:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

15. Support for any AFD, PROD, CSD, or related edit. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
16. Support. I use edit summaries for any of my edits unless it involves updating a show airing live. Even for minor typos or corrections, ce is the way for me. Any editing involving deletion or nomination should require the use of edit summaries. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
17. Support, because it makes all of our lives easier...TJH2018talk 21:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
18. Support. Good idea to impose edit summaries in special cases. Clearly improving cooperation. Polentarion Talk 22:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
19. Support. This statement, Yeah, no. Overturned. I have no obligation to make life easy for you, plus the fact that he talks about a "defeat" at AFD says volumes of Sk8rprince's battleground mentality. People have requested nicely that edit summaries be used and there's no real reason not to. The whole digging in of heels in refusing to use them is juvenile. We are not here to cajole you nor coddle you. If you don't like the consensus then you are free to leave. Blackmane (talk) 00:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
20. Support as a perfectly reasonable requirement for Sk8ter at this point. It would be asinine to force newbies to use edit summaries, but Sk8ter has 5 years and 1700 edits under his belt - this shouldn't be hard. And the restriction is appropriately narrowed to where the problem is - deletion proposals. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
21. Support as this is a reasonable request for nominations and there is no reason not to include a summary of what they did with their edits. The user also says they will be "less inclined to comply" if they are required to use edit summaries which seems to be fishing for a block. Competence is required. -- Dane2007 ^talk 04:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
22. Support. Given that highly disturbing "List of articles I have deleted" on his userpage, this user absolutely should have visible accountability for every even-remotely deletionist move that he makes. He's also probably gunning for a t-ban from deletions if deletion is his raison d'etre on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 10:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

    I second that, particularly since our Deletion policy (emphasis mine) states "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." His AfD stats are not too great, particularly all those "Delete (nom) / Keep" entries. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

    With a nomination success rate of under 50% [8] I would support a ban from nominating articles for deletion at all. (excepting the usual like attack pages etc.) Jbh^Talk 17:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

    Jbhunley, that stat really means nothing at all and you could say the same about me; if someone was in line with consensus all the time at AFD I'd assume they were playing the game of jumping on once the result was obvious to try to manipulate the statistics, since by definition if something is at AFD the result isn't a foregone conclusion and there's room for debate. ‑ Iridescent 17:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

    @Iridescent: "Not all the time" is very different from having 42% of your nominations fail. (Note, my link was to nom only not to all !votes) That says to me either the editor has a very poor understanding of WP:DEL/WP:N or that they do not do a WP:BEFORE or both. Every AfD takes considerable editor time to deal with and making consistently poor nominations is disruptive. Jbh^Talk 17:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC) Added wikilink to Generic you to make my statement excruciatingly clear. Jbh^Talk 14:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

    Jbhunley, if you have a problem with me you can fucking well start a stand-alone discussion about it laying out your evidence, not try to hijack a thread on a different topic to attack me for my "very poor understanding of WP:DEL/WP:N". I'll note that over a decade as admin, arb, CU. OS etc, every piece of mud that could be flung at me has been flung at me, and "lack of understanding of deletion" has never been among them, making me strongly suspect that the problem is with you, not me. ‑ Iridescent 19:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

    @Iridescent: cool your jets. I did not make any accusations against you - except now possibly a lack of reading comprehension. The subject under discussion is Sk8trPrince and unless you have a 42% miss rate on your AfD nominations is takes a massive lack of understanding of the English language to think that the subject switched from him to you. If I ever do have a problem with your editing, and I have never seen any reason to suspect I will, I will make it very clear to you. Jbh^Talk 19:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

23. Support This really should be a requirement for process-oriented edits such as AfD, etc. And it's just plain collegial and helpful. The user's only justification for refusing to be helpful and collegial in this way amounts to "nyaah, nyaah, nyaah, you can't make me," which makes one think there may be more trouble in his future. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
24. Support. It's too easy for other editors to miss deletion proposals when they are not marked. And it's also important for them to be clearly visible in the article history so that we can avoid prodding things that have already gone through a prod or afd process. But I think everyone should do this, not just Sk8er. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
25. Support Everyone should be doing this. This editor has been specificly asked to and refused even going so far as to say below "That honestly makes me even more inclined to not comply...". That is simply a crappy attitude and regardless of their "Fine, I concede. I'll use edit summaries when I'm noming and adding speedy tags, as well as big edits. Can we please end the discussion already??" above, I think they need an actual, enforceable sanction or else we will see this problem again. (see aforementioned crappy attitude) Jbh^Talk 17:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

    @JNH: How would you like it if I called you a piece of crap, huh? WP:PERSONALATTACK right there. Your vote should be dismissed immediately. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 13:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

    @Sk8erPrince: I said you have a crappy attitude and your willful misinterpretation and misrepresentation of my statement is, to me, a clear confirmation of my opinion. I make no representations about your quality as a human being because I neither know nor care about your existential value only about the way you have conducted yourself - and that has been, again in my opinion, poorly. Jbh^Talk 14:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

    He said you had "a crappy attitude". Next time, don't jump to conclusions. Your behaviour is just getting worse. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 15:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

    • Note Sk8rPrince has deleted their statement earlier in this thread wherein they agreed to make use of edit summaries [9]. Their original statement is quoted in green above. Jbh^Talk 23:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
26. Support to help give others a sense of what is being done within edits. I know this is just focused on one user, but do feel that a lack of edit summaries in general regardless of who doesn't use them can get really irritating. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
27. Support - I have been interacting with him for quite a while now and despite the project's best efforts it appears he cannot seem to shed his mentality that AFD is a battleground where more articles being nominated and deleted is a good thing. It doesn't help that he once nominated an article I created for deletion without even bothering to notify me (moot anyway since the AfD was quickly withdrawn). To be brutally honest, given his behavior at AfDs, I think a more appropriate action at this time is at least a temporary ban on AfD nominations. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
28. Support - The request for summaries advising of deletion nominations was reasonable; the response has been antagonistic and battlegroundy. "You're not the boss of me, there is no rule" really doesn't cut it for me. So let's make a specific rule to combat unreasonable, non-cooperative behavior. Carrite (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
29. Support - if guidelines don't already call for edit summaries when nominating an article, they should (with allowances for the occasional lapse, of course). Jonathunder (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
30. Support - per User:Blackmane and User:Ritchie333 who voiced my thoughts exactly (I added the userbox btw ;) -- œ^™ 08:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
31. Suppport. The editor has made it abundantly clear that he is not using edit summaries, on purpose, to be deliberately obnoxious ("basically, you want me to start using edit summaries just to make it easier for you, for your own personal convenience... it's about wanting me to make your life easier. Yeah, no. Overturned. I have no obligation to make life easy for you"). It'd be one thing if he's just forgetful. But that's not it. He's omitting the summaries to deliberately damage the project. Not OK. Herostratus (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose: Serious violation of WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Previous discussion regarding the exact same concern has already been closed by Admin Jauerback, with the closing message being "Edit summaries would be nice, but they aren't required". You could try and encourage me to use them, but I could refuse on the grounds that it's not compulsory. So what I'm seeing here is y'all ganging up on me to force me to comply on something that isn't compulsory? That's WP:THREATEN right there. That honestly makes me even more inclined to not comply, more so than before, wherein I simply thought adding an edit summary is such a hassle. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 08:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

   Sk8erPrince, this is not a legal threat? so... WP:THREAT doesn't apply. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

   So what? I think assembling between 50-100 properly formatted citations to prepare an article through GAN is a "hassle" but I don't go onto WT:GAN decrying the process as a load of rubbish. Also, above you wrote "I have no obligation to make life easy for you" - be careful you don't get blocked, as somebody might fire that back at you as a response to your first unblock request! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

   Sk8erPrince, I suggest that you reread policies and guidelines. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

2. Oppose: On the grounds that this shouldn't be a special rule applied to one editor we don't like. This should either be made policy, or this particular WP:STICK should be dropped. 206.41.25.114 (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

   Editing restrictions are imposed on editors which have shown to be disruptive in certain areas. This is not because we don't like them, this is so editors can move on without worry of others. Restrictions can also always be removed at a later date by the community. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

3. Oppose: Everyone should leave meaningful edit summaries. It would be unfortunate if one editor suffers because this is a test case. An edit summary should anticipate the questions that subsequent editors will have. Edit summaries should make plain what you have done. If you have done very little, leave an edit summary that calls attention to the tweaking you have made. If you have made an edit that you can anticipate that others may object to in whole or in part, your edit summary should allude to the change you've made, as well as a brief argument or justification for why you think your edit is called for. It is not uncommon to see useless edit summaries or no edit summaries at all. But this should be addressed project-wide and not on the backs of individual editors who may come under fire. Bus stop (talk) 02:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
4. I honestly don't see how not using an edit summary here is disruptive. Very few editors (at least the ones nominating manually) actually use edit summaries when adding the AfD template. ansh666 21:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
   • To me, it's mainly that it's hard to look at one's watchlist and tell something has been nominated. Given that AfDs are about all he does, it seems reasonable to ask that he make it easy for others to figure out when things are being nominated for deletion. Hobit (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
5. Strong Oppose As others have said, there is no requirement on edit summaries for anything. As a result, in my view it is unreasonable to apply this as an edit restriction just on @Sk8erPrince:. If this is to be a requirement it needs to be passed as a requirement on all wikipedia editors. Also he can't be said to have violated anything retrospectively since there is no such rule in place and you can't be said to have violated a proposed future rule that has not yet been enacted.
   
   It sounds as if this may be an omission in the guidelines that needs to be rectified for the most significant edits such as nominated an article for deletion. But at the moment all that can be done is to ask him as a matter of courtesy if he would be so good as to leave edit summaries to help the rest of us. He has said also "Fine, I concede. I'll use edit summaries when I'm noming and adding speedy tags, as well as big edits. Can we please end the discussion already??". [10] What more is needed? If we take this further I think it should not be as an action against any individual editor but rather as an action to change the guidelines themselves. Then after the guidelines are changed, then editors could be required to follow them.
   
   As for other allegations against him, I suggest if anyone thinks there is anything of substance to be discussed they be raised as separate actions. Too many of these ANI cases become long discourses about all percieved flaws of the user concerned, and this is not the way to administer justice. It needs to be focused on some particular issue and on this particular issue "User:Sk8erPrince not using edit summaries when nominating articles for deletion" I think there is definitely no need at all for any sanction or further action according to the guidelines. He has been asked as a courtesy to provide the edit summaries from an article that he nominates for deletion, and has agreed to do so. Case over surely. Robert Walker (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
6. Oppose sets a slippery slope and bad precedent on "it's not a rule but because I think you're breaking an imaginary rule so you'll have to follow my imaginary rule". It cannot be enforced if the "rule" is broken in the future. Plus how do you determine if it's broken? Of all the years I spent here, I learned one thing and it is that you cannot please everyone and there will always be people who have an axe to grind and enforce a really strict rule on what is ok and what is not. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

   The proposal is not to enforce a rule, imaginary or otherwise. The OP provides examples of unhelpful behavior (it is unhelpful to nominate an article for deletion with no edit summary), together with polite requests to improve collaboration. The responses from Sk8erPrince above are what has prompted the proposal that the editor must use an edit summary for certain actions related to deletion. Collaboration is very important for the health of the community, and that is why there is strong support for the proposal. Johnuniq (talk) 07:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

   Exactly. 1RR is not a rule, it's a restriction to encourage collaboration. IBANs are not rules, they are restrictions to stop inherently negative interactions. TBANs/PBANs are not rules, they are restrictions to discourage persistent disruptive editing. Similarly, this proposal is not the enforcement of a rule, but a restriction to end disruptive editing (WP:DISRUPT) and encourage a collegiate/collaborative attitude (WP:EQ). Mr rnddude (talk) 07:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

7. Oppose - I had originally closed this thread because edit summaries aren't required, however others felt more discussion was necessary, so I reopened it. Needless to say, I'm kind of disappointed on what this is turning into. Sk8erPrince has definitely demonstrated some attitude and battleground issues in this thread alone, but requiring him to use edit summaries does not address any of those problems. This is an absurd restriction on one user as he could easily skirt it by leaving edit summaries that don't say much of anything and then here we are back again at ANI with a thread about his "poor edit summaries". I don't envy the new closing admin as most of the arguments above seem to be people's wishes towards a project-wide change, not in regards to one user. For the record, I believe that all users should use edit summaries, but requiring them isn't worth anyone's time enforcing. We all have better things to do. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

   I agree. The important distinction is not between leaving edit summaries and not leaving edit summaries but rather between leaving useless edit summaries and leaving meaningful edit summaries. Edit summaries are an important part of the project. Through edit summaries we have the potential to address some of the problems that plague the community. Edit summaries should be used properly. I am opposed to requiring Sk8erPrince to use edit summaries for the reasons you mention above. Bus stop (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

   Just noting that this only requires that he mark his edits that initiate a deletion action. He appears to be not doing so to make it harder for others that watch the page to notice that it is up for deletion. This is not a general requirement to use edit summaries in all cases, just where he has been disruptive by not using them. Hobit (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

8. Very strong oppose - edit summaries are not required. Trying to impose an editing convention on other users because it's convenient for you is especially poor form. If OP wants to see when a page in their watchlist is nominated for deletion, they can enable a script to do so and not badger other users. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
9. Prinicipled oppose- given that the community has previously smiled benevolently on inclusionists repeatedly lying in edit summaries, it boggles the mind that we are now considering punishing someone for merely omitting them. Reyk _YO! 14:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

   Say what? Can I ask for a bit of explanation of what this accusation of lying is based on? Yngvadottir (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

   Prominent Article Rescue Squadron celebrity caught repeatedly using edit summaries that deliberately obscured what he was actually doing, as well as misrepresenting the content of sources Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Colonel_Warden- nothing done about it of course. Same guy gets caught at it again Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive743#Colonel_Warden, and not only is it excused again with many smiles and pats on the back, but it's the one guy who tried to stop the misbehaviour that got kicked in the teeth. Since being purposely deceitful in edit summaries is OK, I don't think there's any call to punish someone for leaving no edit summary at all. Reyk _YO! 22:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

10. Strong Oppose, while I agree that not editing with a summary, especially after being asked to do so is not good, there is nothing against policy that was violated. If you feel that editing summaries should be required, or should be required for certain types of actions, then go to Village Pump Policy and request it. To do so here is punishing someone for something that is not wrong. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 16:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Is it mandatory now to use an edit summary when sending an article to AfD? I've never used one and never will. Pages of importance are on people's watchlists, plus the discussions are grouped by category at AfD for anyone interested in saving something (or backing up the deletion argument for that matter). Is this now a blockable offense? Does the AfD guidance trump WP:EDITSUMMARY? Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 11:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Some editors, such as Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) contribute enormously to the encyclopedia without leaving much in the way of edit summaries, but even then they leave one when necessary. Let me give you a typical example here. In this case, I assume the editor wanted to trim the sentence down and improve readability, but left it in a state of awkward grammar. Since I had no idea what their actual intent was, I was forced to revert. Perhaps with an edit summary, we could have worked out something else that was even better, but that was not to happen. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, WP:AFDHOWTO certainly seems to imply an edit summary is necessary. I've always followed the process to the last detail every time I nominate an article for deletion, and I certainly don't have any problems with it. Of course, this is a very subjective topic. I actually think it's a very interesting subject to raise at WP:VPP, since we're now talking about it. Parsley Man (talk) 02:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• Suggestion WP:TWINKLE can be turned on in preferences. It makes any XFD nomination extremely simple, all you have to do is type in your reasoning and it internally does everything else, create the page, add it to the log, inform the page creator, and yes, leave an edit summary. Why anyone wouldn't use it for nominations is beyond me. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that WP:TWINKLE is the simple solution here. To the people opposing the overwhelming WP:CONSENSUS for Sk8erPrince to use edit summaries, in my mind it's either that or a TBan on deletions (or both), because he's become that disruptive, as all of the WikiProject members have attested. Softlavender (talk) 13:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

• Honestly, at this stage, whether you support or oppose, it does not matter anymore. I have already started using edit summaries for all the aforementioned categories, and also for expanding bios. However, I will say this: Any discussion that has nothing to do with edit summaries should be ceased immediately. Seriously, some of you even had the audacity to give me your unneeded comments on what I wrote on my profile. That's like, none of your beeswax. Maybe you should learn to mind your own business? And given that no consensus is needed for my willingness in using edit summaries when necessary, this discussion should also be closed down right now, given that any more comments and votes will prove to be completely substanceless. No, you didn't force me into submission; I myself have now seen the relevance in using edit summaries, and will use them appropriately, and when needed. If I'm willing to do it with my own free will, your so called restriction isn't going to affect me one bit~ --Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Here we go again with the WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Good God. This message was so unnecessary and mounts to incivility. I second Knowledgekid87 as well that Sk8erPrince is agreeing just to please the community and get over with it. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 19:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Cool story, bro. I'm not doing it to please the community. I'm doing it because I see the necessity in doing so, so that my AFDs could progress faster. But none of you managed to forced me into submission; try to keep that in mind. Check my latest contributions for verification if you don't believe me. And you wanna know what's unnecessary? This entire discussion. Could you remind yourself what the proposal is even about again? OH RIGHT, it's about getting me to use edit summaries. Well, since I'm using them now, your unsizeable comments and borderline aggressions don't mean anything to me. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Takes petulance to a whole new level, doesn't it? However, the point does stand. Does a discussion concerning an editing restriction or sanction stay open if the editor in question has acquiesced, however petulantly or childishly, to abide by the community requirement that is under discussion? Blackmane (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Please do me a favor and stop bending around the facts. The FACT of the matter is, using edit summaries are not required. So what's this talk about abiding by "community requirements"? It's not even a requirement in the first place. As non-mandatory as it is, given that I now see how using them is speeding up my AFDs, I'm sure as hell gonna use them, of course. Also, I contest to your claim that I was "acquiesced" to the proposal. So you're saying y'all forced me into submmision? Blatant BS. Nobody could force me to do anything - not now, not ever. I'm doing it out of my own free will. Try to get that through your thick skull. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

You are stating what people have been seeing though that you could care less about the community's opinion regarding your editing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

If the benefits of using edit summaries more often help meet my own ends, I don't see why I should be opposed to use them on the grounds that it's not mandatory. Is it really so hard for you to understand that I merely failed to see how it could benefit me before? People change, and for someone that's as flexible as me, changing sides and stances isn't hard at all. Again, we don't need this discussion to continue. It's absolutely pointless. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand some things. While Wikipedia has a lot of policies and guidelines which by and large every editor follows. There are also things, such as edit summaries, that are not explicitly laid out as being required. However, all of those can be trumped by a broad discussion by the wider community and whatever gains consensus, in effect, becomes a policy for that one editor. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit but that has not prevented the community from banning editors from editing particular articles, just do a search for "Topic ban", "sanctions" or "restrictions" in the AN and ANI archives. All of those can be, and have been, levied on a single or even a group of editors. Failing that, there is the Arbitration Committee who have much broader powers to act on particular areas. The edit summary guideline may state that a summary is not required, but consensus from a wider community discussion does have the power to place a requirement on an editor to use edit summaries. Failure to abide by community imposed sanctions have resulted in sanctions as light as an indefinite topic ban to indefinite blocks and site bans. On Wikipedia, consensus overrules all. Blackmane (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't give a flying dang whether or not you manage to impose this sanction or requirement or whatever the heck you wanna call it upon me. If the end result dictates that this whachamacallit is placed onto me, then so be it. I don't care. I'm already doing what the proposal states, so your POV on the matter is useless. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I am reaching up to here with your attitude and I have to get it off my chest. If I get warned for civility, so be it. Will you stop with your arrogant comments? "Cool story, bro" is the most insulting thing I have been told and I have been called Nazi names. I have had enough with your condescending comments and I am reaching my limit as you are disrespecting plenty of users besides myself. This discussion is still ongoing. If you don't care, why are you still here? What I see that you're just conceding to please the outcome. You didn't give a flapping duck before and now you're agreeing? Seems far fetched to me. I am done with your insulting comments. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Bite me then, Canadian. If you wanna ignore the facts, then so be it. It's a FACT that recently, I've been expanding on stub articles rather than just AFDing. It's a FACT that I've started using edit summaries. If it benefits me, I'll do it. You're not me; don't go and assume my intentions and motivations for wanting to do the right thing. I'm not doing it to please anyone. Never had, never will. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

This is a pattern, and the same WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality that has dominated some of the AfD discussions that Prince has been involved in. Here are some edits that have raised red flags with me: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. It is not productive, it is not collaborative, and bridges have already been burnt with multiple editors. [16], [17]. Im not saying that all of his AfDs have been unjustified, but seriously he needs to tone it down. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

As a participant in WIkiProject Anime and manga, I have to second that Sk8erPrince is very disruptive to the project. Our deletion sorting list is overwhelmed with his nominations (and many renominations), where in many of the cases it doesn't even seem like they attempted sufficient prior research into notability, and their combative attitude turned me off from participating in any of the discussions. (they're strongly focused on deleting articles rather than helping to assert the notability of them or other improvements) They do not have a history of being willing to collaborate with other editors, very contrary to Wikipedia's nature, and have been brought to ANI in the past for personal attacks. I'd like to reiterate Knowledgekid87's statement that many experienced editors have tried to reach out to them (just look at their talk page history) but they have not been receptive at all. I personally feel that deleting articles on non-notable subjects is good for Wikipedia, but Sk8erPrince's aggressive AfD crusade is not the way to go about it. Opencooper (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I investigated the user a bit and he has displayed battleground tendacies quite often. He labels his works as victories or defeat, seems to hold a superior/inferior orientation, and I've seen him outright belittle people that disagree with him. As for what can change, the user needs to adopt a different kind of mentality when dealing with people. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 19:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

He has definitely been disruptive in many ways. I think he wants to contribute constructively to WP:ANIME and other areas, but he needs to tone down the combativeness. All of us likely have things here that irk us in one way or another, but we someone muddle through and are able to work together (mostly) peacefully. I know there are some policies and guidelines here that I think should be different, and I've participated in a number of discussions regarding them. However, in the end consensus decided how things are to be here (at least for now), and I go along with that. Sk8erPrince needs to learn to play in the great sandbox without constantly throwing sand in others' faces. Most or all of the issues could be addressed simply by extending a courteous attitude toward everyone else. Politeness goes a long way. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I should probably mention that earlier today I removed something from his userpage that I thought could be considered offensive; though I also decided if he reverted and kicked off at me for it, I would just take it on the chin. And while "This user is strictly, unquestionably, undeniably and exclusively heterosexual" isn't directly homophobic, it does leave me with unpleasant overtones of it (after all, if you're comfortable with your sexuality be it gay, straight, bi, asexual, not a clue etc, why would you need to assert it loudly?). And a section of "Pages I've deleted myself" (which is factually wrong as he has to ask an admin to do that) isn't really what Wikipedia is about (not to mention the polar opposite of User:Ritchie333/saves) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC) So my sexual orientation matters to the so called overall problem since when? This discussion should honestly be closed down. It's just WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Basically a closed discussion that is perpetuated. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC) Again throwing WP articles at people when you don't know what it actually means... Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 04:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC) Starting to reach levels of IDHT, more than 20 editors disagree with the close. That should tell you something. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC) It matters not to me, but it clearly matters to you as you have put it at the top of your userpage. I'll clarify that I find it offensive that you trivialise homosexuality into a bit of dodgy porn you like watching, and recommend reading Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing (both good articles, incidentally), from top to bottom to understand why I might feel that way. (I'd say "why don't we just discuss it over a pint?" but you don't appear to like those either). Anyway, bottom line is if you put right-wing views on your userpage, expect blowback. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC) if you put right-wing views on your userpage, expect blowback. - That is both dumb and bigoted. Right-wing does not equate to isms and phobes. Economic conservatism is a right-wing position, yet has nothing to do with intolerance. How absurd to clump in the economic right in to such a category. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "This user opposes smoking", "This user opposes gambling", "This user opposes alcoholism" "This user opposes drug abuse or recreational drug consumption", "This user dates for the very purpose of resulting in marriage" .... all that's missing is "This user believes the Daily Mail is the best newspaper in the world" - jeez. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC) What does that have to do with what is being discussed? Sounds like you're trying to antagonize a user who is already pretty riled up. Primergrey (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• Given the diffs and so forth, I agree there is a definite problem here with belligerence, hostility, failure to do WP:BEFORE, and general disruptiveness. I'd like to re-iterate my stance that a topic-ban on deletions may be in order here. Let's see if the user can edit productively and collaboratively outside of deletion issues. If he cannot, there may be an inherent attitude problem that is a CIR issue. Softlavender (talk) 13:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• Perhaps too soon for a TBAN, but, I think this statement exemplifies the failure to comply with AfD procedures; The quality of the article DOES matter; how else would I know whether or not the subject is actually notable? - By doing your due diligence (in terms of a sort of Wiki-law) and researching the topic before nominating an article for deletion. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The thing is, if you look at his history, that's virtually all he's doing, and he's very belligerent and disruptive about it, and as Jbhunley notes far above, he has a very low success rate. At this point he does not appear to be here to build an encyclopedia, and a topic ban would allow him to demonstrate that he is, and would allow him to demonstrate that he can collaborate with other editors. Softlavender (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you - in fact I agree with you. What I think is that given the above proposal and the fact that it barely managed to budge the editor from their position, dropping a TBAN on them would just drive them away and confirm to them their prejudice that we're a bunch of witch hunters. Seriously, their comments already describe is in basically synonymous terms. If the above proposal were to pass then it might slowly drive the point home that their approach is not the right one - if not, TBAN away. Although, philosophically, being a deletionist by definition would make you "not here to build...", but rather, "here to demolish". Not necessarily a bad thing, given that bad articles on non-notable topics are like a fungus around here, just seemingly antithetical to the stated premise - i.e. "build". Mr rnddude (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

"Low success rate"

Did I just hear you right? So being able to get rid of 30 articles myself is equivalent to low success rate? Are you kidding me? --Sk8erPrince (talk) 13:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

You're proving everyone's point there -- bragging that you've "been able to get rid of" articles. That's the problem. You are fixated on destruction, belligerence, and hostility instead of collaboration, cooperation, and building an encyclopedia. That mindset has caused a lot of problems. (And by the way, in terms of "success rate": When at least half of your nominations don't end up getting deleted, that means you are nominating far far too many articles, far too easily and far too quickly.) Softlavender (talk) 14:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes it is. As comparison I have nominated nearly 200 articles and have a miss rate (either a keep outcome or withdrawing a nomination because people found sources I could not) of about 10% [18]. That, in my opinion, is right on the cusp of acceptability for a regular nominator and a 15% miss rate would indicate a need to reevaluate how one assesses an article for nomination. You have a miss rate of over 42% and a success rate of under 50% [19]. To me that says you do not have an adequate understanding of WP:DEL and WP:N, that you do not do a WP:BEFORE or both. An AfD takes considerable time to process and regularly making bad nominations is disruptive because of that. Before you nominate an article for AfD you should spend some effort to see if it can be saved or at least whether there are sources out there that would allow someone else to save it. Hell, just taking the time to run it through {{find sources}} will screen out many articles that are poor but should not be nominated.

Even if you are a hard core deletionist the goal is not to see how many articles you can delete but rather to identify articles which, be they non-notable, spam or whatever, do not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria and nominate them while not nominating articles which do. Jbh^Talk 14:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not helpful to make a brag list of AFD's that ended up being deleted. Also it would be more helpful to learn how to use the delsort tools so that AFD's are properly categorized and Wikiprojects properly informed, as well as how to properly close a withdraw from nomination, as not following that process has caused a lot of extra work on us other editors. Also, give articles some notability tags first so people can react to that and work on them. Same with no/poor sources and cleanup-biography tags. Place those first. Let them sit for a while, and those that haven't been addressed in any timely manner (like over a year with no efforts) are more likely to get better consideration at AFD time. You can still AFD the egregious non-notables. I also agree find sources should be used a lot more as part of WP:BEFORE as well as looking at the JA wikipedia articles to see if it can be potentially transferred over if those are sourced better. Also add find sources and search under the Japanese names. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

What bothers me Angus is that Prince does not appear to be a new user [20]. While he only became confirmed in 2016 I see edits going back to 2012. [21] It is just hard to believe in all that time that he hasn't learned basic wiki etiquette. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Possible topic ban from nominating articles for deletion?

I absolutely hate saying this but after months of communicating with the user and despite threads of discussion over at WT:ANIME involving virtually every active member of the project, and despite occassional promises of reform, Sk8erPrince's behavior has not changed at all. The fact that he considers AfD as some kind of battleground or war where having more articles deleted is seen as a victory is contrary to Wikipedia culture. Despite our best efforts, he has simply not changed this mentality and has even reacted strongly against even good-faith attempts at reform. Having been a Wikipedia editor for more than eight years, most of which have (in addition to working on anime and manga-related articles) mostly involved new page patrolling and vandalism reversion, I understand that the deletion process is a complicated one that can take months or even years to fully comprehend, but his mentality is not appropriate at this time.

I hate that it has come to this, but I am proposing at least a temporary topic ban or restriction of some kind for Sk8erPrince for nominating articles for deletion. Reading the above discussion and having been involved in the previous discussions, I am aware that such a restriction has risks and that rather than discouraging him it might only make him feel that he is being discriminated against by the larger Wikipedia community. However, my feeling (which I have held for several months) is that such an action is ultimately necessary for the greater good of the encyclopedia. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from PROD, SPEEDY, and AFD - I want to see if Prince can work with others to build an encyclopedia. There are hard core deletion editors out there on Wikipedia, but this case crosses the line into vindictiveness. Prince's attitude during this ANI discussion has also been of issue with the "I could really care less" attitude. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment @Narutolovehinata5: A "topic ban or restriction of some kind for Sk8erPrince for nominating articles for deletion" is not an enforceable sanction. If there is to be a sanction it should be either something like a) a ban on nominating any articles for deletion excepting attack pages and blatant vandalism. Appealable after 6 months or b) a ban on nominating articles for WP:AFD. Appealable after 6 months. Jbh^Talk 15:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC) Last edited: 16:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: I was vague about the possible kind of restriction because I was thinking exactly what kind of ban/restriction to be enforced would be discussed in this discussion. But your proposal seems reasonable, although what I had in mind is quite similar to yours (a temporary ban on nominating articles for deletion except for blatant cases). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: Before people get too far into the support/oppose process I would suggest that you amend your proposal to include wording like in a or b above or something else specific which you think is appropriate. Based on the discussion and their nomination stats I would probably propose b if I were proposing something but you may have more experience with the editor which would lead you believe a broader restriction is needed.

In any case the proposed restriction needs to be spelled out clearly enough that people know what they are !voting for and so the closing admin knows what to implement. Jbh^Talk 22:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose- I have to agree with JbH here. A "restriction of some kind" is far too vague to be enforcable. What makes this even more irksome is that the user in question has been savagely attacked for following the rules as they're written (see recent business about NPASR) and now we're going to impose an extremely hand-wavey one? Nope. Reyk _YO! 15:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Reyk: The nominator has changed the scope of the proposal, and JbH has !voted "Support topic ban from PROD, SPEEDY, and AFD" lower down in this same section. Softlavender (talk) 02:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support until he's shown competence in the steps I've outlined above: tag notability/sources/cleanup-biography and assume good faith on editors, doing WP:BEFORE, and filing AFDs properly with a delsort, he should only AFD the egregious ones. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support: I was involved with a highly similar situation a few years back where we were dealing with a user who was simply ignoring policies and would not reply or even comment on their user talk page when approached by others to get them to comply. They weren't being disruptive, by the technical definition, they were simply operating by their own rules and then ignoring anyone who asked them to obey the rules, or least the etiquette, of this site. Such users can be extremely frustrating to deal with and usually need a bucket of cold water to knock them into seeing that their behavior needs to change. -O.R.^Comms 21:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from PROD, SPEEDY, and AFD. The editor just doesn't get it, and as is very clear on this ANI, still doesn't get it. Let's see if he can edit productively and collaboratively outside of those parameters. Softlavender (talk) 03:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, keep lying yourself and deny the facts all ya want, then. We can do this all day. I have been doing other sorts of editing besides AFDing, and that's a fact. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from PROD, SPEEDY, and AFD Though I'm now at the point I think a long-term block is a better choice, this is a good first step. The CIVIL violations found above (the struck text) combined with the text that he's just removed rather than struck make me believe this editor is a net negative. Hobit (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from PROD, SPEEDY, and AFD I also agree with Hobit that a long term block may be more appropriate. Based on the belligerence expressed by the editor throughout this ANI and the continuing "you can't make me do nothin'" attitude I expect we may very well be back here shortly discussing a long or indefinite block. I hope Sk8erPrince proves me wrong on this but right now they are following the common path to indef as if they were on rails. Jbh^Talk 20:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC) On further consideration, I have not noticed any claims that they are being disruptive with PROD or CSD. If I missed it please let me know and I will reinstate. I do personally think Sk8erPrince should stay away from article deletion altogether for a bit but, as far as I know, they have only been disruptive because of bad AfD noms. Last edited: 14:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from PROD, SPEEDY, and AFD per all the above nonsense. A long term ban would probably be a better idea. That's up to the admin corps, and I expect it will come soon enough anyway. It doesn't seem that this person is a net positive to the project. At any rate his deletion activities don't seem helpful and let's not have any more of this, at least. Herostratus (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

After Jbhunley's comments

Update: Per Jbhunley's comments above, I am proposing specifically: 1. that Sk8erPrince is topic-banned from nominating any article for speedy deletion, PROD, or AfD for a period of one year, except for articles which constitute patent nonsense, vandalism, attack pages, and copyright infringing material. This ban cannot be appealed until after the sixth month; 2. that Sk8erPrince is to be mentored by one or more users regarding Wikipedia policies, guidelines and ettiqute, with the understanding that any unconstructive behavior could result in a block; while I understand that mentorship with these cases has a poor track record, it may be worth trying in this case.

The two proposals are to be voted on separately.

• Support for 1; weak support for 2 as proposer. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Why not just combine this with the section above? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Request to close

There are, I think, enough support/oppose opinions on the edit summary proposal for an uninvolved admin to determine consensus. If this continues much longer Sk8erPrince is, in my opinion, likely to talk themself into a self-inflicted indef with the battleground attitude so many editors have commented on. Maybe we will end up here again but we do a disservice to this editor by not closing this one way or the other, giving them time to take onboard the comments given here and hopefully allowing them to adjust their attitude without an open ended ANI hanging over them. Jbh^Talk 17:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this particular matter is essentially closed. For whatever reason they have now decided to use edit summaries and indeed this can be seen through recent edits. I still think Twinkle would make things easier but that is for them to decide to use or not. Any other issues not related to this matter should be handled separately, clearly it is not productive to deal with them together.SephyTheThird (talk) 17:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The problem I have is that it appears he isn't taking any of this seriously and it is all some kind of a game. With things like "No, you didn't force me into submission", and "your so called restriction isn't going to affect me one bit". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, I tend to agree but really, what will continuing this accomplish? I think there is a consensus to require he make use of edit summaries when nominating for deletion. Personally I do not think he should be doing deletion noms, at least AfDs, but that has not really gotten, and is not likely to get this late in the thread, much input from uninvolved editors. The attitude will either resolve itself once the pressure is off from this long ANI or it will not. If it does not then an ANI, with evidence of how his attitude is a continuous issue, can be opened and sanctions examined. Right now I do not think there is really enough to call for a NOTHERE some such block but if this continues I can see them truely loosing their composure and getting blocked for it to no real purpose since the issue this ANI was opened for can be addressed now. Jbh^Talk 17:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I just want to add this diff here: [22] one editor had asked him to use edit summaries. This wasn't enough, it took 20 something editors here before the message finally went through. I want this closed as well but not if nothing is learned from it or else this was a huge waste of all our time. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I just figured that I start using edit summaries by seeing the benefits in using them before y'all can force me into doing something I don't wanna do. I have this ability that many of you don't have - switching perspectives and stances to suit whichever situation or environment I'm thrown in. I don't suppose you have a problem with that? For doing the right thing? --Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

If you're asking if he's learned how to properly AFD, no he hasn't: [23] [24] and [[25] which he did this morning, still required a second editor to delsort it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Delsorting is not required when you AfD. It is good to do but failing to do it is not disruptive. I have no opinion on the noms themselves since I do not know the standards for the topic. From what I see in the articles they do not seem to have enough independent reliable sources to pass WP:GNG and I do not know if the roles pass WP:NACTOR so based on a very superficial look and no web searches, that these are not inappropriate nominations. Jbh^Talk 17:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

But the AFD nomination itself isn't even put in the most basic of categories like people or actors/filmmakers, causing a second editor or a bot to have to guess. I agree he's picking more egregious ones now, but a lot of the previous ones in the past month that generated this complaint in the first place were not well thought out. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC).

I join in asking that this thread be closed. All the points to be made have been made. The editor has started to use edit summaries for deletion noms, albeit minimally and grudgingly. Either he will take onboard the various other suggestions that have been made, or he won't—I hope he will—but repeating them any further isn't going to help. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Nah, you have the wrong idea. I'm not using edit summaries grudgingly. I'm doing them out of my own free will to benefit myself and my AFDs. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

There also seems to be an emerging consensus for a topic ban but will leave that up to the closing admin. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Brad, the editor's continued belligerence, battleground mentality, and obsession with deletion are still major problems. There are proposals now running to address those issues, so it would be premature to close this ANI at this time. Softlavender (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC).

• Support closing of this AN/I. At this point we're traversing across the line of punitives. The last three AfDs have demonstrated competence in that they are appropriate nominations. I dont think there is now a valid reason to continue pushing for sanctions. If there are new or further problems than I could support a TBAN. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, I submit that an editor who makes the following comments on this thread (in chronological order) is a highly uncooperative editor, and that that is a valid reason to continue to discuss possible further sanctions:

• I see, so this how it is... basically, you want me to start using edit summaries just to make it easier for you, for your own personal convenience. ... Yeah, no. Overturned. I have no obligation to make life easy for you.
• Well, we're not gonna continue this discussion. The end. Stop bothering me about it. It's my choice whether or not I want to use edit summaries, and honestly, if I see one more person nag me about it again, I'm reporting y'all as harassment.
• You could try and encourage me to use them, but I could refuse on the grounds that it's compulsory. So what I'm seeing here is y'all ganging up on me to force me to comply on something that isn't compulsory? That's WP:THREAT right there. That honestly makes me even more inclined to not comply, more so than before, wherein I simply thought adding an edit summary is such a hassle.
• No, you didn't force me into submission; I myself have now seen the relevance in using edit summaries, and will use them appropriately, and when needed. If I'm willing to do it with my own free will, your so called restriction isn't going to affect me one bit
• I'm not doing it to please the community. I'm doing it because I see the necessity in doing so, so that my AFDs could progress faster. But none of you managed to forced me into submission; try to keep that in mind.
• I contest to your claim that I was "acquiesced" to the proposal. So you're saying y'all forced to submit? Blatant BS. Nobody could force me to do anything - not now, not ever. I'm doing it out of my own free will. Try to get that through your thick skull.
• Is it really so hard for you to understand that I merely failed to see how it could benefit me?
• repeated here: [26]
• Bite me then, Canadian. .... I'm not doing it to please anyone. Never had, never will.
• y'all can['t] force me into doing something I don't wanna do.
• Ok, keep lying yourself and deny the facts all ya want, then. We can do this all day.

-- Softlavender (talk) 06:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender I understand exactly where you're coming from, and I myself am extending my good faith "to within a whisker of absurdity". I think that Sk8ers most recent edit to this page - striking all of their comments and backing off from the discussion - and their respectful response to my comment on their talk page are encouraging signs that they want to just let this go and move on. As I've said before, if disruption continues from here on out - act accordingly, but, let's give them a chance. They want to do AfD, fine no problem. They're finally willing to use edit summaries, good. They appear to be vetting their noms more thoroughly, excellent. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

You missed where they're canvassing another admin to close this thread, here. Personally, I wouldn't be averse to this discussion being closed with no action taken. As Newyorkbrad has said above, the point of this thread was to get them to use edit summaries and the threat of a restriction seems to have done the trick. Placing that restriction on them now would be punitive. They have an attitude problem, that much is clear, but any number of editors have varying degrees of abrasiveness in their day to day interactions but their productivity and contributions generally outweigh their character traits. Blackmane (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose close. There is clearly an issue. They have a battleground mentality and they have an attitude problem as pointed by Blackmane. "Bite me then Canadian."??!!! How is this in any way appropriate? I'm nearing 18 years in age, and I don't act this way. Their constant arrogant and snarky comments have gotten me up here. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 14:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

  @Callmemirela: It is clear he is trying to get under your skin, I would go with WP:DENY for those types of comments. Stay above the fray =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

  @Knowledgekid87: I should have done that earlier, but oh well. Since my last reply to them, I have had no interest in communicating with them anymore. Thanks for the advice. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 14:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• Semi-support close - I don't know what keeping this open much longer will do so at this point it might be for the best to wait and see. I saw that Prince struck his edits here but he has to know that he has angered a lot of editors. This is not good for the encyclopedia, and it goes against our collaborative goals. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with Hobit below, keep the T-ban discussion open. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• I am not seeing any new activity with this thread, could an admin make the consensus call and close this? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support I'd prefer the TBAN thing go a bit longer, but frankly it's a bit of a mess and so I'm fine with the whole thing closing if need be. Hobit (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• support close This user clearly conceded to the community's concerns. --Adam in MO Talk 18:44, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
• As an observational comment, the two proposals seem to have acquired a consensus, so this should be closed as well as factoring in the proposals.—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 20:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• As long as the two proposals -- to require edit summaries, and to topic ban from PROD, SPEEDY, and AFD -- are considered accepted, then we can probably close. It's been a long thread, and perhaps it's best if we leave it to a fresh future thread to decide whether to show this person the door. When or whether that thread will come about is up to the person I guess and we'll have to see. Herostratus (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• There have not been new, substantive comments for nearly a week. Time to close this and the two associated proposals. Jbh^Talk 20:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

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

The Cause of death vandal ...

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.

---

... is active right now on Special:Contributions/86.174.161.173, and has been active also on Special:Contributions/80.2.63.236 today, so would someone please block? The first IP listed is a regular one, with lots of signature edits (among other things adding unsourced cause of death on multiple articles) and a couple of shorter blocks over the past couple of weeks. For more information see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Cause of death vandal. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Editing while intoxicated

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.

---

• Cheetoburrito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Call me a prude, but User talk:Cheetoburrito was unable to explain an edit to another editor because he was intoxicated by psilocybin mushrooms at the time he made the edit. Perhaps an admin could caution this editor. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Here is the diff of the comment. —C.Fred (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
    • You can't put a blanket ban on editors editing while drunk or on drugs in the same way as you can't ban people from editing without their glasses. It's going to happen sometimes. Heck, one admin blocked themselves whilst under the influence. I do wonder if Cheetoburrito's account may have been compromised but if not, I don't think there's much that can be done here. Patient Zero^talk 18:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
      • No, but it may help to remind an editor (while sober) that one is responsible for all edits made on their account, regardless of their state of mind at the time of the edit. —C.Fred (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

As if a) the editor does not already know that and b) it'll make a blind bit of difference should the editor become intoxicated and c) the possibility is that the editor was not in fact under the influence, but merely supplying a disingenuous reply to a question. By all means start the warning process w.r.t. edits have to be policy-compliant, since eventually a series of non-compliant edits should lead to action and there needs to be a history of warnings before such action can take place. Focussing on supposed drug-use is less helpful. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

True, especially when the editor in question leaves edit summaries like this. There are definitely other behaviour issues to be considered. —C.Fred (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

If the argument you're trying to make is that using the word "fuck" or "scumbag" in a hypothetical sense is a "behavior issue" you are sadly mistaken. Let me remind you there is no such thing as bad words, only bad intentions, you should already know this if you're editing an ENCYCLOPEDIA of all things. Cheetoburrito (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

It is worth noting that at no point do I say that the edits made while intoxicated (which is my own business, none of yours) should be kept up simply because I don't remember making said edits. Each case brought to my attention I individually reviewed while sober and made an assessment unique to the situation at hand which were 100% verifiable. So yes, User:Magnolia677, I will call you a prude (your words not mine). Cheetoburrito (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

My concern is that another editor scrutinized one of your edits but you were unable to offer a response because you "just came down from a pretty intense shroom trip" and "do not remember making such edits". Whether the edits were made while on drugs, or you weren't able to answer questions because you recently took drugs, we're all here to improve the project, so you may wish to consider the consequences of performing activities requiring intense concentration after ingesting hallucinogens. Thanks for your consideration. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@Cheetoburrito:, you must not edit while you're unable to be responsible for your edits, and no, you may not refer to other editors as "fucking scumbags" in edit summaries. If you violate either of these precepts again it's unlikely you'll be able to continue editing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree with the above. You should not be editing anyway when you are under the influence of any drug! Editors should be responsible for their own actions. Class455 (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• Re: The comment "(which is my own business, none of yours)" is absolutely wrong! Edits you make while intoxicated and which are damaging to the encyclopedia and/or the community are most definitely the business of the rest of us, in exactly the same way that similar edits made by people when not intoxicated would be. Whatever the cause, if the effect is continued I promise you will be blocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah all of this is inaccurate. I never said the edits were none of your business, I said the drugs I choose to put in my body is none of your business (because they are none of your business), I've never called a fellow editor a "fucking scumbag" (I literally pointed out directly after it was HYPOTHETICAL and the comment itself wasn't even a reply to another user). ALSO I never once said that my coming down with a trip had anything to do with me being able to verify these edits. I merely pointed out I couldn't verify the claims afterwards and it was possible this is why the inaccurate edit was made in the first place. ALSO most mushrooms aren't hallucinogens/psychedelics, it's become increasingly obvious that this discussion is no longer about WP policy and has simply become a personal attack on myself and to shame someone who has a hobby none of you seem to be familiar with. If you did you might realize how easy it is to function while on this substance, as long as you take a safe amount, which I always do (these were abnormal circumstances where I had a strain much stronger than I've ever taken). Are we done here? Cheetoburrito (talk) 06:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Acela Express ; Edit-warring and bad language by User:John

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.

---

We have an issue with User:John on the article Acela Express.

This user has engaged in a edit war with two other editors User:Oknazevad and User:Thucydides411. There has been multiple reverts as listed below:

• [27]
• [28]
• [29]
• [30]

The edit war has now deteriorated, and verbal abuse has started, per this diff [31]. This user needs a warning about their behavior. KirksKeyKard (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

John is editwarring. They have come to 3 reverts in 24 hours two times in the last couple of days but haven't done the 4th revert with any 24 hour timeframe. The verbal abuse is John calling the opinion of one of the other editors bullshit, while probably not the best way to handle it, I wouldn't say it rises to the level of needing to be warned. - GB fan 15:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I have full-protected the article for three days - I haven't looked at the content yet, but I see John has gone up to the line of 3RR so the priority action here is to stop disruption while everyone calms down. I realise as an admin, John can technically edit through the protection, but I trust him not to. FWIW I usually get on with John and we see eye to eye on a number of things, not least our strong dislike of tabloid journalism, so this isn't a decision I take lightly. In future, WP:AN3 is thataway. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I was involved in a similar situation in August, which resulted in an AN3 that also resulted in protection by Laser brain. If this is a pattern, it's not a very encouraging one. TimothyJosephWood 17:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Although I'm not listed above I've been involved in this dispute as well. I wasn't aware of the August incident, but it suggests a pattern. I admit I'm surprised to learn that he's an administrator, and for a fairly long period at that. Administrators shouldn't find themselves edit-warring in content disputes. They should known that "call[ing] out your bullshit" isn't a justification for a disputed content edit. He's been an administrator for eight years (though I can't recall interacting with him), and concerns were raised about him assuming bad faith during his RFA. I think this incident by itself is minor, but as part of a pattern raises legitimate questions about his fitness to be an administrator. Mackensen (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

John is a long time admin who is probably tired of the nonsense that goes on around here. There is no bad language by John. An experienced admin calling out someone's bullshit is not a bad thing. Caden ^cool 18:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Fascinating. I've been an administrator four years longer than he has. Does that mean I just win the content dispute automatically? Mackensen (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

As the editor that reported this, I am rather taken aback that John is an admin. From the behavior shown, I would suggest that he be asked to review the expectations of conduct for an admin, and if he feels he cannot maintain the required standards to voluntarily give them up. KirksKeyKard (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I also disagree with the suggestion from Caden that "admins know best" in terms of the content of an article. If that were true, then you might as well go down the path of requiring editors to be registered, because they are the only editors that can be trusted to write articles properly. Whilst you're tumbling head-first down that slippery slope, you might also ban IP edits. I think that comment shows a massive disrespect for one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. KirksKeyKard (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Disagree all you want. I don't give a rats ass. Caden ^cool 20:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

You seem nice. Mackensen (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• John's behavior and attitude are sub-par, I think a block for edit warring (as well as mis-use of rollback in a content dispute) is warranted. He sets a poor example for the conduct expected of administrators. --Laser brain (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no need to block John, as the protection has stopped the disruption, and he has apologised for the language on the talk page. It may be a poor example, but I'm sure we all have lost our temper at one time or another, and it seems to be more common in the post-Brexit, post-Trump world for some reason. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Would that we really were in the post-Trump world already. EEng 22:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeing an obvious argument against a warning. This is certainly not the utmost of respect, and if it happens a third time, its going to look a lot like sustained behavior. TimothyJosephWood 22:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I never ceased to be amazed at the lengths to which people in this project (and other open source projects) will go to protect and excuse bad behavior from long-time contributors. Being a long-time contributor doesn't give you license to treat people disrespectfully, even if you think they're idiots. This sort of behavior is toxic and sends a poor message to new contributors. Edit-warring, commenting on the contributors instead of content? I've seen new users banned for less. If this were an isolated incident, or an actual apology instead of a fake "I'm sorry you're offended" apology, then I'd let it go. This isn't the first time. It won't be the last. Mackensen (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I just want to say that this isn't the first time I have seen John's name here for incivility by a non newbie editor. I agree though that I do not see any form of pattern that would warrant action, and suggest a close here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Non-admin comment: The whole idea that the US has any sort of high-speed rail, and that the Accela typifies it, is an extremely contentious one. I suspect each of you knows subjects in your areas of expertise that are landmines in conversation, and are often jumped on by newcomers to the subject, or by people with an agenda. This is one of them. Ever since Perlman's rail hub project, which lead to, and unfortunately stopped with, the M497, the lowest bar for "high speed rail" in North America has been @200mph/300kph, not 120/200. So, this isn't an overreaction to normal editing, but to reintroduction of a debunked canard, at least in many (expert) people's views, and you should take that into account before judging him too harshly. Anmccaff (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Being arguably correct is neither an exception to WP:EW nor WP:CIVIL, and less so for admins. TimothyJosephWood 01:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Nahh, this isn't "arguably correct," this is, to go straight to the inevitable, like someone citing the Protocols in an article on foreign policy. It's arguing that Turkish coffee isn't, and baklava is. It's a hotbutton, and anyone trying to insert it without considering that is taking a goldfish to a gunfight.

Given my interaction with various tag--teams, I'm the first to to agree that there should not be a separate, lower standard for admin's, and other experienced user's, behaviour, and something oughta be done about that, but this is not the test-case to make it on. Anmccaff (talk) 03:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

So you think there's some sort of equivalence between the varying standards for high-speed rail and the deliberate fabrication of documents claiming that there's an international Jewish conspiracy to control the world? That's interesting. Who are the Russian secret police in this analogy? Mackensen (talk) 03:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Zdravstvuj. Roxy the dog. bark 04:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Can we get back to the key issue here, which is whether or not the behavior of John has been acceptable, especially considering that he is also an admin and a long-standing editor, not just a newbie editor, or even an IP editor. Edit warring and incivility to others is considered unacceptable behavior from regular editors, and as Mackensen has stated above has resulted often resulted in bans. If there is some unwritten rule here in which editors of long-standing who are also admins are considered to be like politicians (i.e. above the normal rule of law), then let's have it clearly stated. KirksKeyKard (talk) 10:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

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

BuffyBot1336 username problems

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.

---

BuffyBot1336 was warned in October 2016 about the inappropriate of their username (per WP:UN: name implying an automated bot). The user took no action to address the problem, and so was reported to WP:UAA on December 1, and was blocked. User requested an unblock on December 2 in order to be allowed to change their username. This request was accepted, but the user did not request a name change, instead continuing to edit under their improper username. Perhaps a harder block is in order? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I have reblocked them as they have had plenty of opportunity to do what they said they would do. - GB fan 15:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

After discussions with user I have unblocked them. They have requested a rename and it is probably waiting on the task to run that is preventing name changes right now. - GB fan 17:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused. Above, WikiDan said, "the user did not request a name change.... Perhaps a harder block is in order?" Is that true or was this user blocked because WD61 lied about BuffyBot's actions?206.248.178.31 (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

There is another option, WikiDan didn't see the request. No Lie, just didn't know there was a request. I blocked because I didn't see the request either. I believe the user made the request and is waiting for the system to come back up. - GB fan 21:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I guess. He should be more careful before making statements like "the user did not request a name change" then if he's going around getting people blocked for no reason. So maybe this could be closed with a reminder to him as opposed to just a block for Buffy. 206.248.178.31 (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The account has now been renamed to User:BuffyLives1336 so I guess we can close this thread. De728631 (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Legal Threats?

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.

---

Noticed something weird going on here. Jon Kolbert (talk) 18:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah, that's just Rogerreborn asking to be blocked. A cry for help. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Multiple violations of WP:RULES in an AE 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.

---

Multiple violations of WP:RULES by My very best wishes (talk · contribs) (MVBW) seem to have occurred in a currently ongoing AE appeal. The violations include a patent disregard for WP:AGF, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and possibly WP:BLP. I am not specifically asking for any block or ban, but I do think MVBW needs to at the very least be given a warning not to repeat this behavior. The problematic comment of MVBW is: "First of all, I think Tempo is not a new user. They are way too familiar with bans, policies and who is doing what....Yes, users who support D. Trump tend to be more disruptive. This is nothing new. Users who support fringe theories, extremist groups and non-orthodox politicians tend to be more disruptive.". Please note that Hidden Tempo, who MVBW seems to be indicating is guilty of socking (without any evidence), has made less than 300 edits on WP. Hidden Tempo's request that MVBW retract (strike out) his comments about Trump's supporters (and arguably Trump himself) has not been entertained by MVBW.Soham321 (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you really think this needs to be brought to ANI, as if the 1,300 AE page watchers probably didn't include enough admins to pick up on anything out of place? TimothyJosephWood 19:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood, This was my understanding as well. But apparently it is perfectly all right to file an ANI complaint against someone who has posted a comment(s) in an AE appeal. See diff Soham321 (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The point of an WP:APPEAL is demonstrating that you were in-fact acting in good faith, and/or providing evidence and argument that the removal of sanctions can be done without the resumption of the disruptive behavior that led to them to begin with. That HT has <300 edits is precisely the point in suggesting that they have been engaged in WP:PRECOCIOUS editing. The notion that this is somehow a violation of BLP is nonsense.

If you think the user needs a warning then fine:

@My very best wishes: If you have evidence of further misconduct that has not yet been presented, then present it. Otherwise, accusations without evidence are unhelpful and generally a waste of time in a thread that is already a gigantic waste of time.

An admin is not required to warn a user. The user may be considered warned. Is there anything else? TimothyJosephWood 20:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify a few things, the reason that I am knowledgeable about most policies of Wikipedia is two-fold: one is that during my short time on a few political pages, those who opposed my edits were very quick to flood those talk pages (as well as my own) with endless templates and links to various project pages, accusing me of violating those policies. I became familiar with most rules in short order. The other major reason is that I've been editing anonymously on Wikipedia for years, but only registered a username recently. I mainly focused on cosmetic and grammar edits, as well as other small tweaks, in all sorts of different areas, including music, sports, film, historical events, science, and many others. So in case a formal denial was needed, there it is.

I would also second @Soham321's sentiments, here. I absolutely believe that a BLP violation took place with MVBW's remarks, and his refusal to strike the defamatory statements makes it worse. Finally, regarding your comment below, I resent your characterization of my ban appeal as a "waste of time." Perhaps it's a waste of time for others, in which case they should avoid the page, but it's important (and not at all a waste of time) for me that I retain all of my editing abilities and do not have such a draconian punishment preventing me from doing that. Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I believe your comment are all that is needed here, but I'd like to remind everyone that Wikipedia is NOT a political battleground. Mudslinging opponents and casting aspersions only serves to muddy the waters and prevent future collaboration. If you (directed at everyone) cannot control yourself and refrain from making these types of comments without solid evidence, you shouldn't participate in controversial topics.--v/r - TP 21:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood, i am afraid this is not all since I believe the words "Yes, users who support D. Trump tend to be more disruptive. This is nothing new. Users who support fringe theories, extremist groups and non-orthodox politicians tend to be more disruptive" constitute a WP:BLP violation, and if true, the offense is compounded since he refused to retract the words by striking them out when requested to do so by Hidden Tempo even though he had clearly read the request since he deleted it (note the edit summary he gives when deleting it since it provides a justification for the deletion):diff That is why I am seeking a formal admonition from an Admin.Soham321 (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Good luck with that. TimothyJosephWood 20:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to point to the full context of this discussion here. It's quite obvious this opinion was given by MVBW as a reply to the implication that somehow the data-table at the center of this discussion is indicative of a larger administrative problem in enforcing standards fairly. Hardly a BLP issue, and no more egregious than drawing the conclusion that the collaborators of that table have admitted to trying to draw. Lizzius (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, I do not see how commenting about this userspace Table created by another contributor can be viewed a BLP violation. To the contrary, my point was very simple: there is no conspiracy around here. If users were sanctioned on WP:AE, that had happened because these users were disruptive. According to creator of the page, the sanctioned users edited on "pro-Trump side". OK ... the conclusion is obvious. Well, perhaps these users did not actually edit on pro-Trump side and the Table was created by someone to prove the point? OK, but the page was not created by me. My very best wishes (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • MVBW did absolutely nothing wrong. While it is ridiculously unfair that Hidden Tempo was blocked for accurately describing Hilary Clinton's "trustworthiness" numbers as "feeble" (Cf. Merriam-Webster: "Business is suffering because of the feeble economy")—and MVBW might have violated BLP by the same "standard"—I wouldn't advice Right-leaning editors to play these sorts of games just because Left-leaning editors do it all the time. (Not least of all because it won't work: The table in question provides strong evidence that the admins collectively lean Left.) MVBW may have implied Trump is a "non-orthodox politician," but if that's an actionable BLP violation then Wikipedia has truly gone off the deep end.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Suggest closing per this. A token gesture was required. A token gesture has been given. TimothyJosephWood 22:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Legal threat re deleted article about The National Memorial

An IP user at User:174.228.128.43 vandalized a closed deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The National Memorial, replacing the text with a diatribe, accusing others of libel, and ending with a threat to see us in court. Largoplazo (talk) 12:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I realized that the diatribe was largely what the author of the original article had posted to the Talk page of the discussion, Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The National Memorial. Largoplazo (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Promotional editor

User:Greenbangalore is a photographer and there is suspicious WP:COI in his edits, file uploads and article creations. He is probabaly creating articles about subjects with which he has connection. His talk page is plastered with deletion notice and copyright problems. --Marvellous Spider-Man 13:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Spidey. Have you attempted to discuss the policy on WP:COI with the editor? I'm not seeing anything to that effect on their user talk page. Also, may want to keep the WP:COIN noticeboard in mind for future similar situations, since it is specific to issues regarding conflicts of interest. TimothyJosephWood 14:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

He has a 4 years old account. There are many other problems with him, excluding WP:COIN. Marvellous Spider-Man 14:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

It is a four year old account, but one which made less than 100 edits between 2012 and 2016. TimothyJosephWood 14:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Legal threats by Dollyparton7

Legal threats submitted by Dollyparton7 (talk · contribs), same threat at multiple pages:

See:

• [32] - at User talk:BOTFIGHTER
• [33] - at Talk:The World Tomorrow (radio and television)

The threat mentions "If Wikipedia does not honor this simple request to insert the show title card photo to the article within 72 hours, as the sole copyright and trademark claimant and owner, I will be submitting a demand and takedown injunction to Wikipedia Legal for the article to be completely redacted under our United States Legal rights and governing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act".

See also the user's talk page at User talk:Dollyparton7#December 2016.

--- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• Why is the CEO of a "church" using a pseudonym of a country music singer? —Farix (t | c) 22:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I was just about to ask that myself. I'm considering issuing a {{uw-ublock-famous}}, but I'm concerned it may be counterproductive in this situation. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The user's previous account was blocked. This one's apparently named after his dog. clpo13_(talk) 22:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• Since God talks to these people you'd think they could get Him to tell them how to upload and license an image properly. Honestly, I'm sick and tired of this bunch thinking the world cares about their stupid title card. How many years has this been going on, anyway? EEng 22:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

There's no question that the latest posts are legal threats: [34] [35] Meters (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Considering [36] I have sent an email to WMF legal to clarify whether they are threatening legal action or merely a DMCA takedown notice (which wouldn't require a NLT block). Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Well I've blocked indef while this is all going on. "Do what I want or there will be legal action" is exactly what the legal threat policy was meant to prevent, whether or not it's an actual lawsuit. All of this over a stupid image - sheesh. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was mostly taking from Wikipedia:No legal threats#Copyright (though calling their requests polite is a bit of a stretch), but this works too. Still would be nice for legal to chime in. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure what they think their complaint is, since the DMCA aspect seems backwards. They're mad at us for not including a copyrighted image. I suspect the DMCA request would be a demand to take down the entire article if they don't get their way, but I'm just speculating. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Just your usual legalistic word salad by people demanding their "United States Legal rights" and thinking they're issuing "injunctions". You have to wonder anyway about a televangelist who names his dog after a singer known for her gigantic tits breasts. EEng 23:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

EEng, they are called "breasts" and I'd appreciate a little bit of decorum here--decorum of the non-sexist kind, since she is actually quite well known as a decent singer, a business woman, a philanthropist in her community, and a contributor to a reading program in Tennessee that distributes free books to every single newborn child. Seriously. Drmies (talk) 00:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to take away from the lady's good works, of which I was aware. Nonetheless our man of the cloth cannot have been unaware of the association most people would make. Alice Cooper has a charity promoting teen well-being but that would still be an odd choice for the name of a preacher-man's dog, much less his Wikipedia handle. EEng 00:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

What's a baby going to do with a book? They can't read. Preposterous. clpo13_(talk) 01:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

No more preposterous than a singing dog issuing a legal threat. EEng 05:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Just for completeness, adding links here to related active discussions at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Garnerted and Wikipedia:Files for upload#The World Tomorrow (radio and television).jpg. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Just a note: the file has been uploaded and added to the article. --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 17:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

It only took four years to get them to go through the correct process to get the licensing correct - too bad they wasted so much time trying to do things their own way and ignoring the advice and guidance provided by multiple other editors on how to do it correctly. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Renewed attacks by IP socks of Igaalbania

After Igaalbania (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) got blocked for a year, his IP socks are attacking exactly the same articles as the master, shuffling images around and adding a bevy of unsourced, copyvio, GFDL-violating material. Please see my archived ANI report from 19 November 2016, the SPI report and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Igaalbania. Since this is a prolific and multi-sock farming account, I request you assistance in, if possible, range-blocking the German IPs. By the way, the master is German-speaking. I also request indeffing the master due to socking. Thanks. Dr. K. 16:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any rangeblocks that would be practical. Consider making a list of up to six articles that you think are suffering from his edits and reporting them for semiprotection at WP:RFPP. In the meantime you could continue to tag the IPs you see with Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Igaalbania. The Igaalbania account on the German Wikipedia is still not blocked but it has not edited since his English account was blocked on October 9. EdJohnston (talk) 18:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the update and advice Ed. Will do. Take care. Dr. K. 01:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

CAPTAIN RAJU and new pages patrol

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.

---

CAPTAIN RAJU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a busy new pages patroller and usually gets it right, however, numerous editors all year have been expressing concern with this editor tagging pages as WP:A1 or WP:A3 within a minute or two of creation. All these concerns have been ignored and have not been replied to, with the editor continuing to do this.

12 May: advised by me not to be too hasty.
30 July: advised again by VQuakr
17 August: advised again by KGirlTrucker81
22 October: advised again by DatGuy
4 November: again by KGirlTrucker
15 November: again by McGeddon
30 November: by Yash!
1 December: given a last warning by VQuakr about overhasty tagging, as with all warnings, this is ignored and on we go….
2 December: advised by Adam9007
Today: again by BethNaught

Looking over the user’s CSD log I see numerous declined A1 and A3 speedies, just in the last month alone: I Got Five on It (film), Helle Tuxen, Jarrod Berry, David Greene (journalist), Has Fallen (film series) and Shean Duff O'Higgins. I have absolutely no doubt that there are at least a couple of notable articles and editors which we have lost due to this.

The user was granted New Page reviewer rights by, I think, PamD. With respect to PamD, or the admin who granted the rights, I think in retrospect this was an honest mistake. Given that the editor has refused to listen or even acknowledge advice from multiple editors on this issue, I believe the new page reviewer right should be removed from them and they should be restricted from tagging pages as A1 or A3. Valenciano (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Valenciano: Not me: I'm not an admin so don't think I could give NP reviewer rights, and certainly wouldn't know how to do so! Why do you think it was me, I wonder? PamD 14:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Valenciano: Checking the log, it was granted by Xaosflux as CAPTAIN RAJU met the grandfathering limit -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 14:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@PamD, my apologies, I'd seen this edit and mistakenly thought it was you. Valenciano (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'd just found that edit myself - was just adding a missing section heading for a later posting. I've made various postings on the Captain's site about his patrolling, and not had much in the way of replies - see, for example, here and here. PamD 14:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Note, my addition was part of the bulk load of initial users - if the community feels this is no longer warranted I have no objection to removal. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe a topic ban on NPP and revocation of NPR rights? I kept warning not to and still ignores anyway. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 16:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Valenciano:, I did not know better about the speedy deletion tag.I learned about the speedy deletion tag.I came to know about the speedy deletion tag policy.Next time I will not be wrong to send speedy deletion tag.I realized my mistake.Now i would like to withdrawn this report.Thanks. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 16:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

That's something you should have done the first time you received a warning about it, not the tenth. Please take the time to review things when they are brought to your attention. Generally it is good faith editors bringing good faith notices to your attention. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@CAPTAIN RAJU: How can you say that you did not know better about the CSD tag when so many editors, as shown above, had told you? Do you actually read any comments left on your talk page? Please explain how you did not understand clear statements like 3 minutes after creation is far too soon to add CSD:A3 to articles and getting into WP:BITE territory. The advice at Special:NewPages says: "Articles should not be tagged for speedy deletion as having no context (CSD A1) or no content (CSD A3) moments after creation, as not all users will have added full content in their first revision.", to quote from Valenciano's first posting listed above. What did you not understand? PamD 17:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@PamD:, Yes,I understood your advice.At first I did not understand about sending csd A1 and A3 tag.I'll keep this my mind in the next time sending csd A1 and A3 tag on article.thanks. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 18:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@CAPTAIN RAJU: you chose to ignore repeated warnings about your hasty CSD tagging for months. It's beyond too late to say that you don't understand the policy. Moving forward, hopefully you will take feedback on your mistakes more seriously. VQuakr (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• Proposal - How about a 6 month topic ban from three specific actions:

1. Nominating an article for CSD A1
2. Nominating an article for CSD A3
3. Performing patrol activities on any article within 7 days of its creation

That would stop the damage Raju is doing, while still allowing him to get some practice patrolling pages from the back of the queue. VQuakr (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm inclined to just remove the right - RAJU will still be able to tag pages (and I hope he will take the time to do it properly and listen to advice) but they will remain unpatrolled. This allows the bad tags to be addressed by more experienced patrollers. @CAPTAIN RAJU: how do you feel about this proposal? I don't want you to feel discouraged by this, but I do want you to learn -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 18:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Samtar, I don't think that addresses the issue as Captain would still be able to add hasty A1 and A3 tags. That causes problems because a lot of new users who could go on to become worthwhile editors get scared off and simply quit editing in disillusionment. We also lose potentially valuable content. I don't want Captain Raju to get scared off either and that's why I acknowledged in my first post that (s)he generally gets it right with non A1/A3 tags. That's why, regarding VQuakr's suggestion above, I don't think there's a need to stop Captain Raju tagging with anything other than A1/A3. There was this on 4 November, but that doesn't seem to be part of a pattern. Communication issues do seem to be a problem, since I noticed this unrelated issue from last week, where several editors asked Captain Raju to change the garish blue background on their talk page and change their signature to something more legible and were similarly ignored. I believe that Captain Raju needs to be restricted from A1/A3 tagging, due to damage caused and also to have the new page reviewer right removed, so that other editors can monitor their tags. Valenciano (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Samtar:, I feel good in this proposal.Ok I agree with 3 specific actions proposal.I want to learn about csd tag.Thanks. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 19:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@CAPTAIN RAJU: Okay - I would also like to see you not:

1. Nominating an article for CSD A1
2. Nominating an article for CSD A3
3. Patrolling any article created within the last seven days (you should be patrolling from the back of the queue regardless)

for six months. I've also removed the new page reviewer right from your account, so that other patrollers can "double check" your tagging. I have no issues with this being reapplied to your account before the above six month restriction provided you have improved your tagging. I'll also leave a similar message to this on your talk page for reference -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 08:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Samtar:, Same questions.I want to know when I get back to my user rights? Six months later? Thanks. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 12:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@CAPTAIN RAJU: (answering here although I acknowledge you have also pinged me to your talk page) As I mention above, I have no issues whatsoever with you getting the New Page Reviewer right back before the six months. Please feel free to message me when you feel you should have the right back, or ask another admin -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 12:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Samtar:, Ok I understand now.thanks again. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 13:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Edit war on user talk:Ritchie333

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 might be the strangest edit war ever. An IP editor who may or may not be a block-evading user leaves a comment on Ritchie333's talk page about User:Samtar, someone removes it, they re-insert it, this continues, then I re-insert it, and then it gets removed again. In all of this no one has actually responded to the IP's concern. PikachuRP25 16:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Please notify all editors (on their talk page) you're wishing to discuss, as it mentions at the top of this page. Cheers -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 16:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Seems you didn't read the message that the blocked IP was leaving, it had nothing to do with Samtar, but, with The Rambling Man. Your good faith actions are taking you very close to a potential block, please desist. If you have a query, ask the admins why they're doing what they're doing, don't jump in to revert them and insert yourself into the "edit-war" (read WP:3RRNO). There's several admins and experienced editors on that page who should know what they're doing. At least four blocks have already been handed down in response to that edit war, none of them against the admins or experienced editors. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The IP user is community banned. One of the many reasons they remain banned is for continually spouting spurious bullshit, as they did here. Please don't encourage them, or you'll find yourself a new best friend. HTH. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude and Zzuuzz: Thank you. I will not restore the comment again. It was unclear who this banned user is (I still have no clue, could someone tell me?), and so the comment seemed legitimate. PikachuRP25 16:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Vote (X) has been making similar messages to this for a very long time. Please take a moment to read the LTA page and take the advice you've been given, you don't want a new best friend as zzuuzz suggests... -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 16:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Meatpuppetry/tagteaming/POV pushing/filibustering at Singapore

• Wrigleygum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Shiok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Warpslider (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There are a bunch of accounts of dubious origin who are constantly tag-team filibustering any change to Singapore and are intent on keeping a puffed up version of the article which somehow magnifies the good but hides anything negative about Singapore and the government. It has been going on for months and I am very suspicious that these are meatpuppets/sockpuppets. However, the main problem here is the Status quo stonewalling and tag team edit warring to preserve their version of the article. I have been trying to deal with by opening RfCs. But I cannot open an RFC for every single sentence or phrase. At this point, these accounts (which are almost SPAs) are essentially treading WP:NOTHERE territory and are wasting a lot of time.

Possible sock/meatpuppetry/SPA activity

I first became aware of this at this RFC I started. I noticed that 2 accounts User:Panacealin and User:Warpslider

• User:Panacealin newly registered account whose first edit was to vote on the RFC
• User:Warpslider After an edit on 29 June 2010, their next edit was on 11 July 2016 where they voted on this RFC at Singapore. Someone came out of hibernation after 6 years to vote at an RFC? They also followed me to another page where they had no prior edits.

Socking/Tag Teaming

User:Shiok has previously edited Singapore (a few edits) and User:Wrigleygum was the one who originally added all the puffery. Today this sequence happened.

• by Wrigleygum 16:19, 13 November 2016
• I revert 16:21, 13 November 2016
• Wrigleygum reverts 16:28, 13 November 2016
• I revert 16:29, 13 November 2016
• Shiok reverts 16:36, 13 November 2016

I am very curious that Shiok came up all of a sudden to revert me, within a span of a few minutes? (Not sure if there is some offline collusion going on)

It is also worth looking at the this diff where Wrigleygum says here are 3 editors here who do not share your POV. Discuss or just bring it to ANI (emphasis mine). I'm not sure who are the 3 editors. At the point of revert, the discussion for this issue was going on here and at no point were there 3 editors not sharing my POV. I wonder whether this was a mistake or were there actually 3 editors? Note that, Shiok's revert happened after this and Shiok had not commented on the talk page either. I wonder where did 3 editors come from and how did Wrigleygum know there were 3 editors? Offline?

All of these accounts have a strong tendency to support each other's ideas. For example, in this current RFC Shiok posted a link and later Warpslider replied I spent some time listening to the 'Collapse of Trust in Government' video link by Shiok. It is a panel discussion at a conference on Challenges in Government. As an example of countries with high Trust by citizens, Singapore was the first country mentioned by the panel and a number of times in the discussion. This is a clear endorsement for the country and there was certainly no Singaporeans on the panel or audience.

Note that I'm not the only one who suspects socking/meatpuppetry. User:Nick-D suspected the same here on my talk page.

I had previously brought this issue to ANI. See User:Wrigleygum and issues at Singapore, although the thread was archived. I was also myself brought to ANI by another suspicious account which suddenly woke up from hibernation.

Based on the above, I am seeking a PBAN as the first step for dealing with these accounts. If these accounts are really sincere about contributing to the encyclopaedia, then it is time for them to demonstrate good faith by sticking to the talk page and not editing the article itself. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Curious? -> On Sunday, I had edited Singapore's lead earlier in the day so I saw that you had deleted the nicknames, wavered on reverting but stayed logged on, did other work. Previously (25-Sept-2016), I had stated my views to keep the nicknames. I was alerted when Wrigleygum posted his reply after midnight, just like you but your reaction was just 2 mins on both your reverts. So despite keeping a low profile, I took a stand. Shiok (talk) 04:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

At the Nickname discussion section, there is Wrigleygum and the IP editor arguing with you. The third editor referred to by Wrigley is probably myself - but if he is referring to another person, that will be 4 editors against your POV to remove. I stated here - "The nicknames should stay as it's written up in the media on a regular even daily basis and readers may wonder why our country is known by that." -Shiok (talk) 05:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

By posting this malice, my guess that she has exhausted her arguments at the [City-Country Nicknames debate], since she did this ANI shortly after, rather than spending her time discussing content. It expose her true character under stress. I won't spend more time than needed. Each time she plot similar stunts, I will repeat paste what I wrote at SG talk previously:

• "Lemongirl942, none of what you said above to "sow the seeds of doubt" bear witness and repetition does not make it so. Especially for WP:Consensus, you have been contradictory and bending it to suit your purpose. I think the few contributors here has actually been accommodating, or maybe intimidated. You have been talking about your experience over other editors, maybe too much it makes one feel invincible, and occasionally you should re-read Wiki principles: [Experience] - "No editor has more authority than any other, regardless of prior experience. Edit count and length of time that has passed since your first edit are only numbers"

Also, what you said recently in talk and edit summaries (I only checked for last few days) - "Stop your POV pushing, or I will make sure you get blocked", "Consider this a warning..you are pushing yourself towards a block" - sounds exactly like the examples quoted at WP:THREATEN - "On Wikipedia, personal attacks are not tolerated. In particular, it is unacceptable to threaten another that some form of action that cannot or will not likely be taken will occur. When editors make threats like these, and the environment becomes hostile, the victims, especially those who are new are scared away from Wikipedia altogether. (Note: posted at Talk:Singapore by Warpslider on 13:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC) ).

—Warpslider (talk) 06:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

You are POV pushing and edit warring. You are an SPA with very few contributions. You do not understand the policies. You removed the tag but didn't justify why. All of this is disruptive. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

This is what an established editor said to you:

"Leaving the POV tag on the article permanently is not an option. See Template:POV#When_to_remove. William Avery (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)"

The Template use says: When to remove

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:

1.There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.

2.It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.

3.In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

It could have been removed with condition (3). When you put up the tag, one whole month passed without further discussion, and you continued to block all editors trying to remove it. I would say that's malicious. Wrigleygum (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

When you put up the tag, one whole month passed without further discussion, and you continued to block all editors trying to remove it. Really? That's a pretty serious allegation. Are you claiming that I didn't attempt to discuss? Are you claiming that there was no discussion on the talk page when the tag was removed? Really? I mean I see this and this RFC going on. On what grounds are you and your fellow SPAs justifying the removal? Please show your diffs. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

This tag was for the Step-1 section. It should have been removed after a month without discussion, else you go to the 2nd, 3rd.. points with no ending. Every article will be forever changing, you can't justify having a TAG on the article forever.Wrigleygum (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia. The POV tag is about the disputed neutrality of the lead. It is supposed to stay until the lead becomes neutral. Now you said When you put up the tag, one whole month passed without further discussion, and you continued to block all editors trying to remove it Please provide diffs to support your allegation, particularly about how I continued to blocked all editors. Please also provide proof to show that I didn't attempt to discuss and that there was no discussion on the talk page relevant to the neutrality of the lead when the tag was removed? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Just spending another minute to say it's TGIF and I won't be back till much later. No worries, you have the crown for filibustering. Wrigleygum (talk) 07:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The irony is strong here. Nice try diverting the issue Wrigleygum. I will once again request you to answer the question. You said When you put up the tag, one whole month passed without further discussion, and you continued to block all editors trying to remove it Please provide diffs to support your allegation, particularly about how I continued to block all editors. Please also provide proof to show that I didn't attempt to discuss and that there was no discussion on the talk page relevant to the neutrality of the lead at the time when the tag was removed? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I see that you couldn't answer the question. That should probably tell you stuff. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

No, you have plenty of time, I don't. I will certainly look to document the events, wastes time to do such things but if this thread continues... I will set aside time for it. Wrigleygum (talk) 05:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The thing is, you do not have diffs to support your accusations. Precisely because I did no such thing as you have accused. Now would be a good time to admit that you were wrong. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Timeline

• 1st RFC about Lead Section closed with a general statement - "..broad though not unanimous consensus that the lead needs to be trimmed". There was no specifics mentioned. --01:06, 25 August 2016
• LG starts POV & undue and places POV Tag - 03:26, 24 September 2016‎
• Last comment in section (only 2 editors responded) on 02:51, 25 September 2016
• Between 25 Sept — 23 Oct - no further response by editors, dormant

Note: At this point, if this was a regular RFC, the POV Tag could have been removed by reason of Template:POV#When_to_remove (see below)

• 16:08, 25 October 2016---[Avery responded on the thread] that "Leaving the POV tag on the article permanently is not an option. See Template:POV#When_to_remove."
• 05:29, 26 October 2016---Warpsider responded to Avery, citing the Template mentioned

"When to remove

- You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:..

3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant."

and proceeded to remove the Tag - (See Talk.)

• (break, to continue...)

- Wrigleygum (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, let's get this straight. So you are claiming that when Warpslider removed the tag on 26 October, there was no discussion going on and all discussion about any issues related to POV in the lead had become dormant. Am I correct? So when Warpslider removed the tag on 25 October, there was no discussion at all - no one had posted anything on the talk page till that time and hence, Warpslider removed the tag. And yet, if you look at the talk page history, there seems to be quite a few posts starting from 22 October. Are you seriously claiming that when Warpslider removed the tag, there was no discussion on the talk page or that the discussion had become dormant? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Those discussions does not matter. I have yet to finish timeline, tonight maybe. Wrigleygum (talk) 09:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Continued edit warring to remove the POV tag about the lead

Warpslider and Wrigleygum are now edit warring to remove the POV tag (diff1, diff2) which I placed because the parts of the lead are undue. This is precisely editing against consensus. This is despite a previous RFC was closed by Drmies as There is broad though not unanimous consensus that the lead needs to be trimmed, and that the statistics are overdone. and also a current RFC where apart from the above 3 SPAs and a dubious IP, every single experienced editor has agreed that parts of the lead were undue. I am seeing a behavioural problem here, so I am strongly suggesting a page ban. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Great, it continues. Now a couple of the SPAs are tag teaming to remove it. See diff. Can someone please do something? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

You are refusing to discuss with 3 editors who are against you putting up the Tag, violating WP:Consensus.

Yes, the RFC closing summary reads "There is broad though not unanimous consensus that the lead needs to be trimmed, and that the statistics are overdone". What to trim? It will be by Consensus correct? Does trimming refer to just the stats or everything? One editor does not determine that. Certainly not by yourself alone Wrigleygum (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I am sick and tired of discussing with a bunch of SPAs. Did you look at Template:POV#When_to_remove? Can you honestly justify any reason for removing the tag? There is already consensus that stuff in the lead is undue. Which is why I have tagged the article. Why do you continue to tag team and remove it? This is status quo stonewalling. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Shall we agree you are not the only one to determine what to remove? Wrigleygum (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I am not the only one to determine that the POV tag has to be removed. It requires a consensus of editors. Please note that 3 SPAs with very limited experience, doesn't equate to consensus - it's not a vote. Get the support of experienced editors who actually understand policy. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

It's three editors against you. So tell us about this experience you harp about. The word "Experience" does not occur a single time on WP:Consensus - do paste the relevant quote from policy that describe it here. Shiok (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

We require editors to understand consensus. It's not a vote. Consensus works on arguments based on policies and guidelines - it's not a vote. The fact that 3 SPAs (with no understand of how Wikipedia works) were opposing me, doesn't make it right. The RFC shows that there were NPOV problems in the lead. You cannot remove tags until they are fixed. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The word "Experience" does not occur a single time on WP:Consensus - do paste the relevant quote from policy that describe it here. - Do this first, just paste the policy here, instead of making up something yourself, else you are called out as lying. Wrigleygum (talk) 17:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Huh? Let me explain properly. Consensus is not a vote. Nobody agrees with your view that removing the POV tags was justified at that time. I asked you to get an experienced editor to support you. You couldn't. And you are still having the same belligerent attitude. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

She makes up some personal 'policy' that only 'experienced' editors can have a consensus to overcome her. I note that Shiok ask her to quote a WP principle stating 'experience needed' - The word "Experience" does not occur a single time on WP:Consensus - do paste the relevant quote from policy that describe it here. No answer, yet she continues.. Wrigleygum (talk) 05:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• Update: Warpslider blocked for edit warring on Singapore --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Seems @Warpslider: is no longer around, did not even attend court. Wrigleygum (talk) 05:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Continuous POV pushing and adding of WP:UNDUE content

Please see this edit. Wrigleygum is continuously adding undue content to the article. And refusing to drop the stick. I do not see any indication that Wrigleygum is here to improve the encyclopaedia. As such, I would recommend and indefinite block per WP:NOTHERE. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Admins, there are a number of issues this editor is trying to lump together as edit-warring, including:

• POV tags
• removal of Educational Rankings since has been in the Singapore article for a year

She is using all manners of Notices to justify raising her malicious ANIs. Please have a read on the Talk:Singapore as a start. Will add more explanation later Wrigleygum (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

She is using all manners of Notices to justify raising her malicious ANIs. Great, continue to cast aspersions. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Adding points to above by wrigleygum:

• removal of any lead content which were part of 1st RFC and still in on-going discussion
• currently in 2nd RFC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiok (talk • contribs) 04:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Shiok: Do not alter other people's posts. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes you are right, apologies, I just mentioned that myself. Shiok (talk) 07:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, then it is a combination of tag teaming, edit warring, POV pushing and general filibustering by SPAs. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

No teams here. I see plenty of tag-teaming on her part on the other hand, or like just waiting in the wings to jump in when other 'buddies' are around - then taking the oppotunity to remove/edit other positive ones in the Singapore article. SPA? seems I am "almost" one in recent times, with 90% time spent engaging her nonsense, reverts, ANIs, Notices etc.

Admins, I'm avoiding exchanges with this person because it can be endless, with her regurgitating stuff that makes my eyes roll. Unless very necessary like in here.. otherwise I may end saying things that gets me banned! I think some of us likely had similar occasions. Wrigleygum (talk) 05:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, another round of accusations. Go and ahead and prove your accusations Wrigleygum. We need diffs. If you spend 90% of your time engaging in my nonsense, it should be clear that you are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Competence issues, refactoring other's talk page comments and misuse of templates by Shiok

SPA Shiok just left this message saying that I "harassed" (and apparently threatened) them by leaving a template "even when the original tag editor has not done so". Here's what happened. Shiok who is an SPA, was tagged as an SPA by another editor. But Shiok decided to remove it themself - which is not supposed to be done. I warned them on their talk page and the editor reinstated the tag. Oh and Shiok was actually warned by the editor, though they removed the warning as I had already given one. Considering that Shiok has been warned multiple times not to refactor others' comments, I am not sure if this is a competence issue and an action based on WP:CIR may be required. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

According to WP:SPA , it generally implies an editor with a narrow focus. However I'm not editing inappropriately and have been adding knowledge, removing vandalism. Currently, I am interested in more current Asia topics in Asean, Singapore with my background. Changes by others like in the South China Sea though was too much to follow and I rather not be confrontational. For a while I read up on history of Singapore and found some significant facts utterly wrong - i.e. no evidence our prehistory goes back to 2nd century or ancient names changed - likely some fabrication that's been there for years.

"..tagged as an SPA by another editor. But Shiok decided to remove it themself - which is not supposed to be done."

-:There are no guidelines when or who can remove the tags. Please paste the direct section link of the SPA tag removal guidelines here if wrong. Shiok (talk) 07:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Save me the Wikilawering. Tags are not supposed to be removed by yourself. Most people who have been here understand that. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed PBAN for the above mentioned accounts at Singapore

• Support as proposer. This has been going on for too long, almost 5 months now. I didn't want to do this, but a PBAN works well here. If they are serious about improving, then they can still propose changes on the talk page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: So, umm ... two weeks and four days after you posted the above, I have to ask who are "the above mentioned accounts"? Can I non-admin close this sub-thread as not having a snowball's chance in hell having only one support after this long? Can you wait for this to get archived and open a new thread with better formatting than five separate sub-threads in non-chronological order? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

She does have a legitimate concern that Singapore SPAs are whitewashing the article. It's not her fault that uninvolved editors have not yet waded through all the wikilawyering by the SPAs. Softlavender (talk) 10:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see that. But I can also see that as the thread is now the PBAN proposal is not going to pass, and closing the whole thread with procedural "This isn't going anywhere as it stands at the moment. No prejudice against re-opening a better-formatted discussion on the same forum." so it gets archived sooner and a new one can be opened would be in the best interests of whoever has the better case to be made. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88:, @Softlavender:, others - I am the editor who maintained the Singapore lead for the past year. I do have wide interests and not an SPA in the sense of narrow focus. It's all time constraint due to work. WP:SPA does say an editor with previous diversified edit history should not be labeled as such, if he focus on single subjects for extended time. When the current storm is over, I will return to other interests.

I am glad to see at least some uninvolved editors coming by to engage. If you have the time, I would in fact be grateful if you can wade through the Singapore Lead and my explanation at [Singapore's lead:Specific issues] which addresses all the major concerns. My focus was to highlight the most representative and widely written data points about Singapore. Some have said is reads better and more informative compared to other major country/city articles like NYC, London, Tokyo. But Lemongirl, the main one who is finding all means to suppress the key achievements of the country, is in denial of it.

As for 'Whitewashing', no one has used that word in Talk:Singapore - because topics like civil liberties, freedom, democracy are all in the body text, and there was no effort to suppress them. I checked that 'Wikilawyering' was used once relating to photos and we can debate that if you wish. Indeed, I hope some can wade through the lead and article with new perspective. After all the time spent here, look forward to read your comments. Wrigleygum (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, yeah, the PBAN is kind of moot now. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism at WWE related articles. Range block likely needed.

Been like playing whack-a-mole at numerous WWE-related articles the couple of weeks or so. An editor in the 117.103.88.xx range keeps making the same edits removing referenced material at multiple articles. AIV has been somewhat helpful in that a single IP gets blocked, but since the vandal (who has been warned repeatedly at various IP talk pages) seems to be editing from a school, he just jumps to another computer there and repeats the same edits while the previous IP is still blocked. Seems that a range block, even if it's just for a couple of days, is needed to break the vandal of his jollies. oknazevad (talk) 02:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

It would be helpful to the admins if you named a few articles so that we can get started looking, oknazevad. Also please tell us what single IP was blocked at AIV. Bishonen | talk 08:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC).

WWE Women's Championship (1956–2010) for one. List of WWE World Champions, currently Semi'd because of this, for another. 117.103.88.102 (talk · contribs · block user) is one of the IPs that was blocked, but there have been a few others all in the 117.103.88.XX range. oknazevad (talk) 12:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

117.103.88.67 is continuing the same persisting disruptive editting as other now-blocked IPs in the 117.103.88.xx range, some of which are blocked for a month. So it's also block evasion. Really do think a range block is needed here. oknazevad (talk) 11:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Coatrack article and WP:NOTHERE

I just nuked Kiwi Farms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an article on a web forum that fails WP:WEB, and blocked three accounts, TombRaiderPlayer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Matthew Hopkins Fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Sunni Missionary from Nejd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who are either a single person or a group of meatpuppets. I found the article from the contribs of Matthew Hopkins Fan, which contained a world of Nope - see English Democrats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The name Matthew Hopkins is a reference to the witch finder general but also to an individual who, it appears, has a long standing beef with Kiwi Farms. The article was a WP:COATRACK. It is likely that the user(s) will be back, please watchlist the English Democrats article, and I think they also have an interest in Encyclopaedia Dramatica. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban on race and racism issues needed for ActorBoss

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.

---

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

ActorBoss came to my attention when I saw these two edits of his being reverted. Upon further investigation, I see that he's been posting white pride rants on talk pages ("I believe in White Proud", possible legal threat per this), citing Alt-right newspapers to portray black supremacists as a bunch of hoodlums, rather too adamantly insisting that the American Nazi Party is still active (citing the ANP's website and Stormfront in the article on the ANP).

Now, I would just block as WP:NOTHERE and call it a day, but as shown on his user page, he has contributed a lot of biographies (just over 100), and the ones I've glanced at appear to check out (at least at first sight). As itchy as my trigger finger is (I have the block window open right now with "WP:NOTHERE, at least WP:NOTHERE anymore"), this looks more like we may need to topic ban ActorBoss from all pages relating to race, racism, and movements or philosophies based on or focused on race and/or racism. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked for 24 hours for disruptive editing. His response may prompt me to extend it to indefinite. Shame that such a productive editor would go so far off the deep end. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Fusionem- Copy pasting

Hello, Fusionem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has over a long time repeatidly "moved" pages by copying and pasting articles despite being told that this wasn't the right way to give pages new names by multiple editors. Can an admin do something so they will stop "moving" pages by copy-pasting instead of using the move function? Feinoha ^Talk 22:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

If I broke a rule, I apologise. I just seperated the ROM page, to avoid confusion between the toy and the comics. What else do you suggest me to do to avoid another misunderstanding? Fusionem (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

If you can't move a page normally the right way is to use the move request page and not to copy/paste articles. Feinoha ^Talk 22:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

You could also start by paying attention to your talk page - you were first informed about the mistake of C&P moving here back in May 2015. There have been several other instances since then before this one: July 2015 #1, July 2015 #2, September 2015, January 2016, and finally - August 2016

I would suggest that you just stop doing moves full stop, as you clearly have not taken on board comments, or made any attempt to do things properly. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Joe Ramsdale fan

Not quite sure which board this should go to, so bringing it here. User:Joe Ramsdale fan is not a violation of the username policy. It's not an attack name or a impersonation in inself, but the first edit (to the userpage [37] and immediately blanked by the user} claims that the user is indeed Joe Ramsdale and makes a questionable personal comment. If the user is not Joe Ramsdale the edit is an attempt at impersonation and the personal comment is a BLP violation. The account should probably be blocked. If the user is Joe Ramsdale (it seems doubtful) the edit is fine (he's allowed to say whatever he likes about himself) but the account should be given a preventative block until the user proves his identity. Meters (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Meters: I am guessing that the user is not in fact Joe Ramsdale, and I've revdelled the revision in question and left a warning on User talk:Joe Ramsdale fan. If they are in fact Joe Ramsdale then they are welcome to put the record straight themselves. I don't think we need to block yet, although if the attacks continue then we should. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Umm... am I missing something? Is Joe Ramsdale some noteworthy individual whom others have heard of? It looks like this is some teenager and Joe Ramsdale is their classmate, which means without context it's not really a BLP-violation since there are presumably many Joe Ramsdales. If I'm right, though, the account is WP:NOTHERE and is unlikely to contribute anything beyond that strange attack on someone. (By the way, I saw the edit before it was rev-delled and didn't respond. I'm posting this now because my theory that December's ANI theme was edit-warring with people because of an incorrect assumption that their being blocked for edit-warring qualifies as a condemnation of the content of their edits by the community or the admin corps appears to have been wrong; the actual theme, at least for December 5, is overly broad application of BLP to non-notable, practically anonymous off-wiki individuals and other Wikipedians being discussed on talk pages and noticeboards.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I fully agree with User:Mr. Stradivarius's decision to revdel the edit in question and leave the account open pending any further edits. There's no inherent problem with the account name, and the user is free to prove his identity and then restore the edit and make similar comments if he wishes. I cannot agree with the suggestion that possible BLP violations and attack edits should be ignored unless they target notable people. We need to err on the side of caution with such material. It does not matter that we may not know who the person is. This is Wikipedia policy. WP:ATTACK, for example, applies to all pages, regardless of whether the target is notable. Meters (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I didn't "suggest[...] that possible BLP violations and attack edits should be ignored unless they target notable people". Quite the opposite, in fact, if you take a look at my comments a few sections down. I think that we shouldn't be invoking BLP where it is unnecessary, and I don't think it technically applies if the LP is some non-specific person with a fairly common name. Yes, this probably was some middle-schooler targetting a specific classmate of his, and yes the revdel was appropriate for that reason, but BLP implies that there was some specific identifiable person being attacked. The only reason I mentioned notable people was because if the editor had claimed to be, say, "Brad Pitt", then there would be no question about which Brad Pitt he was attacking. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: No, Joe Ramsdale doesn't appear to be a noteworthy individual. But revdel criterion #2 still applies, does it not? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and that's why I agree with the revdel. It was offensive and had no encyclopedic value, and I would support blocking the editor per NOTHERE. I just don't think BLP applies when no one but the editor himself (and probably people whom he told in real life) can possibly know who it was he was attacking. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. As I've already pointed out, BLP applies whether we know who the person is or not. If someone posts a vicious personal attack in a school article, it's a BLP violation. We don't have to know who it is. It gets revdeled as a BLP vio, not just deleted. I've seen accusations of rape and worse in articles and attack pages. Should we only worry about these edits when we know who the person being attacked is? And who gets to decide just how notable a person must be before they are worthy of having BLP protection?

Since you agreed that the edit was offensive, you agreed with the revdel, and you though the editor should have been blocked, arguing whether it is a BLP violation is a waste of time. I'm not interested in getting dragged into your other thread. I raised an issue. It was quickly dealt with. I'm done. Meters (talk) 06:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Are you just trying to be antagonistic? Your comment implies you have forgotten where the edit in question was made, as it was not in a school article. If it was, that would take away all ambiguity as to who "Joe Ramsdale" is. And no, it is not a waste of time to argue over whether an edit is a BLP-violation -- if you think BLP applies to comments about virtually anonymous individuals who cannot possibly be identified by the edits in question, what's to stop you from applying it to fictional characters, dead people who you haven't seen proof are dead, and yourself as a Wikipedian editing under a pseudonym. The edit deserved to be reverted as an apparent attack against someone who can't be identified that has no encyclopedic value, by someone who is not here to build an encyclopedia. But your insistence that BLP is one of the policies it violated does no one any good, and your grossly uncivil tone makes me want to stop trying to communicate with you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm well aware that BLP does not apply to fictional characters or to dead people (although it does apply to the recently deceased). I never said or implied otherwise. And I'm not trying to be antagonistic or uncivil. Again, I raised a concern. It was quickly dealt in a satisfactory manner. I'm simply not interested in discussing your interpretation of the BLP policy. If there is something in the BLP policy that specifies that it only applies to notable people please point it out. Otherwise I'm done and I think this thread should be closed. Meters (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

If you aren't interested in discussing "my interpretation" (a quite popular interpretation) of BLP policy, then don't bring up BLP. There were like a half-dozen decent reasons for that page to be blanked (and for the account to be blocked) and BLP wasn't one of them. There is no substantial difference between the name "Joe Ramsdale" and names like "John Smith" or "Sato Taro", and no one would take seriously the claim that a similar statement was a BLP violation against John Smith. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

GXXF

I'm not sure if GXXF is a bad faith editor or just clueless. They made a false report at UAA (already ignored) and normally I'd just issue a terse warning but this is after they've already received a warning for trying to CSD an ongoing RfA. There hasn't been any apology from the user in question indicating they realize a mistake was made. I think more than a warning needs to be administered, here. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

His talk page contains mostly horrifying warnings, and his extremely few, often worthless article contributions suggest he's WP:NOTHERE. Ribbet32 (talk) 01:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The attempt to CSD the RfA may have been a response to being denied an administrative role himself here. It's no excuse whatsoever I'm just providing some background. He has been told before that his edits have regularly been reverted and he needs to familarize himself with what is proper editing. Clearly has not done anything to make significant improvements. May need a block to make the point it is not tolerated.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the diffs provided here regarding the user's use of speedy deletion tagging, as well as his report to WP:UAA - were inappropriate and disruptive, and can even amount to vandalism. I am going to leave a warning on the user's talk page regarding the concerns raised here. He will be instructed to review the relevant policies and guidelines that these edits identify as inappropriate (I will link him to them), and to ask any questions that he may have regarding them. If the user engages in any more tagging or report filings that are blatantly inappropriate, he will be blocked from editing. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Update:  Done (diff) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Range block for disruptive IP editor who changes sourced content

I've reported this IP to AIV, where I suggested a range block, but it was declined without comment. The range 2A02:C7D:561D:1D00::/64 has repeatedly changed sourced content, added unsourced content, and made other disruptive edits. Examples:

• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff

If you click on the citations, you'll see the changes fail verification. In 2015, Sergecross73 left this message on the talk page of an IP editor on this range. It seems to indicate that this is a well-known editor who is engaging in block evasion, but he didn't include the username, so I don't know who it is. The edits seem to be the same, including the obsession with Sony's name: diff from 2015, diff from 2016. This seems to be the same editor as 2A02:C7D:564B:D300::/64, though that range hasn't been used since earlier this month. There's another range, 2a02:c7d:75d7:9300::/64, which was range blocked by Zzuuzz for a year on 11 September 2016 for block evasion by Callump90. The ISP is the same, but the edits don't quite match up perfectly. The 9300 IP's edits show an obsession with the BBC that doesn't seem to exist on the other ranges I've listed here. Maybe someone knows more than I do, though. Sorry for the pings, but I'd really like to get this resolved. Reporting it to AIV doesn't seem to be accomplishing anything, and I don't have enough confidence that it's Callump90 to bring it to SPI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: The AIV report was not declined, it was simply wholesale removed, by Widr [38], along with three reports that had actually been responded to by admins. Widr, can you please explain your action (I'm guessing it was an oversight)? NinjaRobotPirate's report had even been endorsed by a third party [39]. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Seems to have been an oversight, yes. On the other hand, at the time the report had been sitting there for several hours without any admin touching it, making it more or less stale. ANI is usually a better venue for reports that can't be or aren't actioned withing minutes. Widr (talk) 09:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• In regards to the part I was pinged about - yes, throughout 2015/early 2016, I blocked a large number of IPs by someone who also used a few user names containing the words "Zachary" and "Atlus" in them, so that's what we'd usually usually refer to him as, though he more frequently edited anonymously. He would make tons of minor changes to article that upon spot checking, had a high percentage of being wrong. (Fundamental stuff, like saying Nintendo published Disney video games and the like - undeniably not true.) Any attempts to talk to him about this usually lead to silence, with the occasional outburst of saying "Screw you, Serge!" as the dif above shows - never actually addressing any concerns or defending any actions. So we moved to blocking and reverting on-sight. Eventually, I had someone do some range blocks on him (I'm still struggle with them personally) and he seemed to go away for a bit, but if this is indeed him, then I fully encourage further blocks/range blocks. Huge WP:COMPETENCE issue. There was literally no getting through to him, and he refused to stop. Sergecross73 msg me 14:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• Just recalled one of his original user names - AtlusZachary, where he (inexplicably) lists a ton of his interests on his talk page after I blocked him. They were in fact a lot of places where he'd cause trouble too, and as you can see, he did obsess over tweaking television related articles like BBC and NBC. Sergecross73 msg me 14:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• The more I look into it, the more it seems to be Zachary. I saw the IP reported above making the same edits as the IP 31.52.4.146 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which was more blatantly acting like Zachary, including getting blocked for bad edits and page moves, and having outbursts on his talk page. I'm blocking the IP for now, as he's still making edits today, but please consider implementing a range block too. Sergecross73 msg me 14:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

It is AtlusZachary. He's largely kept away from video game articles as of late so I've ignored him, but he's still adding unsourced garbage and incorrect information to articles after nearly 2 years. He was already range blocked once (or maybe twice) before, and he should be range blocked again. He's very persistent, I've reported well over 100 of his IP addresses in the past for blocks. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I trust 1337gamer's opinion on this too. He has reported Zachary to me an endless number of times, and he's been right about 100% of the time. Sergecross73 msg me 17:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up on AtlusZachary. 86.131.221.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) seems to be the latest IP used. Notice the same obsession with Sony's name ([40], [41]) and addition of unsourced film studios ([42], [43]). I think 2A02:C7D:561D:1D00::/64 still needs to be range blocked, but we'll probably be playing Whac-A-Mole on other ranges for a while, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I too hope someone does a range block, but feel free to report any IPs you expect to be him on my talk page, and I'll take care of it. I've been doing it off and on for months so I don't mind. Sergecross73 msg me 03:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Anyone? Sergecross73 msg me 15:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Attacking editors on talk page after block

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 talk:Beast Boy 112 Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 17:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

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

IP attempting to impersonate Jimbo

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.

---

After Ian.Thomson blocked ActorBoss, a user at IP 107.77.223.186 attempted to impersonate Jimbo. I was bold, reverted the edit, and left a warning on the IP's talk page. The IP has undone my reversion. Strangely enough, I don't think this is actually Jimbo. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 20:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

John Whales, Founder and CEO of the World Wide Web TimothyJosephWood 20:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: Where did you see that statement regarding Jimbo's (or is it Jonno's) credentials? John Carter (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Seems legit. TimothyJosephWood 20:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

(adding regardless of whether this is closed) This character has been posting this boilerplate for literally years (see User talk:CallumL14 for instance). Just revert, block and ignore. ‑ Iridescent 20:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• re [44], why the revdel? 50.0.136.56 (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

It was purely disruptive material that had nothing that was helpful to the encyclopedia in any way. - GB fan 19:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Asylums (book) article plagiat

Hello,

I was reading this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylums_(book) and I see mutiple plagiat of this source http://www.orthomolecular.org/library/jom/1982/pdf/1982-v11n04-p267.pdf (yes it's linked in the references but it's still plagiat). Hope you will do something. I'm not an english wikipedian so I dont want to do changes like this here.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ylzkhan (talk • contribs) 11:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I took a few jabs to find any copyright violations, but I failed to find any. Could you please point out some passages you think have been plagiarized? Kleuske (talk) 11:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

"One of the first sociological examinations of the social situation of mental patients, the hospital", "no great respect for the agencies involved with psychiatric practice nor for the discipline of psychiatry", "to a dramatic change for the worse due to the debilitating atmosphere in all total institutions, regardless of how therapeutic or non-therapeutic a hospital is", "human needs are handled in an impersonal and bureaucratic mode", "distance between the staff and inmates is great, and each group tends to be unfriendly toward the other", basically all number 4 references. Sometimes they (don't know if the same person is behind all this edits) change two unimportant words or the orders of some words to bypass copyvio but it's still plagiat. No quotation marks, no name of the author in the article except a little link at the end. On the french wikipedia, this will be considered as a plagiat so I don't know here. Thanks for your help. Ylzkhan (talk) 12:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Tricky, but Duplication Detector. At least it does not feel good... The Banner talk 12:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Nice link. Thanks. Just for the info, sometimes they changed the orders of the words or some unimportant words so this website for example can't detect duplicates but doesn't mean it's not plagiat. Ylzkhan (talk) 12:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Some phrases were copied verbatim. Question is: does this rise to the point of WP:COPYVIO? Not all the results are quite convincing, but there's substantial number of them (36). Kleuske (talk) 13:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• Plagiat? Wasn't he a character in a Poe story? EEng 16:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

A Swiss theoretician of child development? EEng 02:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• One rather important point: the source is invalid per WP:MEDRS. Orthomolecular psychiatry is an offshoot of orthomolecular medicine, and even less grounded in reality. Bluntly, it's woo. Guy (Help!) 17:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Unreasonable harassment

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.

---

Posting complaint of harassment

No Que No... edición especial and other pages

I posted to the users talk page as instructed.

The most recent event occurred after I created an album page No Que No... edición especial and magiciandude deleted it without discussion or warning. I reverted his deletion and put my justification on the talk page os said page. He deleted it again without discussion.

Previous version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No_Que_No..._edici%C3%B3n_especial&oldid=753334037 Current version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No_Que_No..._edici%C3%B3n_especial&diff=753335237&oldid=753334037

Today, the next day I saw every page I have worked on now under attack, something seems to be wrong with all of them.

Here you can see what happened after I reverted his deletion of my page, almost every page I have created has come under attack by multiple people. I don't think it is coincidence, I think it is harassment and not the first time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Watchlist

I went to magiciandude'S talk page and saw one of the users telling him I put the page back, she was also one who went to all my pages and resized my photos, again, no one is discussing this first, just waiving their mighty hand. Another user now is critiquing my articles for formatting, amazingly all came out of the woodwork in one day.

I am being harassed. I am seeking a solution. Are the pages so horrible I should delete all the work done, would it be better to not have volunteers here trying to do good work? What does the community want? The invitation to work on here seems to look for just what I am doing, I can quote your own pages of welcome and the niceties used when encourage us to create, yet I am left bewildered and were it not for wanting to promote the Latin artist field I would have quit some time ago.

Please help me go on with my work. Opinions are nice to have, but why is mine always wrong and the others always right?

This is the message I left on magiciandude's talk page when reporting I was coming here to seek assistance.

Thank you in advance SusanneSC (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)SusanneSC

I have done a lot of work and you and I started off badly but I learned how to ceeate and read the rules. Now you are back and delete without discussion first, my album page. I disagree, leave my reason on the talk page and rather than respond, you delete again and all of a sudden your editor friends show up and start attacking all my pages, even to the point of telling you I reverted the edit...thought you should know and you responding with an old argument we had as though you were the injured party. I am not standing by, based on Wikipedia principles for article creation and work I've done I won't have one person insist on attacking me and the work. It has become too obvious. There is no reason, the goal is to boost the knowledge of Latin artists but no one does it as well as you. So would you prefer no one help? You do not foster a community environment, remember we are all volunteers. SusanneSC (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)SusanneSC

We can't see your watchlist, linking to Special:Watchlist will only take other users to their own watchlists.

Looking at No Que No... edición especial (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

In the history, magiciandude did explain his actions: "Special editions don't warrant their own articles as they are the same album with extra songs" and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No_Que_No..._edici%C3%B3n_especial&type=revision&diff=753335237&oldid=753334037 "All the information on this page was merged on No Que No.... Four extra songs is not adequate to justify its own article." You have failed to address these issues. Those statements do not constitute harassment, and calling them that is a failure of WP:Assume good faith. Try to consider that if someone disagrees with you, they might actually have a reason for doing so, and that reason might be because they want to help the site. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I just saw "almost every page I have created has come under attack by multiple people" -- the way this site works, if all the traffic is coming your way, you are probably driving in the wrong lane. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If anyone wants to know what happened, see this link. Background, when she joined Wikipedia I offered to help her with Wikipedia articles and encouraged her to work on the area she was interested. But also I informed her that guidelines and policies do exist in Wikipedia. You can clearly see in the link where I pointed out links to policies and she basically insulted me. Also, the other user she is referring to in question is Jennica. That's basically it. Erick (talk) 00:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Uhh. I am hardly involved in this. All I did was notify Magiciandude that his proposed deletion was removed by Susanne because it's not right to remove proposed deletions without discussing it first. I have not done any harassing of any kind. But PS: SusanneSC images were incorrectly sized, and whatever articles you work on are not explicitly yours. There was no vendetta against you.. I merely saw your oversized images and resized them per other album pages. There should be no need for me to discuss something so small with you.. the wiki is everyones --Jennica✿ / ^talk 00:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jennica: Huh, whoops. I didn't make any PRODs so I assumed that someone else did. My bad. This has been a very weird day today for me.... Erick (talk) 00:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

No worries. Editing to add that album cover images should not be 300px. That's why I resized them. I have edited on over 10k album pages and have never seen an image 300px. so I resized it. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 01:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)@SusanneSC: I saw your post at the Teahouse. Sometimes editing on Wikipedia can be a bit frustrating because there are quite a lot of policies and guidelines and even a manual of style that all editors are expected to do their best to try and adhere to. New editors, for obvious reasons, are usually unfamiliar with these things and often quickly get frustrated/angry when the see there edits be completely undone or reverted by another. As Ian.thomson posted above, it's very important to try and assume good faith when such a thing happens and understand why your edits might have been undone, etc. Article content is not owned by any particular editor and every time you click "Save changes" you are basically agreeing to freely give another editor permission to change your edits as they see fit. Wikipedia hopes that these changes will be improvements and be according to relevant policies/guidelines, and for the most part they usually are. Most experienced editors will leave an edit sum explaining their reasons for making an edit and these edits sums often contain links to relevant policy/guideline pages where you can find out more details, but you can also always ask for further clarification by posting on the article's talk page and attempting to discuss it with the editor who made it per WP:BRD. I think you need to be very careful about using words like "harassment" on Wikipedia because doing so can have serious implications as explained in Wikipedia:Harassment and you should be aware that false accusations can be seen as the community as a personal attack per Wikipedia:Harassment#What harassment is not. Wikipedia pages are all interconnected by links so the fact that different editors might suddenly seem to appear out of nowhere to edit an article, etc. does not mean some kind of "conspiracy" has been formed to act against an certain editor; it could just mean that the editor posted something somewhere that is on the watchlist of these editors. Looking at your user talk page, I see some editors have posted user warnings and messages offering help, etc., but I don't see anything that would be considered "harassment" as defined by Wikipedia; I also see there have been attempts made by others to explain various policies/guidelines to you on their user talk pages as well, but again nothing that looks like harassment. So, if you're referring to something else, perhaps something that I and others have missed, then perhaps you can provide a diff for the specific edit so that an administrator can properly review it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

So I will just leave it at that and try to be more understanding of others. I think I understand it better now, Thank you everyone for your input. SusanneSC (talk) 12:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)SusanneSC

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:Disembodied Soul

Could someone please assess this edit and summary comment? Am I accused of (self-)promotion (of what?) or is there also an attempted WP:OUTING involved? Since this is a user with many years' history of being antagonistic toward me on svWP, I'd rather not communicate with h directly. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Looks like poor grammar. I'm guessing they're saying "revert promotion of Lars Jacob" by you. Blackmane (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Looks like neither of you have attempted to discuss the changes on the article's talk page, which is nearly always the first step. TimothyJosephWood 22:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

It appears SergeWoodzing is interpreting the edit summary as speculating that he and Lars Jacob are the same person. This would be a violation of WP:OUT, even if his user page does state that Serge Woodzing is his real name. If what Serge wants to do is simply reinstate the image, then discussing on the talk page would be the way to go, but discussing a user's outing attempt on the article talk page would be inappropriate. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both. I will do that now. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 06:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

This is the image which was removed by User:Disembodied Soul and then reinstated by User:SergeWoodzing. The article in question is about actress and singer Wenche Myhre (right). Her husband Anders Eljas is to the left. In the center is Lars Jacob, close friend of User:SergeWoodzing.

It is well known that the person behind the account SergeWoodzing and the person in the center of the image in question, Lars Jacob, know each other well, and that they use the same computer for editing Wikipedia. This has been declared by SergeWoodzing, and is also known from his very much appreciated contributions to the Wikimedia Commons. Although perhaps not strictly a violation of WP:COI or other related guidelines it does not look very elegant (sorry for my lack of better English words) when SergeWoodzing insists that the image with his close friend in the center of it should be in a certain article. A humble suggestion would be more appropriate, and then letting others decide. SergeWoodzing was indefinitely blocked on the Swedish Wikipedia, in part for issues having very much to do with this kind of "promotion" (my wording). It is not directly relevant here, but you may find details on the block, in English, at sv:User talk:SergeWoodzing. I choose to write here rather than on the article talk page, as it concerns user behaviour more than the image itself. /NH (talk) 11:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I have to say, that is an impressive block log. TimothyJosephWood 13:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

and the reasons can be read here.Yger (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you've got that right!. SW has a looong history of violent attacks against other users, blatant self promotion och rude harassment. Everyone who dared to question his edits or his images of Lars Jacob Demitz was subjected to his personal attacks. Disembodied Soul (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Said the person originally in question here. "violent attacks" - "blatant self promotion" - "rude harassment" "Everyone who dared" - "personal attacks" - uy! That harang is just not true, and the reason for it is not constructive. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I have never "insisted", just contributed material that I think normally would be considered relevant . The reason for removing this image is to remove a director who gave her husband his first job in 1975. That contribution, relevant as I see it, as have hundreds of my other images been, has no relation whatsoever to the fact that I uploaded the image, no relation to whom I know or don't know, who is a "close friend" of mine or not (as if they knew), no relation to who took the photo, no relation to what computers I use, and no relation whatsoever to years of harassment and blocks at Swedish Wikipedia. If it's considered inappropriate that that director be in that photo in that article, the matter should be addressed on the article's talk page. I could bombard this page with difs showing how images have been cropped in the last few days, by editors working together on Swedish WP, Commons and now commenting here, to censor and obliterate two persons' appearance on Swedish Wikipedia, for no other apparent reasons than personal animosity as shown in extensive arguments about the crops on that project. I could also translate all the vicious personal attacks that have been made on me and those 2 (living!) persons on svWP since 2008, as well as quote long harangs from there yesterday and today about those crop motivations, whereas on Commons they have denied that and claimed today that these several crops were made to accentuate certain people, not to remove anyone. Here's the result of one such action, as compared to how that article looked before yesterdayand for years. Here's another one (second photo) and the article's previous look.. Neutral editors: you decide who's trying to provide relevant and good images, often of people and places and subject matters I know, and who's trying to pick nasty fights and keep them going, now on 3 projects, for years and years and years without end. We all makes mistakes. It is indeed my intention to be "humble" and let others decide, reasonably. When someone wants to remove material I've contributed, I usually expplain why I contributed it, and then let other neutral editors decide. If consensus says rm, I rm the material myself. When I discover more relevant free (note: free) images than the ones I've contributed, I always use thém. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

What does Lars Jacob have to do with Wenche Myhre? He may have given her husband a job, but did he give her a job? Do they work together on a regular basis? If not, then I fail to see what relevance a picture of him has to an article on her. If you can explain why Lars Jacob should be mentioned in an article about Wenche Myhre without mentioning Anders Eljas, then I could understand why a picture of him could be appropriate for the article. Otherwise, I agree that it is inappropriate. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 22:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that relevant question! It belongs on the article's talk page, I think. I will be addressing that after lunch. There are very few images available to illustrate such articles. Sincerely, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Given the history involved, I would suggest that this would be an opportunity to avoid the appearance of impropriety, even if there is no ill intent originally. TimothyJosephWood 01:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, avoiding that is maximally important to me too. That's why, when put on the defensive, I try to explain rationally why an image is relevant, even if one of many more-or-less notable people, whom my acquaintances and I know, happens to be in it. This doesn't happen too often, thank Goodness, but when it does, sometimes I succeed, sometimes I fail, in explaining adquately. Consensus is what counts, as we all know, and trying to avoid editing for strictly personal reasons, especially antagonistic such, as well as an excessive amount of slurs and personal attacks. Sincerely, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Also relevant thread at COM:ANU. TimothyJosephWood 01:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Nasty messages and death wishes on User talk:174.56.16.116 page

Not sure how this can be rectified but on User talk:174.56.16.116 an IPV6 user has been continuously posting horrible messages. They all come from 2600:1010 but after that it's not the same so not sure if a block is possible. I'm not sure why the user is being targeted, they don't seem to be an active editor. I was going to ask for page protection but that would also lock out the IP editor, but if a block is not feasible then I think a protection is in order. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 18:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Page has been protected and edits have been revdelled. I wonder if deleting the page is appropriate, since that might throw-off the vandal in the future.🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 18:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

IP violating copyright violation

2602:306:C54D:88C0:E53D:818A:A4A8:C075 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has copying text from the Universal Music Latin Entertainment [website http://www.universalmusic.com/label/universal-music-latin-entertainment/] and adding to the article. I already warned the user, but the user reverted [my edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universal_Music_Latin_Entertainment&diff=prev&oldid=753716219]. Erick (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• I have left another warning for the IP indicating that they will be blocked if they add the text again. Also, the IP was not notified of this report; I included a mention of the AN/I report in my warning. —C.Fred (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Apparent attempts at censorship

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 Xtremedood (talk · contribs) seems to be engaged in a long-term agenda to censor valid information about the prophet Mohammad, and just deleted/redirected an entire page filled with references:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Xtremedood

[46] [47] [48]

[49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58]

He has apparently also been blocked several times previously due to edit-warring. Help would be very appreciated. David A (talk) 05:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

• I agree these are problematical edits -- driveby removals and re-removals made without the least bit of discussion and with inaccurate edit summaries. I also believe that Xtremedood is often a problem editor who is unable to edit collaboratively, particularly not on the subject of Islam, Mohammed, or related subjects. Softlavender (talk) 07:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Xtremedood's editing behaviour clearly demonstrates a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, making biased edits in favour of Islam and Pakistan. In just two recent scenarios, this user attempted to link a pornographic actress with Catholicism and attempted to state in an article that anyone else besides Muslims, such as Indian Hindus, use the term fakir erroneously. Digging through his contributions reveals more alarming edits. Does anyone oppose a topic ban for User:Xtremedood on articles related to religion in general, as well as articles covering India and Pakistan-related topics broadly construed? If not, he needs one, badly, as other editors are getting worn out with having to engage with this problematic editor. Jobas (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Resonating with what User:David_A mentioned above, User:Xtremedood just attempted to redirect a page about Muhammad to a distantly related article. Edits such as these are frustrating and harmful to the project. Jobas (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The criticism article is about other peoples perspectives on the issue, and has nothing to do with the objective analysis of Prophet Muhammad's teachings about slavery. Xtremedood (talk) 03:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• I Weakly support a topic ban. There is some pretty obvious POV pushing, and the user has a slightly troubling habit of quickly erasing their talk page (or the section) whenever they are given advice, a warning or have had sanctions placed against them. However, it's not entirely clear to me that they're unable or unwilling to learn to play by the rules. However, I'm open to having my mind hardened. Once I started looking through their talk page history, there's a lot of indications of a battleground mentality. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello User:MjolnirPants, I do not believe that I have demonstrated WP:BATTLE as demonstrated by my statements below. I think it is important to get both sides of the picture prior to making a decision. Xtremedood (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban on articles relating to religion and India-Pakistan broadly construed. Despite the issues raised by User:David A in his OP, User:Xtremedood continues to edit war on these topic areas, e.g. Example One, Example Two. If this user is topic banned, their very recent history of using sockpuppets to edit war in these topic areas (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Xtremedood) should be taken into account and monitored. Given these facts, to respond kindly to User:MjolnirPants, it should be "entirely clear to me that they're unable or unwilling to learn to play by the rules" and should be topic banned in order to prevent further damage from being caused to the project. Jobas (talk) 15:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment - In reality, user:Jobas has an extremely pro-Christian bias. He deleted referenced materials [59], [60], [61], [62] which apparently shows a strong pro-Christian bias and which according to a consensus at the time [63], between Jobas, myself, and User:Sturmgewehr88 was considered to be a legitimate entry in the article at the time. Jobas alongside similar pro-Christian editors are far numerous on Wikipedia and their POV should not take precedence, just because they have more people. There is a clear denial of facts by Jobas and his supporters [64]. Mia Khalifa still identifies as a Catholic [65], whereas the current article makes it look as if she might have left Catholicism with ambiguous words such as "although is no longer practicing" [66].

My edits are based on fair, source-centric, and authentic information. Jobas on the other hand has committed himself to censoring sourced materials on the article List of converts to Islam from Christianity, over here [67][68], while on the other hand introducing questionable, or incorrectly sourced materials (including blogspot references) on the List of converts to Christianity from Islam, [69], [70], [71].

• As far as the Early Muslim-Meccan Conflict, I am correct in my edits as it consists of misattributed references, take a look at the references, the sources do not indicate as the author (user:Misconceptions2 states, who has a strong history of sockpuppetry and deception [72]. Also, literally zero sources refer to it by the non-NPOV name he allotted for it "Caravan Raids". I have attempted to engage in the users like David A who opposed my edit in dialogue, here [73], however they refuse to even try and validate the references and have not responded to my inquiries. The entire article is made up of misattributed sources, which do not say as Misconceptions2 states.

• As far as the Al Kudr Invasion, the article was created by the same user (user:Misconceptions2), who has the extreme history of deception and sockpuppetry. He misattributes the source, stating that the Prophet Muhammad kept the one-fifth to himself, whereas the Mubarakpuri reference does not say that. In reality, the one-fifth is in regards to a Quranic commandment, and the money was used for freeing slaves and helping orphans.

• As far as the History of Sufism is concerned. This was a disagreement between user:MezzoMezzo and I. We discussed it over here [74] like civilized people and came to a conclusion. I disagreed with the source being so old (from 1930) and how it contradicted recent studies like those of Carl Ernst and William Chittick. For example, Carl Ernst has gone as far as saying that Orientalist sources during this period (1930) should not be trusted on page 2 of [75]. Titus Burkchardt has also contradicted such data during this period in his book, Introduction to Sufi Doctrine, on page 4 [76].

• As far as the Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi Article is concerned, it was a similar disagreement with user:MezzoMezzo, where we discussed [77] like civilized people the nature of the source and came to the conclusion that the source was not about criticism. Which neither David A or Jobas participated in. The source does not state any criticisms and therefore is a misattributed source and should be deleted. See our discussion for further information on the matter.

User:David_A and user:Jobas have no foot to stand on, as Jobas's biased edits on the Mia Khalifa, List of converts to Islam from Christianity, and List of converts to Christianity from Islam shows a strong bias. Wikipedia should not be a place in which the more numerous Christian editors have say over others. Xtremedood (talk) 06:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

user:Jobas also never informed me that this discussion was going on. This is clearly an example of unfair editing and trying to censor my perspective. Xtremedood (talk) 03:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Support Topic ban--Yeah, you're not supposed to write about your perspective on Wikipedia. CerealKillerYum (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Xtremedood:Jobas also never informed me that this discussion was going on. This is clearly an example of unfair editing and trying to censor my perspective.

1. It was David A who opened this discussion.
2. He absolutely did notify you. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:41, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. There is something wrong with my notifications, I have 21 of them and they are not going away. Xtremedood (talk) 04:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

So, in your defense against my statement that you show indications of a battleground mentality, you accused another user of being "unfair and trying to censor [your] perspective" based on zero evidence and zero effort to find said evidence? That's battleground behavior, right there. Indeed, your defense consists entirely of attacking another editor. If you're trying to convince me to change my weak support to a strong support, you're certainly on the right track. I'm not suggesting that Jobas' behavior is perfect (I haven't looked into their behavior yet), and it is possible that they may need to face sanctions as well, but that is an entirely separate issue from your own behavior.

By the way, there is a link at the top right of the notification drop-down that says "Mark all as read" which you can click on to dismiss your existing notifications. Furthermore (though it is sometimes buggy), clicking on an individual notification should mark it as read. Finally, if you have viewed all of your notifications (by opening the drop down), the icon will be grey, even as it shows the number of notifications, instead of red, which means you have new notifications. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I believe my record of attempting to engage in and engaging in dialogue for matters pertaining to misattributed sources shows that I am not operating upon such a mentality, but instead I am showing concern for the authenticity of the sources and the content in the sources. I have shown above that for all of the articles referenced by David A that I have a strong justification for the edits. I had invited David A to talk about the matters and for all of the links he has cited he was never a part of the dialogue.Xtremedood (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• I Support a ban, for much the same reasons as Jobas and MjolnirPants. The user appears completely unrepentant and relentless in pursuit of an agenda, with several past rule-violation incidents. David A (talk) 06:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I have invited you to discuss the issue [78], however, you never (not even once) have engaged in dialogue about the issue. We also had discussions about the other articles you have referenced [79], [80] and you have not even once joined in the conversation. Xtremedood (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Note to admins: As any decision-making body or person, whether in courts or in the legal field takes in to consideration the mental health of both the complainant and defendant, it should be noted that David A self-identifies as autistic, OCD and ADD on his profile [81]. Attention to the details is critical to this issue and while I have demonstrated sound rationale for my edits, citing clear misattribution of sources as the primary cause, I have not heard from any of the other editors about actually verifying what the sources say. Xtremedood (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I have not engaged in dialogue because I am not expertised regarding the subject matters, and am also technically on vacation at the moment. I have however, noticed repeated attempts to remove information, with highly similar patterns in terms of viewpoint-pushing.

As for the issues that you noted, they are not mental illnesses, just minor handicaps, and completely irrelevant to this case. They do not make me unstable or mentally defective. David A (talk) 12:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

To claim a user's ASD prevents them from making sound judgements is rather ridiculous. In fact, in most cases, the opposite is true (I too am autistic, and it is for me). Xtremedood is setting up a strawman's argument. Patient Zero^talk 12:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. The OP presented 13 very clear instances of blatant censorship and POV-pushing: article blanking, section blanking, and repeated undiscussed removal of cited material. This sort of behavior has been going on ever since he started editing a year and a half ago. I support a topic ban on articles relating to either religion or India-Pakistan, broadly construed. If admins do not wish or see their way to implementing this at present, I suggest a sanction in the form of a warning that if this behavior crops up again in any way, an immediate topic-ban or indefinite block will ensue. Softlavender (talk) 02:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I have discussed those edits as being justified in accordance with WP policies, see my above comment. In your most recent edit, of Al Kudr Invasion you have utilized a misappropriation of source. I have set up a conversation here [82] to discuss it. You have readded the following statement: "He also kept a fifth of the spoils." This is not an accurate portrayal of the instance, as the one-fifth that was taken was used in accordance with the Quranic commandment 8:41, [83] which states: "And know that anything you obtain of war booty - then indeed, for Allah is one fifth of it and for the Messenger and for [his] near relatives and the orphans, the needy, and the [stranded] traveler, if you have believed in Allah and in that which We sent down to Our Servant on the day of criterion - the day when the two armies met. And Allah , over all things, is competent." I find it strange that you want to include reference only to Prophet Muhammad but not Allah (God), relatives, orphans, needy, and a stranded traveller? Any reason for such an edit? The Mubarakpuri source clearly states "he had set aside the usual one-fifth". Why is it that you want to mention only Prophet Muhammad but not Allah (God), relatives, orphans, needy, and a stranded traveller of the one-fifth? Wikipedia should not be the place of such anti-Islamic bias. Xtremedood (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the issue here seems to be that you wish to remove any references that you consider to have a negative bias against Islam, and its prophet, but this is not how Wikipedia is intended to work. Wikipedia is strictly supposed to list accurately referenced facts, or statistics, regardless if these display a particular religion, ideology, opinion, or other concept in a positive or negative light. You cannot start to remove anything that you dislike, in order to deliberately try to slant public perception. David A (talk) 06:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

So with 5 editors in support of a ban or permanent topic ban, will it be carried out? David A (talk) 01:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

WP consensus is not based on votes. As of now I have not seen any solid policy related arguments for a ban. The ban seems like true censorship. My edits are based on solid rationale and do not violate WP policy. With the extreme sock-puppetry and mass mis-attribution of sources involved by the article's creator (Misconceptions2), admins should not base their decisions on votes. Also, I am the only editor who has actually tried to start and engage in discussions over here for the articles you have referenced, whereas none of the other editors here have so far even engaged in 1 single dialogue about the articles you have referenced. Xtremedood (talk) 12:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Regardless whether Misconceptions2 has inserted references or not, they should not be removed wholesale as long as they are accurate. And I sincerely doubt that he alone wrote all of the material that you have edited out during your time in Wikipedia. Not to mention, your block history is suspicious in itself, so you are not one in position to cast stones. David A (talk) 06:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Well that is exactly the point. They are not accurate, and you have made so far zero attempts to try and discuss it with me. The other materials I have removed, I have justified as being either outdated, a misrepresentation of the source(s), or WP:OR. Xtremedood (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

"No solid policy-related arguemnts" - How about WP:NPOV?:

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three.

This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.

That seems like a solid policy-based argument to me.

Support topic ban Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from both religion & India/Pakistan broadly construed - due to evidence presented above. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Recent Topic Ban - I do not see how the recent topic ban [84] by User:JzG, is justified according to WP policy. None of the above issues have anything to do with Pakistan and India topics, nor did anyone, except me, even attempt to engage in dialogue on the matters referenced. Wikipedia should not be the place in which clear biased, incorrect and discriminatory materials take precedence over objective facts and data. The recent topic ban shows that Wikipedia has become such a place. I would recommend other admins to consider taking another approach. Xtremedood (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

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

SuperCarnivore591 and trolling in RfA

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.

---

SuperCarnivore591 (talk · contribs), despite a block for trolling in a RfA last year ([85]), takes a 3-month break, and returns to Wikipedia just to post a blatantly trolling oppose in the RfA of Godsy right here. This user is not here to build an encyclopedia, and all temporary blocks will do is to prolong the trolling, so I request an indefinite block for this troll. Esquivalience (talk) 05:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

1. It wasn't trolling. I gave a specific, policy-based reasons to oppose Godsy for adminship: questions with his temperament, a lack of any substantive content creation, as well as his combativeness, particularly during the Legacypac fiasco that other editors brought up (I was more concerned with his conduct in the Jenner article, though). I did give a long paragraph explaining why I did, yes. The reason I did that is because I didn't want to seem like some asshole by giving a small, one sentence oppose as other people do, which could drop his enthusiasm and make him reluctant to apply for adminship ever again, which isn't what I want. I have no problem with him applying for adminship again when he is ready. Yes, I used some wordy phrasing, it's what people do when trying to get their point across.

2. Your absurd accusation that I'm not here to build an encyclopedia is undermined by the thousand of edits I've racked up since joining roughly a year and a half ago, as well as the good number of articles that I have created; you can take a look if you want to. If you go to the talk page on Godsy's RFA, a good number of respectable editors did not consider my oppose to be trolling, and one of them rebuked the editor for striking my oppose. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 06:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I utterly fail to see the usefulness of the linked comment above, it looks like straight-up trolling to me. If I hadn't specifically set out tonight to recreate a George Thorogood song (it is Saturday night after all!) I'd block myself, but I'd like at least another admin to take a look at this. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The Blade of the Northern Lights, why in the world would you block yourself? EEng 07:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Heh, I suppose I should have written out "carry out the block myself" (Twinkle gives you a really hilarious snarky message if you actually set it to block yourself, as does the blocking interface; I tested both a long time ago and successfully avoided actually blocking myself). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, please do try it again and tell us what the snarky message is. EEng 07:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

From which moment forward The Blade of the Northern Lights was never heard from again...

• SuperCarnivore591's RfA vote consists of several sentences selected from various places. From George Washington Quotes:
  • There is a Destiny which has the control of our actions, not to be resisted by the strongest efforts of Human Nature.
  • Few men have virtue enough to withstand the highest bidder.
  • Labour to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire, called conscience.

  There is more, but that is enough to show that SuperCarnivore591 should be topic banned from RfA (if anyone can confirm their edits are useful), or indeffed (otherwise). The RfA vote, and the comments at RfA talk, are indistinguishable from trolling. Johnuniq (talk) 06:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there was a prohibition from quoting historical figures and others of importance to make an analogy or metaphor to drive your point home and get it across. RFAs are of very significant importance to so many in our community, and there's nothing wrong with showing that you're serious, rather than giving a dickish one sentence oppose without significant explanation, as too many editors nowadays do. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 07:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

That strikes me as remarkably disingenuous. As tempting as it is to engage in sarcastic quoting of someone to get my point across, I'll refrain and allow someone else to take care of this. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Just like you to leave the sarcastic quoting to someone else. How about this: "A facility for quotation covers the absence of original thought"? EEng 07:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I will not suggest a course of action because I've !voted in the RfA, but I will point out this section of the editor's user talk page, which clearly shows that he's trolling. There is no other way to take his comment there. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Another diff is here, where after trolling my and 78.26's RfAs he admits he was just having fun (his words) i.e. trolling RfA (my words). BethNaught (talk) 09:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

BethNaught's link is very interesting, especially in relation to the disingenuous defense the user has made above. I considered blocking for 72 hours or so, but on the other hand I also want to propose a community ban from RFA, and the user ought to be able to take part in that discussion. Reluctantly refraining from blocking at this time, and please record your opinion of a ban below. Pinging @Floquenbeam:, who placed the original 12-hour (!) block for RFA trolling. Bishonen | talk 09:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC).

I have a mixed reaction. Regarding the RFA comment that earned a block, it's an evocative statement; perhaps a picky English major will object to the awkward transition of metaphors, but in other circumstances, it might be viewed as well-crafted. Unfortunately, it purports to be an opposition vote, and for that purpose it fails miserably. I watched The Loobenfeld Decay last evening in which Sheldon Cooper responds to the question of how an actor should play genetic predisposition with a retort "subtextually of course!". There's a time and a place for delivering information subtextually, and an RFA is not the place. The process is difficult enough without having to interpret emanations of penumbras. We give wide latitude to contributors to oppose just about any grounds but "just about any grounds" ought to include "grounds". I don't think the casual reader knows what shortcomings were alleged to have occurred. (And I'm not asking for explanation now, the time has passed). That leads me to the conclusion that the opposition vote was a wastage of time but I didn't view it as rising to a blockable offense.

The present opposition vote evinces the contributors preference for a clever turn of phrase over transmission of information. The opening point is actually a step up from the prior opposition contribution as it actually includes rationales for opposition, and the rationales (if accurate) are not nonsense. That said, an opposition statement that includes strong language such as "gross intemperance", and "apparent left-wing views" is begging for diffs, which are wanting. The second point is, as before, a wastage of time, but I don't see this as blockable. Perhaps we should require that strong negative statements be supported by diffs, but that sounds like a can of worms and this isn't the place to make such a proposal. However, I don't see this as remotely block a ball and if anything the editor should be encouraged to add some light to the heat.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• I was asked to review this since I blocked SC last year. I'm busy in real life, so forgive the lack of diffs, but just look at his contribs from December 2015 and you'll find them, he hasn't been that active lately. Or, if you're a true "diffs or it didn't happen" person, ignore me.
  • His comments last year were clearly trolling. Especially when his subsequent responses to people who asked him about it are taken into account. I assumed this was due to ingestion of something and blocked for 12 hours for it to wear off, but he assured me later on my talk page (after the block expired) that he had been sober but was just screwing around with people because he wanted to have a little bit of fun. At the time he claimed he wouldn't do it again.
  • His comment in paragraph 1 this year was mainstream. His comment in paragraph 2 was, taken in isolation, just garden variety sound-of-his-own-voice stupidity.
  • His comment in paragraph 2, knowing what we know after last year, was him having fun at another's expense (again), knowing in advance that it would stress people out (again), and doing it anyway so he could enjoy the reaction of Wikipedians who, as a rule, are completely incapable of ignoring stuff like this (again). Which, I think, is the Merriam Webster definition of trolling.
  • I do not care whether he is blocked, topic banned, or complimented on his trolling skills, because trolling (and our inability to recognize and deal with it) are fundamental characteristics of this site. I mean, obviously he should be blocked or topic banned, but I don't care that it won't happen.
  • We've moved on to Votes for Banning now, so probably no one will look up here to see this comment anyway.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: - if it makes you feel any better I read your comment and appreciated you taking the time to weigh in on this controversial proposition. Alicb (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Ban from RFA proposed

Per the discussion above, I propose SuperCarnivore591 be indefinitely banned from taking part in any requests for adminship or related pages. Bishonen | talk 09:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC).

Tally (S/O/N): 12/20/4

Support

• Support As I noted above, SuperCarnivore591's RfA comments are indistinguishable from trolling. The "I wasn't aware..." reply above confirms that. Johnuniq (talk) 09:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Weak support- yeah, this is blatant trolling and needs to stop. But I'm uneasy about singling out one editor who writes trollish opposes when there are other RfA regulars who also write unfair opposes just to wind others up. Reyk _YO! 10:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

  Support. There's a difference between holding an opinion which most people consider obnoxious and being permitted to state it—which should generally be allowed, regardless of whether other people consider it 'trolling'—and intentionally setting out to be an asshole and see how long it takes for people to react, which is what we clearly have here. ‑ Iridescent 11:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC) sorry, thought I'd already struck this—moved to oppose, see below. ‑ Iridescent 18:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support - go and find a new hobby and stop wasting our time. Patient Zero^talk 11:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support RFAs decide a new admin, which will give him/her access to tools that can destroy the encyclopedia if used maliciously. "Just having some fun" is possibly the most ridiculous excuse I've heard for a troll RFA vote. This is serious, please stop wasting people's time. Period. WikiPancake 🥞 11:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support There are generally good faithed, but poor !votes at FRA. This is another level entirely and should be stopped. AIRcorn (talk) 11:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support Defo agree with Patient Zero. Stop wasting our time! Class455 (talk) 11:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

  Support User is clearly WP:NOTHERE. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 12:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

  Support RfA is a most inappropriate place for such obvious trolling and fun and games. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC) (moving to oppose)

• Support, though Ivanvector's idea above would also work. Black Kite (talk) 13:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support, there's no room for this silly behaviour at RfA. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 15:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NOTHERE. There needs to be a crackdown of RfA trolls, and this would be an important first step to send a message that trolls are not welcome at RFA. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support as per above - Ivanvector's proposal could work however I don't see why we should waste our time with this editor any longer, They're clealy trolling so therefore should be topic-banned from RFA. –Davey2010^Talk 16:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support per Iridescent's support rationale above, rather than his oppose rationale below. The fact that other strange votes exist shouldn't deter us from banning assholery from RfA. A page ban may have the effect of "pour encourager les autres" --RexxS (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support Evaluating RfAs is difficult enough without trolling. Miniapolis 00:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

  Support Note: I'm not uninvolved here, as opposed to most of the ANIs I comment on. In my opinion, this is a case of blatant trolling. I don't cast judgment on the user's character, but this behavior needs to stop, and a topic ban seems like the only way to do it. Just like the last time he was ANI'd and then blocked for his comments on RfAs, he doesn't appear to want to admit that this behavior is unacceptable and is sticking to the story that he has been unfairly singled out for his "mature" comments. What else can we do? AlexEng^(TALK) 01:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Moving to neutral per discussion with SuperCarnivore591 AlexEng^(TALK) 18:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

• Strong Oppose My previous indiscretions were over a year ago, and I have already served time for that, and I wasn't trolling this RFA, I had genuine concerns about this users suitability to be an admin, as do dozens of other editors, which has lead to a large number of people opposing his nomination. Explaining your oppose in depth as well as giving legitimate reasons for it that have to do with temperament and maturity, which is what I did, is not trolling. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 11:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose on principle: all users should be entitled to vote in admin elections, and we have never come to consensus on what constitutes a "valid" vote. However SuperCarnivore591's votes are clearly in bad faith. I propose instead that they be restricted to one bolded "support" "oppose" or "neutral" vote in an RfA, and banned from any follow-up commentary, similar to Eric Corbett's RfA tban. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Ivanvector, also support his solution. The original ban proposal is heavy-handed and overkill. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I find the editor's !vote silly, but nothing much more than that. There's no personal attack involved. (Struck per my message below. Lourdes)Per Ivanvector, we can either limit the number of words the editor uses in his !votes or allow him to simply write support or oppose. The ban is actually heavy handed, especially for an editor who is creating articles like Paul Gentile, Mario Merola (lawyer), Robert T. Johnson (lawyer) and more. Give him a good warning and some restrictions; not a ban but. Lourdes 16:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

especially for an editor who is creating articles like Paul Gentile, Mario Merola (lawyer), Robert T. Johnson (lawyer) and more – whether an editor creates articles of similar quality to Marilyn Monroe or LinguistRats, RfA is a no-go for messing around. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 16:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, while I agree with you on the fact that Rfa is a no-go for messing around, I don't agree with your comparison. I would prefer treating editors, who have shown evidence of positive article creation contributions to Wikipedia, with a better perspective than I would editors who have nothing to show positive. Lourdes 16:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

True, users who have made constructive contributions do deserve credit. Messing around in an oppose section at RfA isn't acceptable. I wouldn't support a site block or ban for Carnivore, but they've added "votes" to RfA three or more times, and continued even after being told to stop. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 16:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I've refined my position, suggesting further loosening up of the heat on him this time; given the subject's message below. Lourdes 02:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose My opposition is largely explained above. I considered signing on to Ivanvector proposal but I think that's a bit much. My opposition should not be construed as support for SuperCarnivore591's contribution, it was largely a wastage of time. To the extent it actually contained useful information at ought to be supported by diffs. This proposal appears to be headed toward support but if it fails I hope they will take this as a serious warning to change their approach to RFA contributions.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - To be blunt; there is a plethora of vacuity at that RfA. Either weed the whole damned thing - meaning reform the process -, or accept it for what it is. Editor by editor restrictions will get us nowhere quickly. As I stated below, this isn't even the worst or most trolling oppose on the page. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, obviously. If I were compiling a list from that RFA for "most egregious examples of votes which constitute either severe incompetence or obvious trolling", I doubt SuperCarnivore591 would even make the top ten. If we blocked people on the grounds of acting like self-important assholes at RFA, Wikipedia would have about three editors left. ‑ Iridescent 16:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• ... ? Is it a block you're opposing, Iridescent, or the proposed ban from RFA? Bishonen | talk 16:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC).

• Either, to be honest. By coincidence I've just been researching RFA topic bans in the last couple of days, and as best I can tell the only time anyone has ever been banned from commenting at RFA (as opposed to being banned from discussing at RFA) was this incident two years ago. Because something hasn't been done before isn't reason on its own not to do it, but it will be a very unusual step, not something at all routine, and I don't particularly like the idea of disenfranchising people unless there's really no alternative. Per my comment above, I wouldn't consider the comment in question anywhere near the most inappropriate in that particular debate, so it seems peculiar to single one person out for a punishment beating while allowing outright idiotic oppose rationales like five years is not enough for a new admin, candidate still has room for improvement, displays their user rights too prominently and of course I find the lack of image uploads weird to stand. ‑ Iridescent 17:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• Then you should probably strike your support vote, Iri, made 5.5 hours before your oppose.... :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oops, thought I had—the striking got lost in the edit conflicts. Fixed. ‑ Iridescent 18:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll bite, who is the third? :) --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with Iridecent above - even if he strikes it! Leaky Caldron 18:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - moved from support after reading Ivanvector's proposal, with which I concur. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 18:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Let's be clear that I disaprove of SuperCarnivore591's obvious trolling last year, dislike their way to contribute in the current RfA, and can't share their opinions either. I am also certain that their past trollings were disruptive and energy-sapping for all of us. However, I believe that even this type of individuals should be allowed to vote. Ivanvector's proposal is one that I may support. Besides, the editor showed what could be construed as a convincing contrition for past mistakes. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 20:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose a full topic ban but support Ivanvector's approach. I think it should be expanded to the RFA talk page too. Preventing troll votes on the RFA itself is one thing but it does leave a bit of a loop hole as it does not explicitly prevent trolling on the talk page. Blackmane (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• Blackmane, my original proposal is already for a ban from "from taking part in any requests for adminship or related pages". Bishonen | talk 22:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC).

• Apologies, this is what happens when one reads ANI before morning coffee. Striking the latter part, but my preference for Ivanvector's proposal still stands. Blackmane (talk) 22:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban at this stage but support a straight Support or Oppose vote only (no commentary) per Ivanvector. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose fail to see how the comment was trolling - he's been hassled by admins who haven't created articles, so that's his main criteria. OK, let's AGF. Could trim out the noise, certainly, and it's possibly disruptive to add too much irrelevant commentary, but he needs more warning on that. II | (t - c)
• Oppose Quoting George Washington does not seem to be any kind of offense and so no action is required. Andrew D. (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Moved from support per SuperCarnivore591's comment below. I think he understands and won't do that in the future. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree that his comments were hard to follow and overly abstract but it seems like something that could be handled by asking him to be more clear and more respectful in the future. He doesn't seem like a vandal and or a violation of WP:NOTHERE so I think banning him from the site or from RfA is pretty stringent. Alicb (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - I like Ivanvector's proposal, but I would be more inclined to support a looser restriction against making RfA comments that are clearly not in good faith. If SuperCarnivore591 posts any such support or oppose !votes, they will be stricken pending a retraction on their part. After a number of such instances (maybe ~3), Ivanvector's proposal should then be enacted for a period of not less than six months. Thoughts? Kurtis ^(talk) 02:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, largely per User:Sphilbrick. The best way to deal with this sort of comments is simply not to feed the troll and to let the 'crats accord the comment the weight that it is due. There was no need to strike the comment, pick a fight, and cause a dramasplosion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC).
• Oppose Calls that this is trolling based on the "quotes" ignore the actual rationale he also gave in his oppose. Some serious tunnel vision happening in the support section followed by nitpicking over sarcastic language such as "I wasn't aware..." when replying to someone's accusation that wasn't supported in policy. None of us are aware that there is suddenly a de facto rule against historical quotes - it is an accurate statement about a rule that someone just pulled out of their ass.--v/r - TP 18:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. After having campaigned so loud for years for a clean up of RfA, I would would obviously be expecting myself to strongly support a total topic ban from every Request for Adminship. I would want to put SuperCarnivore591 in the village stocks and make an example of him, not only an example of trolling, but as a retrospective example of how RfA is the one single place where users appear to be fundamentally allowed to behave in a manner that would get them blocked PDQ anywhere else. But no, let's see if the traditional Wikipedia leniency and tolerance for trolling is the better solution and give him one more chance. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Neutral

• Per Iridescent. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• I'm a little involved here as I voted in the RFA in question. It seems we have an admitted troll who claims their latest !vote was not trolling. I'm not sure how often we successfully reform trolls, but perhaps SuperCarnivore will be sufficiently self aware in future to avoid comments that are likely to be perceived as trolling. As they claim youth I'm leaning towards one more chance, but would not object to a ban of two or three years from RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 12:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Agreed. This is the most sensible course of action.--v/r - TP 18:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
• No longer in support of a ban after discussion. It seems like he's aware of what he did and how it was perceived by others. AlexEng^(TALK) 18:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
• While I do question the oppose in question as it offeres no help to the filer, the candidate and the bureaucrats and is not policy-based, I am not sure we can ban someone from simply opposing somebody. Maybe if the oppose was eloborated we might not be here. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment - The first point of the oppose vote is quite obviously not trolling, if it was left at that originally we would not be having this discussion right now; I've been harangued by a few overzealous admins, but the ones who have been most understanding are the ones with sufficient article creation under their belts. The second point is where this contentiousness lies, the weird quoting of Washington. I've looked at the "troll" votes at BethNaught and 78.26 and they aren't the same as here. Even if point 2. is overt trolling, point 1. is legitimate or at the very least, meant to look legitimate. Personally, it's not even the worst vote registered on the page, that (dis)honour goes elsewhere. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment from subject of proposed ban - I realize that my opinion on the case has caused some controversy with people, but I just want to reiterate that my oppose was based on heartfelt concerns regarding Godys's nomination, not out of a desire to troll a well-meaning user looking to become an admin. At the end of the day, Wikipedia is more than a community – it is also a civic society between admins and non-admins, and I strongly feel we should have admins who are not overzealous and who are compassionate, not trigger-happy with the block button. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you also, then, understand that it's not the opinion itself but the wording that has caused contention? AlexEng^(TALK) 21:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand that as well, but I honestly was not doing it in bad faith; I just did it to drive the point home. However, I see how it could be seen by some as an elitist comment, and it may have been a poor choice of words. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Given SuperCarnivore's message above, I would further suggest loosening up even IvanVector's proposal and showing leniency to the subject this time. I think SuperCarnivore understands that the words used by him has caused much of this current issue. This time, let him be; he's understood. If it's repeated, that's it. Lourdes 02:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Is there going to be a user like you with this position the next time this comes to ANI? We've seen this issue once several times before. Why let it happen again? AlexEng^(TALK) 03:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. Look at the time invested by so many editors, including me, on this topic, and all because of one editor's bad faith comments at an Rfa. Going by that, I've got to agree with you. Honestly speaking, if the community ends up banning him from the Rfa or putting any other restrictions, I'm not going to have any issues with that too (it'll save the time of so many editors on possible future indiscretions). It's just that the editor has shown some evidence of article contributions to Wikipedia. That is the only reason I'm on this side. Rest up to you all. No issues with what you all decide. Lourdes 03:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OccultZone/Archive#15 September 2016

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.

---

When this SPI was done, I didn't scrutinize the evidence given by Vanamonde93 to the fullest extent.

Now, I will explain why the evidences presented by Vanamone93 were false. I always clicked his link number 79 in the evidence, which never opened. Vanamonde93's comment, Overlap with Bladesmulti is large: [79]. This is admittedly inflated by MSM's use of automated tools, but Blades used zero automation, so the overlap still strikes me as significant. Blades and MSM have a markedly similar, and unusual, history of timestamps: Blades, MSM; a fairly uniform distribution of edits through about 20 hours of the day, with the 20-24h (GMT) period being the only slack period.

As far as I can see, with Intersect Contribs tool, today I intersect in 51 pages. I was reverting whatever disruptive edit was shown automatically through Huggle and Stiki window. If today I intersect in 51 pages, then two months ago, when this SPi case was filed, the intersect was obviously much lower than 51. This less than 51 pages is large overlap for him.

Next day he states Folks, my apologies: I had intended to add more evidence earlier this evening, but was kept off wiki by some RL stuff that had popped up. The stuff I was going to add has mostly been mentioned: the undeletion request, the high level of automated editing from MSM, the accusations of POV at my RFA that sounded a lot like similar accusations that have been leveled by OZ socks. I didn't accuse his POV. I voted oppose (changed to support) after reading the comments made by other editors as Rsrikanth05, Arun Kumar SINGH and ƬheStrikeΣagle. My other comments in that RFA was not connected to Vanamonde93.

I don't care for Ekvastra, however as Vanamonde93 gave more false evidence in this SPI (and he can do it again against me), I need to mention that the pages which he proclaim as obscure Ekvastra has a remarkable overlap with the edits of Bladesmulti and AmritasyaPutra, both initially blocked as OZ socks. The overlap includes pages as obscure as All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen and Lakshmanananda Saraswati., are not obscure articles. People outside India might find them obscure.

Lakshmanananda Saraswati was a nobody before his murder in 2008, but Murder of Swami Lakshmanananda and the largescale riots that followed doesn't make this page an obscure page. The murder is still in the news in 2016

All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen is nowhere close to being an obscure page. Indian media calls it as AIMIM or MIM in short form. NDTV, Hindustan times. Their leader Hyderabad MP Asaduddin Owaisi always takes part in debates about Indian Muslims on national news channels. In Aaj Tak google video results. On Times Now, Google video results.

I can give more evidence, but this is sufficient to prove that those two pages were not obscure as mentioned by Vanamonde93. As Dharmadhyaksha said in Vanamonde's RFA "Despite the nominee claiming in their reply to Q15 above that they would not intervene as admin where they are INVOLVED; like " South Asian political parties, ideological movements related to Islam in South Asia and Hinduism in general, communal violence in South Asia, post-World War II Guatemalan, Chilean, Nicaraguan, Cuban, and Salvadoran history, the Iraq war,...." and so on; it is a fact that admin's views/comments/votes do get more weightage in discussions than someone who is new/previously-blocked-for-whatever-reason and such. Admin tools come with this un-denied privilege and user's with claimed-bias towards such a large chunk of article should not be crowned as admins. (Using "crown" intentionally even if nominee doesn't consider it such as yes it is a crown in many respects.) In addition, allegations of stalking along with these allegations of biased editing do not add up to much a good candidature. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)"

They were aware that Bbb23, Mike V, DeltaQuad don't edit WP:INDIA articles. Vanamonde admittedly had email discussion about this with Joshua Jonathan and both planned to misinform check users with false evidence. Marvellous Spider-Man 06:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Marvellous Spider-Man: what do you even want here? The SPI was closed: you were found innocent of socking. I accepted this finding, and moved on. Are you asking for sanctions against me for filing an SPI with not-quite-strong-enough evidence? Evaluating the evidence is a job for the clerks, and they found it convincing enough to perform a CU. I really don't see the point of this post. Vanamonde (talk) 06:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Evaluating the evidence is a job for the clerks, not in this case, as they trusted an administrator active in Indian articles. You are not able to explain how large was the overlap with Bladesmulti on that date. And where I questioned your POV in your RFA? --Marvellous Spider-Man 04:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - That SPI case is almost three months old. What is the point of this post? Vanamonde93 did not have any malicious intent during or after the case so this just seems too pointless to be here. I suggest you retract this as soon as possible.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - "Vanamonde admittedly had email discussion about this with Joshua Jonathan and both planned to misinform check users with false evidence" - yes, we had mail-contact, about a series of suspicious editors, including MSM. I've seen this before, a newbie who edits like an experienced editor, and his name coincidentally was Bladesmulti. See [86]: " I've also been wondering if Bladesmulti is a sock, given his sudden appearance and his high speed of editing at so many pages." Ironic, isn't it? yet, to suggest that "both planned to misinform check users with false evidence" is blatantly wrong, but may be due to a feeling of being attacked or so. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Vanamonde93 says Evaluating the evidence is a job for the clerks, and they found it convincing enough to perform a CU. @Marvellous Spider-Man and TheGracefulSlick: but no clerk has edited there. CU was done without that, and block was made within 2h without putting a block notice or providing any opportunity to the accused person to defend. The report was made on OccultZone page and no evidence was presented to connect them. There was not even one instance of policy violation mentioned. AmritasyaPutra had declared transitioning to new user, Ekvastra admitted to being AmritasyaPutra. Ekvastra never voted or edited any content of former account and used reliable references for each edit. There was no concern with any edit. Unless there was a demonstration of any abusive edit or policy violation the decision to overturn previous ruling of BASC without any discussion whatsoever is malicious. --DonateToWikipedia (talk) 13:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

  That's an interestingly knowledgeable comment from someone who registered their account just one minute previously. Care to tell us who you are? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

  Yes Zebedee, your guess is reasonable. How else to bring up this matter for discussion? The first block was made when the user was on a declared 1 month wiki-break with no network connectivity which was conveyed over email to other user(s) (and they edited in the SPI, when we knew better in real life). User offered or actually sent the journey tickets to prove. User had attended wiki meets in person too, other admin(s) had vouched. It was a tedious process and then the unblock was done. The evidence presented was inaccurate then too. User had mentioned it later there. A second time the same action was done: no evidence of connectivity or abuse and CU without clerk comment, block before the person may defend and no notice on talk page. Now too, the most likely outcome is that these comments will be purged. It would have been reasonable to allow comments in defense to be made. Vanamonde93 had been regularly stalking, remaining abusive and vengeful towards the editor for months. If anyone would want to check, time permitting, response to any specific inquiry may be presented. --DonateToWikipedia (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Editor fighting the war of women

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.

---

NOTE: I removed the first close-template box by another editor, since so much germane discussion continued below it. Softlavender (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs) is engaged in an edit war at Haredi Judaism. The problem started with his restore of a picture that was marked out half a year ago. Soon enough he started accusing me of mysogyny,[87] refusing to strike that insult when I asked him to.[88] Now he is already resorting to the f-word.[89] Then the cat came out of the sack and he admitted his problem is with the difference in the amount of pictures of men and women.[90] I have nothing against pictures of women, as long as they are of good quality and representative of the article's subject (which the pictures we are edit warring about are not), but is do have a serious problem with pointy editing when it leads to disruptive behavior.

While admitting that it takes two to wag a war, I want to ask some admin to explain to Nomoskedasticity that 1. he must first obtain consensus, and not edit war when his bold edits are reverted (I reminded him of WP:BRD[91]). 2. That the full name of WP:POINT is "Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point" and he is being disruptive. If he wants that all articles should have the same amount of pictures of men and women, let him open a broad discussion about that, without edit warring about it on a specific article. Debresser (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

You both know better. Roxy the dog. bark 18:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While he may not be expressing it particularly civilly, Nomoskedasticity certainly appears to have a valid point. Presumably 50% of Haredi Jews are female, but on the current version one sees 16 men (plus an apparently all-male crowd shot) before the first female is seen, and the "Styles of Haredi dress" collage doesn't show a single woman. ‑ Iridescent 18:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The article has two paragraphs on Haredi female dress and a six paragraph section on gender issues. I have to say that it is not unreasonable to request more images of women in the article, and that images of men alone would be at best dubiously "representative" of, for instance, female dress, although I think the rhetoric could be toned town a bit. John Carter (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

yep. agree. The arguments Debresser is making at the talk page could apply equally well to images already in the article, and as for this filing, the OP deserves at minimum a trout. Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Umm... While the above has nothing to do with the problem, I'm going to focus on the actual issue for a minute here. We have a disruptive editor here who has referred to one editor as a misognyist for apparently no good reason. So, that's an NPA and not incivility. If you want to talk about replacing images, take it to the talk page, this is not the place for a discussion about content. Further that same editor is edit-warring - and maybe socking just to avoid the appearance of edit-warring. So I'm going to hand down a warning and hope that a warning may get it through to them that their behaviour is not conducive to a collaborative environment and that they should try calm discussion rather than the frankly shit approach of EW and NPA they've decided upon. I'm not gonna lie, I'm a bit disappointed with the above, quite sad that an offensive label being handed down is no issue just carry on, but, the fact that an article doesn't currently have equal representation is an issue that supercedes civility and/or NPA. That said, frankly, this is a whole crock of shite and somebody should close away. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

As above, I have handed a short warning with links to dispute resolution and rfc for added bonus. Hopefully, we won't see a repetition of the labelling, and, perhaps exterior resolution to this image issue. Trouted as well per request. Carry on. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The word "misogynist" was not used, so you'll need to correct your understanding. "Misogyny" refers to the contribution, not the editor -- exactly as the policy requires. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, come on! What in the phrase "Your misogyny is showing" is not about me? Debresser (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

It's pretty clearly a personal attack, Nomoskedasticity. The phrase was: your misogyny is showing. That specifically accuses Debresser of misogyny. There's no need to argue about it; just strike and move on. AlexEng^(TALK) 21:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Even if there was some technicality, which there isn't, where you could say it was his edits that were misogynist, it's just a clever way to level an attack and then wikilawyer innocence.--v/r - TP 23:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I added two pictures of Haredi women that are appropriate for the article. One issue is that it's inherently more difficult to get pictures of Haredi women than Haredi men. I am trying to get more appropriate pictures, but I don't think a picture of a couple is a net positive for the article, it doesn't do anything. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 19:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

There are reasons that here are indeed less pictures of women than of men, as I explained on the talkpage. In addition, the proposed pictures weren't all that good, to say the least about one of them. But most of all it is the personal agenda that I am not happy with: we don't need crusading editors on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I think we are definitely at the limit of how many pictures this article should have. Actually, I think we past it. Debresser (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

And yet you only want to delete pictures of women. How interesting. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it's worth providing some background information here. Most Haredi Jews don't want to encounter portrayals of women in public; Haredi newspapers would never include a photograph showing a woman. (There was a notorious incident where a photograph of national leaders was photoshopped to remove someone prominent who was in the group -- might have been Hillary Clinton, or Angela Merkel, can't remember.) There's also a prohibition on listening to a woman sing. What we likely have here, then, is something very similar to the Mohammed pictures/representations issue. Now, I don't know for sure about the editors in question -- but it's not hard to imagine that if certain editors were themselves Haredi they might object on religious grounds to an article on Haredi Jews that included photographs of women. It's possible that they know better than to express their objections in these terms. In any event, if this factor is coming into play (behind the scenes, as it were), it would help to understand the opposition and the fact that the arguments offered are so weak. Naturally the outcome we get to here should be the same as in the Mohammed instance. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

"editors in question?" I added three relevant photos of women or groups of women to the article. My problem with your pictures is just that it doesn't do anything to the article other than being a picture of women. Don't start putting labels of misogyny on my head now too. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 21:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for what I acknowledge would be an inaccurate insinuation. I had in mind more of the older history of this issue; it flared up a few years ago as well. But I definitely don't include you in the general stuff I wrote above.Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

If, as is indicated above, there are perhaps some reasonable questions whether editors here might have some sort of direct or sympathetic POV problem regarding images of women on this topic, I very definitely think that an RfC involving outsiders would be useful. Especially if there is ever a reasonable chance of individual biographies of Haredi women or men with very close ties to individual women, which presumably might reasonably include pictures of those women. John Carter (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

... and PS just noticed that the Category:Haredi Judaism doesn't have the subcategories for "Haredi people" that we generally find, just a subcat on Haredi rabbis, but neither "Haredi men" nor "Haredi women." Just FWIW. John Carter (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Admins, he is doing it again! "editors in question?" I demand an apology for this insulting accusation of prejudice against women! I am insuloted both personally, as well as religiously. If there is any prejudice here, it is Nomoskedasticity having a prejudice against religious Jews! May I remind you that the whole idea of viewing women as the source of sin etc. is Christian. Women are respected in Judaism, as well as loved. Rabbis marry. Etc., etc. I for one have stated consistently that I have specific problems with the pictures he added and with his edit warring. And then he suddenly revealed that he has an agenda and is an equal rights fighter (which, apparently, he thinks translates into the number of pictures on a page). An now he reveals that he has prejudices against religious Jews. I want this editor to be topic banned for a while. Debresser (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The Haredi burqa sect might not support all of the contentions above about Jews and women. John Carter (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Which is a minor sect , and condemned by all mainstream haredi leaders and laymen alike. Why do you bring such a negligible minority up at all, John Carter? It's like bringing the Amish as an example of standard Christianity. A comment that had better not been made. Debresser (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Basically, because it is one of the Haredi groups, and it seems to me that "hiding" images of Haredi women is the substance of Nomasketasticity's complaint. John Carter (talk) 01:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I count five photos on the article currently which include women or girls, though that is really a matter for the associated talk page. Demanding apologies here isn't likely to be fruitful, and it would be good to dial back the pointless drama. Jonathunder (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Continued

After this inadequate close (see User talk:EEng#FirstLast-ever close), which did not give time for editors to address the underlying behavioral problems of Nomoskedasticity, he continues with his disruptive editing. Please see a copy of my post on the talkpage of Haredi Judaism. I would like to see some stronger warnings issued to Nomoskedasticity at this time. Debresser (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity made another pointy and disruptive edit,[92] adding yet another picture to this article which is already tagged for having too many pictures.[93] This time he added a picture of a few women in prayer to the "Military" section, and called it "Protest against conscription of yeshiva students". I think this picture is not at all representative of the subject, so tried to improve the caption and wrote "Women praying in protest against conscription of yeshiva students". In either case, I think this picture is still not representative of the subject, since nothing in the picture shows "protest" or seems to have any connection to "conscription of yeshiva students". I have, quite frankly, had it with edits from this editor, adding pictures of women for the sake of adding pictures of women, in blatant disregard of the pictures being of bad quality, or as in this case completely not fitting. I will copy this post to WP:ANI for further input, but I propose 1. to remove this picture 2. to remind Nomoskedasticity to refrain from pointy edits

I'm puzzled. There's nothing pointy about the edit -- it adds a picture, no more. I simply went with what was given in the caption at Commons: "Protest against conscription of yeshiva students". Continuation of content dispute, apparently (though Debresser is now at the limit of 3RR, so that's an issue that could be addressed). If there are "too many pictures", one could solve that problem by deleting some pictures of men; I find it quite telling that the editor instead continues to delete pictures of women. (Yes, he deleted one of men as well -- so then that would create scope for adding pictures of women, no? Well, apparently not...) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm inclined to recommend that all addition and removal of images at Haredi Judaism stop immediately. That the current images are reviewed, those not needed taken out or moved elsewhere in the article, and, any potential additions be discussed prior to inclusion. This course is clearly not going to end amicably for either party. There are 12 current images across the 110k byte sized article and I don't consider this to be excessive on it's own, however, the positioning of the images makes one part of the article cramped and another empty. The first half of the article contains all but one of the images and five images are literally clumped together across three sections of prose (Dress, Neighbourhoods and Gender Separation). Not a clean look for the article at all. Take it to the talk page, and leave it at the talk page. If an admin feels like it, page protect the article for a few days so that talk page discussion can happen. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Full protection requested here Mr rnddude (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Vanamode has fully protected the article for a period of one week. That should give both parties ample time to do three key things; 1. Nomoskedasticity, find yourself some good content appropriate images which you would like to see added to the article. 2. Debresser, take a look at all of the images currently in the article, idenfity images that are inappopriate and images that would be more appropriate in another section of the article. 3. Take your findings to the article's talk page and calmly, civilly, discuss with each other and the other interested parties (Anna Frodesiak and AlexEng seem to have joined in hopes of resolving the issue and I believe Sir Joseph will also be interested). After the protection expires do one of two things; 1. If you have reached an equitable satisfactory solution for both parties, implement the new changes into the article. 2. If you have not reached a consensus, WP:DR is the next appropriate venue to take the discussion. I - like most others - do not want to see any more labels thrown around or any more edit-warring over content. There are better solutions to the image dispute than this venue. More lighthearedly; The drama boards are for drama only, not content. I find this to be a drab and melancholy dispute, AN/I is typically reserved for David and Goliath epics of abuse, incivility, and other warfare. Begone with your pitiful dispute, leave this board, and never return. More generally; Thanks and hopefully more happy editing, Mr rnddude (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Isn't that what I said? EEng 17:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

You mean in your close? yeah, more or less. I'm not entirely sure why SL removed your close, I didn't see anything I'd term germane - unless SL is referring to the page protection change - (or new at least), just more content dispute and a repeated request to go to talk. I don't know, if no new development comes up just do a new close If you're willing to try it again.. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole. My closing days are over. EEng 18:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with your close. This is a content dispute, as you said. Jonathunder (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Off with her head!

• I want Softlavender desysopped for reverting my close. My feelings have been hurt and I feel BITTEN. EEng 23:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Blocked and desysopped. EEng 23:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender is not an admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Like I didn't know that. I want her desysopped preemptively. EEng 03:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah! A predesysop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Brilliant idea, even if I do say so myself. Think of the trouble it would save if we predesysopped all editors right now. It would end all wheel-warring, obviate AN -- any number of benefits would flow.

But I'm not saying preop. That would be rude. EEng 05:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection of Greg Lake

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 have just semi-protected Greg Lake for 24 hours after several IPs changed his date of death from 6 to 7 December, as this is typical behaviour of the Cause of death vandal. As the CODV jumps IPs, I don't think a block would be appropriate at this stage. However, it's not beyond the boundary of possibilities that the BBC source I consulted is wrong, and numerous IPs have made many good-faith edits today, so a protection is overkill and frankly I'm probably WP:INVOLVED having just done a whole load of copyediting and sourcing on it. Can somebody else take a look? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• There's no correction but that article is now reporting "He died on Wednesday after 'a long and stubborn battle with cancer', said his manager." Semi-protection might still be a reasonable precaution for a high-traffic article, but I think this is probably just a case of evolving information and not vandalism. I took the precaution of getting an Archive.org snapshot: [94]. Mackensen (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I have unprotected as I am satisfied 7 December is what multiple sources are now supporting. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Ritchie. Karst (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Keri

User:Keri and I have been involved in various content disputes on the page Generation Snowflake, mostly related to NPOV. My view is that the page is heavily slanted towards the narrative that millennials are coddled, over-sensitive, can't handle contrary opinions etc. Rather than discuss the matter civilly, Keri has persistently attacked me and accused me of bad faith.

In my very first interaction, I am accused of "POV pushing". Despite the fact that I have engaged in discussion, I am slapped with a template and reported for edit warring. Upon being advised by an admin to assume good faith, he says "As MaxBrowne clearly does not wish to engage in discussion - merely roll up, push POV, edit war to maintain it, then fuck off into the sunset again - that is not particularly helpful." - again a clear personal attack and assumption of bad faith. On being advised that no violation took place, he denies that my attempts at discussion were substantive with another offensive suggestion that my edits were disruptive and "pointy" just because I just because I substituted a NPOV template to cover the whole article, not just the lead. I noted this and reminded him yet again of AGF.

After more unpleasantness I advise them that I intend to disengage. They respond with further personal attacks. In reporting me for edit warring again, the incivility continues - I am accused of withdrawing "in a huff" and of "gaming the system", an accusation gratuitously repeated here. I made it clear at this point that I was fed up with this user's persistent personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith and battleground behaviour. However I was blocked for 3 days (reduced to 24 hours) for a technical 3RR violation while his incivility went unpunished.

After a post on the talk page in which I severely criticized one of the sources used, without engaging in discussion at all (unlike DynaGirl) they immediately attack me personally, accusing me of "clutching at straws" and "threatening" me with an article ban. This is followed by gloating at my block for 3RR. I then issued a final warning to cease the assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks. The response was "AGF is not a suicide pact", whatever that means.

Concerning the disputed source, having made no headway in my discussions with DynaGirl (Keri did not participate) I raised my concerns with the source at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. I was advised that the issue was related to NPOV rather than RS, as GQ is "considered a reliable source" (for how to match your shoes with your Armani suit maybe!). Accordingly I raised the issue at the NPOV noticeboard, and advised the users DynaGirl and Keri of it as required. Keri [95] responds with more snark and more bad faith accusations. No I'm not "asking the other parent", in fact the editors at RSN were helpful and for the most part agreed with my position, but advised that RSN was not the correct venue. Keri then makes a copypasta to both noticeboards [96] & ([97], clearly disruptive and hindering actual discussion of the issue involved.

This user has shown a consistent pattern of personalizing content disputes, personal attacks and assuming bad faith over the past two weeks, and has continued with this behaviour even after a final warning. This must stop. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@MaxBrown:Just out of interest, why have you listed this on 3 different noticeboards in the last 5 hours or so? You've brought this matter up at the Reliable Sources noticeboard, at the Neutral POV noticeboard, and now here. And there's the ongoing discussion at the article's Talk page. Couldn't things be solved there? Yintan  14:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

This is concerned with the behaviour of the person concerned and is separate from the content dispute. MaxBrowne (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to wait for both sides to state their view on this before I can. I respect that Max feels personally attacked, and don't think it's my right to say whether they are or not. For a start, I think there are two actions to do away with – the use of "Fuck off" (by both users) and the templates. The former just doesn't get you anywhere, period. As for the latter, WP:DTTR, while merely an essay, does have good points, and templating just causes more animosity. Max, if you don't want to be templated, you might wish to put the {{DTM}} template on your talk page. I have it on mine. In fact, to be honest, it might be better to just stop leaving each other messages, for now, at least. As far as the actual dispute on the Generation Snowflake article is concerned, noticeboard threads might be making things worse, so maybe an RfC might be of use? Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 15:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

More snark, and an apparent refusal to respond when called to account for his behaviour. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Just to comment as I responded at the original RSN post (as did Masem who concurred) - GQ is reliable for the opinion of a GQ writer, which was how the content was cited and used in the article. *Should* the material be in the article was an UNDUE/NPOV issue, so asking at the NPOV noticeboard for further guidance should not be held against Max. Max, generally in cases like these its best to try and detach from interacting directly with the other party once you have brought it to the attention of other editors. Duck's back etc etc. Its clearly not forumshopping if people have pointed you to the relevant place. Give it a day or so for some more editors to opine at NPOV and go from there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The RS/NPOV stuff will no doubt sort itself out with more eyes. But the civility/assumption of bad faith stuff....this is what I'm raising on this board. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Harassment-only account

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, Could an uninvolved admin please look into the editing of new account 1brnn (talk · contribs). Their only edits other than a couple to their user page have been to post abuse on my talk page [98], [99] and revert one of my changes for no reason [100]. Judging from the abuse, they may have some connection to indef-blocked Communicat (talk · contribs). Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked them as being WP:NOTHERE. First edits after creating an account is to immediately attack another editor? Yeah, this is definitely someone's dirty laundry, and they aren't here to work on the project. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that Nick-D (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Blocked user editing by IP

Blocked user Hawkeye75 appears to be editing via 108.195.42.41. A comparison of their editing histories seems to indicate that they are the same editor. I'm not going to notify HE75 because their talk page access is revoked. If I am incorrect in assuming that contact isn't necessary here please correct me. --Adam in MO Talk 04:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Certainly appears to be some commonality in subject matter. I doubt there is much that can be done however, as Hawkeye75 has been blocked too long for check user to do any good. John from Idegon (talk) 06:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)@Adamfinmo: Did you see User talk:108.195.42.41#WP:EVADE? Perhaps SummerPhDv2.0 might be able to shed some light on this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I can add much light here. I had noted the IP's edits obscuring the distinction between Ross Bagdasarian Jr. and Ross Bagdasarian Sr. Based on that and their other edits, I had them pegged as either Harry_(singer)[101] or possibly Ritvik12. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• This is really sad, honestly. If that is him, I can't understand why he didn't just take the blocking admin's advice. The community was so unsure if it wanted to block him the first time that, even if he hadn't learned his lesson, it would have been so easy for him to convince us he had long enough to get unblocked.

By the way, unless something has changed, CU won't publicly identify an IP with a named account except in special cases (and I'm not even sure what those are). That said, Hawkeye75's last logged-in edit was on September 17, so CU can still catch socks in theory. I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with how long his account has been blocked.

Anyway, if behavioural evidence indicates that it is Hawkeye75, then the IP should be blocked for an appropriate finite length of time a note should be left on Hawkeye75's user page (where he can't remove it) that he was editing logged out to evade his block, just so no one unblocks him based on the assumption that he wasn't block-evading.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• I will say that it is  Unlikely that the IP is Hawkeye75, and that there are no accounts currently associated with that IP address. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I just found it extremely odd that they IP has a gap in editing at precisely the same time frame that HE75 was active. There was considerable editing to amusement park rides, which was an interest area of HE75. They both had several edits to The Twilight Zone Tower of Terror, this year but none at the same time. That seems bizarre to me. I don't know the technical details but the editing patterns seem similar. I guess this is a wait and see situation.--Adam in MO Talk 23:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring on Coney Island Hot dog 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.

---

An edit war regarding the Coney Island hot dog article was started by User talk:Spshu. Please monitor that article. I understand that a 3RR violation locks the article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I've restored the content to the pre-dispute state of 2 November, and locked the page for a week for them to discuss it. While this article is being mentioned here on a public page, I'll note to any passing readers that the article could use more eyes; the bottom 3/4 of that page looks like a gigantic spam-fest, a veritable "here's where Wikipedia thinks you should go to get a hot dog when you're in Indiana" type directory, masquerading as an article.

Also, due to the hypocricy of all three editors (God I hate it when people revert other people and then say "don't edit war!"), I will also block any of them for a week if they question the motivation of any of the others, or if (even when protection expires) they make similar edits that do not have consensus. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, I see your break has left you really mellow. Bishonen | talk 21:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC).

Maybe Flo would like some suggestions on where to get a snack. Mmmm, hot dogs. Jonathunder (talk) 22:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Only weenies edit-war. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, I've used that "argument" too; I plead guilty. I think you should block me until after Christmas. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Soekarno-Hatta International Airport

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 tried to remove a destination in the article which does not exist, but an anonymous user tried to put it back. What concerned me is that he called me something very vulgar in Indonesian which means (sorry) "son of a prostitute". I need the administrators to help me in this issue. Please check the revision history of the article for the evidence. Cheers. Calvin Wisanto (talk) 10:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, that IP has a history and it's not good. APK whisper in my ear 10:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for the usual time. A longer block or range block can be performed if this behavior persists. -- The Anome (talk) 11:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

On review of the IP's editing history, I've now upped this to a month. -- The Anome (talk) 11:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Patroller1 (talk · contribs) aka Cymonah2 (talk · contribs)

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.

---

Can someone take care of this? APK whisper in my ear 11:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Appears to be a relatively clearcut case of WP:NOTHERE. Notified the editor for you. Kleuske (talk) 11:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Legal threats by user Duqsene

NO ACTION NEEDED:

Not a legal threat, a harmless warning, that's all. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 20:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

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

---

I don't know what (if anything) should be done about this, so just raising it here. User:Duqsene is suggesting to sue Wikipedia in this revision: [102]. User says: "The Tigre people for example do not want to be called Abyssinian, this can bring a potential lawsuit by members of that community against wikipedia for misrepresentation.". I don't know if user is speaking on behalf of the people but somehow he is suggesting lawsuit against Wikipedia. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 17:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, you are required to notify an editor when you open a discussion about them here, and you have not done so. I am going to do so for you now. MPS1992 (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I was late but I see that user is notified. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Keyword "example" I am not a member of that community, what i meant is that it can be viewed as defamation. Duqsene (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Not a lawyer, but my best guess is that there are no grounds in American law for such a lawsuit, and any such lawsuit filed would fail. We have this thing in the U.S. called "Freedom of Speech". Don't go around talking about lawsuits, it's likely to get you into trouble, especially when you don't seem to have a clue about what you're talking about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the advice, I guess it was a very bad analogy. Duqsene (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Dbrodbeck

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 concerned about this editor's conduct. Initially he warned be about an edit war I was involved in[103]. So far so good. After all, I am on three. However, I believe it is highly inappropriate to deliver these warnings when his avowed intention was to get involved. And what else? Only one editor before him was involved in the same edit war, Synthwave94, but Dbrodbeck refused totally to warn HIM. He said he didn't want to template the regulars but I think this is a weak excuse when someone has become involved. Who said it had to be a template? Just a simple note that Drodbeck had noted this user was also making reverts. Yes Dbrodbeck opened a discussion AFTER reverting me, but I believe he could have done this without reverting me, and so I invited him to either self-revert or notify Synthwave[104]. Dbrodbeck refused so it is clear that this is WP:TE masked behind "policies". Dumfounded watsD (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't tend to template regulars, this is true. I also first ran into the OP when he clearly violated WP:CIVIL with an edit summary after removing referenced content. [105]. There is a discussion going on at Seek & Destroy currently that seems productive. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I strongly urge Dumfounded watsD to WP:DROP the stick. His first edits were uncivil, okay that passed, but Dbrodbeck does edit in good faith and is unlikely to continue at this point. --Osterrich (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

No prob. And thanks. I'm happy to conclude here with no action needed. Dumfounded watsD (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Sagecandors by Crossswords

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.

---

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

He goes after all my significant edits recently just to make edit wars and harass me, he doesnt want to debate and find consensus by opening a Talk section, he engages in edit wars on subject he isnt even interested in the first place. And then he constantly tried to smear my image by telling others that my behavior is that of a Kremlin mouth piece, probably for me being half Russian. But meanwhile its him who edits the entire day from 0:00 to 8:00 and then from 15:00 to 0:00 and so on. Its highly unlikely someone has that much freetime, and it should be considered and pointed out as he accuses (or suggest by the way of his posts) that anyone else who disagrees is by being paid by the Kremlin.

• complains

-This and the other day when he mass flagged my pictures on Wikimedia is clear harassment. He was warned by @Ankry

-More proof how other users feel harassed. As can be seen in the conversation between @LavaBaron @SashiRolls

- He doesnt go into debate and even deletes messages and complaining from other people who disagree in his Talk page without replying, Proof: My reply, 2, 3, 4. This user uses Talk pages frequently to tell others about their misbehaviors (in his eyes), threatening them that they get blocked for every edit they make without actually having this authority. Yet he is the one not wanting to have any debate about his behavior.

- He also deletes messages and replies from other users in noticeboards like here, and he even tries then to change and overwrite my reply without telling it so no one can notice it, like here. This is clearly unacceptable behavior.

- And hes constantly engaged in this Fake News Article and everything related to it like the so called 'Russian paid bots' etc. Yet hes the one whos now constantly on this site editing permanently, 17 hours a day. How is that normal for a user? He should be highly invistaged and asked about his motives.--Crossswords (talk) 08:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• There's a lot of different complaints going on here. But I will say I've gotten some great feedback lately from admins including Ian.thomson and Neutrality.
• Unfortunately there were a couple problematic users recently in articles I was trying to improve upon on topics related to Russian propaganda. After much attempts at talk page discussion over article content issues, it was determined unfortunately there were behavioral conduct concerns as well. And so users Maslowsneeds [106] and Solntsa90 [107] were reported to the Arbitration Enforcement page and dealt with separately, the first by JzG and the second by EdJohnston.
• I hope to be able to respectfully work out differences with Crossswords over any specific content issues on article talk pages, but there has been some troubling behavior lately. This includes: tagging a disambiguation page with citation needed [108] which was reverted by Clpo13, page blanking whole sections of major conflicts from the page Military history of the Soviet Union [109] which was reverted by BB-PB, and adding an unreliable source by Joseph Stalin to the article Great Depression [110] which was reverted by North Shoreman. Sagecandor (talk) 08:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• And what is your point Sagecandor? All these issues were resolved quickly for you without edit wars. They only show the example what i mean that you went and edit on things i edited before, you werent interrested in the Great Depression until i edited there. This is another misbehavior that is a general problem on Wikipedia which is stalking other peoples edits.--Crossswords (talk) 08:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• After getting good advice on the other website Wikimedia Commons I certainly did listen to that, which was over one week ago. As for edits by Crossswords (talk · contribs) at article Great Depression [111] [112] [113] -- unfortunately these appear to be WP:LINKSPAM. I started a talk page discussion about it, but Crossswords never showed up to respond. Instead, North Shoreman helpfully pointed out the edits were disruptive [114], and Rjensen educated me that Joseph Stalin plain made-up faked statistics and lies [115] so this really failed as a reliable source to begin with. Sagecandor (talk) 08:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@Crossswords: I had that much free time when I was in college (in part because I'd edit during class), and especially whenever I was between jobs. Plus, some people have jobs that largely consist of waiting for something to happen (off the top of my head, among my friends and relatives with comparable free time: nightshift IT workers for intentionally static systems, acquisitions in the Air Force, on-call manager for a hotel...). User are allowed to delete messages on their own talk pages, so I don't see what the complaint is there. Do you have any links to threatening messages that are not standard template messages?

@Sagecandor: this removal was indeed questionable. That said, @Crossswords: Sagecandor does the proper thing by providing plenty of WP:DIFFs to demonstrate misbehavior. Show, don't tell. Also, where does he specifically accuse you of being paid by the Kremlin? Unevidenced accusations (including unevidenced accusations of accusations) are considered personal attacks.

Overall, based on what I'm seeing so far, I strongly recommend that Crossswords withdraw and let everyone just say "eh, content dispute," as further investigation may come back to haunt him. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, Ian.thomson, I accept you're right that this wasn't the best behavior on my part. I do edit while watching videos and reading and doing other things and I admit the focus on how I spend my time in my life both here in the original poster's filing and at WT:MILHIST [116] felt like a personal attack to me, and hurtful. I let it get to me and that was wrong on my part. Sagecandor (talk) 09:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I became aware of this discussion as a result of a notification made by Crossswords on my talk page. I spent a little time working on the page Fake news website, until User:Sagecandor cast aspersions on me at the NPOV noticeboard and left a warning on my talk page. I have edited in spaces that some of the same editors (particularly Neutrality) have been heavily invested in before., and as such, I have taken screenshots of some of the diffs at AE, which, in my humble outsider's opinion, has been fully living up to its reputation as being a "drama board": plays that come to mind would include, say, Danton, The Crucible, and most recently the morality plays of Medieval times (with characters such as "Sagecandor" and "Neutrality" on center stage: see especially this diff whose author I have thanked for the chuckle). I have mentioned some of these trials on Jimbo's page (here), as many of you are most likely aware. One of the several straightforward responses I got was that Wikipedia was indeed very hard for newbies, who tend to come to high-profile political pages first, where their edits are generally quickly thrown out, as they don't formally respect WP procedures in one way or many. I am therefore an involved editor (having myself experienced these growing pains and having even been tbanned for them), though I've certainly kept myself away from any edit warring. After all, Neutrality has his eye on me as much as I have my eye on him. I was sad to see an edit of mine written into two vignettes/scenes on the dramaboards (Maslowsneeds, Hidden Tempo) I still maintain this was a reasonable "bold" proposal, though Neutrality has stated no reasonable rational person could maintain such a thing. I won't fight him on that (but will agree to disagree). I will however cite him on that in discussions of behavior.

This is my attempt at transparency. @Sagecandor: , I was recently asked on my talk page if I had ever edited Wikipedia before. I answered the question and left that answer on my talk page for all to see. You have archived all of the questioning messages that you have received. I'm surprised how quickly you learned to archive, to use extended footnotes, template an article as "busy" for extended edits, cite at least a dozen Wikipedia rules (with relevance), master the template at AE, write denunciations on blocking administrator's talk pages, etc., etc. It is for these behavioral reasons that I am asking you if you have ever edited Wikipedia under a different name, if you have taken advantage of a clean start rehabilitation program, if you are just an astonishingly adept newbie. I'm also curious if you generally edit pages off-line or in a sandbox prior to adding them to articles paragraph by paragraph? Your editing speed really does surprise me. Thank you for answering this question about your Wikipedian editing history, Sagecandor. SashiRolls (talk) 12:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Another SashiRolls grievance-fest. Sagecandor did not "cast aspersions" -- how about some diffs? -- but questioned your attempt to use Russia Today in Fake news website as if it were some reliable source. And then there's your thwarted attempt to jam in a bit of off-topic political spin against an iedological enemy.

Oh, and User:Crossswords really shouldn't be canvassing users to drum up support. --Calton | Talk 14:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Sir. The diffs are provided above. Please click on NPOV noticeboard above in my statement, or in the statement made by Crossswords above (the line where he pings me and LavaBaron. Your claim that I tried to insert an article from Russia Today into the article is demonstrably false. My criticized edit was sourced to The Daily Beast and The New York Times. Facts are best. Not made-up charges. I've provided the diffs you asked for, will you do the same? Will Sagecandor answer my question? Time will tell. SashiRolls (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Has anyone ever been topic banned from noticeboards? TimothyJosephWood 15:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes. User:Everyking, for continued sniping while failing to familiarize himself with the facts before commenting. Is there a reason for asking? --Calton | Talk 15:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

_{oh...no reason...}TimothyJosephWood 15:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems clear that Sagecandor is not a brand new user, jumping right into talk pages, reverts, etc. That said, the only reason it's a problem is if this account is to circumvent a block/sanction, or if he/she is editing in some other illegitimate fashion outlined in WP:SOCK. Sagecandor is sort of an SPA, with an emphasis on fake news website, absolutely dominating the article and talk page. I can see how someone making hundreds of edits in a small period of time could be frustrating on an actively edited article, but as far as I can tell, the content of Sagecandor's edits are not (from what I've seen) problematic, and in fact I've seen many attempts at encouraging discussion. I don't think it makes any sense to criticize someone for spending a lot of time improving Wikipedia. I've talked to many people who are, as far as I know, not e.g. government agents who did so while off from school, while out of work, while sick, or just out of a sense of mission/dedication. There are many reasons. And he/she was certainly in the right to remove the irrelevant personal attacks. Similarly, one can remove notices from one's own talk page. That activity spread to Commons is a little concerning, since it suggests possible targeting (or at least perceived), and Sagecandor would do well to consider letting others deal with problems when it's with someone you're engaged in other disagreements with. Unless there's compelling evidence for an SPI, I haven't seen any evidence for any admin intervention at this point, though (either presented by OP or personally). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

So if s/he were JayJasper that would be a problem, but if he were just a power-user's 2nd account, that would be OK as long as the power-user didn't themselves vote in the same RfCs? Truly perplexing. :) SashiRolls (talk) 15:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites:Thank you for saying, "the content of Sagecandor's edits are not (from what I've seen) problematic, and in fact I've seen many attempts at encouraging discussion. I don't think it makes any sense to criticize someone for spending a lot of time improving Wikipedia." Unfortunately I agree with you about my edits to Commons last week, and after the guidance from users there I've not had a similar issue from that time one week ago. Sagecandor (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why is it perplexing? I don't know JayJasper and don't intend to catch myself up just to reply, but if someone has not lost editing privileges there are legitimate reasons for a sock; if they have lost editing privileges, it's a problem. Don't have to be a power user, and has nothing to do with RfCs. See WP:SOCK (that talk page or the teahouse would be a better place for questions about how it works). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, but given the clear personal attacks mentioned above (please note I did not bring this action here, but am commenting on it now that it *is* here), I believe I am within my rights to ask Sagecandor about his/her previous editorship / main account. Everyone can draw their own conclusions from his/her response (or lack of response) to the question asked. That's all. This page is not on my watchlist, so if you would like my attention here, please ping me. SashiRolls (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

If the user was being disruptive (especially if more disruptive than productive), it would be appropriate to ask about previous accounts. However, no good-faith evidence has been provided as far as experienced editors can tell. If there was evidence of block evasion, it would be appropriate to investigate it. However, none has been provided. It's not at all perplexing that if a more-or-less experienced user retired and comes back under a new account that they not be harassed for doing so -- see Wikipedia:Clean start. So, unless you have any evidence, drop the issue before this thread becomes about you. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Calton, Ian.thomson, and Rhododendrites. I see no improper conduct by Sagecandor — I don't always agree with him re: article content, but he productively edits, discusses at talk when issues arise, and is generally a very good user. On the other hand, I see plenty of bad-faith assumptions, battleground mentality, grievance-mongering, and so forth by those who are hounding him here. Neutrality^talk 17:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support 72-Hour Block of Sagecandor for TPO Violation and NOTHERE I didn't follow this whole drama so can't speak to it beyond a very limited incident I experienced. On 2DEC2016 Sagecandor went to the NPOV noticeboard and declared he was concerned about "Russian propaganda accounts" [sic], linking to diffs [117] by SashiRolls and Crosswords without pinging them. I alerted Sagecandor [118] that it was recommended he ping an editor when accusing them of being a "Russian propaganda account" (which he'd implicitly done by linking to their edits as examples of "Russian propaganda"), as per WP:NOTIFY. Observing the unusual editor history behind this seemingly new account (Sagecandor), I also asked Sagecandor if he'd previously had a different account. At that point, Sagecandor deleted the entire thread, including my comments, [119] in violation of WP:TPO. I restored the thread. Based on this incident alone (again, I haven't followed everything else), and his apparent James Bond-esque obsession with "Russian" infiltration, it seems that Sagecandor is WP:NOTHERE; I believe a short block would be appropriate accompanied by a SPA investigation. TPO is a red line; once we can start editing/deleting others comments the whole WP system breaks down. LavaBaron (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment As noted by Calton, Ian.thomson, Rhododentrites, and Neutrality, I am here to build an encyclopedia. I have responded to talk page advice. In fact, everything cited by LavaBaron is from over one week ago. Sagecandor (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

A whole week ago? We don't edit/delete others Talk comments. You're obviously an experienced editor and know that. Editing others comments is usually cause for an indefinite block. I think I'm being generous by only suggesting 72 hours. LavaBaron (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Already discussed at top of thread above, in reply to Ian.thomson. Sagecandor (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't care whom you've previously discussed it with, honestly. That doesn't get you off-the-hook. Actually, apparently no you didn't - that case seems to have involved different deletions. This is the first instance brought up of you editing others Talk comments. You crossed a red line on which this entire project is built upon; integrity of the comment record. LavaBaron (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I haven't been following the current thread, but please block for 72 hours for something that happened a week ago, on the Administrator Noticeboard which neither I nor anyone else felt the need to report or block for at the time. Come now. Here, let me show you this. TimothyJosephWood 19:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree with your comment; I guess I could just delete it since that's apparently okay now, but I still believe in WP:TPO so won't. LavaBaron (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@LavaBaron: Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Blocking over a good-faith misapplication of WP:NPA from over a week ago that he's since been warned about would be a stupid block. Altering others' comments in itself is not immediate cause for an indefinite block -- that would have to be an obvious troll or vandalism only account. Also, there's this cornerstone of the website that someone who has been here almost two years should know about: WP:Assume good faith. While it's not a suicide pact, it should be maturely applied even when one clearly has some sort of grudge against another editor. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Suggest this be closed before those involved embarrass themselves further. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Suggest warning for SBHB. I was trying to figure out a clever way to link to wikt:world's smallest violin, and they have to go and spoil everything. TimothyJosephWood 20:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, but if we keep it open, we'll have enough WP:ROPE to block users who don't understand WP:AGF. Just kidding, obviously. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Offensive and unwarranted conduct

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 do not know if this behavior is common or not for the person but some sanction should be meted out for the response to my question yesterday at the reference desk. The post is here. I was told it is not the type of question appropriate for answer there. Fine. But I was also told "We don't offer advice on tax evasion.DOR (HK) (talk) 14:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)" This is unwarranted, unprofessional and offensive. My question asked nothing of the sort; I was seeking nothing of the sort; I would do nothing of the sort; and a person who would answer my question like that has no business giving advice in an advice forum. I am not looking for an apology. I learned probably before many of you were born that when not friends or family, forcing people to apologize to a stranger is a waste of everyone's time. The root of this is incompatibility with this person continuing in the role they have been assigned or assigned themselves given their action, if it's typical, and if not, a wake up call and gut check on how they continue in that role. I will follow the day-glo instructions about notifying the person.--67.244.114.239 (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

This is the thread in question for anyone else who is interested - now I'm no economist so I won't make any comment on if your question was or was not "tax evasion" but I will say that perhaps DOR (HK) could have worded their response in a more professional manner. .239, what is it exactly you'd like to see as a result of this complaint? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Keri

User:Keri and I have been involved in various content disputes on the page Generation Snowflake, mostly related to NPOV. My view is that the page is heavily slanted towards the narrative that millennials are coddled, over-sensitive, can't handle contrary opinions etc. Rather than discuss the matter civilly, Keri has persistently attacked me and accused me of bad faith.

In my very first interaction, I am accused of "POV pushing". Despite the fact that I have engaged in discussion, I am slapped with a template and reported for edit warring. Upon being advised by an admin to assume good faith, he says "As MaxBrowne clearly does not wish to engage in discussion - merely roll up, push POV, edit war to maintain it, then fuck off into the sunset again - that is not particularly helpful." - again a clear personal attack and assumption of bad faith. On being advised that no violation took place, he denies that my attempts at discussion were substantive with another offensive suggestion that my edits were disruptive and "pointy" just because I just because I substituted a NPOV template to cover the whole article, not just the lead. I noted this and reminded him yet again of AGF.

After more unpleasantness I advise them that I intend to disengage. They respond with further personal attacks. In reporting me for edit warring again, the incivility continues - I am accused of withdrawing "in a huff" and of "gaming the system", an accusation gratuitously repeated here. I made it clear at this point that I was fed up with this user's persistent personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith and battleground behaviour. However I was blocked for 3 days (reduced to 24 hours) for a technical 3RR violation while his incivility went unpunished.

After a post on the talk page in which I severely criticized one of the sources used, without engaging in discussion at all (unlike DynaGirl) they immediately attack me personally, accusing me of "clutching at straws" and "threatening" me with an article ban. This is followed by gloating at my block for 3RR. I then issued a final warning to cease the assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks. The response was "AGF is not a suicide pact", whatever that means.

Concerning the disputed source, having made no headway in my discussions with DynaGirl (Keri did not participate) I raised my concerns with the source at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. I was advised that the issue was related to NPOV rather than RS, as GQ is "considered a reliable source" (for how to match your shoes with your Armani suit maybe!). Accordingly I raised the issue at the NPOV noticeboard, and advised the users DynaGirl and Keri of it as required. Keri [120] responds with more snark and more bad faith accusations. No I'm not "asking the other parent", in fact the editors at RSN were helpful and for the most part agreed with my position, but advised that RSN was not the correct venue. Keri then makes a copypasta to both noticeboards [121] & ([122], clearly disruptive and hindering actual discussion of the issue involved.

This user has shown a consistent pattern of personalizing content disputes, personal attacks and assuming bad faith over the past two weeks, and has continued with this behaviour even after a final warning. This must stop. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@MaxBrown:Just out of interest, why have you listed this on 3 different noticeboards in the last 5 hours or so? You've brought this matter up at the Reliable Sources noticeboard, at the Neutral POV noticeboard, and now here. And there's the ongoing discussion at the article's Talk page. Couldn't things be solved there? Yintan  14:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

This is concerned with the behaviour of the person concerned and is separate from the content dispute. MaxBrowne (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to wait for both sides to state their view on this before I can. I respect that Max feels personally attacked, and don't think it's my right to say whether they are or not. For a start, I think there are two actions to do away with – the use of "Fuck off" (by both users) and the templates. The former just doesn't get you anywhere, period. As for the latter, WP:DTTR, while merely an essay, does have good points, and templating just causes more animosity. Max, if you don't want to be templated, you might wish to put the {{DTM}} template on your talk page. I have it on mine. In fact, to be honest, it might be better to just stop leaving each other messages, for now, at least. As far as the actual dispute on the Generation Snowflake article is concerned, noticeboard threads might be making things worse, so maybe an RfC might be of use? Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 15:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

More snark, and an apparent refusal to respond when called to account for his behaviour. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Just to comment as I responded at the original RSN post (as did Masem who concurred) - GQ is reliable for the opinion of a GQ writer, which was how the content was cited and used in the article. *Should* the material be in the article was an UNDUE/NPOV issue, so asking at the NPOV noticeboard for further guidance should not be held against Max. Max, generally in cases like these its best to try and detach from interacting directly with the other party once you have brought it to the attention of other editors. Duck's back etc etc. Its clearly not forumshopping if people have pointed you to the relevant place. Give it a day or so for some more editors to opine at NPOV and go from there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The RS/NPOV stuff will no doubt sort itself out with more eyes. But the civility/assumption of bad faith stuff....this is what I'm raising on this board. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Tendentious editing and WP:NOTHERE behavior by User:Cassandrathesceptic

Cassandrathesceptic (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • edit filter log • block user • block log) has been wasting other users' time with tendentious discussion on Scots language-related pages for years now, and I think it's time for a resolution. Cassandra takes the point of view that Scots is a variety of English, as opposed to a language. However, she never seems to be able to come up with sources that support this point of view. Nevertheless, she has been pushing it since at least this discussion in 2013, before she registered an account. After registration, it has been much the same. Generally her comments are without citation. When she does use sources, she either doesn't explain how they relate to the discussion or just changes them so they support her point. When challenged to explain how sources support her point of view, Cassandra directs users to a 7,000 word essay on her userpage (which I have not read and frankly have no interest in reading). I don't know why Cassandra is here, but it isn't to build an encyclopedia. I think a topic ban would be appropriate. agtx 15:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you point to anywhere that she's added outright problematic content, whether talk pages comments that are offensive or otherwise driving away people, or unsourced/badly sourced/inaccurate text into articles? Depending on what's being said, a talk page comment may not need sources, and if you find her writeups (of the sort that you linked) problematic, you can just ignore them. Nyttend (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

She makes very few edits in article space, as far as I can tell, unless they're being made while logged out (which, frankly, also raises questions as to what she's doing here). The problem is her tendentious style on talk pages, creating extended, time-wasting discussions that go around in circles. It's problematic because talk is how we resolve issues on Wikipedia. I think editors feel like if they don't engage with her, then it will appear as though her proposals are acceptable. agtx 00:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. But I'm afraid the exact reverse of Mutt Lunker's claims is the sad truth. Mutt is a serious obstacle to improvement to the Wiki articles about the Scots language and has for some years been guilty of repeated sabotage of my suggested improvements. I have spent a lot of time investigating this subject and have indeed posted those findings on my own Wikipage - and they are very well referenced. The problem is that M Lunker will not allow any unwelcome facts to appear on his beloved Scots language pages. I am staggered to read M Lunker's confession that he has not even bothered to read the evidence I have collected - but not too surprised. But if you would care to cast an eye over the material I've put together I'm confident that you or anyone else will readily accept that it is well researched and highly relevent. If you then flip over to my discussion page you will also be able to form a view about M Lunker's peculiar style. Thanks Cassandra Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 20:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I should explain that I mention Mutt Lunker here rather than user AGTX since I'm assuming that this note has either been actively promoted by him by him or is an alternative identity. Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

They're definitely not the same user, I can tell you that much. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Cassandrathesceptic kinda foolish to accuse those two users of being the same person with no evidence whatsoever.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The accusation that I'm a sock of Mutt is false and outrageous. Mutt and I have each been on Wikipedia for more than a decade, and I don't believe we've interacted before now. I'm sure that Cassandrathesceptic will withdraw this accusation immediately. agtx 01:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

In which case I apologise unreservedly. I do however urge you to read the information you've not read - you will find it more interesting than you imagine - I promise. Cassandra Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I doubt you are sorry Cassandrathesceptic you insulted Mutt Lunker here and accused him of orchestrating some sort of attack against you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

My apology really is most sincere. But I am afraid that I am the victim here. I have been obsessively and repeatedly harried, harrased, trolled, sabotaged, traduced, stalked and systematically attacked for years by user Mutt Lunker. The unwelcome (to M Lunker) facts my research often unearths appears to trigger intense, uncontrollable anger, and the vexatious and malicious action and accusations which often follows from it. Unable to attack the facts Mutt's tactic of choice is simply to shoot the unlucky messenger. His latest line of attack is to try and take down my Wikipage. The only complaints I've ever had have been from or been prompted by M Lunker. I'm certainly not the only person to be Lunkered. But if you doubt me try then disagreeing with him yourself and see what happens! Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 14:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

This statement again accuses me—baselessly—of conspiring with Mutt to complain against Cassandra. Mutt did not prompt my complaint. Cassandra's behavior did. agtx 16:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Seeing as I am being, ludicrously and transparently incorrectly, invoked as being in some way behind both this notification and the WP:MFD of the user's vast user page opinion piece (the accusation, to be fair, is as likely to be as much from a WP:COMPETENCE/understanding issue as one of malice) I ought to express that I strongly support both actions, much as they were in no way instigated by me.

Having observed this user's campaign of well over four years, it is abundantly apparent that they are indeed in no way Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia. Although there is the occasional edit on other matters, they seem to overwhelmingly focus on advancing their personal views on the Scots language, as noted above, encapsulated by their statement that the 'scots language' is in essence a modern Scots nationalist creation myth, and some other closely related topics, such as what they believe to truly count as Scotland ("Scot-land" as they put it (if I understand them correctly, which I may not, this discounts Scots/English-speaking areas)) and the consequence as to who truly counts as a Scot. Source material is usually employed to ostensibly support their position but almost without exception the most casual of inspections reveal that these have been subjected to unwarranted interpretation, cherry-picked, synthesised or simply and outrightly misrepresented. I assume their user page piece is similarly a vast collation of synth and misrepresentation but have no inclination to expend my time by checking.

Though the vast bulk of their activity is WP:NOTFORUM posting on talk pages, they have also made edits to articles on the basis of the views that they have advanced. I have no doubt that to simply ignore the repeated posting of their POVs would be viewed by them as a green light to implement their desired changes. Nothing seems to dissuade them that using talk pages as a forum is inappropriate and they persist in posting the same line, time after time. It is worth highlighting that although they do post on the talk pages of the articles to which their point could be seen as relating (if not appropriate from a WP:SOAP pov) , much, probably even the bulk, of their talk page campaign is tenuously WP:COATRACKed at articles which have no fundamental connection with the point they are advancing. I assume this is to evade scrutiny and to continue their campaign when their view hasn't been positively received at the more pertinent talk page.

The series of edits by this user in the first two and a half years of which I am aware is very difficult to track as they are from a large series of changing IPs, which are , in all likelihood, only partially listed here: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 92.5.15.139. This is an early Admin noticeboard thread concerning the user's behaviour, leading, I think, to their first block. These are details of blocks from this period:

IP blocks from 2012
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
20:13, 29 November 2012 EdJohnston (talk | contribs | block) blocked 92.12.99.105 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month (Abusing multiple accounts: Cassandra, the Scots language POV warrior. There was a past ANI discussion (search for 'Cassandra')) 20:01, 29 November 2012 EdJohnston (talk | contribs | block) blocked 92.5.0.0/19 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month (Continued unhelpful edits. Scots language POV warrior. See log entry for my previous block of this range) 23:20, 12 November 2012 EdJohnston (talk | contribs | block) blocked 92.5.0.0/19 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks (Abusing multiple accounts: Scots language POV warrior. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive774#Appropriate for semi-protection? Or another solution?)

Undeterred, the pattern of editing resumed soon after. After a very long time of attempted persuasion and numerous indications to the user that their continuing use of changing IPs after having incurred several blocks may strongly indicate an attempt to avoid scrutiny and sanction, they eventually signed up for a user account, only to return to IP-hopping again when they realised this made their activities more evident. They have edited both as a user and occasionally as an IP since.

Although they are not exactly a WP:SPA, only a fairly small proportion of their edits regard other fields but they exhibit similar WP:NOTHERE forum-style advancement of their personal researches.

Their concerted campaign over years shows that they are indefatigible in using talk page posts, confusingly scattered across numerous articles, to endlessly repeat unsupported WP:OR, obscuring matters by invoking transparently misrepresented sources. Ignoring this could lead an editor unfamiliar as to CtS's misuse of sources to give credence to their propositions and encourage CtS to implement their proposed changes. Keeping track of this campaign and investigating the latest proposition and accompanying misrepresentation of sources consumes considerable time that could be more profitably spent. A topic ban, and one wide enough to cover the Scots language, "Scot-land" and the Scots people would indeed be highly appropriate and beneficial. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Mutt Lunker has consulted me in the past about IP edits in the area of Scots language. In fact, the above box 'IP blocks from 2012' consists of rangeblocks that I issued in that year. Past discussions with Mutt are in my user talk archives.

Mutt's first report of the issue was at ANI in November 2012. I maintain the view I originally advanced in that ANI thread:

::It does not violate Wikipedia policy to promote a thesis about the Scots language across multiple articles, but to do so with no concern for consensus is a problem. The views expressed by Cassandra at Talk:History of the Scots language/Archive 1#Third Opinion request argue that Wikipedia has a duty to include her side of the argument, which of course is not something found in our policy. Repeatedly pushing your views at one article using multiple IPs (against others' objections) *does* violate WP:SOCK. I suggest three months of semiprotection for Scots language and History of the Scots language. EdJohnston (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Cassandra has been a kind of low-level nuisance on these articles since 2012 due to the IP socking (creating a need for range blocks and semiprotection). The user, while constantly shifting IPs, would often sign with the word 'Cassandra'. What's hard to take in the current thread are the above protestations of righteousness. ("I have been obsessively and repeatedly harried, harrased, trolled, sabotaged, traduced, stalked and systematically attacked for years by user Mutt Lunker"). It's my guess that if an WP:SPI report were opened on User:Cassandrathesceptic that included all the past socking that a block of the main account could be justified. To avoid that, I would advise Cassandrathesceptic to start following our policies and engage in good-faith pursuit of consensus, rather than using talk pages as a forum. The material that Cassandra has added at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cassandrathesceptic certainly verges on a personal attack against User:Mutt Lunker, given that Mutt's description of Cassandra's behavior is solidly based on diffs. The claim that she's been 'harassed and cyber-bullied' is far from the truth, based on anything I've seen. Perhaps other editors will advise on where to go from here, in the event that Cassandrathesceptic continues to make personal attacks and makes no offer to change her behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cassandrathesceptic, where User:Ks0stm is seeking deletion of the User:Cassandrathesceptic main userpage, which I read as specific action of attempted dispute resolution. I agree with User:Ks0stm that the userpage is not a good user's main userpage, and suggest a course of action with it that may usefully test for the presence of goodwill. I think that better self-expression by User:Cassandrathesceptic would be a good thing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

As expressed there, I have concerns that allowing their user page essay to remain in existence, whether moved from their user page or not, allows them to continue to tout it around article talk pages. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi All! I am by no means any kind of expert when it comes to Wikipedia editing. My father was a typesetter who, as a result, taught me to proofread from a very early age. That means that I am continuously checking everything I read - which is both a blessing and a curse - and, as such, most of my edits tend to me minor grammatical or language fixes. However I am also very interested in debating and I often go to the various Wikipedia dispute pages just so that I can read through people's disagreements. That is how I came to be familiar with this topic. I thought I might add my two cents in the hope that it will be helpful to the person adjudicating this matter. I have actually read through everything - including the very long and very informative information on the User:Cassandrathesceptic Wiki page - and so can provide an overview of the situation, which is as follows:

1. The overall dispute concerns the Scots Language and whether or not it is a distinct language, or a dialect of English. User:Cassandrathesceptic believes it to be a dialect of English - i.e. that the Scottish started speaking English differently and that's how Scots came about - whereas Mutt Lunker and basically everyone else, believes that it is a distinct language. Think of it this way; many people believe that we evolved from Apes. However that is not true! Actually the various apes - i.e. Gorillas, Chimpanzees, Orangutans, etc. - and Homosapiens have a common ancestor and so we can trace our origins back to an earlier species, but we did not evolve from one another. The question of the Scots language is similar. The general consensus is that English and Scots have a common Germanic language ancestor, but are distinctly different languages which simply share many similarities because of the common ancestor, and because they evolved side by side (so to speak). Whereas User:Cassandrathesceptic believes that English evolved from a Germanic language and Scots then evolved from it.

2. The entire problem then boils down to the general concensus and reliable sources. User:Cassandrathesceptic has a Wiki page which outlines their argument for Scots being a dialect of English. It is very interesting. However it isn't relevant because it constitutes original research which differs from the commonly held consensus. That is where the problem stems from.

3. Both sides have done things which they shouldn't do. That's pretty normal, as I'm sure you know. When people disagree on something it can often end up becoming very bitter and people sometimes do things because they are worke up and angry. I have to say that, in fact, all of the parties in this dispute have actually remained quite civil and polite towards one another; I've seen other disputes which have descended into World War III very quickly, whereas this dispute has literally gone on for several years without it getting too vicious at all.

4. Ultimately User:Cassandrathesceptic needs to understand that although (s)he may be right in what (s)he says - I won't pretend to know - it doesn't matter because that opinion is original research and goes against the general consensus. The commonly held opinion at this point in history is that Scots is a distinct language that is different from English, which evolved from a Germanic language, separately from English.

5. What you need to understand User:Cassandrathesceptic is that Wikipedia is not the place to make your argument that Scots evolved from English and is simply a different dialect. If you want to advance that opinion you should write a book about it, or go and get involved in a discussion with scholars and try to change their minds so that they write a book about it. Do whatever you need to do to get reliable sources out there to write something which agrees with your claim; then you can use those sources to update the various articles here on Wikipedia.

6. Sadly there are sometimes occasions when Wikipedia articles say things which are false. I'm not saying that your opinion is necessarily right, just that this might be one of those occasions. Everything on Wikipedia needs to have reliable sources which verify the claims made in the articles. So even if you are right, sadly the Wikipedia article will not be; not until such time as reliable sources agree with you.

7. Lastly, you have to be careful about using a reliable source to make a claim which the source doesn't actually support. A good example of this is the quote from http://www.scotslanguage.com/ and it's page entitled "What is Scots ?":

"Many people have heard about the Scots language but aren't sure what it is. Scots has been spoken in Scotland for several centuries and is found today throughout the Lowlands and Northern Isles. The name Scots is the national name for Scottish dialects sometimes also known as ‘Doric’, ‘Lallans’ and ‘Scotch’, or by more local names such as ‘Buchan’, ‘Dundonian’, ‘Glesca’ or ‘Shetland’. Taken altogether, Scottish dialects are known collectively as the Scots language. Scots is one of three native languages spoken in Scotland today, the other two being English and Scottish Gaelic".

In this case you have taken the following:

"The name Scots is the national name for Scottish dialects sometimes also known as ‘Doric’, ‘Lallans’ and ‘Scotch’, or by more local names such as ‘Buchan’, ‘Dundonian’, ‘Glesca’ or ‘Shetland’. Taken altogether, Scottish dialects are known collectively as the Scots language".

and used it to claim that it is referring to dialect of English, thus supporting your claim that Scots is nothing more than a variation of English. However the following sentence:

"Scots is one of three native languages spoken in Scotland today, the other two being English and Scottish Gaelic".

clearly means that Scots is a distinct language, not a dialect of English. The http://www.scotslanguage.com/ webpage very clearly supports the generally held concensus that Scots is not a dialect of English and is a distinct language. Further down the page is the statement that:

"The language originated with the tongue of the Angles who arrived in Scotland about AD 600, or 1,400 years ago. During the Middle Ages this language developed and grew apart from its sister tongue in England, until a distinct Scots language had evolved".

A "sister language" is a perfectly clear statement that Scots and English are distinct languages which have a common Germanic language ancestor. They are clearly stating that Scots and English evolved separately from "the tongue of the Angles". I mean ... it's very easy to see why there would be confusion about whether Scots evolved from English, or evolved from "the tongue of the Angles". Either way they are both going to be similar and the further back in time you go, the more similar they're going to be, until eventually they disappear and are the original language they both evolved from. It's no small wonder that the topic is debatable. However the current consensus is that they are distinct languages and that is what the article(s) must reflect. You can't cherry pick a sentence from a source and then use it to make a statement that clearly contradicts the overall viewpoint of that source. You're obviously a very smart, very articulate person and your opinion on this matter is very interesting. However you always have to remember that Wikipedia articles concern the generally held consensus and that consensus is not always factually correct. If you want a Wikipedia article to make a specific statement then you have to provide a reliable source which verifies that statement; your own opinion - no matter how detailed, how well argued, or how well researched - is not, in any way whatsoever, relevant or usable; even if it is completely correct and the general consensus, and the Wiki article, is completely wrong. Your own opinion and research does not constitute an alternate view which can be added to a Wiki article. The bottom line is: if you can't find a reliable source which supports the statement you want to make then you can't make the statement; even if the statement is factually correct. I hope this helps... FillsHerTease (talk) 11:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I've had a quick read of the post above but as it is based on the premise that "The overall dispute concerns the Scots Language and whether or not it is a distinct language, or a dialect of English. User:Cassandrathesceptic believes it to be a dialect of English - i.e. that the Scottish started speaking English differently and that's how Scots came about - whereas Mutt Lunker and basically everyone else, believes that it is a distinct language" I'm afraid it is likely to be at least in large part misconceived. This is in no way a content dispute.

I don't believe I have ever expressed a personal viewpoint on the matter of such a classification of Scots, unless I stated that I don't have one. Reliable sources have a diversity of opinion on the matter, or do not view it as particularly significant, and that's what counts in the article. I think some other editors may have mentioned a personal viewpoint in passing, including at least one with a broadly similar view to CtS, but have accepted that diversity of scholarly opinion, noted in the article.

The issue under discussion is CtS's behaviour in promoting their personal view, not that view itself. Calling in to question that someone is promoting a POV, and the way they are going about it, in no way means an adoption of the opposite of that POV.

Thanks for having a go though @FillsHerTease: .Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose The main trouble seems to be that "There is no consensus among language experts about what constitutes a language versus a dialect." If Cassandra is researching the matter in detail, marshalling sources about the issue, then this is quite legitimate. "Mony a mickle maks a muckle". Andrew D. (talk) 12:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Per my post immediately above, this is the very opposite of the issue under discussion here. The very person that seems to have a problem with there being "no consensus among language experts about what constitutes a language versus a dialect" is CtS, who insists that their view on the matter be regarded as if it was the consenus and has done in a sustained, tendentious campaign for over four years. That there is and has been no such consensus is covered prominently in the Scots language article from the start and not dwelt upon (Andrew's quote appears to be a slightly paraphrased quote from the Wikipedia article itself) - this is CtS's beef; to them the matter is clear cut and other reliably sourced views are to be deprecated. Regarding sources, CtS lists them copiously and, almost without exception, these are tranparently synthesised and misrepresented, which in no way resembles legitimate research. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• Be that as it may, this seems to be a fairly routine content dispute for which no admin action is required or appropriate. People wishing further illumination should please take a look at the main page of the Scots Wikipedia. I especially like the section heading "Did ye ken...?" Andrew D. (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• So you hold that there is no consensus on this matter by experts/WP:RS, as the article does, but support a user consistently campaigning to instead promote the position that there is a consensus? And classify this as a content dispute? I have no idea what illumination is supposed to be gleaned from the main page of the Scots Wiki. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive uploading by User:Andrew Parodi

I have put a number of the user's files up for discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 December 10#Uploads by User:Andrew Parodi, note that nearly every file has the user's name in it. That's not quite what I take issue with here, but it's worth mentioning my previous involvement with the user. Between November 30th and December 2nd, the user appears to be taken files from Commons and re-uploading them locally with his name somehow incorporated into the file name.

The files the user re-uploaded are

• File:Muhammad ali andrew parodi.jpeg
• File:Jackie robinson andrew parodi.jpeg
• File:Chōmo Hanashiro Andrew Parodi.jpeg
• File:Public domain 1939 image of Joe DiMaggio uploaded by Andrew Parodi.jpeg

I think it's worth looking into some kind of restriction on the user with regards to uploading and the naming of files. Thoughts? Jon Kolbert (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Here's one from sometime last year (File:Dave higginbotham by andrew parodi.jpg) which also looks suspicious. The editor has been here over 10 years, so it might take some time to see what else he's been uploading. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

It's worth noting that some have been transferred to commons. I am also not sure what's going on with File:Thewelcomingjesus.jpg and File:Living Enrichment Center's The Welcoming Jesus statue.jpg. The first file was uploaded May 19 2006 by Andrew, without metadata, the second file being uploaded by User:Maui Gem in June 2007 with metadata indicating the image was digitized May 18, 2006. Both uploaders, Andrew Parodi and Maui Gem, claim they own the rights to the image. Jon Kolbert (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2600:1000:B03B:C7F3:488:A4FF:85D8:2C05

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.

---

Per SPI [123] requesting block of known sock puppet Special:Contributions‎/2600:1000:B03B:C7F3:488:A4FF:85D8:2C05 and Special:Contributions/2600:1000:b077:de3b:107b:988e:24c7:23f8. Engaging in disruption and personal vendetta while clearly knowing what they are doing. [124]. Clearly abusing dynamic IP but just following the isntructions. SephyTheThird (talk) 15:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Persistant CSD Tag removal

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_talk:ApplesBananasOooooh44 has been blocked before for removing CSD tags. Further to this, a previously deleted article was re-created, and then CSD tags were removed again following a warning. I feel that a block here is appropriate. Thanks all. TheMagikCow (talk) 12:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Update: The user in question has again re-created the article. TheMagikCow (talk) 12:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

And I have redirected it to an appropriate article. It was tagged as an A11 but there was no indication that ApplesBananasOooooh44 made up the fictional rapper. - GB fan 13:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Edits To Granby

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.

---

Here are The Diffs https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Granby%2C_Quebec&type=revision&diff=754238989&oldid=754238884 Whoever this is does Not Know What a City Means Can you find out Who this is Please

Heres what you can Do

• 1.Warn the Person who said That Granby is a town
• 2.In the Warning say sources say That Granby is a city
• 3.Can you find Who this is — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Wright! (talk • contribs) 16:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I... uh... no action is needed for this. There's no edit war, misbehaviour, vandalizing editing, it's not even a content dispute. This is not an admin issue. Nobody is going to be blocked or punished for calling a "city" a "town". Mr rnddude (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Rnddude You will Get Blocked You are the One who said that Granby is a Town But its a city not a town Mr Wright! (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Ahem, well I think we all know where this is going. Skim the contribs and look at this thread, WP:NOTHERE comes into play very, very, quickly. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I Know But You Change Granby from City to town You Have a warning on your talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Wright! (talk • contribs) 17:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

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

New user needs immediate block

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:Donaldtrumpustdie, who vandalized an article here, needs an immediate block for username reasons alone. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Asilah1981 personal attacks and abuse

Asilah1981 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Recent personal attacks: [125],[126],[127],[128],[129],[130]

Asilah1981 was already blocked by EdJohnston for making personal attacks [131], he has continued to make editing toxic with a series of personal attacks, which have been escalating. Yesterday he launched numerous personal attacks and if you check his contributions, most of yesterday's comments in talk pages include sniping and attacks on other editors - I have included a limited number above. He has already accrued an impressive block log [132] with other blocks for personal attacks and whilst I seem to be the focus he has also attacked Kahastok and FOARP. Brought this to EdJohnston's attention here [133] yesterday, to which he responded with more of the same [134],[135]. Bringing it here with a suggestion for a cooling off block to prevent further disruption and consideration of a topic ban as he has made editing on Gibraltar topics completely toxic. WCM_email 08:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a.k.a Justin A Kuntz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

WCM were you not blocked for a significant period of time for your edits on this same article? Your edit warring and destructive editing has significantly increased since then. I am indeed frustrated with your behavior and I am vocal about expressing it. Others have been too, including a Gibraltarian editor who you managed to drive away from the article! I am, however, not reporting you or attempting to get you blocked again, despite your increasingly erratic attempts to destroy and censor it. I accept that you WP:OWN the Gibraltar-related articles and no one can add any sourced statements without your permission, not even General Assembly resolutions you deem were not supported by enough western people. I have given in to your WP:STONEWALL tactics and have given in to the fact that no one will ever be able to edit the article unless it is in a way which supports your political views. Just look at your attritionary and circular discussions with User:The Four Deuces. There is nothing I can do about that. But I won't accept you destroy this article even further with loony edits to further its slant towards one side of the Anglo-Spanish dispute. You have spent months reverting plain sourced fact on the basis of WP:JDL, enough to drive any wikipedian insane. Which is what you are succeeding to do with me. Asilah1981 (talk) 08:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Just an FYI (I have no view on the wider discussion), but WCM was blocked once, for 24 hours, in 2007. Their block log doesn't suggest any direct link with Gibraltar or Gibraltar topics. 84.93.51.170 (talk) 10:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban of Asilah1981 from all articles and talk pages related to Gibraltar. It's become clear that she can't work constructively with other editors on this topic. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Disagree. If any, it's obviously WCM the one that should be topic banned from Gibraltar-related articles for good (and not only for a while). I'm one of such editors driven away from Gibraltar-related articles as it's totally impossible agree on anything with WCM unless it's WCM biased version. To sum up, support topic ban Wee Curry Monster --Discasto (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
• The examples of Asilah1981's recent comments Wee Curry Monster noted at User talk:EdJohnston#Gibraltar are clearly unacceptable (eg, [136], [137], [138]). The tone and content of their response above also isn't acceptable. Similarly, their recent conduct at Talk:Gibraltar (eg, strongly pushing for the inclusion of UN resolutions in the article's lead and the like despite other editors' concerns about such material and making over-egged claims about the article being subjected to "insane" types of editing and censorship) is also unhelpful. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
• Disagree. The modus operandi of WCM is detrimental to the purpose of improving articles related to Gibraltar. As direct witness of his ridiculous stonewalling and filibusterous tactics I just cannot do other thing than support a reinforced topic ban on WCM in Gibraltar related articles. @84.93.51.170 WCM, formerly "Justin the Evil Scotman" was actually banned from Gibraltar articles for pov pushing and xenophobe slurs.--Asqueladd (talk) 10:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Then I'd suggest that Asilah1981 should amend their edit to say "banned from Gibraltar articles" instead of "blocked". Unless some history was lost from the block log in the user rename process, Justin's block log is clean. 84.93.51.170 (talk) 11:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I ammend it. Blocked from Gibraltar related articles. I´m not an expert on wiki speech.Asilah1981 (talk) 12:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, there's a lot of jargon! But I'm fairly sure you know what block means. 84.93.51.170 (talk) 12:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose None of the above-cited "personal attacks" by Asilah are actually personal attacks. One of them[139] is somewhat uncivil, but lacking more context I can't tell if the user's comment actually did look like it was written by an 8-year-old (this would only be a personal attack if the user actually was eight years old). One[140] is a slight tweaking of another. One[141] is not even uncivil, and I can't find anything wrong with it. The rest are essentially accusations of other users having somewhat questionable motivations for certain edits; this is either accurate or is inaccurate. If it is accurate, a BOOMERANG should be coming. If it is inaccurate, AGF says evidence is required to demonstrate that it is inaccurate if a sanction is to be placed. I'm sorry, but I have seen far too many wannabe ANI-discussions place sanctions on users because their names show up on ANI and there must be fire if there is smoke, and a system where the most belligerent editors who decide to elevate things to ANI can get their opponents TBANned is the opposite of what ANI is supposed to do. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I have consistently tried to assume good faith with WCM and have for months engaged with him in his talk page hoping to build trust and compromise. With other editors, on other topics, I have come to compromises and "made peace" after pretty big confrontations as anyone can see from my very first edits on wikipedia. I really thought I could find common ground with WCM, if he understood editing wikipedia wasn't part of a political proxy war. For some of these attempts at a rapprochement he has reported me as engaging in personal attacks, or has copy pasted sentences out of my comments on to the talk page. He has even threatened to report me over using his user name when addressing him. This is when I lost faith in WCM being a good faith editor. Just out of interest I will copy links to these attempts here. There are many more on the actual talk pages of the article in question: [142][143][144][145][146][147][148]Asilah1981 (talk) 13:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• These attacks are unacceptable and I have blocked the editor for a week. Ridiculous--and Hijiri, I love you like a brother, but you are wrong. Now, WCM, you know I don't love you like a brother, and I remember thinking that your editing on Gibraltar topics was problematic too, but the things that editor said and suggested were beyond the pale. I cannot tell if Asilah deserves a topic ban for Gibraltar or not, but if it's the particular field that causes their personal attacks, then sure. Drmies (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

See WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar for a 2011 arbitration case in which some of these content issues played a role. Unfortunately the discretionary sanctions were rescinded in 2014 as part of a housekeeping cleanup. One named party of the Gibraltar case (User:Justin A Kuntz) is part of the current dispute (under a different name). The troubles appear to be similar this time around. In my opinion the Arbitration committee might consider reactivating the Gibraltar sanctions. When they removed the DS, the committee said "In the event that disruptive editing resumes in any of these topic-areas, a request to consider reinstating discretionary sanctions in that topic-area may be made on the clarifications and amendments page." EdJohnston (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Please go ping one of these ArbCommers then--bunch of nogoodniks. I'm about to get blocked by Floquenbeam anyway. Seriously, do you want me to ask those bums? Drmies (talk) 02:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Seriously. EdJohnston (talk) 03:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

If I could make an observation, I have brought the escalating personal attacks to your attention Mr Johnston on several occasions. The lack of a response has only emboldened this editor to continue making them and they got worse and worse. Its the lack of action that has lead to this situation, something that seems dreadfully familiar to me. WCM_email 13:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. This is the second or third time this has come up. Ultimately, the issue here has been Asilah's absolute insistence that everyone who does not agree with him is acting maliciously, is racist, is a vandal, is trying to bring back the British Empire, is insane. He's claimed all of these things, but he has never to my memory conceded that it is possible in good faith for someone to disagree with him. It is simply impossible to have constructive discussion with a person who is not willing to abide by the basics like WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Kahastok talk 12:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban Accusing editors with whom he disagrees of racism is completely unacceptable regardless of any dispute. FYI I have declined Asilah1981's unblock request per WP:NOTTHEM. Black Kite (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Disagree / Oppose topic ban or anything else Obviously there is some heated editing with pointed, and cutting, remarks by User:Asilah1981, however, having reviewed the diffs I can't find anything that is actually a "personal attack" per se and, frankly, there seems to be something more going on, including either (a) padding of diffs to create the perception of an expansive problem, (b) or accidental linking to the wrong diffs:

1. This diff [149] is the worst in that he refers to a category of people as "nutjobs" and indirectly implies their positions are based on opposition to "little brown people" [sic], presumably a reference to Spaniards or Argentines. Asilah1981 should be adomnished seriously for this comment but, by itself, it does not rise to disciplinary action, IMO.
2. This diff [150] says to stop "POV pushing" in an edit summary which, while combative, doesn't strike me as a "personal attack."
3. In this diff [151] Asilah1981 says one should "participate in discussions constructively, not like an 8 year old", however, this seems to be the culmination of a back-and-forth rather than an out-of-the-blue attack.
4. This diff [152] is the same as #1 and chiefly involves the change of the word "those" to "all those". Was this included by accident?
5. This diff [153] is a 71-word quote from spainun.org without any commentary by Asilah1981. Was this included by accident?
6. In this diff [154] the offending passage seems to be the phrase "you guys are funny" which, while combative, does not seem rise to the level of a "personal attack".

LavaBaron (talk) 03:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

New LTA case

This is the first time I've filed an LTA case, so apologies if anything is irregular. The case is at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Brightify. Some coordination was done with KrakatoaKatie to see if this merits a case; however, I am soley responsible for its contents. - Brianhe (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

LTA is a messy area. Are you just documenting or also pitching warnings off-wiki? If I recall, I worked on a few cases a long time after the LTA project was deprecated. --QEDK (愛) 06:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate epithet used by Szegedi László

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.

---

Szegedi László replied like this: [155] to a comment by Borsoka

The meaning of the word hülye is the following:

Adjective

hülye (comparative hülyébb, superlative leghülyébb)

idiotic, imbecile, stupid

(from https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hülye) 123Steller (talk) 13:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@123Steller: Being called "stupid" isn't very nice, but if this was a one-off by the user then it's unlikely Szegedi László will get anything more than being told "not to do that please". Has this happened before with this user? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 14:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, he is really entertaining. To be honest, if Szegedi László did not call me "imbecil", I should think that I did something wrong. Borsoka (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Szegedi László, please insult editors in English so we can all enjoy. Also, please be aware that you can get blocked for insults. Duh. Drmies (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Am I being trolled?

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.

---

Chinese influence on Korean culture, an article whose only significant contributor was me, has seen a string of vandalism edits by 209.216.188.96 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) over the past 24 hours.

I thought at first (when I was emailed about a super-obscure page on my watchlist being edited by an IP) that it was a Korean nationalist but the edits don't show any signs of such POV-pushing. This looks more like random graffiti, but the article seems like a really weird place for a random Oregon-based IP to stumble across and start vandalizing. Much less edit-warring over.

I have been active over the past few months in exposing several fascist editors (Zaostao (talk · contribs) and KAvin (talk · contribs), for example) who were subsequently blocked, which makes this look like their work, in which case I'm being personally harassed by a block evader.

Whether my gut is right in telling me that this is someone with past interactions with me, semi-protection seems like a good idea. But is my gut crazy?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Does it matter? The IP is a vandal with a string of warnings to match. Remember WP:DENY, report the vandal to WP:AIV and forget about it. Kleuske (talk) 00:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

(e/c) Agreed, it's a single IP, so a page protection would be overkill. After the final warning they stopped editing. The edits are quickly being reverted by others. No need to overthink this. It appears like silly vandalism which is being addressed. If you see trolling of other articles or against this article by different IPs that may be a different issue. But a single IP with ends inside 24-hours, isn't something I'd overthink on 'why' or 'what' is going on. Move along, and don't worry unless somethings else comes along to support your concerns. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a reasonably stable IP, so I blocked for a month. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Ag97 and accusations of bias at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Seaman (journalist)

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.

---

A user Ag97 keeps using the argument that another user has nominated this page for deletion on the basis of a desire to censor Wikipedia. He backs this up by calming that

The user has nominated related pagers for deletion (fair enough)

The page had been in existence for a while before being nominated (three days is not a while).

That the page was only nominated after the subject of the article spread a particular story (false, the page had always mentioned that).

In essence the user is accusing another of bad faith edits, based upon very flawed logic. In addition despite claims about the previous quality of the article or the presence of RS they continue to only make the same argument about bad faith, rather then (as they have been repeatedly asked) fix the article.

I apologize if this is all incorrectly done, I cannot remember how to launch an ANI correctly.Slatersteven (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Notified user of this discussion -- Dane ^talk 21:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

As you can see, I tried and could not figure out how.Slatersteven (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• See also: WP:AE#Ag97- MrX 21:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I believe that mentioning that the editor who proposed deletion has a history of being opposed to including mentions of pizzagate on wikipedia is a valid and relevant concern to raise in the discussion of that article's deletion. If I have done something wrong by making this comment, please explain exactly what I did wrong and what Wikipedia policy I allegedly violated.Ag97 (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Ag97, this is yet another willful and repeated attempt on your part to muddy the waters on this issue, and to personally attack me. I have never been "opposed to including" appropriate mentions on Wikipedia of this or any other notable/noteworthy conspiracy theory. What I and the vast majority of other editors have insisted upon, however, is that in mentioning such conspiracy theories, we scrupulously follow the sources, identify baseless conspiracy theories as such, and avoid the victimization of living persons, in accordance with all the Wikipedia policies of which you have a demonstrated lack of understanding: WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:BLP, to name just a few. This is exactly why we're at the stage where arbitration enforcement is being sought against you (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Ag97), with the backing of an wide array of editors. Neutrality^talk 22:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

If you want to get me topic banned, you need to provide proof that I have made edits that violated Wikipedia policy. Every single person commenting on this page has failed to do so. Ag97 (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

If you had shown any willingness to understand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith I would not have voted to block you. Your whole argument was not based upon polices such as notability or RS, but on an assumption of bad faith on the part of the nominator. You continue to do so, refusing to see how you provide no reason to keep the David Seamen page beyond "but you have to because if you do not an biased editor will win". That is an argument based upon an assumption of bad faith.Slatersteven (talk)

Wrong again. See this edit [156].Ag97 (talk) 00:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ag97: Your edits outside of articles are still edits. You've been continually disruptive outside of article space, and your denial is part of that disruption. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Voicing an opinion on a talk page is not a disruption.Ag97 (talk) 00:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Ag97, I can defend some of the contents and some of the points you raise on talk pages, but I cannot defend what is clearly personalization of issues and what is quickly approaching if not past personal attacks. That's nowhere acceptable, no matter how much you believe the POV issue is. Add in behavior here of a "I didn't hear that" type arguments, and the community is quickly losing their patience. --MASEM (t) 00:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Asserting there are RS is not enough, you have to provide them.Slatersteven (talk) 09:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban of Ag97

• Propose Topic Ban from US politics and conspiracy theories broadly construed for a period of one year. Enough is enough. AE report did nothing but feed the impetuous to wage a personal war as intensely as possible before sanctions are imposed. Consensus there is already unanimous for this, but if they want to wait on the cycle of the moon to do something, there's no reason why the community can't step up and do it for them. TimothyJosephWood 22:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

There is definitely no unanimous consensus there; in fact the only uninvolved editor called the AE frivolous. Also, consensus is not a vote, see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. I am being attacked by a large amounts of users in retaliation for posting a valid opinion on a talk page that some people happen to disagree with (but quite a few people also support). I have not violated any Wikipedia policies (other than my previous block for accidentally violating 3RR) and you have no grounds to ban me. Disagreeing with an opinion on a talk page is not a valid reason for a topic ban. Both the AE and this AN/I is frivolous and nothing more than the attempt of a few editors to silence someone who expresses an opinion that they disagree with.Ag97 (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

In additon, I am not and never have been claiming that pizzagate is real, like some people falsely accused me, and never made any edits that claimed that pizzagate was real.Ag97 (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The fact that you appear completely and entirely incapable of seeing this, the AE report, the AfD, or any discussion whatsoever as anything other than a cabal of nefarious others attempting to silence you...is basically the problem, and exactly the reason why you need to take some time editing in non-contentious areas and learn what its like to actually work alongside other editors.

I don't think your intentions are bad, but I do think that you sufficiently flagrantly misunderstand what Wikipedia is, and how Wikipedia works with such zeal that if is a detriment to this topic area. TimothyJosephWood 22:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The issue is that your argument for keeping an article is not based upon the notability of the subject, or supplying RS establishing said notability, but on PA made against another user. As well as attempts to engage in a form of moral blackmail by claiming that deleting the article would be censorship. It is not that you disagree with an opinion (and again I note an attempt at moral blackmail) it is the fact your argument is based on assuming bad faith on the part of another editor. Despite my attempts to assume good faith on your part I see that you have no ability to understand what it is you are doing wrong. I change my opinion. Whilst I agree that some of the accusations against you may have no foundation, it dos not alter the fact you are not arguing from within WP policies relating to RS and notability, but solely based upon a sledgehammer application of NPOV and non censorship.Slatersteven (talk)

• Support community topic ban - This editor's dogged insistence that we treat facts as not-facts and persistent inference that our policies about reliable sources somehow make us a tool of "mainstream media" as against the WP:TRUTH has exhausted the patience of the community. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support community topic ban - Editors might also wish to take a look at the complaint filed against Ag97 at AE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support community topic ban, as formulated by TJM, with the caveat that this will not supersede any more restrictive (i.e., broader in scope or longer in duration) ban imposed as a result of AE. Neutrality^talk 22:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support community topic ban, per complete and utter inability to understand WP:Verifiability and WP:Identifying reliable sources with this amazing bit of doublethink: "the only debunking that occurred is that several media sources published articles saying that the theory is false and has been debunked." -- 01:00, 11 December 2016. Sagecandor (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
• Neutral I have not been active for a while, and have had no (that I am aware off) previous interaction with him. As such I do not feel a ban is appropriate, and would rather he was given a warning. However as it seems that he has been warned (and ignored them) in the past maybe it is time for a ban. I am in two minds. I would rather the user agreed to just argue content and not cast aspersions as to the motives of editors.Slatersteven (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Change to *Support community topic ban User shows no willingness to see what he did wrong, I no longer think he is going to change.Slatersteven (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support community topic ban I'd prefer to be editing articles in Military History but instead I'm here repeating the same three words "Substantial Reliable Sources" over and over and over again to someone who is wilfully ignoring the established guidelines & policies to make Wikipedia say that there may be some truth to Pizzagate. Yes, I realise I'm not assuming good faith but after the 5th repetition of an identical argument, my good faith has worn thin. This editor has received multiple bans for the exact type of conduct that he is now exhibiting, emboldened by the slow pace of the WP:AE process. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

More lies. I received one block for accidentally violating 3RR. I have never received any bans.Ag97 (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support community topic ban - Unfortunately, it has become obvious that this editor cannot be productive in editing this area. A topic ban seems to be the most appropriate step. -- Dane ^talk 22:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban- I'm afraid a topic ban seems appropriate at this time given the circumstances. Class455 (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support community topic ban as proposed without prejudice for more extensive sanctions as deemed necessary by admins at WP:AE, based on evidence presented there. Hopefully Ag97 will spend the next year contributing to less controversial articles and learn what we expect in terms of sources, neutral POV, and collaboration.- MrX 23:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban and would also support an indef block: I've seen this user lie repeatedly in pursuit of their attempts to push their own POV. WP has no place for people who can't stick to the truth. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Evidence needed to support your accusations. You don't have any!Ag97 (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban under condition: You can find specific evidence that I have made edits that violated Wikipedia policy. Except you can't do this: ha! Ag97 (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is about as definitive as evidence gets that an indef block would be a better choice. An editor who thinks they can cite technicalities to prevent themselves from coming under any sanctions and gloat about it in an ANI thread... I can't think of any topic that this sort of attitude would be acceptable in. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

So the fact that you have absolutely no evidence to support your false claims is a technicality?Ag97 (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith#Accusing_others_of_bad_faithSlatersteven (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Seaman_(journalist)&diff=754281821&oldid=754274218

" The fact that this editor has a history of attempting to censor mentions of pizzagate is significant and relevant. My argument is that deleting this article is an attempt at censorship, directly violating"Slatersteven (talk) 23:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

So you're saying one year topic ban because of one instance of assuming bad faith (when the editor's behavior and edit history made that assumption quite reasonable)? Come on! You have to do better than that!Ag97 (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

You said you'd support a topic ban. If you move the goalposts like this, people might stop taking you seriously. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

If people provide evidence that I have made disruptive edits on articles about American politics, then I will support it. No such evidence has been provided.Ag97 (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Ag97 has plenty of evidence that you have been disruptive on pages about American politics -- you are moving the goal post in bad faith by limiting it to articles after you've just been talking about in general. Even then, limiting it to articles is just a bad faith attempt at gaming the system. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ag97: Claiming that there's no evidence when there plainly is, exemplifies why you are about to be topic banned. Did you forget about adding a rape allegation to Bill Clinton based on a shitty Breitbart interview? What about when you politicized a discussion by calling your fellow editor losers and referring to them as "CTR shills" and "radical leftists"? What about your personal attacks and lies about a respected editor and admin? Claiming that there is no evidence makes it look like you either have no awareness of what's expected here, or you're just hoping that by repeating "no evidence" over and over, people will just tire and let you off the hook.- MrX 00:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

AG97, normally no I would not support a 1 year ban for a minor offense. But it is clear that mentoring or a warning are not going to work. You could have proved me wrong by accepting you had breached policy and have been combative and unhelpful. Instead you have dug in and continue to fight your corner. Thus it is clear no productive relationship (as editors) can be maintained with you in your current mind set. The fact you do not get that making comments about editors and not thier edits is disruptive prrove that (now) to my mind.Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

The only policy that I breached is that I personally criticized an editor. I don't deny doing that (and don't intend to continue doing that). But that has nothing to do with American politics.Ag97 (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban at a minimum. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support community topic ban in preference to one from AE. Many good reasons provided above, this user's insistence on amateurish wikilawyering is also most unimpressive. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support Community Topic ban- Some serious POV issues, failure to AGF and an insistence on wikilawyering. The user also seems to have a chronic case of IDHT. I hover am hesitant to support an indef site ban or block --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support community topic ban It is clear to me after reading the various discussions that this editor is here for the primary purpose of attempting to legitimize vile and false conspiracy theories. Their denials are completely unconvincing and the disruptive behavior continues. They must be kept away from these topic areas for the good of the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support community topic ban - per everything Cameron11598 and Cullen328 said. APK whisper in my ear 11:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - User is blatantly attempting to pull some wiki-lawyering and is clearly unapologetic for their actions. If user isn't careful, a block will be forthcoming. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 20:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed ban

• Propose indef of Ag97 per recommendation of Ag97. TimothyJosephWood
• Support ban as suggested by Ag97 himself. It was very mature of him to suggest it, and for him to give his word that he'd support a ban if a single piece of evidence was found that he's violated any of Wikipedia's policies - that shows real integrity. Now that evidence has been produced, I'm sure he'll graciously accept the ban without further comment. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support ban as he is exhausting the efforts of other editors to explain the numerous violations to him with no apparent effect. Objective3000 (talk) 00:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support indef - due to continued bad faith gaming the system, wikilawyering, goal-post moving, and WP:IDHT in this very discussion. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Hold off for now. This is at AE, a topic ban is pretty much inevitable, I think we should see what happens when the user is separated from the area under dispute. The most likely eventuality will be a flameout, but you never know. Guy (Help!) 01:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with Guy. I've just spent some more time digging into Ag97's history, and I don't see anything which requires an immediate indef block - the topic ban (either by the community or thru AE) should be sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

As I've stated, I think the topic ban is the way to go. There's no reason to wait for the WP:AE process though if it can be handled through this process instead. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I might normally consider that it was a bureaucratic coincidence that the same user managed to earn an AE and an ANI report within about 72 hours. But when the response from that user is Fuck you. I've done nothing wrong. Ha! I have absolutely no sympathy at all. I see no zero signs of reformability, and if anyone has, feel free to point them out. My only regret is that I spent probably six hours yesterday trying to be reasonable with the user only to end up here. TimothyJosephWood 01:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I see Timothyjosephwood is continuing to make up lies about me and quoting me saying something that I never said in an attempt to make me look bad. Doesn't making up fake quotes about other editors also count as a personal attack, worse than anything I have ever done? I think Timothyjosephwood's behaviour on this page is worse than mine, so why aren't you talking about banning him?Ag97 (talk) 14:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I would say that the fact that they have edited non-political articles is an indication that they can be a positive contributor. I'm not aware of any problems involved with those edits, only with their current fixation with pizzagate and related subjects. If we remove access to those via a topic ban, there's a chance the problem will be abated. If not, we can revisit an indef block at that time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Ban/block no, topic ban yes--huh? why are we here? I thought that by now we'd have seen an AE topic ban. This has gone on long enough. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. A topic ban is sufficient at this point - escalating just because Ag97 has not reacted well to public scrutiny and criticism is wrong. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I am not sure a total ban is appropriate. I would agree that just because of his refusal to accept any wrong doing is a reason for a total ban, just those areas he cannot remain detached from.Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Not surprised to see more Wikipedians voting the harshest possible action for yet another Conservative editor. That's 3 in one week, now. I wonder when the political retaliation is going to end?--v/r - TP 20:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, for now - I don't care what anyone's politics are, and I won't vote to support or oppose a ban or block based on that reason. I will, however, support a ban/block based on violating policies or being WP:NOTHERE. User is treading some thin ice, and would be best off to accept what they have done, what the community is deciding, and learn from their mistakes. However, I will reconsider my !vote if this combative wiki-lawyering behavior continues. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 20:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose site ban. I might support a short-term topic ban, like for maybe two or three months. It seems that the bone of contention is the Pizzagate (conspiracy theory), which, like so much else this election cycle, seems to possibly attract a lot of heated and sometimes clearly POV pushing discussion, possibly from all sides. I would expect the topic to calm down in a few months, and I don't see that much obvious reason to think that the problems with this editor, and, possibly, others involved in the discussion as well, will necessarily recur when things calm down a little, which I hope they will do sometime shortly after Trump gets sworn in. John Carter (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Request for history merge

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.

---

Is it OK to merge Draft:Radiation laws with Template:Blackbody radiation laws? Iceblock (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

That would be an excellent question for Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics. This board is for editors misbehaving. But on the basis of Draft:Radiation laws being a red link, I'd hazard a guess and say "probably not". Kleuske (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• This board is for editors misbehaving. So true. EEng 01:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

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

User magnetic manifestations,

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: Magentic Manifestations is showing biased and incorrect information.

This user has been showing biased and incorrect information in the wiki page "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_cities_by_GDP_per_capita". The brookings report shown in this page contradicts with many other reports like McKinsey report, PWC report and the respective government reports. For example, the Bangalore cities nominal per capita is shown in brookings report as very less (1420$). This is incorrect. According to state governemnt report, bangalore has a per capita of almost 3000$,(http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/bangalore/bengaluru-urban-tops-state-in-per-capita-income-kalaburagi-last/article8376124.ece). Also if you check the MCkinesy report or PWC report, Bangalore has much higher GDP (http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/08/07/the-most-dynamic-cities-of-2025/), (https://web.archive.org/web/20110504031739/https://www.ukmediacentre.pwc.com/imagelibrary/downloadMedia.ashx?MediaDetailsID=1562). In order to prove the credibility of the brookings report, one ore more reference from an entire different source is required to confirm the report. However ,other reports shows entirely different figures and due to this the brookings report alone cannot be taken into consideration. This user like to show wrong information by only relying on one wrong report by brookings and has been playing with this for a long period of time. Wikipedia should be transparent and should not show wrong information. So we want this page to be either corrected or deleted. The page only has one reference from one source and a continuous request to add another reference or source has been turned down by this user and this user wants to continually shows the wrong information according to his own wishes and also this user will request for page protection after he edits the page according to his wishes.

First, when you post to a talk page or a noticeboard, you are required to sign and date your posting by typing four tildes (~~~~). Second, you are required to notify every editor you mention in your post here by placing the appropriate notice on their talk page. Third, this appears to be a content dispute. This board is for serious violation of behavioral policies. Administrators will not solve content disputes for you. Start a discussion on the article's talk page and work it out. Your mama doesn't work here. John from Idegon (talk) 07:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

How do you know? EEng 07:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Red link: User:Ning Shen zhu's mama. TimothyJosephWood 14:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Behaviour of Pannam2014

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. Is it possible to do something with the behaviour of User:Pannam2014? He is insulting me (with other contributors) in this discussion ==> [157]. CAOU means WP:SPA in french:

• He say that I am a "SPA troll" (trolls CAOU) ==> [158]
• He say also about me the I am Machiavelian: "The no less Machiavellian Ms10vc starts to seek me noise on Commons" ("Le non moins machiavélique Ms10vc se met à me chercher noise sur Commons") ==> [159]

Enough it's enough. He must stop his insults. Best regards --Ms10vc (talk) 13:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello. This "administrator noticeboard" is ridiculous.

Indeed, Ms10vc actually acted as a troll on Wikimedia Commons for a lot of reasons. For the rest, SPA is not an insult, please view of its definition. First, he provoked me when he came back after days. and just after that I have wrote an administrator noticeboard. have also insulted me. After that, he came back after a week to block my suggestion, just after I have made a new proposal. Also, Machiavellian is also not an insult. His acts was Machiavellian in Commons. I have just reported his acts to JJG. I have the right to do it. For that, all of his actions, including that last administrator noticeboard is a part of a "wikihounding" and a harassment, here and even on Commons as its actions prove that. For English Wikipedia, he came back after a year, especially to continue his harrasment. Please see the nature of his last contributions here and in Commons. Enough is enough. I therefore ask for a sanction against his actions. Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Ah, Ms10vc! Comment ca va? Nice to see you again. OK, this is fun, but not long. Y'all are fighting on Commons ([160]) over I don't know what, and fortunately it's none of our business. What is our business is this constant talk of "trolls" in reference to Ms10vc and perhaps others. Pannam2014, you better stop that right now, since I don't see any evidence of trolling on Ms10vc's part. What I do see, BTW, is you conversing in French, which is charming, but it's not very collegial on the English wiki. So kindly stop insulting other editors; in fact, I get the feeling that your correspondent, User:Jean-Jacques Georges, wasn't too thrilled about it either. Ms10vc, I see you have not sought Pannam's talk page, except for the obligatory ANI notification: we typically don't deal with matters here after other means of conflict resolution have been tried, which does not appear to have been the case here.

  Summarizing: "troll" is indeed a personal attack and will become blockable if used again/frequently/etc., but we are not there yet. Pannam2014, consider this a warning. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Since I'm notified : no, I wasn't too thrilled about Panam2014's messages, not because I don't like him but because I thought he was getting too worked up. Please take note, however, that Ms10vc's behavior has been very problematic on the French wikipedia, where he has been blocked indefinitely. So I guess Panam2014 just got angry because he stumbled upon him again on commons, and they got into the same kind of time-wasting arguments than on the French wikipedia. Fighting over an image on commons, however, is indeed totally pointless, and that's true for all concerned users. I told Panam2014 to lay low for a while, because this just doesn't deserve to make such a fuss. I think he has understood. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Involved editor closing a 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.

---

• At Talk:Joe Clark User:DrKay closed an AFD RFC. The AFD RFC involved three options of formatting data, but in doing so he combined !votes for other options into votes against the option that had gained consensus. This is the equivalent of assigning votes for Jill Stein and Gary Johnson to Hillary Clinton because they are not votes for Donald Trump. He is also not an uninvolved editor, as pointed out at the 3RR ANI previously on this topic: User:DrKay "recently raised a discussion at WP:AN regarding a similar pattern of behavior on the part of RAN." An uninvolved editor should close and !votes for other formats should not be combined as !votes against the format that has consensus. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

You really think that if a discussion on wikipedia closed with 48% of editors selecting one option ("Clinton") and 46% another ("Trump"), that the 46% option would be the one implemented? Consensus is not a winner-take-all plurality vote. There is no consensus to change the article.

• Wikipedia:Closing discussions reads: "the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it". So, yes, that is how it is done. You did the opposite, this is not a binary vote. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

On your second point, I haven't edited the article, had never commented at its talk page until today, and have never previously commented on the issue under discussion in the RfC at any page. DrKay (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• I don't really see much of a problem here. Firstly, DrKay certainly is an uninvolved editor at the article, regardless of which editors he has previously interacted with - it is assuming bad faith to claim that he has closed it for any other reason. Secondly, there is clearly no consensus to change the article, as his close says; there are more editors against changing the infobox to include all three institutions than there are for it, regardless of how you count those !votes. I suspect we would search long and hard to find an admin or experienced editor that would have closed it in any other way. Incidentally, I have tweaked the OPs post to replace "AFD" with "RFC" so as not to cause confusion. Black Kite (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• I am not seeing the closer as an "involved" editor in the RfC. And as noted above his close appears to reflect the reality of where the RfC is/was. I think this may be an overreaction. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Considering a consensus is not the same as tallying votes. It is entirely appropriate to consider the number of people opposed to an option when weighing consensus as it is to consider the supporters. If we have options A, B, and C in a vote where one must win - then we pick the highest. But that's not our system. Our system in consensus. When looking at A, B, and C - where A has a highest support but not a majority of support then we can look at options B and C to determine if folks opposed option A. In our system, no consensus (or no decision) is an acceptable outcome which is why it works.--v/r - TP 20:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

They did not vote to oppose the top option, they chose the one they liked best, and yes, the option with the most !votes is the one chosen. Imagine we had 100 options to choose from and 99 of them received a single !vote and one option received 5 !votes. The one with 5 is the winning option. We do not combine the 99 votes as a single vote opposing the top option. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not. That's one of the reasons it's not a vote. And an option that 95% of the people are against hasn't really shown consensus even in basic numbers. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Not-a-vote is to discount votes that are against regulations, in a vote on esthetics, there are no wrong votes to discount. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

(EC) Well your description of events is as usual less than exact. If option A has previous consensus and you are seeking to change something to option B over C or D, no closer is going to say option B has consensus without either an absolute clear majority of votes or a really good policy-backed rationale. Neither of which was present here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

This is a !vote on esthetics, not policy, there is no wrong !vote with esthetics. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• Option A is still the top option. This was not overturning any previous consensus. By the very nature of offering more than two options, this system becomes inherently unstable by the way you combine alternative votes as votes against the option that the most people chose as the prefered one. Can someone show me where this is hardcoded into the rules of the consensus process. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, this is a gross misunderstanding of the term consensus. !Voting is more like the alternative vote or the preferential vote (see the way Australia votes) than it is about being first across the mark. Blackmane (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, this demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of consensus which is quite startling for an experienced editor. Imagine if this was an AfD - 3 votes for "Delete", 2 votes for "Merge", and 2 votes for "Keep". Assuming all the !votes had valid rationales, there's pretty much no way it would be closed as anything but "No Consensus". Also (and this is a personal view, having frankly never heard of the individual before) the insistence in including institutions from which he withdrew has the smack of trying to shoehorn in negative information. Black Kite (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually the motivation here is related to ongoing issues with Template:Infobox Person. If you check the talkpage and its associated archives you will begin to see the pattern. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Closing discussions reads: "the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it". The rule does not say that we add up the number of !votes for alternatives and if they are greater than the option with the predominant number, the predominant number loses. As I said that makes any non-binary !vote inherently unstable. You did the contrary of the rule. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

  You understand that the whole reason you put the exclamation point (read as "not") in front of the word "vote" is that it's not a vote, right? We're not obligated to choose the outcome that gained a plurality of opining users just because it's a plurality, and "expected" =\= "required" Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

There are no wrong !votes in esthetics. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• Well quite apart from the fact that (as pointed out above) consensus doesn't work like that, if you want to look at it in that manner it solves the problem anyway, because there was indeed a predominant number of editors in favour of not including the extra two institutions. The fact that the four of them disagreed as to where the single institution should be placed in the infobox is irrelevant. Black Kite (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

But it does according to Wikipedia:Closing discussions: "which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it". It doesn't say to count it your way, otherwise you can never have non-binary choices. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• Why are we having this long discussion? An RfC was closed, someone challenged the closer's evaluation, so an uninvolved admin does his own evaluation and we see if the conclusion would have been different. Simple, easy, and doesn't require a wall of text. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Hot chicks

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.

---

Needs administrative assistance! Roxy the dog. bark 23:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Dealt with. v. fast. Roxy the dog. bark 23:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Redirect has been protected by Materialscientist, but... do we really have a redirect from Hot chicks to Physical attractiveness? Good grief. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you think we should retarget to Kentucky Fried Chicken? :-) - Nabla (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I realize you're kidding, but FWIW here's what I really think should happen. Nobody is going to type in "hot chicks" when what they want is an article about physical beauty. Nobody. People who type that into our search box should be greeted with a salted blank page. Actually, they should be greeted by a page that says "Oh, grow the fuck up", but I'd settle for a blank page. -Floquenbeam (talk) 23:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: I agree, and I'm chuckling a bit at the suggestion, but to be fair; when I first saw this, I thought it was about this film. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah the Derp vandal strikes again, may I recommend Danny Napoleon for entertaining edit-warring with a vandal reading. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

While I'm being grumpy: Why are people edit warring with a vandal bot that will reinstate the word 3 seconds later? 45 revisions in 10 minutes to remove the word "derp" is a waste of everyone's time. Just report the vandalbot, wait for it to be blocked, and then revert. If another IP does it, wait for the page to be protected and then revert. I weep for all the electrons sacrificed in the thousands of reverts of this bot. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Bot? hmm... that makes sense. I couldn't comprehend how one person could attack several pages within mere seconds of each other and then just rinse and repeat. Well, I gained a good 300 edits in article space from the editor and a good foray into the wilderness of vandal fighting. Still, WP:3RRNO, it's not an edit-warring violation if it's fighting blatant vandalism. Unnecessary though sure, agree with you there. Ah well, all in the name of protecting the encyclopaedia in the end, so that's something to cling on to. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

As Floquenbeam said: Think of the electrons. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• I wish I hadn't put the 's' on 'needs.' Roxy the dog. bark 02:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Why would hot chicks need administrative assistance? EEng 02:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Joseph Michael Linsner

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:Joseph Michael Linsner is contacting his lawyer per diff. I'll step away from this now, I have had enough of these WP:NOT and WP:OWN violations. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Beetstra: Given the user's message to you which contained "I am just going to have my LAWYER contact the correct representative at WIkipedia" I have blocked Joseph Michael Linsner per WP:NLT -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 08:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Ongoing

Note that this is now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Michael Linsner, where a "brand new user" has popped up to tell us how fantastically notable the subject is. Guy (Help!) 10:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

History of Asperger syndrome

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.

---

History of Asperger syndrome has an IP-hopping editor who is edit warring to keep in sources that are not WP:MEDRS-compliant.

Related: * Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard‎#According to the book Autism and Asperger syndrome, did Hans Asperger call his patients "little professors"? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Well the edit warring is a problem obviously, but I think several of you are being way overzealous in you application of MEDRS here. The content the ip wanted to include has nothing to do with treatment or diagnosis, it's simply historical context. It's also factually accurate, and if you look at the sources most recently linked in the RSN discussion you'll note that at least one of them IS a MEDRS (a textbook written by an expert in the field, published by a highly reputable press). Anyway, I note that the article has been protected so don't think there's much do be done here. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by Florinbaiduc on Romanian aviation 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.

---

Florinbaiduc (talk · contribs) is a Romanian interested in early aviation history. They have been active at two articles:

• Coandă-1910
• Traian Vuia

Coandă-1910 led to an edit-warring block for asserting old and discredited claims. They've now moved to another, similar, article and are equally adamant at pushing opinions rather than sources. A good example is at Talk:Traian Vuia#Vuia's nationality. This has degraded to abuse of other editors, fake AIV posting, descriptions of all other edits as "vandalism" and edit-warring (now 3RR at Traian Vuia). This could be seen as generic abuse and disruption, edit-warring, possible socking or even WP:CIR – but it's no longer acceptable. The last warnings were given at User_talk:Florinbaiduc#December_2016_3, but were immediately followed by abuse and threats of vandalism reports for GF edits, then more edit-warring. Enough's enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The user also posted a report at AIV for ThomasW (See here: [161]). RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

They filed another totally frivolous report against me at WP:AIV a couple of days ago, so it's not the first time... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Since this ANI post, another AIV Andy Dingley (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• So, what's needed here?

• Topic ban from disruptive AIV posts, or other false reports of vandalism
• Enforcement of a *RR edit-warring restriction
• Other?

Andy Dingley (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - My experience with this editor has been (1) a useless request for the dispute resolution noticeboard, useless because a request for mediation had already been declined by the other editors, and both formal and informal mediation are voluntary, and (2) they alleged that another editor's statements were "a lie", which requires that they be able to read minds. The first is harmless, because it is at least trying to settle a content dispute. The second is a personal attack personalizing a dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment When I saw the Coanda 1910 name crop up, I wonder why that was so familiar. Then it clicked that there had been an Arbitration case on just this topic. Seeing as this is the same troubles rearing its head, a topic ban per the remedy in the case sounds reasonable. Blackmane (talk) 03:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposing indefinite block

• I propose an indefinite block for pushing nationalistic POV, disruptive editing, repeated edit-warring (five reverts in less than an hour on Coandă-1910 on 11 November, in addition to their recent edit-warring on Traian Vuia) and battleground mentality (including saying in this edit on my talk page that they intend to keep edit-warring until they get their way...). Enough is enough. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support I would hope that this wasn't necessary. But if others think it is, I would support that. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose indefinite block, but Support one month block. Personally, I think that a one month block would be appropriate at this stage, as the user has only been blocked once from editing. If the editor had been blocked more than once, then I would have supported. I think after the block expires if the behaviour continues, then an indefinite block will be needed. Class455 (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support Again with the crap about who invented the jet engine -- we've been through this before. I have zero patience with people whose self-esteem is tied to the ethnicity of some inventor 70 years ago. EEng 18:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Florinbaiduc has violated WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and most of all WP:AGF. In the lead of WP:VD, it says Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. This case is illustrative as to how powerful WP:AGF (and non-compliance with it) is, as editors who do not assume good faith are likely to adopt a battleground mentality and fight other editors during a dispute, like any user would do actual vandals. This makes it much more difficult to solve disputes and makes those editors prone to edit warring, winding up at the noticeboards and being very disruptive. Now, I'm not sure I agree Florinbaiduc's conduct warrants an indef block yet, but if they continue this behaviour after the currently active block expires, I would at least support a long-term block, lasting around 1–3 months. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 23:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal; Topic ban from nationality and ethnicity broadly construed

• The big problem with this editor is as Thomas.W states above that they are a Nationalistic POV pusher. So my counter-proposal is to combat this problem first and see if it gets us anywhere. I never like going from No block or 24 hour block to indef and definitely not over the course of a few days - some exceptions do of course apply, such as vandals and abusive editors (which this editor does fall into unfortunately, but, at the lower end of the spectrum). I looked at their edit history and notice that their very first edit here was interestingly enough to Traian Vuai in 2011. At the time, Traian was apparently purely Romanian just had the misfortune of being born in Hungary. Nationalities always get in the way of good editing as I so often observe. I see this proposal ending one of two ways; 1. If the editor is "HERE" to contribute, then this T-Ban will curb their nationalism/patriotism (whichever) and give them the opportunity to show us that they are indeed "HERE". 2. If they're "NOTHERE" and their only goal is POV pushing, well then, we've taken that away from them and they will be on their way out. There is the potential downside that they just lash out and cause a bit of havoc before an admin pops in and hands them an indef block. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how workable this is - otherwise it appeals.

Presumably, "Traian Vuia was Romanian, not Hungarian" would be seen as a "nationalistic edit" in this scope. But how would changing "Traian Vuia's aircraft made a short powered hop" to "made a flight"? It's not directly related to nationalism, yet within this editor's scope (2/3rd of their edit topics) it is indirectly nationalistic. Could such an edit still be covered by this? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's unfortunately not only about Traian Vuia's nationality, though, but also about repeated and very persistent attempts to inflate/exaggerate Vuai's contributions to aviation: multiple very reliable sources describe Vuia's attempts to fly as being "powered hops" (the longest documented one being 11 meters), while Florinbaiduc absolutely insists that the terms flight/flying be used instead, and being just as disruptive about that as about Vuia's nationality. So a topic ban would have to cover not only nationality and ethnicity but also Romanian (or claimed Romanian) achievements in general, very broadly construed... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Please note that I consider the other two editors as defacing the page on Traian Vuia, and their edits as proper vandalism. In all other languages the page mentions him as Romanian, he is a Romanian national hero, he was very actively working for a united Romania. Calling his nationality (not citizenship but nationality) as French/Hungarian shows that a:people don't understand the meaning of nationality, b: they ignore the political situation and reality of that time, c: they go against the consensus on all other sources and the Wikipedia pages in other languages. the nationality modification I try to combat was done without a proper discussion, and that's not how things should be done here. That marks the two users Andy Dingley Thomas.W as vandals. Florinbaiduc (talk) 16:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

As you are continuing to attack other good faith editors as vandals, having done it repeatedly, and you show no sign of stopping, I have blocked you for 31 hours. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I should add that I have no idea (and care little) about Traian Vuia's nationality - whether he was Romanian, Hungarian, French, Icelandic, Tralfamadorian, or whatever - but the only consensus that counts here at en.wiki is a consensus of en.wiki editors. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• Yet again, you refuse to source any of your claims and prefer to abuse other editors instead. This is why I would support an indef block under WP:COMPETENCE: I do not believe that you have demonstrated, or can learn, an ability to work with other editors. A block is thus justified, for their sakes. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Content discussion hidden so as not to clutter up the board...

Florinbaiduc I'd have no issue with the article saying that he is Romanian if you brought reliable sources to back up your claims instead of declaring that other editors actions to constitute vandalism. It seems somewhat similar to Burebista in the regard that he is a national hero of the Romanians, except in his case, he had nothing to do with Romania whatsoever. If you want the article to reflect that Traian Vuia is a Romanian, bring the sources that say he is a Romanian. They exist I can assure you I found a couple stating it unequivocally, but, also sources who don't state any nationality at all. I didn't find anything for Ethnically RomanianHungarian so why that's in there is beyond me. You should have done this without claiming vandalism. You can even go through the article's in other languages to find sources that can then be vetted for reliability. I don't see this any differently to the Nikola Tesla debate between Croats and Serbs (I'm both so I don't care either way). On the English Wikipedia, an edit must have a reliable source to back up the claim when that claim is challenged. That may be an even better solution for you. At the end of your block go to the article talk page, bring some sources with you (books by academics) and state your argument. Accept whatever consensus is brought about - RfC if necessary. If we find an amicable solution to this dispute without resorting to any threats or abuse, I'll retract my proposal for a TBAN from nationality/ethnicity and commute it a TBAN on making edits without first supplying reliable sources. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC) He's listed as an "ethnically Romanian Hungarian" since he was born in 1872 in Hungary (Kingdom of Hungary), in an area (part of the Banat) that didn't become part of Romania until after World War I (after by then having been part of Hungary, Austria-Hungary and then again Hungary for just over 300 years), by which time Vuia was 46 years old, and after living in Hungary for the first 30 years of his life and then in France for 16 years, had become a French citizen. So Vuia never lived in Romania, no sources for Vuia having become a Romanian citizen have been presented, and the entire claim that he was Romanian is based only on him having been born in an ethnically Romanian family. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC) Thomas.W I never did like the US and Australian definitions of ethnicity, they make no sense. I have had for most of my life people declare to me that I am a German because I was born in Germany. This is despite the fact that I speak zero German, have no German relatives, and have no German citizenship. Australians don't understand mainland Europe's concept of ethnicity, it's foreign to them. It took me about five minutes of research to find several sources declaring him to be "Romanian" (ethnically, not by citizenship of course). By contrast I found zero sources stating him to be ethnically Hungarian - your ethnicity is not dictated by where you were born but to whom. If you'd lived in 19th century Europe all of this would be crystal clear. I can tell you that within Europe and especially Central through Eastern Europe being born somewhere does nothing to make you from there. Nikola Tesla was born in the Austrian empire, nobody in their right mind would declare him to be Austrian that would be ridiculous. Although the US has somehow managed to claim him to be Serbian-American, I'm amazed that Serbians allowed this (they have quite strong contempt for the U.S. plus blood purity does matter in our countries) and I'm even more amazed that Croatians allowed this (especially since he's not mentioned anywhere to be Croat just born there). I can understand Traian being a Hungarian national that makes sense since he was one, but, ethnically Hungarian? that's a foreign concept even to me. If I had been writing the article it would have stated; was an ethnically Romanian, Hungarian inventor. Perhaps that one comma makes a world of difference. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC) @Mr rnddude: ???? Where do I claim that he's ethnically Hungarian? We're not talking about ethnicity, we're talking about nationality (in the infobox and lead). There's no doubt about him being ethnically Romanian, and it's also clearly stated in the article that he was ethnically Romanian ("ethnically Romanian Hungarian"), it's his nationality that is disputed. And Vuia was born in Hungary, raised in Hungary, got his entire education in Hungary, including higher studies in Budapest, and lived there for 30 years before moving to France, and then living there for the rest of his life (except for going to Romania for a few months in 1950 and dying there...). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 18:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC) I'll quote you; ethnically Romanian Hungarian. So, read again, where perhaps syntax suggests your claiming he's ethnically Hungarian. I am ethnically Croatian Serbian, I am both ethnicities, not just the first one). I didn't realize that the article and you weren't doing this until the very last line of my response above. Again, I'm not disputing your nationality analysis (agree with it entirely), and I recognize that Florinbaiduc is disputing it. That's why I suggested they bring me some sources to back their claims, I figured they'd be able to push the "ethnic" claim but not the nationality one. Syntax is why I ended up a little lost in your response to me. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC) "I'm an ethnically Romanian Hungarian" means "I'm a Hungarian who is ethnically Romanian", a mix would IMHO be "I'm ethnically a Romanian-Hungarian". I have added a comma, though, to the lead, to avoid misunderstandings, so it now reads "an ethnically Romanian, Hungarian inventor". - Tom | Thomas.W talk 18:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC) I have seen the dash used before, I've also seen it without the dash, eh, either way I got there in the end. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC) Please nothing about dashes. The last thing we need is the MOS dash-hyphen (dash–hyphen?) police wading in the fray. EEng 21:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Folks, do I really need to remind you all that this is *not* an appropriate venue to continue the argument about content? You all really *do* know better. So please, knock it off here, and conduct the content argument on the appropriate article talk page. I am not averse to blocking everyone who misuses this board to carry on their content arguments - though I really do not expect to have to do that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

DonFB

DonFB (talk · contribs) has now begun edit-warring to insert much the same change again. Still unsourced:

nationality= Romanian <ref>Vuia was born to ethnically Romanian parents in the Kingdom of Hungary in territory that became part of Romania.</ref>

• "Reliable sources almost universally describe Vuia as "Romanian" (c.f. "Brazilian" Santos-Dumont)."
• "Undid revision 754704632 by Andy Dingley (talk) Sources are in the article references. Please read."

Andy Dingley (talk) 02:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

A single revert (to your revert of my change) hardly qualifies as an edit war. Your claim of "unsourced" is false, as can be seen by reading the article's refs. Different terminology is the result of your SYNTH. DonFB (talk) 02:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Can you protect Judith Barsi 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.

---

Hi. Can you put a lengthy protection on the Judith Barsi article as it has been targeted by the same disruptive IP hopping editor as the Heather O'Rourke article. Thank you please. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Paul. May want to keep WP:RFPP in mind for future reference. Also IP notified. TimothyJosephWood 15:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Notifying an IP hopper is like trying to tie a ribbon onto a bolt of lightning. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

From the article history, the hopper hadn't hopped in over a week. TimothyJosephWood 17:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

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

the list of electors of the 2016 electoral college for each state.

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 are a lot of mad people who asking for the list of the electors of each state.i think it was a bad idea publishing the names because there is a good chance that someone on this list may get a threating message from disgruntled voters indangering themselves or their families.so please for the safety of the people listed and their families remove this list as soon as possible.i am asking this because i don't want any harm to come to them.plus it will safeguard the electoral college votes integirty. thank you for letting me voice my concerns on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Txcountryboy (talk • contribs) 21:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

No harm is going to come to the electors by having this list published. Also, this is not a valid reason for deleting the page (considering we have a page for the electors from 2012, 2008, etc.). Finally, when all is said and done, this will be a big deal over nothing, as the Electoral College will still vote for Trump per the states' vote. (Is it 2017 yet?) RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, this is the article in question List of United States presidential electors, 2016. There are similar lists back to 2000 that I can see.

I disagree with RickinBaltimore: while these are published named in each state, it is not like these lists get significant attention from third-party sources, and as such there are elements of BLPPRIVACY that should be considered whether we really need these names. But this is probably a matter for the BLP/N, and not one for admin attention. --MASEM (t) 21:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

List of United States presidential electors, 2016 is sourced. There's no BLP concerns, since the names are already published elsewhere on the web, so I don't see need for any administrative action here. Masem is right: BLP/N is probably the better venue for this discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• These are unquestionably public figures. EEng 22:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• EEng has it right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

At work they call me the stopped clock. EEng 22:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

There are worse things than being right twice a day. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Nah, once they get a taste of it they just start to expect more. EEng 01:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• BLP/N as someone said. It's not a slam dunk either way. Electors are usually obscure party functionaries rather than real politicians. It's not like "List of members of the US Senate". Nobody cared in recent past elections but this year the electors are actually getting hassled in various ways. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

It's public knowledge, and the readers have the right to know who's electing the president. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The names of party convention delegates are also public knowledge. Do we have those? 50.0.136.56 (talk) 02:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm guessing the answer is No, but if so it's not because of BLP, which is what you were appealing to. Anyway, this is strictly a content dispute so can someone please close this? EEng 02:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

There is absolutely no BLP concern. Electors are, and were always meant to be, public figures. That their names are not generally know is not the definition of a public figure - I don't know the names of the Alderpeople in Big Midwest City or the Selectpeople in Littler New England City either, nor do the vast majority of people in the U.S., but they're still public figures, by dint of their performing a public function. Anyone who wanted to remain anonymous shouldn't have volunteered to be an elector in the first place. They are, writes Akhil Reed Amar in America's Constitution: A Biography "ad hoc [public] officials" (p.152) Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

What the heck? By that logic all the clerks at my local DMV are public figures. Have you even read the article public figure? Do we have lists of those alderpeople or selectpeople? Those people at least are supposed to make decisions that affect the public. Electors are supposed to rubber-stamp the results of the election (i.e. they're not supposed to decide anything, but rather they deliver the election results like the postperson delivers the mail, with no discretion). Right now there's more people than usual trying to interfere with them on the basis of conspiracy theories and it's causing them hassle. I don't think we need to assist that. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

50.0.136.56: This is not an accurate understanding of the role of the electors. Unlike letter carriers and DMV clerks, whose roles are ministerial, the votes of the electors are discretionary. Historically, they are not supposed to "rubber-stamp" anything. See Federalist No. 68 (also on Wikisource). Neutrality^talk 03:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I was going to say that a bunch of statutes have been written since they had discretion 200 years ago. To my surprise though, some states currently don't prohibit faithless electors (I thought all did). Wow. If they actually do overthrow the election though, we may be out of the frying pan and into the fire. Yikes. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 04:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

It won't happen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank god. I was going to run out and buy all the popcorn in my neighborhood before the shortages hit. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 05:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Editor continued to revert, ignoring me in edit summary and 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.

---

Bbundu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly reverted my edits on the page A.J. Styles. I have tried leaving edit summaries, but he ignored them. I then posted on his talk page, and he ignored that. I reverted him and warned him of admin action if he keeps ignoring me, and I also posted on his talk page of the warning. He still reverted, though only a partial revert.

Full revision history of A.J. Styles article: 1

Full revision history of Bbundu's talk page: 1

Breakdown:

• My initial edits in regards to this issue: 1, 2,

• Bbundu's reverts, no explanation: 1, 2, 3, and 4.

• My revert with explanation: 1

• Bbundu's reverts, no explanation: 1 and 2

• My revert, stating that he ignored me: 1

• Bbundu's reverts, again with no explanation: 1 and 2

• My revert, stating I'm posting on his talk page: 1 and first talk page post

• Bbundu reverts, no explanation and ignoring his talk page: 1

• My revert, warning of admin action in edit summary and talk page: 1 and second talk page post

• Despite warning, Bbundu partial reverts, still no explanation or response on talk: 1

• My final post on his talk page, telling him admin action is being sought and that it could have been avoided: 1

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JDC808 (talk • contribs)

A year and a half with over a thousand edits, 40 messages left on his talk page, and two blocks for edit warring. And in that time, zero edits to user talk pages, zero edits to talk pages, zero usage of edit summaries. I have given him an indefinite block. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Editor reverting my edits and accusing me of sock puppetry

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, this is the first time I have added to a noticeboard so I am not too familiar with the procedure (I am not sure if this is the correct noticeboard for this issue). Recently, I created a new Wikipeda account. I had edited Wikipedia previously years and years ago, and my editing was only intermittent (not anything sustained). I have been currently engaged in editing 2016 United States election interference by Russia when Volunteer Marek started to revert my edits here: [[162]] and here: [[163]]. I have attempted to discuss our editing conflicts: [164]. His reply was to accuse me of sock puppetry here: [[165]], even though he provides no evidence for this nor does he indicate who exactly I'm supposedly a sock puppet of. He has also insinuated this on my talk page and elsewhere previously ([166]). I have answered to make clear to him that I am editing in good faith ([167]). I am unsure what to do about this or how to proceed with editing. Thank you for your help. 11Eternity11 (talk) 08:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Note to admins the page 2016 United States election interference by Russia currently has extra restrictions in place but it appears these edit links as evidence above are from before those restrictions were put into place. Sagecandor (talk) 08:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The account was created a few days ago and immediately jumped into a controversial topic area and began making controversial edits. This was the account's first edit where they refer the fairly obscure policy of WP:Content forking. In the same edit Eternity also shows they know how to properly add a reflist to a talk page. Oh and this part is funny: note in this edit and this one, 11Eternity11 is perfectly capable of properly formatting links with only one bracket. Yet in the statement right above they seem to have all of sudden forgotten how to do that and use two brackets, apparently to make themselves look like a newbie and "not too familiar with the procedure". In the discussion on their talk page, when I asked them about it [168] 11Eternity11 did not even bother denying that they had previously used other accounts, they just started with the "you must assume good faith!" (which is, like, what *every* sock puppet immediately claims when confronted). In this non-response they also evade the question and only state that they "created this account". In this edit, only a few days after they "created this account", 11Eternity11 files a perfectly formatted Request for Move, which, honestly, I still have trouble doing right after many years on Wikipedia. Oh and here is more quoting and linking to obscure parts of policies.

So what you got here is a brand new WP:SPA, which quotes Wikipedia policy like an expert who immediately got involved in a controversial topic. Yeah, if this is a new account or even an account from a person who only "edited Wikipedia previously years and years ago, and my editing was only intermittent" (funny how they didn't say that to begin with, but just came up with it now), then I'm a turnip.

(Finally, 11Eternity11 claims that I "started to revert (his) edits". He provides this diff. Strange, that's not even a revert of his edit).

This is a controversial topic area with a dozen of blocked, banned or sanctioned accounts (and that's just from the past few weeks). A persistent problem is that these banned, blocked or sanctioned users just keep creating throw-away accounts, jump in, cause a lot of disruption, use these accounts to circumvent discretionary sanctions, they get themselves banned and move onto a new throwaway account. 11Eternity11/1Eternity1 is just another one in a long list of such accounts.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

That was a clear revert as seen here:[169] and as indicated in the talk page of that article here: [170]. As for supposedly knowing some Wikipedia policy: I know how to read. However, I haven't read nearly enough of wikipedia policy docs to understand every wiki guideline. 11Eternity11 (talk) 08:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, if you are accusing me of being a "banned account" or some such thing, please do say which one. Be specific. The truth is on my side of this. I am no sock puppet no matter how much you seem to want that to be true. I really don't understand your hostility. 11Eternity11 (talk) 08:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, I can't believe your making an argument based on bracket notation. I didn't even think about my brackets in my original post (as can be seen that the comment is a mix of both kinds of double and single brackets). 11Eternity11 (talk) 09:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a WP:DUCK situation. You're a brand new account. You have extensive knowledge of Wikipedia policy and quote esoteric essays and guidelines. You immediately jump right into a controversial topic which overflows with banned users. There's just no way you're a brand new user or someone who edited Wikipedia "long time ago" or who managed to find and read these esoteric policies, essays and guidelines and quote them in the proper context.

And I didn't revert you because you're a sock puppet. I reverted you because your edits were non-constructive and against policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Admin accountability and involvedness

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.

---

On 1 December, User:Mike V left an interaction ban reminder at User talk:The Rambling Man[171]. TRM replied[172] that he wasn't referring to the Ibanned person, but to another editor. Mike V[173] replied, basically saying that he didn't believe TRMs explanation. Mike V pointed to a FoF[174] which named the Ibanned editor, but apparently didn't notice that in tha FoF, GorillaWarfare expicitly states that the other editor (named by TRM) also canvassed.

For the next two weeks, people tried to get Mike Vs attention to point out that he was incorrect with this warning: User talk:The Rambling Man#Incorrect Interaction Ban Reminder. Apart from TRM, five editors (including other admins) seriously questioned Mike Vs action here (and in general, perhaps his actions need scrutiny beyond this incident as well). Despite being pinged about it, Mike V didn't respond any further.

However, the 14th he found the time and reason to block TRM; User talk:The Rambling Man#Block Notice. As could be expected, no one seems to agree with the block, and certainly not with who made the block and in what way. Mike V was confronted about this at his talk page ([[User talk:Mike V#Block of TRM], where he claims that "I was not aware of the AE posting when I made the block." (Andrew D, not having any RFAs to troll at the moment, started an AE section about TRMs comments at WP:ERRORS). This makes it clear that he is following TRMs edits, looking for reasons to block, even though he is too good to come back to his incorrect interaction ban warning and admit that TRM might indeed have referred to the other editor mentioned in that FoF discussion.

To me (and quite a few others apparently) this indicates an admin who is not making an uninvolved, neutral block but an admin looking for an excuse to block someone he clearly is out to get. Whether TRM deserved to be blocked or thanked is a separate discussion: but MikeV should unblock, rescind the interaction ban warning, and leave TRM alone (certainly in his admin capacity). Fram (talk) 10:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• As Fram notes, MikeV has said that he was unaware of the AE request at the time of the block. Let me fill in a few more details. The block was at 03:20 on 14 December. The ERRORS thread had been removed 5 hours earlier, so MikeV couldn't have seen it without going through the page history or TRM's edits. Between 23:50, when the notification of the AE thread was given to TRM, and the block no other edits had been made to TRM's talk page, so TRM's talk page would have appeared on MikeV's watchlist with "Arbcom enforcement" as the most recent entry. So either MikeV was stalking TRM's edits, which gives a clear impression of someone looking for a reason to block, or he is not being entirely open about his knowledge of the AE request. Neither is impressive. (Later addition to this comment: I should have mentioned that I commented in TRM's favour at the AE discussion but not as an uninvolved admin.) Bencherlite^Talk 10:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Some admins are plain irresponsible. Some repeatedly engage in deplorable, virtually vandalism behaviour. And (at least in theory) even more than non-admins, they have a vested interest in not admitting when they are wrong. But there's not a whole lot that can be done about it. Blocks and bans of admins are pretty rare, if they are even a thing (it would be pretty weird if an admin closed, for instance, an AFD and then was subject to a block because the article was in an area they were TBANned from, or the AFD was opened by a user they were IBANned with). So beyond a slap on the wrist, all we really have is the desysopping process. I am not sure how often it works. I know of two admins who have been desysopped, and of those two one was only an admin for a brief period and clearly never should have been given the mop, and the other was given the mop back after a very short time. I don't think reforming the system would be a good idea, though, since any more accountability we demand of members of the admin corps will be gamed to harass great admins who may or may not have made a mistake but are generally far better at using the admin tools for what they are meant to be used for and so have made enemies among NOTHERE users, vandals, sock-users and their enablers. This guy, for example. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• A shockingly common trend amongst administrators these days. There needs to be a process where the community can de-sysop someone, because this is beyond ridiculous. One could easily draw parallels to the current police issue in the United States. There is absolutely no accountability. --Tarage (talk) 11:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) I also believe the block should be removed; MikeV seems too involved with TRM to me as well. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Mike V claims he was unaware of the AE discussion when he made the block. That's clearly nonsense, as seen in this diff [175] of Mike V adding the block notice to TRM's talk page, wherein the notice of the AE thread -- which had been there 3+ hours -- is clearly present. Likely Mike V was just in too much of a hurry to go lecture, threaten, and/or block someone else to have taken the time to look. I should add that I have serious concerns about TRM's behavior, and the block might even have been warranted (via the AE thread) but this kind of sloppy and heedless administrator cowboyism muddies everything, distracts from the real issues, and corrodes faith in the admin corps. EEng 11:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Mike V (talk · contribs) This is a bad block and you were the wrong person to impose it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Why are you wasting a ping? He's as likely to respond as Jupiter is to leave its orbit. EEng 11:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• I'm no fan of TRM, but given that this block was on such shaky grounds it was always likely to be questionable. Even if one agrees with it Mike V was clearly the wrong person to impose it. I concur that Mike V's claim to be unaware of the AE discussion is either a lie, or evidence that the block was imposed too hastily without bothering to conduct the most minimal enquiry into the circumstances, since there's no way he could have carried out even the most cursory of checks into the context without being aware of it. (If he was aware of the AE thread than this is an outright supervote, and should be promptly overturned.) ‑ Iridescent 11:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

It should be overturned anyway, and the AE thread allowed to run its course. Someone needs to start belling the Mike V cat. EEng 11:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, assuming Mike V doesn't overturn it himself (which isn't going to happen, as he never admits he's made a mistake), the only way to overturn an AE block is the clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE or uninvolved editors at AN or a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA. Without holding the discussion in one of those three venues (and ANI is explicitly excluded), any admin overturning the block will be automatically kicked off the island regardless of the merits of the case. ‑ Iridescent 11:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

So, Iridescent, should we move this island over to WP:AN where an admin overturning the block won't be summarily desysopped? or is that now off the table because the discussion started here? Mr rnddude (talk) 11:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, we can't, as it doesn't make any difference. Per the explicit instructions at WP:AE, "Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction." Unless TRM directly requests an unblock, we probably can do nothing. TRM has expressed the same concerns over the blocking admin's general fitness to be an admin on his user talk page, but I don't see where he has requested his block to be overturned. --Jayron32 12:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Appeal by TRM. Bencherlite^Talk 12:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Appeal filed at WP:AN. --Jayron32 12:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Is this a legal threat?

After I proposed an article they created for deletion, Masha Ukraina (talk · contribs) posted this to my talk page, suggesting the proposal might amount to defamation. I'm not entirely sure what our policies on the matter are, but it certainly feels like something that could be construed as a legal threat. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

It looks to me to be an attempt at intimidation. It doesn't specify that legal action will be taken, but, does make the threatening imposition that legal action may be and has previously been taken. I'd take it as an empty threat though - still an NLT vio -, there is no history of the page being deleted in the logs. Nor do I believe that the representatives managed to track down some random on the internet and file a successful defamation lawsuit. It's bogus, but, yes it's a thinly veiled, civilly delivered, passive-aggressive/resistant, threat. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not a legal threat, and it's not attempted intimidation. The user is asserting that they have checked certain facts regarding a "player" (presumably the newly created Enrico dos Santos). They spell out what they say are the requirements for a player to be a "professional footballer" and assert that the person satisfies each of the requirements. The user was advised that an earlier article was deleted years ago, and that they should "tread carefully". That is model behavior from a new editor. I have no comment regarding the article or the claims, but the words should be taken at face value—the editor is asking for help. Clearly the article is currently inadequate but that is unrelated to the issue posed here. Johnuniq (talk) 05:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. From the diff above: "...there was someone from wikipedia that deleted his page years ago and it got ugly as they found out who this person was and their true occupation(some kind of scientist) and they proceeded with a full defamation suit and won..." This is (1) untrue and (2) a clumsy attempt at intimidation. It can't be allowed to stand. Although, I am not a great enthusiast of such people being blocked. But I will be delivering them an appropriate warning. MPS1992 (talk) 05:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Model behavior? "One of his representatives advised me to tread carefully as there was someone from wikipedia that deleted his page years ago and it got ugly as they found out who this person was and their true occupation(some kind of scientist) and they proceeded with a full defamation suit and won." Given that this is frank bullshit, either Masha was told a tall tale by said representatives, or Masha is most certainly trying to intimidate Sputnik, but smart enough to make it sound like the threat is coming from someone else. I lean toward the latter, but my conviction is not strong enough to hit that block button. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, we've read this entirely differently in that case. For one, I have difficulty strecthing my good faith to encompass the apparently bogus claim that this has ended up in court before. Unless there's something in logs that I can't see, the user has either been lied to by representatives, or, is lying to us themselves. I hope the former is correct over the latter. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this was an attempt at intimidation and falls under WP:NLT. Note also that there's a gap of only a few hours between Mr rnddude tagging the article and the less-than-credible response. I'm not all that familiar with business practices in Brazil, but I don't think there's even half a chance in Hell that a legitimate "representative" would respond so quickly, on a Saturday evening, to a complaint about Wikipedia editing. Given that "Masha" has only been editing for about 12 hours, it's hard to believe there's any constructive intent to be found there. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 06:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually Hullaballoo Wolfowitz Sir Sputnik put the PROD on the article. I've never edited the article myself (nor was I the recipient of the message). Your timeline does make a good point though as well. In twelve hours we go from article creation, to representatives contacted, to the message on Sir Sputnik's page. That's... not very likely at all. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 06:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• Just to repeat, as I often do, that if we just eliminated all coverage of footy players we'd reduce ANI traffic considerably, and no one would care. EEng 05:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
• This presumably concerns Aaron Enrico dos Santos. There's some background in a couple of threads in an archive which suggests any legal action might have been taken elsewhere. (ping ping). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The editor has now said, inter alia, "This is definitely not a threat i said that this was what was told to me ... The warning i did receive was from them to me and not from me to you". This is all very tiresome and I struggle to accept the truth of it, but if Sir Sputnik does not object, I imagine this can probably be closed in the hope that Masha Ukraina now knows to avoid saying or implying the things that they did before. MPS1992 (talk) 06:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

That ("from them to me") is how I read it. By "model" I was referring to the approach, not the ability to write English or an article. Johnuniq (talk) 06:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Hmm... this is all very unusual. It's quite difficult for me to belive that the representatives were willing and able to track down the deletor of the article and sue for defamation - they can't possibly control what content Wikipedia does and does not "create" or "keep". That's Wikipedia's choice. That said, I agree with MPS1992, close with no action, ensure that Masha is aware that Wikipedians take NLT extremely seriously and to be careful in implying even the possibility of legal action, and allow the editor to continue their work on the article. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the extra info, @Zzuzz:. It's pretty obvious that all three accounts that have been involved in the dos Santos articles are the same person, and they tried the same indirect legal threat last time as well. My assumption of good faith has run out, and all accounts are blocked for abusive sockpuppetry. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Oddly enough; The individuals who had written/published articles that were not authorized by the above mentioned athlete has in fact been sued for misrepresentation, false publication and defamation. is the exact opposite of someone from wikipedia that deleted his page years ago and it got ugly ... they proceeded with a full defamation suit and won. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

It turns out the editor in question was sockpuppet, so most of this is moot. Thank you to everyone for your help. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring

Earlier a potential legal threat by user Duqsene against wikipedia was discussed in this noticeboard. I want to add that the user is already edit warring to exclude the people from the Abyssinian people. User's account is just created 9 days ago and he has already made 5 reverts [176], pushing for the exclusion of that people under that article. Per WP:NOTHERE I think admins should also review if the the user is here to build an encyclopedia or only for this particular cause. Before the user’s involvement there has been peace in that article for several months as new contents were added or removed when consensus is achieved following a long discussion [177][178].

To give a brief clarification on the issue: The Eritrean Tigre people ceded from Ethiopia after a long liberation war but their language is still categorized under Ethiopian semitic languages (also known as Abyssinian languages) [179][180] while the people do not identify themselves as Ethiopian nor Abyssinian. Linguists named the language family based on where most people speak the languages (like the Iranian languages family) and I don’t think it is appropriate to exclude peoples or languages from an ethno-linguistic article (which is created similar to Bantu peoples & Iranian Peoples) based on political, nationalism & religious factors. Abyssinian people article is part of the larger Semitic people ethno-linguistic group [181] that also includes Jews, eventhough the overwhelming majority semites are muslims. Since Tigre people also don't identify themselves as 'Ethiopian' there could be a push by the user (based on his warning) to exclude them from Ethiopian Semitic languages article[182]. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 11:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Duqsene is not currently edit-warring on Abyssinian people because it is currently fully protected for nearly a week due to previous edit-warring. MPS1992 (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

After the page protection [183] edit-warring stoped, but after that it is likely user will continue to disrupt. While edit-warring this is what I observed: when user keeps on deleting sourced contents user did not explain reasons in the article's talkpage and did not try to get consensus even though repeatedly told to do so. Per WP:BRD still no specific reasons discussed in the article's talkpage so that other editors also have their say. These shows that user is not interested to use dispute resolution mechanisms to build encyclopedia by consensus. Moreover, based on this complaint in Admin talkpage user is not behaving like new editors even though account created 10 days ago. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Vjmlhds' monthslong 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.

---

Vjmlhds (talk · contribs) has been involved in a content dispute over which WWE entities constitute WWE brands since at least September.

September:He believes WWE NXT is a main brand. He edits the main WWE article to reflect his belief ([184][185][186]) and makes numerous edits like this ([187], [188], [189]) to wrestler articles. A discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 98#NXT as a 3rd brand does not end in his favor.

October:He spends the month edit warring on WWE in an attempt to say there are three WWE brands.[190][191][192][193][194][195][196][197][198]

He is warned twice for edit warring[199][200] and at Talk:WWE#edit regarding brands I warn him that I would report him if this continued.

November:This continued[201][202][203][204]

In late November WWE introduced 205 Live, creating additional edit warring over its status as a potential brand:[205][206][207][208]. Another edit war poured out into List of current champions in WWE:[209][210][211][212][213]

This month:After a series of edits like this ([214], [215]), I warn him that continued disruption would lead me to report him.[216] He subsequently starts another edit war on WWE Cruiserweight Championship.[217][218][219][220] Today he continued edit warring on WWE ([221], [222]), made this edit to List of current champions in WWE, and told us to "quit acting like I'm just some schmuck" and that "Somebody has a case of "too big for their britches-itis" on Talk:WWE#edit regarding brands.

We've been patient with him and tried to work with him but we've gotten nowhere in three months. Can someone step in and take a closer look here?LM2000 (talk) 05:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

LM2000 You can revert the articles back to anything you want, and I won't touch them. However, I don't appreciate the "we tried to be patient with him" line...all you tried to do was browbeat me. Maybe if you tried to compromise instead of being so strident, it wouldn't have gotten to this point...things work better when both sides give a little to meet in the middle rather than one telling the other "no" all the time. Vjmlhds (talk) 05:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

That's totally false. I've made it clear that I respect you, that's why I waited so long to take this here. I'm not going to withdraw this but I want to make it clear that I don't want him to face sanctions on the more severe end of the spectrum, I've edited with him for years and I've had mostly positive experiences.LM2000 (talk) 05:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

LM2000 I'm giving you what you want. End this, I'll surrender, and this can be over. You have my word of honor on record...no more problems. Vjmlhds (talk). 06:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I believe you. If an administrator finds it appropriate, I'd like this thread to be closed with a warning to Vjmlhds that he will face a block if he starts edit warring over this again.LM2000 (talk) 06:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

LM2000 I can live with that. You're right - we've been doing business together for years, never had an issue (until now)...no need to have this linger. [[User:Vjmlhds|LM2000]] (talk) 06:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I've seen you make great edits but this has seemed to consume you these last few months. I agree with LM2000, close with a warning and let's build this together not separated. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 06:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

WarMachineWildThing First, anyone with a Patriot mask can't be all bad, and second, I have this need to show that I'm right that gets so out of whack that I get carried away. That's not a you problem, that's a me problem. NXT isn't something that is worth this much grief. Vjmlhds (talk) 06:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks I think lol. None of what's been going on is worth it. More talk less warring, we all want the samething. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 06:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Let's collapse this after all. As with "Mature Audience" content warnings, it just draws more attention anyway, so good.

Just to repeat, as I often do, that if we just eliminated all coverage of professional wrestling we'd reduce ANI traffic considerably, and no one would care. EEng 05:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC) If you dared say that in front of my editor-in-chief, he would probably stab you. But, I honestly think WWE is crap. --QEDK (愛) 05:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC) I'm utterly serious about that, BTW. EEng 07:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC) Yes, as a hypothetical. But we can't actually just eliminate it altogether. What are we gonna do, make WWE articles grounds for CSD? AlexEng(TALK) 06:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC) In practice the idea would be to reform the notion of RS in this area, to stop mistaking "achievements" and "championships" in this area, covered in phony industry promotional material, as bases for notability. As a random example: Hercules_Ayala, and see the walled-garden table at WP:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling. I wouldn't care a whit except they keep showing up here with their nonsense disputes over masks and who's the champion of their heros' fake battles. EEng 10:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Protection from IP sock

Can we get some protection on Noel Coward please with regards to this? Cassianto^Talk 01:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Protected. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Cassianto and Someguy1221: I blocked the range, so this may be solved even without the protection. I'll leave it to you to decide if you want to leave the page protection in place. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to all. Cassianto^Talk 01:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I put the protection in place since the vandalism came from three different ranges. The range you blocked is the vandal's cell phone. He also edited from his home cable connection, and a home cable connection on another continent, somehow. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• All you nerds may be interested in the recent edit history of User talk:What cat?, User talk:Sro23/unconfirmed, User talk:KrakatoaKatie, and no doubt a host of others. It's the same child (probably) I reported on AN earlier today, who last night used 121.164.181.176 and a bunch of others. I'm starting to like the idea of mandatory registration. Drmies (talk) 04:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• And now 79.178.223.148. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94

There are currently a number of discussions going on on how to assess the notability of academic journals. This all started with an editing disagreement at Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing, an article that was kept after an AfD slightly over a month ago (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing). While the discussion was intensive, it was civil and assuming good faith from all sides. Without participating in that discussion, WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94 opened a new AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing (2nd nomination)). Because I disagreed with them, I was informed that I was incompetent. Meanwhile, WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94 modified WP:NJournals to obtain their desired outcome in said AfD. I was subsequently compared to WP:Randy in Boise (here) and again called incompetent and told that I don't belong here (here). I next received a summons on my talk page to reveal my academic credentials, which I of course refused (I don't give any personal information and, in any case, it's irrelevant because it's the arguments that should do the convincing, not the credentials). I responded in that sense and informed WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94 that I did not like their personal attacks and warned them that another attack would result in an ANI post. The answer to that was this, again implying incompetence and in addition accusing me of "having an agenda". So here we are. I think that during all discussions I have remained civil and calm and request that someone put a stop to these personal attacks on my competence and integrity. --Randykitty (talk) 13:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I apologize if I'm getting hot under the collar here, but this is exactly the area of Wikipedia that I'm most concerned that we are vulnerable to WP:FRINGE POV-pushing and coatracked promotionalism. I am extremely worried that Wikipedia's coverage of academic journals may be compromised by individuals with conflicts of interest who are either connected to fringe journals or to certain publishing houses, and there is no mechanism in place to protect us from this right now. The combative nature of this user's first comment at the second nomination of the article for AfD got my attention. I further discovered that he is the user who is promoting the use of an essay as policy in a variety of WP:AfDs, which I myself got confused by and used in my own discussion! I do not like being hoodwinked like this into believing that an essay represents guidelines or consensus. His commitment to an editorial slant at Wikipedia where basically we have an article on literally any journal that is indexed and listed in a compendium of 10,000 journals whose impact factors have been measured is alarming to me. Further, the current essay claims that indexing and having an impact factor measured is simply good enough for establishing the reliability of sources! This is, as far as I can see, an attempt to backdoor an end-run around our commitment to WP:V and WP:RS. I do not take this kind of attack on Wikipedia lightly. When someone is promoting an essay as policy to circumvent our core identity, I am super scared. jps (talk) 14:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94, you seem to be missing the point here. The issue is not who is right or wrong about WP:NJournals, impact factors, or whatnot. The issue is your personal attacks and aspersions (repeated in your comment here) on my integrity. To save other editors time, my "aggressive AfD comment" mentioned above is here. The answer to that is illuminating, too. --Randykitty (talk) 14:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

As the creator of the article about Explore, I would just like to state, for the record, that i have no conflicts of interests pertaining to any academic journal or to any publishing houses. Everymorning (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

jps (formerly I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc) has a history of such behavior, which should be taken into consideration when discussing a solution to this recurring problem.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Also this happened in September. 0/10. Wasn't a fun time. Do not recommend. TimothyJosephWood 14:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Seems like block is in order for a repeat WP:NPA offender. And for the record WP:NJOURNALS has been used by WP:JOURNALS since 2009 or so. It is the standard by which we judge journals and has general agreement by all members of the project on the core ideas that impact factors and indexing is what we go by to judge whether journals are notable or not, although there is always debate on how to interpret the criteria. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

This dispute caught my attention, and I've gone through all of the links etc. I agree with Headbomb that there is a serious problem here. It goes way beyond what jps called "getting hot under the collar". Even for fringe-y content, WP:RGW applies, and I think that WP:Civil ought to apply overall (even if it so very frequently does not). The repeated attacks on Randykitty are over-the-top, even outrageous. (I also know enough about Randykitty to be able to say that his editorial judgment about matters of science is impeccable.) On the other hand, I do have to say in fairness that the "trout" comment at the AfD (linked above) was counterproductive and probably triggered most of the problems here. The "trout" term really should only be used in a humorous situation, in which the recipient knows that it is humorous; otherwise, it misfires. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

"The 'trout' term really should only be used in a humorous situation, in which the recipient knows that it is humorous..." says the guy whose name is "Tryptofish". Any conflicts of interest you care to disclose, Mr. "Fish"? Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

As disclosed on my user page, I am in Category:Users who cannot be trouted because they are already fish. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• A full and frank exchange of views is fine, attacking people is not. Yes, an essay has been used for a long time, largely unnoticed because until recently its use did not lead to any obviously problematic results. A publisher is deleted as non-notable, an editor creates redirects, categories, articles on journals published by that company. I have no doubt this is motivated by a sincere desire to achieve completeness, but it amounts to an attempt to end-run around deletion, That annoys people. now we have a journal which is basically kept on the basis of the Sixth Pillar of Wikipedia, WP:ITSINDEXED, as codified in the essay NJOURNALS, but whihc several people have noted fails WP:GNG and especially needs to be covered by independent sources (rather than the self-description offered by its publisher to the indexes) because of its habit of publishing abject nonsense. Yes, that gets heated. No, attacking people is not acceptable. As I say, I am sure that the journal project folks are completely convinced of the merits of what they are doing, and are doing it with the best of motives. Guess what? So are the people who want a bit less uncritical acceptance of articles with zero reliable independent sources. And I guess somewhere there is possibility for compromise, if people stop arguing from absolutist positions. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Let's not get distracted by the above. This thread is about the behaviour of an editor towards others and thereby making their experience less pleasurable here - not the notability of journals. Jps has a history of being uncivil - I offer just 2 examples of where I have been the target of this.

My comment is that your contributions here are garbage. jps (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC) [223]

My god but you are tiresome. If you don't like a conversation, don't comment in it! For someone who complains about harassment, you sure do seem to like to wikihound.[224]

DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Your plea in mitigation is interesting: yes, sometimes his sharp words are entirely apposite, like the examples you point out. So I think we should try to fix the underlying problem in this particular case, which is an arbitrary inclusion criterion that seems not to be appropriate. Guy (Help!) 01:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Spectacularly inappropriate, particularly in a discussion about personal attacks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
At least with jps you know what's going on, as opposed to DrChrissy, who is the epitome of a civil point-of-view pusher. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC) @Beyond My Ken:I wonder if you have any idea how bad it makes you look when you simply attack other users on here without actually contributing to the discussion. I would ask you what POV you believe I am pushing, but I know from experience you can not. In the future, if you wish to attack me, please ping me and try to spell my name correctly. DrChrissy (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC) Way past worrying about how expressing my considered opinions might make me look to those who don't actually investigate them. Anyone interested could start with your two topic bans -- one from ArbCom on GMOs and one from the community on Alternative medicine, both of which had to be made tighter because of your continued editing around their edges [225] -- and your interaction ban with Jytdog, all the result of your POV-pushing. You can deny it, you can criticize my spelling (a hit, a palpable hit), but it's right there for any Wikipedian to see: you are WP:CPOVP incarnate, and you might consider that your opinion on this issue is therefore fairly worthless. Please don't ping me again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC) No ping as requested. The above is incorrect and misleading on several levels. I leave it to readers to look at BMK's block log if they are so inclined. DrChrissy (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC) Actually, my statement is completely accurate, as anyone who looks into it will find, and - surprisingly enough - my block log doesn't have any effect whatsoever on the truth of those statements. Meanwhile, I'll note that you still haven't learned the difference in severity between some temporary blocks and several topic bans, and continue to act as if a topic ban is akin to a parking ticket, when it's much more like having your license revoked for reckless driving. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC) This rant of yours against me is completely off-topic and others might consider it disruptive. I invite someone to hat this part of the thread. DrChrissy (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

If I have learned anything from editing here for almost 4 years, it is that GNG is not gospel and there are numerous exceptions to it. These include situations where articles can meet GNG but still not be notable, as well as those where they can fail GNG and still be notable. Certainly there's no reason to assume that academic journals can't possibly be one of these exceptions. Everymorning (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

To some people. I will refer to something I just now wrote on this subject. The core of this dispute (not this civility dispute, but the bigger issue of NJOURNALS) is about the relationship of subject-specific notability guidelines (or essays?) and the notability guideline/gng. But that's for somewhere other than ANI. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• This comment from jps has a clear implication of intimidation and implies that those who disagree with him (the "teeming minions") are servile / unimportant underlings [226] [227] [228] of (presumably) Randykitty. It is generally directed and is not the sort of comment that I think is acceptable even in robust discussions. I ask jps to withdraw both the slur and the implied threat. Jps has made many excellent contributions over the years and I don't want to see his block log lengthened, but in this case he is acting as though anyone wo does not immediately agree with him in every detail is the enemy, and it is not helpful nor appropriate. I want him to be able to participate at talk:NJournals in a discussion of the page, but as a member of a community which makes decisions by consensus and not by howling down any contrary views. The majority of Wikipedians do not support FRINGE content or PSEUDOSCIENCE and are open to persuasion. Jps, can you do that? EdChem (talk) 04:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• jps, I'm one of your biggest fans, but if I had come across those comments as they happened I would have blocked you for them. Unacceptable. I don't know what to do or propose here (longtime productive user, etc etc) but this isn't good--and that on all people you'd pick on Randykitty, who's not only soft and cuddly but also one of the most strict and stringent editors in the field of academic journals, that's just utter foolishness. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I just won't deal with this anymore. I'm not going to comment on journals anymore. Have fun all. jps (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

That's not good for anyone. I'd rather you figure out why you felt it OK to respond to Randykitty in that way. I am more interested in you realizing your error (it was an error, no doubt about it) than I am in you not participating in an important field, much more important than most editors realize. Drmies (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know, maybe I'm not cut out for this kind of pseudonymous collaborative environment. So I get alarmed when I see coordinated efforts to establish problematic content or rules at Wikipedia. That's what's wrong, because when it looks to me like something terrible is happening, I feel helpless because there really is no mechanism here on Wikipedia to ring alarm bells. I totally admit that I was not patient and calm. After 10 years I cannot say I've seen patient and calm discussion actually work, and that saddens me. The best outcomes have been with pushing hard when things go wrong, so that people start paying attention. AN/I gets more eyeballs on a problem than FT/N which get more eyeballs that posting on a talkpage and letting it languish in the local consensus doldrums. Now that people might be paying attention to this moribund topic, I can bow out, I think. I think I should bow out. I have done either a good thing by bringing attention to a problem, or I've done a bad thing by bringing that attention problematically. Regardless, it's best if I step away.

My position on the underlying conflict is that at Wikipedia, I thought, we don't simply look at whether an impact factor exists. We don't look simply at whether a journal is indexed. We look at how or if it is used in the broader context of the topic WP:RS and WP:V, right? For example, I can name a number of journals that are indexed and have impact factors which are utterly non-notable and we should not have articles on them here (owing to WP:BEANS I will not be naming them). They are total and complete junk and we've deleted articles that fringe POV-pushers wrote about them in the past. Nevertheless, I now see that a local consensus of editors has determined that such POV-pushing should be allowed because the only criteria which are reasonable are the ones at WP:NJournal. However, try to get an actual discussion of that started. I cannot. If you can, please be my guest. I think I will just be a distraction.

jps (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Well, I don't think Randykitty et al. look at just the numbers, but numbers (and indexing, etc.) are factors in determining notability. I do object to the suggestion, if that's what it was, that he is part of a coordinated effort other than one that set up guidelines for notability for journals. He and I come at this from different angles--he's smart and so he does indexes and databases and stuff like that, and I do notability in other ways--who cites something, who founded something, who wrote it up, that sort of thing. And we've disagreed perhaps; I think I've "saved" one or two journals that he nominated for deletion. But I have no doubt, none whatsoever, about his good intentions and his academic integrity I also disagree with your comments about the first AfD, and I think you took that too far. It's OK to take stuff seriously, we should all do that, but you got personal. I won't repeat what I said above; I just wish you'd take those personal comments back, and I hope you can realize that Randykitty and you are on the same side. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I take it back. I take it all back. If the community would please deal with the categorical errors at WP:NJournals, I am thrilled to say I was wrong to assume that there was some sort of conspiracy and that Wikipedia is working fine. I'm wrong. There is no nefarious plot to skew Wikipedia towards journals like Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing. I'm sorry for lashing out at Randykitty's reverts and insistence that I shouldn't be allowed to start AfD pages. People want me to apologize. So I apologize. I apologize without reservation. jps (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, I don't think Randykitty et al. look at just the numbers, but numbers (and indexing, etc.) are factors in determining notability. -- That's not what WP:NJournals says. It says that once the numbers appear -- regardless of what they are the journal is notable. That's the party line! jps (talk) 07:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring on Tropical cyclones in popular culture

IP Users User:2A02:C7F:8651:3300:C12C:125:530F:C0D3 and User:2A02:C7F:8651:3300:517E:A9E0:F03:FE0 keep deleting sections of the page relating to fictional cyclones that appeared in the Simpsons.

The edits for User:2A02:C7F:8651:3300:517E:A9E0:F03:FE0 are:

[229] [230]

The edits for User:2A02:C7F:8651:3300:C12C:125:530F:C0D3 are:

[231] [232] [233]

I'm not sure what is going on here but this might be worth investigating. Graham1973 (talk) 03:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Seems like common disruptive editing. Warn then report at WP:AIV if it continues. Treat all IPs in that range as one account for the purposes of escalating warnings and reporting, noting any past IPs in the AIV report. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban on conspiracy theory related pages needed for JasonCarswell

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.

---

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

Overview: JasonCarswell is a self-admitted 9/11 Truther who has previously plotted to organize some sort of resistance among Truthers. He has edit warred to promote the works of conspiracy theorist James Corbett, leaving that alone to go cause go cause trouble in 9/11 related articles, giving up on that and continuing his conspiracy-theory-laden hagiography of James Corbett. He's also got this bloggy mess, this Truther spam, promotion of Truther conferences, as well as the more good-faith (though still messy) Draft:Lists of Truthers.

Highlighted edits:

• At 9/11 Truth movement, he tried to misrepresent a variety of unrelated sources as if they were evidence of the 9/11 Truther claims and spam links to Truther website. Not to mention forum like original research on the talk page.
• At Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, he tries to downplay reality in favor of conspiracy theories
• At Talk:Robert F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, he says "Nothing last forever, including crime scenes. Some just seem to go faster than others, especially when suspicious (WTC, Sandy Hook, etc)."
• At Talk:Alex Jones (radio host), admitting "I like Alex Jones with a grain of salt."
• At Talk:Chemtrail conspiracy theory, speculating on the motives as if the conspiracy theory is a given.
• Adding bizarre "See also" additions that only make sense if one is a conspiracy theorist at 9/11 conspiracy theories and Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theories

Overall: JasonCarswell is an unrepentant conspiracy theorist with no apparent understanding of what constitutes a reliable source, nor how to avoid original research. He has been warned about discretionary sanctions regarding 9/11, so we can go ahead and apply those now before resolving other matters. At a minimum, he needs to be topic banned from any page relating to conspiracy theories. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

You have some good points and some bad points - about mostly old news. I admit some of it. I'm an open book with good intentions. You should notice that months ago I pretty much stopped smashing my head against your "fringe" rules wall. Along the way I'm learning about this other world of WP culture as I keep stumbling into it, some good, some not. Despite other "groups" - skeptics monitoring atheist pages and the like, for example - they are not under sanctions. I knew about other groups long before I posted that idea that never acted upon. Sure, now know the rules about "cyber gangs" so it doesn't seem appropriate now. Sure, I had high hopes of at least trying to more accurately represent the Truther community - but the rules forbid it. (Good luck writing an article about the Bible, Shakespeare, Dumas, or Doyle without being able to quote or reference it.) Sure I basically abandoned my mess of drafts for now. Sure, on the one draft article I submitted I focused on getting it too pretty rather than better links. Sure, I realize (at the top of the article) that it still needs work (but I can't do it all alone). Sure I've made mistakes and tried not to repeat them across the ages. However, I was "repentant" for my "sins" having seen the WP light, and I've always been trying to do right. Regardless of whether they were guarding against "Truthers", on guard for citation accuracy, or on guard for a proper encyclopedia by their rules - I got around to understanding that. I don't understand why you got swearing and nasty today for reasons unknown to me other than "truthiness" seemed threatened. On the plus side I learned a new word: hagiography. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 12:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, this guy needs to be topic banned, and banned from citing webpages run by conspiracy theorists as sources. @JasonCarswell: please read WP:FRINGE. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Me describing some atrocious sourcing as a "fucking joke" is really not that bad. Boo-hoo, I described some websites as a joke with "fucking" for emphasis. Fake news and conspiracy theories, which can inspire unstable individuals to interrupt family dinners with an assault rifle (if not destabilize a country's democracy or cause genocide), are bad. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• The user has been given a DS alert, and the behaviour continues. A topic ban is entirely appropriate, the encyclopaedia will lose nothing from this as his edits in this area seem to add nothing other than Truther nonsense. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Right. I learned what "synthesis" was. I haven't synthesized anything since. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Clearly not, considering within the past nine days you cited articles at Tablet Mag and Washington Post that do not mention James Corbett as if they support claims about him. Hell, the Tablet Mag article is only tangentially related to anything in the article as a result that both mention Russia. Did you just type in "Russian not propaganda" in Google and copy the first link that came up or something? Not only that, but instead of trimming down the tinfoil around lines like "In addition to the history of oil, power, and economics, false flag events like the Oklahoma City bombing, the 9-11 inside jobs, and Operation Gladio..." -- you added more citations to indicate that you're standing by that garbage and intend for it to make it to article space! That's not to mention all the promotionalism of Corbett's shows! You know how to handle sources when they're totally insane. And yet, when it comes to PropOrNot listing Corbett as fake news, you cite an emotional puff piece with no bearing on Corbett to say "James Corbett is an indie citizen journalist accused of being Russian propaganda" and then a Washington Post article that doesn't mention Corbett for "fake news" before finally citing PropOrNot -- as if to hide the PropOrNot citation behind citations that are easier to ignore. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Clearly you continue to insult an honest effort at trying to create an article. It's not perfect. I know that. Everything here is a work in progress. I submit it for approval and constructive criticism, I don't ask for harsh "garbage" opinions. I don't remember what I was thinking at every step, some perhaps while exhausted. That's not and excuse, it's just a fact. Another fact is that I don't have a forbidden Truther gang with me, and I'm doing this all alone. Obviously I need help with it. Obviously that's harder when it's a draft and not an article than the public can find and contribute to. Knowing that I'm already flawed on occasion I loaded up the citations in case someone determines they need to be cut. Also, I did it in stages. At times I was looking for material. At other times I was cleaning up the references. Things may have slipped. One thing I do recall is that the Washington Post referenced the PropOrNot PDF that was conveniently archived on Google Drive rather than the PropOrNot website which has a list of their (very mixed bag) of so-called "fake news" of which The Corbett Report is near the top. I also folded in the former "The Corbett Report" article and it's history that existed from 2013-2015. That article was shortened not to include material about James Corbett. I didn't think it was well written but included most of it. I intended to go over the whole thing and reduce and refine it all, and try to remove my fanboy tone, then do more research. I know this isn't the best way to start an article but it was already started - twice. It said that it could take 2-3 weeks but it only took 1. So now I'm not going to work on a draft that will be deleted. I would like it not to be deleted and if it can't be an article for others to contribute to then I'd like it to be a draft I can work on. Also, what you say is so-call "promotionalism" is what I call documentation, because he is not a minor character as has been expressed by naysayers like you and whoever deleted "The Corbett Report" article. (For the record, though I'd been watching his work for years I'd never looked up "The Corbett Report" or "James Corbett" on Wikipedia before so I didn't know about the 2013-2015 article until this last week. I started the new article in May 2016 then chipped at it here and there then tried it again. I think your head is exploding for no good reason. Obviously the article needs a lot of work - by myself or with the world at large. There's no need to be a jerk about it. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 11:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

In the draft, you wrote "James Corbett comprehensively reports anti-stateism, Truther awareness, and anti-dogma concepts and contexts that mainstream media can't or won't" -- that's not "documentation," that's an advertisement. That's the tip of a jumbled mess of an iceberg. Of the 96 references in the article, over 80 are affiliated with and feature Corbett (with at least half of those actually written or produced by Corbett). The so called "references" section should be retitled "greatest hits." It doesn't need work, it needs to be paved over. Also, your wall of text does not address or hide the fact that barely a week ago you added conspiracy theorist garbage to the site and will continue to do so unless you are banned or blocked. It is not an insult to point out that that conspiracy theory garbage is conspiracy theory garbage: it is not "alternative narrative compost," it is the sort of useless trash Wikipedia does not welcome. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I thought that "advertisement" sentence was a good summary. Honestly. I didn't say he did a great job, and other flattering things that I might liked to. I was just trying to describe the content honestly and as best I could. Now I recognize that I should have included a toned down version of your assessment of his work to be more neutral and cover all bases. As my first article, I didn't know what to include exactly and how to include it. I was anticipating that other editors would cut and explain why and learn. All those Corbett Report links are to verify that he actually said what I said he said. I stopped editing fringe stuff in August after my "epiphany" when I stopped being perpetually defensive and actually stopped to read some of the rules. I don't recall adding anything fringey recently a week ago. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

That draft is "fringey." If someone is discussing matters the "mainstream media can't or won't," it's safe to assume it's fringe. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I've interacted with JasonCarswell and have come to the conclusion that he's a polite conspiracy enthusiast - someone who wants Wikipedia to take patently false or ridiculous assertions as either real or as things to be taken seriously. We get a lot of editors like that, who don't appear to take WP:V or WP:RS very seriously and who are really into speculative editing. I've become less patient with that kind of editing pattern, as the excessive credulity it demands of the encyclopedia is detrimental to its mission. Comet Ping Pong and the disambiguation at Pizzagate (which I take pains to note that JasonCarswell has not edited) are the latest example of a circumstance where mainstream, reliable sources are disregarded in the name of false balance and promotion of a conspiratorial POV by omission, and my tolerance for this kind of thing is lessened, as it can have real-life consequences.

I consider myself involved where JasonCarswell is concerned since I've edited in 9/11-related topics, so I take no action. I think a topic ban on the basis of conspiracy promotion and disregard for reliable sourcing and verifiability is needed. Acroterion (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I've intentionally avoided fringe stuff since August because I now know the it is pointless without a deep solid familiarity with all the rules. I am aware of Pizzagate and other fringe subjects but don't want to debate them here. I just wanted to write an article about a significant prolific skeptical geopolitical analyst, like the others already on WP. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

No, no you haven't avoided fringe subjects -- Draft:James Corbett (journalist) is fringe and you've shoehorned even more fringe ideas into it. Either you are lying or you aren't capable of understanding what fringe means. Either way, you do not need to be editing fringe topics. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• JasonCarswell continues to add primary source based original research to an article to emphasize quotes like "History is a myth that people agree to believe," citing sources like "Government and Sockpuppet Rodeo Clown Media Whores Lie, Distract, Distort and Redirect Attention." This appears to be part of a long term project to turn the article into support for conspiracy theorism. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• JasonCarswell states on this page "Holocaust denial is skepticism unfairly lumped into Antisemitism)," while euphemistically referring to conspiracy theories as "Alternative History With Contexts And Motives." Now, that is a user page, but it's a pretty clear indication that he lacks the capacity to neutrally edit articles relating to any kind of conspiracy theory (and possibly other topics). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban

I suggest a one-year topic ban for JasonCarswell from all WP:FRINGE subjects, broadly construed, and all subjects related to American Politics, as per the Discretionary Sanctions (American Politics 2) already in place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Why stop at one year? Someguy1221 (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Just seemed an appropriate time period. If JasonCarswell picks up after a year and continues as he is now doing, it should be easy enough to get the community to level an indefinite topic ban at that time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support Clearly a good idea. A topic ban from everything in american politics might be a little too broad, but I'll support this, it's still a good idea. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support I wouldn't have gone for the American politics one, but since he thinks that working on a draft about a conspiracy theorist (that treats conspiracy theories as assumed facts) counts as "avoiding fringe stuff," he needs as wide a buffer as he can be given. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - clear lack of ability to think critically. I blame the American educational system. There's a truther viewpoint. John from Idegon (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Blame Canada. I am Canadian. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support- agree with ThePlatypusofDoom. Class455 (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. JasonCarswell's edits show he is simply incapable of approaching this subject in an NPOV manner. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support although I suppose I too might prefer an indefinite ban with the possibility of it being reviewed after a year. But, hell, maybe the world will be a bit saner in a year or two. OK, I just remembered - Donald Trump was elected. John Carter (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, doesn't seem to understand WP:NPOV. Paul August ☎ 01:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Don't Support I don't know when "good faith" kicks in but I haven't tried to edit 9/11 or truther pages for months, after I ultimately read some of the countless long rules and finally understood some. I only tried to start the one article which needed more citations in May but overloaded in November. I may have even made other "mistakes" under good intentions. My behaviour has evolved as I've learned but now you are trying me for past "crimes" from months ago. You are obviously entitled to do so, but I wasn't editing those political articles anyway. I just think you're over reacting. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

You call editing a draft about a conspiracy theorist (and treating 9/11 conspiracy theories as assume facts in that draft) not editing "truther pages"? ("Pages" includes more than article space. If you weren't editing the draft on James Corbett for article space, then there was no reason to edit it.) You call [You call linking to 9/11 Conspiracy Theories to an article on someone who revealed mistakes by American intelligence not editing 9/11 pages? You call editing an article on a political commentator not editing political articles?

It seriously looks like you're here just to push a conspiracy theorist agenda in articles. If you're serious about migrating away from 9/11, conspiracy theories, and political topics, then the topic ban should be a moot point for you. But, if you're planning on flying below the radar while you try to more subtly give the illusion of credibility to those topics and promote James Corbett across smaller pages (as your behavior over the past month suggests), then I can see why a topic ban would be a problem. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

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

ISB22

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:ISB22 keeps adding pseudoscience to Electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Multiple warnings from multiple editors, no attempt to discuss on article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• ISB22, you really need to stop editing that article and start talking (here and on talk page), or, there is no doubt, you will be blocked. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Related:

• Draft:Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity

--Guy Macon (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

This user's last edit was to explain herself on my talk page. She is convinced that the Wikipedia is wrong on this topic, and want to see it corrected. I introduced her to some reading material about sources, verifiability, and NPOV, and encouraged her to use the talk page of the article to discuss her concerns rather than disrupt the article or create her own WP:POVFORK. I don't think threats or warnings are the solution here. Rather, with some patience and understanding perhaps Wikipedia could gain another dedicated volunteer. Bradv 05:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I posted this warning message on the user's talk page a few hours before this ANI was opened. Yesterday there was no such disruption, just the appeal to Bradv. I think this ANI is premature and would suggest that we wait and see how things pan out from here on. A new editor with a passion always takes time to get to know our ways. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• I'm happy to wait a while on this as the user is polite so far, but it's fair to restrict them to the Talk page at this point IMO. Guy (Help!) 12:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• I am fine with that. Note that the draft that was nominated for MfD has been moved to userspace. It will be interesting to see if ISB22 can create something backed up by reliable sources that supports his views. I couldn't find any but I have been wrong before. Perhaps we can close this as being resolved? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

  Related: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard‎#...biomarkers characterizing and identifying electrohypersensitivity and multiple chemical sensitivity... --Guy Macon (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

  The user has voluntarily stopped editing the article and is now working on draft material in their own sandbox and the MfD has followed it there. I think this newbie feels well enough bitten already and a further formal warning would make that worse. Time is passing and all is under control. I would agree that this AfD can be closed without further ado. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Alma Fordy

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.

---

Alma Fordy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been warned to stop adding US distribution companies on none-US film articles in the infobox (per WP:FILMDIST). I've warned them several times to stop (and acknowledge that they've been warned), but they continue to cause disruption. Please can someone take a look? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 19:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Alma also likes to create odd WP:EGGs like this. As these are names that are already linked in the infobox these are WP:OVERLINKS as well. Now they have only edited under this account for two days so we can allow for a learning curve but the fact that they are ignoring messages on their page about what they are doing wrong is not an encouraging sign. MarnetteD|Talk 20:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Same kind of edits are being made by 100.14.29.248 (talk · contribs). The possibility of socking adds to our concerns. MarnetteD|Talk 20:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Alma Fordy certainly seems to be edit warring as both a logged in user and an IP. This is especially evident at Leviathan (2014 film), but it's also happening at several other articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I just found Alma Fordi (talk · contribs). I'm going to file an SPI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC) edit: filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alma Fordy. Be nice if an admin looked at it. The evidence is pretty solid and concise. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to you both on this - much appreciated. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I reported this user for edit warring due to frequent revisions to various movies with unsourced material, including adding uncredited names/companies to the list. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Alma Fordy reported by User:Chrissymad (Result: ) Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk

Thanks Chrissy. Is any admin going to look at this? Here's someone who's causing a ton of issues, reported by several users, but nothing is being done. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 19:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: I think maybe its because the user has made some constructive edits (I think?) Maybe they (Alma, not admins) are just really, really, really misguided and obstinate.... Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk

The SPI was closed (thanks, Vanjagenije). Alma Fordi was indefinitely blocked; the IP and Alma Fordy were each blocked for three days. We'll probably be back here in three days. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

That's some comfort, I guess. I'll make a note in my calendar. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 09:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Sleyece

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 issue between the user in the title of this and an IP user. The complaint to me by the IP user can be found here: [234]. This is a personal attack against an IP user. [235]. I put a notice on Sleyece's talk page with a link to the essay IP's are people too. When responding to this, please ping me. _{Adotchar| reply here} 22:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I said this "You are not even signed into a profile. Please do not participate on this page without a auto-confirmed user page. I will now submit a semi-protection request to prevent you from making mass edits without a user page." It has been slightly edited since, but it is objectively NOT a "personal attack." --Sleyece 17:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sleyece:: Anyone, anonymous or otherwise, is welcome to contribute to articles and discussions on talk-pages. Where do you get this weird idea that since you have a "profile" you can boss anonymous users around and forbid them to participate in discussions? Kleuske (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sleyece:: Indeed Paul August ☎ 22:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Will we do anything about this? _{Adotchar| reply here} 22:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I did not intend it as a personal affront to the user. If that is how this is being taken, I'm sorry. My word choice may have been poor. I will respect the decision of the admins if it is decided I have comitted a punishable offense This incident is part of an active debate on how to best improve the page "Historical Rankings of U.S. Presidents." I have been a very active member of the debate, but if the community decides that does not want me in it, there is no need to ban me. Simply tell me to stop, and I will no longer edit it. I personally am very passionate about that page, and I think it should be a featured article eventually. If I am a prevention of that goal, or if I would best serve the community by desisting, please let me know. -- Sleyece 18:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Calm your jets, a simple "don't tell IP editors not to edit just because they're IP editors" seems sufficient in this case. All editors are welcome to contribute. Refute the merits of an argument, no the arguer. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, as long as you understand that IP editors have just as much right to edit any page as any other editor, and deserve as much respect as any other editor, then no more action should be needed here. Paul August ☎ 00:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Rangeblock request for 175.158.200.*

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 not very good with calculating rangeblocks, so please bear with me. I've recently encountered a user who adds unsourced future dates to Western cartoon pages. Example edits: [236], [237], [238], [239], [240]. Their IP bounces around the 175.158.200.* range, typically at the lower end of the 256 addresses. Below is a table of IPs who have vandalized, their active dates, and number of vandalism edits.

IP address	Date	Number edits	Geolocation	Notes
175.158.200.61 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)	23-24 November 2016	1 edit	Philippines
175.158.200.15 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)	27 November 2016	1 edit	Philippines
175.158.200.27 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)	27 November 2016	1 edit	Philippines
175.158.200.8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)	3 December 2016	1 edit	Philippines
175.158.200.53 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)	7 December 2016	2 edits	Philippines
175.158.200.36 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)	9 December 2016	3 edits	Philippines
175.158.200.31 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)	10 December 2016	13 edits	Philippines
175.158.200.46 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)	5 & 11 December 2016	6 edits	Philippines
175.158.200.44 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)	12 December 2016	5 edits	Philippines
175.158.200.35 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)	13 December 2016	13 edits	Philippines
175.158.200.63 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)	14 December 2016	5 edits	Philippines	Blocked on 14:40, 14 December 2016 by RickinBaltimore for 31 hours
175.158.200.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)	14-15 December 2016	3 edits	Philippines

Given the narrow range of the IPs I thought I would ask an admin to look into a rangeblock. The collateral damage seems moderate though based on edits in the range since November ([241]). EvergreenFir (talk) 05:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• 175.158.200.0/26 and 112.198.200.0/26 blocked for one month. Katie^talk 13:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: Thank you but I just realized a mistake. Just 175.158.200.0/26 needs a block. I have typos in my table for the first few entries. I've fixed them in this version. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay - unblocked the other range. Thanks. Katie^talk 15:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing, vandalism by Temiz2016 (talk)

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.

---

Disruptive editing: User Temiz2016 consistently removes the valid information and reference from [Nobel Oil Group] [Revision history]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shada sh (talk • contribs) 13:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Diffs don't work with |, just put a space and then name it. Fixed it for you. Also you are obligated to inform the user in question of this AN/I thread. Which I've done for you. That said, {{ANI}} applies. Two reverts hardly constitute edit-warring and you have not even tried to use the editor's talk page or the article talk page. Go to the article talk page and discuss your edits first. WP:BRD applies. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• Shada sh, you need to open a thread on the talk page of the article, and gain WP:CONSENSUS for the text you tried to add which was reverted. (The appropriate guideline to follow is WP:BRD.) The material you added is based on highly questionable inferences that are merely possibly suggested (not proved or stated) in the Panama Papers [242] – which are not a reliable source for Wikipedia, especially in regard to a living person. I don't think your suggested material is going to gain consensus for that reason, but either way, you must engage in discussion on the article's talk page rather than here at ANI, as this is merely a content dispute, and the other editor is not doing anything wrong. Softlavender (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Reporting disruptive editor User:Panoramalama

Deletes part of a name of a prominent scientist and removes a entire sub-section from his page without leaving edit summaries.

When reverted leaves fake notice on my talk page threatening me of edit warring.

The user then again removes the part of person's name saying its an honorific even though its not. KhaasBanda (talk) 03:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I would class this as content dispute. Did you open a talk page discussion, as per WP:BRD? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

How does removing part of a person's name become a content dispute. This is down right malicious edit on the part of User:Panoramalama. If you look at his other edits, his racist and casteist views are apparent. He should be dealt with as per WP:NOTHERE since his disruptive behaviour is so visible. KhaasBanda (talk) 14:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@KhaasBanda: I don't think those diffs promote racism. The first one looks more like a complaint of people of different races making people more suspicious, and the second one looks more anti-castes than for it. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@KhaasBanda: I agree that your initial complaint is more of a content dispute, though I must also agree that slapping a template for edit-warring on your talk page for reverting the change was improper on the part of Panoramalama. However, part of WP:BRD is discussion, and enough time lapsed between Panoramalama's initial edits and your change that one could consider that you performed the B and Panaoramalama performed the R. As no discussion has taken place on the article's talk page or either of your user talk pages, I would begin there. I also agree with ThePlatypusofDoom that your second set of diffs do not show what you purport them to show. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 13:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Editor removing links to a website claiming DMCA violations

• hwalibrary.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Gtaeaicg (talk · contribs) is going through [Armstrongism] related articles removing links to [243] with the edit summary "removed: links to DMCA, Digital Millennium Copyright violations". I don't know if this is legitimate or something else, but this edit changing "Other nonstream teachings" to "Other teachings Christ Himself taught" alerted me to a possible problem. And [244] changed source text. Doug Weller talk 19:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

No opinion at this time (apart from noting that changing dots to commas in URLs borders on plain vandalism) but editors might want to look at MarkS7982 (talk · contribs) at the same time. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

It is not legitimate. This is not how the DCMA works. Someone doing this should be blocked on sight. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Of course it's not how DCMA works. But how are the links? Spammy? Free of copyright problems? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted all of the removals, which seem to point to http://www.hwalibrary.com/ ... if they're to be removed it should be for valid, not invalid reasons. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I've still no real opinion, but just to quote Gtaeaicg, "site contains .. Copyright .. violations". Whether to restore this link, which was removed for a stated policy-compliant reason, and was undeniably spammed in the first place, is something to consider carefully. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The edit summaries are in the form: "removed: link to site contains DMCA, Digital Millennium Copyright Act violations" ... which is bogus, and "removed: DMCA violations", which is bogus. The bogus assertion is that the site violates the act, not that there are copyvios on the site. To be clear, the removals were not for a "stated policy-compliant reason", and your very selective quoting of the edit summaries does not help, zzuuzz. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I interpret the comments as suggesting it's a link to copyios. I also suggest that the site contains copyrighted material, and that the registered website owner, who spammed the links himself, is not the copyright holder. According to our article, these copyrights have a value and the website has no affiliation. Personally, I would not be happy restoring these links. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

In exactly what way is your post immediately above not WP:OUTING, zzuuzz? Outing is normally an immediate block offence, in my experience. Here you are asserting that a person easily identifiable is the identity of a wikipedia user; besides making an assertion/inference, which whether true or not, is wholly unsubstantiated, that the site hosts copyvio material. Might I request admins who take an interest in WP:OUTING to review zzuuzz's post and to handle zzuuzz as they would any other outer? --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I have informed user:MarkS7982 of this discussion. Since Doug opened this topic, MarkS7982 has reverted one of the removals, showing that they're aware of the issue. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 22:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment - given the timing of when this began, I'm suspecting that this activity is potentialy related to the above thread #Legal threats by Dollyparton7 - specifically that user's statement " I will be submitting a demand and takedown injunction to Wikipedia Legal for the article to be completely redacted under our United States Legal rights and governing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act."([245]). If related; then this may also call for additional updates to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Garnerted - pending further input. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

It very much looks like another sock. I would suggest adding it to the report. —Farix (t | c) 23:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

MarkS7982 replied - I do not know what specific issue is being discussed, but HWALibrary.com has over 10,200 different titles, the person should be more specific. I have been having trouble with “Earl Timmons, The World Tomorrow Evangelistic Association claiming a copyright and Trademark to “The World Tomorrow”. They registered the Trademark “The World Tomorrow” US Patent and Trademark Number 3209903, it has a first use date of 20050122 and a first use in commerce date of 20050312. The media in question and given in the URL’s on HWALibrary.com was created under different Owners and Registration Numbers prior to 2005. One being under registration number 1382752 with a first use date 19550700 and a first use in commerce date of 19550700, the other registration number 0791994 with a first use date 19420601 and a first use in commerce date of 19420601. I do not believe the current owner of registration number 3209903 can claim ownership back any further than the first use date 2005 of their registration number 3209903. I believe the First Use Priority applies to the material in question on HWALibrary.com. For some reason they believe just because they registered a Trademark it is retroactive, but it is not, they have rights to material they produce under the copyright as of 2005 and forward only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkS7982 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC) Now there is another issue, @MarkS7982, the rights of copyright date back to May 30, 1942. And @MarkS7982, is also in violation of both dad and granddad's materials. Copyright for all of Garner Ted Armstrong's materials dates back to 1953. Copyright owner, Mark Armstrong. The edits are legit. All linked content of the page is copyright protected, and while sourced still disputed as user Armstrongism noted:

 19:07, 4 December 2016 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . Armstrongism ‎ (Undid revision 753014441 by Gtaeaicg (talk) the text is sourced, although perhaps disputed looking at https://www.ucg.org/world-news-and-prophecy/he-set-ephraim-before-manasseh)Gtaeaicg (talk) 03:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Gtaeaicg

I did some spot-checking, and if anything, most (but not all) of the links fail our inclusion standards per WP:EL. No analysis on the copyright violations, but if that is claimed, then these links should stay removed per WP:COPYVIO until they have been cleared (and merit inclusion in the first place). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The site and user in violation, user @MarkS7982; http://www.hwalibrary.com, did indeed spam these links to his personal site where he has uploaded, and made hundreds of changes to copyrighted and trademarked materials he obtained from non-profit unaffiliated church sites and which he is now soliciting personal donations for at his site: https://www.hwalibrary.com/cgi-bin/get/hwa.cgi?action=donate. Clearly this user is violating the trademark name The World Tomorrow, and the HW Amstrong and GT Armstrong audio and video sources. Gtaeaicg (talk) 04:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Gtaeaicg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.80.243 (talk)

All material in question on HWALibrary.com is on or before January 1986 concerning “The World Tomorrow”. Garner Ted Armstrong was excommunicated from the Worldwide Church of God in 1978 (see Wikipedia); his removal did not transfer the Trademark rights to material held by his father Herbert W Armstrong, nor did the rights transferred to Mark Armstrong (very likely a minor at the time) in 1978. Mark Armstrong may hold the copyrights to his father’s (Garner Ted’s) material after he was removed from the Worldwide Church of God in 1978, but HWALibrary.com does not have any of that material on the site and therefore is not in violation of Garner Ted or Mark Armstrong’s copyrighted material. Also, neither of the Registered Trademark Numbers list Garner Ted, Mark Armstrong or Organizations of theirs as the owners (see Trademark Registration Number 0791994 and 1382752).

Trademark Registration Number 1382752 shows the “Prior” Registrations Number 0791994 which shows transfer from (REGISTRANT) AMBASSADOR COLLEGE NON-PROFIT CORPORATION CALIFORNIA 363 GROVE ST. PASADENA CALIFORNIA – to – (REGISTRANT) WORLDWIDE CHURCH OF GOD NON-PROFIT CORPORATION CALIFORNIA 300 W. GREEN STREET PASADENA CALIFORNIA 91123. There is no such transfer showing on the Trademark in question (3209903) of any -“Prior Registration Number”-. If the Trademark was transferred by Joseph Tkach, Jr. to Earl Timmons why does the Trademark Number 3209903 not show this transfer with a “Prior Registration Number” like the previous transfer shows?

The Trademark Registration Number 3209903 shows a first use date of 20050122 and a first commerce date of 20050312 for a reason and that is to show when the Trademark Registration Number 3209903 was first used by the current owner which is in 2005, this does not reflect ownership of any Trademark or copyright material held by a previous Trademark owner prior to 2005. Those Trademarks (0791994 and 1382752) were marked DEAD and not transferred to anyone per the “Legal” Trademark records. Just because a DEAD Trademark was registered it does not “automatically” give ownership of “all” previous material listed under “different” owners to the New Trademark owner Number 3209903, the New Trademark owner has a Trademark on the material they produce from 2005 forward. MarkS7982 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkS7982 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

As for “most (but not all) of the links fail our inclusion standards per WP:EL” I will be more than happy to explain the reason each link was added as soon as I know which links are in question. MarkS7982 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkS7982 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I was wondering if there was an update on this matter per the information I supplied concerning the DMCA accusation.

For clarification, does Wikipedia require a user claiming copyright violation to actual file an actual DMCA where I can file a “Counter Notice”?

Also, concerning the External Links that were removed (per User:Beetstra comment), I am pretty sure, most if not all, links that were removed relate to the material on each page. These Church’s (Organizations) claim affiliation with Herbert W Armstrong and his teachings and the link I added links to an archive library (www.hwalibrary.com) that has a great deal of information about the Worldwide Church of God, Herbert W Armstrong and Garner Ted Armstrong. Would the material on www.hwalibrary.com not meet the WP:EL inclusion standards? Thanks MarkS7982 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkS7982 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia does not require a DMCA takedown order for copyrighted material to be removed. Material can be removed as a result of community discussion and a consensus finding that the material is indeed under copyright. Or, if it's blatantly obvious, it can simply be removed by an editor. Also, even some copyrighted material is acceptable on Wikipedia under the Fair Use doctrine (although our rules are more restrictive than Fair Use requires): see WP:NFCC for details. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@MarkS7982:

• 1. Please do not start your messages with "Reply MarkS7982" or "MarkS7882" (see #3 below for why this is not necessary)
• 2. Please use colons to indent you comments, adding one colon for one additional tab, so if you respond to a comment with 1 colon, your reply should have 2 colons before the text, etc.
• 3. Please sign your messages by adding 4 tildes (i.e. ~~~~) at the end of each one; the system will add your account name and a time/date stamp
• 4. Please use more paragraph breaks in your comments: large blocks of text are hard to read

The way you are commenting now makes it extremely difficult to follow the discussion. These tips will help. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the text a little, in an attempt to make it more understandable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The links removed stand for HWALibrary (Herbert W Armstrong Library) which falls under the copyright 17 U.S. Code § 108. HWALibrary.com is a free archive library reflecting the life work of Herbert W Armstrong (The Radio Church of God, The Worldwide Church of God, Ambassador College and The Ambassador International Cultural Foundation) which includes "his" publication of "The World Tomorrow" TV program.

HWALibrary.com is free service for researchers or any persons doing private study, scholarship, or research per (17 U.S. Code § 108).

All of the material in question concerning "The World Tomorrow" on HWALibrary.com is 1986 or before to the current DMAC claim (Trademark Number 3209903) which has a first use date of 20050122 (January 22, 2005).

Thanks for the pointers User:Beyond My Ken on posting !MarkS7982 (talk) 12:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

And thank you for following them! One further note, though: you have to put the colons in after each paragraph break. I've done it for you in the comment just above this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Question, how can I defend the right to post or add links if no one here will answer or explain why actual laws I am giving are not allowed? I know it seems complicated, but trademark laws are, so will someone here have a conversation with me? I'll go step by step if someone will even acknowledge I'm posting here (about the issue of DMAC and trademarks)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkS7982 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

MarkS7982

@MarkS7982: I acknowledge your above remark and will take a moment to read through the above - in the mean time, please do go step by step as it will clarify exactly what's going on and what you'd like to see happen -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 11:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

HWALibrary.com has material on it called “The World Tomorrow”, which was created and published under the trademark numbers 0791994 and 1382752, after Mr. Armstrong’s death in 1986, these trademarks for “The World Tomorrow” were not renewed and were marked DEAD.

Years later the person here claiming DMCA saw the (DEAD) Trademark “the World Tomorrow” was available and applied for the use of it November 26, 2004, they were granted the trademark, but that does not mean they own the rights to the Trademark prior to “first use date of 20050122 (January 22, 2005) which is legally showing on the current Trademark 3209903. They own the right to use it as of Registration Date: February 20, 2007 forward, it did not give them ownership of another Organizations previous Trademark material.

I would like to keep the links on Wikipedia, HWALibrary.com is an non-profit educational archive library operating "also" under 17 U.S. Code § 108 which "also" gives it the right to have the material on HWALibrary.com as long as HWALibrary.com follows the required law of a non-profit educational archive library. This law allows the material on the site "even if" the person here had the legal right of the Trademark material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkS7982 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your reply - have you taken a moment to read through this content guideline? Copyright aside, some editors are of the opinion that some of the links don't meet the guidelines -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 11:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I had read the guidelines and thought the links would be appropriate because each one of these Church/Organizations I added the links to claim to follow the teachings of Herbert W Armstrong and the Worldwide Church of God. The material on HWALibrary.com reflects the 50 plus years of the teachings of Mr. Armstrong and the Worldwide Church of God, so I assumed a link to the original teachings would be helpful for people using Wikipedia so they could see the original teachings for reference and study. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkS7982 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I am hoping I have read the External Links Guideline correctly; it seems the links would be appropriate per my explanation above. I do wish to follow all guidelines here, so I am posting this to see if a mediator or admin see a problem before I add some external links to pages that claim to follow the teachings of Herbert W Armstrong. HWALibrary.com has more than 50 plus years of material that I feel would be of use to other users or researchers here on Wikipedia. If no objections today I will carefully add some EL’s tomorrow and hope to follow all guidelines to the best I understand them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkS7982 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism and edit-warring in Caucasus Campaign

• Pacmantr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) POV editing, edit-warring, persistent vandalism. A newly created account is being used for making disruptive edits in the following article: Caucasus Campaign. The vandal is changing some of the numbers to his own liking, adding fantastic and unsourced 750,000 casualties taken from nowhere and a link to the Southern Front of the Russian Civil War, which has virtually nothing to do with the article, is not a battle of the Caucasus Campaign and also doesn't support any of his numbers. His edits have been reverted 4 times, he has been warned on his talk page but that doesn't help. Here is what he left on my talk page: "wikipedia is the symbol of western (european)vandalism that must be banned in the eastern countries against western barbarism and I hope it becomes as you people are zionist-crusader barbarians" [246], "I'll soon create a rival state to wikipedia as a barrier for its vandalist highly wrong information spreading, crusader&zionist brainwashing" [247]. FullertonCA (talk) 12:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Drive by edit, no involvement in the thread - you're required to inform the editor of the ANI thread, so I've done it for you. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for informing, I'm not very familiar with the ANI. The vandal is involved in an edit war and I'll be waiting for an administrator to solve the issue. FullertonCA (talk) 12:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

And I've blocked the user as being WP:NOTHERE. Arbitrarily changing sourced figures to numbers that are seemingly made up out of thin air, along with the comments made on the talk page of FullertonCA are enough for me to warrant a block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit war from User:LokiiT

• LokiiT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Demographics of Russia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Against consensus and in spite of several warnings, User:LokiiT keeps pushing POV material concerning the demographics of Russia. In a nutshell, he keeps posting a graph depicting the population of Crimea as part of the population of Russia. Hereafter the log of some of LokiiT's reverts:

[[248]] [[249]] [[250]] [[251]] [[252]] [[253]]

The user has been warned at Talk:Demographics_of_Russia#Population_of_Crimean about the consequences of his/her conduct many times but in vain.--Silvio1973 (talk) 13:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I see that there was a discussion at the talk page, the user took part in the discussion and made their point, however, after 15 November they stopped participating in the discussion whatsoever, and instead five times added the same chart into the article, every time referring to the talk page in their edit summary (presumably meaning they have made the point at the talk page, not that consensus has been achieved). I am not involved with this article, and I do not want to be involved, but a brief analysis of the arguments of both sides makes me think that both have valid points, i.e. this is a typical case for DRN. However, since the user refused to discussed and continued edit-warring, I think they should be blocked first.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

It was indeed proposed to the user to post an RfC on the aforementioned matter but LokiiT found for some reasons more convenient to keep edit-warring. Silvio1973 (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

In 2008 an admin warned LokiiT for sockpuppetry stating 'any further disruption will result in an indefinite block'. EdJohnston (talk) 21:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

They have last been blocked in 2014 for a week.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no justification for removing the chart; every major country's demography article has a population chart, and Russia should be no different. I proposed that they modify the chart, or give ideas as on how to improve it, but to no avail; they simply want it completely gone for some reason, and have not even given a valid reason. The excuses that they did give would justify removing about 80% of the infographics in that article, and any other demographics article. They are both being completely unreasonable, which is why I stopped responding. Moreover, two people against one does not form a consensus. I should note that I am busy person and don't have time for any of this, so I won't be responding any further; do as you see fit. LokiiT (talk) 08:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

This is simpy unbelievable. LokiiT is on the verge of being blocked and keeps pushing his/her edit: [[254]]. IMHO the time to block this user has come. EdJohnston, Ymblanter I suggest this user to be blocked for a longer term period than one week, as 2014 block did not prove sufficient. Silvio1973 (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I blocked the user for three months.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Multiple new copyvio articles started by connected editors or prolific socker

I am about to go cook dinner, so don't have time to do more than draw attention to what looks to be multiple instances of copyvio articles (associated with software engineering) being created by a group of connected editors or one editor using multiple accounts (account names all appear to be S. Asian). Examples Loop testing, Defect severity, Test as Service. I would like to offer more here, but sadly must dash. Hopefully this will attract more eyes to the issue. Keri (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

According to this edit, this may be a class assignment of some sort. And there are yet more copyvio articles, eg Install/Uninstall Testing. Keri (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Keri. I've deleted the Install/Uninstall one, as well as another one that was linked from the AfD. Are there any others? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

found another at Thread Testing Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks; sorry I didn't reply earlier: the trials and tribulations of domesticity /wink Keri (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper: Dynamic and domain testing, Testing vs Debugging, Gorilla testing I'll add my list of all the others from today in a few minutes, those are the remaining two that are up, I believe. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 19:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Here's a list that was started on an AfD, not sure it's any help at this point. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Install/Uninstall Testing Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 19:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

May have found some more, not entirely sure but it seems to fit with the rest, @Writ Keeper: Condition Coverage Testing Error Handling software testing Capacity tests Draft:Passive testing. I do recall one of the other copyvios having the same content as CCT but I can't find it at the moment. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 20:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Still at it. See Tesy Service, unambiguous copyvio of this. Keri (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I expect they will all be filtered through the CSD/AfD process, and this appears to be a misguided class assignment rather than anything malicious. It would be nice to identify the project coordinator to open communication, but I don't think there's much else that requires dedicated admin intervention beyond letting the usual deletion process run its course, so this might be ripe for closure. Keri (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Striking my suggestion: clearly this is bigger than I imagined and shows no signs of slowing down without intervention. Keri (talk) 11:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Time for an update: it appears that the accounts have no sign of stopping at the moment: the relevant SPI page is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chaudary Nabeel. I've just added a few accounts at the page. This needs to stop, and if it's the case that this is a class project, the teacher/professor has to be contacted. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• I've just G5/G12'd a whole load of stuff, and have 23 users on the sock list. Please report any further incarnations directly to SPI, i'll have it on my watchlist. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Note that @Voceditenore: has gone the extra mile and left notifications asking if this is a class assignment and, if so, for details of the coordinator to be passed on. Keri (talk) 12:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Response here. Keri (talk) 12:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, per the response, it is a whole class of engineering students (in Pakistan, I think) who have been assigned to create articles here. This is often a problem when instructors try to use Wikipedia as a class assignment but are unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works and are not experienced editors themselves. The student who responded said he would pass the messages on to their instructor. I asked him to direct their instructor to Wikipedia:Training/For educators and the Education noticeboard. I've also put Template:Welcome student on several of the students' talk pages which directs them to some basic online training . I'll try to get around to the rest later today, if no one else does it first. Voceditenore (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Another rangeblock or more for the dog and rapper vandal

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.

---

Four weeks ago, Graham87 put a rangeblock on 2607:fb90:333:966b::/64 to try and slow down the Dog and rapper vandal. As can be seen at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Dog and rapper vandal#Involved IP addresses, the vandal continues to find new IP addresses. Is there a way we can stop this guy by setting more rangeblocks? Binksternet (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Binksternet: I've gone and blocked 2607:fb90::/32 for three months. I didn't realise it was possible to block that wide a range in IPV6, but it apparently is. It's a T-Mobile range in Detroit; there may be collateral damage, but the last time I blocked a range like this, I subsequently found out that no less than *three* long-term abusers were editing from that range, so ... meh. Graham87 03:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I owe you a pint! Thanks so much. Binksternet (talk) 06:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

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

User: Sk8erPrince and their attitude

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: Sk8erPrince has continued to be disruptive and treat AFD as a battleground and there are strong suggestions of bias as well as a complete disrespect for the community. Their behaviour has continued to be concerning and no improvements have been made.

This first started at the end of September when he suddenly nominated 40 Japanese voice actor articles in 48 hours. As you would expect with such a number, some were appropriate and others were rather misguided as it would be difficult to check them all properly before listing. The situation and it's facets were discussed here. Given the number of articles and that it may have been their first attempt at deletions I think the view would be that they would be a learning experience. Indeed they started listing less articles at a time and doing basic WP:Before.

However since then there has been a clear attitude issue. He was brought to ANI over personnel attacks as well as attitude and a combative nature and promised to behave. However this has not led to a change in behaviour. A good example is the fallout from from when he was asked to leave edit summaries for deletions - a perfectly reasonable request for someone who makes lots of AFD's. They eventually conceded to making edit summaries when nominating for deletion (which I believe they have been doing) but they were clearly antagonistic about it when they could have made their own life easier as well as everyone elses by simply considering the very reasonable proposal. Instead they ranted and then agreed to do it but made sure to tell us it wasn't anything to do with anyone wanting them to do it.

There is a clear sign of an editor who chooses not to integrate into the community, instead to antagonise and pick fights with people at every opportunity. They are aggressive in their AFD's and quick to dismiss the views of other people when they are different to theirs. They quote policy and guidelines when it fits with his own view but then is equally quick to dismiss the use of them by other users, and in doing this talks down to people and criticises them for daring to disagree with him. They talk of facts and opinions while getting the two mixed up and appears to have both a superiority complex as well as a him versus the world mentality. They makes no concessions for reaching out to the community and trying to clear the air and is stubborn in their refusal to accept any responsibility. This is a long term issue that is harming the already overwhelmed community who is unable to assume good faith. I took a step back from their AFD's because I was concerned I was adding to the problem only to watch them bash heads with other users instead.

Recent examples from just the last few days:

• Criticising other people for not adding sources and the ease at which they can be found when being challenged, despite not finding any themselves [255]

• Using two previous AFD's that were deleted in his favour as justification to delete another when his reasoning is challenged. [256]

• When it was suggested an afd wasn't needed as the page could have just been redirected without discussion (i.e. per BRD) they claimed Redirects weren't their thing but deletions were [257]. That then lead to an argument other what speedy deletion is actually for. On the same article the threatened to speedy tag a page if it was hypothetically un-redirected. [258]. This hardly reflects someone being neutral and unbiased in nominations (you can believe a page is suitable for deletion without trying to block a different outcome)

• Yeah, except his points aren't valid. He has yet to prove his points, and I've already dismissed them due to lack of proof. Don't vote to keep an article if you can't be bothered to be objective about the subject himself. From someone who has demonstrated a lack of objectivity themselves and admits to being dismissive of other peoples comments. [259]

• The bottom section of this AFD, although this particular bit really takes the cake:[260]. Sk8terprince really is in no position to make this sort of comment, if someone else made it he'd post a diatribe in response.

• How is this an appropriate closing comment?

Many of the edits I could complain about might get a free pass individually as one offs. However these are just a handful of examples that when viewed collectively and across the period since late September show an editor who at every opportunity refuses to change and continues to disrupt and antagonise at every opportunity. Likewise by itself the list of articles "they've deleted" on their talk page isn't by itself an issue - there are several possible explanations. However when viewed alongside their behaviour in AFD, it's difficult to see their nominations in good faith and not some sort of victory list.

The behaviour was troubling enough to begin with, they've been given more than enough chance to change.

edit:User has been notified [261] as well as the primary project affected by the AFD's WikiProject Anime and manga. I will not be contacting involved individuals to avoid accusations of ganging up.SephyTheThird (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC) SephyTheThird (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• The closure of this AfD has piqued my interest - whereas I guess it could be seen as withdrawing the nomination, the nominator shouldn't really be closing the AfD. Some of these diffs show an extraordinary level of battleground-like behavior, and I would like to hear from Sk8erPrince as to how they think this is an appropriate way to act. Their AfD stats also leave something to be desired -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 20:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

They routinely self-close/withdraw their nominations if it's obviously a keep. Sometimes because the evidence is obviously there and others essentially as a WP:Snow keep when they see the way things are going.SephyTheThird (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it is also intriguing to see their user page lists all of their successful Afds as if they are accomplishments. It adds to the sense of a battleground behavior; instead of nominating articles because they are unnotable, he is doing it because it can be another "victory" for him. At least, when you combine it with his latest issues, that is how it can appear to look.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that Sk8erPrince has been displaying a very uncooperative and antagonistic attitude in many AfDs. I agree with some of the noms they make, but when I disagree and present evidence supporting keeping the article, he immediately goes through everything and dismisses all of it, then makes comments which boil down to something along the lines of, "I can't believe you think that way. Are you a complete idiot? I already did all the research possible, so you should just accept what I say." Hardly a shining example of playing well with others. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

He is definitely editing with a battleground mentality here. After the previous ANI, the user toned his edits down to passive aggression, and as his recent edits shows, has become increasingly aggressive. After at least 3 warnings about his behavior, the common consensus seems to be that poor interaction with editors isn't worthy of a punishment as far as I know. So, what can be done? DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 22:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Why wasn't the Afd creation ban implemented? If the source of his battleground behavior is Afds, wouldn't it be logical to ban him from creating one and editing in one for a long period of time?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Sk8rprince is a harder core deletionist than many that are around. They even make it a point of pride that they've managed to get a number of articles deleted as if it was some sort of high score or whatever. Blackmane (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

As for options? 1. AfD ban 2. Indef block. Blackmane (talk) 01:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• I feel like I need to defend myself here, but after this, I will cease to reply:

1) I have a strong belief that poorly written and poorly sourced articles should not have a place on Wikipedia. Failure of WP:BIO is a valid reason for deletion. I also believe that it is the article creator and those that are interested in the subject's job to expand and improve the article so that it reaches Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards. Better yet, I strongly believe that articles should be peer reviewed and improved enough to meet Wikipedia's standards in draft before it is to be published.

2) Whether or not I make a list of accomplishments on my userpage is not something you have a say in. It's like how I don't make any comments about your userpages. I don't see how it's offending anyone, so if I want to make such a list, then leave me be. Whether you'd like to believe me or not, the purpose of making such a list is to show how contributive I could be for the encyclopedia. I honestly don't expect everyone to agree with me in an AFD, but I do believe that personal disapproval in conflicting viewpoints is allowed (you're making it sound like as if it's not). You can't expect that I could delete every single article I nom. It's not possible. But as long as I maintain a list of what I did manage to delete, then you can't say that I'm being disruptive.

3) If you're factually wrong about something, then you are wrong. Facts are facts. You can't say a supporting role is a main role just because you say it is (see this AFD). A couple of participants have shown to jump on the keep bandwagon without having actually analyzed the subject themselves. Instead, they blindly believe in whomever posted the longest "analysis" from the keep camp, as far as I'm concerned.

4) It is a common practice to apply effective arguments that have worked in past AFDs in similar articles that are just as non-notable. Sure, the AFDs themselves are individual, but you cannot deny the similarity between them.

5) If my behavior is a problem, then what do you have to say with other users that are picking fights with me? It's not fair of you to expect me to act more "civilly" (in my perspective, I'm merely counterarguing besides criticizing methods and analyses that I don't agree with), when others can't do the same.

6) Contrary to popular belief, I have made several other contributions besides AFDing. Hence, I am not just a deletionist. See my list of contributions for proof.

7) Criticism and the questioning of others' analyses and methods are common in AFDs. If you can't handle being questioned or criticized, then the only thing I could suggest is get a thicker skin. I personally think a lot of people seem to be forgetting that AFDs are debates. The aforementioned elements are common in debates, for your information.

8) I choose to nom an article for deletion instead of boldly redirecting because I believe the consensus should decide whether or not an article gets to stay or be deleted/redirected. Many Wikipedians seem to be in agreement that this encyclopedia operates by consensus, so I don't see how this should be an exception.

9) I am not sure why I am referred to by the gender neutral pronoun "they" when both my usepage and preference settings are listed as male.

That is all. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I just wanted to put this out there:

• Open Cooper
• Sephy
• Calathan
• Kosh

In every one of those cases when an editor tried to give Prince some advice, he blanked the comments from his talkpage. There were also attempts from other editors (myself included) in the AfDs trying to help him but to no avail. If this is brought to ANI again then this should be considered. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban from deletion discussions

Looking at behavior at the deletion discussion that Sk8erPrince himself pointed out, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ginzō Matsuo, it's clear he doesn't see the difference between attacking an argument and attacking the arguer. Here he implies an editor shouldn't comment at all; here he tells an editor he'd "better watch your mouth", and here he calls that editor a "sore loser" and says he's acting immaturely, when the opposite is true and Sk8erPrince is the one acting out.

Since he has plainly stated he sees nothing wrong with his own behavior, and as he has been brought to this board twice previously, I propose Sk8erPrince be banned from all deletion discussions for a period of no less than six months. Katie^talk 01:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Katie^talk 01:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose if I'm being real here, this proposal will have precisely one effect; driving the editor away. You take the one thing they contribute to (which is AfD) and remove it, they have no reason to stay.Strike reason; Editor has clarified that they do have interest in contributing beyond AfD, which is a good thing. The alternative in just leaving things the way they are is no better because we just allow other editors to be driven away. So that's not acceptable either. Their noms seem to have improved somewhat, they are still over keen on getting articles deleted without strong enough rationales to do so, but, as long as we're getting improvement in that specific capacity then it's not the act of "nominating" that is the problem. The only alternative then, that could in theory work and still keep all our editors happy is this; Sk8terprince may nominate an article for deletion, they must bring their rationale - as is required anyway - for deletion at the moment of nomination, and may not participate in the subsequent discussion regarding the article's deletion. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how that alternate solution is any better and doubt that Prince would agree to it. Wikipedia is a big place, he could just as easily work on the articles he has in his draft space as that would be constructive/non disruptive. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, at this stage, I would be willing to agree to any condition other than a TBan (I have suggested a peaceful solution at the bottom that I think would benefit everyone). It is not my intention to be aggressive, but I do wish that participants in an AFD could conduct more research instead of bandwagoning and clearly state the relevance in the sources they have presented on the table. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

You cite WP:BATTLEGROUND in your vote below as the issue, not AfD itself, but, Battleground. So, what's the battleground? all of the above points to discussion at AfD. I don't think Prince has a choice in the matter, it's at AN/I's discretion. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

His battleground mentality at AfDs. Its okay to want to delete an article and make valid points, its not okay to take apart your "opponent" with borderline verbal abuse during these discussions when you are told you are wrong. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your clarification below and note above were things I already knew. Again, unless you have a problem with his nominations - which you could well do at 53% "success" rate - then the argument to me regarding TBAN from all AfD process and specifically nominating holds no water. Nominating does not require discussion, it does not require consensus, it requires a rationale and a template. It's quite difficult to battleground if you can't participate in the discussion. The way I see it, they see an article they think is non-notable, they nominate it for deletion and provide their rationale, everything from there is done without them being allowed any input. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't follow you there, yes I would agree to this as a possible amendment to the topic ban. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

All good, the distinction I was trying to draw is not a clear or inherently obvious one. I took the precendent that has been set for a couple of our editors at RfA - they can vote, but, no comments afterwards - and modified it to fit the AfD process. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I have doubts that this would ever work. The temptation would be too great and there are still some concerns over their nominations. I would rather they pass their suggested nominations to another editor for additional assessment. If they can't nominate articles then they can't be tempted to get involved with the AFD after. As they only really seem to comment in their own afd's this would solve both the problems as well as allow them the chance to learn without the temptation of diving back in. If they were to break your suggestion what would be the follow up? A topic ban? I see no reason to delay a full topic ban over such an easily breakable condition. Being able to nominate but not partake in the discussion doesn't make much sense and is unlikely to work.SephyTheThird (talk) 10:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support per WP:BATTLEGROUND (at his AfDs). Wikipedia is more than just deletions, it is about working together but I have not seen this editor give a damn when it comes to this. A topic ban is not forever and can be revisited by the community when Prince can show that he can work with others outside of deletion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Consider this as going easy on the user; the other option recommended was an indef block. You first need to learn how to effectively communicate with other editors before you can return to nominating articles. Afds are almost always about varying perspectives on an article. The fact that many of your Afds are almost unanimously kept means you need to gather more information on what is notable for the encyclopedia. This time off will help you do that.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I don't consider your "achievements", as you call them, to outweigh the combative communication you have on Afds. Even one of your recent Afds, which you closed yourself, shows you hold grudges against other editors who vote keep [262]. "Winning" an Afd is not an accomplishment, it is part of a rooting out process. Creating meaningful pages or adding positively to existing pages are things to consider as accomplishments.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support. I agree with the other support votes. It's basically either this or an indefinite block for continued incivility and treating Wikipedia like a battleground. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support I could provide diff after diff of this user's battleground mentality and inability to edit in this area. As a direct rebuttal to Rndd above I would say that this user hasn't not demonstrated a sufficient understanding of souring and notability. When challenged he simply resorts to petty insults and petulant rhetoric. I do hope that Prince can learn to channel his clear passion for the project into another area. This project could use some of his passion, just not this way. FYI, I invite scrutiny of my interactions with him and I will provide riffs upon request. Prince would also do well to stay out of the contentious topic area for the duration of this discussion.--Adam in MO Talk 03:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

  They also made this outrageously inappropriate personal attack while capitulating in the close of an erroneous AFD. --Adam in MO Talk 19:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support The user has only done a small amount of WP:BEFORE research on the AFDs and has battled against other editors over whether roles are considered notable using user-generated databases. He has put off a fair number of the regular editors over at Wikiproject Anime and manga. It gets very heated when the actor in question has about 2-3 major roles. And when other editors outside the project provide their analysis, he dismisses their opinion as "points aren't valid" because they don't follow his in-project template to determine notability. I have attempted to suggest more diplomatic ways to question notability on articles including constructive tagging combined with talk discussion but those have been largely ignored. I think he could use a time out from deleting stuff and help on some other parts of the project. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support This users behavior seems to be disruptive on the balance, and a topic ban from AFD would allow them to focus on building the encyclopedia through article writing. A win for all. --Jayron32 04:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support I was previously involved with Prince through the first ANI. Yes, I was irritated at his snarky and frankly rude comments toward editors and myself. I was appalled that we allow such rude comments. I am stating this first and foremost because I don't want people interpreting my support as a personal agenda or engaging in battleground behaviour. I support this TBan because the user's behaviour is a problem. It all leads to AfD. Perhaps if they worked on editing and learned to effectively communicate with other users, this TBan may be revoked. Until then, I believe Prince should do something else for a little while and let other users nominate, tag or help expand articles. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 05:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I think Sk8erPrince wants to contribute productively. I think it is admirable to try to get non-notable content off Wikipedia. However, I think the way he goes about doing it is very disruptive (massive quantities of AfDs, many within one topic area; (borderline) attacking of anyone who disagrees with him, regardless of how sound their arguments are; snippy closing comments when closing his own AfDs; etc.) It is practically impossible to have a normal discussion with him because of how rude he tends to be with practically everyone. I think some time (a month or two, at a minimum) away from anything to do with deletion would do him good. Perhaps he could focus on finding needy articles and improving them to at least Start or C class. His tactics and interactions are what need to be changed, and this should give him time to work on improving in that area. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Question By all deletion discussions, does the proposal mean banning them from the AFD discussion itself but not banning them explicitly from nominating? Blackmane (talk) 06:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

  A deletion discussion begins with the nomination. If he is barred from deletion discussions across the board, he can't start one. Katie^talk 13:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

  Fair enough. Given the most recent example of their continuing attitude, support the proposal. Blackmane (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Firstly, what I'm seeing is an intense battleground attitude around what Sk8erPrince thinks Wikipedia's inclusion criteria should be, not what they actually are, and an apparently irresistible impulse to be obnoxious to others who disagree and actually try to stick to policy as it is currently agreed. Even in the AFD's that Sk8erPrince reckons are good ones, we're seeing unacceptable personal attacks! This has to stop, and if Sk8erPrince won't stop voluntarily then the rest of us have to step in. Ban of either a minimum of six months, or an indefinite one that can be appealed after six months. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support AFD is clearly the main area of concern here and they have received what must be a dozen requests/suggestions from different users to consider their behaviour or face a possible Tban yet they continued. If they want to contribute to the encyclopaedia as a whole a ban from AFD would allow them to do so without putting themselves into situations they clearly cannot deal with. If a suitable person volunteers themselves, they could always provide possible AFD topics to be assessed and nominated by another user. If the editor is driven away by a Tban on AFD then all that would do would be to prove the point that they are too involved with them. Take away the problem area and see if the user can improve their reputation.SephyTheThird (talk) 10:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - I suggested a topic ban here last month for reasons similar those given above. Honestly this should have been done from the start at the same time as the edit summary requirement. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Sk8erPrince's aims are laudable, but unfortunately he's really not terribly competent at pre-screening articles before nominating them for deletion, and then displays his infallibility complex at the resulting deletion discussion. We don't expect perfection when nominating articles for deletion, but we do expect a good level of competency and moreover, a willingness to undertake research first to determine if the article really should be deleted. We also expect civil, fair and reasonable behaviour at AfD, if someone opposes deletion, they're usually placed in opposition to the nominator, so not unreasonably, we expect the nominator to behave calmly and do nothing which would dissuade people from taking part in a deletion discussion. If we have deletion discussions where the nominator discourages people from taking part, we run the very real risk of articles being deleted without due diligence being undertaken by the community, and that's not acceptable. It's therefore sensible that we prevent Sk8erPrince from continuing their toxic behaviour at AfD. Nick (talk) 12:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support Obviously. As Nick said, he is being disruptive at AfD, and this is probably the best way to keep that from happening. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support I supported an AfD ban in the prior thread here and still do. I am however very happy to see that Sk8erPrince has learned not to bludgeon the ANI thread as he did the last time around. To me this says that he can learn and can show restraint. We do need people to weed out the dross articles but to do that properly one must be able to distinguish between articles which are inappropriate for inclusion and those which are merely poorly sourced and/or written. Also, deletion discussions are inherently contentious so one should, barring the slips we all make, be polite to those whom one disagrees with - sometimes they are right or may have a perspective you have not previously thought of. Jbh^Talk 15:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support My thoughts have been very eloquently put by pretty much everyone above. A break from deletion discussions and time spent in content creation might (hopefully) temper his apparent over-eagerness to delete. PGWG (talk) 17:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban from PROD, SPEEDY, and AfD. The user has proved time and time again (including in previous recent ANI discussions) that his attitude is WP:BATTLEGROUND and that his aim is to wipe out as many articles as possible. This is not someone who is here to build an encyclopedia. His disruptive behavior needs to stop, and if he is barred from these areas (as was proposed and widely supported in the last ANI), he can demonstrate whether he can edit collaboratively and whether he is here to build an encyclopedia. Softlavender (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Alternative solution

I have decided to stop nominating articles for deletion and participating in AFD discussions until the new year (Jan 1, 2017). With all this drama that has occurred as of late, I feel like it is for the best that I contribute in other areas other that article deletion for the time being, as everyone (including myself) seems to be very on edge recently. It is very likely that I'll take a break from AFDs longer than 2 weeks at this rate. It is never my intention to be aggressive. I simply wish that AFD participants could be more expressive in their POVs instead of bandwagoning, that’s all. Several users have pointed out that my only way of contribution to the encyclopedia is article deletion, which, I would like to point out, is not entirely true. I don't think a TBan is necessary in this case. If I have shown proof to be able to contribute in other areas besides than AFDs for a considerable period of time (I think 2-4 weeks is a reasonable period of time; but I am open for discussion regarding this), then I think it is no longer a concern. Hence I kindly request to resolve the incident peacefully. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Your request sounds sincere, but I am still skeptical. If you are really sincere then show it with the T-ban in place, your request of 2-4 weeks can be revisited at the right time in the proper venue. In a nutshell you are asking the community to trust you which can be hard to get here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, where was this cooperation on your past ANI discussion and your Afds? I am skeptical because your proposal puts the blame on others for being "on edge". This is a discussion about your recent activity, not how you perceive others. The TBan should still be put in place, but can be revisited at a later time.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that "everyone" means others and I. It includes myself. There are ways that I could have expressed myself better, and I shall prove that I can by staying away from AFDs altogether from the time being. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The last ANI, concerning edit summaries, was closed with some good faith shown as Sk8rprince decided to use edit summaries and no restrictions or sanctions gained consensus. I concur that Sk8rprince is laying the fault on others without really understanding that it is their attitude which is the root cause. Blackmane (talk) 05:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. A couple of weeks off from AFD is nowhere near sufficient. This has clearly been a problem for a long time, and the stubborn insistence in the previous section that Sk8erPrince is right and everyone else is wrong gives me no confidence that a short break will make any difference. Additionally, this suggestion is still putting the blame partly on others, when the blame for Sk8erPrince's chronic personal attacks lies 100% with Sk8erPrince. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Opposse A voluntary self ban for two weeks isn't a big solution. Especially considering it is the end of the year. It took the very real threat of a topic ban for this unusual moment of concession but it seems ANI is the only way to get you to consider yourself. It's time to accept responsibility and stop blaming others for your misfortune. Two weeks is a minimal period that you could safely ride out only to make up for it after. I also have doubts you would learn your lesson if you take a voluntary leave from AFD rather than it being imposed. This is a long term issue that needs a solution in keeping with it.SephyTheThird (talk) 10:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - This T-ban will ensure that you follow through with your promise. Lets be honest, it is the end of the year so more than likely you wouldn't be here anyways but with your family for the holidays. Editors here want to see results, hopefully the new year will mean a new leaf. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose We are back here again only a couple of weeks after the previous ANI. These very issues were brought up there although no sanction was placed regarding them. Sk8terPrince had the chance to change his behavior based on that feedback yet here we are again. Jbh^Talk 15:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose This very much seems like a last ditch effort to avoid the longer sanction above. I'm trying to assume good faith and accept his comments at face value, but they just don't seem genuine, especially as we're not that far removed from the last trip to this board over the same behaviour. PGWG (talk) 17:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose My main concern is that this discussion will end like last time. Prince is under scrutiny, opposes everybody who questions their edits, opposes any proposals that involve removing some rights and then concending by either saying he'll accept it or create a new one. It's the same pattern. To me, it shows that he doesn't fully acknowledge his actions but only doing this after plenty of supports come in. It's just odd. On another note, AfD is clearly an issue for him. 2-4 weeks is way too short. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Part of prince's problem is they they fundamentally don't understand how sourcing works. Here he tells me I'm paranoid because I told him twitter and facebook posts are not adequate sources. When told they weren't trustworthy by me and another editor he blew it off. AFD and BLP are not places to edit if you don't understand how sources work. The fact that Prince isn't going to be editing AFD in the near future is a done deal at this point, he has no choice in the matter but the length of time will be at the community's terms not his. ----Adam in MO Talk 19:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Hmm, that is concerning. Social media should never be considered reliable for anything, let alone for an encyclopaedic entry. It bothers me that they would be willing to argue about the verifiability of a facebook or twitter post as a source for a BLP no less. It may seem trivial since it's not an extraordinary claim being cited, but, a) it looks unprofessional and b) it could cause a whole heap of trouble. Imagine if we cited a Trump twitter post as a source for Obama or Rosie O'Donnel. We'd have a lawsuit on our hands. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Exactly, this is way deeper than an attitude problem. The attitude problem is workable but the lack of competence with sourcing combined with an attitude issue is a huge problem.--Adam in MO Talk 19:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• "Well to be fair they can be used as perennial websites but it would have to be official (verified), notable (in context of the person or thing), and used as a primary source. (Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites). Adam is right though to say that they are not adequate sources in terms of saving an article from AfD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• AFD wasn't the context of the exchange. My understanding is that social media should only be used on bio articles as a primary source about themselves never about third parties as mr rnddude illustrates, colorfully, above. This is really way off topic for this forum anywho. The twitter guideline is applicable to that situation, especially point 2.--Adam in MO Talk 22:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment It is also worth noting that Sk8erPrince has continued to edit in this topic space while this issue is ongoing, despite claiming that he woulld not do so. I think that edit pretty much renders this proposal as moot, since Prince clearly has no intention of abiding by thier own words--Adam in MO Talk 00:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Adamfinmo: So what are you proposing? The only alternative thing to do would be an indef block per WP:NOTHERE. I see a clear consensus above for a topic ban but it has not gone into effect yet. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

(ec)I can't say I'm surprised. If he cant go 24 hours, he certainly can't go two weeks. It also shows that it's unlikely he would be able to not comment if he was to be allowed to nominate and not comment like was suggested before. Clearly no one believes his proposal is a valid option and that edit pretty much puts the last nail into it. Propose closing this proposed "solution".SephyTheThird (talk) 02:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind, they've withdrawn it themselves. Clearly they are beyond helping themselves so need us to do it for them.SephyTheThird (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - Sk8erPrince, we gave you plenty of chances to change your behavior for the better, and while improvements have been seen, it's far too little, far too late, and your attitude at AfD discussions remains fundamentally the same. Frankly, it's time you take a break from AfDs and contribute to the encyclopedia through other means. We are here to build an encyclopedia, and the best way to do so is to write and improve articles. You do not need to be able to write GA or FA-quality articles immediately; that takes years of skill. You can start with more simple tasks such as typo fixes, simple updates to articles, sourcing unsourced statements, etc. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment At this point I wouldn't oppose an idef block per WP:NOTHERE. Prince has shown this by disregarding this discussion, and editing more pages related to AfD. [263] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• Before that gets proposed, I think Prince should have a fair warning that indef is a possibility.--Adam in MO Talk 02:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• I have notified them here--Adam in MO Talk 02:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Is it possible to add the condition that if he breaks this topic ban an indef block is in order? I just feel an outright block without implementing the ban first is a little extreme. If he slips even once before the ban expires or it is reviewed, then block him.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Given how it's beginning to snow over here, I think the topic ban should be implemented ASAP. In fact, I'm starting to think that, given his battleground behavior has also occassionally gone outside of AfD (see the previous ANI on personal attacks) a (temporary) total siteban might be more appropriate: perhaps something like a temporary (six month?) total site ban, and an indefinite topic ban from any deletion-related edits (not just AfD but also PROD and SPEEDY), all of which of course are appealable. He should also be warned further (as Adam has already done) that any further disruption will result in a block. We have given him so many chances but sadly it has become clear that he is not here to build an encyclopedia: he is here to demolish, not to construct. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't support something like that, at this juncture. Prince has no block log and they are pretty new to this kind of process. I don't think jumping right into a ban would be good. I think that there is a great editor inside of Prince and giving them the chance to do the right thing should come before jumping right into a block. He is certainly following this conversation as it progresses, even if he won't participate. He knows now that any further editing in deletion related discussions before this closes will surly result in a siteban. He probably don't know how hard those are to overturn. I think we should just let this wrap up. Impose the tban, and let Prince impress us all with his growth.--Adam in MO Talk 03:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Adamfinmo. Prince's decision to continue involving himself in deletion is up to him. The ban hasn't been imposed yet, so there's no reason he should stop unless gets truly problematic. A siteban is redundantly this early. I think he can collaborate and edit once the ban is in place. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Someone should just come along and close this now, I do not think it needs to be drawn out. Topic ban Prince, and see what happens from there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Arbitrary Section Break

• @TomStar81: there are a few things which concern me about this close. First, you have explicitly given non-admins the power to modify the sanction on their own call and second you have instituted a penalty for making an unsuccessful appeal. Sk8terPrince has not show any sign for making bad faith appeals and this is an unreasonable restriction to place on any editor who has not made disruptive appeals and, in my very strong opinion, beyond your discression as a closing admin. Third, you closed with a topic ban on all deletion processes - that was not the sanction proposed and !voted on which was a ban on deletion discussions i.e. nominating and commenting on AfD. Jbh^Talk 05:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Last edited: 05:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I too have some reservations about the close. While the topic ban was clarified to be on all deletion discussions per KrakatoaKatie above, there are some stipulations which are outside the scope of the ban discussion. The close needs to be reworded. Blackmane (talk) 05:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I left an AGF loophole int he event it was needed, that was true. In the event the editor misuses that editors in good standing will complain about the disruptive behavior, such complaints would make their way here in some way shape or form, and admins are editors in good standing as well, so I don't think that should be much of a problem. On the second point, given the user's history of rapid firing afd's, I wanted to forestall a situation in which an editor would appeal, be turned down, then re-appeal in two weeks, then be turned, down, then re-appeal in a week, then be turned down, etc. Therefore, the provision is for one appeal - if Sk8terPrince wants to appeal - after 6 months but before the 12 months is up. After 12 months this has to be revisited anyway, if he doesn't want to appeal, then we are going to discuss the matter of the topic ban in 12 months and whatever is decided then will supersede what is currently in place here now. On the third point, AFD is most associated with deletion discussion, but CSD appeals are discussed on talk pages, as are prods, and Deletion Review is a discussion process as well. Fundamentally, we discuss deletion, its what we do. Shoving him off deletion in its entirety allows for growth in other areas, and as noted above a few do think there is a useful contributor under the disruptive editing. If you remove any chance to participate in deletion then perhaps our man will spread his wings somewhere else - and in so doing, prove to us that he does have what it takes to be a constructive contributor here. There were a lot of issues raised here and previously, and I tried my best to take as many into account when imposing the ban.

On a related note, if you are going to bring this up, perhaps a new independent header is warranted, and I would be tempted to bring the other contributors in to voice their opinion on the matter just to see if there is consensus for a reword. I would hate to think that this gets reworded and then most of the people here complain because it loses the teeth it currently has. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• @SephyTheThird, TheGracefulSlick, Nihonjoe, DragonZero, Blackmane, KrakatoaKatie, Mr rnddude, Knowledgekid87, NinjaRobotPirate, Adamfinmo, AngusWOOF, Jayron32, Callmemirela, Boing! said Zebedee, Narutolovehinata5, Nick, ThePlatypusofDoom, Jbhunley, PGWG, and Softlavender: In the matter of Everyone v. Sk8terPrince, the topic ban I implemented is alleged to be in inconsistent with the findings of the original proposal and subject to 3rd party amendment. I am seeking input from each of you as to whether the given topic ban is sufficient for the case at hand, or if it should be amend as proposed above. What say you, participants in the topic ban discussion? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

An adjustment to the unsuccessful appeal should probably be done. Otherwise, I don't see a problem with everything else. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I am fine with how the discussion was closed, and the remedies provided. I only suggest that the "however this courtesy may be revoked without warning by any editor in good standing" part be changed and instead of any editor being able to revoke the courtesy, only a sysop should do so, and only after a discussion takes place. I am fine with a broad ban on deletion-related processes as while AFD is the main area of concern here, I am concerned that he could move on to PRODs and CSDs in order to continue his deletionism. I would also suggest that he could be mentored in some way in which he can be guided with contributing to the encyclopedia through other means, such as editing articles. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

It should come as no surprise that I agree with the closure and the proposed Tban of six months minimum. I have no issue with extending it to all deletion content rather than simply AFD - it's clearly the same topic area. I'm undecided on the allowance for a hypothetical vote if any of their own articles are nominated for deletion but I've no objection to the clause. Any violation of the Tban as proposed should be brought back here rather than sanctioned by an individual non-sysop. As for the period and appeal, just leave it at six months. If he violates the ban or continues with poor behaviour in other areas then it can be reassessed then. If, having persuaded us he can be trusted he reverts to type, then a further ban could be discussed with whatever evidence there is from after this initial ban period begins.SephyTheThird (talk) 10:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Other than the penalty for appeal, I'm fine with the close. The penalty was proposed by one of the final commenters and I don't think it had consensus. Besides, we usually don't penalize people like this for appealing other kinds of bans, including Arbcom bans – we simply reset the clock. As Sephy says, if he violates it or continues to act out, it can be reassessed then. Katie^talk 12:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Looks good to me. --Jayron32 12:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: Since when do we reset the clock on finite term bans if an appeal fails? As I understand it if, for example an editor has a 6 month ban and appeals it after three months and fails the ban will expire three months after the failed appeal and not 'reset' to expiring six months after the failed appeal. Am I wrong in this or did I misunderstand your statement? Jbh^Talk 13:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

You're right - I'm thinking of indefinites. I need more coffee. Katie^talk 13:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Mmmm.... coffeee.... morinings are rough for me too. Jbh^Talk 13:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I concur with Narutolovehinata5's view that the statement should be modified to be a restriction that can only be placed by an admin. The only other thing I might suggest is that an appeal be allowed at the end of the initial 6 month time frame. Should the appeal be unsuccessful, then they are limited to one appeal every 6 months. Apart from that, I agree with the broad deletion ban. Blackmane (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• For purposes of consensus, I have no objection to the ban being on all deletion processes so long as there is an actual consensus for such. The appeal penalty still needs to be removed, particularly as the actual ban is phrased as "at least six months and no more than one year". The plain reading of this is that it is appealable after 6 months and expires after one year. Adding a penalty by converting a one year ban into an indef ban simply for failing an appeal without further disruption seems both ill considered and draconian. Also, as mentioned by others, if the AfD exception for their own articles is to be removed it should be either removed by an uninvolved admin or via an ANI thread. To the best of my knowledge we never have non-admins impose restrictions on each other - that is one of the points behind RfA, to demonstrate to the community that the editor has the judgement and trust of the community to impose sanctions on other editors. Jbh^Talk 12:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• That would apply where an administrator is applying a sanction based on their own judgement. In this case the community is imposing the sanction, the closer is merely assessing the consensus. For what its worth, I was intending to close it the following day with the same end result (assuming no late opposers) albeit with different wording (indef topic banned from deletion discussions appealable after 6 months). The closer appears to have needlessly complicated it. If you actually read all the support votes, the consensus is clear that a)they should be topic banned, b)they need to demonstrate changed behaviour before they regain the privilege of working in the area again. This means the definition (and intent) of an 'indef' ban - and other supporters explicitly wanted that 6 month period to demonstrate change. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, however the 'any editor may revoke if...' is a discressionary act not a community act. I have no objection to the exception for their own articles at AfD nor for the limitations placed on that exception nor for it being revocable if it is misused. I do object to "any editor" being able to revoke the exception. That is a ban modification and subject to admin discretion not to, in the extreme case, some one edit sock (which, of course, someone will say AGF that it is not a sock) that shows up at an AfD and does a ban modification based on this close. Jbh^Talk 13:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

See my comment below - I doubt most NAC's, self included, or admins would have put that in there. You either limit the interaction (User is entitled to one response and no threaded discussion) or you use the standard 'any administrator can' wording. If they are the article creator the limited response/no discussion is actually unhelpful as they may be able to address sourcing issues etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree. My objection re that part of the close rests solely on giving 'any editor' discression to perform a ban modification outside of ANI. Jbh^Talk 13:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• I don't see any consensus for either of these two detailed conditions:
  1. "The sole exception to this topic ban shall be in cases in which an article, list, category, etc, created by Sk8erPrince is listed for deletion, in which case Sk8erPrince will be permitted to cast a single !vote for keep or delete, however this courtesy may be revoked without warning by any editor in good standing if Sk8erPrince makes more than 1 edit to the deletion discussion in question within a 24-hour period, or uses this edit to engage in disruptive editing".
  2. "If during this time Sk8erPrince appeals this topic ban and loses, then this is topic ban shall be understood to be an indefinite topic ban"

As an aside, my personal opinion is that 1 is mostly reasonable (Is it a standard approach to a topic ban?), though it should be down to admins to deal with any disruption through usual processes and we need to drop the "this courtesy may be revoked without warning by any editor in good standing..." part. Point 2 is not reasonable - I see no justification for escalating a ban to indefinite based on a failed appeal, and certainly not unilaterally imposed by the ANI closer without consensus. Anyway, whatever I think, we need either standard practice or consensus to impose these two, and I don't see that we have that at the moment. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• 1. is an exception sometimes used in advance. Generally where an editor has been more formally sanctioned (AE/Arbcom etc). Its considered 'fair' to allow an article creator to respond even when they otherwise would be disallowed due to sanctions. More often its after-the-fact. An editor will be notified an article they created is going to be deleted, and they end up here or another noticeboard asking if they are allowed to respond - the usual response amongst uninvolved editors is yes they can as a limited exception. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• OK, I'm generally happy with 1 then, but I still think the "this courtesy may be revoked..." clause needs to be dropped. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• The only part that seriously concerns me is that any editor (as opposed to specifically an administrator) can modify the ban conditions. We're not so short of active administrators that, should an editor notice a problem, they can't go to AN/I and get an admin to pull the trigger, if needs be. I'm also somewhat concerned by the unsuccessful appear making it an indefinite ban as I haven't seen evidence of any tenatious wikilawyering - but a) indefinite does not necessarily mean permanent, and b) it might help deal with his rather problematic attitude. Other than that, I think this is a good summation of the consensus with a well thought-out implementation. PGWG (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• I would have preferred the TBan be indefinite and appealable in no less than six months (the standard of all indefs). That would give him six months or more to show us he is here to build an encyclopedia and can edit correctly, within policy and guidelines, and can work constructively and collaboratively with others. Since there's never been a case of anyone (successfully) re-appealing within another six months when their appeal is denied, in my opinion there's no need for that extra complication in the wording. I certainly do not think that the Tban should be automatically removed in one year -- if that's the case all he has to do is disappear for a year and then come back and start right back to his nonsense (we've seen that happen). Repeal of the ban should only be on the condition of at least six months of thoroughly demonstrating that he has improved and is WP:HERE. -- Softlavender (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• I agree with Boing! said Zebedee in that the "this courtesy may be revoked..." part needs to be dropped. I'm fine with the rest. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, drop the "this courtesy may be revoked..." bit, the topic ban should be handled by admin. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• The topic ban from all deletion-related areas seems like a reasonable reading of consensus. Maybe remove the "this courtesy may be revoked" clause. That could lead to unnecessary drama. I think maybe the door shouldn't be prematurely shut on a second appeal, but we can deal with that issue when it comes up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• I agree with the outline, except for the "no longer than a year" clause. For all we know Prince will just retire for a year and come back learning nothing. I have seen it happen already and it just causes more problems.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Gentlecollapse6 edit warring via IP at Maxinquaye

Gentlecollapse6, through that account and the Ip 108.50.151.13, is starting another edit war at the article Maxinquaye. These edits, as in the past, involve the editor muscling stylistic preferences into an article I am the main contributor at, without any discussion at the talk page, dismissing my reasoning in response to their changes and reverting to their preferred layout/structure. I am reporting this because my reports of our conflicts in the past were largely left unaddressed and neglected--reports involving personal attacks, deriding "my writing" and development of the article into what is now a featured article, and edit warring at the same article (archive 924, archive 926). I have reverted twice in this hour, but other reverting between me and Gentle goes back just a few days ago, in a similar manner. These are the recent revisions involving me and the IP at Maxinquaye: Dan56 (talk) 08:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• 02:22, 15 December 2016 (IP)
• 02:34, 15 December 2016 (Dan56)
• 02:41, 15 December 2016 (IP)
• 02:44, 15 December 2016 (Dan56)

Here is a similar back-and-forth in another article--Channel Orange--where I am a major contributor to and where the same layout and restructuring changes Gentle made above (via the IP) were made by Gentle and reverted by another editor, TheAmazingPeanuts: Dan56 (talk) 08:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• 00:29, 24 September 2016
• 01:37, 25 September 2016
• 13:29, 25 September 2016

This report is being made as another record; whether some action results from it or not, I dont care. The more records I create of this nonsense, the better if Gentle shall pop up once again elsewhere to pull the same nonsense. Dan56 (talk) 08:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Adding improper categories

VikingWarlord is adding Led Zeppelin pages to various Viking categories. They have been [264], [265] asked to stop, this is their latest response. Posting here to resolve this issue. - Mlpearc (open channel) 01:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand that sometimes it gets frustrating dealing with what you think is disruption, but this looks like a content dispute to me. It's not vandalism (vikings are mentioned in the article), there's no personal attacks or legal threats, and nobody has yet breached 3RR. It could be resolved with much less drama via an RFC on the article's talk page. If you don't want to wait a month, you could try WP:DRN or ask for input from uninvolved editors at a relevant WikiProject. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Vishalmahato108

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:Vishalmahato108 appears to be trying to promote Vidya Bharati schools, by creating "new" articles from vast copypastes from other schools articles, often repeated several times.
Saraswati Vidya Mandir Bhuli Nagar Dhanabd, created this morning, is a good example - 4 infoboxes, "See also" and "external links" sections, multiple other duplicated sections. Sometimes these are prefaced by minutes of a meeting in Hindi - as seen here.
As can be seen at User talk:Vishalmahato108 several of these articles have already been deleted, but more are being created daily.
Editor has also created Category:Vidya_Bharti_Akhil_Bhartiya_Siksha_Sansthan which was originally another copypaste - as seen here and Template:Zonal Branch which is just similar copypastes.
Clearly this is not helping the encyclopedia - whether it is deemed promotional, or a WP:CIR issue - Arjayay (talk) 14:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• I'm headed out the door, but note that I just revdeleted two such chunks. I don't know if the editor should be given one more chance or not--but certainly this is not positive. Drmies (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Since informing the user of this discussion, they have continued in the same vein - Saraswati Vidya Mandir Bhulinagar, Dhanbad was created, requiring rev-deletion until it was made into a redirect, a large readdition made to Saraswati Vidya Mandir Bhulinagar requiring rev-deletion again, and Saraswati Vidya Mandir, Bhuli Nagar 10+2 School Dhanbad has just been created - which will also need rev-deletion. Whether it is WP:CIR or WP:IDHT, the editor clearly intends continuing, Could someone please intervene - thanks - Arjayay (talk) 09:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• I've indef blocked, as we're seeing continuing copyvio and no response whatsoever on talk pages. I've also examined more of Vishalmahato108's contributions, and just about everything I've seen so far has been copied from elsewhere - either from other Wikipedia articles or from external sources. I've deleted the copyvios I've found, but I haven't checked everything. It seems likely that Vishalmahato108 is not capable of writing original text in English, and there's a high probability that everything they have added is copyvio. I think serious consideration should be given to just nuking the lot of it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

  I've just deleted another one, which consisted of little more than an extensively populated infobox. The trouble is, it was clearly copied from elsewhere and bore little relation to the school it was supposed to be about (when compared to the school's own site). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Arjayay, Drmies, and Boing! said Zebedee: Are we done here? If so, can be closed. Softlavender (talk) 07:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I've checked everything that's left and I think we're OK to close now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Concur - Arjayay (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Persistent breakage of Iraqi Kurdistan by 82.46.133.28

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.

---

Regarding: 82.46.133.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

It seems that this user occasionally and repeatedly returns to the page Iraqi Kurdistan and attempts to make an edit to push the idea that Iraqi Kurdistan is a territory and/or possession of Iraq. Unfortunately, the result of the user's edits is that s/he always breaks the template used for the infobox. Example diffs: [266], [267], [268], [269] (part of a long chain of edits). Both I and others have warned the user about this before—at the time it looked like intentional blanking—but to no avail. It's possible that this may be a WP:COMPETENCE issue, but I couldn't say for sure. AlexEng^(TALK) 19:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• I've provided a more personal/specific warning to the IP editor. No further action is needed at this time, in my opinion. If this persists after my specific explanation of what issues are being caused and how to avoid them, then a block would be necessary. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Kurt Eichenwald 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.

---

Kurt Eichenwald article. Need some quick admin action. Protection and rev del.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

It's been protected by DMacks, and I've rev-deleted lots of IP edits - I might have hidden more than strictly necessary, but they're all vandalism and I'm not going to scrutinize every individual edit. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

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

LesVegas

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.

---

LesVegas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is essentially a WP:SPA devoted to promoting acupuncture. He was blocked for a week in August 2015 for disruptive editing (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive896 § User:LesVegas), went on hiatus for most of 2016, and has just returned with exactly the same disruptive edit-warring to tag the article ([270], []https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acupuncture&diff=prev&oldid=755004403). Per [271], this user is a Warrior for Truth™ and I think by now that we are entitled to conclude that this won't change. I propose an indefinite topic ban from Acupuncture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guy (Help!) 12:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban from Acupuncture and related pages. I was especially interested in User:Johnuniq's count here, showing that LesVegas has put a POV tag on Acupuncture 12 times in the past couple of years. It has never stuck, and no attempt to remove "pseudoscience" as a statement or a category has succeeded, but has wasted editors' time and energies each time. The time and energies of our volunteers are indeed our most precious resources and should not be squandered by never-ending crusades. Bishonen | talk 15:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC).
• Support tireless POV-warrior who is a time sink on an article with a Talk page which is quite hard work at the best of times. I'm fairly sure it would be better for LesVegas and the Project generally if their efforts were directed elsewhere (their early edit history suggests a range of interests before they became magnetized to the topic of acupuncture). [Add: this "pee and poo" comment[272] rather confirms my view] Alexbrn (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC); amended 15:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support ending what has become a pointless timesink. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Reject What is my crime? Acting as a counterweight? Placing a NPOV tag on a lede where, obviously, its neutrality is contested? I follow the procedure when I place a tag on. I go to the talk page, outline a dispute, list reasons for the tag. Editors who don't like it, then remove the tag before the dispute is resolved. In fact, my very first edit on Acupuncture was placing a NPOV tag on the article. I stumbled across the article and noticed disputes galore amongst many editors on the page, tagged it, saw it disruptively removed minutes later, then sorta got pissed off at the obvious games being played and stuck around. Tags aren't supposed to be removed until the disputes are resolved. I'd also like to point out, Guy has a long history of calling for TBans on editors he disagrees with. If I were an aggressive person who wanted to escalate a battleground, I would call for him to be topic banned. I just think he's probably having a bad day and then saw I was editing again and saw red. I mean, the sole purpose of tags is to alert editors of a dispute on talk, hoping it can be resolved. I didn't edit war the tag back on, even though it was removed while discussion was clearly ongoing, and I would be within reason to correct a clearly disruptive edit.. And a quick look at my history will show that I have far, far more edits to the Acupuncture talk page than I do the article itself. I have always desired to try resolving disputes on talk, not actively editing the article. So in addition to being against editors peacefully trying to get third parties to look at an article, are we against editors giving their opinion on talk pages? LesVegas (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• Not sure why the fuss about a NPOV tag. It illustrates there is contention. Wikipedia the encyclopedia anyone can edit means there is bound to be contention. The second paragraph of that article right now reads like gobbledygook and could use some help; time might be better spent there. If we want to convince readers there is an issue with the research on acupuncture we'll fail. All the reader has to do is look at the second paragraph and they'll probably walk away with the idea that no one knows what the heck they are talking about. I have no position on acupuncture but sure wish those who do could stop with personal attacks. (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC))

• I agree about the personal attacks, Littleolive oil. LesVegas' slime and pee and poo attack on Alexbrn here deserves an immediate block in my opinion. I'd do it if it wasn't that I want LesVegas to be able to take part here. But they should realize that Jimbo's page isn't a free area for throwing turds around. Bishonen | talk 17:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC).
• Repeatedly tagging an article with tags that have been continuously rejected is an example of disruptive editing. It wastes time on the part of other editors who have to engage in the same arguments over and over again with the same outcome. There really is no contention on Acupuncture being pseudoscience amongst people without a conflict. Scientists and those who are not gullible idiots agree it is rubbish. Acupuncturists and its associated promoters understandably disagree. Policy dictates we do not let the latter skew articles away from the former. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I hope you don't see this as a "crime," LesVegas. Neither blocks nor bans are punitive. The hope is that you will contribute to Wikipedia constructively in other topics, since this one seems to be such a source of conflict. I'm afraid that your views are not supported by consensus, and this has to stop. AlexEng^(TALK) 00:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

User:AlexEng, thank you for your polite statements and civility, and your reasoned response. Now, I must respectfully disagree with the idea that topic banning an editor for holding certain views is a good idea...in my opinion, it quickly becomes a slippery slope. I have also made the argument that consensus statements on acupuncture indicating scientific efficacy for certain conditions by organizations like the NHS, NIH, WHO, Cochrane and others might put acupuncture in the category of "questionable science" opposed to "pseudoscience" by Wikipedia's definition. There are, undoubtedly, scientists who believe acupuncture is pseudoscience, and I have always believed their view should be properly attributed and given due weight. I have made no attempts to silence that skeptical view from the article, only to encourage editors to also highlight the views from some highly respected organizations, as well as reviews and meta-analyses from respected scientific publications and give those their due weight. If holding and promoting that view becomes worthy of a topic ban, then Wikipedia will become nothing but a hit piece for topics a certain group of organized editors doesn't like. Anyway, while I disagree I do thank you for your opinion nonetheless. LesVegas (talk) 06:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

"I have also made the argument ..." ⟵ this is just the point. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not arguments constructed by Wikipedia editors. Alexbrn (talk) 08:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

LesVegas the problem is not tha you hold certain views, that is not why the sanction is proposed. The problem is that you are unwilling to accept an article that reflects a scientific consensus which is at odds with your views, and to a lesser extent also your tendency to portray this as a war between "evil skeptics" and The Truth™. Guy (Help!) 11:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support. LesVegas' most recent tagging appears to be part of a long-running history of mostly-civil POV-pushing in this area. Attempting to maintain persistent POV tags (in the face of established consensus) to undermine the apparent credibility of articles is disruptive. LesVegas' comment explaining his tag in the most recent instance – "I have placed a tag on the lede....I am tempted to place a POV tag on the entire article, but in the spirit of good will and good faith, let's just start here with this" [273] – very much has a Nice article, it would be a shame if something happened to it tone of implied threat of further disruption of he doesn't get his way.
  Note that this topic area is covered by WP:ARBPSCI, and for the sake of simplifying management and enforcement of the ban, it would probably be a good idea to make this a standard "discretionary sanctions" action. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh come on, did I place a full tag on the article? No. Knowing how contested that article has been throughout its history, I wanted to start small, placing a tag to attract third party editors to look at just the lede. I wasn't wanting to inflame everyone. The quote you posted above was simply me trying to say "this article is a mess, and it'd be nice if the rest of the community could take a look at the whole thing, but for now, why don't we just focus on the lede?" My intent is the entire opposite of what you're accusing me of, and the proof is that I never actually put on a broad tag.LesVegas (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, I don't think there's anything wrong with starting small, but if your tag of just a section was roundly rejected not placing a broad tag isn't just goodwill and good faith, it's essential behaviour. Also if you should have known even the lesser tag would be rejected, placing it anyway isn't goodwill and goodfaith either. It's better than placing a wider tag, but that isn't saying much. And if you'd been there before, it may very well be the case you should have known. Sure consensus can change, but that generally requires either it was always close or there has been a substanial change in the sources or in policy. For the later case, it's often better to let someone less involved start it, since they are better able to assess whether there is some reason to think consensus has changed. (For the former case, it's less clear cut although you still need to take great care not to be disruptive by continually re-asking.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

What? I came onto the article after being away for a year, noticed massive changes I and others felt we're unsubstantiated and placed a tag on the article. Tags, by the way, aren't supposed to be removed hours after being placed on the article if one meets the requirements, i.e., listing the reasons on talk. You can go there and see plenty of other editors supporting my position. Even when it was prematurely removed, against our policies, I didn't get into a long edit war to put it back on. My behavior has been nothing but great here, despite efforts from some editors who disagree with my position and are willing to smear me or make a mountain out of a molehill in order to see opposing viewpoints gone. LesVegas (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support (as an involved admin). I'd taken a vacation from ANI; when invited because of actions of a now-banned editor I was interacting with, only a few weeks later, this editor comes up again. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• support WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia per the policies and guidelines but rather to promote acupuncture. Especially pernicious as they took this all the way to attacking MEDRS with claims of systematic bias in order to do so and wasted a huge amount of our time in the process. I would broaden this to all health topics if I had my druthers. contribs to WT:MEDRS and contribs to WP:MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support LesVegas means well but is too attached to acupuncture (see diff) to accept that WP:NPOV means the article should report the obvious and well-sourced fact that the topic is pseudoscience. Tagging the article twelve times in two years is an indication that the user will never voluntarily disengage. Johnuniq (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support I completely agree with Johnuniq here. It looks like LesVegas has their heart in the right place, but it doesn't look like they will be able to contribute constructively in this subject area. The view that acupuncture is pseudoscience has overwhelming consensus both on the project and in the scientific community; this issue has to be dropped by hook or by crook. AlexEng^(TALK) 00:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support A civil pov pusher, Les is a 'True Believer' in acu, " Their medicine is legit, it saved my butt on more than one occasion. " (diff) who has not yet appreciated the difference between anecdote and evidence. Roxy the dog. bark 09:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support as per the comments above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Admin attention regarding the article IAPTI and, say, my identity (I am the long-time user:Fadesga)

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.

---

Good morning, administrators. Thank you for allowing for this space. I will try to explain my situation as good as I can. I am experiencing something related to WP:NOBAN.

This is the most strange and embarrassing thing that has happened to me during my long 8 years at Wikipedia.

First of all: if you look back at my Wiki-activity, you will probably see an efficient, reasonable, active editor with over 100,000 editions in English. So far, so good.

I have experienced, from time to time, some "edit wars", not many. But during the last days I have experienced a really strange, unpleasant edit war with the article IAPTI.

I have always used my User:Fadesga for all purposes. And my real name is Fabio Descalzi. You can even see my picture on the user page.

But these last days some strange new users popped up: User:Fadasge (as you see, a very similar username!) and User:Fabio_Descalzi (which is also "somebody else trying to make believe that it is me"!). This is really grave, and I have already told an administrator about this irregular situation. These "strange users" have made only a couple of edits each, and... all of them in the article IAPTI.

I swear I don't have control of User:Fadasge or User:Fabio_Descalzi - if I try to log in, it is impossible, as I do not have my email address linked to them, so I cannot log in as such. Then, yes, I acknowledge, it was maybe an awkard decision (and, at the same time, a "message to the strangers"), I wrote redirects on the user pages of User:Fadasge and User:Fabio_Descalzi. And I posted warnings on the talk pages User_talk:Fadasge or User_talk:Fabio_Descalzi.

Whichever editions you see here or here, are clearly performed by "other" people, as I cannot log in with these users.

Thanks for reading this, hope you understand. My last edit in the article IAPTI from User:Fadesga was this, yesterday evening.

In case you can do something, I will be very grateful.

Best regards from a veteran user, --Fadesga (talk) 13:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• I've blocked both accounts for impersonation. Katie^talk 13:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Admin attention regarding the article IAPTI, one last detail

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.

---

@KrakatoaKatie: may I also point out Special:Contributions/Jose Carras, a WP:SPA whose first edit to IAPTI preceded the appearance of the two sock accounts you've just blocked, and whose most recent edit was a revert of some of Fadesga's changes, with an edit summary accusing User:Fadesga of sockpuppetry: "WARNING: The Wikipedia user Fabio Descalzi operates under multiple names (e.g. Fadasge, Fadesga etc.) to prevent other users from updating this page. New entries that have been systematically deleted are now recovered". If this is a matter for a SPI, I'm happy to open one. Wikishovel (talk) 16:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

CheckUser shows the three accounts are  Confirmed. Jose Carras is the sockmaster. If more disruption occurs, let me know and I'll take another look, but I think that's all of the accounts. :-) Katie^talk 16:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• I've no idea what the correct version of the article should be, but I've reverted to the last version by User:Fadesga before the most recent socks/impersonators showed up. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

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