Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive933

Homophobia by 100.34.209.153

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

---

IP 100.34.209.153 has left quite a vile, homophobic comment at Talk:Nathan Wyburn (see [1]). I see the editor has had multiple warnings about inappropriate behaviour on Talk pages, and would appreciate if someone could block the account, or at the very least remove their recent comment from Wikipedia. Sionk (talk) 06:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I've redacted the commend and revision deleted it, as it seemed to be denigrating the article subject on top of being homophobic, i.e a WP:BLP vio. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The IP is now repeatedly blanking the IP Talk Page, which contains previous warnings and the link to this discussion. So maybe a further warning and/or a block may be required? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with them blanking the talk page. It signifies that they have read the warnings. There are very few things that can not be removed from a talk page and none of the items that they are blanking are required to remain. -- GB fan 10:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the only thing IP editors cannot remove from their talkpages are notices that the IP may be shared. Otherwise the usual talkpage rules apply. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Looking at the hate mongering and such, I've added a one month block on their static IP as it seems they have been using it for at least a month. There is plenty of room for differing opinions and debate, but not hateful bashing of others. That isn't part of building an encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Seen. Although since the attack was three hours ago, and they have made no edits since for three hours...? _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Being three hours or twelve hours is meaningless for this type of violation. They had plenty of prior warning. Had they been a registered user, I probably would have indef blocked them until a dialog could be had. Because they are an IP, this limits the amount of time I can block, but it doesn't prevent me from doing my best to treat IP editors and registered editors as equitably as possible when it comes to setting a block for hate mongering. They are still free to appeal the block, just as any registered user may. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Poor behavior, POINT, and POV issues with OliverBel

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.

---

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

I encountered an edit by OliverBel last night which continued an edit war/disruption campaign on David Irving. The article is contentious because Irving is a holocaust denier (ref) and a number of IP users want this description removed and replaced with "historian". Upon reviewing OliverBel's talk page and edits, I'm convinced they are no longer here to build an encyclopedia and cannot edit on politically contentious articles in a constructive manner. Since the end of March 2016, they've made 12 edits, nearly all of which have been disruptive.

On or related to David Irving

• 12:04, 29 March 2016 - Restored IP comment on talk page insisting Irving is a "historian". Comment included the text "I am aware of the large Jewish presence on Wikipedia so to avoid conflict of interest I would kindly invite Jews to withhold from commenting."
• 12:08, 29 March 2016 - Followed up with comment that "I suggest Nick-D has his administrative privileges revoked. Reverting an addition to a talk page and banning a user for raising a point on a talk page is fascism and has no place on Wikipedia. Highly unprofessional and childish behaviour."
• 12:35, 29 March 2016 - On David Irving, replaces "author" with "historian", removes holocaust denier, and removed html comment about not editing per consensus on talk page. Uses edit summary "I assume no disagreement since attempt to obtain consensus was closed"
• User was blocked by JzG at 13:18, 29 March 2016, for 31 hours for "disruptive editing".
• 23:21, 2 April 2016 - On The Destruction of Dresden, authored by Irving, removed referenced text claiming the book was not considered authoritative. Edit summary was "Vindictive bigotry"
• 23:23, 2 April 2016 - On David Irving, removed "author" and added "historian" with edit summary "His books have been reviewed in national newspapers. He IS a historian, whether you personally like what he says or not. Keep bigotry and political correctness outside of Wikipedia."
• User was blocked by Nick-D at 23:50, 2 April 2016, for 1 week for "disruptive editing"
• 03:58, 6 September 2016 - On David Irving, again removed "holocaust denier" and replaced it with "historian". Edit summary was "He is an historian, dummies. Stop letting politics get in the way of fact. This is Wikipedia, you are supposed to be neutral." This was the exact same edit by an IP user ([2]) made at 00:38, 6 September 2016 with the edit summary "removing political correctness. He is a historian, even if you don't like him." which resulted in Acroterion semi-protecting the page.
• 05:21, 6 September 2016 - Doug Weller warned them with a level-2 template. Added comment "You knew you'd be reverted, you've tried this before."

Other edits

• 21:27, 30 March 2016 - Removed sourced infobox label "conservative" from UK Independence Party with edit summary "Not conservative in any way".
• 06:58, 14 May 2016 On Stefan Molyneux replaces "blogger" with "philosopher" in lead. Molyneux is known for anarcho-capitalist and libertarian writings as we as being part of the men's rights movement (which is under general sanctions).
• 05:17, 26 June 2016 - On Paul Nuttall, changed sourced statement of "climate change denier" in lead. Edit summary was "Removing blatant leftist bias that infests Wikipedia".
• 17:54, 20 July 2016 - On Paul Golding, a British nationalist politician, removed "convicted criminal" from lead with edit summary "Removing leftist Wikipedia bias."

I'm not sure what the best course of action would be. Related general sanctions to the edits are WP:ARBAP2 and MRM general sanctions. Frankly I'm leaning toward indefinitely block given trend in recent behavior. The most recent edit ([3]) warrants another block since it's an escalation of the previous two blocks. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• I absolutely agree, and have blocked indef. The user edits infrequently, but every edit and summary reeks of wrongteous anger. Guy (Help!) 17:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Good call, given the user's neo-Nazi/antisemitic editing and commenting history. This is a classic case of a user clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Neutrality^talk 18:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Kristin Smart

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.

---

Kristin Smart is in the news again. A large swath of sourced content was recently deleted by an editor affiliated with the university Smart attended and where her body is allegedly buried.[4]. Could someone review these unusual deletions? Thank you. Fancy nancy schmanzy (talk) 03:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Persistent Disruptive Editing

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 having multiple encounters with the user 86.4.217.101, I have finally decided to make his disruptive behaviour more widely known. Following repeated reversions of valid edits on 2016 French Open – Women's Singles and vandalism on my own user page, the user was warned and subsequently blocked for 31 hours. Following the block, the user continually blanked his talk page and any attempts of communication were met with blanking and vulgar content on the talk page. The user has came to my attention again following repeated reversions of edits on 2016 Western & Southern Open – Women's Singles. The user will not accept that the article is written in the way set out in the article guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis. Despite trying to make this point to the editor and notifying them of the standard article layout my attempts have gone ignored. Upon looking at their talk page, I see that they have been warned about non-constructive edits on the article Lauren Davis. Again the user replaced the content with "Suck My Dick :)". The user has also used threats such as "Bitch try me" and repeatedly uses expletives in edit summaries.

Examples

• Lauren Davis
• my talk page
• expletives in edit summary
• deletion on talk page

This user is causing a real headache for all the editors over at tennis articles. We have tried as much as possible to avoid edit warring, but it is pretty difficult when the other party refuses to engage in discussions on the article's talk page and any attempt to post on their own talk page just gets blanked. I would ask that some one would look at this behaviour, as it is clear that further action is needed following an unsuccessful previous ban. --F1lover22 talk 23:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked for 60 hours. It's a dynamic IP, so I hesitate to place a longer block. Bishonen | talk 23:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC).

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

Gaming the system?

There is strong consensus that an AN thread is not a helpful thing to raise at this stage. There isn't really any consensus to endorse or overturn anything else, either behavioural or editorial. Deryck C. 06:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

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

---

Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election, 2016 after surviving an AfD and a deletion review. now has another AfD (The failed AfD closed on 24 August 2016 (no consensus), the deletion review was closed on 2 September 2016 (endorse close) and the new AfD was filled on 2 September 2016). Also the entire article has been deleted and replaced with a paragraph about a 1964 essay that has nothing to do with the specific topic of the 2016 US presidential election. I tried to restore it but was reverted. Could we please have some uninvolved admin eyes on the article, and especially on what I believe to be gaming of the system?

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016[5]
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 August 26#Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016 (closed)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election, 2016[6]]
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor
• Previous ANI discussion, Aug 25
• Page before it was gutted
• Page after it was gutted

(Note the "United states" vs. "United States" in the above URLs) --Guy Macon (talk) 04:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Note the closer (User:Sandstein's) comment: "Because of the close outcome, a relatively quick renomination (on the order of days) might be appropriate." (my emphasis - VM).Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! That makes the second RfD just an easily-fixed formatting problem (it should say 2nd nomination with a link to the first). However, changing this well-sourced article and reducing it to this blanked article when there was no consensus to delete was, in my opinion, gaming the system. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

"The following Monday the National Enquirer ran a front-page feature titled "Hillary Clinton's Secret Health Crisis" while the Drudge Report posted a photo showing Clinton tripping on a flight of stairs, in which it was insinuated the accident was a result of medical issues". Well sourced my butt.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

What? That's about as good as sourcing gets for a comspiracy theory, unless you want a source from Breitbart or Alex Jones or something. 207.38.154.23 (talk) 07:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Some of the removed material was sourced to NPR, NBC News, Harpers, Scientific American, CNN, The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, Snopes.com, The Guardian, The Los Angeles Times, CBS News, BBC, and The Intercept. I stand by my assertion that well-sourced material was deleted and politely decline Volunteer Marek's offer of his butt -- thanks but I already have one. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 08:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the visual. EEng 08:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Note: I added AfD: Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor as a related AfD above, as relevant to this discussion. I also added Previous ANI discussion, Aug 25, which was started by the article creator. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

There are already two other threads about this here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election.2C 2016 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Articles for deletion. Can they please be consolidated into one to try and avoid a huge mess. Also please note that it is a holiday weekend in the US so some editors (involved or not) may not be around to respond quickly if pinged. MarnetteD|Talk 04:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

It is appropriate to renominate no-consensus afds, even quickly, in the hope of obtaining consensus. It is usually more helpful to wait a while, because this increases the chances of actually getting consensus. Of course,in this particular case the interest in the article is to some extent time limited--myself, I think it will indeed be permanently of interest, but I think the arguments here will be less heated.

But the blanking or partial blanking of the article was not appropriate, perhaps to the point of being disruptive and outrageous, and should be reverted. I'd do it myself, except i have a overall opinion on the matter. DGG ( talk ) 07:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The article is objectively better in its stubbed form than it was previously, though. jps (talk) 11:52, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not better or worse that way; it's just empty, thus the stubbing is equivalent to out-of-process deletion. — JFG ^talk 14:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The article is better stubbed than it was before. Who are you to say that it isn't? jps (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Nobody cares who I am or who you are. You are saying that an essentially empty article is better than an article dedicated to contentious contents. That's just your opinion. I happen to think that our encyclopedia should not shy away from reporting well-sourced controversial contents. We are WP:NOTCENSORED. Excessive WP:CRYBLP protection doesn't cut it for such prominent WP:PUBLICFIGURES who chose to come into the election fight for the highest US public office. They are much thicker-skinned than you and me. — JFG ^talk 17:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Agree this is being discussed in 3 different places and it should go down to one. Also agree with DGG on everything he said (except I've already reverted once). Finally, yeah, this was _very_ well sourced. I think "disruptive and outrageous" is correct. Hobit (talk) 11:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Suggest WP:BOOMERANG against Guy Macon (talk · contribs) for tiresomely bringing this to AN/I. This is a dispute that does not belong here. jps (talk) 11:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Boomerang suggestions when the person targeted did nothing wrong have a tendency to boomerang against the person making the suggestion. I'm just saying. -Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• You've done plenty. Your petty vindictiveness and penchant for escalating non-issues into dramatic conflicts is well on display at arbcomm even as we speak. jps (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• • While I have no love for the subject matter this is entirely an appropriate place to bring out gaming of the system and disruption concerns. As the article has been completely gutted and replaced with an anti conspiracy essay from 1964, I would consider that as meeting both those concerns. Deleting large sections of articles can be done occasionally but that's like me taking a religious article, deleting everything out of it, then replacing it with an Atheist talking about why religions are wrong essay. Tivanir2 (talk) 12:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
• As the editor who first raised a red flag about this on the talk page of the article, I will state my agreement with Guy Macon that what has happened here is disturbing. The community debated an article that was, and is admittedly controversial. But we could not reach consensus on whether to keep it or not. Then a handful of editors decided that there was enough consensus among themselves to go ahead and delete the article in all but name and reduce it to a POV stub. That is bad enough. But after strong objections were raised by other editors there persists to the present moment fierce resistance to restoring the blanked material. For the record I am no fan of fringe material on the project and have personally nominated many articles for deletion I believed were non-notable and improperly being used to promote tin foil hat ideas. And I also readily concede that this article is not an easy keep or delete. Sound arguments were made on both sides at the original AfD. It may well be that the article will end up being deleted at the new AfD. That would disappoint me, but I would respect the outcome because that's the way this sort of things should be done. If you want to delete an article fine. But unless it is a clearly non-controversial situation, which this obviously is not, do it at AfD. The pro-deletion side came very close to carrying the debate last time around and may well do so at the new AfD discussion. In summary; stubbing an article that the community just said it could not reach consensus on, by deleting all relevant material and then claiming "talk page consensus" formed by a handful of editors who failed to persuade the community at a well participated AfD discussion is, IMO, improper. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Regardless of anybody's opinion on the need for Wikipedia to have this article, the blanking of all significant contents, section by section, with blanking editors cheering each other up, was totally inappropriate, especially as a no-consensus deletion review was underway. I would advocate a fresh start: restoring the full extent of the article and having a wide-open RFC during which the page would be fully protected, then let people edit away taking into account RFC results. Full disclosure: I once restored a section which had been blanked by an editor in violation of 1RR, and was counter-reverted by another editor with an offensive comment; I abstained from further intervention. — JFG ^talk 14:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I'm torn. On the one hand, I wholeheartedly agree that this is gaming the system (I !voted delete, by the way). An article that does not achieve a consensus to delete should absolutely not be stubbed when the AfD is closed.

On the other hand, I still stand by my !vote to delete. This is too soon to have an article about this subject! When the election is done and folklorists and journalists are writing about the totality of the conspiracy theories in this election, we will finally have an article worth writing.

Now, getting back to the subject of this, I have two things to say.

1. This is absolutely gaming the system, disguised as a content dispute. I usually avoid speculating on the motivations of others (and I actually have a great deal of respect for those who blanked the page), and I will not start now. However, the facts are clear: there is obviously no consensus to blank the page, as anyone can see from looking at this thread. Let alone the article's talk page. The page should be restored to the version I railed against at the AfD. If full page protection is necessary to keep it that way, so be it. We can then go through this new AfD and see if we can't decide what to do with it.
2. That should damn well be the end of it here at AN/I. The justification I see above for a boomerang is... Well, actually I don't see any justification. I see the assertion that this should boomerang, but no reason why (beyond the dangerous suggestion that opening an AN/I case in order to get admin attention is a problem). Furthermore, I see no evidence that the stubbing of this article was done in anything but good faith, by editors who've demonstrated repeatedly their desire to improve the encyclopedia, motivated by concerns that are perfectly coincidental with my own concerns about the article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

That's the tough part all right. I too agree with what the out-of-process deleters are trying to do, and will continue to do what I can to convince the community to form a consensus for deleting the article, but on the other hand I oppose gaming the system in this way even when the end result is what I wanted to happen. We all need to follow consensus even when it goes against us. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

For the record, while strongly disagreeing with the back door attempt at deletion, I do not question the motives of the editors involved. I have worked with some of them in the past on other articles, especially via FTN, and think they are all good editors with honorable intentions. But I do believe in this case their zeal got the better of them. I see this as a case of poor judgement, not malicious editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I support the above conclusion. I don't think anyone meant to do a backdoor deletion, it just happened, a piece at a time. That being said, I do hold those individuals who have used the revert button to undo attempts to restore the material responsible, and I have a low opinion of anyone who supports deleting material sourced to NPR, NBC News, Harpers, Scientific American, CNN, The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, Snopes.com, The Guardian, The Los Angeles Times, CBS News, BBC, and The Intercept just because some other material in the same article is sourced to the National Enquirer. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Based on the above comments and those on the talk page of the article I am satisfied that there is at the very least no consensus to substantively blank the article. To which end I have reverted the article to the most recent attempt by Guy Macon to restore the controversially deleted material. I have also requested full PP to last until the close of the ongoing AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it highly inappropriate to claim consensus on the basis of whining on WP:ANI. If an admin wants to move in and protect the page or something, let them. jps (talk) 16:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

And I've done just that, for a week. Airplaneman ✈ 16:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I believe large-scale content blanking in this context is disruptive, see Arbcom guidance. JerryRussell (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The article has been blanked yet again despite the fact that there is clearly no consensus in favor of this action and arguably there is consensus against it. I am starting to view this as deliberate disruptive editing and believe that an admin should step in. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Note It's now been fully protected by Airplaneman. _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

An admin has stepped in and protected the page. Now let's get back to actually discussing the actual content rather than citing arbcom cases that are 9 years old. jps (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

In this ANI discussion, are we really here to discuss the content? Or are we here to discuss whether content blanking is disruptive? It actually would be nice to have some policy guidance about that. Unfortunately, 9 years old was the best I could do. I'm not questioning the motives of the editors here, but I find it alarming when this sort of thing happens. JerryRussell (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

C'mon, man, do you really think that citing 9-year-old precedent (best that you can do for a reason -- Wikipedia has evolved much since then) is helping us answer the question of what to do when editors WP:BOLDly stubbify an article that was documented to have many problems in an AfD closed as no consensus? Content discussions absolutely should trump (excuse the pun) this kind of stuff. jps (talk) 17:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I could also have cited Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#One who deletes the pertinent cited additions of others or Wikipedia:Content removal#Consensus on removal, but those are just essays. Or there's the template text itself, which says that articles shouldn't be blanked. It seems to me that removing all but a stub, is not much different from blanking. If the concern is BLP issues about Hillary's head injury, that content could be removed or edited to improve neutrality. The article contains several other sections. If, on the other hand, there's a community consensus at this point that massive sourced content removals immediately after failed AfD's are just fine and dandy, well, I stand corrected. JerryRussell (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Stubbornly stamping one's foot and declaring fealty to made-up processes on Wikipedia is an increasingly problematic aspect of the culture here. What is worse is that there really are no rules per se that explain what you are supposed to do when a discussion about deletion ends in no consensus. The normal thing to do at such point is to return to normal editing. That could include bold rewrites of an article and this is not the first nor the last time that such has occurred. By insisting on ninny-ism that seeks to sneer at editors working to remove problematic content from an article for which there was no consensus to delete, you are contributing to an atmosphere that values process over content, rules over quality, games over encyclopedia. jps (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem isn't the topic, the problem is that it was written as a giant BLP problem with a predetermined POV. When the article describes the opinion of doctors with descriptors that undermine their credibility and then identify them as part of a conspiracy. That is not okay. Same thing with mentioning unrelated indictments without conviction. When one side of a campaign calls an issue legitimate and the other calls it a conspiracy theory (with a a long history of labeling all criticism as part of a "vast right wing conspiracy"), these issues are simply political campaign issues and not something we can cover real time or make conclusions about. The press will cover it from every aspect including legitimate concerns and conspiracy theory. We don't carry their water. There's a reason why Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor was deleted. The content was literally copied to an article with "conspiracy theory" as the title. This didn't make the content better, more encyclopedic, more neutral or anything else in WP's interest. If we want to cover candidate health, put it in their bios. If we want to cover the question of health as a campaign issue, put it in the campaign articles. Topics like this evolve and even this weekend, "new revelations" of minutiae will be discussed. We don't need articles on it keeping score and we don't need sections that disparage living people that offer opinions that are sought out by ever hungry press. If there is "Gaming the systtem" occuring, it is by editors creating articles titled from a campaigns talking points and then trashing the detractors. It needs to stop. --DHeyward (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• I truly have no opinion about the merits of the article. I haven't read it and don't intend to participate in the AfD. But it was restored with an edit summary stating that it should not be blanked again; there is an AfD running, and articles should not be blanked while at AfD, as the template itself states; and then it was blanked again and immediately after that was full protected. I went to the talk page to ask that it be restored but I see a statement there that this discussion supersedes the talk page discussion on the blanking. So here's my request: revert the blanking, please. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • My God. WP:WRONGVERSION is something everyone who hasn't read should take a moment to read. There is currently a discussion on the talkpage as to whether there is decent sourcing for claiming that the Hillary Clinton "health rumors" are a conspiracy theory about the presidential election. They may very well be, but the sourcing needs to be addressed). jps (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• I suppose this article is eventually going to be kept. But, if it is, it needs to be kept on a short leash and forced to only mention things which are reliable. pbp 18:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Really? Have you looked at the AfD? I am rapidly losing any hope that the article will be kept. And with the blanked version now locked with little hope of being able to restore the material deleted (despite the clear lack of consensus for the mass redaction) I am more or less resigned to its being deleted. Indeed I am very close to voting for deletion in the AfD myself given the current article is just a POV coatrack and no longer has any real relation to the subject of the title. If you have some reason for your optimism I wish you would share it. I could use some encouragement right now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Always darkest before the dawn? I think the current version is less of a POV-coatrack than the version you preferred. In any case, there is a discussion at the talkpage. If you are despondent over this, let's try to come up with a better idea of what a good article on this subject would look like. jps (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ad Orientum: I wouldn't necessarily call it optimism...more like realism or cynicism. COATRACK articles have become harder and harder to delete of late. Plus, 2nd nominations generally trend more keepist than 1st nominations do. pbp 19:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• (1) once an AfD is closed, normal editing resumes, (2) the content that was removed was discussed on the talk page, (3) editor's upholding one of our core policies, WP:BLP is not an attempt to game the system, (4) an argument based on "but it's reliably sourced", still doesn't override our BLP policy, (5) in a contentious topic area under DS, I would expect to see a firm consensus to keep, the first AfD about HC's brain rumor article resulted in delete and the most recent AfD was no consensus, (6) I agree with Dheyward that the topic is not the problem here, the content that was removed per BLP didn't stay focused on the aim and scope of the topic of the article; instead, it drifted off to unacceptable material that focused too much on the individuals. The material was cherry-picked from RS and then used to synth this content together, which resulted in a massive BLP violation, that's unacceptable. Does anyone think The New York Post is an acceptable source for contentious material about a living individual, (7) Clintons campaign article has a section on her health, and Trumps campaign article has sections on Cruz/controversies/fringe/conspiracy theories, there's no reason to create a POV fork full of BLP violations.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
• Observation The reason an article goes to AfD is usually that it comprises a predominance of unsourced or poorly-sourced statements. When they fail AfD, we should expect and welcome the efforts of editors who continue to remove the disqualifying content. The ones who are "gaming the system" here are those who insinuate that this kind of normal article clean-up is "back door deletion" and the like. Next one who plays that card should get a time out. SPECIFICO talk 20:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment They removed content, they gave a clear policy basis for the removal, and they discussed it on the talk page. There's a talk page section for each item deleted. A good first step in restoring the Ted Cruz related conspiracy theory would be discussing why it should be restored. Same for the other sections that were removed and discussed on the talk page. What happened instead was an accusation that an end run around the AFD process was being made and without discussing the merits of the removal the entirety of the material was restored. An AFD was made that resulted in no consensus. A DVR that endorsed the "no consensus" followed. A new AFD attempting to achieve a consensus has been made. None of this amounts to gaming the system. Removing items from and article and attempting the discuss it doesn't amount to gaming the system.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I looked at that "They removed content, they gave a clear policy basis for the removal, and they discussed it on the talk page" previous discussion for the section I am currently discussing on the talk page, and all I see is a WP:CRYBLP claim that any coverage of Hillary Clinton's health is a BLP violation. The closing AfD admin ruled against the claims of a BLP violation, and the other admins endorsed the close at deletion review. The BLP argument was made during the first AfD. If the closing admin or any admin reviewing the close had found a BLP violation, that would have resulted in an instant delete per Wikipedia policies. "BLP" isn't a magic word that lets you get your way without actually establishing that there is a BLP violation. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I may have missed it but in the close it seems as if it was ruled there was no consensus. I didn't catch where he ruled out the BLP. The BLP is not a magic word. Typing WP:CRYBLP on ANI doesn't remove your obligation to use the talk page of the article and make your case that there is no BLP violation. 1 person opened a discussion that the section on Ted Cruz was a BLP violation. 2 people concurred. It was restored without any actually discussion other than the position that they were making an end run around the AFD. There is a BLP Noticeboard and seen people take discussion there. But for some reason, I suppose since you are "right", you have no obligation to discuss this. And it's not that I am saying you are wrong and there is in fact a BLP violation, I take no position on this. BLP or not, thats a content matter. ANI is for conduct. IMO, there is no case here for any conduct issues. If there is no BLP issue you should have no problem making your case, whether on the talk page or at BLPN.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not material about a conspiracy theory regarding Hillary Clinton's health violates WP:BLP has already been decided, and I am not going to re-argue the point with you. If there had been a BLP violation, the closing admin and reviewing admins would have been obligated to immediately remove the material as soon as they identified it. See WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which is part of WP:BLP. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, it's already been decided that the was no BLP with that section before it was removed? Then link that discussion. Oh, wait, no that's not what you're saying at all. You are saying that admins have God like powers and you have no obligation to engage in talk page discussion because admins have perused that article. Bullshit!-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• When an article has survived a deletion discussion and a DRV, blanking it and then protecting the blanked version is an obvious end-run around our processes. A few editors spamming the talk page with a massive quantity of text does not constitute a consensus that overcomes these processes; in fact, the sheer quantity of text and its argumentative tone is a very effective deterrent to other editors joining in and helping out. The outcome here has been severely suboptimal, and yes, I'm well aware of WP:WRONGVERSION and I'm disregarding it with all due forethought.—S Marshall T/C 16:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Guy Macon just made the same point I made at the article talk page. In my book, that sneer about the "vast right-wing conspiracy" statement comes uncomfortably close to a BLP violation in itself, and while I've heard bad things about the editing environment at our US politics articles, I'd thought that was a canard. Now with all the sneering and assumptions of bad faith, I'm glad I have to deal with these editors relatively rarely.. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

RE:@Guy Macon:Mr. Macon has asked me not to post on his talk page, so I am linking a comment I placed there in a forgetful moment. Here it is. Mr. Macon has a recent history of disruptive and battleground editing on American Politics. GuyMacon's BLP-violating edit I asked him to undo was, fortunately, immediately undone by a passing Admin, @Acroterion:. Other recent lapses by Mr. Macon at the Seth Rich article include the following: PA edit comment battleground, esp. vs. editor Steve Quinn goofy threats failure to engage on talk page threats again etc. etc. At some point, a TBAN from American Politics would seem appropriate. I have posted this here because of @WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94: jps' suggestion of a boomerang finding regarding Guy Macon. I have unhatted and clarified relevance here. SPECIFICO talk 17:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I personally oppose the punitive action you are suggesting here. I can not see this as anything but a good faith question about questionable practices. While it is possible to say some of the article falls foul of BLP I sincerly doubt that the entire thing would qualify. The essay replacement of that information is pointy at best and disruptive at worst. Tivanir2 (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not proposing it, I'm endorsing jps' recommendation. It is not punitive. It is preventive. Please don't complicate the discussion with "punitive" SPECIFICO talk 19:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Strongest Possible Oppose to any suggestion of BOOMERANG sanctions against Guy Macon. There is absolutely no evidence of bad faith in raising the issue of the improper blanking of Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election, 2016. Those concerns have been echoed by a very large number of highly respected and experienced editors. The above post by SPECIFICO appears motivated at least in part by a heated, but unrelated dispute with Guy Macon. Attempting to use unrelated threads, the legitimacy of which is beyond serious contention, to advance one's side of a personal dispute is pushing the envelope of propriety and could be seen as FORUMSHOPPING and or CANVASSING. The comment which does not in any way address the issue raised in this thread should never have been posted here. I take no position in the dispute between these editors as I am not familiar with it and have no intention of getting involved. But this is not the place to resolve it.-Ad Orientem (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

If WP had the same functionality as Skype, you all could see my WTF face right now. Usually I edit with a bit of a smile (or sometimes a blank look, complete with drool), but right now, I'm dumbfounded. The 'evidence' given above by SPECIFICO of Guy's supposed poor behavior is beyond specious. In some of those links, I'd venture to suggest that the motivation was to imply wrongdoing while knowing full well that the diff didn't illustrate any wrongdoing. AGF is important, but I really can't reconcile how someone can take that first diff as a personal attack in any way. The only possible explanation I can imagine is that the user damn well knows it is not, but doesn't think anyone will check. In every other link, the claim of bad behavior is either arguable or just a clear misunderstanding of what was being said. This is ridiculous and this thread needs to be closed before it creates any more pointless drama. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, this thread needs to be closed.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

If jps and I am wrong, then this thread will meet no further support. If Guy Macon has in fact shown a pattern of disruptive editing on articles related to ARBAP2 then other editors will voice their views. Either way, the community doesn't close a thread after a few minutes because a couple of editors don't like the subject. As you'll note in Mr. Macon's instructions to me on his talk page, he prefers I raise this at ANI rather than offer him a collegial warning such as the one I copied here. SPECIFICO talk 23:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

It needs to be closed because it's utter nonsense. While I view Guy Macon's claims here as wrong (but very reasonable), I also clear that they are genuine. He in fact thinks that folks are trying to game the system. There is no reason to believe that he is here in anything but good faith. If the community agreed with me, that his position was wrong, we'd set a piss poor precedent by banning him without some justification of bad faith. Your diffs are unrelated to the topic at hand. I won't bother discussing them other than saying that I doubt any community action and they shouldn't be discussed here. Ciao.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

PROCEDURAL COMMENT: Could an uninvolved administrator please split this off into a a separate section and give it a neutral title? Specifico has every right to file an ANI report about me, but he should not hijack an existing discussion to do so. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Absolute Oppose to the suggestion Guy Macon should face "boomerang sanctions." Besides, we just had an editor with a long disciplinary history removed Talk page comments from two other editors (I restored) [7]. If that, of all things, is not sanctionable then we've established, by precedent, this page is a total free-for-all. BlueSalix (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• My Final Comment There has been a lot of discussion on this thread. Some of it good and some not so much. More than a few seem to view the merits of the article as the issue. But that's not right. The only issue here is whether or not a handful of editors, likely acting in good faith, should have effectively deleted an article only days after it survived an AfD via blanking of all relevant material. From WP:BLANK...

Under normal circumstances, Wikipedia articles should not be blanked. If you think an article has no useful content, then either fix it, or else leave it in its present state and propose it for deletion. However, it is acceptable to blank an article for libel or privacy reasons as an emergency measure, as described in the policy on biographies of living persons. It is also sometimes necessary to blank an article which is a copyright violation in its entirety – for instructions, see Copyright problems.

I respectfully argue that what was done, was grossly improper. And the impropriety was compounded when the blanking was rigidly enforced by edit warring even after other editors objected. If an Admin wants to take some formal notice of what went on here, fine. If not, life will go on. In the end it's likely moot. The life expectancy of the article is probably no more than days given the current state of the ongoing AfD. Arguably this entire argument was pointless since the blanking was a fait accompli and the article is all but certain to be deleted anyways. But I believe an important principle is at stake here. Namely that no single editor or group of editors has the right to unilaterally delete an article by blanking all of its content (save in the few exceptions admitted by the guidelines).

This issue has now been discussed or debated by my count in at least four different places and it's time for me to move on and drop the proverbial stick. I support the motion to close this thread and invite any uninvolved admin to do so and if so inclined make any judgements. I will have no further comment on this issue here or elsewhere. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

---

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

User:Celestinesucess patrolling 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.

---

Celestinesucess has huge problems with page patrolling. She patrols many non-notable articles. Many users have left messages on her talk page before me that they have found problems with her page patrol, User talk:Celestinesucess. Someone should ask her to stop patrolling pages improperly. She can tag them, or nominate them but should reduce the speed of patrolling. She doesn't check the notability if the article claims to be notable but is actually non-notable. I don't know how many non-notable pages she has patrolled which helped those articles to survive deletion process. . --Marvellous Spider-Man 17:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Not only have you not provided specific examples, but I can't seem to find the discussion you had with her about these issues before you brought this to ANI. As for the multitude of editors leaving her messages about this, I only see three non-automated notes about her patrolling: the first tersely explains that the patrol should have been BLPPRODded (April); another simply states that the unreviewing editor would like others to have a look (MrX, July); a third expresses dismay, points out that the subject has few likes on Facebook, and describes all the sources as being PRIMARY (Marvellous Spider-Man, September). None of the messages properly explain what she was doing wrong, give her guidance about NPP (a start would be pointing out the NPP information page and the NPP checklist), ask her to slow down, or seek to open a dialogue with her. An ANI complaint seems like overkill. Rebbing 18:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

There are other messages also which are single lines. She has opened account before me. How I will give her explanation. I will take this discussion to WP:NPP if ANI is not right place. Marvellous Spider-Man 00:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Marvellous Spider-Man: I saw the other messages: those are automatically delivered by the page curation tool; they can be sent by mistake when a patroller tries to mark off a page that has already been patrolled. As for addressing this, I suggest you start by politely raising your concerns with her on her talk page. Provide her with guidance and some recent examples of what you consider to be incorrect patrols. You should only ask for outside help if a one-on-one conversation has failed to resolve the issue. Also, the NPP noticeboard is WP:NPP/N. Good luck. Rebbing 00:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

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

User: Favre1fan93 3RR Violation

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

---

WP:3RR. Good faith edits to Batman: Arkham Origins. 1 2 3. 2603:300A:1510:A900:64F0:2C39:EF11:3CE6 (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Not a 3RR violation. I also notice you didn't bother to discuss the edits - you just reverted the first revert. This is a typical content dispute - take it to the talk page if you want to press the matter. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

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

USER:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz Violating WP:AGF,WP:TPO, general incivility

USER:Erpert filed a request for closure stating "This was relisted a week ago but there still is no consensus. For at least three reasons I can't close it as such myself (lol), so I request an uninvolved admin to do the honors." USER:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz edited Erpit's comment, calling Erpit's comment an "obvious WP:CANVASSING violation. I am a completely uninvolved editor, I have read through AfD in question, and it appears to me a closure with a result of "no consensus" would be entirely appropriate in this situation, and/so I see no evidence of canvassing in Erpert's closure request comment. Hullabaloo Wolfowitz's editing of Erpit's comments is a violation of WP:TPO, and his accusation of canvassing fails to assume good faith. I reverted Wolfowitz's initial edit with an admonishing to AGF, [8] he reverted me, so I posted a warning on his talk page for both the AGF and TPO violations, and restored Erpit's original text. Wolfowitz posted a comment on my page where he told me not to post warnings on others' pages where I don't understand the policies and accused me of incompetence. This indicates to me Wolfowitz has no intention of ceasing to edit other users' comments inappropriately, or of returing to assuming good faith. Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Additional Comment - looking through the ANI archives, it seems that there is bad blood between HW and Erpert going back at least a couple years, and Erpert has requested an IBAN at least twice, but no action has been taken. If these two can't interact collegially, perhaps an IBAN should be revisited, but in the meantime, editing the comments of someone you already have a negative history with is not really a very wise move and weakens the assumption that your motivations were unbiased and without malice. Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Mmyers1976 does not understand the guideline he cites. WP:TPO expressly refers to talk pages, not to noticeboard pages. Erpert, an involved editor, used a request for closure to lobby for their preferred outcome in a deletion discussion. I redacted the lobbying. Requests for closure are made on noticeboard pages, not talk pages. The page at issue. WP:AN, is a noticeboard, not a talk page. WP:NOTICEBOARDS, the governing page, does not prohibit the removal of disruptive material. It is common practice to cap and hat disruptive posts to noticeboards, and my action was less drastic. I've removed/redacted inappropriate material from noticeboard posts before, uncontroversially. It should be evident that using a request for closure to canvass/lobby for one's preferred outcome in a contested deletion discussion is contrary to practice and a disruptive form of forum shopping; none of the other pending requests do such a thing, and I've never seen it done before. (It may well have been done, but it's far removed from acceptable practice.) My actual post to Mmyers's talk page said that quoting a guideline regarding talk pages "as though it applies to noticeboard posts betrays either extraordinary careless or a lack of competence". That is, frankly, quite accurate if blunt, and for an editor who has been active since 2007 not to recognized the difference is extraordinary. And it's certainly no worse than Mmyers's casual, and groundless, accusation that I ignored WP:AGF. (Mmyers' comment that disputing his interpretation of a guideline on his talk page indicates a lack of good faith is illogical at best and a rather clear example of the failure to AGF on his part. I'd also note that Mmyers edited my post to his talk page to remove all of my discussion of applicable guidelines, then posted a reply implying that I wasn't familiar with those pages. Editors have a great deal of leeway in maintaining their own talk pages, but selectively editing another editor's post in order to gain an advantage in an argument is clearly not acceptable behaviour. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

TPO DOES NOT only apply to article talk pages. Re-read the top of the Talk Page Guidelines, which states "When talk pages in other namespaces and userspaces are used for discussion and communication between users, the same norms will usually apply," and "All guidelines here also apply to Wikipedia discussion pages, such as articles for deletion." As for your continued accusation of canvassing against Erpert, I leave it to the volunteers and administrators here to determine if there is any merit to it, but WP:CANVASSING DOES NOT allow you to respond to suspected canvassing by deleting it, it states "The most effective response to quite recent, clearly disruptive canvassing is to politely request that the user(s) responsible for the canvassing stop posting notices, possibly using {{subst:Uw-canvass}} on their talk page. If they continue, they may be reported to the administrators' noticeboard for incidents, which may result in their being blocked from editing. Users with a prior history of disruptive canvassing, which they have previously been asked to discontinue, may be blocked immediately without further warning, if such an action is deemed to be necessary." The Talk Page guidelines allow for removal of others' personal attacks, copyright violations, libel, posting of personal details - ie, comments with legal ramifications. Canvassing is not such a legal concern, and as the Talk Page guidelines say: "Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived". And to clarify, I accused Wolfowitz of failure to assume good faith when he accused Erpert of canvassing, I did not accuse him of failing to assume I was acting in good faith. Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

As I pointed out, it has been common practice to cap and hat or redact inappropriate content on noticeboards. Even if TPO applies to noticeboards, it is a guideline allowing reasonable exceptions. The fact that a particular form of insppropriate behaviour is not included in a list of examples does not make it appropriate, and WP:TPO allows the removal of various forms of "prohibited" and "harmful" material. Attempts to use requests for closure, which should be neutrally phrased, as forum shopping to open a forking discussion of the merits of a proposal, if tolerated generally, would be disruptive and timewasting, which certainly strikes me as harmful, as it will many if not most reasonable editors. WP:TPO also allows editors to "hide" off-topic material -- and the merits of a particular proposal are certainly off-topic in a request for closure, which should deal only with whether a discussion is ready to be closed. It also strikes me that redacting disruptive material which is also a clear violation of standard practice is preferable to escalating to a noticeboard discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 20:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see the problem with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's edits here; I can see why Erpert's request would be viewed as canvassing for a closure in line with his favoured outcome, and redacting certain posts has long been allowed in cases like this. Number 57 21:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I wasn't canvassing at all; and I requested that an uninvolved admin do the honors, not "do the honors and close as no consensus". Said admin can close the discussion however s/he sees fit. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• How do you explain inserting "[redact obvious [[WP:CANVASSING]] violation]" inside Erpert's text without leaving any attribution?  Is this neutral wording?  There is accusatory language in both the "CANVASSING" and "violation", and an intensifier by the use of the word "obvious".  Is it not a concern to you if someone edits your text without attribution?  Unscintillating (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• I looked at WP:CANVASSING, but I don't see your meaning in there.  Canvassing seems to involve getting editors to show up at discussions unfairly, not suggesting an outcome to closers in advance of their closing.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• WP:TPO states, "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection."  Unscintillating (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Another example of an accusation of canvassing, from today HW has made another accusation of canvassing since the first incident, this time at [9].  I replied at [10], but haven't received any explanation.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Another editor, User:MichaelQSchmidt, has weighed in with this diff.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Regarding the word "another" in the words, "...another display of improper WP:CANVASSING.", there is no antecedent.  WP:No personal attacks#What is considered to be a personal attack? lists "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence."  The essay Wikipedia:WikiBullying identifies such accusations as a "serious personal attack."  Unscintillating (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• I agree completely with the OP: WP:AGF, WP:TPO, general incivility.  I'm adding WP:No personal attacks, WP:TPO edit warring, and false attribution.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. Is it common practice to use the AN/Request for Closure for an AfD ?

Off-topic discussion about a different editor and a different incident. Should be reported in a separate report

I am also weighing in here with a diff. Unscintillating's action in this AfD appear to be canvassing from my perspective - and that's seven years on Wikipedia. It can be seen that they are pinging all "keep" Ivoters from the previous AfD pertaining to Nicole Aniston [11], [12]. In my opinion, this is inappropriate and seems extravagant for an AfD. Currently, this is the second AfD nomination for Nicole Aniston. Also, although Unscintillating points out that User:MichaelQSchmidth appears to have opined, Schmidth is an involved editor [13] who showed up after Unscintillating's pinging of "keep" Ivoters had occurred.Steve Quinn (talk) 05:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Preceding para fails to mention that there was only one Delete in the previous AfD, and that person had already !voted in the current AfD; therefore they were aware of it and did not need to be notified. Thus the user notified everyone who !voted in the previous AfD who wasn't already aware, and it's not his or her fault the previous AfD was a unanimous-minus-1 Keep. After reviewing WP:APPNOTE I disagree with the assessment of canvassing (although that's only 3 years on Wikipedia). ―Mandruss ☎ 13:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC) That's patently inaccurate. Unscintillating didn't ping the nominator of the prior AFD, only the keep !voters. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Point taken. Read bad faith in that if you wish. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC) @Steve: There are no rules against bringing a closure of AfD request to ANRFC. I did it the first time because the AfD ran over seven days (after which it was relisted by a neutral admin); and then I did it the second time because it ran over fourteen days. If discussions like that stay open that long, it can really mess up the backlog. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 22:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict) The paragraph also doesn't mention that he is the OP for this sequence, and is on record for objecting to giving the targets of his comments a chance to respond, diff, and this diff.  The later diff comes after he was notified of the Wikilink WP:APPNOTE.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Those comments say nothing of the kind. Vague aspersions against editors you disagree with do nothing to further reasonable discussion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict) WP:APPNOTE also states, "particularly if the discussion concerns complaints about user behavior."  Unscintillating (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Talk about jumping to conclusions at best. There is no way that I on record for objecting to giving the targets of my comments a chance to respond. This is idiotic! Unscillintating is making assumptions about motives that I don't have, as a rationale for canvassing. Unsintillating is exceeding the editing parameters conferred to Users by Wikipedia. In other words, this person appears to be acting in a manner that he or she knows other's nonexistent hidden motivations, that he or she has special authority to ping others to come to an AfD, and that he or she has special authority to exceed policies and guidelines by doing this. My view is - this is, at best, irrational behavior. This is also evinced by seeming battleground editing behavior before they summoned others to this AfD; to wit: First, Unscintillating asserts "Notability was confirmed at the first AfD, and notability is not temporary" [14] (This is not a problem - it is simply an assertion). Second, User:K.e.coffman replies "I don't believe that AfD discussions 'confirm notability'. Instead, their purpose is to determine consensus on whether an article should be retained or deleted. Such consensus can change" [15]. (This is simply a reply - no problem). Next, Unscintillating says, "So there was no discussion of or consensus regarding notability at the previous AfD?" [16]. (This was already answered by coffman and I see no merit to asking this question}. Then coffman rationally replies [17] as follows: "Previous AfD did not include a discussion of sources, for example: Keep "Looks to meet WP:GNG [1] for her industry coverage (no pun intended)" (link to Google search) Keep "Nom did not present a reason for deletion" Keep "Trolling by the nominator" Keep "per X & Y" Keep "looks to pass GNG", etc. Thus, the first AfD did not introduce any new sources or offer convincing arguments, just opinions". Next Unscillating repeats themselves - "So you believe that there was no discussion of or consensus regarding notability?" (to me this seemed pointlessly argumentative and seeming to engage in a battleground editing style). After this I stepped in by agreeing with coffman - "The prior AfD Ivotes noted by k.e. coffman had some seriously non-policy based arguments. I'm not seeing these as valid arguments for keep. I agree with k.e. coffman, the prior AfD has the appearance of merely being a vote, and of voicing unhelpful opinions." [18] This was followed by Unscintillating calling in other keep Ivote editors [19]. (This might or might not be another salvo commensurate with battleground type behavior). Steve Quinn (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Also, Unscintillating stating that I was "on record for objecting to giving the targets of my comments a chance to respond" is inaccurate. There were no targets of comments. I was addressing the comments, not the editors. This is not appropriate to misconstrue my editing or my behavior. Again, Unscintillating is attributing to me motivation or underlying perceptions that were not present. Steve Quinn (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC) @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Words have meanings, and you have above used the word "patently" to describe your ability to determine who I pinged and who I didn't ping.  For the record, there were three editors I didn't ping: a keep !vote, you, and the nominator.  Subsequent to your report here, I have pinged the nominator.  Also for the record, the nominator has not edited at Wikipedia since May 2015, log.  The definition provided by Google on a search for [Patently] gives "clearly; without doubt".  If it was so "clear and without doubt" to you that I had not pinged the nominator, and that was the only ping that was needed, why did you not make the ping?  Unscintillating (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Well, Unscintillating, it's pretty clear you're not disputing the accuracy of my word use, only making an odd complaint that Bad Old Wolfowitz didn't correct the screwup you hadn't brought yourself to admit. And while you now point out that the nom hadn't edited recently, that can't be the reason you didn't ping them, because you pinged Scalhotrod, a long and notoriously permabanned by the WMF sexual harasser, as well as VandVictory, a banned sock. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Enforcement Needed

User:79.180.125.113 made edits [20] to Qasr el Yahud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which may be construed to be in violation of WP:ARBPIA3 with regards to the "reasonably related" clause, given the anonymous editor's edit description reading: "As of today, 4 September 2016, there is no state of Palestine. This area is within the state of Israel." RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 11:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Ineluctably. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

If one construes it that broadly, then ECP should be slapped onto the article. I'm undecided whether it falls within ARBPIA3 though. Others may have differing opinions. Blackmane (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

ECP should not be added. The article itself is not ARBPIA, but any edits that are ARBPIA related are subject to ARBCOM sanctions. But we don't need to protect the whole article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

JustPsymo (repost)

Original Post: JustPsymo (talk · contribs) is changing music genre to various artist pages, adding genres following his opinions, also removing sources. I suspect he uses the IP 183.171.181.117, because he did this and 2 days after the IP did this. Other changes here and here. User was reported here -it:Wikipedia:Utenti problematici/JustPsymo- for the same problems, including the removal of sources and the write-only. --79.12.1.50 (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

JustPsymo (talk · contribs) is changing music genre to various artist pages, adding genres following his opinions, also removing sources. I suspect he uses the IP 183.171.181.117, because he did this and 2 days after the IP did this. Other changes here and here. User was reported here -it:Wikipedia:Utenti problematici/JustPsymo- for the same problems, including the removal of sources and the write-only. I repost it because I posted it wrong, not to the bottom as required, sorry.--87.3.18.172 (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Just to repeat my longstanding proposal that if we simply eliminate coverage of four low-value subjects -- footy, music genres, beauty pageants, and professional wresting -- traffic here at ANI would be reduced 30%. EEng 23:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC) P.S. Oh, and porno actors/actresses.
  • Are you seriously proposing that we eliminate coverage of Ludwig van Beethoven, Duke Ellington, Blind Willie Johnson, The Beatles, and everything else having to do with "music genres"? Shirley jesteth thou. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Forsooth, I merely proposeth removing the genre categorizations in infoboxes and leads, my liege! (I suspect that discussions of genres buried in the text proper are too much trouble for genre warriors to find. They all seem to be idiots.) EEng 03:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC) And no, I'm not serious. At least not completely.

What fools these mortals are! And calleth me not Shirley.
Seriously, while User talk:JustPsymo remains a red-link, it seems there will be no immortals administrator action taken here. Can someone who groketh WP:ANI closing tags please close this?
Pete "Seems, @User:EEng and @User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, nay it is; I know not 'seems.'" AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Other vandalisms today (reverted): here he don't removes genre but deletes a reference. This is pure vandalism, and this is a vandalism-only account that insists also here, in spite of warnings, revert and noticeboard. --87.6.30.164 (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Other vandalisms using an IP (Special:Contributions/89.65.151.116). --87.6.30.164 (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

JustPsymo is vandalizing, using an IP to add back his vandalisms reverted by users, as did here. I reported him for ongoing cross-wikipedia vandalisms. I don't think is the case to close because his talk is red. --87.6.30.164 (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The first step should have been posting a message on JustPsymo's talk page before going to ANI and then notifying him of this thread. I have done that now and have also blocked IP 89.65.151.116 which had received multiple warnings before. De728631 (talk) 21:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

SPAs removing content and references from Sinar Mas Group article

• Hilda ayuanita (talk · contribs)
• SinarmasID (talk · contribs)

The above red-linked SPAs have been removing content and references from Sinar Mas Group, which has been twice restored, the second time by me 30 minutes ago. Here is the revision history for the article [21] because it would be cumbersome add 8 or more diffs here. Probably need semi-protect for this article and if someone is so inclined - check for socks. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, this is an interesting turn of events. SinarmasID has just created a content fork of Sinar Mas Group on his/her user page. [22], [23]. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

 Note: SinarmasID was blocked indefinitely by Seraphimblade for "Promotional username, promotional edits" --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 04:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• The user has since been renamed to Ellizam (talk · contribs), incase anyone is confused that links to SinarmasID lead nowhere now. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Etiquette on Simultaneous Substitution page (talk)

I have previously edited a page, and long accepted changes made by others to correct some newbie mistakes. Two years ago I sympathized with another reader (on the talk page), about limitations Wikipedia rules impose on editing. I mused that perhaps Jimmy Wales might allow ignore all rules if asked; I did not make the request.

Just recently, an editor of apparent repute who disagrees with me on a political issue in television broadcasting in Canada, was somewhat uncivil over my daring to raise the subject of ignore all rules - two years ago! I have noticed this individual used the f-word in a dispute with someone else over editing of a page concerning a court case in Canada. Not particularly administrator appropriate behaviour.

Not sure how this is handled, but wanted to tell someone.70.71.6.57 (talk) 04:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

After two edits to render the page Talk:Simultaneous substitution readable, it appears the OP here is miffed because Bearcat reverted some poor edits he made and told him why. Don't see anything that needs any action at all. The talk page on that article should probably be archived to hide all the SOAPBOX, but can't see any problem with Bearcat, whom was not notified of this. He's pinged. John from Idegon (talk) 05:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Page movers can now delete pages as opposed to just titles

Did I miss a discussion? When was this implemented? I don't see anything at Wikipedia talk:Page mover. I presumed I'd be slammed with the notice that I couldn't move the page if it was blocked, and have to perform a round robin move as usual move if desired, not automatically delete the page. I happened to notice an entry in my deletion log which previously couldn't happen (Special:log/Godsy), or I wouldn't have even known. As a non-administrator, I can't view what previously resided there. So I unknowingly deleted something that I can't even restore or view. Would an administrator please history merge what I deleted with the Wikipedia:Navigation templates redirect. Pinging Andy M. Wang because I think it's a good bet they might have some relevant information. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 09:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• I do see Wikipedia talk:Page mover/Archive 2#Give page movers the ability to overwrite pages with a non-trivial page history through moves and Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#Twinkle enhanced move options, small discussions that talk about similar things. Pinging Xaosflux in case they have any insight into this matter. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 09:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry. You moved over a redirect whose only revision was pointing to the source of the move. It's just new that this gives an entry in the deletion log. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 148#Entries showing up in deletion log. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Alright, so this isn't specific to page movers as I assumed, and it was a regular move over redirect. Striking part of my comment above. Thanks PrimeHunter.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 10:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I have mentioned it there.[24] PrimeHunter (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Non-admin_deletions_in_deletion_log - the latest software release includes additional logging for this type of action now. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Legal threat/legitimate copyright concern?

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 I get a second opinion on whether this constitutes a legal threat or a valid copyright concern? My instinct is that the complaint is baseless, since the images in question seem to be clearly long out-of-copyright, but it's safe to say that Dutch copyright law is not my forte so I'm a little reluctant to start dishing out blocks and warnings (in either direction) without a second opinion. ‑ Iridescent 15:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) According to List of countries' copyright lengths, the Netherlands copyright term is author's life plus 70 years or 70 years after publication if the author is unknown. Based on that, all the pictures look to be in the public domain (though asking at commons:COM:VPC couldn't hurt). This looks more like a dispute over the terms of use of the website. I don't know if the website owner can legally restrict the use of public domain images just because those images were taken from their website. They would have to show that they own the copyright of the images. clpo13_(talk) 16:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Well the deep-linking argument has been made previously and been rejected every time it came to court (that I am aware of) so it can be safely ignored - content owners keep trying however. Deep linking has some details. RE legal threat over copyright - Depending on jurisdiction, people who feel their copyright has been infringed are first required to notify the (alleged) infringer before legal action can be taken (in order to give a chance for the material to be removed). Its not a notification they will/are taking legal action, its saying 'you are infringing my copyright, please stop, if this is not stopped, legal action may be forthcoming'. Which is a reasonable request (if someone feels their copyright has been violated) While an argument could be made it falls under the chilling discussion, there are very few ways to notify wikipedia/editors they are potentially breaking copyright law without some reference to legalities. On the face of it, the allegations should be investigated. If some of the images are out of copyright, but only available through a private collection, as far as I am aware it would still violate WP's policies on image use? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the last question, that would certainly be a question for Commons, where the images are hosted. There's also the matter of the difference between date of creation and date of publication. If the author is unknown and it can't be shown that an image was ever published, then it might not be public domain. clpo13_(talk) 16:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I was literally just about to post the same thing - if the photos etc are in a private collection which has not been 'published' per the definition, the reading of the Netherlands law would mean its not public domain. WP:Public_domain#Publication states "In short: A work is published when tangible copies of it are made available to the public at large." Hosted in a private collection for use by researchers etc only is certainly not 'public at large'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that (talk). It also means that the article User:Fentener van Vlissingen refers to is not applicable here! (Michel Doortmont 19:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC))

What about the fact that the picture has changed? It's now a digital image and it might be under new copyright, similar to how old movies on DVD are copyrighted from time of DVD not time of production. If I scan in an old picture and preserve it, what is the copyright status? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

It depends on what has been done to the picture (see commons:COM:SCAN). If it's a faithful reproduction, then it retains the original copyright status. If there have been enough enhancements to suggest a significant level of creative input, then that might warrant a separate copyright on the enhancements or even as an entirely new work (if, for example, an originally black and white photograph is hand-colored). clpo13_(talk) 16:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Much of this sounds like the same situation from National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute, with the only question and unclear nature being if the original images are in the PD due to age or not. --MASEM (t) 18:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Well the key difference there is of course, the art is available to the public through the NPG regardless. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

From my understanding of WP:NLT, even if someone is right about a copyright violation occurring, and even if they are required by some authority outside of Wikipedia to state that they will take legal action if the copyright vio is not removed, they still must be blocked indefinitely until they remove the legal threat, because:

To prevent damage to the project, this policy removes editors who make legal threats on Wikipedia. The editor is not blocked just because "it's a legal threat", but because the block:

1. reduces scope for escalation of a bad situation,
2. reduces stress and administrative burden on the wiki,
3. reduces disruption to articles and the editorial environment,
4. prevents a situation in which someone is seeking to be a collaborative partner while setting themselves up as a legal adversary.

I'd also note that the person making the legal threat did not just threaten to take civil action, but also accused a Wikipedia editor of "theft under Dutch law". Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Can I just note the falsification of history in a claim made on the website, "European men and African women struck up lasting relationships, that were both an expression of personal cross-cultural intimacy and a means to build a common social, economic and even political structure"? Shouldn't this simply say "European men frequently stole and raped African women"? I know, not a matter for ANI. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• • Completely off topic, Drmies. As it calls my academic integrety in question, I do think a short response here is in order, perhaps to continue teh soapboxing elsewhere. Colonialism in any form indeed led to rape and other atrocities, I do not deny this. However, when you care to read the materials and maybe register for the website and read the stuff there, you will notice that not all relationships were of a violent nature. And that is what that project is about. (Michel Doortmont 19:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC))

• • Is that, like, reverse political correctness? clpo13_(talk) 18:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Don't make me have to block you for soapboxing, Drmies, I've been itching to block an Arb for years. On a more serious note, I also dropped a note off explaining some and asking them to withdraw the threat. I prefer to coax them in the right direction rather than swing the ban hammer carelessly into the void. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I agree. Thanks Dennis. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm the user involved. I just want to say I acted in good faith. It was my understanding of copyright law that those images are in the public domain. It seems I may have been wrong, and if so I apologize. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• We need to hash it out at [Wikipedia:Files for discussion]] calmly. My gut says that if the images are in the public domain, you have violated the terms of use of the website (so he can ban you there) but there isn't a legal standing. That doesn't mean I'm right, just that it isn't cut and dry. That is why we settle it at CV, with legal@ only as a last resort. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Pinging Moonriddengirl as this may require her expertise. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • This article (in Dutch) suggests that those unpublished works cannot be copyrighted under Dutch law since late 1995. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Article 39 of the Dutch copyright law also seems pretty clear: "Voor werken, waarvan de duur van het auteursrecht niet wordt berekend naar de bepalingen van artikel 37 en die niet binnen 70 jaren na hun totstandkoming op rechtmatige wijze zijn openbaar gemaakt, vervalt het auteursrecht." Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
      • I agree that the original works are out of copyright. But I'm also getting the impression that Mr. Doortmont does not share our point of view regarding PD-art. Per Wikimedia policy (and US law), faithful reproductions of out-of-copyright 2-dimensional artwork cannot be copyrighted either. There may be constrasting views though. De728631 (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Good faith meaning not reading / complying with the regulations of the website and not registering before using the materials? I am sorry,but I find that hard to believe User:Fentener van Vlissingen. As for the images that come from the website direct, these were / are photographs from private collections that never have been nor are now in the public domain. They only ended up there, because they were illegally acquired from a closed website. The fact that they now seem to be in the public domain does not change that legal position. With regard to the previously published photographs, these were also not in the public domain at the time they were published, as they were part of a copyrighted publication of which the author was still alive (most likely at least) by 1942 or 1943. The materials have a retrieval date on them in Wikimedia Commons. So this is at least an issue for further debate at least. Legal "threat" removed from comment. The copyright law for the previously published photographs is that of Ghana or the UK (place of publication is obscure, but either one), and in both cases it is 70 years after the death of the author (i.e. 1942 or 1943 + 70, most likely). As these photographs were taken from the republished new edition of 2004, and not the original edition of circa 1928, there is another copyright question to be answered: does the re-publication in a compeletely different format revive the copyright or perhaps institute a new copyright? I believe it does. But my real beef is with the private photographs which were taken from the website repository without permission, and which are not in the public domain (Michel Doortmont 18:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)).

Thank you for removing the threat. We don't concern ourselves with the policies of other websites, only the legal status of the images. As Jo-Jo pointed out, the images are actually hosted at Commons so you need to go to commons:COM:VPC to file the complaint. I can assure you it will be investigated in a reasonable time frame. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I will do that. Currently my complaint about infringement of the right to use the texts from the website, as well as the way of linking to it, is with Wikipedia. I felt compelled to lodge the complaint, because in most articles the copyrighted materials are not easily removed. Although an editor of Wikipedia articles, I do not feel the urge to undo the work of another editor who infringed on my, or other peoples rights, in good faith or otherwise (Michel Doortmont 19:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)).

Can you show us some examples of text that was taken from your website? So far we have only debated images here, but if original text from your website has been used in Wikipedia articles of course we need to check this too. Or do you just object to links being set from Wikipedia to your site? De728631 (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

If I may defend myself: I have not taken over texts literally from Doortmont's website. I have only incorporated the information given on his website (dates of birth/death, family relationships, administrative career) in my articles, which I have written in my own words. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

This discussion has focused on whether the complainer's copyright claims are valid. But the original question was whether their edits constitute a legal threat. I would note that WP:NLP says "A polite complaint in cases of copyright infringement is not a legal threat" and goes on to explain the proper channels for pursuing such claims. And I don't think we can quibble about what appears to be a normally worded legal notice of infringement being somehow "impolite."--agr (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Copyright violation of Willem George Frederik Derx

I have now also been accused of copyright violation for the text on Willem George Frederik Derx. I did not copy any of the text of Doormont's website, but merely cited his website as the source of the information of dates of birth/death, family relationships, administrative career, etc. The article has been written in my own words. I don't see how I violated his copyright. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Since Doortmont's website requires registration and login, checking the original content is not that easy. Creating a user account requires disclosing your real name, so I at least don't feel very compelled to become a new user just for this single issue. Maybe someone else with a real-world Wikipedia user name could have a look? De728631 (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Doortmont acknowledges that I did not copy text from his website and that I wrote it down in my own words. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Am I to understand from the copyright notice pasted on that page, that it is alleged to be a copyvio of itself? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC).

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

user removing speedy deletion tag excessively

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 Abhinash oberoi continues removing speedy deletion tag from a page he created(Rainforest italy) after being warned many times — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kostas20142 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a spammer straightforwardly ignoring a level 4 warning not to remove speedies, it's already been reported at WP:AIV. --McGeddon (talk) 11:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Frauke Petry

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:Tataral tries repeatedly and aggressively to push his version using contentious material to label the person as far-right in the lede, removing majority sources saying she is right-wing (see also Alternative for Germany). I reverted backed by WP:BLPREMOVE. Today, he didn't discuss his version anymore and started edit-warring again, though I reminded him to discuss. I was already insulted by him as "extreme-right" in the article history, see also article talk page. Please block the page/the user, at least until a consensus is found. Thank you very much in advance.--Gerry1214 (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

BLPREMOVE does not provide you with an exemption for edit-warring in this instance. The BLP violation has to be egregious, and as far as I can tell, you and Tataral have a significant difference of opinion. Both of you are edit-warring, and both of you should be blocked. I strongly suggest that you not revert again, even if Tataral does (your version is now in place). Meanwhile, I'll let this thread play out a bit before deciding whether action is warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Gerry1214 criticized me for templating him for edit warring without contributing the ANI thread, so I'll say something. I agree with Bbb23 that BLPREMOVE is not a Get Out of Jail Free card you can use whenever you disagree with an editor on a BLP. The dispute seems to be over "is a far-right politician" in the lead vs "has been called a far-right politician" in the body. Since this is a German politician, I can understand how a newer editor might get carried away and think this is an egregious BLP violation. There's a certain connotation to "far right" that I imagine would be even stronger in Germany. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Gerry1214 is a relatively new editor who is clearly here on a mission to portray far-right German politics in a more sympathetic light. While the description of her in the lead is an important issue, he is also reintroducing biased statements in the body of the article, for example "in her party Petry represents the national-conservative faction supporting policies of national self-determinism", in Wikipedia's voice, as if this is an uncontroversial fact instead of being her own opinion, and reintroducing a completely meaningless section heading hierarchy, e.g. with "Wolfgang Schäuble" as a first-level heading(!).

Describing a politician who is described as far-right by reliable sources as far-right has nothing to do with "BLP" – Petry is widely described as a far-right politician by experts in the field, including Cas Mudde (as cited in the article) and many others, and advocates, among other things, the shooting of refugees. In English far-right is a relatively neutral term and simply means "the most right wing". I'm not aware of anyone disputing the fact that AfD, and particularly Petry's faction within the party, is positioned significantly to the right of Germany's mainstream right-wing parties (CDU/CSU), and belongs to "the most right wing" part of German politics. --Tataral (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I shouldn't have said anything about potential connotations because it probably misled you into thinking that this is a valid place to argue your case in the content dispute. It's not. I'm sorry about muddying the waters like that. I was trying to explain (and apparently failed) how two good-faith editors could end up talking past each other, make accusations of POV-pushing, and edit war: "far right" can mean different things to different people. If you two go back to the talk page and talk civilly to each other, maybe Bbb23 will get distracted by something else and forget about this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not new, because I was active in dewiki since 2012, this is propaganda like that I'm here on a mission, since I created lots of articles of any political colour, see e.g Helmut Holter or Konstantin von Notz. Labelling Frauke Petry as far-right (German: "rechtsextrem"), is clearly wrong, see Alternative for Germany. I wrote more on the article talk page, why this is clearly wrong. I created a balanced version, which included the statement of Cas Mudde, that he said she is far-right, while Tataral removed BBC/Reuters sources that she is right-wing, which are clearly in majority. So my intent is to put both positions in the article, Tataral wants to label her with his pov. This is wrong and clearly justifies revert on behalf of WP:BLPREMOVE. --Gerry1214 (talk) 05:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring at the article, Gerry1214, and let discussion proceed. You have reverted multiple users now, including an IP user 74.70.146.1, as well as Tataral. This is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. I have reverted you, partly because I think Tataral's version is better, but also partly because the edit warring you have engaged in is objectionable in itself. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

You have not a single valid argument, why it is better to suppress BBC/Reuters sources. I don't know why want to label Petry as far-right, probably some don't like her. I don't support her, but I will defend the balanced version, not the labelling version.--Gerry1214 (talk) 05:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but at this stage it doesn't matter what arguments I do or do not have as regards the content of that article. The point we are here to discuss is that your behavior, which includes the reverting of multiple users who disagree with you (one of them being me) is unacceptable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know on what a stage you're on, but factual arguments and sources should be the only thing that matters here, as in my version and not in yours. My behaviour is appropriate, because some clearly try to suppress information and label a person.--Gerry1214 (talk) 05:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to edit war against multiple users (myself, Tataral, and 74.70.146.1), as the article's revision history shows you have done. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• I've blocked Gerry1214 for 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by Anthony Duran

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.

---

Despite their recent 24-hour block for edit-warring, Anthony Duran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made it very clear that they do not intend contribute in a constructive manner. A description of their behavior can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Love interests in harem anime content dispute, which they responded to by attempting to blank the discussion. They also regularly blank their own talk page and have attempted to delete sections on other's talk pages as well (see this). Given that they have stated their intent to continue with this behavior, a long-term block may be in order. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, this isn't the kind of message I wanted to get while coming on. What bothers me is that the user made no effort with any form of communication until confronted by a final warning message in the form of an apology on my talk-page. Even after I said over and over "Discuss first" the editor chose to continue to POV push. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Now blocked by Dennis; I think the next block will be indefinite. Drmies (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Kind of what I was thinking. I felt 99 hours was generous, maybe he didn't get the message last time, so this is long enough for reflection and to make a choice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Persistent copyright violation

New editor User:Rash014 has been repeatedly pasting large chunks of copyrighted text from medical journals to oral cancer ([25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]). I've posted at his/her talk page three times, politely asking for an end to it, but I've not had a reply so far. Little Will (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Hmm. For their first edit, the copyright notice on the WHO page "Extracts of the information in the web site may be reviewed, reproduced or translated for research or private study". Straight-up copying the entire text is not presenting an "extract", so I do believe that to be a violation. Their copying this page, which you reverted after their first batch of edits, is also a copyvio ("© 2016 The Oral Cancer Foundation. All rights reserved"). So I will nix all the versions from the history, and will the leave the rest for the next admin. Drmies (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Even if it was an extract, the licence clearly isn't CC compatible anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

AFDs on a number of olympians and other notable articles

Wasabi,the,one (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) seems, after having been blocked for disruption, come back with a clear intent of getting as many articles of clear notability deleted on flimsy grounds ("not notable other than playing in the olympics".

Examples include

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ragnar Hargreaves
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beal-Gaillard House
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Expulsion (film)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellerbeck Peak
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jor (music)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chen Chi-hsin

Seems to be a WP:POINT issue in reaction to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Healy. Obviously a block has had no positive inpact. Also approaching the editor has shown no improvement. I would suggest a topic ban on AFDs. Agathoclea (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

My gut feeling with this user is they're a sock of someone else, based on apparently being a "new" account, that went to going to AfDs pretty quickly after being created. Most of those AfD rationales are incredibly poor (look at Beal-Gaillard House, for example) and I'd support a topic ban in that area. And on top of that, they create articles like this! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I did a quick tune up on Dyken Pond. It's still a stub, but it now has an RS source and I think it passes GEOLAND. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• I gave what should be seen as a last warning on his page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • And I can't argue against your gut feeling in this case, Lugnuts. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Dennis. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• The general disruption, the activity at AfD, the creation of articles like the one linked to (Dyken Pond) and the rest of the edits they've made (I took a quick look at their contributions) all match what Evlekis has been doing for quite a while now, making me believe it's yet another of his socks. And if it is there's most probably one or more other socks here too, because he usually has two or more socks active at the same time... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• These accusations of sockpuppetry were made in good faith, but I just don't see it. Like Agathoclea said, I believe this is nothing more than a new editor being disruptive to make a WP:POINT after the result of the Matthew Healy AFD. Sro23 (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • They are doing it again. I'd suggest a topic ban from AfD. Trying to get perfectly notable articles deleted is just a waste of time for everybody involved. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Unless there is a case of mistaken identity I think you came across one of the not-yet-closed AfDs. I see no new AFDs after the "last warning". Agathoclea (talk) 11:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

User: Codename Lisa bit newcomers

Filing a valid sockpuppet investigation presenting evidence for violation of the sockpuppet policy by new accounts is not biting the newcomers. When an experienced and uninvolved administrator and SPI clerk agrees with this assessment by blocking the accounts in question and several other uninvolved users support this action, there is a strong chance that this was in fact not biting the newcomers and the outcome of SPI was right. The discussion at ANI showed that there is consensus that the SPI was valid and justified. De728631 (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Complaint against Codename Lisa has zero merit. Additionally, if Dachary wants the block reviewed, they should have contacted Vanjagenije on their talk page first before coming here. I also note that neither editor has submitted an appeal. There was prima facie evidence of sock/meatpuppetry so "biting the newcomers" does not trump policy. Dachary's continual references to WP:BITE is distracting from what they want to achieve. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

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

---

Shortly after Johan Richer and Emmanuel Raviart supported a Rfc, Codename Lisa opened a sockpuppet investigation. No attempt was made to communicate with the newcomers. Within 24h they were blocked and the case closed. Immediately after the case was closed, Codename Lisa commented out their support.

I vouched for both Emmanuel and Johan because I talked with them about their support the same day and explained in detail that their interest is genuine and that they acted in good faith, both on the page where they expressed their support and on the sockpuppet investigation. However, both Codename Lisa and the person who handled the sockpuppet investigation responded negatively and kept assuming a case of sockpuppetery.

I have no choice but to open an incident because Codename Lisa bit newcomers. The right thing to do would have been to communicate with them on their talk page and kindly explain why their edit looked suspicious. This would have engaged a dialog and both would have had a chance to explain their interest in the topic at hand. Instead they have been blocked as sockpuppet on their user page and called meatpuppet. To quote the Please do not bite the newcomers page, We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience—nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. And what is more hostile than being blocked and dismissed on a technicality with no chance of dialog ?

I respectfully request the sockpuppet investigation decision to be reverted and that Codename Lisa reverts the commented out support.

Dachary (talk) 14:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

You should have notified the blocking Admin, but I see someone else has. Doug Weller talk 16:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Editors are not required to notify editors about bringing them to SPI. (Some even encourage not doing it, as it can cause more drama or shifts in behavior that could distort the investigation.) I haven't looked into whether or not I'd personally jump to the conclusion that a SPI was needed, but not notifying/discussing with them first is not a problem in itself. (Not entirely sure how it'd a violation of WP:BITE either. "Biting" would typically be more along the lines of aggressively confronting them. She did the opposite of that - she discretely opened up an SPI.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

  The Please do not bite the newcomers explicitly states this situation is "Biting" : Do not call newcomers disparaging names such as "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet." You can point them to those policies if there is valid cause to do so. For example, if a disproportionate number of newcomers show up on one side of a vote, you should make them feel welcome while explaining that their votes may be disregarded. . Of course one could argue that discretely filing an SPI is not the same as calling a newcomer a "sockpuppet" on their talk page, but the difference is technical and the aggression is effective in both cases. Dachary (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• No, as I stated, the difference is major. What she did is allowed. Your application of BITE to limit how one submits a SPI report has no accepted precedent. Its invalid. She did nothing wrong. Any issues with the SPI decision itself should be taken up with the blocking admin. Sergecross73 msg me 19:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Filing a meritless SPI case would be biting newcomers. Codename Lisa presented evidence that was accepted by an SPI clerk, considered, and acted upon. This is something that you should discuss with the blocking admin. If you don't get the desired result, you could ask for a review of the block. But criticizing Codename Lisa for filing a legitimate SPI case? I just don't see it. Personally, I wouldn't have filed this case at ANI if I were you, as it looks like you've engaged in extensive COI editing at Loïc Dachary, removed Codename Lisa's comments, and then casting aspersions and making personal attacks against CL. I don't see how this is going to end well for you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, and looking at the SPI, I don't see anything improper there either. It's pretty much the most common scenario out there: An editor gets blocked. A new editor's first edit to Wikipedia is "mysteriously" to make the exact same edit as the editor who just got blocked. Dachary somehow doesn't see this as suspicious, while the experienced editors see right through it. Very basic stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 16:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• The scenario is correct for experienced editors. It is not for newcomers, as explained quite clearly in Please do not bite the newcomers. If the SPI decision is enforced and confirmed, it will effectively be the first experience of the two newcomers. I don't see how that helps anyone. Dachary (talk) 19:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• It says not to call a newcomer a sock or meat puppet. However WP:SOCK says "Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts: Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion in a way that suggests they are multiple people." Which this CLEARLY was. So are we NEVER to file an SPI on a new user, simply because we are biting them? That, to be blunt is ludicrous. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• As it turns out, the SPI was meritless and could have been easily avoided by engaging a discussion with the newcomers. Even when given a chance to reconsider, Codename Lisa refused. But more to the point, this is no way to behave with newcomers and the proper way is clearly explained in the Please do not bite the newcomers. What's happened is quite the opposite of what the policy recommends. Dachary (talk) 19:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Meritless? When one account is blocked and confirmed as a sock of the other? As Sergecross said, that's the most common scenario for a SPI to be filed, and closed as such. I'm all for not biting newcomers, but this isn't biting. The SPI was valid. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• I know both Johan and Emmanuel, that's how I know it's meritless. I understand how it happened but I also know that it should be reverted. If it's not, that would be enforcing the opposite of what Please do not bite the newcomers recommends. To be honest I don't understand why it's such an issue to just give these two fine gentlement another kind of welcome to wikipedia ? Sure, they did a technical mistake on arrival. But they are newcomers and can be quickly forgiven, can't they ? Dachary (talk) 19:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) How do you mean you had "no choice" but to open an ANI report, Dachary? The obvious choice would have been to discuss the matter with Codename Lisa, and then possibly go to ANI iff you were dissatisfied with their response. I note that your alert to CL about this ANI report[32] was the first time you'd ever posted on their page. That's not the way to do it, even apart from the fact that (as people have pointed out above) your complaint has little merit. ANI should basically never be your first port of call. Bishonen | talk 16:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC).

  As explained above, discussion with Codename Lisa indeed happened, just not on his user page, both on the page where they expressed their support and on the sockpuppet investigation. Dachary (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Two brand "new" users make exactly the same first edit on a discussion ("Support because it's an essential part of the factual information on a software. The WP:EL does not apply because it's superceded by the WP:ELOFFICIAL rule.") not only using Wikimarkup but referring to quite obscure Wikipedia guidelines/policies? That's not only immensely suspicious to begin with but they're wrong as well because that really obscure link which they somehow found independently doesn't supercede EL anyway. I'm not sure how stupid they think we are. Quack, quack, quack, block. Black Kite (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

  They don't think people are stupid. They are newcomers and made a mistake. Is that so hard to accept and explain to them ? Isn't it what welcoming newcomers should be about ? Dachary (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• No admin action is going to be taken against an editor who correctly ascertained that violations of our socking policy were occurring and took action accordingly no matter how many times Dachary pastes a link and bolds text related to a guideline to his complaint (especially given that the guideline clearly states that common sense should be used in applying it). This should be closed.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Indeed, given this, Dachary is lucky they didn't receive a block themselves. Black Kite (talk) 19:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• No action has been requested against the editor. This incident is about fixing a wrong made by Codename Lisa to two newcomers. It should be quick and easy. It's fascinating how difficult (impossible ?) it turns out to be. Dachary (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

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

USER:Handthrown Failure to Assume Good Faith, Incivility, Personal Attacks

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

---

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

---

Handthrown had previously made unprovoked sarcastic comments about me [33], which she had been warned about by both me [34] and DionysosProteus [35]. Even after these warnings, she accused me of committing "fraud" in relation to my use of a source not once, but twice:

• "The source speaks conditionally when he says unseen characters “can be” etc, the article pretends that the source was offering a general definition. That’s is a little fraud. "[36]
• "So Mmeyers coins a phrase, adds a merely decorative footnote that appears to put the vile phrase in the source’s mouth, and there we’ve got a nice “Wikipedia”-sounding definition. Fraud, I say!"[37]

The second, and more direct and emphatic accusation of fraud against me occurred after both DionysosProteus and I had told her there was no fraud and I had not misrepresented the source in any way. Accusing me of "fraud", goes beyond simple failure to assume good faith and is a serious personal attack bordering on libel. Mmyers1976 (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

For reference, the "fraud" Handthrown accused me of is using this reliably sourced quote:

"Those we do not glimpse on stage are still there, because they motivate the actors to take a certain course of action and advance the plot, but their physical presence is unnecessary. In fact, their absence may make them appear more powerful to us simply because we only know them by inference."

To write this sentence:

[An unseen character is one who] “advances the action of the plot in a significant way, and whose absence enhances their effect on the plot.”

Mmyers1976 (talk) 04:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Your feelings must really be hurt. Good thing there's ANI to handle that. EEng 06:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I thought AN/I was a "safe space". I have bystander distress syndrome just from reading this. Egregious, bordering on libel. Yes! Doc talk 08:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The above comments were removed by Mmyers1976 as "personal attacks". I've reinstated them since (well deserved) mockery isn't a personal attack and redacting other peoples comment is not done. Kleuske (talk) 11:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

It may just be me, but this looks like a content dispute with a side dish of butthurt. The "fraud" clearly references the statements made in the lede of the article, not the editor. Kleuske (talk) 11:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. "Fraud" may not have been the best choice of words, but I don't see how anyone could interpret it as a personal accusation, given its context. Rebbing 11:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Not only do I not see a problem here, but your characterization of this comment from DionysosProteus as a warning is inaccurate; some might even call it fraudulent. Rebbing 11:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's see, EEng has been blocked numerous times for personal attacks, Doc whines at every admin who warns him for personal attacks or gives him a month's topic ban, and Kleuske inappropriately closed an ANI here this June, so his fingerwagging at me for simply removing some unconstructive personal attacks is the height of hypocrisy. And if he and Rebbing can't see how "So Mmeyers coins a phrase, adds a merely decorative footnote that appears to put the vile phrase in the source’s mouth, and there we’ve got a nice “Wikipedia”-sounding definition. Fraud, I say!" is directed at me rather than just the article, I question their reading comprehension skills. So I guess I'll take their comments with a 50# sack of salt. Mmyers1976 (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• If you thought you'd embarrass me by bringing up my various blocks, you must have missed the box at the top of my userpage --

This user has been blocked several times, and isn't embarrassed about it - (see my block log here!).

-- not to mention such threads as "Hands-down the worst block I've seen in my time on Wikipedia, and I've seen some whoppers" and Review_of_EEng's_indefinite_block and Unblocked and so on.

• I suggest you review WP:WHINING.

EEng 14:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriately closing a thread is a lot less disruptive than deleting others' comments. Rebbing 12:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:TPO: "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism." Mmyers1976 (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, I think everyone's being a bit harsh here. One can see from the depth of debate and dispute resolution on the enormous Talk:Unseen character that this is a serious and contentious matter. It's understandable that tempers get a bit fraught when debating important matters such as whether a character in a sitcom can still be "unseen" even if we've seen them a bit. It's valuable work, and I, for one, am grateful that other dedicated people are doing it... -- Begoon 11:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Begoon: Ditto- I wouldn't even attempt it. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The "harshness" is not in reference to their work on the article in question, but a reaction to a WP:ANI filing on very flimsy grounds. Kleuske (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I shall write out 100 times: "Sarcasm does not work on the internet". Thanks for the reminder. Mea culpa. (adopts serious expression) -- Begoon 12:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Begoon: I got it :) _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Good, but don't shout about it or everyone will want it... -- Begoon 12:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think any of the above editors took a look at the significant and wall-o-text discussions that were taking place on the talk page. Mockery is unhelpful, it's an attempt to assert superiority without conveying anything useful, to me it has always asserted the opposite; a lack of anything worth saying. I read something quite intelligent recently, which I think may be on EEng's userpage, about ignorance being infinite but patience not. Some of the above posts, I think, are quite indicative of that (patience being exhaustable I mean). So, instead of outright mockery, since my patience is not yet exhausted, I'll try to dispel some ignorance here. Mmyers1976, this noticeboard is specifically for actionable and problematic incidents that need administrator attention. A spat between a few editors on a talk page is not something that is in dire need of attention (not in this case). What would be best here is for all three of the editors on that talk to cool it a little bit and refrain from making claims without backing it up with sources/diffs. We put citation needed stickers in articles for unsourced contentious claims, we do it mentally on talk and wikipedia pages as well. The only difference being that on article pages we request sources and on talk and wikipedia pages we request diffs. Looking at your diffs, the claim of fraud actually gains traction. You've intentionally omitted context with the intention of punishing another editor. That's WP:PUNITIVE (yes it refers to admin actions, but, is here for illustrative purposes). This is a content dispute issue that didn't need to be escalated, try talking more calmly. Also, unlike me, try being more concise. The more words you employ the more chances that something will be misunderstood. Other than that, this one is ready for a close. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the above comments, but accusing someone of fraud is still a failure to assume good faith as well as a personal attack. Are we just not enforcing those guidelines anymore? Mmyers1976 (talk) 12:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

We are, of course, however, the accusations of fraud appear to have been made not to target a person, but, rather a misinterpretation of the source. I'll take the first example; "The source speaks conditionally when he says unseen characters “can be” etc, the article pretends that the source was offering a general definition. That’s is a little fraud." and I'll rephrase it to what I am construing it to mean; What the article is currently presenting is a general observation that has not been made by the source. The source itself makes the claim conditionally. To make a general observation off a conditional claim would appear fraudulent. To me it is not commenting on the writer as having intentionally made a fraudulent claim, that would indeed be a WP:AGF violation, but, rather that what is in the article and what is in the cited source are different claims. The second example is more borderline, but, reading the whole thing it highlights an interesting point. I took a second comparison of the statements presented above and all I have to say is this; You've taken this their absence may make them appear to imply this [An unseen character is one who] .... Does it not follow that if something may then it must by convention also be possible that it may not. As such it would more accurately represent the source if it said something along the lines of "An unseen character is one who may". I think the second comment was more exasperation than any intent to make an accusation of fraud. I think the way it was said also highlights this; Fraud I say! vs. something more direct such as; "you're a fraud". The former is more intended towards making a point, the latter is an untenable accusation. At least, that's how I'm reading it. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the first accusation by itself could be construed as not personally aimed at me, which is why I didn't make an issue out of it other than to suggest to Handthrown that she could take it to WP:NORN for review. But then after she was told it was not fraud by DP and myself, she pointedly accused me of "coin(ing) a phrase", adding a "merely decorative footnote" (ie, accusing me of forging a source) putting that "vile phrase in the source's mouth", and asserted that all the things she had just accused me of were fraud. I don't think we need to get back into the content issue again here, it developed to my satisfaction on the content page, but whether you might have a different opinion on what the source is saying or not, I don't think her second accusation is borderline at all, or just an expression of exasperation, it's a pretty clear accusation of very specific things she accused me of doing that she then said constitute fraud. And it takes the benefit of the doubt away from her first accusation. Mmyers1976 (talk) 13:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll try breakdown parts of your statement. the first accusation by itself could be construed as not personally aimed at me, I think it cannot be construed as aimed, especially when consider the phrasing. she pointedly accused me of "coin(ing) a phrase", this has to be the fist time I've seen that used in a negative sense, but, I can tell that it's not a compliment and I'm merely making an observation here. adding a "merely decorative footnote" ... putting that "vile phrase in the source's mouth", and asserted ... were fraud. Yes and no, you're inferring that Handthrown is accusing you of fraud based on the terse terms they were using and not in fact the meaning of their words, I'd pin it to WP:CIVIL but not WP:AGF. I am inclined to chalk it up to the use of hyperbole. I don't think her second accusation is borderline at all, or just an expression of exasperation, well, we can only agree to disagree on that since I'm not going to swing you to my viewpoint and I am yet to be swung around to yours. And it takes the benefit of the doubt away from her first accusation., I had no doubt in the meaning of Handthrown's first comment. Content issues are not for this page, I was merely making an observation, (apologies for using indispensable bytes to do so) it developed to my satisfaction on the content page, hmm... did it develop to your satisfaction because the resolution supported your position, or, because the resolution was developmentally beneficial regardless of the position it supported? food for thought, no need to respond to that question. I may also be under the influence of SC-R Trey Gowdy right now since I'm listening to him while writing this up. All in all, I can see why you have been upset by Handthrown's comments, they were terse at best. I'll take a leaf out of Doc's book and ask you a more serious question, what precise action are you requesting here? Mr rnddude (talk) 13:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Precise action: At this point I would be satisfied with a message from an uninvolved user warning her that her actions were uncivil. Mmyers1976 (talk) 13:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, I'll recuse myself from taking any such action (due to my involvement in the discussion) and allow either another user or the closer to take on any action they see fit. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: In addition to removing unfavorable comments in this thread (diff), the complaining editor has also reverted an attempted close (diff). Rebbing 13:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes; Mmyers1976 unfortunately does not apreciate a good turn when they see it. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Ahem. Myers sees fit to call another editor a "tool",[38] then has the audacity to complain about PA's. Pot meets kettle. Doc talk 14:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I quite like how you so casually inferred from tool that they were referring to your extensive block log. Very nice. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

You mean, reverting personal attacks, and then politely reverting a non-administrative closure by a person with an expressed bias on an administrators noticeboard. Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Expressed bias? where I don't see anything that constitutes involvement from FIM. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

You and I both misread FIM's comments about "harshness" as being sincere, but I later realized "debating important matters such as whether a character in a sitcom can still be "unseen" even if we've seen them a bit. It's valuable work" was probably meant sarcastically, as derision of the content dispute, which is why he later said "I shall write out 100 times: "Sarcasm does not work on the internet"" FIM is welcome to correct me if I am wrong. Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I will! For pete's sake Mmyers1976, this is the second time you have attributed edits to me that I have never made; It was Kleuseke who mentioned harshness [39], following Begoon's mention [40], and Begoon who mentioned writing lines [41]. _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

If I may take a second to revive an old comment; I question their reading comprehension skills.. Haste lends itself to error, slow down Mmyers and read the comment's you quote carefully. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Mr rndude, you are correct, a sloppy error on my part, it was Begoon's comments that contained the sarcasm, but as you can see, FIM "ditto'd" Begoon's comments and also said he "got" the sarcasm, so my concerns about his bias as a non-administrative closer stand. I would also state that the pile on of unhelpful and inflammatory "mockery" cluttering what is supposed to be a dispute resolution, not creation forum, is apt to make mistakes like mine more likely. Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

FIM, I do apologize, you are correct, I did accidentally misattribute Begoon's comment to you, a sloppy error on my part. However, you did voice "ditto" with the sarcastic comment in question, and said you "got" the sarcasm as well, so I do think the question of your bias as a closer remains valid. I also think an error like mine becomes more likely when people clutter an ANI with unhelpful "mockery". Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Mmyers1976, I can guarantee you that Begoon is not being sarcastic with his comments. I've seen him on this noticeboard many times and he often extends good faith to editors who otherwise would have received none. He's one of the last people I'd comment on being disingenuous. Well I'll be damned it was sarcasm. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the WP:NONAPOLOGY Mmyers1976! I'm not sure I did mean it like that; but still. _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

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

• We should have a Hurt and Upset Feelings Festival WP:HUFF noticeboard where people can talk about how mean someone's been to them. EEng 16:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Personal Attack by Michael Francis Lidman

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.

---

Michael Francis Lidman (talk · contribs) seems as though he is not here to contribute to building an encyclopedia. So far it seems as though they are a net drain on this project. This edit seems to be a Personal Attack if not harassment. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Now that's a personal attack! EEng 01:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

That is a personal attack and it is now deleted. -- GB fan 01:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, his user page is worth a visit: User:Michael_Francis_Lidman. EEng 01:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

It is honestly the second most interesting piece of unlogic that I have read after the Principia Discordia. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 01:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Michael Francis Lidman Sorry, that was not a personal attack. It was a joke. The reason for the joke was the others fault for defecting first. If you understand at least tit-for-tat you would understand how her attack on my page is most logically dealt with by making fun of them back. Autocopy is just another idea along the tit-for-tat line of thinking. No one should be able to get away with defecting in a perfect world. Their actions where defecting and more rightly they should have tried to make the page better or make a statement that the page still needs work. Calling a guy a girl is just a funny way to insult. I mean nothing negative by it. I love you all, each and every one you if for no other reason than it makes me happy. Please restore the comment and if you need to point out something wrong with my comment, make it visible and laugh. 04:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, no. At least the PD was funny and clever in spots. This isn't. Capeo (talk) 04:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I went through Michael Francis Lidman's edits, both deleted and remaining, and this is a typical example. Whatever he's up to, it's not about building an encyclopedia. Taking into account the personal attack, I have blocked indefinitely. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Miss Universe 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.

---

Hello.

First of all, i'm not native english speaker. For that, maybe some words and things I can't be understand well. I don't know if i'm on the correct Page. I apologize.

I ask the intervention of an Administrator for the article Miss Universe 2016. The minister of tourism of the Philippines anounce in July that the Miss Universe Pageant for 2016 will be on January 2017, on the Philippines. Today, September 10th, there is not a confirmation from the Miss Universe Organization, or the network whom has the tv rights, or the owners of Miss Universe. The alleged venue has not on their website information about Miss Universe, and, some news reports anounce the host. But, Miss Universe Organization has not confirmed nothing! Then, is not official yet. I believe it's important to wait a confirmation, before to make it official in Wikipedia. The others editors think different and I believe are wrong. Can you has an intervention on the article? Maybe I'll be wrong, but I think it's necessary a neutral point of view.

Thanks--Alex Duilius (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

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

User refusing to accept the existence of WP:NOTVGUIDE.

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

---

For nearly two weeks a Rowde has been consistently adding schedules of TV broadcast in defiance of our WP:NOTVGUIDE policy. They were warned multiple times about this but simply choose to ignore and persist.

Initial additions:

• 28 August 2016, 20:49 (UTC) (While logged out)
• 29 August 2016, 11:50 (UTC) (While logged out)
• 29 August 2016, 12:34 (UTC)
• 29 August 2016, 16:13 (UTC)
• 29 August 2016, 16:46 (UTC)
• 29 August 2016, 16:53 (UTC)
• 29 August 2016, 17:09 (UTC)
• 29 August 2016, 17:29 (UTC)

First warning:

• 29 August 2016, 17:56 (UTC)

Ignoring warning while logged out:

• 5 September 2016, 17:02 (UTC)
• 5 September 2016, 17:03 (UTC)

Second warning:

• 6 September 2016, 18:47 (UTC)

Immediate logged out ignorance of new warning:

• 6 September 2016, 19:04 (UTC)

Third warning:

• 7 September, 10:42 (UTC)

More logged out ignorance of the warnings, this time using a PA edit summary:

• 7 September, 16:45 (UTC)

Then yesterday created two TV listings articles despite the previous warnings about the policy:

1. 8 September, 17:04 (UTC)
2. 8 September, 17:38 (UTC)

The article were nominated for deletion, a process the user disruptively tried to block:

• 8 September, 17:16 (UTC)

I feel that it very obvious now that the users simply refuses to obey the aforementioned policy. Administrator action seems warranted now. Note that the logged out edits were made from a handful of over a hundred IP's from the 92.21.240 range the user has used for over a year now. See here for a comprehensible list. In addition of the breach of the WP:NOT policy I feel the user is also abusing multiple "accounts" through constantly logging in and out. Tvx1 15:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• I just looked at the first two examples you gave. Why are you hassling someone for listing the events on a sporting circuit? Wikipedia regularly includes such information. I can pull up, for example, 2014 FIFA World Cup group stage and it lists each match. I see absolutely nothing wrong with these. My recommendation from assessing these examples you have gave is that you should leave whoever this is alone to do his work. Stop hassling him... --Jayron32 15:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The two examples you mention are additions to an article about television coverage of the sport. The listing of sporting events is on 2016 Formula One season, which covers the actual sport. Your example of FIFA is the equivalent of the Formula One season article. Rowde's contributions would be equivalent to a new article listing when and where one single country's television network was broadcasting FIFA World Cup group stage matches. The³5₉ (Talk) 16:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• My understanding of NOTTVGUIDE is that this is not a outright violation. It's meant to prevent simply duplication of a day-by-day TV schedule for a network or the like. For notable sporting events, the televised coverage of them seems to be commonly included in the various articles, and while I don't think the level of detail is needed as per these tables, it is not unreasonable to include these as a starting point. There is clearly edit warring going on but I don't think we can take action on the claim they are fighting against NOTTVGUIDE. --MASEM (t) 15:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Per the above, I don't think that it's a violation of WP:NOTTVGUIDE. On the other hand, I don't think those tables add much to the articles. Joseph2302 18:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Looking at this, it doesn't look like COI or promotion from a broadcaster; many of the edits refer to past events. More like fan obsession. It would be helpful if Rowde (talk · contribs) would reply here, or on their own talk page, or somewhere. Discussion helps. John Nagle (talk) 19:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Jayron32, none of the articles I extracted the diffs from is on the particular season of that particular motorsports class. They are articles on TV Shows. The tables the user tries to add are pure broadcasting schedules. They list when the relevant broadcasting rights holder will show which race on which channel/platform. That's exactly the sort of thing WP:NOTTVGUIDE prohibits. Nothing like your FIFA World Cup example. We have articles like 2016 Formula One season for that. I cannot understand why anyone would condone this user's behavior of readding these tables, while logging in and out, despite repeated request no to do so. Tvx1 22:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm more concerned with people harassing good-faith editors by picking random rules (which aren't all that relevant or important) and trying to "enforce" them like the police. Leave people alone and let them improve articles. You're not the article police, stop trying to make yourself feel superior by enforcing "rules" against good-faith editors, and stop dragging people here for silly little issues. --Jayron32 00:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Agreed with Jayron and Nagle; this is definitely not a violation of NOTTVGUIDE, which mainly concerns current day television listings or articles that are too minute in detail about their timeslots in the past. This is definitely not that; at worst the relevant policy is that sourcing might be needed to make sure that the F1 events did air on these listed networks (or just a general prose paragraph in each F1 season article about who aired F1 races in a selected year since we shouldn't be US-centric for a mainly European concerrn), but that's about it. I'm seeing good-faith and nothing for an admin to do here. Nate • (chatter) 03:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

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

It's really easy to have a lunge at a reporting editor if you cannot give them the basic courtesy of having a look at all the diffs that were provided. If you're getting enough of the near continuous filing of incident reports, stop being an administrator and just help improving articles as an editor. Meanwhile the reported editor kept being disruptive yesterday by firstly creating yet another list of U.S Formula One broadcasts despite the above listed two being nominated for deletion and not getting any support, and by secondly removing AFD templates one, two, three times. The user was already warned about doing that {{diff2|690010255|last november)) and december. That is clearly evidence that the user just doesn't care about our policies. So don't go accusing us of harassing a newcomer. This user has been active for about a year and back then we did use a welcoming approach back then. Unfortunately the user barely listened to our advice and has continued their own ways with a complete disregard for guidelines and policies, with the occasional Personal attack. I agree that we should let users improve articles when they actually do. The sad situation is that this user doesn't do that. The user mostly publishes poor quality articles leaving the improvement to be done by others (that is if the articles are worth retaining). Some of these are even outright copyright violations. However overtime we raise this at ANI no-one bothers to look or we get accused of harassing. It would be greatly appreciated if an administrator were actually prepared to take a thorough look into this situation instead of one venting their frustrations about ANI on a good-faith reporting user. Tvx1 16:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

User: 2604:2000:7111:7E00:59D5:5432:A297:1AB6

This user has been disruptively editing the page about the tag team known as The Usos. I noticed that he changed a date on the page from 2011 to 2010, and left a comment at the end of the paragraph to stop changing it back. I then undid this edit as a disruptive edit, and changed the year back to 2011. He reverted it back to his original edit, and then I left a warning on his page to stop changing it, as there is evidence to support the year 2011 in place of the year 2010 in the article. I then reverted his edit. He has since reverted it back, and I've decided to report this here in order to resolve this situation.Dohvahkiin (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

My edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Usos&oldid=738376497 His revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Usos&oldid=738383872

The user is still reverting edits. I've noticed he's also been making the same disruptive edits on the pages for Primo & Epico, Carmella, and Natalya. I tried explaining to him on both the edit summary and his talk page that he needs to stop the disruptive editing, but he just reverts every edit that goes against his. Can someone help with this situation. It's getting bad that he's providing false information on multiple pages.Dohvahkiin (talk) 23:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Requesting uninvolved admin to review The World Tomorrow (radio and television)

The latest discussion can be found at Talk:The World Tomorrow (radio and television)#Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2016. For those not familiar with the history, the prior ANI report can be seen here, and further details of the history can be found in my talk page archive here.

A new user FastNLoud (talk · contribs) has been continuing the disruption and personal attacks. I'm not sure if it's more of the same, or if it has rolled over into trolling at this point.

First, they submit an edit request asking to add a person as a producer (using IMDb as a source). However, a few months ago an IP that claimed to represent the producers had insisted that all mention of that person be removed from the talk page. When this was pointed out, the new user changed directions and demanded the name be removed from the talk page.

They then proceeded to accuse me of being a "former disinfranchasied disgruntled member" (I'm not) due to their belief that I am a "West Coast Californian" (I have never lived in California, I live in the Pacific Northwest), and asked if I am Werldwayd as well as user C.Fred (do I really need to say I'm not?)

In addition to links to relevant policies and guidelines, the user has been provided links to WP:RSN, WP:SPI, and WP:Files for upload to address their demands and accusations. Yesterday they asked that I upload the title card for the program. I tried to point out that I cannot upload a document that I do not posses. But to no avail, as they then demanded I upload the title card and undo edits by myself and others who have worked to cleanup the article to Wikipedia standards.

Their most recent post today was also colorfully laced with expletives. I'm requesting another admin to review and to take whatever action they see as appropriate. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

For crying out loud, why don't you just ignore them? EEng 15:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I have no intention of replying to their most recent post. However, due to the long history of disruption at the article and related pages, I chose to report it here at this point. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Now 50.204.235.66 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has begun blanking talk page content at Talk:The World Tomorrow (radio and television), blanking content from World Tomorrow, and editing against previously established consensus at the disambig The World Tomorrow. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

user:Mathsci not respecting 'in use' template

It is found that the problem didn't lie with the two editor's uses and misuses of {{in use}}, but the difficulty for them to work with each other. No closure action is taken because the general consensus is that additional sanctions against these two editors wouldn't be helpful at this stage. Deryck C. 12:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

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.

---

• warning (17:10, 31 August 2016) not to do so after a first removal of the {{in use}} template at Canonic Variations on "Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her" (17:00, 31 August 2016)
• removing the template again (17:13, 31 August 2016)

Pinging Bishonen as I read something about editing conditions on Mathsci's talk page which seems like Bish knows more about, and I'm not going to investigate (probably totally unrelated to this, but nonetheless). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Mathsci notified --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
• Can an admin undo this edit and explain to MattschiMathsci to please respect "in use"? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Francis Schonken's current editing restrictions resulting from his edits to articles on Bach's sacred music. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive925#Francis Schonken's disruptive conduct is preventing content creation on Orgelbüchlein

I am the principal creator of Canonic Variations which has stayed in a stable state since its creation at Christmas time in 2009 (when I learnt to play the variations on a famous German Christmas carol). In addition I created the lilypond files from which the midi audio files were created (now on commons). Francis Schonken is not creating new content but fundamentally modifying a stable article to suit his own preferred format for sacred organ music by Bach. He has not sought any consensus. As fate would have it, I am the main editor on wikipedia who has created content on sacred organ music by Bach. I reverted his edits per WP:BRD because I did not think his changes benefited the reader in any way. He did not respond on the talk page but reverted. That is not how BRD works. There has been no prior discussion and I fundamentally disagree with his edits. Why has he not explained himself?

On a previous occasion (see the link above), Francis Schonken made similar edits to BWV 625 in Orgelbüchlein, one of the 46 chorale preludes described in detail in that article. As a result of my ANI report and his disruptive editing on other articles on Bach's religious music (eg BWV 4), he was limited to IRR per month. He has tried here to circumvent this by adding an "in use" tag to the article while not adding new content. Then as now he was simply removing material he dislikes (text and images) and reformatting my content. Why has he not had any discussion on the talk page of the article to explain what his thinking is (beyond what he wrote about BWV 625)? This particular article has stayed stable since its creation in 2009, so the large scale reformatting without adding new content is unprecedented. I do not own the article but I disagree with the changes Francis Schonken made. He has given me no opportunity to discuss his radical changes to a stable article. He is repeating the conduct that led to the previous report. (Orgelbüchlein is still being created as the to-do list on the talk page indicates.)

I am currently busy editing BWV 39, at present creating hundreds of lilypond files off-wiki which result in audio files like these:

These take a long to time to create because every note of every instrument (including the figured bass, for which I use two recent scores) has to be encoded, checked, voiced with a soundfont and modified for barqoue articulation/dynamics, etc, etc. The new techniques I have learnt in this exercise apply equally well to the audio files in Canonic Variations which can be recorded as permanent ogg files with baroque organ sound fonts. Unlike midi files these ogg files do not rely on readers' software. BWV 39 was originally written using CD liners instead of academic books. I am gradually correcting that. I have made just under 450 edits to that article. I started by adding a large number of new sources to replace the CD liners.

I have no idea why Francis Schonken has not entered into a discussion on the talk page of "Canonic Variations". Escalating things to ANI is a strange thing to do, without prior discussion. His editing restrictions arising from his edits to articles on Bach's sacred music are still in place. The same type of edits as he's making now were what precipitated those restrictions. Perhaps he could explain here why he has not started a discussion on Talk:Canonic Variations on "Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her". I know the material and sources very well and am surprised to see a stable article so radically changed in this way. I'll keep asking the same questions. Why has he not discussed this on the talk page? Examples of new content are edits like this on BWV 39: [42] and this on Orgelbüchlein: [43]. In that case I add in use tags for the sections. Mathsci (talk) 18:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Which "recent scores" are you using for the figured-bass realisation, Mathsci? Are you sure that they are out of copyright? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

In all I have consulted six sources, including old and new vocal scores, but have invented the figured bass myself as rudimentary chords, using what I was taught as a schoolboy about realising a figured bass. Two recent explicit realisations, which have complicated right hands, have been useful for guidance; equally well Bach's own autograph manuscript, written a full tone lower. The right hands have to be simple and unobtrusive so as not to interfere with the two alto recorders. Mathsci (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Again, can an admin please undo this edit and explain to MattschiMathsci to please respect "in use"? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

No. Have you read Mathsci's comments above, posted half an hour before you repeated your request? The only way this will be resolved at all is for you to discuss the matter. So discuss. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Re. "Have you read Mathsci's comments above, posted half an hour before you repeated your request?" – Yes, they are totally unrelated to my request. The only slim analogy I see is that Mathsci asks to be left alone when working on articles: that's what I ask too, for a few hours (when there is an {{in use}} template). --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I say no, too, and concur that discussion is the way. Since Francis Schonken pinged me: yes, I know about Mathsci's editing restrictions, I formulated them (at the behest of the community) and here they are. It doesn't look to me like they have any relevance to this kind of conflict. Bishonen | talk 22:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC).

@Bishonen: there I read:

"I would be far more careful not to overreact. I would state problems with edits dispassionately and carefully avoid any personal comments about editors. I would be careful to show that my edits on talk pages are there to help other editors as much as to discuss improvements to the article. I would strenuously avoid giving the appearance of belittling other editors with different skills."

At WP:TALKNEW I read:

Don't address other users in a heading: Headings invite all users to comment. Headings may be about specific edits but not specifically about the user. (Some exceptions are made at administrative noticeboards, where reporting problems by name is normal.)

Then, these are MatschiMathsci's talk page comments [44], starting with the section header "== Francis Schonken's edits ==", followed by his opinions against me. That doesn't look like "dispassionately and carefully avoid any personal comments" to me. Could you please address this situation? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• This is obvious gaming. Francis, you can't use the in-use template to evade your 1RR editing restriction, namely "Francis Schonken is restricted to one revert per page in any calendar month. The restriction is to last 6 months and applies to all pages except his own user and user talk pages." [45]. Mathsci is indeed by far the principal contributor (97%) to the Canonic Variations on "Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her": [46]. The in-use tag and this ANI filing constitute classic WP:GAMING, and if I were you I'd withdraw this ANI before it WP:BOOMERANGs on you. You're merely re-engaging in the same disruptive editing which got you that 1RR editing restriction in the first place, and on an article by the same editor [47]. Pinging Johnuniq and Voceditenore for further review. Softlavender (talk) 03:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for providing those links which show that FS needs to proceed differently. Nevertheless, Mathsci should follow the "dispassionately and carefully avoid any personal comments" advice above—there is no need for an article talk page to have a section with a user name in its heading. I can understand Mathsci's frustration, and his suggestion about the six articles that might be created is good, but both sides need to reduce drama and find a way of making the same content points without the commentary. Johnuniq (talk) 04:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, these two can't seem to stop insulting each other. Mathsci just reverted Francis on Orgelbüchlein with the edit summary "it's not very bright classifying organ music as instrumental" [48], when in fact organ music is obviously instrumental (not vocal), since an organ is a musical instrument. I believe this violates the promises that were the conditions of his unblock [49]. Pinging Bishonen, who unblocked and made those conditions. Softlavender (talk) 06:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oh, come on, Francis. No, you shouldn't address other users in a talkpage header. But people do it all the time, because it's one of our least-known rules. When people do it, it may be appropriate to ask them to stop. But it's not a "situation". Bishonen | talk 04:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC).
• The problem is Francis is under 1rr which means they *cannot* revert any reversion when they are working on an article. Mathsci is perfectly well aware of this so knows that a single revert will prevent Francis from continuing when working even when making minor changes. The use of the 'in use' template is a reasonable response by Francis so they can work on an article without having to resort to offline editing. 'In use' is used extensively precisely to prevent knee-jerk reverts from interfering when an editor is making changes - clueful editors know to wait until they are finished then judge based on the final result. I dont see from the edit-cycle above that there has been a reason provided for reverting other than 'I dont like it, you need to justify making changes', which is pretty much the essence of ownership. In Francis' case it means if anyone just ignores the in use template, he has to stop working straight away. At this point I think a 2-way interaction ban between the two should be considered, its clearly becoming disruptive, and as Softlavender points out above, has degenerated to insult edit summaries. Either that or topic ban them both from the area and let someone else deal with it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Isn't Only in death taken from the same fantasy novel series as Anroth? I already privately discussed your editing with arbitrators (and Bishonen), particularly the false allegations you made about me in a previous ANI request. This is more of the same. Mathsci (talk) 09:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Oh what a surprise, you once again (I think this is the second or third time actually) make reference to an account on another website in a blatant outing attempt. But by all means, continue to attempt to out me in violation of policy. Shame your 'report' has gone precisely nowhere because it was completely baseless. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
      • You've lost me there. Are you talking about www.bach-cantatas.com? Mathsci (talk) 10:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The thing is, Francis added the in-use tag while making a completely undiscussed 1,000-byte deletion [50], as if the tag would somehow give him impunity from reversion of his undiscussed mass deletion and subsequent complete re-working of an article Mathsci has built from the ground up. This is exactly the same sort of mass disruption and bulldozing he was engaging in on Orgelbüchlein, which got him his 1RR restriction [51]. Mathsci rightfully reverted the mass re-working once he logged on [52], and Francis spuriously "warned" him in an attempt to circumvent his 1RR (not to mention WP:BRD): [53]. The major and mind-boggling infraction is Francis's and he should get a further sanction beyond his six months of 1RR. Mathsci probably needs some sort of warning or sanction for his ludicrous edit-summary insult (and for the gratuitous "Isn't Only in death taken from the same fantasy novel series as Anroth?" above), but the problematic editing is by far Francis's on this particular article. I don't know that an IBan would work because they rarely do and because of the two editors' overlapping interests; and since the offending party is clearly Francis here we may want a one-way IBan or a topic-ban on Bach's sacred music as was proposed in the last ANI: [54]. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

A two-way iban would prevent either from reverting the other. If anyone *else* has issues with Francis' changes, they will soon show up. Large edits are not by themselves 'disruptive' and I have still yet to see a credible reason against Francis' work (which would be out of scope here anyway as a content issue). BRD is for unrestricted editors, when you apply it to editors under a 1rr restriction its completely pointless because all the reverting party has to do is not discuss and there is nothing that can be done about it. Really the only alternative that would stop the issue between them is just to ban one or both of them completely from the topic area, as anything else (as has been clearly shown) is just going to end up in gaming the system. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

There was no gaming in Mathsci's two edits -- Francis made massive undiscussed changes and Mathsci reverted him to the status quo ante. This was completely acceptable under Francis's 1RR restriction (which was designed for just such undiscussed mass changes and bulldozing that were the reason for it in the first place). The gaming was all on Francis's end, and I'm beginning to think he added the nonsensical in-use tag for his massive undiscussed changes specifically in order to bring Mathsci to ANI (in this silly unwarranted thread) and to goad him. The problem from the beginning has been Francis, and in my opinion Mathsci should not be IBanned because of Francis's misbehavior. Softlavender (talk) 10:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I find it odd that FS wasn't immediately blocked for essentially admitting, by opening this discussion, to trying to game the system in order to get around his editing restriction. My reluctance to call for harsh sanctions against long-term contributors who usually act in good faith (even if they are wrong a lot of the time and can be incredibly aggressive in defending their wrong edits) is the only thing causing me to say he should be given a block of between one day and one week, and keeping me from suggesting that the restriction should be made indefinite, or broadened. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

As someone who doesn't know much about the history here I have 2 comments. Firstly I agree with Ultraexactzz that it seems to me this should have been discussed more rather than brought here.

But I'm also not sure I see a reason not to respect the 'in use' tag. The edits don't seem so harmful that they require immediate reversion like BLPvios. If Francis Schonken and Mathsci were editing at different times, it seems to me the dispute over inuse would never have happened. (Well I don't know how often each person edits but I presume theres at least ~ 7+ hours a day when they generally don't edit when sleeping, eating etc.) Mathsci is free to revert edits they feel are harmful after Francis Schonken has stopped presuming Francis Schonken isn't asking for an unresonable timeframe for the inuse tag.

If Francis Schonken makes a large number of edits and quite a few of them are harmful and it's too difficult to assess each one they may have to accept wholesale reversion of their edits. It's the risk they take whenever they are editing (since it's always possible no one will notice their edits) but even more so when they are insistant on people respecting the in use tag. (In other words, I'm assuming Francis Schonken understands the isuse tag means if they can make some clearly helpful edits along with others which seem more questionable ones, there's a risk it's going to be difficult enough to sort the good from the bad that all their edits will be reverted and isn't going to come here complaining about all their edits being reverted when they are the one who partially created the situation by making a large number of edits and asking people not to edit while they were doing so, meaning that others didn't notice the problems until they were done and it was too difficult to try and sort the good from the bad.)

Nil Einne (talk) 13:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Re. "...this should have been discussed more rather than brought here" – Note that MatschiMathsci immediately removed the talk page section I had opened about this on their user talk page (17:17, 31 August 2016), which they are of course perfectly allowed to do, but indicates "not open for discussion about this on my talk page", ANI being the logical next step.

Re. "... I'm assuming Francis Schonken understands the isuse tag means if they can make some clearly helpful edits along with others which seem more questionable ones, there's a risk it's going to be difficult enough to sort the good from the bad that all their edits will be reverted and isn't going to come here complaining ..." – Of course, I understand completely. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Re. "...unresonable timeframe for the inuse tag..."

Re. "...presuming Francis Schonken isn't asking for an unresonable timeframe for the inuse tag" – I think a few hours is not unreasonable, and I propose no more for my edits. Here's what I consider unreasonable behaviour for keeping an {{in use}} tag in for two weeks (!) and then starting a slow edit war (!) with the bot that removes an {{in use}} tag after 24H of inactivity:

• MatschiMathsci places an {{in use}} tag 04:33, 10 August 2016
• ...keeps it in virtually without interruption until 17:01, 23 August 2016
• JL-bot removes the tag 21:05, 25 August 2016
• MatschiMathsci reinstates {{in use}} tag 18:46, 27 August 2016
• JL-bot removes again 22:38, 1 September 2016
• MatschiMathsci reinstates {{in use}} 06:30, 2 September 2016
• JL-bot removes again 12:13, 3 September 2016
• MatschiMathsci reinstates {{in use}} tag 19:03, 4 September 2016

(all of this on the same article, see history). MatschiMathsci's excuse: I'm busy with audio files at commons... which has nothing to do with possible edit conflict during a major restructuring (what the {{in use}} tag is for).

In the above I didn't suggest to come down on MatschiMathsci like a ton of bricks, and I still suggest no such thing, but could someone please explain to MatschiMathsci *what the {{in use}} tag is for, that it shouldn't be abused like they appear to be doing, and should be respected when others use them for a few hours* Please. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Ahem, I thought I'd chosen the user name Mathsci, not Matschi. Matschi sounds German, whereas Math-sci has a very English pronunciation. Frau Matschi sounds like a shady character Lotte Lenya might have played, with a steel knife ready to spring out of her hob-nailed boot.

Blanking audio files Since 27 August the talk page of BWV 39 has had a section explaining that I am in the process of preparing content for BWV 39#Movements. I have been extremely busy preparing files like this:

together with miniscores, some of which are already in the article. This audio file took over a week to create and is only in a preliminary imperfect state. This 2 minute 40 second file is an excerpt to illustrate the intended commentary on third section of the first movement. Just like the other two audio files in this thread. The talk page of BWV 39 clearly states that I am preparing that content and the encoding of the score is part of that process. So why—without any warning of any kind at all—did Francis Schonken precipitously remove these files while I am obviously still in the process of editing? A slow and scholarly process. I even said the process would be slow; it is very time-consuming. From his edits, Francis Schonken wants to blank all of these audio files and presumably all the other audio files I have created for Bach articles since 2009. But there are audio files everywhere. I have helped others write lilypond code for midi files within wikipedia articles related to Bach chorales. Nobody has ever raised an objection to my audio files: only Francis Schonken this afternoon. He wasn't interested in discussion or on how the article was being edited. He knew somebody else was actively editing the article.

Francis Schonken's wikilinks in section titles Francis Schonken criticised me yesterday for using a wikilink to an article title in List of organ compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach. But when he created that list in February 2016, he added wikilinks in the section neaders to all wikipedia articles that had so far been written (probably 60-70% of that content is by me).[55] I started creating Organ sonatas, BWV 525–530 today, already having written content on it 6 or 7 years ago in Clavichord#Pedal clavichord and elsewhere. I simply followed his example in the list when I added the wikilink. His response was that he had not added wikilinks in the headers when creating the list. But the diff shows that to be false. How can any discussion proceed in those circumstances

Blanking audio files without discussion (they have been displayed here for a week with no objection and others have been in WP articles since 2009) is also just disruptive. His WP:IDHT attitude regarding the conventions he himself had introduced in his list is also disruptive. But this is the same conduct which got his editing restricted last time. I am editng in my usual plodding and meticulous way, being quietly aided and encouraged by Graham87, the musical wikignome. Wikipedia has all the advantages of multimedia and for some readers audio files in music articles might be a pleasant surprise. Graham87 thanked me for adding audio links to Organ sonatas, BWV 525–530 (it sprang form an idea of his). I am also going to make my own ogg files. Mathsci (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

MatschiMathsci corrected. Other than that, Mathsci's comments are –again– off-topic: e.g. the audio files are a content matter, not discussed on this page, but on the article's talk page.

The point being, from the outset of this thread on ANI, that Mathsci doesn't know how to deal with {{in use}} tags, so I still ask the same: that someone explains the purpose of this template to them, explains to them what is excessive use of this tag that should be avoided, and that the {{in use}} tag should be respected when others use them correctly. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Francis Schonken knew that I was editing the section BWV 39#Movements at a relatively slow speed, but he deliberately chose to disregard that. There is content to add to the article. He has been told that repeatedly, yet refuses to understand. I've explained what that involves often enough and will not repeat it now. Francis Schonken cannot dictate the speed at which other people edit. Elsewhere I don't know why he's criticising me for things which are due to him.[56] It is a strange thing to do. He has created similar problems with many other editors and his editing style, sometimes dogmatic and by edict,[dex.php?title=Talk:Brich_dem_Hungrigen_dein_Brot,_BWV_39&diff=737814612&oldid=737745106] has resulted in his current editing restrictions. He recently created a confusing template which was deleted by consensus although he was certain it as the right thing to do. He tried to write Organ sonatas, BWV 525–530 on a list page. Suggesting that my audio quotations had no place on wikipedia was an unpleasant thing to do.[57]

The files have a clear educational purpose/value. Francis Schonken announced that he thought one of them almost satisfied his own standards. On the commons page it is described as mimicing the sound of a positive organ. It was created be encoding each of the four snging voicesand then using an old bland ocarina sounfont from expats, Clicks caused By repeated note s had to be removed by manually encoding dozens of microrests into the parts (including repeated notes between separate parts). The initial crackle on ogg files is a linux-related problem: the timidity/debian/ubuntu bug, due to one simple coding error, has been reported on wikimedia pages[58] which seem to be administered by WMF staff like jdforrester. It might also be something to do with wikipedia software. There is no simple workaround for a linux user apart from recompiling another version of TiMidity++ away from the original package. Mathsci (talk) 07:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, you're wrong there. An {{in use}} template doesn't give you the right to own a page for 24H, 48H, two weeks or whatever other amount of time (even when accompanied with more or less extensive talk page statements). An {{in use}} tag is for "avoid[ing] edit conflicts" when the page is "actively undergoing a major edit for a short while" and should be removed if the "page hasn't been edited in several hours" – adding a media file every few days is *not* a "major edit", nor is that a "reasonable timeframe for the 'in use' tag".

How many and which media files will be contained in an article, is not appropriate discussion material for this board: it is not a behavioural issue. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

New content is being slowly created for the article—miniscores are being meticulously created by me, along with audio extracts, images, etc. While that elaborate and time-consuming process is happening, you have been leaving very negative and irrelevant comments on the talk page. On the other hand you have absolutely no idea about my intended content. I will take all the time I need to create it as the content is not straightforward.

You have been told multiple times by administrators and other editors that your conduct is disruptive and inappropriate. That is the reason that your editing is restricted.

I am slowly and quietly editing one section BWV 39#Movements of BWV 39. Why are you concentrating on my editing of BWV 39/1 and the creation of audio extracts like this:

and musical extracts like this:

Couldn't you please let me edit in peace for while? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I sought a third opinion about the above audio file. I was told that the current version has no crackle at the beginning, was of reasonable quality and that it was fine for illustrating the article. That's good to know. Mathsci (talk) 10:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

"...Couldn't you please let me edit in peace for while?..."

Re. "...Couldn't you please let me edit in peace for while?..." – sure. Same applies for my work at Canonic Variations on "Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her", for which these two reverts were highly disturbing (as explained in the OP with which I started this ANI thread): the {{in use}} tag Mathsci removed twice from the same page contains "To help avoid edit conflicts, please do not edit this page while this message is displayed". The first of these reverts had provoked an edit conflict, yet Mathsci proceded with the second within less than 15 minutes, after being warned on their talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Francis Schonken hounding me on the articles I am creating and/or editing —he is using this page as his blog

Francis Schonken seems to be in the process of harassing me by whatever means he can think of. Lately has has made a number of edits which. rather than being to the benefit of wikipedia and its readers, have been designed as attacks on me. As well as preparing content for BWV 39#Movements (I am attempting to create a vocal score in lilypond by combining 12 separate files, but am having problems with the "beaming" of notes), I have been busy creating Organ sonatas, BWV 525–530. (I am an organist and play these sonatas.) The article is in the course of creation and will take a while. I don't intend to rush and will set my own pace. User:Graham87 has been helping me. While it was still in the early stages of creation, Francis Schonken started editing the page. Perhaps an in use tag had lapsed during the night, but he moved the title and started tagging the article in a gortesque way.

Even a newbie to wikipedia or indeed a ten-year-old could have seen that Organ sonatas, BWV 525–530 was still under construction. Indeed User:Graham87, who wikignomes on articles, had assisted me at an early stage and apologized for making edits while it was being created. On his talk page, I thanked him for his help and encouraged to help with some of the later sections (discography, arrangements).

I do not need Francis Schonken's help while I am in the early stages of creating this article (it is a list at the moment and does not resemble any of the stable articles I have written on Bach's organ music). The comments Francis Schonken has made here and on Talk:BWV 39 show that he does not seem to have much idea about how I edit complicated articles which require musical quotations and audio files. Even when it speeled to him, it does not seem to sink in; it might be that he deliberately chooses to ignore it. He certainly has not asked me if he can help and has not added any contents to the talk page.

His current editing undoubtedly violates the restrictions he is under. He is nevertheless perfectly aware that the article is in the course of creation. Why then tag it in this way? I would like to be able to edit in peace without being disturbed in the middle of what I'm doing.

This file for BWV 39 eemed simple

but took a while to create, because Bach's beaming is unusual (the way notes are joined together) and also has to fit the notes. The vocal score I'm preparing at the moment is a nightmare. Francis Schonken is aware of this off-wiki work. That is presumably why he started editing an article which he knew I was in the course of creating. Given these disruptuive attacks on an article I am creating, I think his editing needs to be further restricted. Even if I spell out on a talk page what processes are required for creating the article, Francis Schonken has chosen to ignore that and find new ways to edit disruptively and hound me, folowing my edits around. His conduct today has gone past the acceptable limits. Using this page as a blog did not help. It seems to be part of his scheme for following me to articles that I am editing, where he has not been active. Mathsci (talk) 07:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no hounding: here (17:12, 31 August 2016) Mathsci suggested I start articles on the organ sonatas ("Francis Schonken: there are no articles on BWV 525, BWV 526, BWV 527, BWV 528, BWV 529 and BWV 530. These are amongst finest secular works for organ. You could improve wikipedia by creating that content."), and here (09:36, 3 September 2016) Mathsci suggests I add content to the organ sonatas article ("...Francis Schonken is welcome to create or help create a table for the section Organ sonatas, BWV 525–530#Earlier compositions and borrowings..") I'm following up on such suggestions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

At it again

Now there's another page where Mathsci reverts the bot that removes stale {{in use}} templates:

• JL-Bot removes stale {{in use}} template 22:49, 7 September 2016
• Mathsci reverts 06:21, 8 September 2016

At the article's talk page Mathsci explains their intentions: "... could other editors stay away? It will take roughly two weeks ..." – Here's a suggestion: could Mathsci do that updating in their User: space? It seems quite inopportune to claim a two-weeks ownership of the mainspace page (see above). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC) 'Francis Schonken knows that the article is in the course of being created. He is now doing his utmost to prevent that. Indeed he is using this thread—like a blog—as an uneding commentary while in the midst of adding complex content. Even before I have created a proper article, he has disruptively tried to move the article and then tried to open a move discussion. From his editing since the opened this thread, his aim seems to be to dream up any possible he can disrupt my editing. He is now gaming the system by transferring the restrictions on edit reversions to page moves. He is attempting to move the page, even before the article has been created in any reasonable form. Francis Schonken is perfectly aware of what a fisrt sate of a finished article looks like; so this disruption is willful.

At present, within the article, there is no material from the principal source beyond the listing of movements, which was composed using one of my private scores. Francis Schonken is currently following me to articles that I am in the course of creating and doing his utmost to disrupt that process (see the previous section), User:Graham87 clearly understood the process of creation, helped with external links and thanked me for creating gthe article. Your editing is quite unlike his. It is pure disruption; an extreme example of why your editing has been restricted.

It is perfectly reasonable that I create this article on my own. Francis schonken has shown that he cannot tell what I have in mind for my edits, cannot prepare either audio or miniscore extracts, and generally has deliberately misunderstood my editing intentions. If he cannot stay away from artivcles that I am creating (taking a leaf out of Graham87's book), I suggest that his editing be further restricted. Mathsci (talk) 07:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

And now blanking talk page sections

Mathsci blanking of an entire section at a talk page (07:44, 8 September 2016) --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I wish Francis Schonken would stop using this page as a blog. It is pointless discussing moving an article when it's only in the very early stages of creation. Making a suggestion at this stage is aggressive and designed to obstruct editing on the article. Because Francis Schonken is editing so disruptively, I will ignore his edits in future. He already blanked my audio files with false claims that consensus was against them. While I am busy editing these articles (I have only added the instrumental parts to the vocal score for the extract from BWV 39/1), Francis Schonken is busy finding ways to disrupt my editing. Pure disruption that probably warrants a block at this stage. Mathsci (talk) 08:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Francis Schonken has violated his editing restrictions

He appears to have violated his editing restrictions with these edits.[59] [60] User:Graham87 thanked me for adding audio files for each of the 18 compositions. Francis Schonken has started a diatribe on the talk page about the files. He is simply piling on his negative commentary while the article is being created. He tries to find a negative spin on anything he can think of. Yet he has absolutely no idea what I intend to add. How can I be expected to edit when I am subject to such disruptive conduct? It is exactly why his editing is restricted. Instead of trying to improve articles for the benefit of the reader, he seems to view them as places to play his games. That is exactly why his editing was restricted. He follows me around to articles and I find that creepy. I have been quite patient with Francis Schonken, but if he cannot stop making disruptive edits like this out of the blue to articles in the course of being created, please he could he blocked? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no violation of my editing restrictions, Mathsci's accusation is disingenious. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Summarizing:

• Mathsci's prolonged use of the {{in use}} template prevents content creation: here (09:36, 3 September 2016) Mathsci suggests I add content to the organ sonatas article ("...Francis Schonken is welcome to create or help create a table for the section Organ sonatas, BWV 525–530#Earlier compositions and borrowings..") – which is not possible because they won't relinquish the {{in use}} template on that page.
• Mathsci's removal of short-term {{in use}} templates placed by others prevents content creation: at Canonic Variations on "Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her" I extended the content with over 1500b – Mathsci removed it all, together with the "in use" template I had placed --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• Reasonable editors can tell when an article is in the course of being created. Francis Schonken refuses to accept that even after being told multiple times. Indeed he claims that while creating brand new content that has been absent from wikipedia for years, I am exercising WP:OWN while creating that content. Why does he refuse to accept how the process of creation goes? He has been told that the capitalisation in the title was chosen because other editors had created the titles Organ concertos, Op.4 (Handel), Organ concertos, Op.7 (Handel), Concerti grossi, Op.6 (Handel) and Sonatas and partitas for solo violin (Bach) (the first three are articles created by me a few years ago, but with slightly different titles). He knows the article is being created by somebody and seems to be doing his utmost to prevent that editing happening. He is constantly militating against me here and misrepresenting consensus on talk pages with withering comments. Pure disruption. Why can he not respect the process of creation?

Francis Schonken is editing disruptively. Compare him to someone familiar with my editing of articles on Bach's organ music, Graham87. He apologised for interrupting the process of creation on Organ sonatas (Bach).[61] Francis Schonken's edits are the exact opposite. He is determined to find every possible means to interrupt that process. Indeed he followed me to the article and all its redirects I had made. Normally that is called wikihounding or wikistalking (I don't remember which). Presumably he was or is trying to make a WP:POINT. But can he not leave editors in peace while they're creating articles? Breathing down their neck like this and making these absurd reports on this page is just disruptive editing . At 9 am I was busy preparing the lilypond excerpt for a vocal score from bar 23 onwards of BWV 39/1. I hope I can continue doing so, without constantly being interrupted. At present, I do not wish for any advice or assistance from Francis Schonken while creating the content for the article on Bach's Trio sonatas for organ. If he thought I had asked him for help, he was mistaken. Mathsci (talk) 09:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Section for third parties

I had a look at the most recent fuss, and it appears that Francis Schonken has been disruptive. Consider the complete history of the new article Organ sonatas, BWV 525–530. That was created by Mathsci on 3 September 2016, and the history shows him working to build the article. Then Francis Schonken moved the page to his preferred title with no discussion that I can see. We know that no one owns an article and bold editing is great, but hello? Everyone can see that these two editors need to be separated, yet FS thinks it would be helpful for him to fix a new article created by Mathsci by moving it, and then rub it in with a formal move discussion after his move was reverted. It is clear that if left alone, Mathsci would continue developing quality articles. We do not need to work out which editor threw the first stone, we just need the bickering to stop, and this incident shows that Francis Schonken's editing restriction should be expanded. Any suggestions? Johnuniq (talk) 10:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, it occurred to me that if we were to levy a fee on both of them - say 10 cents/100 words, 25 cents/image, 50 cents/sound clip - for future additions to this thread we might be able to make a decent charitable contribution when this is over, at least. -- Begoon 11:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not a fee; it's a donation. TimothyJosephWood 12:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC) Seek advice from your personal financial consultant for information on any legal, tax, or financial obligations or benefits regarding your donation. Valid only in select areas. Certain exceptions apply.

• (Non-administrator comment) Look at FS's "contributions" to Talk:Pontius Pilate's wife a few months back. Whatever may be the problem with Mathsci, being difficult to work with appears to be a recurring problem with FS. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Problems with the Greco-Italian war 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.

---

I wish to draw all editors to an on-going problem with this article.

The article uses pejorative language of the Italians and editors refuse to concede that as the Greeks were unable to defeat the Italians, they had to eventually surrender to them.

Both attempts to rectify these two issues have been prevented.

The Mask of Zoro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.174.4.11 (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe this is a sock of Annalesschool and is a nuisance edit.Keith-264 (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Not to mention, their spamming comments have been addressed on several occasions yet the same stuff is re-posted without any indication they are even attempting to make a rational discussion towards any constructive edits.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

This is blatant block-evasion. Quote sock: " I am afraid this article will know no peace. It may need to be locked indefinitely." This is standard master AnnalesSchool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): " But the battle for fairness and justice for the Italians will continue and will go on regardless.I can guarantee one thing though: there will be no rest for the likes of Dr K and Co.". Dr. K. 20:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• OP rangeblocked. I'm familiar with the idiosyncratic style of AnnalesSchool (see extensive communication in their talkpage history) and this IP and the one editing the article (90.174.4.80) are surely being used by them per WP:DUCK. I've blocked the 90.174.4.0/25 range for two weeks. Bishonen | talk 21:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC). P.S., please let me know if the block helps. If not, I'll semi the article. Bishonen | talk 21:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC).

Wow. This sock is relentless. Oshwah addressed some of their posts for me for the two consecutive day prior to this. -- Dane2007 ^talk 21:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

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

User refusing to accept the existence of WP:NOTVGUIDE.

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

---

For nearly two weeks a Rowde has been consistently adding schedules of TV broadcast in defiance of our WP:NOTVGUIDE policy. They were warned multiple times about this but simply choose to ignore and persist.

Initial additions:

• 28 August 2016, 20:49 (UTC) (While logged out)
• 29 August 2016, 11:50 (UTC) (While logged out)
• 29 August 2016, 12:34 (UTC)
• 29 August 2016, 16:13 (UTC)
• 29 August 2016, 16:46 (UTC)
• 29 August 2016, 16:53 (UTC)
• 29 August 2016, 17:09 (UTC)
• 29 August 2016, 17:29 (UTC)

First warning:

• 29 August 2016, 17:56 (UTC)

Ignoring warning while logged out:

• 5 September 2016, 17:02 (UTC)
• 5 September 2016, 17:03 (UTC)

Second warning:

• 6 September 2016, 18:47 (UTC)

Immediate logged out ignorance of new warning:

• 6 September 2016, 19:04 (UTC)

Third warning:

• 7 September, 10:42 (UTC)

More logged out ignorance of the warnings, this time using a PA edit summary:

• 7 September, 16:45 (UTC)

Then yesterday created two TV listings articles despite the previous warnings about the policy:

1. 8 September, 17:04 (UTC)
2. 8 September, 17:38 (UTC)

The article were nominated for deletion, a process the user disruptively tried to block:

• 8 September, 17:16 (UTC)

I feel that it very obvious now that the users simply refuses to obey the aforementioned policy. Administrator action seems warranted now. Note that the logged out edits were made from a handful of over a hundred IP's from the 92.21.240 range the user has used for over a year now. See here for a comprehensible list. In addition of the breach of the WP:NOT policy I feel the user is also abusing multiple "accounts" through constantly logging in and out. Tvx1 15:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• I just looked at the first two examples you gave. Why are you hassling someone for listing the events on a sporting circuit? Wikipedia regularly includes such information. I can pull up, for example, 2014 FIFA World Cup group stage and it lists each match. I see absolutely nothing wrong with these. My recommendation from assessing these examples you have gave is that you should leave whoever this is alone to do his work. Stop hassling him... --Jayron32 15:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The two examples you mention are additions to an article about television coverage of the sport. The listing of sporting events is on 2016 Formula One season, which covers the actual sport. Your example of FIFA is the equivalent of the Formula One season article. Rowde's contributions would be equivalent to a new article listing when and where one single country's television network was broadcasting FIFA World Cup group stage matches. The³5₉ (Talk) 16:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• My understanding of NOTTVGUIDE is that this is not a outright violation. It's meant to prevent simply duplication of a day-by-day TV schedule for a network or the like. For notable sporting events, the televised coverage of them seems to be commonly included in the various articles, and while I don't think the level of detail is needed as per these tables, it is not unreasonable to include these as a starting point. There is clearly edit warring going on but I don't think we can take action on the claim they are fighting against NOTTVGUIDE. --MASEM (t) 15:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Per the above, I don't think that it's a violation of WP:NOTTVGUIDE. On the other hand, I don't think those tables add much to the articles. Joseph2302 18:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Looking at this, it doesn't look like COI or promotion from a broadcaster; many of the edits refer to past events. More like fan obsession. It would be helpful if Rowde (talk · contribs) would reply here, or on their own talk page, or somewhere. Discussion helps. John Nagle (talk) 19:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Jayron32, none of the articles I extracted the diffs from is on the particular season of that particular motorsports class. They are articles on TV Shows. The tables the user tries to add are pure broadcasting schedules. They list when the relevant broadcasting rights holder will show which race on which channel/platform. That's exactly the sort of thing WP:NOTTVGUIDE prohibits. Nothing like your FIFA World Cup example. We have articles like 2016 Formula One season for that. I cannot understand why anyone would condone this user's behavior of readding these tables, while logging in and out, despite repeated request no to do so. Tvx1 22:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm more concerned with people harassing good-faith editors by picking random rules (which aren't all that relevant or important) and trying to "enforce" them like the police. Leave people alone and let them improve articles. You're not the article police, stop trying to make yourself feel superior by enforcing "rules" against good-faith editors, and stop dragging people here for silly little issues. --Jayron32 00:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Agreed with Jayron and Nagle; this is definitely not a violation of NOTTVGUIDE, which mainly concerns current day television listings or articles that are too minute in detail about their timeslots in the past. This is definitely not that; at worst the relevant policy is that sourcing might be needed to make sure that the F1 events did air on these listed networks (or just a general prose paragraph in each F1 season article about who aired F1 races in a selected year since we shouldn't be US-centric for a mainly European concerrn), but that's about it. I'm seeing good-faith and nothing for an admin to do here. Nate • (chatter) 03:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

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

It's really easy to have a lunge at a reporting editor if you cannot give them the basic courtesy of having a look at all the diffs that were provided. If you're getting enough of the near continuous filing of incident reports, stop being an administrator and just help improving articles as an editor. Meanwhile the reported editor kept being disruptive yesterday by firstly creating yet another list of U.S Formula One broadcasts despite the above listed two being nominated for deletion and not getting any support, and by secondly removing AFD templates one, two, three times. The user was already warned about doing that {{diff2|690010255|last november)) and december. That is clearly evidence that the user just doesn't care about our policies. So don't go accusing us of harassing a newcomer. This user has been active for about a year and back then we did use a welcoming approach back then. Unfortunately the user barely listened to our advice and has continued their own ways with a complete disregard for guidelines and policies, with the occasional Personal attack. I agree that we should let users improve articles when they actually do. The sad situation is that this user doesn't do that. The user mostly publishes poor quality articles leaving the improvement to be done by others (that is if the articles are worth retaining). Some of these are even outright copyright violations. However overtime we raise this at ANI no-one bothers to look or we get accused of harassing. It would be greatly appreciated if an administrator were actually prepared to take a thorough look into this situation instead of one venting their frustrations about ANI on a good-faith reporting user. Tvx1 16:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

66.235.36.153 on Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations

66.235.36.153 (talk · contribs) has been active on Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations for quite some time. Recently they have been making particular contentious edits. Last month they were warned twice for adding that the accusations were made without evidence with no source.[62][63] A similar edit was made without a source today[64], though after being reverted they did finally provide a source.[65] Over the past few days they have been in an edit war over whether to list Cosby's status as a civil rights leader in the lede of the assault allegations article.[66][67][68] The last three warnings on his talk page are from making incendiary comments about other editors and general talk page misuse. After my procedural revert of his last addition to the article in question, he posted this rant on my talk page, saying that other editors have ganged up on him and, after referencing Hitler and George Orwell, said I was piling on as well.LM2000 (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• A short block for edit warring seems appropriate here, at the very least. Their edit warring has been slow, but it's edit warring nonetheless. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
• Page semi protected. That's all that's needed here for the time being.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • • Hello Folks First, let us get something straight, when there has been a request to go to talk about a subject this good faith editor has done so. This was pointed out to LM2000 before they came here whining about being 'picked on', this good faith editor merely pointed out other editors at Cosby biography talk had deleted RS and deleted a reply to an editor who rambled on about the 'good' Hitler did and Cosby was like 'Hitler'...you can confirm this at Cosby bio talk. Pointing this out to LM2000 is not a 'rant' it is a fact, easily confirmed.

When it was requested this editor provided the proper RS for the painfully obvious fact that Cosby is noted for aspects of his civil rights activity it was provided. That was what, is, being referred to as 'slow edit warring' of which there is no such thing. This editor requested numerous times that the Cosby allegations article have some kind of protection as every time there was some juicy gossip in GAWKER or even the NATIONAL ENQUIRER some editors would rush in drooling to get it into the article...so it is rather hilarious to request article 'protection' when entering a fact of a Living Person is placed in the article with a proper RS, an RS cited in the biography of that person. There is the expressed concern in the Cosby allegation article that the Cosby legacy is being suppressed by means of the allegations, part of that legacy is notable civil right activity, activity some editors have deleted multiple times even in the talk section. With deep concern...Sincerely 66.235.36.153 (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)A Contributor

I'm afraid page protection may not be enough in this case. 66.235 denies slow edit warring exists and continues incendiary comments by saying that I was "whining" by coming here, a claim they doubled down on in their edit summary.[69] 66.235 has discussed the civil rights issues on the main Cosby article but not the allegations article, that's a separate dispute and is no justification for edit warring. 66.235 has done good work on both articles and brings a different perspective but has recently ignored policy and their talk page behavior has elevated tensions.LM2000 (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• • • Hello LM2000 Thank you for acknowledging this fellow good faith editor has done 'good work'...when the edit about the Cosby civil right legacy is restored with the proper RS that 'good work' will continue. What has 'mounted tensions' is pointing out that editors who compare Cosby to 'Hitler' and drone on about the 'good Hitler did' were deleting posted RS from the Cosby talk page to be perused by other good faith editors such as yourself. They would then rush over and threaten this editor with being 'blocked' if the editor then reposted the various RS at Cosby talk to be reviewed for the article....soooo get your story straight before joining editors who ramble on about the 'good' Hitler did and threaten fellow good faith editors with being blocked...this an archived site so all can be confirmed at the Cosby talk pages. Yes this editor considers it 'whining' when another editor does not return a conversation at the proper talk page and runs to get a fellow good faith editor disciplined for doing what editors are suppose to do...provide edits that improve the article with proper RS. With deep concern 66.235.36.153 (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC) A Contributor
      • • Hello LM2000 This is a sort of PS to you of the above...the only 'perspective' this editor has is to stick to wiki standards of neutrality. Pointing out that editors who compare Living Persons to 'Hitler', delete RS from the talk pages and threaten editors with being blocked is a very, very, very proper subject to comment on ...at the proper talk page. Sincerely66.235.36.153 (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC) A Contributor
      • Hello Folks Just to make things clear to any who may read this an editor who added, at the request of another editor, a proper RS about Cosby's civil rights activity is labeled 'slow edit warring'. The article is then put 'under semi-protection'. Keeping any IP editors from improving the Cosby allegations article, even temporarily. Yet editors who deleted RS from Cosby talk, deleted responses in Cosby talk and editors who edit from a bias that here is a 'mountain of evidence' that Cosby's civil rights activity should be censored from any wiki articles, Cosby should be treated like 'Hitler' and Hitler did some 'good'. Those 'Hitler' editors are suppose to be able to run the content of articles about a Living Person while IP editors are shut out. With deep concern 66.235.36.153 (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC) A Contributor

At the very least someone needs to instruct 66.235.36.153 to tone down the rhetoric here, on article and user talk pages, and anywhere on Wikipedia. Accusing editors in a content dispute of censorship and describing editors as "whining" and "drooling" interferes with reasonable discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• • • Hello Sundayclose What is better than your demands for teatime talk at wikipedia would be to confront editors who state that Cosby should be treated like Hitler and that Cosby civil rights legacy should be censored. Your time would be better spent demanding to know why RS sources were being deleted. Yes there were editors who were high fiving at every piece of gossip from TMZ, GAWKER and even the NATIONAL ENQUIRER that got into the article ...and yes they were drooling to get it in. Simply put better enforcement of wiki neutrality, instead of threatening to block fellow good faith editors...as you have done. With deep concern Sincerely 66.235.36.153 (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)A Contributor

I'm not talking about other editors or the content of any article. I'm talking about your inflammatory comments that you are even continuing in the post immediately above. The fact that you can't seem to restrain yourself in making such comments even after asked to stop is very revealing about your attitude about collaborative editing. Sundayclose (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• • • Hello Sundyclose What is really revealing is your sticking your head in the sand that an editor who likened Cosby to Hitler was seemingly given cover by another editor by deleting RS and talk of accountability for a bias in violation of wiki neutrality, all on a proper talk page...you seem to have joined the Cosby is Hitler crowd with your continued badgering this good faith editor with threats of being blocked and a schoolmarm scold. You have been asked before not to clutter up talk pages in this manner but you ignore that. Stop equating a lively literary reference or two as a snub...or being so thin skinned. With deep concern. Scincerely 66.235.36.153 (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC) A Contributor

Discussing with you is a pointless effort. You can't restrain yourself from false accusations that are very, very close to personal attacks. I never once compared anyone to Hitler. If you think I did provide the diffs. So my comments here are finished. Your comments speak for themselves to any admin or anyone reading them. Sundayclose (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• • • • Hello Sundayclose You are correct that discussing things with you is pointless, anyone can look at the Cosby talk page or this good faith editor's talk page and find out you did not discuss anything. All there is on those talk pages is your doing your schoolmarm scold of a fellow good faith editor and threatening to block a fellow editor. Perhaps it is just a coincidence that you showed up at the same time as the editor who deleted comments asking accountability for the Cosby is Hitler or the same editor who then deleted the RS provided to add the Cosby civil rights material to improve the article...deletion equals censorship. But there you are saying there was no censorship, even when it is obvious. You then make absolutely no contributions to improve the article just the same scolding tone you are using here. This entire exercise in accusations of 'slow edit warring smells' of trying to scold a good faith editor . Meanwhile the Cosby is Hitler editor has a freehand in the article in violation of wiki neutral policy. With deep concern. Sincerely66.235.36.153 (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC) A Contibutor
• Strongly support block of at least one year. IP's behavior is inexcusable at this point. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 12:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • • Hello Electricburst This good faith editors sees you are up to your old trick again. To any who may read this the editor called Electricburst has tried to censor through deleting the comment about their behavior concerning censoring RS at Cosby talk pages and deleting responses to an editor who stated Cosby should be treated like Hitler. This can be confirmed by checking this talk page's History. Here is what Electicburst deleted about their behavior of censorship through deleting... "Hello Electricburst Of course you support a ban of any kind...you are the editor who was deleting the proper RS at the Cosby talk page as anyone can confirm...you are also the editor who deleted the replies to the 'Cosby is Hitler editor' then rushed over and threatened this good faith editor with being blocked...with no good reason...again it can be confirmed with a simple check a this editors talk page. You seem to be the perfect wingman for the 'Hitler did good' 'Cosby is like Hitler' editor, one assumes you support those positions. In the meantime this editor is hoping to make some improvements in the article as has always been this good faith editor's intentions. With deep concerns. Sincerely A Contributor" With deep concerns. Sincerely66.235.36.153 (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC) A Contributor
• Support block a year seems excessive though. They've been watching Cosby articles for a long time, short-term page protection won't do anything in the long run. They continue to elevate tensions during discussions.LM2000 (talk) 08:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Folks To those reading this please be aware that the goal of LM2000, Electricburst and Sundayclose sole objective is to make this IP editor an issue while they collaborate with an editor who claims that Cosby should be treated like Hitler and that the Cosby legacy of civil rights should not be represented in any of the Cosby pages. That their goal is to block this editor can be confirmed by a simple check of this editor's talk page and Electricburst's behavior of deleting RS about Cosby's civil rights legacy at Cosby talk and deletion of comments by this editor on this page. Deletion equals censorship. There has been no effort on the part of these editors to go to any talk page to discuss the Cosby civil rights legacy, just threats to this editor to be blocked for having raised the civil rights issue with proper cited RS and proper discussion at the proper talk pages. This editor has asked for their contributions to this discussion as can be confirmed by this editors own talk page. The response to that request for a discussion to improve the Cosby articles is the pressure campaign displayed here on this talk page to 'block' this editor. Without an examination of the behavior of these editors this portion of the discussion is incomplete. This good faith editor who it has been acknowledged as doing good work on the articles is looking forward to making further improvements to the Cosby articles. With deep concern. 66.235.36.153 (talk) 16:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC) A Contributor

• • • Hello Fellow Good Faith Editors, Here is the title that has been and better expresses the concerns discussed in this section of talk.."66.235.36.153 on Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations and Concerns about other editors censoring RS sources on Cosby" ...this title continues to be deleted by Electricburst, this can be confirmed by this page's talk History...here is the edit reply of Electricburst for this deletion and their own behavior of deleting RS sources at the Cosby talk pages..."(Undid revision 738549847 by 66.235.36.153 (talk) It's not censorship, you little s**t!)"...deletion equals censorship...also this good faith editor is not by any means 'little' or associated in any other way with the vulgarisms that Electicburst has resorted to in petty name calling of a fellow good faith editor. Please again note that the concerns of this editor are about the improvement of the Cosby articles with acknowledged RS about his civil rights legacy. With deep concerns. 66.235.36.153 (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC) A Contributor

Can this IP be blocked now? They are clearly WP:NOTHERE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• • • Hello fellow Good Faith Editors Here is the part of wikipedia policy this good faith editor is asking to be applied on an even basis of the editors who have done nothing but threaten to 'block' an editor for adding to the article information they disagreed with and thus deleted the RS and other comments on the talk pages..."Being "here to build an encyclopedia" is about a user's overall purpose and behavior in editing Wikipedia. In considering whether or not a user is here to build an encyclopedia, the user's overall pattern of editing and behavior, as well as the clarity of past warnings or guidance and their attempts at improvement, should be reviewed as a whole." This editor is here to build better article in Wikipedia. Sincerely66.235.36.153 (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC) A Contributor

Possible breach of WP:NPOV,WP:V,WP:CON by user. Dispute - Geographical naming/decription in the article lead and geographical section

There have been an ongoin dispute in the article of Eritrea regarding which naming/region should be included in the lead sentence and in the geogarphical section of the article. It used to include "East Africa" before user user:soupforone changed it to only include "Horn of Africa" the 25:th of June 2016 [70]. This sparked of a dispute in the talk page [71] where I suggested to restore usage of "East Africa" or "Eastern Africa" since Eritrea is considered to be part of "East Africa/Eastern Africa" by Africa Union, UN and literature. I even suggested to include both "Horn of Africa" and "East Africa" in the lead and the geographical section of the article as an compromize which an admin also suggested. When this was rejected by the user:soupforone. I searched for outside opinions to get their views as an first step to get some outside input to the dispute, [72], [73]. When this failed I started a case in the dipsute resolution notice board [74], in the request I specifically asked for "Comments and opinions on what term should be used and opinions why both can't be mentioned" (referring to East Africa/Eastern Africa and Horn of Africa). After long discussion it resulted in a Rfc in the talk page of the article [75] dated to 15:th of august 2016. During the Rfc several helpful users (including user:DonFB, user:Iloilo Wanderer, user:SMcCandlish etc.) enagaged to try resolve this issue. At some stage a majority of five users favoured to include "eastern Africa" as a compass direction alongside Horn of Africa, which read "Eritrea is a east African country located in Horn of Africa", resulting in me basically implementing the suggestion based on the suggestions by involved parties in the Rfc. However these changes where reverted [76] by user:AcidSnow, which may be considered as a breach to WP:CON by possible interference of the consensus process. AcidSnow has for most part not enagaged in the dispute that has lasted for weeks other than simply agreeing with the standpoint of soupforone, which the case in the dispute resolution board and the talk page of the Eritrea article shows. However, the dispute later continued in the Rfc section in the talk page of the article, resulting in both parties providing their cases yet again.

User soupforne has rejected to accept and aknowledge the fact Eritrea is part of the "Eastern Africa" region, and is only willing to accept a suggestion that compromize only of "Horn of Africa." (and possibly also willing to include northeastern Africa). The user deos not rely on sources but rather opinions. The main argument by this user is that the usage of "Eastern Africa" could lead to confusion with "East African Protectorate" or "German East Africa".

My arguments and what other's has explained 1) Eritrea is considered as being part of "Eastern Africa" region by UN (United Nations geoscheme), [77] (M49 coding classification), [78], [79] and by African Union [80] etc. Those two organizations are central to this issue but Eritrea is regarded as an "East African" nation by other organization such as African development bank [81],[82] and Ethnologoue [83] to mention a few.

2)Eritrea is in literature [84] referred as being a country located in "Eastern Africa" even a simple google (books) search shows this. The country is associated with the term "Eastern Africa" in contemporary nomenclature, as seen in the AU eastern region, a UN designation, and the country's membership in different organization.

3) Eritrea was part of Italian East Africa in contrast to East African Protectorate (Kenya) and German East Africa (Tanzania,Rwanda,Burundi). So therefore the country has an history as being labeled as a East African country. Making user:soupforone's theory that "East Africa" is only entitled to countries that was included in East African Protectorate or German East Africa not legitime. To prevent confusion we even suggested to change usage of "East Africa" to "Eastern Africa/eastern Africa". We also suggested to linking "Eastern Africa/eastern Africa" to the wikipedia article East Africa which explains Eastern Africa thoroughly (e.g EA protectorate, African great lake region, Horn of Africa) yet to avoid confusion and to assist the reader with information on East Africa/Eastern Africa.

4) Usage of "Northeast Africa" cannot be used as an compass direction or a region desciption that Eritrea is part of. -since "Northeastern Africa" is sometimes confusingly referred to as "Horn of Africa". Making it redundant. -since "Northeast Africa" is not a recognized region like "Eastern Africa" as mentioned above -since the term "Northeast Africa" is difuse and vague -since this area sometimes includes North African/Middle Eastern country as Egypt, placing Eritrea in a different region than East Africa. or as user:Iloilo Wanderer desricbed it "Northeast Africa" seems to lump Eritrea in with Egypt, putting it in the Middle East, which it is not in (though it is part of the periphery).

5) Most Africa countries use a single cardinal direction on wikipedia. Intercardinals directions (e.g "Northeast Africa") to describe a country's geographical location are not common. For example, Senegal, Cabo Verd, Mali, Gambia are all locatated at the same lattitude as Eritrea or higher and all are located in Western Africa in their respective articles, pointing at the region they are a part of. This information is sufficent enough for the user to get an understanding of where a country is located. There is also a map in the article that compliments the lead sentence.

6) At least five users in the Rfc agreed to add more than one naming in the lead, besides Horn of Africa. Simply because it is helpful for the readers of Wikipedia.

For the reasons pointed out above I think the usage of "Eastern Africa" is legitime as a country location description, as a compass direction, and as a cultural decription for the article.

Since the dispute has come to a standstill I would like admins to: 1) Provide opinions on this matter. Suggestions that has been povided so far that does include Eastern Africa/eastern Africa: "Eritrea is a country in Horn of Africa, a region in Eastern Africa" "Eritrea is a country located in eastern Africa" (leaving out HOA) "Eritrea is a eastern African country located in Horn of Africa" "Eritrea is a country in the Horn of Africa region of northern East Africa" (Maurutania example) or assist in providing new suggestions.

2) Consider if the behaviour of user:soupforone does breach wiki edit policy of WP:NPOV, WP:V and the act of good faith. In the Rfc a user pointed out this user's behaviour to be "careless at best and deceptive at worst." with regards to distorting what other's user has stated in the Rfc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard0048 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - The RFC hasn't been closed yet, and the posting party hasn't alleged disruptive behavior with respect to the RFC. Is there any reason why this dispute, which is correctly labeled as a content dispute, needs to be considered at this conduct forum? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Sorry I re-labled it now. I am basically the posting party, I started a case on dispute resolution notice board that basically lead to the Rfc. The dispute is in a standstill since some users are refusing to compromize &/or possibly are interfering with consensus process. Therefore I would suggest that admins do take actions in order to try to assist in this issue. Or are you suggesting to redirect me to another board? Richard0048 (talk) 02:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Basically, Richard0048 changed the geographical location of Eritrea from Horn of Africa to East Africa without any apparent justification [85]. While tidying up some unlicensed files, I rolled to the original toponym. He subsequently objected for the reasons above. After some fruitless discussion on the talk page, I contacted the administrator SilkTork to facilitate dialogue. SilkTork then suggested noting the three primary locations for Eritrea (Horn of Africa, Northeast Africa and Eastern Africa) [86]. However, Richard0048 objected to all geographical phrasings that gave equal weight to Northeast Africa. I pointed out that the Eritrean Ministry of Information indicates that Eritrea is situated in the Horn [87]. It also draws a geographical distinction between the latter region and East Africa [88], but apparently not with North East Africa [89], and it doesn't appear to use these toponyms interchangeably. Chipmunkdavis then explained that both Northeast Africa and Eastern Africa were unnecessary regional qualifiers since it is already geographically implicit that the Horn of Africa is located within these areas. Otakrem, AcidSnow and myself agreed with this reasoning; especially since the country policy stipulates that the lede should indicate the "location in the world" in the singular rather locations in the plural.

However, this rough consensus was apparently not satisfactory for Richard0048, so he posted on DRN [90]. After some fruitless discussion there, Richard0048 objected to the presence of the volunteer moderator Iazyges, whom he suggested was not being impartial since he too wound up favoring Horn of Africa only in the lede sentence. Consequently, the DRN discussion was eventually closed and the other moderator PlatypusofDoom instructed that the matter should be resolved through an RFC question on the Eritrea talk page, which I then initiated [91]. Support for Richard0048's preferred "East Africa" was a bit stronger in the RFC discussion, but still no consensus supported his change. For some reason, though, Richard0048 concluded that it did, so he then proceeded to alter the lede sentence to point to "East Africa" [92]. I reverted his change, explaining that the RFC question was still ongoing per RFC:END [93]. Unfortunately, this caveat apparently did not get through either. Richard0048 reinserted the non-consensus link shortly afterwards [94], only to be promptly reverted by Chipmunkdavis, who explained that "the RfC has not concluded" [95]. This second warning fell on deaf ears too, as Richard0048 simply reverted again [96]. AcidSnow then reverted him a third time, with a similar explanation that "the RFC hasn't ended" [97]. But this too was seemingly not enough, for Richard0048 reinserted the non-consensus link [98], forcing me to remind him that the RFC question was still ongoing per RFC:END [99]. While all of this was happening, Richard0048 also vowed on the talk page to open a mediation dispute over the geographical naming issue. I explained to him that doing so would be pointless since mediation is a voluntary mechanism per WP:RFM/COMMON, and it is a final stage in Wikipedia's content-dispute resolution process after an RFC question and a Third Opinion. Richard0048 ignored this warning as well and went ahead and sought mediation [100]. The mediation post was quickly dismissed on the grounds that it "fail[ed] to satisfy prerequisite to mediation #8, "No related dispute resolution proceedings are active in other Wikipedia forums"", and that "an unclosed and unexpired RFC [was] pending on this issue and RFC's are a form of dispute resolution proceeding." Despite all of this, Richard0048 has continued to insist that the RFC has ended, and protests that I have unjustly impeded a supposed consensus in favor of his preferred East Africa locale. The fact that the RFC is indeed still ongoing has apparently not quite sunken in yet, though, even after SMcCandlish told him this outright-- "This is getting very tiresome Richard. Please see WP:BLUDGEON. Simply asserting that everyone agrees with you to include "eastern" does not make it true. Not only does it not convince anyone, it is liable to turn them off from the idea, since it looks suspiciously like pushing some kind of political agenda. Please stop." [101]

I tried to extend an olive branch to Richard0048 by reassuring him that I, he and all the other parties would be bound by policy to respect the outcome of the RFC question, whatever that may happen to be. Unfortunately, this too doesn't seem to have been of much comfort since the long post above was evidently intended as a last ditch effort to sway consensus in favor of Richard0048's preferred "East Africa" geographical locale. One of the many ironies in that post is that he apparently continues to be believe, despite the plainly-worded admonishment above, that SMcCandlish is in favor of his "East Africa" link. The allusion to some supposedly "careless" statements on my part was taken out-of-context; it pertains to some paraphrasing I had made on the talk page vis-a-vis SMcCandlish's and Bermicourt's positions on the geographical location. I already laid to rest this confusion with direct quotes of their actual statements [102]. So as to remove any further ambiguity, SMcCandlish himself has also just clarified on the talk page that-- "I prefer the following (besides including HoA, which seems to be a cnosensus), in descending order, if we include a compass direction in the lead sentence at all, which strikes me as unnecessary, and the source of most dispute: northeastern, eastern, northeast, east, Northeastern, Eastern, North, East. Both the capitalisation and the truncation independently suggest that the term is a proper noun or term of art, yet in this particular usage it is neither, just a compass point. I consider that confusion potential more important than the more-specific vs. less-specific issue of north[eastern] versus east[ern], and prefer the former both because it is more specific and because it is less likely still to be confused with some specialized conception of what "[E|e]st[ern] Africa" means." [103] Thus, the claims that the RFC question has ended and that consensus is in favor of Richard0048's preferred "East Africa" locale are spurious. Soupforone (talk) 04:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

How about "Eritrea is a Northeastern African country in the Horn of Africa region"? It captures all three: "Northeast", "Eastern", and "Horn of Africa"?Otakrem (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Although I would support such a comprise at this time, this is not what we are here to discuses. AcidSnow (talk) 05:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

My actions were not a breach of consensus, so its not a surprise that you have presented no supporting diffs or anything else relevant for such a claim. The only user that has broken consensus throughout this issue is Richard0048 which can clearly be seen on the articles revision history (see here: [104]). Despite you their (see here: [105]), I have no affiliation with Soupforone. We're even currently engaging in our own dispute on my talk page, so I suggest that they drop this baseless accusation. In addition, Richard0048 has been continually forum shopping to receive support despite being repeatedly told not to: Admin C.Fred, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, threatening to call for more admins (see here, here, here, here, ect, there are more but these diffs are enough), and and now here. This is clearly evident in his decision to present his various arguments rather than solely focusing on his accusation of policy breaches: "My arguments and what other's has explained 1) {...}2) {...}3) {...}4) {...}5) {...}6)". I suggest that Richard0048 familiarize himself with WP:BOOMERANG. AcidSnow (talk) 05:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Oktarem it has been already described why "northeastern" is not prefered, see above. AcidSnow the dispute has been ongoing for months , therefore I have followed every step in the wiki dispute resolution, this cannot be called "shopping". I prefered opinions that where neutral which the talk page of the article or the DRNB did not provide. I have been close to ask for interference by admins at various stage during the dispute since I did not think the behaviour of you two was acceptable and that it might been a breach to the wiki edit policy's mentioned above. AcidSnow I did keep it only to this dispute, however there are other article where you might have breached to the policy of neutrality etc. as in the East Africa article where you have resorted to reverting and adding content without relying on sources. Which is a problem in the Eritrea article aswell where you support Soupforone who do not use sources. Richard0048 (talk) 12:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem and AcidSnow, that "Eritrea is a northeastern African country in the Horn of Africa" is actually a geographical phrasing that SMcCandlish suggested. It could indeed work as a secondary alternative to the "Horn of Africa" only locale in the lede sentence. Soupforone (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, you were informed by multiple users (see: here, here, and here) and an administrator (see here: [106]) that your actions were forum shopping and were instructed not to continue such behavior. Nor have you kept this discussion simply to your accusation of policy breaches as I have clearly shown above. Anyways, I did provided a source supporting my edits in regards to East Africa (see here: [107]). Soupforone has continusally done the same on Eritrea (see here as an example: [108]). Plus, "northeastern" is supported by multple user, so I am not sure why your claiming it's not (see here: [109]). I once again suggest that you drop these baseless accusations since they will only come back to bit you per WP:BOOMERANG. AcidSnow (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, I believe the reason he began objecting was that I originally proposed the neutral ground of both east africa and horn of africa with him, however after reading the above mentioned WP:'s, I switched to supporting horn of africa, and attempted to explain to richard why it would be better to no effect. Iazyges (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Lazyges, you were not involved in the Rfc, you was a volounteer in the DRNB. The dispute did continue a month after the DRNB. However during the Rfc there has been atleast five or more users that has been supporting a second naming in the lead, not only the cultural term/naming "Horn of Africa". Most favouring the most common description for the country which is "Eastern Africa"! The dispute has been ongoing for two month and I still don't know what sources they rely on and are referring to?!?? Therefore the breach of the mentioned wiki edit policy's. Richard0048 (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Range block for IP addresses possibly used by blocked 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.

---

2A02:C7D:75D7:9300:8E64:22FF:FE39:6B8A (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was blocked as sock puppet of Callump90 (talk · contribs) after this SPI case. This specific IP address remains blocked, but the associated range, 2A02:C7D:75D7:9300::/64, seems to be outputting a lot of vandalism. I don't really know much about Callump90, but these edits are definitely disruptive no matter who it is.

Some of it is centered on date vandalism to articles about the BBC ([110], [111]). Other edits change the BBC to a publicly traded corporation ([112]). The edits that drew my attention were changes to other corporations to make them publicly traded, including Lego ([113], [114]), Amblin ([115], [116], [117]), Blumhouse ([118]), Imagine Entertainment ([119], [120]), and others. I'm not really sure if this is worth mentioning, but this talk page post is a bizarre rant that looks like a BLP violation. It says a celebrity who was found not guilty of a crime is guilty. If it helps get this range blocked, though, I'll throw it into the mix. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked the range for one year. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Possible bot?

220.255.100.134's contributions and associated edit summaries on WP:UFAA [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], and [127] have me curious if this user is possibly improperly running a bot script. I left a note on the user's talk page with links and also spoke with admin Bishonen, who recommended I post up here to get a better opinion. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 00:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

His edits are irregular and his summaries inconsistent, so I don't think it's a bot. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Someguy1221. Sometimes use of – tells me they are probably writing it in some other program, making a list, then copy/paste once they have several. Essentially at the end of a session. Looking only at the diffs provided, looks like they have a good track record with reporting as well. No issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

User refusing to accept the existence of WP:NOTVGUIDE.

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

---

For nearly two weeks a Rowde has been consistently adding schedules of TV broadcast in defiance of our WP:NOTVGUIDE policy. They were warned multiple times about this but simply choose to ignore and persist.

Initial additions:

• 28 August 2016, 20:49 (UTC) (While logged out)
• 29 August 2016, 11:50 (UTC) (While logged out)
• 29 August 2016, 12:34 (UTC)
• 29 August 2016, 16:13 (UTC)
• 29 August 2016, 16:46 (UTC)
• 29 August 2016, 16:53 (UTC)
• 29 August 2016, 17:09 (UTC)
• 29 August 2016, 17:29 (UTC)

First warning:

• 29 August 2016, 17:56 (UTC)

Ignoring warning while logged out:

• 5 September 2016, 17:02 (UTC)
• 5 September 2016, 17:03 (UTC)

Second warning:

• 6 September 2016, 18:47 (UTC)

Immediate logged out ignorance of new warning:

• 6 September 2016, 19:04 (UTC)

Third warning:

• 7 September, 10:42 (UTC)

More logged out ignorance of the warnings, this time using a PA edit summary:

• 7 September, 16:45 (UTC)

Then yesterday created two TV listings articles despite the previous warnings about the policy:

1. 8 September, 17:04 (UTC)
2. 8 September, 17:38 (UTC)

The article were nominated for deletion, a process the user disruptively tried to block:

• 8 September, 17:16 (UTC)

I feel that it very obvious now that the users simply refuses to obey the aforementioned policy. Administrator action seems warranted now. Note that the logged out edits were made from a handful of over a hundred IP's from the 92.21.240 range the user has used for over a year now. See here for a comprehensible list. In addition of the breach of the WP:NOT policy I feel the user is also abusing multiple "accounts" through constantly logging in and out. Tvx1 15:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• I just looked at the first two examples you gave. Why are you hassling someone for listing the events on a sporting circuit? Wikipedia regularly includes such information. I can pull up, for example, 2014 FIFA World Cup group stage and it lists each match. I see absolutely nothing wrong with these. My recommendation from assessing these examples you have gave is that you should leave whoever this is alone to do his work. Stop hassling him... --Jayron32 15:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The two examples you mention are additions to an article about television coverage of the sport. The listing of sporting events is on 2016 Formula One season, which covers the actual sport. Your example of FIFA is the equivalent of the Formula One season article. Rowde's contributions would be equivalent to a new article listing when and where one single country's television network was broadcasting FIFA World Cup group stage matches. The³5₉ (Talk) 16:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• My understanding of NOTTVGUIDE is that this is not a outright violation. It's meant to prevent simply duplication of a day-by-day TV schedule for a network or the like. For notable sporting events, the televised coverage of them seems to be commonly included in the various articles, and while I don't think the level of detail is needed as per these tables, it is not unreasonable to include these as a starting point. There is clearly edit warring going on but I don't think we can take action on the claim they are fighting against NOTTVGUIDE. --MASEM (t) 15:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Per the above, I don't think that it's a violation of WP:NOTTVGUIDE. On the other hand, I don't think those tables add much to the articles. Joseph2302 18:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Looking at this, it doesn't look like COI or promotion from a broadcaster; many of the edits refer to past events. More like fan obsession. It would be helpful if Rowde (talk · contribs) would reply here, or on their own talk page, or somewhere. Discussion helps. John Nagle (talk) 19:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Jayron32, none of the articles I extracted the diffs from is on the particular season of that particular motorsports class. They are articles on TV Shows. The tables the user tries to add are pure broadcasting schedules. They list when the relevant broadcasting rights holder will show which race on which channel/platform. That's exactly the sort of thing WP:NOTTVGUIDE prohibits. Nothing like your FIFA World Cup example. We have articles like 2016 Formula One season for that. I cannot understand why anyone would condone this user's behavior of readding these tables, while logging in and out, despite repeated request no to do so. Tvx1 22:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm more concerned with people harassing good-faith editors by picking random rules (which aren't all that relevant or important) and trying to "enforce" them like the police. Leave people alone and let them improve articles. You're not the article police, stop trying to make yourself feel superior by enforcing "rules" against good-faith editors, and stop dragging people here for silly little issues. --Jayron32 00:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Agreed with Jayron and Nagle; this is definitely not a violation of NOTTVGUIDE, which mainly concerns current day television listings or articles that are too minute in detail about their timeslots in the past. This is definitely not that; at worst the relevant policy is that sourcing might be needed to make sure that the F1 events did air on these listed networks (or just a general prose paragraph in each F1 season article about who aired F1 races in a selected year since we shouldn't be US-centric for a mainly European concerrn), but that's about it. I'm seeing good-faith and nothing for an admin to do here. Nate • (chatter) 03:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

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

It's really easy to have a lunge at a reporting editor if you cannot give them the basic courtesy of having a look at all the diffs that were provided. If you're getting enough of the near continuous filing of incident reports, stop being an administrator and just help improving articles as an editor. Meanwhile the reported editor kept being disruptive yesterday by firstly creating yet another list of U.S Formula One broadcasts despite the above listed two being nominated for deletion and not getting any support, and by secondly removing AFD templates one, two, three times. The user was already warned about doing that last november and december. That is clearly evidence that the user just doesn't care about our policies. So don't go accusing us of harassing a newcomer. This user has been active for about a year and back then we did use a welcoming approach back then. Unfortunately the user barely listened to our advice and has continued their own ways with a complete disregard for guidelines and policies, with the occasional Personal attack. I agree that we should let users improve articles when they actually do. The sad situation is that this user doesn't do that. The user mostly publishes poor quality articles leaving the improvement to be done by others (that is if the articles are worth retaining). Some of these are even outright copyright violations. However overtime we raise this at ANI no-one bothers to look or we get accused of harassing. It would be greatly appreciated if an administrator were actually prepared to take a thorough look into this situation instead of one venting their frustrations about ANI on a good-faith reporting user. Tvx1 16:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

And don't go claiming the user's behavior is all fine. Blocking was needed before. Tvx1 11:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing disruption on List of natural horror films and its talk page

I've brought this up on the noticeboard previously, but it seems the problem has gotten a tad worse. There has been some edit warring going on over at this list article, but up until now, it appeared that that the IP user that I am in disagreement with was acting in good faith. This was made evident to me when I attempted to have the page semi-protected a few days ago. But, seeing as I've been called a "fuck face" and that my attempts at discussion on the article's talk page were blanked twice, I'd like to request some sort of administrative action, or at least a direction for going forward. –Matthew - (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

The IP has twice attempted to remove a talk page post by MatthewHoobin, which to my mind is more serious than the (30-hour-old as of the opening of this thread) use of the expletive "fuck face". In the talk page post in question, Matthew appeared to be calling the IP a "welp" (misspelling of "whelp"?). Clearly, both parties are frustrated with each other, and iIt seems both have behaved in an uncivil manner, but as far as I can tell disputes like this are unavoidable with unverifiable OR-magnets like the article in question; whoever has been aggravating the situation by making the article worse is the one who should be taken as being at fault, as far as I am concerned. As far as I am concerned, no item should be included in a list like that unless an external source has described it as "natural horror", and adding citations to the article that don't use this phrase or the equivalent "nature horror" ("eco-horror" and "green horror" as defined here are not the same thing -- our article's definition of "natural horror" is much broader and has nothing to do with "man tamper[ing] with nature—or worse, ruin[ing] nature") is the worst thing you can do with such a page. MattheHoobin has done this at least twice, but I can't find the IP doing so. If I am missing some instance of the IP inserting OR or misrepresenting sources, I apologize, but this looks to me like a content dispute that Matthew would be likely to lose if it were taken to the community in the form of an RFC, so it is being spun as a one-sided user conduct issue. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC) (Edited 07:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC))

Randomly jumping in here: MatthewHoobin did not use the term "welp" as an attack. It's a common slang pronunciation of "well," at least in the US. Matthew is free to correct me, but I'd bet money that this was not meant to be an insult. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 07:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Shit, really!? Okay, I didn't know that (looked it up on freedictionary.com, which assumed it was an acronym for something), so striking that part. That said, it takes two to edit war, so my view that no one's hands are clean on the user conduct issue stands, and the fact that the IP appears to have been right on the substance when reverting several of Matthew's edits is concerning. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

85.74.31.101

Saying rude stuff about admins. Also made violence threat on my talk page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomPerson81 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Who, what when and where? We need some 411 please. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

No contributions from 85.75.31.10 (talk · contribs) but recent activity from 85.74.31.101 (talk · contribs) including on your talk page.-- Dane2007 ^talk 04:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I show that this IP has been blocked for 31 hours by Widr, so I think this can be considered handled. I do see they are editing their talk page to make further commentary, might be worthwhile to revoke talk page access as well. -- Dane2007 ^talk 04:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

This in particular is not acceptable and if there is even a hint of that kind of editing in the future I would support a very long term enforced vacation from the project for this IP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I added RandomPerson81's talk page to my Watchlist so I can look out for it since i'm pretty active on here. If the IP Vandal returns under a new IP address, might need some semi-protection for those pages until the activity subsides. -- Dane2007 ^talk 04:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I am also somewhat confused by this. It's past my bed time... sigh. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Just a typo I think, I got a similar post. -- Dane2007 ^talk 04:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

After following up with comments like this, I'm not sure 31 hours is enough. I know that IPs can't be indeffed, but can an IP user have his/her talk page access revoked? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 22:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I think we should block his /1 for being rude to admins. We're not putting up with that, except on days with a Y in the name. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Well so much for their magical IP change...they just restored their talk page. I think a longer block and a talk page revocation are in order. -- Dane2007 ^talk 01:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Missed me boys? Anyways... I hold no gruge against you anymore. Although you are extremely biased and 75% of the wikipedia community has pointed that out many times yet you do nothing, but that's not the point... My feelings about you were expressed days ago on 85.74.31.101... Sorry Dane2007 ^talk that it took a bit for my magic IP change, I hope I did not let you down! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.82.89 (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Time for a range block? -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done. --Jayron32 23:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? I don't see a block in place for either IP (unless it expired, of course). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 22:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Should I be blocked?

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 being warned about a possible block for sending obsoleted/orphaned files uploaded by Giano to community discussion. I'd really be interested in an outside opinion - especially since given this ruling by ArbCom, Giano is apparently nonetheless now free to engage in this kind of conversation. Opinions welcome. Kelly ^hi! 17:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• User not notified this discussion takes place. _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

  I'm asking for comment on my conduct. Kelly ^hi! 17:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, you should be blocked. There are currently 20 templates on my talk page all left by you in the space of a few hours. Almost all for perfectly legitimate images which I have uploaded expressly for articles which I have written. Almost all these image have the 'keep local' template. I have better things to do with my time here than run around after mindless trouble makers who know perfectly well what keep local means. You have even tried swapping images in content space, to insert erroneous images [128][129], just so you can say an image is unused. You are blatantly dishonest and a trouble maker. So the sooner you are blocked the better. Giano (talk) 17:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
• I was going to make a Boomerang joke based on a bogus report, but, clearly you are actually concerned about your conduct. I'll take a look and post thoughts in a min. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Giano, I'm going to start off by warning you for WP:NPA for this insult against another editor. Regardless of any personal animosity you may be feeling, calling another editor dumber than a "gnat" is inexcusable. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: Get lost! Giano (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Warned with template. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

You do realize telling someone to "Get lost" is the same as telling them to Go Away right ? .... Whilst it perhaps isn't polite to tell someone to get lost it's not really something to template someone over is it?..... –Davey2010^Talk 17:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

It was directed at the initial comment, not the get lost (which was seriously uncivil the way it's written). Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict), Ah my apologies, I thought you were warning them for the comment above, –Davey2010^Talk 17:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Since I'm looking at it Kelly that arbcom ruling has not been in effect for over 7 years since it was only meant to last for a single year between 2008 and 2009. Subcomment (edit conflict); for that matter, since Kelly appears to have desisted from FfD (Files for Discussion) with regards to Giano's work, there shouldn't be any block issued. Giano, you do realize you can delete those templates right? or just deal with it image by image and then remove the template. The key thing here is for Kelly to stop FfDing Giano's work and give Giano a chance to deal with all of the work currently on their talk page. Jehochman mentions other editors but no specifics, probably avoid touching the works of those people for the time being as well. I see no reason to block, I see no reason for Giano's PA's and I see no reason for Jehochman's aggressive approach. Jehochman could have had that discussion far more calmly. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. But I'm guessing that doesn't mean Giano is no longer required to be civil to fellow editors. Kelly ^hi! 17:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Plastering people's talk pages with dozens of ridiculous templates is also far from civil. You went looking for trouble. Congratulations; you have found it. Giano (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Course, Callmemirela has warned for the inappropriate comment directed to you. I've expanded my comment above, key thing for you is to desist from Giano's work for the time being and let them have a chance to deal with their current workload. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh I have no intention of "dealing with it." I have restored all the images to their rightful places in articles, and now they are no longer obsolete. Wasn't that a easy solution, no trouble, no problem? Giano (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Some of those images are in GIF format, which is in contradiction to WP:IUP#FORMAT, but that in itself isn't a huge thing. Kelly ^hi!

Will all of you leave Giano alone? This is a perfect example of badgering an editor with templates and warnings and then templating him for being irritated about all of the templates and warnings. Cripes. Acroterion (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• My AGF has already been exhausted, badgering an editor who wasn't even the topic of discussion, are you kidding me? Mr rnddude (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
• Besides the fact that it is customary to leave a notice, through a template, on the uploader's talk page when making a FFD nomination (or any XFD nomination actually). Would you rather Kelly not do that? --Majora (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I would rather Kelly looked at what she was templating. Photographs of people who died 130 years ago.............C'mon if she is so ignorant of copyright laws, then she should not be permitted to do this work. Giano (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• It's customary to notify the uploading editor, but if Giano prefers not to be notified I'd be happy to abide by that. Kelly ^hi! 18:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Just look at what you are doing, and stop trying to win a prize for the most images for deletion you can nominate. Giano (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Reminder: Giano and civility

Linked above, but Giano has been hit by ArbCom itself about incivility.[130] Here's the block log.[131] I've learned over the years that Giano can do what he wants, but it's not exactly fair to hold his opponents in disputes to standards that he doesn't have to live up to. Kelly ^hi! 18:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh do be quiet. what are you trying to be - the project historian as well as the winner of the competition to delete the most images? Giano (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Giano is not a child, nor are you. The problem isn't the FfD templates (which should be used when sending to FfD), however it would have been more appropriate to have a discussion before sending of 20 files. We aren't talking about one or two images, after all. As for this, I don't see a personal attack, just a very blunt statement. We aren't here to build the perfect society, we're here to build an encyclopedia, it will get a little rough and tumble at times. It is expected that if you are experienced enough to dabble in meta things like deletions, then you can deal with minor hostility once in awhile. The Arb case is irrelevant here, btw. The language is undesirable, but it was a singular, mild outburst. Finally, for you to nominate so many of his files in such a short period of time looks odd, like you were baiting him. It would be easy to think you were trying to push his buttons, and frankly, had you done that to me, I don't know that I would have been as reserved as Giano was. So to answer your question: Should you be blocked? I can only say: Maybe. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

  You'll notice I ignored the personal attacks until an administrator showed up on my talk page threatening me with a block. Kelly ^hi! 18:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

  I have a lot of sympathy for Giano here, especially with tagging like this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

So, you have "learnt over the years" have you? I wan't aware we had had much interaction. How much better your memory must be than mine. Giano (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• That's good, and they weren't personal attacks as defined by WP:NPA. Continuing to ignore them is probably best since they aren't actionable. Perhaps what you might instead focus on is empathy: Understanding that if you nominate a wheel barrel load of images from someone without discussing it with them first, they might get upset, and they might assume you have a vendetta or nefarious goals. Really, Giano has pissed me off before (and the inverse is probably true) so no one is calling them a saint. The issue at hand is your behavior, which WAS subpar here. Forget it was Giano, and simply walk a mile in the shoes of ANY editor who wakes up to a wall of deletion templates that they must defend. Particularly when it appears you made a number of technical errors in your tagging. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

  Thanks - not to be pedantic, but could you be more specific about the technical errors? Kelly ^hi! 19:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

  Since when do we need permission from the author for works asserted to be in the public domain? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh on one file, she even wants my great grandfather to rise up from his dusty mausoleum and speak personally to her and grant permission. She is quite mad. Giano (talk) 19:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• (ec)For PD works, you don't need permission but you do need proof, per WP:IUP#Copyright and licensing. Kelly ^hi! 19:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

  So, an error in your tagging. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

  Possibly, I do make mistakes. Which file are you referring to? Kelly ^hi! 19:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

  As in my first post. [132] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

  @NeilN: No error. There's no information on that file regarding authorship or date of first publication. Kelly ^hi! 19:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

  If you think that tag is appropriate then I have even more sympathy for Giano. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

  Nonetheless, WP:C is one of the few bright-line legal policies laid down by the Wikimedia Fondatation. See WP:COPYOTHERS. Kelly ^hi! 20:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

  Your tag was incorrect. Plain and simple. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

  Conceded. We don't have a specific tag for "no proof" so we use "no permission" instead. Probably an opportunity for improvement there. Kelly ^hi! 20:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Did you really think a photo from 1860 might be under copyright? And you haven't answered this: why did you nominate so many files of Giano's? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

While it might not be under copyright, it could be under Publication right, which is why we need to know when and where it was first published. As to now I came across Giano's work, I spend most of my time on Wikipedia researching and sorting photos of heritage sites and architecture in England, copying them to Commons, and sorting them. Kelly ^hi! 19:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Well I suggest you stop copying things to Commons and leave them where they are. Try doing something useful for a change and stop harassing people and trolling for trouble. Giano (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:5P3. Kelly ^hi! 19:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Giano You're not aiding your case mate; take a step back- some of your remarks are approaching the WP: CIVIL boundary. On the other hand, although not an admin here, Kelly's actions do not reflect well on their understanding of procedures in this place. _Muffled ^Pocketed 19:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Forbidding people from copying things that have been released via Creative Commons/public domain is not going to happen. You can {{keep local}} all you want. But by releasing those images anyone can upload them to Commons. Oh and [133] was really really uncalled for. Regardless of how you feel about the templates. --Majora (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Quite. Therefore the easiest solution is just to restore the images to their rightful place (as I have done) and forget all about Commons and those who seem to love it so much. Giano (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Self-destructive behavior by Giano

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 really can't come up with an explanation for this, the deletion of a bunch of discussions that didn't even involve him. I haven't sent a new notification for this discussion as he's been participating just above. Kelly ^hi! 21:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Notification made here, clarified it was a new discussion and not notification for the prior one. -- Dane2007 ^talk 21:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I think we would all benefit from a break of this. I suggest you give it a break and, if the problem persists, come again. Otherwise, nobody needs to go through this again. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's not like we've ever had any problems with Giano before. Kelly ^hi! 22:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Giano is allowed to do whatever he wants. Just ignore him and save yourself the trouble. 207.38.154.23 (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Problem at Sedgley

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've noticed that an IP range of 92.24.x.x keeps trying to edit the Sedgley article to add stuff that is not even true. The article is configured with PC1 protection, but it sounds like they are trying to cause harm to the article. Would a /16 range block be appropriate here? I'm not even sure. I'm not sure how to notify them as it is multiple IPs. Thanks! (ping me when replying) Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 20:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I think just switching to semi-protection for a bit would help here? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 20:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Your probably right. I know pending changes gets most of the edits, but it lets the IPs continue because they don't know that it has to be accepted. Also, PC doesn't block them from editing the page. I think switching to semi is a great idea! Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 20:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I originally applied PC1 as there were a couple of IP editors who were fighting the vandalism but as all recent IP activity has been negative I'd support a long period of semi-protection. There's probably a lot of revisions need rev'del for BLP reasons. Nthep (talk) 22:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the article for 3 months, leaving revdel to someone who wants to look further into the matter. Deor (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

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

User "JamesE GB" removing request for page deletion and vandalism.

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

---

The 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 just witnessed user User:JamesE GB remove deletion request banner from top of the OPNsense page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OPNsense&type=revision&diff=738940200&oldid=738937113

He is also the same person who created that page inserting various hoaxes and promotion for OPNsense project, which has been known for abusing Wikipedia multiple times: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=OPNsense&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=

Please prevent this person (and others alike) from vandalism. --Mr.hmm (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Notification of this discussion left here at users talk page. I have also renominated the article correctly under G4. -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Hmm, it's not a hoax and a rather fair factual statement in my opinion, that I though, contained no original statements. My home and work is in the UK and other than using it have no connection to the developer. Just noticed today it didn't exist and added it, which took me a few hours to do!. From reading the previous notes and your Twitter account you got a notable mention due to the effort of which you post negatively about the open source product for a number of years now.

I am happy to identify myself to Wikipedia directly and have never posted to Wikipedia before in my life.

Not sure if it is vandalism by adding a new article. Can the reason why I have been reported be reviewed please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesE GB (talk • contribs) 22:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

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

(edit conflict) Mr.hmm, this is not a hoax or vandalism (also, check your user page - JamesE GB mistakenly posted there). That being said, Dane2007 correctly identified it as a WP:G4. Also, JamesE claims to be a new user and claims to have created the article from scratch. That is utterly implausible given the structural similarities to the old article. The account is therefore blocked as a sock/meat puppet. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Would a mass revert of this blocked editor be appropriate?

After@DMacks: blocked Shirin.berkeley (talk · contribs) for spamming and @Yamla: declined the editor's unblock request with a warning that further spam would result in an indefinite block, the editor continued to spam adding similar links (many of which are just unicode proposals, hardly appropriate in an encyclopedia even if not spam). Yamla has suggested posting here and asking if a mass revert would be appropriate. And of courses if anyone thinks the editor should be unblocked, I'm not going to complain so long as the spamming stops. Doug Weller talk 14:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• I have never used the nuke scripts and don't have any installed, not sure if we have that option somewhere else, but I would agree that is the best option here. I'm not comfortable doing it myself, but would loved to be pinged with the info so I might could in the future. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I nuked, don't have time to talk more...will be back in a little while to discuss. DMacks (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: A good script for something like this is User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 20:20, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

That massRollback.js is what I used, with also some manual cleanups where another editor had made an edit before I got there. And obviously I agree that rollback and blocking were both correct actions per NOTHERE/IDHT/CIR/etc. There might have been some reasonable links being added (or changed from an older/now-obsolete target to a more modern one), but the nature of this sort of editor is that it's not worth our time or and it's not mandatory that we check each of the edit flood manually. If someone wishes to look more carefully and see if there is anything salvageable, obviously I have no objection. DMacks (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads up, will check out and use with extreme caution, that is certain. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks all. Doug Weller talk 16:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Please either protect or delete

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

---

The article Hannah Wants‎ is facing a rapid stream of BLP vandalism today. It has been listed at RFPP for awhile without action, but considering the significant BLP vandalism I'd like to request rapid action. Also, since it is currently listed for speedy deletion, that's another option. Thank you. Deli nk (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

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

User:ILoveMashiroShiina

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 being repeatedly reported and blocked for previous disruptive editing, ILoveMashiroShiina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) IMO relapsed into outright WP:VANDALISM with their recent edits of the article December 2015–February 2016 Cizre curfew. The user has been massively removing properly sourced information (Mirror, Guardian, Reuters, Deutsche Welle, Cumhuriyet etc.), replacing it with unsourced content, sometimes stating the opposite of the prior, to deliberately push a particular POV, in this case the position of the AKP government. The user has not even been trying to be balanced or objective, and has hidden their unsourced replacement content behind the misleading edit summary "New informations added." As the behaviour has only gotten worse, I don't think that user is WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia, but I'll leaving this for others to weigh in. --PanchoS (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Definitely a POV warrior. Ban him74.70.146.1 (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely. I'm not sure whether this is a WP:CIR issue or pure POV-pushing — it frankly looks like a bit of both — but in any case, the user's presence isn't good for the encyclopedia. It drains the time and energy of constructive users, which is our most precious resource. (You're always saying that, Bishonen! Boring! But it's the truth!) After the previous blocks and unheeded warnings, indeffed. Bishonen | talk 17:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC).

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

Tagging Kenneth Setton for better source and violating Help:Minor edit

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

---

With this edit (diff) Euripides ψ tagged Kenneth Setton with better source tag. Kenneth Setton is an exceptional source, and if there is no other source to contradict it, tagging Setton for better source is a clear sign of tendentious editing as explained at Wikipedia:Tendentious editing.

Although they were explained by multiple editors at talkpage that Setton is absolutely reliable source, they refuse to acknowledge the issue with their tagging, even insisting that source (fully available at GB) does not mention of such a thing, (diff), which is completely incorrect.

Although they were explained (diff) to respect Help:Minor edit, they again ignored other editor's explanation and continued to mark as minor edits that change the text of the article (i.e. diff and diff).

Notified with this diff.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Was this REALLY worth coming to ANI for? How about you talk it out more. This is a content dispute. --Tarage (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

It's in Setton's 1978 book, not the 1976 book. See the article talk page for further info. Please don't bring stuff like this to ANI in the future; there's no need to stir up drama over a simple error. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I've given Euripides ψ some more info on why it's important not to mark all edits as minor. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Ranze on pro wrestling articles

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.

---

Ranze (talk · contribs) is a frequent contributor to professional wrestling articles. It's not unusual for Ranze to interpret a source totally differently than everyone else, or for him to hear something an announcer said on television one time which is not backed up by sources, and edit war to keep that vision in the encycopedia. When this happens, the wikiproject has to stop what it's doing and clean up his mess.

Championship disputes

May-August 2015:Ranze spent last summer edit warring on Grand Slam (professional wrestling) over which potential candidates to list in the article.[135][136][137][138][139][140][141][142][143][144][145][146]

November 23, 2015:Ranze believes that two title histories merged into one. This is almost unanimously rejected at Talk:WWE World Championship/Archive 3#WHW contributes to reign total.

• He simultaniously edit wars on several articles during this time, including:Sheamus[147][148][149][150][151], List of WWE World Champions[152][153][154][155]WWE World Championship[156][157][158], Randy Orton[159][160][161][162], John Cena[163][164][165], Dwayne Johnson[166][167]
• This episode was put on hold when Ranze was blocked for sockpuppetry (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ranze/Archive#23 November 2015) when he editted while signed out to support his position on Talk:WWE World Championship/Archive 3#WHW contributes to reign total.

July 2016:Ranze revives the discussion at Talk:WWE World Championship#WHW counting resurrection, saying that despite the overwhelming consensus against him the first time it "did not get totally resolved". The result is no different than the first, Oknazevad and I both say we'll support a topic ban on professional wrestling articles if he cannot accept consensus and WP:DROPTHESTICK

August 2016:Ranze hears an announcer say something that leads him to believe another two title histories have been merged. He starts a topic at Talk:WWE Women's Championship#Charlotte 309 days and provides no sources to back up his theory. This theory is unanimous rejected.

Nicknames and redirects

August 2015:Ribbon Salminen warns Ranze that the redirects he is creating are "best useless and at worst completely misleading".[168]

September-November 2015:Ranze edit wars to list "Captain Morgan" as a nickname for Seth Rollins. Rollins had been called this as a joke.[169][170][171][172][173][174]

September 8, 2015:Nikki311 tells Ranze that while there is no set number on how many times a wrestler must be called a name for it to be a nickname it needs to be more than once.[175]

November-December 2015:Ranze asks WT:PW on what goes into a nickname, nobody seems to agree with his view.[176]

February 2016: Ranze creates redirect Iron Man of the WWE, it's deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 12#Iron Man of the WWE. Two users comment that the redirect is misleading, one says that the name was only used once.

August 2016:Ranze edit wars to list "queen" as a nickname for Charlotte (wrestler).[177][178][179][180] Dismisses my edit war notice as "harassment"[181]

August-September 2016:Unicorn Freaks and Madame McMahon redirects are deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 31. Multiple users point out that the names were used once.

Today:Five of his redirects are listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 7. After nominating them for deletion, I warn Ranze that continued disruption would lead me to request a topic ban.[182] He first responds with an ad hominem attack on one of the delete voters,[183] then says several members of the pro wrestling wikiproject are biased against him and their !votes should be overlooked; he argues that it shouldn't be deleted because unverified youtube channels, random twitter feeds, and reddit called someone by these particular insults which he made into redirects.[184] In a separate discussion, he then says delete votes aren't based on policy[185], and after I told him which policy[186] he tells me I'm wrong and links me to an unverifed twitter for proof.[187] He then goes to the admin that deleted Iron Man of the WWE and tells them that they did so in error.[188]

Discussion

We've tried to work with him and be patient with him. I've given him ample warning and other editors have to, but we've seen no change. Can someone step in and take a closer look at this? Given his history, this behavior is probably enough to warrant a harsh block but I am requesting a topic ban for professional wrestling articles. He has previously been handed topic bans on gamergate and gender issues and has been blocked for edit warring.[189]LM2000 (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I also have given user multiple warnings. Most times when confronted or warned, Ranze removes warnings, or attempts to start discussion from their talk pages labeling it as "harassment". They show no intention of being a constructive contributor to professional wrestling articles. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 04:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

He has just now created the redirect Leader of the Altitude Era. Note that a similar redirect, Dawn of the Altitude Era, currently is at a unanimous delete at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 7.LM2000 (talk) 04:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The input of @ClassicOnAStick: could be valuable for this avenue of discussion given that special:diff/670290070 7 July 2015 is when they added this to the article under nicknames. I ended up finding a source to confirm the claim, which I added recently, from MTV. A redirect made sense. But this is not my original idea. LM is in a rush to brag about how many WP:VOTES his nominations are getting and hesitant to point out how 2 points of WP:RKEEP supports retaining my redirects while misrepresenting a point of WP:DEL to try and argue for deletion. Ranze (talk) 08:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

In trying to discuss anything with them and why it is not sourced or unreliably sourced they simply dismiss your argument and then move to another set of unsourced/unreliable links to try and make themselves right. Anyone who doesn't agree with them is wrong and should be ignored/dismissed in their opinion. Ranze has been warned by several users and they simply delete the warnings and claim they are being harassed and go back to doing exactly what they were warned about. Everyone has tried to work with them but it's their way or no way. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 04:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

WarMachineWildThing I occasionally ARCHIVE my talk page, which is not the same thing as deleting warnings. I don't ignore them, I have responded to them. The inversion you're attempting here is hilarious, because I am primarily the one who does bother to cite sources in these arguments, and others ignore this and just WP:POLL/WP:VOTE "Delete, per nom" type comments. Ranze (talk) 04:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Classic Ranze behavior going on in the redirect discussion right now. He tells everyone that voted delete they're wrong and dumps several unreliable sources to prove his point.[190] When I explain why this isn't right,[191] he links me to a tweet where one of the subject's onscreen enemies used a hastag and youtube video of him talking.[192]LM2000 (talk) 05:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Telling people they're wrong requires administrator intervention? If so: you also call me wrong, should the admins intervene with you? Citing a TV series is acceptable, that is why we have template:cite episode. Even Twitter is fine, thus template:cite tweet. WWE makes a big deal out of using Twitter lately. The 'YouTube video' is an officially authorized clip of the television program from WWE. I could link to the video on WWE.com but then I couldn't use &t= to help you find the minutes/seconds more easily. Ranze (talk) 09:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

He has a list of reliable professional wrestling sources pasted at the top of his talk page, I pointed this out in that discussion because he was posting unreliable sources. Less than an hour later, he posts even more from the unreliable list.[193]LM2000 (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

You ought to be more specific. Re special:diff/738478778 you refer to PWmania and WrestleZone? The problem with the first is while special:diff/640048968 had it listed at the outset as unreliable by User:Starship.paint, no actual reasoning was given for alleging it was unreliable. Generally to support the allegation of unreliability a source is listed next to it. I've gone ahead and tagged the ones listing that. I linked to that page because I was curious about it, not because I put any stock in it. Starship doesn't exactly have the authority to blast any website he likes and declare it unreliable without a source. Especially not authors, due to BLP concerns. Anything without a source should be under "not yet proven" until a source proves an example of unreliability.

WrestleZone has 2 references listed next to it, so I can address that here.

• The first argument is because apparently this archive (I'll check later, can't access archive.org lately) says Becky Lynch was taking time off and 19 Nov 2015 she tweeted she isn't taking time off. I see nobody has trouble relying on tweets from wrestlers if it supports their agenda. They do appear to have removed whatever was there though, when I view http://www.wrestlezone.com/news/663647-big-update-aj-styles-will-reportedly-not-debut-in-the-wwe-royal-rumble-match-new-plans-being-discussed-for-styles right now.
• The second argument alleges that Nick Paglino's article http://www.wrestlezone.com/news/710329-kevin-owens-joins-undertaker-in-reaching-wwe-milestone-the-new-day-undress-tom-phillips-video-wwe-csc-setup-news-and-ticket-info supposedly "took this information from Reddit as reliable". I do not agree with that interpretation. Paglino clearly prefixes the statement with "According to a user on Reddit," but doesn't say anything about the redditor being reliable. The argument "he did not wrestle at SummerSlam (1991)" is given. This is not actually true. Although not an official match, Undertaker did attack Randy Savage with an urn during the wedding segment of the pay-per-view. He did "compete" in that he and Jake Roberts were competing against Savage for dominance. It just wasn't an officially sanctioned match, nor did it have a winner declared. Ranze (talk) 09:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Tonight he has given us a couple of textbook examples on WP:CIR. Here's another dump of unreliable sources: He again lists something he heard on commentary without a secondary source. He again lists something from the unreliable sources (Bleacher Report) list that is stickied at the top of his talk page (WP:PW/RS) [194][195]

LM2000 and Crash Underride have been stalking my edits due to past disputes with me.

What LM mentions are completely supported redirects they have spuriously nominated without adequate investigation.

"Dawn of the Altitude Era" is used on official merch for the wrestler:

• http://shop.wwe.com/neville-altitude-era-authentic-t-shirt/W09608.html

"Leader of the Altitude Era" is something he is introduced as:

• "@WWENeville's Music Taste Makes Him Leader Of The Alt Hip Hop-itude Era". 27 November 2015. we couldn't have predicted just how much of a huge alternative hip hop fan the man billed as the Leader of the Altitude Era when he flies in, around and over the ring is away from the ring.

As you can see, they are not legitimately interested in bad edits or deleting bad redirects, just picking at anything possible they think they can use against me, and here it backfires, showing they are assuming bad faith and not investigating before objecting.

As can be seen at the July review Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive194#Ranze the topic ban I received in 2015 is not in place (funny LM forgets to mention this) and as can be seen at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive171#Ranze in a May 2015 review, it was initially put in place special:diff/654927319 in April 2015 by User:Gamaliel, who has mysteriously retired from Wikipedia after, as @The Wordsmith: has pointed out to me, several similar sanctions were overturned on appeal after he was determined to be WP:INVOLVED and thus not a neutral party in relation to the issue I was given restrictions for. Ranze (talk) 04:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I ask administrators to look at a long term pattern of abuse here, not just one incident. He has long avoided blocks by skirting the rules; he'll edit war over long periods of time but will seldom break three reverts in one day, he'll create a redirect that somebody did actually call a subject one time but never again... just enough for it not to be a blatant hoax, he'll dismiss critiques as "harassment" and question editor's "honesty" but will stop short of making an egregious personal attack, he'll drop the stick for awhile only to pick it back up at a later date. I think the evidence provided speaks for itself.LM2000 (talk) 05:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

LM2000 there is no long-term pattern if so-called examples you present to try and argue one exists fall apart under scrutiny. Ranze (talk) 08:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Ranze I find nothing about this funny or humorous, so unfortunate to see that you don't take this seriously. As for your "sources", Just like [this] site its the only one to ever call him that since 2015, one time doesn't make it notable. Just like this redirect The Man That Mother Nature Forgot To Make Good-Looking its nothing more than an insult and should be deleted. Your history speaks for itself and for these reasons I Support a topic ban Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 05:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Unbelievable. Right after you say that he creates Man That Mother Nature Forgot To Make Good-Looking. No regard for BLP and he knows it'll get deleted, The Man That Mother Nature Forgot To Make Good-Looking is at RfD and the discussion is unanimously against it.LM2000 (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

So he made another redirect because the other redirect is voted against so he can keep it. WP:Rope is all I have to say. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 06:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@WarMachineWildThing: actually the reason I created it was because I listened to Tyler Breeze again and he actually doesn't prefix it with "the" so using it without that is more proper. I had initially been reviewing The Man Who Gravity Forgot and simply cut off "Gravity Forgot" and started with "Mother Nature". Ranze (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

LM2000 (is special:diff/738493481 considered WP:WIKIHOUNDING folks?) implies I don't have regard for BLP concerns, as if this phrase is going to cause damage to Adrian Neville's life. Clear system-gaming going on there. This was said by Tyler Breeze on an episode of WWE NXT. They would not have aired the footage if it was a BLP concern. Ranze (talk) 08:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

We edit in overlapping areas from time to time. I saw that edit in your history but it's likely the kind of thing I would have responded to anyway. We often agree in areas outside of wrestling, like when I voted keep in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shabani (gorilla), which you had created. The thread in the diff you shared highlights many problems with the complaints in this one though, specifically your general lack of understanding of WP:RS. Breitbart isn't a WP:RS. Neither is Bleacher Report. Neither is an announcer on TV. Neither are most twitter feeds.LM2000 (talk) 08:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

LM2000, Appropos I saw that edit in your history, WP:HOUND clearly advises caution in tracking another editor's contributions. Regardless of the merits of this filing, it may be opportune that you not do so with respect to this editor. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 09:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@LM2000: as I already pointed out, your "they're not a reliable source" objection is irrelevant because I wasn't arguing they were reliable, just NOTABLE. For example, if Osama Bin Laden said "care bears suck" I would not consider him a reliable source on the quality of care bears, but still consider that to be a noteworthy statement worth discussing on some talk page. Ranze (talk) 09:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment At the very least he should be banned from creating redirect's, as he's really wasting everyone's time with nonsense nicknames that are getting deleted left and right. And why is that? Because they are incredibly implausible search terms, the only reason to create redirects.

But frankly, after the incompetence I've seen, I think it should be a broader topic ban. Not because of the content, but because of the behavior, and the utter unwillingness to work collaboratively. He's constantly wasting other contributors' time, and shows a complete inability to drop the stick and accept that consensus doesn't agree with him (which itself largely stems from his inability to recognize that his pet theories amount to WP:SYNTH despite having this explicitly explained to him in very simple a, b, c form!) oknazevad (talk) 05:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: if making comments about me should be transparent about prior involvement that indicates you are WP:INVOLVED in the dispute and not a neutral party. As can be seen at special:diff/731788343 Oknazevad blanked my attempt to engage in collaboration. I was willing to collaborate, Oknazevad was not willing to. Ranze (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

topic ban

I am completely unimpressed by Ranze's behavior here and at the RfD discussion linked above. "Notable sources"? Are you kidding? This user clearly understands neither sourcing nor redirects. I propose a indefinite topic ban from wrestling articles, broadly construed, and from creating or editing redirects. This nonsense needs to stop.

• Support as proposer. Katie^talk 11:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support as someone who's had to deal with this behavior for months now. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 11:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support - I'm sorry that you've all had to deal with this for so long. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support more than enough here to qualify for that.LM2000 (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support per Katie. Some "superfans" simply lack the objectivity to edit articles on their passion, and this is one of those cases. The burden this editor is putting on the community is greater than the sum total of usable contributions in this area. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment, @Dennis Brown: well said. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 14:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment @Dennis Brown: Your first sentence is plausible, but if true, the superfans lacking objectivity are not me. More likely we have Neville/Ryback fans who don't like a redirect based on the creative nicknames Breeze/Jericho created for them. I am not placing any burden here. WP:Redirects are cheap after all. Critics are instead manufacturing unnecessary work by trying to delete harmless and helpful redirects. What would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken? Ranze (talk) 05:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support per Katie. Way too much work that could be better served elsewhere here is used to fix this editor's behavior. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @RickinBaltimore: the behavior in question is creating a redirect (a minor thing, a few bytes) and then, when a stalker digs into my edit history to get back at me for past disputes and nominates the redirect for deletion, I make an argument for its inclusion and why I made it. How is this creating work? If my redirects were truly spam then it would be very little work to get rid of them. The whole reason so much conversation surrounds this is because an argument exists for them to remain. I should not be punished for making that argument and explaining how I added them (and want to retain them) in good faith. Ranze (talk) 05:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support - the editor has too much experience for me to just write this off as WP:NOCLUE, maybe some time away from this topic will help them to see the error of their ways. PGWG (talk) 13:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @PGWG: if I have spare time from not being able to limit professional wrestling articles, perhaps you could spend it with me discussing where you think I err in my reasoning. People seem to be jumping to the conclusion that the defenses I have made of my redirects are in error, yet you haven't even entered the debate or made arguments yourself. Ranze (talk) 05:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support - As per Katie and all the diffs showing disruptive editing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • What diffs? My talk page is open if you want to share. Ranze (talk) 05:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

All the diffs that have been shown in this incident. They clearly show that you have no interesting in being constructive to the topic of professional wrestling. Just getting as much info in as you can, no matter if it could be considered an attack such as Man that Mother Nature Forgot to Make Good Looking. God forbid you'd been around in the late '90s-early '00s when The Rock would insult everyone, then every wrestler from that time period would have 20+ re-directs and "nicknames" by your standard. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 10:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment & question - The editor has more than 1000 redirects created. Is there any evidence of an issue outside the Professional Wrestling topic space? If not, suggest that a prohibition on creating or editing redirects is not required. Also suggest, without comment as the probity, that the topic ban should be explicitly "Professional Wrestling", instead of "wrestling". - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 15:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Just did a quick glance at his history, Stanford swimmer was deleted in June. Pussy crushing redirects to Sponsored Content (South Park), it seems they said it an episode once. Combined with his egregious history with pro wrestling redirects, I don't think I'll need to dig further. I have not seen abuse in amateur wrestling, MMA, or other forms of wrestling though, so I agree the ban should be just for professional wrestling. LM2000 (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

  Have you actually watched Sponsored Content? The phrase or its variations is used 9 times, and it's a central part of the joke of the PC initialism. As for Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_16#Stanford_swimmer that was due to concerns about ambiguity... MelanieN didn't exactly give examples of other notable swimmers though, or evidence that they were also called this alliterative phrase. If you Google Stanford swimmer it's pretty clear who the prime topic associated with this phrase is, so I think that redirect was justified. Ranze (talk) 05:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• If the response above wasn't enough proof that he's just not grasping it, see this edit to Talk:Donald Trump regarding nicknames made today.LM2000 (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support As I previously stated his history speaks for itself, too much work having to be done cleaning up their mess. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 16:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment you might be WP:INVOLVED and thus, rather than a neutral observer, coming here for payback because I disagreed with you in the past. Special:Diff/736243448 shows you have a habit of removing things from your talk page without archiving them. This is interesting irony considering that above you said of me "they simply delete the warnings" even though we can see here that you deleted a warning from @Jim1138: about edit-warring. It also appears that you and Crash_Underride are buddies, although you have removed the evidence of that by taking the messages he sent you off your talk page. Special:Diff/736819447 shows you WP:CANVASSING LM2000 to collectively badger me. Ranze (talk) 05:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Response 1.I had asked LM2000 why you had not been topic banned yet, which was over a week ago there was no canvassing to badger you, don't flatter yourself. 2.Yes I did remove that warning Jim placed as it was proven I was set up and tricked into an edit war by a sock IP, hence the reason my page is now semied, as usual you have no clue what your talking about, If Jim felt it needed to stay he was free to put it back. 3.My page is archived by Lowercase Sigmabot III. 4.Crash is the one who showed me how to use it, doesn't make us buddies. 5.Yes I'm involved as I keep having to clean up after you and like others I'm tired of it, its not just redirects either, it's all these nicknames which are unreliably sourced, just like there was no disagreement with you, you were wrong and it was proven and your still clearly bitter about it. 6.Your responses here to all these editors are nothing more than WP: Boomerang Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 06:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm confounded by the war on multiple fronts we have going on here but I'm glad others are able to see what we've been dealing with. A topic ban is all but certain, he has only dug that hole deeper by going after the support voters here. On another front, he refuses to WP:DROPTHESTICK on his deleted redirects, when Man That Mother Nature Forgot To Make Good-Looking was deleted for being an attack page he again went after the deleting admin as well as Black Kite for pointing out that it was an attack page. On the eve of this ban passing he made two new wrestling redirects.[196][197] In his responses here he obfuscates his edit warring as reverting "vandals", as if anybody that checks the diffs can't tell otherwise, and in another response he accuses editors of making personal attacks. His defense of redirects and unreliable sources that fall outside of wrestling again highlight his incompetence abroad.LM2000 (talk) 07:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I love the fact they keep trying to find ways and accusing us of teaming up to "badger" them. When all we're doing is trying to get them to learn policy and follow the rules. It's gotten old, but it's still kinda funny. :D ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 10:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Crash Underride, This was unnecessary and incivil. It would be better struck. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support Evidence suggests long history of edit warring and a fandom obsession with the topic that isn't helpful to this encyclopedia. Joseph2302 18:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • comment @Joseph2302: any cases of editing disputes generally had to do with my adding reliably sourced material and people removing the material and the sources. Why aren't you going after those vandals for warring? Ranze (talk) 05:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Nickag989^talk 18:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Making a comment like that indicates you haven't looked very far into my edits. I believe you are making an assumption based on others' heresay. Ranze (talk) 05:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I've seen it all, from creating/editing redirects to editing disputes and from tagging unreliable sources with to personal attacks, it clearly shows the level of incompetence that you have. Nickag989^talk 08:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support WP:DISRUPTIVE editing needs to stop. MarnetteD|Talk 18:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @MarnetteD: I haven't disrupted any articles, but I can see mob rule is basically taking effect at this point. I'm beginning to wonder why I bother addressing people's criticisms when they persist in ignoring the particulars of a dispute and snowballing in generalized insults. Ranze (talk) 05:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support and to be honest why aren't we having a conversation about a ban for an editor who's so far shown they can't be trusted to edit in at least THREE areas? Black Kite (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • You have no evidence supporting my being untrustworthy in any area Black Kite. If you bring up the old topic ban you'll see it was put in placed by a WP:INVOLVED ex-ArbCom who has fled Wikipedia. Ranze (talk) 05:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support Editor shows a pattern of disruptive editing which I do not believe can be remedied by discussion- clearly, previous attempts to discuss this have failed. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @PeterTheFourth: how can you say that when so few critics are actually open to engaging in discussion? People are moving to sanction me while in the process of unclosed redirect discussions, preventing me from engaging in discussion, and assuming conclusions. They are rapidly closed and not left open long enough to receive widespread input. Ranze (talk) 05:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support per my above comments. (And to respond to the above response to me, hounding a talk page with the same nonsense is not collaborative). oknazevad (talk) 00:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Twist it as you like Oknazevad, you accused me of not collaborating but you were the one who prevented my collaboration by deleting my comment. Only users can be hounded, I can't "hound" a WikiProject which is meant to be open to community discussion. I only contacted you personally after you blanked the section I created there, and you blanked my attempt to communicate with you. You're clearly being hypocritical here, saying I'm not willing to talk when you're the one continually shutting down conversations and insulting me. Ranze (talk) 05:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: the quality of sourcing needed for redirects is not on the same tier as that needed for article inclusion. The redirection of plausible typos is evidence of that.

I don't see how LM2000 trying to distract from the wrestling conversation by bringing up Breitbart is relevant to warranting a ban for me. As for Bleacher Report: an argument still has to be made on why it is awful to use, reasoning hasn't yet been presented on the WikiProject. That's why I fact-tagged it, as others actually have reasoning presented on the project for an example of them being unreliable.

I find your personal attacks pretty unwarranted. I have demonstrated both on and off of wrestling articles that I do understand sourcing. I have also created completely acceptable wrestling redirects such as Radical Mongoose.

You say I don't understand redirects, but I am versed in policy about them which is why I bring up WP:RDEL and WP:RKEEP to support the arguments I make.

Why, when this dispute is focused on redirects, should I also be banned from editing articles on wrestling?

Crash/Under supporting this should be disregarded since they are WP:INVOLVED and have been WP:WIKIHOUNDING me the past months. Ranze (talk) 05:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Ranze, please read WP:BLUDGEON. The first line sums it up well: "It is not necessary or desirable to reply to every comment in a discussion." Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:20, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment, I would like it shown how many times Ranze has attacked me and accused me of hounding them. I have never hounded them, I have only been trying to get them to cease this behavior. But I've had it, I'm sick and tired of these person attacks and false accusations of hounding. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 15:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support User:Ranze may well be here to build an encyclopaedia, but is clearly not here to communicate; this is fundamental. As the walls of text and instinctive need to attack any opposition demonstrate, it is clearly best for all that he is kept away from those areas in which he is unable to discuss in a collegiate manner. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support, User:Ranze's response to this discussion is instructive. My advice to them, since this is clearly going to pass, is that if they want to appeal this down the track, to build a solid record of uncontroversial editing in some other topic area, and come back in a few months. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC).

Could we get an uninvolved admin to close this, please? It's about to be archived. Thanks. Katie^talk 11:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Seconding closure.LM2000 (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Third closure. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 21:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Someone please 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.

---

[198] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Barek --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I saw the ANI notice when I notified the user of their block (31 hours). Also, the article is now semi-protected for 6 months. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Barek had blocked for 31 hours, but I reset the block to six months (sorry Barek!). The IP is being used solely for disruption and the attacks are vile. If the editor had an account I would have indef'ed, but instead chose six months as it is about the duration the IP has been used abusively.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

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

José Roel Lungay

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 entirely sure what the situation is here, but this article has about 15,000 bytes of info that has been repeatedly removed from the article by Raabbustamante (talk · contribs) who insists that this article is CSD-A7 eligible (see recent history). I declined deletion last night/early this morning citing a failed attempt at deletion through the afd process, which ended when Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/José Roel Lungay was closed as no consensus following a dual relisting with no participation. Given the sudden interest in CSD following the failed afd, and in particular the mass removal of information in an apparent attempt to make this a csd-eligible article, I suspect this is a case of disruptive editing, and am seeking input from other admins on the matter. Am I missing something here, or is this a thinly veiled attempt to delete an article here by any means necessary? TomStar81 (Talk) 20:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Huh. I forgot I put that up for AFD. Had I remembered, and saw the article was kept, I would have probably posted to WP:BLPN asking for help with a major trim. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

That should have been closed as delete. It's an unsourced BLP because none of the actual "sources" mention the person at all, as far as I can see. Can one PROD an article after it's been through AfD? Black Kite (talk) 20:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I was actually going to decline the prod for the sake of getting a discussion going. Then I looked at the references. Then I looked at the external links... I now think this is a well-placed prod. I'll watch the page and AfD it again, if someone else declines. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Blanking an article that has content that makes A7 patently inapplicable and then tagging it under A7 is pretty clearly gaming the system (exacerbated here by the user reverting a prior decline of the A7 and the return of the article content, to shop for someone else to assess it). I have issued a warning, though I have noted that careful removal of good-faith-challenged, unsourced content under WP:BURDEN is still on the table, but takes quite a different path than wholesale blanking.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• After a hunt around for any sourcing on this person, I have sent it back to AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/José Roel Lungay (2nd nomination). Black Kite (talk) 23:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

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

"Basket of deplorables" is now an article. WTF??

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.

---

• Basket of deplorables (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An utterly transparent misuse of Wikipedia. I have started an AfD -- but I think more action is needed so that editors get the message this sort of thing is not acceptable here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The author describes it as a notable U.S. political incident. That's because, actually, Watergate never happened Facepalm _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Talk page harassment by Alexis Ivanov

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 editor has been restoring content I have deleted from my own talkpage, [199] and [200] and has also been making harassment posts in other threads [201]. It comes about just after the end of a period of enforced mentoring given as the result of a previous talkpage harassment case [202]. I raised the issue [203] with the closer of the last ANI case, and he suggested starting a new one. This harassment arrived out of the blue, I have had no recent disputes or indeed any recent interactions with this editor prior to this harassment occurring (the only prior interaction I recall was over some content on Muslim conquests on the Indian subcontinent almost a year ago). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Additional examples from the last few days - not directed against me. Creating a thread titled "How many times are you going to vandalize" [204] that labels an editor's work as vandalism when clearly it is not - it is obviously a content dispute. In the ensuing discussion Alexis Ivanov makes assumptions of ethnicity: "a clean manifestation of your Iranian bias right here", and uses insulting language: "Please don't embarrass yourself again", "once someone doesn't agree you have to go ahead and throw a tantrum". More name calling here [205]: "Your hypocrisy is outstanding", plus crude sarcasm: "I'm ignorant of the subject and you are the genius here. I will let you have your candy"; "I'm stupid. Next time I will try my best to please you okay". More insults here [206]: "he doesn't have the mental capacity to edit any Saljuq article", and a repetition of the "vandalism" accusation. And here are more references to ethnicity with assumptions of bad faith [207] "I realize you must push your Iranian bias in every article", more personal insults [208] "you had to throw a childish tantrum"; and a repeat of the mental capacity insult [209] "There is no way this information will enter your head". And at the end of it all we have Alexis Ivanov's mentor congratulating him on his "humility" and improved way of doing things! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I left a note (but I don't see evidence that you have notified the other party, please do so).--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I had left a notification on the page of the editor's mentor, in a thread which Alexis Ivanov has been posting in, so I assumed he was aware. However I will now place a note on his talk page too. Thanks for pointing this out. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

You stated "I will be opening an ANI" so I wasn't aware of your future actions Alexis Ivanov (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, it was an unwarranted assumption to make. Now rectified. However, I think I've initiated just one ANI case before, so was not aware of the procedures (I now have noted the instructions in red at the top of the page). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

However, while the reversion was improper, labeling a warning as vandalism is not helpful. While other editors should not react to such misinformation, it doesn't help.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

His first restoration of deleted content was a breach of talk page protocol (a protocol someone already undergoing sanctions for breaches of talk page protocols should really have known about). His second restoration of the deleted content can fairly be called vandalism because it occurred after I had warned him not to do it again and it served no purpose other than to harass. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I was never undergoing a sanction based on your talk page protocol, I wouldn't recommend saying false things about me, as you have already done in another user talk page who recommended you to create this ANI. It seems your only interest is opening old wounds, especially coming from someone like you notorious for hostile attitude and harassing other users. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: I just realized by reversion of the talk page was improper, I was actually following the 3RR rule, I made sure I made only two reverts, and afterwards I backed off, I wasn't acquainted with any so called "talk page protocol" . I believe this user Tiptoe was disrespecting a long time contributor and I made sure he read the warning, I took it as a form of disrespect from him to remove the words of the contributor. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

If the only thing that was stopping you was your awareness of 3RR (which, btw, is not actually a fixed definition for edit warring) does this mean that (in the absence of advice given by your supposed mentor that this reverting was wrong) you would have continued with your reverting once the 3RR had lapsed. If so, I think you should be thanking me for initiating this ANI because it stopped you from digging yourself into a seriously deep hole. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Alexis Ivanov, I see from your talk page history that you have on a number of occasions blanked your talk page, deleting numerous posts and numerous warnings made by other editors. By your standards professed in the above, do you consider this to be "a form of disrespect" by you against those editors? Would you have considered it acceptable if an editor had come along and reverted your talk page blanketing? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Having now read your contributions here, I think it would be wise to complete the required notification, then urge that this request be closed. Read Wp:Boomerang if you need help understanding why. You also should apologize to Irondome, but coerced apologies aren't very useful, so I'll let you decide whether you understand why it is warranted. (I've already contributed to this thread, so don't think I should close it myself, but there nothing more to do at this time.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

8th Sept 19:15 I inform Irondome, mentor to Alexis Ivanov as a result of that editor's prior ANI case decision regarding talkpage abuse, that Alexis Ivanov has been restoring deleted content onto my talkpage. I ask him to advise Alexis Ivanov that this is an abuse of an editor's talk page. However, Irondome, at 20.33, does not give any warning to Alexis Ivanov - he dismisses the breach of guidelines as unimportant, and aggressively tells me "I would suggest you stick to the talkpage". In what way had I not "stuck to the talk page"? It was Alexis Ivanov who had not "stuck to the talk page", who had in fact not used any talk page, had arrived out of nowhere and started making harrassing and insulting posts such as [[210]]. Irondome's lack of advice to Alexis Ivanov, and his trivialization of the act, was surely partly responsible for Alexis Ivanov at 21:01 feeling able to repeat his earlier edit [[211]]. How long was I expected to put up with Alexis Ivanov's harrassment, let him (an editor who has been characterized in the past as an unrepentant bully) do it three times, let him do it five times, or let him do it ten times? And actually get threatened by Wp:Boomerang when I decide the harassment needs to stop at three posts? I initiated this ANI as the direct result of advice given to me by an administrator [212]. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the admin who advised you to be here did not know that most of these problems were stemming from your own personal attack and this raises the possibility of a block for you considering your background. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I would take Wp:Boomerang seriously and listen to S Philbrick's and Irondome's suggestion of leaving here! Did you forget that you had already attacked me? Did I take you here while I knew you had been blocked multiple times for similar behavior? I did not do that for I knew we'd better put energy on editing the article. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

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

IP SPI on Drmies

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.

---

172.250.101.49 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

See Special:Permalink/739257803. I can't tell if the IP is serious about an SPI on Drmies (it honestly looks like an edit dispute), and I don't think answering the edit request (moving from WT to WP) is the appropriate action, or what the appropriate cleanup would be. Can someone take a look? — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Ha, a nice opportunity for another admin to look into this IP's edits. Drmies (talk) 19:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Appropriate cleanup? Blocking the IP for disruption would be a start (And likely block-evasion). RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Their argument for Pope is so idiotic; I've not seen it before. Drmies (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• I've declined the edit request but will leave it to a SPI clerk or CU to decide whether or not to delete the page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I took a look at this out of morbid curiosity, and it looks like the IP is actually trying to resolve a content dispute by way of an SPI. I don't think that's something a blocked editor would do, I think we have a legitimate case of cluelessness. The IPs argument at the article talk page really is so bad, it actually made me laugh. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • User:MjolnirPants, I agree that this is not the kind of thing a returning editor does and I'm glad you noticed it too. The argument is terrible, of course, and a little daylight won't hurt. NeilN, your check is in the mail. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Possible legal threat

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

---

FYI: Aruwaz had removed content from a closed AfD that resulted in the deletion of numerous articles in November 2015. The editor in question, had removed said content on the basis that it is a "privacy issue" and that we ought not to "defame a person or organisation like this". They also cite an Indian proposed law (perhaps Act now), "India: The Privacy (Protection) Bill, 2013" as a reason to remove such information.

I had reverted those removals, as one can't remove/or edit content from a closed AfD. I had also taken this to Widr. Since then, Aruwaz has suggested using US Federal Law (The Privacy Act of 1974) as means of removing the content.

However, Aruwaz has just made the following comment, which I interpret as a possible legal threat: "MelbourneStar, Widr - Should i send a legal notice to Wikipedia India?? "Office: No. 194, 2nd 'C' Cross, Domlur 2nd Stage, Bangalore 560 071, India"". Any suggestions on how we ought to move forward? Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear MelbourneStar : By the way you are threatening me. I am talking about legal rights and i know my rights very well.--Aruwaz (talk) 12:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hence legal threat, if I am not mistaken. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 12:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're aware we have WP:CBLANK. Generally when someone complains about libel or privacy issues at AfD it's worth looking closely and perhaps trying to get some details of the complaint. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• I just took the easiest solution. I blanked it and use the template we have for that purpose. -- GB fan 12:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

You can't say you don't learn something every day. But with that said — the AfD clearly says in red bold writing "Please do not modify it", and later "No further edits should be made to this page" — why would we have that, if anybody could claim libel or privacy issues and remove content, which, in itself is modifying the page? —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Generally we make no edits to a closed AFD. There are times when we do make them though, especially when someone is saying it violates their privacy. Everything is in the history, just not visible. Also, ignore all rules comes to mind. -- GB fan 12:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

You're going to place Wikipolicy ahead of law? that's not going to fly. If there is something in the AfD that needs to be removed, the template requesting that no further edits be made will take second place. Those templates are to deter unnecessary edits being made post close not to prevent any editing whatsoever. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Yep, it's my fault that I see removal of content in a closed AfD that specifically says not to alter the page – and revert the editor. Right, that flies well with me, and ought to fly well with everyone. Because our rules are so consistent. Gosh, I never realise how thankless editing really is on Wikipedia, until moments like these. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Alright, possibly tendentious way to say it so I offer my apologies. I mean to say, while it is preferred that closed discussions are not amended in some cases it may be necessary. The editor pointed to legal requirements to remove the information, you brought it here under the pretense that it may be a legal threat which is fine. It's been looked at and the material removed. Better safe than sorry. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

What am I missing here? Why would the names of the deleted articles be a privacy issue? I could understand if comments such as COI, not notable, etc were removed, but the names of the articles? Yes, one of them was the name of a BLP, but removing it from the body of the AfD text seems pointless since it's in the AfD title. Doug Weller talk 13:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

(ec) I *think* they are going for a general privacy infraction under US law. Which in some cases (and by no means do I think this is one) would cover basic personal info like names. Its a bonkers argument given the laws concerned. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Anyone can seemingly complain about privacy/libel and have whatever page they wish to be blanked. We seem to have a hole in our policies, or some inconsistency in that AfD instruction which says not to remove content once it's been closed.

Glad, that in trying to do the right thing, I get called out for doing the wrong thing. I've apologised to the editor in question for my error in judgement, it's certainly not their fault. But I'm glad we all recognise how flawless and perfect our system is, that when someone removes content from a closed discussion despite instructions not to, the person reverting them gets the slap on the wrist. Very reasonable, indeed.

I've nothing more to add. This has been a waste of everybody's time; had I not thought that I was doing the right thing in reverting as pursuant to the AfD instructions, and reporting this to defend the project: we wouldn't be here. So pardon me if I sound sour, but make no mistake: it's because I am. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Ehhh, the only person whom I can imagine you being sour to right now for anything that has been said is me. Everyone else has been beyond civil and myself, well I don't think I was been uncivil - anybody feel free to point out if I'm wrong here. I don't think anybody has blamed you for any wrongdoing, merely taken actions that seemed appropriate to the situation. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I thought there was an undue attention towards my reverting, and whilst I didn't expect a medal and a gold star, I was hoping people would understand and agree to why I did what I did. I'm not sour at you, I'm sour at this situation that whilst could have been avoided by me – it could have been avoided elsewhere, had our policies and guidelines been a bit more specific. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 14:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. For possibly useful future reference, there are many templates on Wikipedia and some of them need to be taken with a grain of salt. The don't edit once the discussion is closed is perfectly fine for mundane things, but, I myself have opened up closed discussions to fix something or strike something (in my comments, not anybody elses) as needed. Our policies and guidelines are not perfect, hell there was a ten foot kerfuffle about a month ago on the WP:IAR talk page that it was the worst policy on Wikipedia. Yet it's held in the highest position of being a pillar upon which Wikipedia stands. Ah well, nothing you can do about it now besides carry on with life. It's not worth beating yourself up over, you did what you thought was right, others did what they thought was right. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• I don't see anything in that AFD that warrants removal or blanking, via our WP:BLP policy. It is pretty mundane. Being somewhat familiar with the law, I don't see how the Privacy Act applies either, since that limits the actions of the US government only, not individuals or corporations like Wikimedia, Inc. I won't fight to unblank it, of course, but there is no basis in policy or law that I can see that would require it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Dennis, I didn't see anything that required blanking either. I looked for a way to defuse the situation without anyone being blocked our pages getting protected and this seemed to be the easiest. As you know all the information is there and available to anyone who is interested in the discussion and we satisfy the concerns of the complaining editor. -- GB fan 14:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest that the person complaining about privacy be referred to WP:OTRS and that we allow any deletion needed to occur by office action. Likely none, but who knows?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@GB fan: I appreciate what you were trying to do, but I'm with Dennis and Wehwalt. Unblank it and refer them to OTRS. Doug Weller talk 15:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

If you think it should be unblanked, go for it. -- GB fan 16:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, guys, there's a pretty straightforward explanation to this. Aruwaz is an obvious sockpuppet of indeffed Iaarzoo (talk · contribs). He tried to recreate the articles deleted at that AFD, and only after they were speedied under G4, did he suddenly care about his privacy and seek to have the AFD blanked. He's just sore. Anyway, I've blocked him as a sockpuppet. MyLucknow (talk · contribs) also tried to recreate some of these pages recently, but he doesn't appear to be a sock. Someguy1221 (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Given the socking and GB fan's agreement, I've unbalanced. Doug Weller talk 17:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

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

"Proxies"

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.

---

AManWithNoPlan (talk · contribs) is making his way through all kinds of articles seeking out and removing what he calls "proxies." Now I can't get into the sources for articles that I posted, nor can anybody else who has a Los Angeles Public Library card (thousands of people). Can we put a stop to this until there is a WP:Consensus on what should be done here? Shouldn't he be adding information rather than subtracting it? Thank you. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

He's not subtracting information - he's changing links that guide you to a site through a web proxy to links that take you to the same exact site directly. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Looking a bit more closely, this is actually a huge improvement. As the link stood before, only people with LAPL cards could access that website. The modified URL, however, can be accessed by anyone whose library has a Proquest subscription, provided they know how to log in. If your LAPL card let you access that info before, it still does, you just have to figure out how to use the library's proxy service or log into proquest with your info. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

He's doing the Lord's work. - NQ (talk) 12:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Tigrayans

• Hi

Problem with user Otakrem after a long discussion lasting three months, after it was reported Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 1 after that there have been discussions with other users 1, ask the write lock for the user Otakrem on the page tigrayans

the problem is a war of senseless changes in section1 Notable Ethiopian Tigrayan people of which you complain of the sources that are authoritative sources, ask the page restore, of The Voidwalker 1 with Axumite kings, who has tried to mediate with the words Wikipedia: Accuracy disputes

and to warn Otakrem do not change more paragraph Notable Ethiopian Tigrayan people but to change it just proving the opposite

• the references are there, not to spoil the work of others

http://orvillejenkins.com/profiles/tigrinya.html

http://www.ikuska.com/Africa/Etnologia/Pueblos/tigrinya/index.htm

http://www.ethiopianorthodoxchurch.org/saint_yared.html

http://www.st-gebriel.org/Styared/gab_yared_music.htm

http://www.dacb.org/stories/ethiopia/kaleb2.html

http://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/ancient/periplus.asp

https://www.britishmuseum.org/pdf/KingdomOfAksum_StudentsWorksheets.pdf

http://worldcoincatalog.com/AC/C/Aksum/300-310CE-Aphilas/300-310CE-Aphilas.htm

http://www.dacb.org/stories/ethiopia/_ezana.html

https://books.google.it/books?id=YTGRcVLMg6MC&pg=PA157&lpg=PA157&dq=Ouazebas+axum&source=bl&ots=qd0ji6e1Es&sig=jRzAKemdzj_pFW4v-dVhBWckEi4&hl=it&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwim4dPpi7LNAhXGDBoKHYBoCTs4ChDoAQgqMAI#v=onepage&q=Ouazebas%20axum&f=false

Bibliography

Tellez, The Travels of the Jesuits in Ethiopia, 1710 (LaVergue: Kessinger, 2010), pp. 89F.

E. Bernard, AJ Drewes, and R. Schneider, Recueil des Inscriptions de l'Ethiopie périodes des pré-axoumite et axoumite. Volume I:. Les Inscriptions Paris: Diffusion de Boccard 1991, p. 247.

Siegbert Uhlig (ed.) (2016). Encyclopaedia Aethiopica: D-Ha, Volume 2 Eight Harrassowitz Verlag .. p. 211

S. C. Munro-Hay, Aksum: an African civilization Late Antiquity (Edinburgh University Press, 1991), p. 91.

letter to Antoine d'Abbadie, January 8, 1869 mentions a coin of this ruler. Sven Rubenson, Aethiopica Acta, vol 3: internal rivalries and external threats, from 1869 to 1879 (Addis Ababa: University Press, 2000), p. 3

See the article on ELLA Saham by Gianfranco Fiaccadori Aethiopica the Encyclopedia, vol. 2, Wiesbaden 2016--tell me Sennaitgebremariam (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Sennaitgebremarian - When you report another editor here, you are required to notify them. I have notified User:Otakrem for you. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The filing party has tried to open a dispute concerning this article at the dispute resolution noticeboard, but I had to close it because it was stated more as a complaint against Otakrem that read, to the extent that I could understand it, as a conduct dispute, rather than a content dispute. There seems to be a language issue, in that the filing party has difficulty in explaining what their issue is. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The issue is SennaitG added Ancient Aksumite kings to the Notable Tigrayans list using references which did not state they were Tigrayans. I deleted those Aksumite kings from that list after a discussion with Soupforone. SennaitG believes the Aksumite kings to be Tigrayans ethnically. Otakrem (talk) 02:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

That is a clear statement of a content dispute (unlike anything from the OP), and can be handled by formal mediation if the mediator is patient about the linguistic limitations or by a Request for Comments. Another moderator at the dispute resolution noticeboard might be able to help if they are patient enough to parse the limited English. User:Sennaitgebramian - You had previously mentioned sockpuppetry. Are you willing either to file a sockpuppet investigation or drop all mention of sockpuppetry? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Request for information about non-notable person indirectly involved with crime

We recently had a request at the Humanities Ref Desk about the Westroads Mall shooting. Bizarrely enough, the user requested information about the shooter's stepmother's ethnicity. When I checked the article (such things always seem off to me) I found a supposed stepmother and weapon had been named, but there was no such information given in the cited reference. Indeed, authorities had refused to provide it when asked. I suggest this sort of behavior is questionable in the least, and I have notified an admin who treated the question as in good faith, as well as removed the name and weapon which were not noted in the source. I think this needs oversight and perhaps a longterm freeze of the article, given its age.

See:

Westroads Mall shooting

My edit removing the name of a party entirely unrelated to the incident, and whose identity and the facts regarding whom have no support diff

My notification to an admin who probably has a day job diff, and

My diff notification of the user probing for information which seems to violate BLP and VICTIM

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs) 05:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• You dropped an ANI notice [213] on someone who asked an innocent question at the Help Desk, mistaking it for the Ref Desk [214]? EEng 05:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• I have a feeling this could WP:BOOMERANG, it would seem the user asking the question is simply trying to expand the content of the article by bringing in more updated content and sources. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 05:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Unless the person who asked the question also added the blp material this report borsers on NPA due to the casting of aspersions and assumption of bad faith. Ill chalk this up to overreaction and wont call for a boomerang for the time being. Expansion since returning home; Your report may have been made with good intentions, I am not questioning this right now, but, you've reported an entirely innocent user to one of the most notorious noticeboard on Wikipedia. I regularly see editors leave Wikipedia because of this page. Hence why I responded more tersely. Not particularly useful since it can boomerang and push the other editor away as well. Now, considering your reporting notification to LLcentury; BLP isssues reported to administrators inappropriate title since most of us here are non-admins and more importantly it reads like a threat. I recommend you personalize the message to the editor so that you don't come across menacingly. This is not always necessary, but, you claim not to be reporting the editor themselves, so, you should make that clear. For example; Hey there, I've put up a notice on the administrator's noticeboard regarding the BLP material on article such and such. The material is a clear BLP vio and I think admins need to take a look at it including possibly revdeling the unsourced and possibly litigious material. Or something along those lines. Note this report itself is not for AN/I, but, BLP/N. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• In all seriousness I think we need some kind of system by which any new thread at ANI has to have a separate, uninvolved person open it. Way, WAY too many threads are completely wrongheaded, or overreactions to minor stuff, or the wrong noticeboard, or... Requiring people to go to a third party, who would then write up the complaint, would help eliminate these, and also get us fewer walls of text and rambling, incoherent OPs on complaints which are in fact valid. EEng 07:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• My main issue is with outing the relative, not with the person who asked the question, although it still seems quite off to be asking this question about the ethnicity of a person's indirect relative by marriage, years before he committed a crime that had nothing to do with her. Why was her "name" given without a source, as well as how she was supposedly attacked? Can a single one of my critics above give a source for that name or the weapon, when the source itself says police refused to comment? Where in the world would we post that Ladybird Johnson was attacked with an AIDS infected syringe without a source? If this complaint belongs elsewhere, let me know; that is give me them same assumption of good faith as you are with this user. But otherwise I simply expect Admins to protect BLP and VICTIM by being aware of what's going on, and not to threaten those who point out that a BLP claim has been made without any support whatsoever. μηδείς (talk) 07:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• I don't really see where this is an ANI problem. Here's what I think you're saying happened here:

Random user asks for information on a person linked to the shooter. You notice that this person is only superficially linked to said crime and questioned whether or not her name (or any other personal details other than being his stepmother) warrants inclusion in the article. You also notice that the source in the article doesn't give the name. You then open up an ANI post.

This is a BLP issue, not an ANI issue. It would only be an ANI issue if the IP was being disruptive and vandalizing the page, doing something like trying to add the woman's personal contact information or making over the top defamatory claims. You'd have to show where the question was obviously malicious, which it seems is not the case. Odds are this was just an idle question or probably something for a school assignment. Whether or not the woman's name warrants inclusion is something to bring to WP:BLP/N, not ANI, and since you've already removed or altered the information in the article, it's kind of a moot point. I'd recommend making a quick note to the article's talk page and just move on at this point. This isn't something to bring to ANI and the reason why some of the others have mentioned a boomerang is that we're concerned that you might have posted an ANI message on someone's talk page for something that really doesn't belong on ANI. This could result in the IP user never returning to Wikipedia because their question (which we have to assume was asked in all innocence) was met with someone taking it to one of the more major notice boards, which can be very frightening and off putting to someone completely unfamiliar with Wikipedia because the impression would be that they did something wrong, when really your question here has nothing to do with them. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• As a non-notable relation her name would under almost all circumstances would be removed as a BLP issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• A few clarifications: I first came across this issue when a user who I am not saying acted in bad faith or should be sanction or did anything at all at our article asked what seemed like an odd question, the ethnicity of a person who had nothing to do with the crime involved and apparently no connection with the killer for five years prior to the crime. So I checked out the article, and this person who did exist according to minor local coverage was not named, nor the mention in which she had be victimized by the killer 5 years early been made public, yet the unverifiable information was published in our article, a name and a weapon that were not verified and which the police did not give to the press. So I removed that material under the rationales of BLP and VICTIM and prior precedents such as Miami Zombie. The article remains, as of this moment, clean of this information.

My secondary concern was, should we be discussing such information at the ref desks, due to BLP and VICTIM concerns (a request asking if this private person were black or Jewish, e.g., would not be entertained) and whether the Humanities ref desk question should be deleted or hatted. My first instinct was to go to AN, not here, but the AN instructions say only to bring up matters which affect all editors as such; otherwise go to ANI. So I notified User:Jayron32 of my concern, since he had already commented, came here, and notified all peoples involved. At this point I think the matter should simply be hatted, which I will do, assuming no one objects, and in the future will take the like to BLP. μηδείς (talk) 18:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Just responding because I was pinged. First, I did not answer any question about the specific individual, just directed the OP to articles and information about citizenship law in the U.S. in general. Second, Medeis, I don't think anyone is telling you that your concerns are invalid. On the contrary, your concerns are clearly in good faith and everyone is telling you that they are, and that the concerns should be addressed. Third, that being said, what everyone is also telling you is that this venue is not the appropriate venue for dealing with concerns of this nature. ANI is only a court of last resort, when behavioral issues have gotten to the level where no other means has yet worked to solve the problem. If you would like to see this issue resolved, these are the prescribed steps:

1. WP:BOLD: remove the problematic information, and leave an explanatory note on the talk page telling everyone why you did so. If the OP doesn't object, never returns to undo you, or engages in discussion and eventually comes to understand the problem, you never have to go any further than this.
2. Ask for outside help in the form of an RFC or an appropriate noticeboard: If the OP objects, reverts your removal, or the discussion at the talk page reaches an impasse, you can get outside help from in the form of an RFC, or by asking for help from a noticeboard such as WP:BLPN or WP:RSN or the like.
3. Ask for specific dispute resolution in the form of a request to resolve the dispute at WP:3O or WP:DRN.
4. If, and only if, the user in question is disruptive, edit wars, stonewalls, plays WP:IDHT games, becomes incivil, refuses to abide by established consensus, or anything like that, THEN it would be appropriate to come here.

The objection people have, Medeis, to this thread is that you jumped straight to the last step, without ever attempting any intevening steps, and also, without any evidence that a user was acting in bad faith or deliberately flaunting behavioral norms. Indeed, near as I can tell, we never made it past step 1. You found a problem. You fixed it. Nothing happened after that. You can't very well ask for sanctions against a user who hasn't even objected to your correction! This process takes time, and the steps should NEVER be: 1) I found a problem 2) I go to ANI to get someone blocked. --Jayron32 19:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

IP claiming to be an attorney, removing passages from article talk page

24.123.224.210 (talk · contribs) is claiming to be an attorney, and has removed some discussion from an article talk page as 'libel.' May require more eyes. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• This appears to have been going on for several days, with the involvement of several IPs. May be time to protect the talk page. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Sections merged. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

IP claiming to represent an attorney while removing talk page content.

Edit: 13:53, 13 September 2016‎ 24.123.224.210 "Libeleous names removal: Attorney for Team Downey Production Company

Not a legal threat exactly, but clearly intended to intimidate against reversal of blanking, which still goes against the intent of WP:NLT. I didn't see a BLP issue, but bringing it here for discussion. Similar blanking have been done in the past, but reverted by multiple editors to maintain talk page history. Perhaps a courtesy archiving would help here? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I obviously don't know if it's libel or not, but I've pointed out WP:LIBEL to them. They seem to be removing information from the talk page about someone named Garner Ted Aukerman. 331dot (talk) 14:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps this thread can be merged with the one I opened directly above? 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't see that one, sorry - feel free to delete mine as a duplicate, or to merge --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked them for 31 hours as they have continued the removals. If they are an attorney they know how to discuss things and not just continue to do what they are doing. -- GB fan 14:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

This is not the first time someone has tried to remove all mentions of Aukerman from the talk page: [215], [216]. clpo13_(talk) 15:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Can I note the irony that someone is trying to remove the discussion of a person about removing the person from the article. --Jayron32 17:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, that's a different person. The article contains mention of Garner Ted Armstrong, while the removal from the talk page is of Garner Ted Aukerman.

Although, there's still plenty of irony to go around. The mentions in the talk page all originated from a named account that had claimed to be Auckerman, as well as IPs who wanted to add him to the article sourced to IMDb. It was only later that an IP claiming to represent the producers began to claim they were asked to remove all mention of him. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Try to be mindful of those with different needs from yours. For example, editors suffering from anemia may or may not agree with you that there's sufficient irony here. Please be more sensitive in the future. EEng 21:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Most attorneys know how to spell libelous. Wasn't Libeleous the Roman emperor after Tiberius, or Spumonius?Or was it Androgynous? I can never remember. EEng 20:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

And "liblel" is, of course, Internet slang for "Lying in Bed, Laughing Extra Loud." --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid that would be Caligula. No "Libeleous" is internet-ese for Imma sue ya! MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Admin attention requested at the Fringe Theory Noticeboard

The specific thread is Crash Override Network. There's a lot of aspersions flying around, and an IP editor who seems to be more intent on venting than civilly discussing anything. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

There's an IP user edit warring personal attacks in at this point, some attention would really be appreciated.

24.84.155.22 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

• [217]
• [218]
• [219]

MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Commment I saw this thing snowballing yesterday. A WP:SPA IP editor popping up to harangue those calling for civility and reliable sources and immediately calling "puppets" upon arrival screams "puppet" itself, but that's kind of irrelevant. The issue at hand seems to be WP:FALSEBALANCE and 155.22 is just attempting to muddy the waters. Xe should probably be page/topic banned until this is settled by editors who are actually seeking consensus and NPOV. Jergling (talk) 16:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Stalking

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.

---

WP:Wikihounding is:

the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.

Here's a textbook case:

1. User:Travelmite opened an account in January 2015, making 92 edits, mostly on two days, where he added articles to a category using an existing list, and shuffled text around in an article. See [220] and [221] for examples, here for the complete list.
2. At the end of January 2016, this account's behaviour abruptly changed from making trivial edits to actively targeting two editors: myself and User:Miesianiacal, whom he attempted to WP:OUT, claiming a conflict of interest here.
3. In February 2016, Travelmite made 246 edits, some aimed at Miesianiacal, but most (198) directed against me via the Australian head of state dispute article, which I created in 2011 and has a handful of regular editors on this rather specialised topic. Examples of his behaviour here, here, here, here and many others. Only a few edits during this time were on other matters, such as support for Brianhe's failed admin request here and some triva concerning Ugg boots here.
4. In March 2016, all of this account's 101 edits were aimed at me via the head of state and related articles, continuing the previous month's behaviour.
5. This account quietened down during April, May and June, apart from two edits at Talk:Panini, taking a predictably opposite position to mine. I had been called there via an RfC request. Travelmite simply followed me there.
6. In July 2016, out of 52 edits, 49 were again directed at me via the School of Economic Science article, which has been a subject of some interest to me. Travelmite again caused disruption, mainly via another WP:COIN topic here.
7. In August 2016, after I attempted to raise this matter discreetly in other forums, the account's behaviour abruptly changed, with edits after 16 August moving away from me.

Out of 569 edits made by the Travelmite account in 2016, 393 (or 69%) were directed against me via articles I edit, or through various other harassments, such as the WP:COIN issue. Fot most of 2016, this account has followed me around Wikipedia for the purposes of harassment, making few edits that were not connected to me in one way or another. Looking at this account's edits, I think that the charge of WP:Wikihounding is clearly demonstrated. Again, I quote:

The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions.

This account edits via Chinese proxies. It is apparently not connected with any other Wikipedia account, as determined by discreet Checkuser requests. (The requests were made discreetly for legitimate reasons I am unable to disclose here.)

I suspect that this account is fraudulent, based on the fact that its behaviour changed abruptly in late January 2016 from making a few sparse innocuous edits to being concerned almost exclusively with myself and Miesianiacal, disputing over various articles, talk pages and noticeboards day after day. This is not the usual manner in which editors begin their service here.

In late January 2016, there was some discussion here about an interaction ban involving four editors, one of whom was myself. I opposed the application of an IBAN then, but I am seeking one now, between myself and Travelmite. I don't mind if Travelmite makes constructive edits (and he shows a good deal of familiarity with wikipractice), but I do find the continued stalking offensive and disruptive.

I request the attention of other editors here to consider my request for an interction ban. --Pete (talk) 13:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Definitely a reasonable request. Until an IBAN can be implemented, I recommended you try and WP:SHUN the user for now. Better yet, I think this long-term wikihounding warrants a block. I haven't observed this user's contributions closely, but from what you've written, and from the diffs, there is a possibility of a WP:NOTHERE case. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 14:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I am a person of the highest principles and integrity. The accusations above are all false, including the details and statistics. You won't find a single other editor to confirm these accusations. I deal with hundreds of issues on Wikipedia, only three involving Pete/Skyring. Why three? Pete/Skying's incivility towards other editors has unfortunately generated incalculable complaints and counter-complaints. And everyone sees them here on the dispute pages - that is the only way I know about them. Travelmite (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@Travelmite: Please could you provide evidence that Skyring has been uncivil (diffs)? Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 16:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there are many. Let's start the 23rd March where I am called a "troll" when defending against false accusations against another editor [222][223] and here making further unfounded accusations that I am "dedicated to disruption" [224]. A few uncivil/baiting comments towards User_talk:Py0alb regarding spelling of Panini, with this diff [225] being one example. User:Roberthall7 is under a bit of a personal attack here [226] which led to the discovery Pete/Skyring was a member of the organisation in the article and making sympathetic edits. But there's more than just my dealings, because this block from 8-August shows a more serious attempt at making accusations, [227] but I don't know the details of that. Travelmite (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Also from the same page: [228] Travelmite (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

1. Looking at Travelmite's diffs above, I think they lend far more credence to my assertion that he stuck his nose in and harassed me for months.
2. He says, "You won't find a single other editor to confirm these accusations." I direct attention here, where the other victim of his attention underscores my assertions.
3. Travelmite lodged spurious Conflict of interest reports against each of us, has been blocked multiple times for harassing other editors, and still claims he has the highest integrity. I disagree with his claim. I think he has proven himself wrong many times over. --Pete (talk) 07:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

"I deal with hundreds of issues on Wikipedia, only three involving Pete/Skyring." Maybe. That's like saying our planet has thousands of landmasses, only seven of which are continents. Looking at Travelmite's contributions, we see how much attention is given to various issues. 45 edits (totalling 14 212 characters) on School of Economic Science, one (17 characters) on Tragedy of the commons. The pattern is clear. --Pete (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

What has happened recently, to suddenly warrant an Hounding report? GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I've not heard from Pete/Skyring for about a month. From User:Roberthall7, I learnt he was blocked due to some other dispute. I guess the block has ended and well ... this. Travelmite (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The two of you are clearly not seeing eye to eye. I think you should agree to disagree, and get a two-way IBAN. You obviously aren't able to collaborate in harmony, and what's happened has just caused animosity between you. Until then, you should just deny all communication with each other. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 19:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I see you were summoned here GoodDay, through one of several canvassing edits here, misleadingly headed "Beacon Reader". I've done my best to ignore Travelmite since March, WP:SHUNing him as per Linguist111's comment. I could see he was putting more effort into trying to irritate me than I was in being irritated, but he made one reversion too many, and I decided to get more eyes on the subject. It's like having a stalking ex, and applying for a restraining order. Wikipedia's equivalent is an interaction ban, and that's all I'm looking for here. --Pete (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

It is akin to workplace bullying and corruption, with a duty on all of us to help stamp it out. We have seen the accusations are false. Although I've been involved a mere three times, it has been confirmed above that the overriding issue is how other editors complain and request help from the community (via the dispute pages) to deal with harassment, bad faith, tenacious arguing and ignoring existing consensus positions, outstanding conflict of interest complaints and so on. (Note: Currently, due process is also at issue here. See Wikipedia:Administrators_noticeboard#Right_to_defense.) Travelmite (talk) 04:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Travelmite has above demonstrated the problem in the relationship. A look at his contributions from late January on shows very little else but a focus on my activities. He claims "hundreds of issues", but apart from a few, every post has been concerned with two topics:

• The issue of the Australian head of state, through the lead article here (171 edits totalling 60 714 characters), an RfC about the Australian head of state (79 edits totalling 29 925 characters), and some related pages. Contributions here.
• The School of Economic Science (45 edits totalling 14 212 characters) and related pages. Contributions between 15 July and 16 August.

Both articles were, prior to Travelmite's involvement, stable articles maintained by a handful of editors each. Travelmite's edits in article space were either destructive, or modest and superficial, his edits in talkspace fixated on my doings. His contributions list demonstrates the facts, rather than his wildly inaccurate clams, and may easily be checked through the hundreds of edits. This is not the "mere three times" claimed above! It is an unhealthy fixation, and his dishonest denials of the problem's extent underscore this. I think a two-way interaction ban would fix the problem, allowing Travelmite to pursue other targets. --Pete (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

"You won't find a single other editor to confirm these accusations." Er, I am a single other editor who will confirm the accusations. Travelmite was not only sternly warned against making further unfounded and bad faith accusations against me, he threatened and then attempted to WP:OUT me, first by trying to have COI and OUTing rules changed and then by creating a page off-Wiki and linking it to my talk page (that edit was permanently stricken from my talk page's history). He eventually left me alone due to, I assume, a combination of the warnings and my ignoring him.

I didn't fail to notice from time to time that Pete/Skyring had indeed become the new permanent target of Travelmite and his obsession with and misunderstanding of conflict of interest. I recognize the behaviour, as I made an AN/I report about Travelmite myself for the same reasons. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Mies! On looking at the previous ANI link I notice that Travelmite was attacking you in an outrageous fashion, earning a 48-hour block and several warnings in the process. The use of Chinese proxy addresses was also noticed by two editors, as well as the "out of nowhere" approach that caught my eye. He likewise made a spurious COIN report and badgered you on your talk page; familiar behaviour. I strongly suspect this account to be run by someone with a longer wikihistory than meets the eye, using proxies to avoid scrutiny. --Pete (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the interactions, none of these are accurate. I never outed Meisianiacal nor did I try. I did not create an off-wiki page or link it - that doesn't even make sense. Maintenance of privacy was always taken into full consideration. Requests from others to explain my information on-wiki were refused, because I didn't trust them enough. Fortunately later, Meisianiacal made a solemn declaration to an admin, which took the COI issue away. Meisianiacal, just to let you know that this incident report is not a problem. You didn't open it. Your privacy remains an absolute priority. Travelmite (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

This is blatantly untrue. Travelmite made a specific identification, and threw in allegations of a sexual nature. Some evidence of this remains on-wiki. For obvious reasons I shall not comment further, though I can back up my statements privately to senior Wikiofficials if need be.--Pete (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Linguist111, I'm brought out of my major off-Wiki commitments at the moment after User:Travelmite messaged me and you reverted that message on my Talk page. Your issue with his message may well have merit. Is it in keeping with standard WP practices for WP editors to remove material from each others' talk pages? Assuming it is, please explain your edit. Also, do you have a history of dealing with the editors in question, or is this your first interaction with them? Turning to the issue of this ANI:

• Due to my major off-Wiki commitments I don't have time to become fully involved.
• I know nothing about Travelmite's alleged connections to other accounts (that happen to be in China), a serious matter if true. Nor do I know about his full record of editing WP and attitude toward User:Miesianiacal which from the description, if accurate, appears to be in need of change.
• What I do know is that Travelmite's issues with Pete/Skyring have merit in at least one article. I recommend observers take a very close look at the School of Economic Science Talk page, before drawing any conclusions about Travelmite and this ANI. He, I and Pete/Skyring have for months been the most active editors on that article. Pete/Skyring has self-identified himself as a member of the School of Economic Science, an organization variously described as a church, school, cult or new religious movement.
• On that Talk page Pete/Skyring has been identified by afair Travelmite, myself and User:Fiddlersmouth as disruptive, and afair the three of us ceased to assume his good faith and identified his personal attacks. On the Talk page there, you'll see a repeated allegation from Pete/Skyring that I am a WP:SPA, and my explanatory response to it, including notice of my disengagement due to the discussion becoming both personal and adversarial. Until now, I have maintained that disengagement, averted edit-warring and direct Talk-page debate with Pete/Skring. Nevertheless Pete/Skyring has continued to bait me; one tactic appears to be a switch to referring to me in discussions with other editors as female ("she" , "her" etc), when nobody else on WP does, and despite my username being Roberthall7. I haven't taken the bait. There's plenty more problematic behavior where that came from.
• On that Talk page, afair User:Keithbob recommended Travelmite, myself, User:Fiddlersmouth and Pete/Skyring going to ANI instead of undertaking lengthy Talk page discussion about behavior. Travelmite replied that he hoped it didn't get to ANI, presumably because he wanted to keep things cool. So it may be that Travelmite's refusal to go as far as ANI was well-intentioned, but that resulted instead in a sort of vigilante 'policing' behaviour by him to deal with Pete/Skyring. That may have caused a negative impression about Travelmite to be formed. He might indeed have been better off going to ANI in the first place, as Keithbob advised.
• For the record, I have had involved content disagreements and differences of opinion with Travelmite. Even at their most entrenched, I not once found his editing or comments to be disruptive, manipulative or uncivil, which seems to be the final test of all allegedly inappropriate WP behavior. On the contrary, he has been meticulously even-handed, sometimes appearing to at least partially support Pete/Skyring, while disagreeing with me. The result has been establishment of consensus and stability to the School of Economic Science article, for which Travelmite is due for acknowledgement and praise.
• If Travelmite were to get blocked, administrators would need to observe what Peter/Skyring then does at the School of Economic Science article without Travelmite being there to provide balance. It may be that this ANI was launched by Pete/Skyring to tactically remove the balance that Travelmite has provided to that article, for a while at least.
• Pete/Skyring has a long history of blocks due to disruptive behavior, and he has just come out of a two-week block. It's conspicuous that he would choose now, of all times, to cast aspersions about Travelmite with an ANI. Is it some kind of emotional retaliation? Aside from Travelmite, I and afair at least one other editor, Fiddlersmouth, having ceased to assume Pete/Skyring's good faith on an article in which they interacted at length. As such, Pete/Skyring's ANI about Travelmite should not be concluded without further scrutiny of Pete/Skyring himself.
• At the School of Economic Science Talk page Pete/Skying has made deceptive edits, to the extent that I am skeptical about his allegations against Travelmite here.
• If the allegation about Travelmite using Chinese proxies turns out to be true, and I note that he has immediately denied them, one solution to think about might be a combination of an interaction ban for Travelmite as well as a topic ban for Pete/Skyring that stops the disruption which may have prompted Travelmite's vigilante 'policing'.
• Either way, I would now support an ANI scrutinizing Pete/Skyring's behavior at the School of Economic Science article, in which I would expect and welcome scrutiny of myself.
• Based on past form, Pete/Skyring will attempt to undermine my observations on the grounds that I'm a WP:SPA. I'm confident that administrators know disruptive behavior is the test of editors' conduct. If I've been disruptive, then please show me where and I'll apologize and make amends.
• I'm getting back to my off-Wiki work now, and give notice that I'll be preoccupied with that for the next couple of weeks. Thanks and good luck, -Roberthall7 (talk) 09:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Roberthall7! Perhaps you could provide a diff for Travelmite's "immediate denial" of editing via Chinese IP proxies? That would be interesting, given that his contributions show him claiming the edits made by several such proxies. You seem to applaud Travelmite for (in your words) "vigilante" behaviour. We don't support vigilantes on Wijipedia. We have well-established policies for dealing with disruption; one example is this noticeboard. Could you clarify your statements above on these two points, please? --Pete (talk) 12:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the 'School of Economic Science' article & haven't been involved with it. But in my past dealings with Travelmite, I've found him to be an honest fellow, who cuts through the baloney. GoodDay (talk) 09:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, GoodDay! On the issue of honesty, what do you make of his claim to have interacted with me a "mere three times"? As you know, the true figure would be in the hundreds, and this may be checked by looking through his contributions. This is why I make the charge of WP:Wikihounding. Would you be in favour of an interaction ban? --Pete (talk) 10:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

IBANs tend to be problematic & short term solutions. I'm not sure how to solve this disagreement between 2 editors. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, we two have some disagreements from time to time, but I think we get on amicably enough, wouldn't you say? I don't go hunting you around the wikipedia to comment on what you're doing and to !vote against you. Wikihounding is a serious business, and most of what Travelmite has done here is to harass Mies and myself. I think an IBAN would solve that immediate problem. Others here are in agreement on this point. Perhaps I'll open up a vote section. --Pete (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The three interactions are Australian head of state dispute, Panini (sandwich) and School of Economic Science. Actually, it's two because I simply voted for Panini spelling under an RfC and didn't interact with anyone. Travelmite (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The Panini thing was a clear example of stalking.

1. I was summoned to that RfC by Legobot on my talk page here on 3 May 2016. This is the sandwich, rather than the reknowned Sanskrit grammarian, Pāṇini, of course. I found a proposal to bastardise a perfectly good Italian word, which appalled me, and I !voted in favour of grammar on 5 May.
2. I also found one of those interesting people who "care too much" and had some enjoyable time with him, which was naturally reflected in my contributions. When someone battles over some trivial word, I find it fascinating. There were some interesting people in the "winningest" discussion in January.[229]
3. Travelmite followed me there on 13 May - he was watching my contributions - and !voted the opposite way here.
4. Travelmite does not subscribe to any RfC notification service. Nor does he participate in !votes of any kind unless I am involved in some way. Not one. That's stalking. --Pete (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Travelmite, you say "The accusations above are all false" meaning that you deny that you used proxy accounts. Does that mean the alleged 'Chinese proxy accounts' were simply your IP addresses created automatically by WP because you hadn't signed in (an oversight which you then corrected)? Or do you have any other explanation? The use of the phrase 'proxy' is an accusation of puppetry, which won't be taken lightly at ANI. -Roberthall7 (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Robert, you're entirely correct. I'm not a network expert, but I certainly don't deliberately use proxies and don't use them as far as I am aware. But let's allow Pete/Skring to make the accusations, because that won't be taken lightly either. He is a member of the School of Economic Science, but somehow free of COI restrictions [230] and seeking an interaction ban. Travelmite (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to believe you, but in that case, could you explain the three diffs above that show you signing your name on edits made using Chinese proxies? It's not possible to "accidentally" use those IPs unless (a) you are in China, or (b) you are trying to hide your actual IP address. Those aren't an "accusation", but a simple fact. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

It's (a) being in China, and I accept that from you, it's not an accusation. I am extremely fortunate that my explanation is simple enough, as the tactic of Wikipedia:Casting_aspersions and getting others to be suspicious is highly effective. Most people in China are affected by the Censorship of Wikipedia and need to use open proxies (policy here ), but this has not been a problem for me. Furthermore, there has been no activity in the forum to warrant mentioning it in the first place. I deny all allegations, and draw your attention to Pete/Skyrings recent block and, to be fair, his response [231], but I don't know further details. Travelmite (talk) 03:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Travelmite, if you were located in China when doing those IP edits which you then corrected, then it would appear that you did nothing wrong and may have been in receipt of a false accusation of malice. One could also ask whether the word 'Chinese' was used pejoratively to sensationalize the accusation. On that note, have you received fair warning that your activity was being perceived as stalking, prior to this ANI? In other words, have you been given fair opportunity to explain and/or change your behavior before being forced to by Administrators? It may be that this is the first time you've heard the stalking allegation. If so, a formal warning may be more appropriate than an interaction ban, and Keithbob's recommendation not to be shy of using the ANI noticeboard may be the new course you should take, instead of dealing with problematic editors on a piecemeal basis. -Roberthall7 (talk) 08:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

These are new allegations. Furthermore they are false. At some point, you were being attacked for being SLA and the page called out about disruptive edits and management of COI issues. Travelmite (talk) 09:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I might have been improperly canvassed, but I might as well comment as I've come to the page. I was involved in the debate at the Australian head of state dispute page. That article has questionable merits, as it seems to have been created to promote a fringe view that the Queen is not Australia's head of state. It had effectively become a debating forum, with endless discussion pages in which the same points were raised time and again. A lot of the discussion was counterproductive and frustrating. Criticism could be made against many of the participants, including me. I don't think Travelmite stood out as doing anything objectionable. I can't comment about his behaviour on other pages.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Jack! We're not rehashing specific debates. Editors are entitled to their views and we have procedures to deal with diversity of opinion. Seems to be working fine so far, judging by the result. The problem is that Travelmite's contributions since late January consist mostly of him following myself and another editor around the wikipedia on a range of diverse topics, always with a contrary position, always creating discord. I'm looking to put a stop to that. WP:Wikihounding is the topic here. --Pete (talk) 06:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Like Jack, I too question the existence of the Australian head of state dispute article, but of course that's something to discuss 'there. Anyways, I'm going to go neutral on the IBAN & allow other editors (who've not been involved much with either yourself or Travelmite in the past) to decide this one. GoodDay (talk) 10:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it's important to look at the context. Pete accused Travelmite of being disruptive of the Australian head of state dispute article in March — [232] — pointing to Travelmite's initial post in January. However, Travelmite's post is recorded in Archive 5. I had started contributing to the Talk pages in September last year, at which point the discussions began to become voluminous. Pete followed this up by calling Travelmite a troll: [233]. Note that Travelmite was essentially saying that the Queen was head of state. Hardly disruptive behaviour in itself. The article now has 8 talk page archives. Travelmite is only featured in a few. All of them feature Pete. This seems more like a case of ownership than trolling.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Be fair. I created the article, and maintain an interest. Two other editors also appear in every single archive, and together, with rthree diverse viewpoints, we found a reasonable stability. You came lately, but I don't accuse you of trolling, Jack, because you express a genuine interest, and you haven't followed me around to other unconnected articles. Your behaviour is, on the surface similar to Travelmite's, but I don't accuse you of trolling, now do I? There must be something I see in you that says authenticity. It it is because you come across that way. --Pete (talk) 00:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Interaction edit counts

Using one of the tools available from the WP:Wikihounding page, I have compiled a table of interactions here. --Pete (talk) 07:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The table (all periods) confirms the interactions relate to three issues: Australian head of state dispute (Jan-March 2016), one RfC vote on spelling Panini and the School of Economic Science (July 2016). The table of interactions over the past four months, when the Head of State Dispute was concluded is as follows:Editor Interaction Analyser

The analyser demonstrates beyond doubt how the allegation is false. Travelmite (talk) 10:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

To be honest I had already done the edit interaction analysis and found that about 250 (140 the dispute page + 80 wikiproject + 40 their usertalk) of Travelmite's 790 edits are specifically congregated to 3 pages, that 400 or so of the total 790 are on pages that Skyring and Miesianiacal have also edited and that while there is a shocking amount of overlap it doesn't appear to me to be indicative of immediate Wikihounding, especially give that the overlap is across a total of 17 pages for all three editors, 19 for TM and Miesi and 33 for TM and Skyring (which is admittedly a lot), but, taking into account all the time lines; 7 of the overlaps with Miesi are in the past 24 hours with all of them being rather expected, however, this changes drastically in the case of Skyring where about 20 of the overlaps with Pete are in the past 24 hours with one of those being uncharacteristically out of place; Talk:Panini (sandwich). So, I'd discount Wikihounding with respect to Miesi, but, am not so ready to do so in the case of Skyring. Note, of the 20 overlaps I'd consider 15 of these to be entirely expected due to this report, the specific user talk pages, and the mutual interest in politics. It's possible that Panini is an unfortunate outlier and not an intentional following. A better pair of eyes with greater experience is needed to draw a definitive conclusion though, and this is merely my two cents based on what I am seeing and expecting to see. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Mr rnddude! I think we may discount some edits right off the bat, such as most of Travelmite's contributions on his own talk page. I wouldn't discount any of the Australian politics edits; they all concerned the one topic of Australian head of state. I see the Panini edits and the Brianhe RfA as smoking guns, rather than "unfortunate outliers". It is impossible to explain them as random chance. Travelmite saw them on my contributions, followed me there, and lodged a contrary !vote. --Pete (talk) 11:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Twelve articles and/or talk pages, totalling 256 edits.
• Nine Wikipedia project pages, totalling 157 edits
• Eight user talk pages, totalling 59 edits.
• Twenty-nine pages in total, of which Travelmite followed me there twenty-three times. 472 edits combined.
• Of Travelmite's 723 edits on en.wikipedia.org during that period, that's an intersection of 65%.
• So of Travelmite's entire Wikipedia contributions, two thirds involve overlapping contributions. If we discount Travelmite's 96 contributes before 26 January 2016, the ratio rises to 75%.

Two things are crystal clear:

1. Travelmite has focused his attention squarely on me to an astonishing degree.
2. Travelmite's claims to the contrary are risible.

I think readers will understand why I find it impossible to believe anything Travelmite says. The facts simply do not support him. --Pete (talk) 11:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

There's no smoking gun. Brianhe RfC is easy to explain, because someone suggested I look at that page, and the words are "To see what I mean about community opinions on privacy and managing COI, and about "content not contributor", please have a look at this RFA, especially the concerns raised in the questions and in the oppose !votes" [234]. I didn't know he voted. I voted to spell Panini, because that's how everyone spells it, not because Pete/Skyring spells it Panino. That came up on a list of RfCs. It is inevitable that you will cross an editor who gets involved in thousands of articles every month (Total edits over 4 months: 16,932!).

Several editors hear have more interactions with Pete/Skyring that I do! Skyring also makes tenacious arguments building up the raw edit count, on the two occasions we interacted. On other pages, edits go smoothly and rarely followup is required. Broad statistics must be analysed properly. Thanks Mr rnddude for your conclusions. Travelmite (talk) 13:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the Brianhe reference. That's plausible, but it raises the question of what you were doing arguing COI at all. Looking at your contributions, it's as if someone just flipped a switch in late January. The behaviour of the account changes radically, and suddenly instead of making rare trivial edits, you're a COI warrior. The character of the edits in articlespace changes. Even the language used on talk pages changes from almost non-existent and strained (see [235][236][237] for examples) to fluent, confident and plentiful. The difference in character is marked. What happened - you suddenly discover grammar?

I don't buy the Panini story at all. The only RfCs you've participated in have been those involving me. Three of them. I've just reviewed your entire contribution list, and there's no other examples. Not a single other instance of you joining a random RfC discussion. A normal person, looking at the list of current RfCs - and there are hundreds open at any one time - will see many that will pique their interest. In nearly two years you apparently only found one of these interesting enough to participate in, and it just happened to be one where I'd spent a week in animated discussion. Right.

And how do you explain your sudden interest in the School of Economic Science? There's only one explanation. You open up my user contributions to see what I've been doing, and you jump in, aiming to annoy me. That's stalking, and I want it stopped. --Pete (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no reason that one vote, once, would annoy a person. A person cannot expect to annoy someone by making one edit. This is not what stalking is and it does not make sense. That would mean any person who happened to vote would annoy you, and that it not their problem. My interest in School of Economic Science was not sudden. The COI issue was there since 2015. This is already documented on the COI noticeboard. Travelmite (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

You stalked me by following me to the Panini RfC. You claim that you selected it from a list - of hundreds - after I'd been engaged there for a week of spirited discussion. I reject this as implausible for reasons given earlier. I think you looked at my contributions list, noted my activity, and followed me there. To mark the lamppost, as it were.

The same thing happened with School of Economic Science. You saw my activity and followed me there. How else would you even have been aware of it?

That's stalking. I'd like it stopped. --Pete (talk) 07:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the statistics, there is a major error in what Pete/Skyring presents. If he is trying to present "stalking" he must have a start date. His start date is prior to our first discussion. His statistics include our first discussion and everything that followed. He also includes this complaint. Apparently, meeting Pete/Skyring and dealing with these complaints all counts as stalking. Therefore the statistics are vastly exaggerated and cannot be relied upon, as per my original reply. Every other interaction (of which there are two) has now been explained. Travelmite (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Whether some of the explanations are able to be swallowed is a different question, I think. Travelmite makes a vaild point here in the beginning and ending points. However, the tool looks at pages edited by both, and isn't the definitive answer. I'd put a narrower definition of stalking than Travelmite does, and say that it constitutes following another user around the wiki to cause disruption.

If we re-run the tool, setting an end date of 16 August, rather than 31 August, we can exclude this discussion we are having now, as well as Travelmite's talk page. I'll keep the same start date of 1 January 2015, because otherwise the tool labels Travelmite as visiting some pages before I did, such as Australian head of state dispute, and that is clearly wrong, because I created the article many years ago, spinning off content from its parent at Government of Australia. I think we can reasonably ignore any line showing more than a week between contributions as not being an interaction. The tool's revised output now shows Travelmite made 346 edits to the same pages as I did, about half his total. --Pete (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Request for Interaction ban

Skyring feels that Travelmite has been wikihounding him, and has presented evidence supporting same. He proposes a two-way interaction ban between himself and Travelmite in order to end this nuisance. What are the feelings of other editors? Should a two-way IBAN be imposed?

• Support IBAN (as proposer). Possibly Miesianiacal could be included, given the outrageous wikihounding by Travelmite against him in January and February this year. --Pete (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Travelmite's contributions to Talk:Australian head of state dispute were somewhat problematic, without doubting good faith there, while Pete/Skyring has been consistently tenacious (not necessarily a fault). But given the facts presented above, the proposed IBAN may be helpful to all interested parties. Qexigator (talk) 08:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support per nom The two of you clearly can't work together in harmony, so I don't see why not. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 16:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
• Commnet - An interaction ban will do nothing to prevent Wikihounding (Please read on as I explain why). I think I need to explain what an interaction ban is and what it does so that both of you (Skyring and Travelmite) are aware of what restrictions it will impose. An interaction ban will impose two main restrictions on the two of you, first you will be barred from each others' pages (meaning talk, user, sandbox, etc) and second, probably more usefully, you will be barred from commenting to each other, pinging each other, commenting about each other, reverting each others' edits and thanking each other (through the thank user for their edit) function. What it will not do is prevent you from overlapping on any article page; you will both be able to edit any article page and join the same discussions on article talk pages. This is the main sticking point for my current oppose comment, Skyring, I believe you want to avoid not only interacting, but, overlapping with the other editor. An IBAN will not impose such a restriction and your concerns about Wikihounding won't be reasonably addressed by an IBAN. The reason I bring this up is because of Panini and Brianhe, neither of those incidents would violate an IBAN because neither of those incidents actually involved an interaction. It is because of this that I see little value in an IBAN. I think that you should (probably will have to) both wait for an administrator (Black Kite is one) or significantly experienced user to join this discussion. So far, Linguist and myself appear to be the only completely uninvolved parties to comment here and I don't think either of us meet the "experienced" threshold for this situation. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Mr rnddude! I've read your comments and appreciate the thought you have put into them. Yes, you are correct: the IBAN restrictions wouldn't prevent Travelmite from following me around and !voting in whatever RfCs etc. I participate in. That's not a problem, to be honest. All these public votes are open to all Wikipedians, and I believe the right for all Wikipedians in good standing to participate in our consensomocracy is something worth fighting for. Even if I personally disagree with the opinions expressed.

I raised the Brianhe and Panini examples as evidence of wikihounding. Travelmite gave a plausible explanation of the Brianhe RfA, and the evidence checks out. But he was unable to explain how he followed me to the Panini RfC. Well, he said he picked it from a list, but I don't believe this; since early 2015 he's participated in only three RfCs, all of which have involved me. I think I would have participated in maybe a dozen or so over that time - perhaps someone can check - out of the hundreds, maybe thousands of RfCs raised. Chances of complete congruence, if we posit only a thousand RfCs in that period, are 12/1000 * 11/999 * 10/998 , or one chance in 755 000. So I find his answer a little hard to swallow!

I want an IBAN for the following reason. In late January 2016 I accepted an IBAN (against my wishes, for the sort of reasoning you outline above). If I may be excused a minor indirect reference, both sides have adhered to the conditions, and the ANI drama dropped off. Since then I have this Travelmite thing popping up, and I'd like the same solution applied. --Pete (talk) 02:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I was out when you responded, and have been aware of your response for a few hours. I think I see what you're referring to, mostly what you want is to not have to interact with Travelmite regardless of whether you two end up on the same pages or whatever. I can see how this may be beneficial, even if you are being followed at least you're not also being forced to interact. I can see this being beneficial to both parties, but, only if both parties are willing to adhere to it. Otherwise the outcome will be further drama and another report either at AN/I or one of the other administrative noticeboards. For the time being I'm going to demote my Oppose vote to a Comment. I'd like to see a mutual agreement to an IBAN as this is generally the only way to avoid further drama. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support IBAN - In early August I gave Travelmite a warning on his talk page because of his/her unwarranted aggression towards Pete. It's clear from this thread alone that both parties are fully invested in this dispute and there is a strong charge between them. An IBAN is the prudent thing to do to avoid further escalation. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC) PS I also gave Pete a warning in mid-July so neither of these parties has clean hands. I strongly support an IBAN.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I think your comments to me were directed at a different topic (which could well be explored here under a different thread), but never mind. It wasn't Travelmite's edits as such I found objectionable, merely the fact that he'd come after me again and again. It's like having some kind of persistent parasite. --Pete (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Absolute, unequivocal OPPOSE As almost any veteran editor who contributes to this space regularly can tell you, these kinds of prophylactic/self requested IBANS (and indeed IBANS generally) are ill-advised, counter-intuitive, counter-productive and almost absolutely certain to generate more disruption, and consume more wasted community effort in bringing things into order, than they (the IBANs) can ever be reasonably expected to prevent. If two editors are already working in the same areas, and IBAN will not prevent their orbits from continuing to cross. The pretty much inevitable result of these encounters is that one or the other party (or both!) flies here immediately to try to leverage the IBAN to get the other editor out of their way. And they don't have to wait until somebody crosses the line into incivility or disruption; by virtue of the IBAN, they get to instantly assert that every content disagreement they have is in fact "behavioural issue" that is appropriate for this forum; long-winded, unproductive discussion insues, often with no consensus result other than for the parties to be sent to their respective corners with a caution. Then, within a couple of months (or weeks, or yes, indeed sometimes days) the parties are back here with carbon-copy counter-accusations of violating the IBAN again. And so it goes, over and over and over. And this happens with almost every IBAN handed down via ANI (as opposed to ARBCOM, which has a more effective, standardized, and streamlined enforcement mechanism for formal cases) and especially those that come at the request of one or both parties (each of whom can view it as a means to clear the other editor from their path, so long as they stake out territory, such as particular articles or subject matter in the areas where they work and "secure" it against the other editor's influence).

Which brings us to the other reason why IBANs are generally so mind-bogglingly short-sighted; they discourage editors in conflict from adopting the basic principles and tools of collaborative editing that define this project. If an editor can come to such vehement conflict with one person that they just cannot drop the stick and work through an issue reasonably with the aid of the consensus process and community request tools, then they absolutely are capable of developing that entrenched mentality in general, with other editors. It's really simple: if editors cannot sort out issues between themselves and one or both fall into disruptive behaviours, sanctions should result for all parties the community judges to be disruptive. If said editors repeatedly fail to clear loggerheads with others, then there's a good chance they do not have the disposition this project requires, in order that a contribute without consuming more community effort than is offset by their contributions. Regardless, the absolutely number one wrong-headed thing we can do (as this forum has born out time and time again) is to give them an excuse to not amicably resolve their disagreement (or at least bring in others and let consensus decide) and then give them a tool which allows them to bring their petty dispute to behavioural forum every time they get a glance of eachother and their hackles raise. I've said this before on this topic in recent years and I'll say it again after reviewing this particular instance: no, no, no--a thousand times NO! Snow ^{let's rap} 19:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Snow Rise. An interesting opinion. Two points.

1. This isn't about two editors working in the same areas. This is about one editor following another one around. It's about WP:Wikihounding. I think an IBAN will fix this.
2. I entered into an IBAN with another editor in late January. There have been no ANI reports raised over that in the eight months since.

Perhaps your very worthy opinions on IBANs are aimed at other cases, and if you were to review the many contributions put forth in discussion here, you might see why this isn't like the scenarios you raise. --Pete (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Civility / personal attacks / End of request

In writing and responding, Pete/Skying appears to be breaching talk-page guidelines. This is a stressful series of ongoing accusations now going over four days. Various refutations of the allegations, which I have provided, have done nothing but caused increased incivility, perhaps even paranoia. Anyway, this has become an ongoing public attack, dressed up as an IBAN request to make seem acceptable to support. This is not solving harassment - this is the harassment. Details of offensive language, aspersions etc... are detailed below for the record.

1. WP:CIVIL Civility: "I find it impossible to believe anything Travelmite says", "What happened - you suddenly discover grammar?", "his dishonest denials", "this account is fraudulent"
2. WP:CLAIMS Excessive claims: "most of what Travelmite has done here is to harass Mies and myself", "Both articles were, prior to Travelmite's involvement, stable articles", "you jump in, aiming to annoy me", "It is an unhealthy fixation", "Travelmite has focused his attention squarely on me to an astonishing degree" (So Freudian!)
3. Wikipedia:Casting_aspersions: "always with a contrary position, always creating discord", "it's as if someone just flipped a switch", "This account edits via Chinese proxies" (wrong), "not subscribe to any RfC notification service", "This is not the usual manner in which editors begin their service here."
4. WP:TE Tendentious editing: "That's plausible, but it raises the question of what you were doing arguing COI at all", Replying to most comments with the same information, Refuting all comments that disagree
5. WP:FAIT Erroneous Conclusions/Fait accompli: "There's only one explanation" (there's more), "It is impossible to explain them as random chance", " I see the Panini edits and the Brianhe RfA as smoking guns" (they weren't).
6. WP:OUTING (partial): The country where I work was revealed due to WP:DOX Doxing
7. Wikipedia:Inaccuracy Statistics erroneously included this complaint and the initial interactions.

That's more than enough to get the idea. Someone should have picked up that this was happening. In conclusion, the IBAN request is moot. My "punishment" is a self-imposed block, so I can get real work done. Bye!

P.S. Linguist111 - good luck as your experience builds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travelmite (talk • contribs) 22:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel upset. I'm just trying to clear up the differences between us. You say you have refuted the points I made, but on examination, this turns out not to be the case. Let's take your points one by one.

My comment, "What happened - you suddenly discover grammar?" was not a personal attack. There is nothing wrong with your grammar now. However, the contributions of this account prior to late January were very different. It is plain to see. It is as if a different person were contributing, one who wrote in a very different way. (See [238][239][240] for examples). Likewise in Wikivoyage, we see tortured, stilted English, such as this example. The contributions in articlespace were very different to what followed. Most of the year's contributions came on two days, and they were markedly different from anything done since. So what explains the vivid change? --Pete (talk) 06:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@Skyring: "What happened - you suddenly discover grammar?"—that was a personal attack, and with the comment above you appear to be gaming the system by "walking it back" instead of apologising. Travelmite, I'm sorry for suggesting you should be blocked; I was too hasty and didn't address the situation properly by listening to both sides first and looking closer. On observing the situation, what's evident is that we have someone who feels they're being hounded, and someone who feels they're on the receiving end of false accusations. The two parties are not reaching any common ground, and this is turning into a battle between them. If Skyring feels an IBAN is necessary to cut off all contact from Travelmite and put an end to this dispute, then I see no reason not to go ahead with it. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 11:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry? How is that a personal attack? I'm asking for an explanation of the two very different styles of English before and after late January 2016. I've provided samples of the first style; it is strained, the syntax and punctuation (particularly commas) are ungrammatical, it doesn't flow. Try reading it out loud; it is choppy and stiff. In comparison, the account shifts to a more natural and grammatical style in late January. I won't say it's poetical, but it certainly reads more fluently. The change is immediate and dramatic. Combined with a likewise dramatic shift in contribution patterns, it seems to me that this one account has been run by two different people, and I'm wondering if there is some explanation for this, perhaps something to do with the use of Chinese proxies. --Pete (talk) 11:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems like a personal attack to me. It looks like a sarcastic comment about someone's intellect. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 12:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a comment on grammar, not intellect. We can see for ourselves. Before:

There such a long discussion about it. There must be someone here who is objecting to it being changed? Look, let me put it this way. At the moment, your are thinking only in US current-affairs mode. In South Africa, white people once got an unequivocal privilege to vote, so that alone is probably enough to justify the wording. If there is a political proposal, fictional world or legal case involving or clearly allowing such privileges, it's also enough to justify the wording. I also checked also how it's handled in other articles.[241] - 21 December 2015

After:

None of the sources support this notion of a dispute except for some minor monarchist-republican debate in the late 1990's. If it was just that, no problem. But the government position is clear. The Queen's position is clear. The academic position is clear, in that they reasonably distinguish between de jure and de facto roles.[242] - 28 January 2016

The difference is clear. --Pete (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Whatever it was, it was still an attack. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 18:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Not intended as such. Perhaps more my sensitive soul being injured at the mishandling of the English language I see in the early Travelmite contributions. To my eye, such prose grates. At least the later contributions are easier to understand. --Pete (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Statement to Travelmite: I support your closing statement above. Perhaps you could have been more polite in your defense. But you are not the main troublemaker here squandering community time and good will, Pete/Skyring is. You’ve understood that the way you have attempted to deal with disruptive behaviour may be counter-productive and can jeopardize your own standing. Your decision to disengage from Pete/Skyring from now on is the right thing to do. If it comes to any more of his disruption, please now go straight to ANI rather than ignoring it. Your contributions to School of Economic Science have moderated Pete/Skyring’s disruption there, and have therefore made Wikipedia a better place. I don’t know of your past missteps, and assume you are as capable of changing your ways as anyone is.
• Statement to Administrators: I am not going to participate in Pete/Skyring’s vote proposing the imposition of equal discipline on both him and Travelmite. First of all such a double ban would appear to be a way of consoling Pete/Skyring, by getting someone else disciplined with him soon after he was last disciplined: [243] Secondly the vote could be a case attention-seeking; per WP:DEM, Wikipedia is not a democracy and afaia ANI is a place for Administrators to take action, not to spend hours in debate about whether "he did it too". Travelmite says he wasn’t given a warning before this ANI, so he'll take this as his first warning. Besides, he has now voluntarily disengaged from Pete/Skyring, as I did several weeks ago.
• Possible action part 1: A future step could be a topic ban on Pete/Skyring to stop him disrupting the articles where Travelmite attempted to stop him causing disruption. On that note, Panini was a Sanskrit scholar; Sanskrit is taught by the church, school, cult or new religious movement known as the School of Economic Science, which Pete/Skyring says he is a member of. So the two articles are part of the same area of interest. Something needs to be done to prevent his continued disruption to this project. If Travelmite is stepping back, an Administrator needs to step up, otherwise this ANI will not be the last of it.
• Possible action part 2: It is important to assess whether some of Pete/Skyring’s allegations against Travelmite in this ANI have been false, defamatory to him and time-wasting for the community. The allegations have involved a personal attack, as explained by Linguist111 (who had been supporting Pete/Skyring’s case). Pete/Skyring then argued with Linguist111 about it being a personal attack. These allegations also come so soon after Pete/Skyring’s own last block, which he told the sanctioning Administrator Floquenbeam “was a little hasty”, that one of their assumptions was “plain wrong” and therefore asked to be unblocked: [244] It matters little whether Pete/Skyring is deceiving himself, or attempting to deceive others, or both; he’s clearly not learning to change his ways, despite ample opportunity as indicated by his long block history: [245] Another multi-week block may be in order. -Roberthall7 (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

One thing I've noticed is that both Travelmite and Skyring are saying "I've done nothing wrong. It's all [the other editor]'s fault.", so it's hard to tell who is actually in the right here. Skyring has made blatant personal attacks. Travelmite has been accused of stalking and hounding. If Skyring feels they've been hounded, I don't feel I'm in a position to say they haven't. It may have been Travelmite's intention to hound Skyring, or there may have been no intention at all. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 16:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Um, I don't recall saying I've done nothing wrong. I'm as human and fallible as the next person, and I frequently make the most appalling errors. Just ask my wife. I'm a big boy and can accept that. What I want is for Travelmite to cease his vigilante quest against me. Let him seek other targets. Clearly he is a person of some intellect and determination. --Pete (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Let me say this about Roberthall7's contribution above. S/he only edits on one subject, and s/he has some distinctive views. I would dearly love to get a busload of neutral editors to go through the School of Economic Science article, untangle some of the sources, and provide a counter-balance for any extremist voices. --Pete (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

What I meant was you both seem to be putting the blame on the other person. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 18:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I think I have good reason to be critical of Travelmite's actions. From my perspective, he's come here, seemingly out of nowhere, and launched attack after attack on me. After seeing Travelmite's outrageous attempt at outing Miesiniacal, I think I'm justified in being wary. I could list the many personal attacks Travelmite has made on me. Would that be useful, do you think? --Pete (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 09:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Further statement to Administrators: With this edit [246] Pete/Skyring slipped in the above new section heading. He has positioned it immediately above my comment, which now gives observers the impression that the section heading was added by me. So he's edited my comment. As indicated in my comment, I was specifically replying to User:Travelmite's closing remarks his section entitled Civility / personal attacks / End of request and addressing Administrators about it; I had no wish to comment outside that section. Moreover Pete/Skyring's section heading is a phrase that he has homed in on from my comment, and a question mark added, which appears to be yet more sarcasm. It doesn't reflect my full comment and distracts from it. If ANI discussion is treated the same as Talk page discussion, then this goes against WP:TPO, WP:TALKNEW section 'Keep headings neutral' and WP:VANDAL section 'Talk page vandalism'. -Roberthall7 (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Roberthall7! You began your contribution on the left margin, rather than following the indentation rules, so I assumed you were responding to no previous comment, just opening up a new section. So I gave it a heading to avoid confusion. No offence intended, just trying to keep things straight on what is becoming a complex discussion. I liked one of the phrases you used, thought it kinda catchy. Never mind. I've deleted it now, fixed the indentation, all sweet. --Pete (talk) 22:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I think we need to clarify what Pete's allegation against Travelmite is. The claims about the change in grammar and the use of Chinese proxy accounts imply that Travelmite is a hijacked sock puppet. Based on the grammmar, Pete seems to think someone else (with better grammar) took over the original Travelmite account. I'm not sure why someone would do this when they could just create a new account. As I understand it, the reference to Chinese proxy accounts implies that someone is trying to hide his or her identity. However, it appears Travelmite is actually in China, and has made China-related edits. I don't think Travelmite has been behaving like a sock puppet because when he started editing Australian head of state dispute he appeared to have just found the article, and made an inaccurate statement he had to retract. I would have thought that a sock puppet would be used by someone familiar with the article. The obvious suspect for puppet-master would be me, as I appeared on the scene a few months before and got into debates with Pete. Is that what Pete is suggesting? If not, then the talk about grammar and the Chinese accounts seems irrelevant.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Well, kind of. I don't think the account is hijacked, but the only explanation that makes sense to me is that it was set up as a "sleeper" account, and for a year it made nothing but trivial edits - adding articles to a category using an established list, and moving some text around in another article. Basically, the account had two days of editing in its first year. And then suddenly everything about it changes. The nature of the edits, the frequency of contributions, the style of language used. It's a metamorphosis. Nothing I've ever seen before.

Using Chinese IP proxies allows the account to operate without the usual sort of checks. Because of the nature of Chinese internet, proxies are used to reduce the chance of being arrested for what we would consider normal activities. There's none of the freedom of expression we in the West take for granted, but of course there is the desire to express freely. Chinese IP proxies are readily available and ever-changing. Just do a search and you'll find lists of dozens. These can be used by anyone in the world.

This sets up a conundrum for Wikipedia. We don't want to stop a huge and increasingly sophisticated population from contributing to our shared effort, but these accounts must necessarily operate outside the normal Checkuser procedures. There are ways to avoid even more intense scrutiny, and with the very real chance of being disappeared and used for organ harvesting, these ways are employed.

So it sets up a loophole for those who want to operate outside Wikipedia's regular procedures. Use Chinese proxies, be careful to use the right privacy tools, and you can avoid detection through technological means. I think that there is a market for this sort of thing. Not just Wikipedia, but packages of established email addresses, social media accounts, software setups and so on. You want to play multiple accounts in a MMO game, just buy the kit from a friend of a friend who knows someone who does this.

In this case, I don't think the article was the target. Travelmite's contributions didn't show any familiarity with the topic. They showed two objectives: to irritate Miesianiacal and myself.

I don't know who or why, but I do know that there are editors on Wikipedia who are driven by urges beyond the desire to contribute to the world's store of information, and I've certainly encountered a few of them in my career here. I'm sure Mies has as well. Buying or establishing a second account to satisfy some inner personal desire for revenge or whatever seems plausible to me. Not normal, but there are people on the internet who do bizarre things for bizarre reasons.

Anyway, whatever it is that is driving the Travelmite account to follow me around Wikipedia isn't really my concern. I just want the stalking to stop. --Pete (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Jack. My comment above didn't address your question. No, I had never considered you as the sockmaster for a moment. I'd always regarded you as an honest, straightforward person. Taking a contrary position to mine on one matter, but that's no sin; I think we share views on most other Australian political issues. If I had thought you were running this account, I would have filed a report at the sockpuppet investigations page. But no, I'm honestly unable to name anyone I suspect is the sockmaster. --Pete (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't feel that this was directed at me, but I couldn't think who else the sockmaster could be. As you said, the Australian head of state dispute is a fairly obscure article. Yes, people do bizarre things, but we have to look at the balance of probabilities. I think Travelmite is a bona fide editor. His early edits show a knowledge of and interest in the neighbourhoods of Beijing. This seems to confirm that he was indeed a resident of China, which explains the Chinese IP addresses. I haven't done a linguistic analysis, but I don't think that there is a significant change in language in Travelmite's contributions. His prose might be sloppy at times, but that's normal. And I don't see the relevance of this. I also don't see how you can say he came "seemingly out of nowhere". Wikipedia is not "invitation only". His story checks out. He says his interest in the topic was prompted by Australia Day (26 January). He began editing at Republicanism in Australia the next day, and then moved on to the Australian head of state dispute, probably following the link. Many people are prompted to contribute to articles based on events, anniversaries, etc. He started out making the following comment, which he had to retract: "I have checked the history of this article, and it is written by two monarchists non-Australians." Now, based on the evidence of the discussion, you are an Australian and a republican. Yet you started the article. It doesn't appear Travelmite knew you at all. He didn't arrive there to target you. It appears he stumbled on the article and was outraged at the apparent monarchist POV-pushing. I understand that, because I felt the same way. On the evidence, it appears that your darker suspicions of Travelmite are groundless.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

"It appears he stumbled on the article." My italics. If you are running a sock, you don't usually want to get found out. Hence the plausible narrative. I don't think it stacks up, becuase the edits for the whole preceding year were so very different. Basically all of the 96 edits for 2015 came on two days: 21 January and 21 December. Those in January were on Chinese articles, for sure, but needed zero knowledge of China. They were just adding articles to categories according to the list already existing here. And the December contributions had nothing to do with China at all. Just a matter of moving text around. Then, nothing until 27 January, and within a day he's a full-blown warrior making attacks every day on Mies and myself. Day after day all through February and March. Displaying a familiarity with wikiprocess not explained by the unconroversial edits preceding. That's a massive change in the nature of the account. I've never seen anything like it.

But, be that as it may, Travelmite went on to follow me to various other articles. His explanation for joining the Panini RfC is thin and implausible, and no explanation at all was given for attacking me at the School of Economic Science article. Neither of those are explained by an interest in Australian political subjects. It's entirely personal. And I'd like that sort of stalking ended. --Pete (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems the relevant issues have become jumbled up with many impertinent matters here. I trust I didn't worsen that situation by raising my past dealings with Travelmite. What he did was, in truth, "come out of nowhere" in the sense that I only became aware of his existence because he started attacking me; I'd never heard of Travelmite before this nasty post on 27 January 2016. He very quickly thereafter introduced himself to the "regulars" at Talk:Australian head of state dispute by way of another, albeit less direct, attack against two editors at that article (which you've quoted). So, yes, Travelmite did "come out of nowhere" with a rancor totally surprising and incomprehensible to the targets of it.

How this relates to hounding or stalking is: Travelmite proceeded to put a laser focus on me and make a concentrated effort to out me. He didn't really follow me, but he did go from forum to forum (Talk:Australian head of state dispute, WP:COIN, his own talk page, WP:VPP) trying to find a loophole or get one created so he could write on Wikipedia what he thought my name is without being banned for it. Then he made the off-Wiki page and linked it to my talk via a comment left there by an anon IP located in, guess where... China. And, as to your remark about how people come across articles on certain topics on certain anniversaries, here's what I had to say about that in my own report of Travelmite to AN/I:

"It's interesting to ponder how it is you determined within less than the span of Australia Day that the page was under some kind of control by the Monarchist League of Canada; you make the assertion in the summary for your very first edit ever to the article. More interesting still is that you made that claim, plus the personal attacks and accusations against me, not after you 'followed the chequered history to the source', but based on 'evidence' that was, by your own admission, not on Wikipedia. And it took you only a max of 40 minutes to go through 10 years' worth of my edit history to apparently find some 'proof'? It leads one to wonder who you are and possibly also who's been feeding you misinformation off-Wiki and why."

Those strong suggestions of Travelmite having been either prepped or prepping before launching his first attack, plus all the rest of the above, is, to me, anyway, the definition of stalking.

Though he's been less intense with Pete/Skyring, I do see the similarities: following someone to an article, making constant bad-faith accusations, and getting as close as he can to identifying someone (deeming them to be a member of an organization) while using "conflict of interest" as a justification for doing so and an attempt to prevent Pete/Skyring from editing the article. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Conclusion

Just an observation. It doesn't appear as though any action is going to be taken here. GoodDay (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Reminds me of my late uncle, who planned on living forever. He'd restate this at each birthday, declaring, "So far, so good."

It's a big ask for any admin. Maybe this should be kicked upstairs to Arbcom. The Travelmite account is an example of a "sleeper" account, set up a year in advance of use, as a sockpuppet account untraceable to any existing Wikipedia account.

• It uses untraceable IP proxy addresses.

• In its first year of operation, it only edits on two days, making no substantive edits. 96 essentially pointless edits, like adding suburb articles to a city category.

• The rare examples of original prose reveal English so strained and tortured that it is clear that the writer is not a native speaker.

• Suddenly in late January 2016, the sleeper comes to life. The edit count shoots up, the writing style changes from tortured to fluent, a clear direction and intelligence is observed.

• First, Travelmite makes an outrageous attack on Miesianiacal, which is sudden, vicious and determined in its intensity. A radical change from previous contributions, and incidentally one that reveals an excellent familiarity with Wikipedia's processes.

• Next he turns his attention to me, making similar spurious attacks - even approaching Arbcom members from over a decade ago - and following me from article to article, always taking a contrary position, always trying to stir up trouble.

• All but a handful of edits after January 2016 were directed at Mies and myself.

• Until I discreetly raised this matter on Jimbo's talk page, when the behaviour changed suddenly, with a new focus on an anodyne article.

• Be this as it may, I am unable to say who could be doing this, so I can't make a sockpuppet request, which would go nowhere, due to this account's use of proxy IPs to edit.

• I've made my case for stalking. I want an IBAN to bring this behaviour to a close.

• My previous (and continuing) IBAN works fine. Established in January 2016, it has worked well, with not a peep from the other guy.

• The !votes above are generally supportive of an IBAN. One editor, who has apparently read nothing else in the discussion, not even the thread title of "stalking", is an outlier.

• The matter of untouchable sleeper accounts, with a strong smell of being set up for later sale and use, is something above my pay grade. Perhaps ArbCom could direct some technical resources that way. Where there's one, there are bound to be more.

For me, I just want the stalking and harassment brought to a close. Let whoever is running this account find new targets. --Pete (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Counter-proposal

The evidence above is unambiguous: Travelmite is stalking Skyring. I propose:

• Travelmite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is forbidden from making any claims of conflict of interest against other editors, and from editing any article or associated talk page where (a) xe has not previously edited and (b) an edit has been made in the last 14 days by Skyring.

I think an IBAN won't fly and is in any case iniquitous because Skyring is not the problem. This is a unilateral solution to a problem caused by the actions of one editor. Guy (Help!) 08:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

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

War in Donbass Timeline Issue

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 current War in the Donbass timeline Timeline of the war in Donbass (July 2016-present)#September is completely flooded with the daily reports from the Ukrainian Anti-Terror Operation that are posted word for word on a daily basis, this makes the entire timelines useless as the important events happening there in Donbass are lost in a sea of fluff. 2A02:2F0B:B04F:FFFF:0:0:4F73:3947 (talk) 03:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

This is not an issue for ANI. If you want to help improve an article, you are free to be bold and edit the article yourself, or you can suggest changes on the article's talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I would do this, but the current timeline pages have been edited for months by some people that are simply dumping the Ukrainian Army reports on the page on a daily basis and undo any edit to change this. I do not wish to get into an edit war. 2A02:2F0B:B04F:FFFF:0:0:4F73:3947 (talk) 04:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I just looked at the last 500 edits to that page. Yes, there are only three editors working on it, but the only edit they reverted in that timeframe was a single edit from you, and it's not even clear to me that the editor who did that noticed. Regardless, this board is for incidents that require administrator attention, and this is not one of them. This is a content dispute, not a behavioral issue, so the solution is for you to discuss. You can bring it up to the editors, or on the article talk page, or discussion pages of one of the relevant Wikipedia projects. But there's nothing here for an admin to do, which is all this forum is for. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Fdgh65657865

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:Fdgh65657865 is an account that was created less than an hour ago at the time of this posting [247]. It is pretty much an SPA for engaging in vandalism. An editor mentioned Parkinson's disease, in a section of an article talk page, and then this vandal opened up a section entitled "Parkinson's disease" [248] and recommending a video by Zdenek Gazda. The vandal also created a redirect for this page, linking it to one of the Presidential candidates [249] I have tagged this page for speedy deletion as a hoax, and would appreciate an Admin delete it [250]. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

One of the steps that led me to the conclusion of vandalism was a veteran editor removing this material from the talk page [251], with an explanation "rv trolling". After this I checked out User:Fdgh65657865's edit history and so on. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Ha, yes, I edit conflicted with another editor in removing that section. What we have here is another partisan hack, I believe, as if we don't have enough of those. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked as an obvious sock of someone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Hshar45 block request

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.

---

• Hshar45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Hshar45 has been creating a number of inappropriate pages (refer their talk page) which have all been speedied, as well as acted incivilly towards others and a copyright violation (please refer contribs as an earlier diff constituted an attack as well). Seeking block per WP:NOTHERE. Notification provided. -- sandgemADDICT ^yeah? 02:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• When Hshar45's user page says "Harry Sharples is a world renowned author from Tennasee", that's about all you need to know. EEng 03:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The dude can't spell but sure knows how to swear. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Persistent and unfounded allegation 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.

---

Note: This ANI complaint and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Gravuritas not behaving well above have become linked because they both now address persistent unfounded allegations of sock puppetry (though the other one addresses other unfounded allegations as well).

Gravuritas (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) has been persistently reinserting material at Causes of Brexit even though it was unsupported by any of the provided references. He has desisted from this for now so this is not the subject of this complaint. However, during the discussion on the talk page, another editor (IP 85.255.237.66) made a post broadly opposing the insertion of the unsupported material. In amongst Gravuritas's response was an allegation that this other editor and myself were sock puppets (presumably because we were agreeing the Gravuritas was wrong - even though he would not accept it). Diff:and also check the edit summary. Gravuritas was warned about unfounded allegations of this sort (diff). He almost immediately responded with another allegation (diff). Another warning (diff). And yet another allegation (diff).

Note to checkusers: I know that you do not publicly connect user accounts with an IP address. In this case I have no problem with a check user being performed because I know that a connection will not be made. --Elektrik Fanne 17:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Notified user in question of thread. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 17:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Weegeerunner: Well give us a chance! Our notifications appeared simultaneously. --Elektrik Fanne 17:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to both for the notifications. The original disagreement revolved around section headed 'Lies and misleading information' in the WP article. Material which I felt was justified for inclusion with WP:RS effectively describing it as 'misleading' was deleted by EF because she/he felt that the RS had not described it as 'deliberately misleading'. She persisted multiple times with this straw man, and could not seem to grasp that changing the term under discussion by her own addition of 'deliberately' to the criterion for inclusion was clearly illegitimate. The degree of persistence in this error I found very surprising and unusual. When another editor joined in and repeatedly made the same error, it seemed stretching the bounds of likelihood that two such persistent enthusiasts for the same straw man could be different people. It certainly looked like a sock.

Gravuritas (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

This is not discussing your continued attempts to insert material claiming that the remain campaign's claim was deliberately misleading when the sources did not make that claim. Indeed they stated that the fundamental claim was correct but that there was difference in opinion over the size of the financial penalty. That is not evidence of intent to mislead and the other editor clearly agreed as did one other editor who contributed to the discussion. That editors agree that you are wrong when you are wrong is not evidence that they are the same person and WP:SPI is littered with such allegations. This discussion is over your repeated and unfounded allegations of sock puppetry, which you have repeated once again above - and nothing else. --Elektrik Fanne 18:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I am aware of the thread topic, and I was trying to explain how a reasonable person might have cause to believe that you and the other editor were one and the same. Your first sentence in the para above once again repeats the falsehood based on your repeated error. I have not ever tried to insert material claiming that the Remain campaign's claim was deliberately misleading. Your inclusion of 'deliberately' in the sentence suggests that you have not understood a word of the multiple posts on this subject. Can you seriously, seriously, not understand that 'misleading' is not the same concept as 'deliberately misleading'? Because if so, then you and one you claim is not a sock are probably in a 0.1% minority.

Gravuritas (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

You kept inserting the claim in the section "Lies and misleading information". Lies and misinformation is by definition a deliberate attempt to deceive. Thus you are claiming that your continually reverted claim was made with intent to deceive. The point that you cannot seem to grasp is that there is nothing in the sources to support that assertion.

Administrators: Gravuritas has now repeated his allegation for a fifth time above and yet not offered a shred of evidence beyond the fact that three editors have agreed that he was wrong to disruptively edit in the manner in which he did. Since making allegations of sock puppetry without evidence is prohibited, I must now insist on sanctions of some description in this matter. --Elektrik Fanne 07:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Take the whole conversation- here and previously- to someone who can parse an English sentence and ask them to explain it to you.

Gravuritas (talk) 08:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I have lost count of the number of times that have explained to you how an opinion from a committee (and committees are notoriously unreliable sources of anything) that the fundamental claim was correct but that they disagreed with the financial impact is not evidence that the entire statement was made with intent to deceive as you keep maintaining. On the other hand, you have never addressed how the sources support the clear implication (by including it in the lies and misinformation section) that it was deliberately misleading.

However, you are attempting to carry the discussion of your disruptive editing here. That is not what this ANI complaint is about. You have not addressed your persistent and unfounded allegations of sock puppetry with zero evidence. --Elektrik Fanne 10:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I think you are genuine in your misapprehension here, so I will attempt to explain once more. If I insert material and justify it according to a criterion, then you cannot claim that my insertion was based on a different criterion. To do so is a 'straw man' error- you built a straw man of your choosing and demolished it, but claimed that what you demolished was mine. (And you've just done it again in the para above- you say that I keep maintaining that the entire statement was meant to deceive and that is false: I have never once claimed that.).

Your inability to understand the straw man error is unusual: most WP editors would have grasped it way back in our posts. The IP address editor was unusual in exactly the same way, in the same words. That's evidence that you are one and the same. It's not knock-down evidence- it wouldn't justify a criminal 'beyond reasonable doubt' conviction, but I think there is a fair chance that it would get me the verdict in a civil 'balance of probabilities' case. In any case it is not zero evidence, as you say above. We'll see.

Gravuritas (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Right, I'm getting fed up with this. Gravuritas has continued to claim that everyone else is failing to comprehend what is not in the references. He is deliberately trying to derail this complaint into being treated as a content dispute. This discussion does not belong here. For anyone interested in how the references do not support Gravuritas's claims, I have posted the discussion where it should be on the article talk page. Do not discuss it further here.

The only point Gravuritas should be addressing is: his persistent and unfounded allegations of sock puppetry - the point of this ANI and completely unresponded to by Gravuritas in any satisfactory manner. --Elektrik Fanne 17:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I should add that this user has persistently been impolite. He has pushed me to the point that I would post a message saying "Stop it! Right now! I'm not kidding!" on his userpage, what I would not normally do. Whenever I would edit Impact of the privatisation of British Rail, he would revert my edits without responding properly to the verbose justification I left on the talk page. That's not nice. He furthermore suggested (this is not a joke) I would ejaculate prematurely (see his talk page and edit history of the said article), he posted, as a response to one of my inquiries "See the appropriate Talk page, and don't try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs, sonny." and also otherwise, in his edit comments on the mentioned article he's not being nice. To be honest, I'm fed up with that (although it's also funny in a way). --Mathmensch (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• In this case I have no problem with a check user being performed because I know that a connection will not be made. Obviously a connection will not be made between Elektrik Fanne and 85.255.237.66, because EF doesn't usually edit from Vodafone (who would?). If the Vodafone user is to be connected, it would have to rely on behavioural evidence. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The only behavioural evidence here is two editors (supported by a third) disagreeing with an editor hammering in material unsupported by the provided sources on one point on one talk page. --Elektrik Fanne 10:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I haven't studied the conversation in detail. It's entirely possible there is a Vodafone user following you around (and I believe I have previously been mistaken about who it was). BTW, while we're talking about false allegations of sock puppetry, I should caution you to desist from making allegations like this [252]. As you know, your allegation was investigated and dis-proven. Burninthruthesky (talk) 10:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. But you have (very conveniently) only told half the story. It is true I made an SPI complaint about you and a fellow troll. The bit you failed to mention was that I was momentarily blocked for raising an 'unfounded SPI complaint', but equally quickly unblocked as the complaint was determined to have been made in good faith (which implies that a reasonable person might have made it). --Elektrik Fanne 16:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I have not "only told half the story". Your past unblock has nothing to do with the fact you knew that your socking allegation had been mistaken, when you repeated it on this noticeboard several months later.

You seem to have trouble grasping the distinction between a mistake and a lie. This is something in common with the IP under discussion, so I see Gravuritas' point that there is some behavioural evidence. I also see some strawman arguments in Talk:Ignition system, where you were supported [253] by an IP you subsequently used yourself [254]. Burninthruthesky (talk) 21:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Going off at half cock again. First edit is not mine, but that is dynamic IP addresses for you - they are nearly a month apart. With dynamic IP addresses, you get a new IP address every time you log on to the internet and there is no control what you get. If you bothered to check the edit history for the second, you would have noticed that I noticed that I had somehow been logged out and made the fact that the edit was from me crystal clear [255] and [256] so there is no demonstrable attempt to avoid scrutiny. But in any case, the IP address is not related to the one in question. But perhaps the main reason for your contribution here is because I was instrumental in stopping you and your trolling companion (or alter-ego), Hengistmate at Plasticine. --Elektrik Fanne 16:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

More misdirection. This discussion is about persistent and unfounded allegations of sock puppetry, the latest of which is in the post above. [257] For the last time, I am not Hengistmate. [258] Watch out for the WP:BOOMERANG. Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Gravuritas now suggested I was a "stalker" and engaging in "POV pushing". This series of insults has to end. --Mathmensch (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I should like to be informed whether further complaints about Gravuritas shall be moved to a distinct section. But his behaviour is not as polite as it should be, and he seems to suggest that I do not possess sufficient maturity to participate. I think this kind of impoliteness could be disruptive and it is not nice towards the authors. --Mathmensch (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

"Impoliteness"? More like incivility and possibly WP:NPA. Something must be done about that immediately. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Please let me know if Mathmensch's allegations are to be dealt with here- if so I would like to respond. I have not responded to him so far in this thread as I thought that his posts here were off-topic, and hence any response would also be off-topic.

Gravuritas (talk) 04:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I think they should as they are certainly off piste here. I cannot comment on that specific problem as I have not found Gravuritas to be uncivil beyond his allegations that because others cannot comprehend his interpretation of what sources don't say, they must be the same person who cannot see text that is not there. --Elektrik Fanne 11:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Gravuritas still making unfounded allegations

New allegation here (this one involving three fresh users). No evidence presented beyond the usual 'A' disagrees with me and 'B' disagrees with me therefore they must be a sock because I cannot possibly be wrong. --Elektrik Fanne 12:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

You are mistaken about three fresh users. It was one IP making three or four edits. Your characterisation of my evidence as 'the usual' is false- I have never presented evidence along those lines before this occasion, where I was abbreviating an argument. I accept the evidence in this case was too weak to go forward with it, and I withdraw it with an apology.

Gravuritas (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

My characterisation of your evidence as 'the usual' is entirely correct. This complaint is precisely about you making repeated allegations without any evidence beyond 'A' disagrees with you and 'B' disagrees with you - ergo they must be the same person. --Elektrik Fanne 11:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: So, as I had commented on the other thread, I did indeed say I was going to go through the claims on this one and weigh in with my own formulated opinion. On the allegations of sockpuppetry; The IP has only ever edited the one page (is it dynamic?), yet claims OK! I've watched this tooing and froing for some some time now. That to and fro had lasted for a few hours, so 'some time now' aside from being inaccurate is rather unusual. Some of the language used by EF and the IP is similar and some examples are below;

• Both editors italicize the word Opinion and append it to the TSC.
• I would still be uncomfortable with the claim that it was deliberately misleading by the IP and You are claiming that the statement was deliberately misleading. by EF.
• IP: You are continuing to assert that both the claim that households would be worse off and the amount involved were made with deliberate intent to mislead - Gravuritas never made that assertion even though EF and the IP have both claimed that they had. Gravuritas' assertion has been that "misleading information" is not the same as "deliberately misleading". Not once did either EF or IP actually address this on the article talk page before coming here. This may seem trivial, but, the entire argument rested on this one point. Thank you ThisisPaul for suggesting a rename of the entire section to actually address the concerns.

• This is not even close to enough to claim that two editors are one and the same, however, I can see why Gravuritas may have thought they were while in discussion. I read through the page discussion and thought myself that the IP and EF were remarkably similar, till I re-read both editors comments and noticed differences. It looks to me that the IP is half re-hashing EF's arguments and half importing their own. Hence certain similarities. I do note, however, that some headway is being made on the talk page to rename the section title which is the content dispute these two editors have. I think that is a more worthwhile endeavour then this. As has been said on the article talk page, both parties are being disruptive. You're practically yelling at each other at this point, cool it. In essence, this is a content dispute gone awry and both parties are in part responsible for it. In terms of action, I can only recommend that Gravuritas should not make allegations of sockpuppetry without presenting good strong diffs first. Your double tepetition (sic) of EF's error makes you sound like a sock of EF. Are you? and Just cut the masquerade and admit you are EF are treated as being personal attacks by WP:NPA; some types of comments are never acceptable ... Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. Any allegation of sockpuppetry should be referred to the SPI noticeboard and left for a CU to accept an investigation, or, decline it. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Further evidence

Following from this discussion, I found further evidence of sock puppetry by EF and submitted it to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Elektrik Fanne. If this discussion is still live, it should perhaps be taken into account. Burninthruthesky (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

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

User:AdamDeanHall jumping the gun with WP:AIV reports

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 month ago, User:Howiebraunstein made several well-meaning but not-good edits here.

Shortly after the last edit, User:AdamDeanHall:

• reverted all of Braunstein's edits with a really literal, really unhelpful edit summary at 22:49
• provided Braunstein with a strange, template-seeming-but-not-actually-a-template first-and-only warning for vandalism at 22:51
• and reported him at AIV at 22:53.

That's reverted, final warned, and reported, all in the span of four minutes.

Braunstein has not edited that article since the last in that series of edits Hall reverted. Per this message from User:Mrschimpf, a lot of work has gone into converting Braunstein into a better editor and Hall's highly inappropriate report could do real damage to that work. Hall did not respond to questions in that thread from Mrschimpf or me and it's since been archived.

Today, User:KyloRen123 added a claim to Star Wars: Episode VIII claiming that the film, which is still in production and doesn't come out until late next year, will be released in 2D, 3D, RealD3D, and IMAX formats. (I've looked around and found a few possible sources but nothing ironclad. At this moment, it looks like nobody, including director Rian Johnson, knows what format they'll use.)

Just like last month, shortly after that edit, Hall:

• reverted Ren's edit with a weird edit summary, this time one that could constitute a violation of the WP:OWN policy, at 18:19
• provided Ren with a strange, template-seeming-but-not-actually-a-template first-and-only warning for vandalism at 18:22
• and reported them at AIV at 18:25.

That's reverted, final warned, and reported to AIV, all in the span of six minutes.

I am not defending Ren's behavior or contributions. This person was causing more problems than doing good work, they ignored repeated offers to help and warnings to stop, they're gone for a month, and the project is better off thanks to a good, wholly unobjectionable block by User:Widr. I'm concerned that twice, Hall went through the revert-warn-report process when you're not supposed to go from warning to reporting unless the person has re-offended. These problems have been raised repeatedly with Hall in various places and he never seems to respond to anybody raising objections. Note that it's been over two hours since I created a thread at Hall's talk to ask him to explain this. He's edited several articles since but has not replied to me, nor to User:LLArrow's message right below mine. (And this pattern of inappropriate behavior and refusal to explain is probably a lot more substantial than just these two situations, per Mschrimpf and LLArrow.)

When I brought this up last month, after a long, contentious discussion (What? I was involved in a long, contentious discussion? Weird, right?), it was decided that since Hall was apparently aware of the issue, good faith would be assumed and admin User:KrakatoaKatie asked me to go to ANI if I ever felt that "there's a long-term behavioral issue". I was on the fence about this then; now, I believe this clearly constitutes a long-term behavioral issue. Others have noticed. And as I said before, it's really strange that Hall, who has been editing for just over ten years, remains so perpetually unaware of how to do stuff around here. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 21:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Adding, I tried to notify every user I mentioned here except KyloRen123, who is blocked for a month. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 22:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• I'm in and out for the rest of the weekend, so I'll give my two cents now. As an AIV admin who is increasingly frustrated with the revert/warn/report cycle taking place in the space of mere seconds sometimes, I'd like an answer from ADH about his behavior. I expected him to say something in that discussion on my talk page that's linked here, but he didn't, and I find his lack of communication to be disturbing. I'll check back to see what ADH says. Katie^talk 22:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• This "jumping the gun", as you put it, seems to be an increasing problem at AIV recently. I agree with Katie here. BethNaught (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Give them a strong warning & that if they do it again they'll be blocked, If they do it again block 'em per WP:Disruptive editing which is what it is anyway, Reverting, Warning and then reporting to AIV all in the space of 5 minutes (and when the editor hasn't even been on) isn't really how it's done and if they think otherwise then I question their competence but anyway warn them & if they repeat it block 'em. –Davey2010^Talk 22:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Not entirely sure why they've decided to ignore this entire report and simply edit a wikilink in my above comment, Not really productive nor helpful ..... –Davey2010^Talk 22:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• Wouldn't it be more appropriate to warn and then immediately block? clpo13_(talk) 23:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• That sounds beautiful!, Yes let's do that instead :) –Davey2010^Talk 23:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• This particular user has been the bane of many other editors existence for quite some time now. This is just a few examples of the disruptive/ownership qualities they have demonstrated time and again. I'd like to see decisive and permanent action taken. LLArrow (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• ADH responded on Katie's talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• It should never have gone to AIV to begin with, it was an ANI issue. The free form format here is designed to deal with those issues. AIV is more rigidly formatted as there isn't much discussion, just decision making. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• This really needs to stop; I also had this interaction with ADH last week where I uploaded a properly licensed PNG image of WPWR-TV's new logo which lists a cable position and is used on-air, and they reverted back to a low-quality direct JPG saying 'If I still had Comcast, I'd be watching CW 50 on Comcast channel 184', which is not appropriate at all. Their WP:OWN issues with Chicago television articles really need to stop (I had to walk on eggshells trying to get my sourced edits to the WGN-TV/WPWR affiliation switch to stick). They also have major OWN problems with 2016–17 United States network television schedule (and years before) where his terms for time periods ('late fall/winter/spring' is more direct for a scheduling period but they refuse to consider that and go with a vague 'follow up' which is not a television industry term at all, and they refuse any attempt at compromise by not saying a word; I've given up there) are their rule of law. Their reactions to vandalism are beyond the pale, and these issues with ADH need to be dealt with once and for all. I must also ask for ADH to respond to this; their silence on any issue brought up is unacceptable. Nate • (chatter) 00:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He's learned that silence works given he's never been blocked for his various issues and editors give up rather than tie a can to his tail and get that infernal "follow-up" term gone. Time to take back the article and make an important point. --Drmargi (talk) 01:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Hall responded on Katie's talk and my talk with the same message:

I warned KyloRen123 not to add unsourced material to the Star Wars: Episode VIII page, but I shouldn't have reported him on the Administrator intervention against vandalism page. Jumping the gun with my WP:AIV report was a mistake. Next time, I just warn him. AdamDeanHall"

I responded:

"If you look at the discussion I started on Widr's talk page, no, you were actually right to do that. That's not even scratching the surface of the issue, though, and if you don't mind, I'd like to keep any more discussion at WP:ANI. It's not really about me so it probably shouldn't be on my talk page. RunnyAmiga"

Update: Okay. I should have come here first before replying to him. After reading what everybody said here, I removed that message and posted this one:

"Go to WP:ANI and discuss there. People are not happy, and it's not just about your bad AIV report. RunnyAmiga"

Predictably, nothing but that ridiculous refactor of User:Davey2010's link. Oh, but he's also since added an infobox at the article for a 19-year-old TV movie starring Yasmine Bleeth. So that's nice. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 02:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

So what happened? He found the one complaint I made that wasn't really on the ball, seems to have copied text from my headline and pasted it into his replies, apologized for something that wasn't as offensive as everything else, and ignored the several other issues that have been raised, including the problem of going through the vandalism-reporting cycle at supersonic speed. And he still hasn't posted here. Whatever happens, happens, so let me just say: I'm really not impressed, and I doubt anybody else is either. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 00:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

But he had enough time to slip in and do this. That's ADH in a nutshell. We've got a WP:COMPETENCE issue here. --Drmargi (talk) 01:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I warned KyloRen123 not to add unsourced material to the Star Wars: Episode VIII page, but I shouldn't have reported him on the Administrator intervention against vandalism page. Jumping the gun with my WP:AIV report was a mistake. Next time, I'll just warn him. AdamDeanHall (talk) 02:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@AdamDeanHall: Adam, I already posted that here. It's not even close to the only problem with you. Can you please read this entire thread and respond to people, and maybe have something to say other than text you copied from somewhere else that's already been linked to and copied here? You're doing nothing to help your cause. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 02:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

And what about last month ? ... Was that a mistake too ? .... I call bollocks on the whole thing - You wanted said users blocked so you thought fuck it I'll try & game the system .... Unfortunately for you it's backfired spectacularly, Back on topic I would suggest you don't revert anyone (even if it's vandalism), Don't warn anyone and certainly don't go to AIV, Stick to editing. –Davey2010^Talk 02:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I do apologize for all the trouble I've been causing, like reverting all edits with really literal, really unhelpful edit summaries, providing people with strange, template-seeming-but-not-actually-a-template-first-and-only warning for vandalism, and reporting them at AIV. I won't do this ever again. I'll just stick to editing from now on. AdamDeanHall (talk) 02:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Adam, I have absolutely no doubt that you haven't read this entire thread. Right up there I said you should "maybe have something to say other than text you copied from somewhere else" and you replied with text you copied from somewhere else. (And that's not to mention that per Widr, your report of KyloRen123 at AIV was good! It was appropriate! Why are you saying you won't ever report anybody to AIV ever again?) I mean, I'm trying here, but you've not given any real indication that you understand what you're doing. Maybe a topic ban would do the trick, but you've done so much harm at such a wide range of articles that I couldn't list all the topics you should be banned from. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 02:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

He's copying what Davey2010 said. It honestly sounds kind of like a Jedi mind trick: "You will stay away from AIV and stick to editing." "I will stay away from AIV and stick to editing." I honestly don't know what to make of that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

AdamDeanHall, we'd like to hear in your own words – in your own words – that you understand the problem here. We're wondering if there's a CIR issue, and you're doing yourself no favors with this copy-and-paste routine. Katie^talk 12:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I understand what's going on here, and I'm sorry I broke the rules and regulations of Wikipedia. Next time, I'll just follow the rules and not vandalize any other editor's pages. AdamDeanHall (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you say that every time to duck out of trouble. You need to actually engage and discuss rather than just throwing up a boilerplate apology, a couple WP: mentions and thinking that's it. This is a collaborative community and I have seen no signs you actually intend to do so. I'm afraid I remain unconvinced that you have understanding what is going on; this is not about vandalizing at all, but taking an iron-fist approach to first time editors and incredibly minor vandalism by IP's, along with page ownership concerns and removing issues you don't agree with and hoping we'll forget and move on. Expand on this and understand the issues, please. Nate • (chatter) 21:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes I have trouble understanding that Wikipedia owns the pages and I don't. And I also try to avoid starting an edit war, like I did twice, and to avoid violating the three-revert rule, like I did once. In addition, I keep trying not to edit disruptively, especially in good faith. And finally, I try to avoid getting blocked, like I did three times. Please let me know what you think. AdamDeanHall (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@AdamDeanHall: In my first message in this thread, I said this:

"I'm concerned that twice, Hall went through the revert-warn-report process when you're not supposed to go from warning to reporting unless the person has re-offended."

In the situations with Howiebraunstein a month ago and KyloRen123 the other day, you took those three steps (revert an editor's bad edit, warn the editor, report the editor to AIV) and in the meantime, neither user had edited anything. I don't want a promise that you won't do it again. I want to know: why are you "not supposed to go from warning to reporting unless the person has re-offended?" Why is that something you shouldn't do? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 23:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Because I didn't know that I wasn't supposed to violate the WP:AIV thing until you started this discussion yesterday. It seems that I have taken this reverting-warning-reporting thing a bit too far. Does this help at all? Please let me know right away. AdamDeanHall (talk) 00:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@AdamDeanHall: But if I did that, I'd be in trouble too. And so would anybody else. Why can't you, I, or anybody else do that? What exactly is so offensive about it? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 00:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Really, I find nothing offensive about that. It just...didn't occur to me until now. What do you think? AdamDeanHall (talk) 01:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@AdamDeanHall:My previous questions weren't worded very well. Please disregard them. Here's a re-wording:

In the situations with Howiebraunstein a month ago and KyloRen123 the other day, you took those three steps (revert an editor's bad edit, warn the editor, report the editor to AIV) and in the meantime, neither user had edited anything. Why are editors "not supposed to go from warning to reporting unless the person has re-offended?" Why is that something nobody is allowed to do? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 06:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, this has become a blatant farce. Hall is manipulating the system and playing it like a fiddle. This sort of behaviour warrants a particular response. That response should be enforced, or else what's the use of our regulatory system?. LLArrow (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I was more concerned about the page Star Wars: Episode VIII. Days ago, the user KyloRen123 added an unsourced content about 3D. I was just trying to make sure no unsourced content was added. That was what I found to be offensive. Unsourced content shouldn't be added to all Wikipedia pages. AdamDeanHall (talk) 11:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@AdamDeanHall: I understand but answering my question is a way for you to demonstrate that you know what the problem is with going from warning a possible vandal to reporting that person for vandalism without waiting for the person to vandalize again. So please re-read my question (posted here on September 10 at 6:25) and answer it. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 18:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Because I knew I couldn't wait until the person vandalized the page again and again, so I had to act real fast to prevent the Star Wars: Episode VIII page from being vandalized. AdamDeanHall (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• One thing I'mm certainly noticing in Adam's responses here are "What do you think?" and "Let me know right away" .... Perhaps I'm misreading this or at worst assuming bad faith but It really comes across as the user has no understanding and is simply telling RunnyAmiga what they wanna hear ......, I really do get the impression there's no understanding here at all, Perhaps this should be closed with a "Do it again and you'll be blocked for a very long time". –Davey2010^Talk 18:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

  @Davey2010: What I think the problem is with a response like this is that it's not a final, established resolution, the sort of thing that several users who've had these negative interactions with Hall deserve. Let's say an admin closes with a note at his talk saying literally what you're going for here: "Regarding the discussion at ANI, do it again and you'll be blocked for a very long time." If you're right and the level of understanding is that problematic, his response, if it comes, would almost certainly be something like, "Do what again?" And we'd have to wait for him to screw up again, which could take another month. Preemptively stopping this stuff, whether it's Hall understanding what the problem is or whether it's him proving he doesn't get it and an admin responding by blocking or topic banning, is why I started this thread.

  I don't know. I'm going to keep nagging for a response to my re-worded question up there until either I get it or an admin just puts a stop to everything because an actual response (and he has posted a bit of worthwhile stuff here) will provide closure, whether or not it's the sort of closure he's probably hoping for. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 20:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I just gave you my response to the question you've been asking again and again. It's up there. AdamDeanHall (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@AdamDeanHall: That's true, but I feel that you and others misunderstood me because I didn't word it very well. The re-worded question is quite different from the badly-worded question that I asked and you answered. Can you take a crack at the re-worded version? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 20:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Editors are not supposed to go from warning to reporting unless the person has re-vandalized because it is the wrong thing for them to do. And they would get indefinitely blocked for that. AdamDeanHall (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

KyloRen123 is a suspected sock puppet of Kingo7672 (who was indefinitely blocked for severe WP:CIR issues). Because he is currently being investigated, AdamDeanHall's report and the current 1 month block are likely redundant and probably won't matter in the long run. DarkKnight2149 21:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149: Had KyloRen123 returned, it's almost a given that they'd have been indefinitely blocked after five edits at most. And per the investigation, yeah, Ren's about to be gone for good anyway. That's not really the point of this thread, though. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 22:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

After ADH's last response I have to agree with User:Drmargi 's raising of WP:CIR. Meters (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Meters: I don't know how many times I've tried to get a clear, valid answer. That, yet again, I tried to get one and didn't is obvious: if something is against policy then of course it's wrong. The simple question is "why is it against the rules?" I've asked that several different ways and I haven't gotten a substantial answer.

So I'm done unless there's a vote or something. I'll defer to Katie or whichever admin comes along but at this point, all I can say is that I strongly oppose an indefinite block per CIR because anyone who can edit like this is obviously something more than wholly incompetent. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 22:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Meters: Competence is part of the issue, youth appears to be an issue, too, given the juvenile nature of many of ADH's responses. But I must say, I'm also uncomfortable with the way RunnyAmiga has been badgering him, particularly given his own all too recent issues with abuse of anti-vandalism tools and procedures. I think questions put to ADH might best come from one admin, by way of a dialogue, rather than a series of editors. I think the responses will be better and more on point. --Drmargi (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Drmargi: While I'm not sure how anything to do with me is relevant, nor am I clear on the accuracy of the term "badgering," nor do I have access to the source of the term "youth" given that Hall has been editing here for ten years, I still kind of figured something like this would come up. To be clear: I persisted solely to get an answer to a question that I now am pretty satisfied won't ever come, and as I just said, I'm done trying. Are you wrong that an admin taking over will make a difference? I don't know. I also don't know what you've seen to make you consider that possible. Because given a decade's worth of circumstantial evidence, I'm pretty comfortable making a guess that there are almost certainly behavioral issues here that run deeper than some consideration of Hall's age. (Which, uh, how old is he? Is this known information?) RunnyAmiga ※ talk 22:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Signal boost

This discussion has sat dormant for 68 hours and could use attention from an administrator. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 18:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Zppix's competence issues

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.

---

Zppix clearly does not have the competence to do many things on Wikipedia. For example, look at his RfA. Also see his mentorship, which worked out disastrously, this link, which shows that he completely ignores copyvios at AfC [259] his inability to copyedit, and, most recently, the two most bizarre opposes that I have seen on ANI, here, where he claims that an editor of 6 years is a newbie and has gone through all of his over 100,000 edits and here, which doesn't make sense at all. I am requesting a topic ban from AfC, deletion discussions, copyediting, and ANI. New (mentoring) proposal belowThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Wednesday Thursday Friday- is he doing accepting AfC noms?!?!? _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• I'm a bit worried about AFC. Carolyn Frohmader seems to have been most likely a COPYVIO with the previous revision deleted and a warning left on the original article creator's page. Yet, the article was accepted and moved into mainspace prior to that. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

(Just came across this and saw the examples given.) I honestly don't know what to make of Zppix. I don't know if they understand quiet how Wikipedia works. Someone needs to explain it to them from start to finish. At least give them a final warning and if they do something out of line again, block. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 17:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

H'mmm- I also note that they have >6K edits, and reviewer / rollbacker privileges- so they must have some commitment to the project, and at least one admin thought they earned extra rights. _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Zppix doing anti-vandalism work, he seems competent at that, so I'm fine with him having rollback. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Okay, first off. The fact you are claiming i'm compent for anti-vandal work confirms I pass WP:CIR. I also have a reason to believe I'm being targeted by ThePlatypusofDoom. I've done more then just anti-vandal and i've done plenty of AFC work. Regardless I don't need to volunteer and/or do multiple tasks on wikipedia to be considered wp:CIR. My edits are also in line with WP:NOTNOTHERE. Remember to always WP:AGF Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Zppix: May I ask why you think PlatypusOfDoom is "targeting" you? You just asked him to always AGF and then you just accused him of targeting you without assuming good faith. ??? CatcherStorm ^talk 21:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @CatcherStorm:,I'll try to give you the short version... I'm thinking about starting an ANI myself. Anyway, Platypusofdoom has been name-calling and yelling at users, i've noticed alot on ENWIKI's IRC... @SwisterTwister: (for witness proof) and has been uncivil and when i confront him he always argues and leaves and comes back a short while later... He's long term abusing users and just plain WP:UNCIVIL. I'm aware he has Aspergers but he himself is barely WP:COMPETENT Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Zppix: I'm going to advise you that a "tit for tat" report on AN/I is almost certain to boomerang back upon you. To put it more simply, it's only going make it worse for you.

I also want to add that a comment that you're competent for anti-vandalism means you're competent for anti-vandalism. It doesn't mean you're competent, or not competent, for anything else. To quote the essay that you linked to, two forms of incompetence are:

Editing beyond your means

"Some people aren't able to grasp the subtleties of how Wikipedia works. They may still be able to do some easy jobs, but they'll probably run into trouble if they try biting off too much. Encourage them to keep to the simple things, or suggest a break if they're getting frustrated about their edits getting reverted." and

Lack of technical expertise

"Insufficient technical knowledge is not usually a problem, unless when adding, deleting, or changing technical content. Not everyone needs the same skill set—and as long as people operate only where they're capable, differences in skill sets are not a problem."

I think the issue you are having is that you are lack insight into, and so are overestimating the competency and skill sets that you have. If you were, in theory, to mature, you could be a more productive editor.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 23:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. Zppix, you're good at anti-vandalism work and you've done lots of good there, but admins have to do other things. They're expected to be able to create content, lots of it if needed, and it has to be neutral and reliably sourced. They also should be able to !vote on AfDs in a way that demonstrates they understand the criteria for inclusion. I don't think you're ready to be an admin now, but I'm not saying you won't be ready someday. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Zppix: Show me evidence of competence, and I will happily close this ANI. See WP:Don't link to WP:AGF. Also, the ad hominem attacks aren't helping your case here. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@ThePlatypusofDoom: How about all my anti-vandal edits, my help getting an article out (see my user page), i've created an template... Platy I'm not the bad guy, I don't know why this ANI exists, I'm obviously compentent enough to have reviewer, rollbacker, and AWB rights. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Your anti-vandalism work is fine, and I have no problem with it. Creating a template means nothing to competence in topics that I have remarked that you do not have competence in. Pinging the 2 editors that I discussed this with previously (I was asking if filing this ANI was a good idea). @I dream of horses: @Primefac: ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment The comment was redacted. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I was pinged to this discussion, presumably due to my involvement both in the attempt at mentoring and at User_talk:Zppix/2016/August#WP:GOCE.2FREQ_copyedits. I don't have too much to add other than what's at both of those links. I'm conflicted, because while Zppix is undoubtedly a good-faith editor, we have to consider the net effect on the encyclopedia and cumulative editor time. Good-faith is not all that's required to edit Wikipedia. I'm a strong believer that any editor willing to accept constructive feedback is able to be a net positive, but I don't know that that's the case here. I briefly spoke with Zppix on IRC during the mentoring trying to figure out where we were "missing" each other on the SNOW thing, and I made no headway. I also asked multiple times for him to thoroughly read what I wrote, consider it, and write detailed answers, as none of my questions had simple answers and were more meant to be a jumping-off point for discussion. Instead, I got one-sentence answers within seconds of each other without much in the way of explanation. I see similar issues with the copyediting fiasco, where Zppix was spending less than two minutes on a copyedit of a relatively lengthy article and responding aggressively to criticism. I have three thoughts here:

1. @ThePlatypusofDoom: Did something specific prompt this filing since the copyediting incident? Unless there was another issue, I don't think any action is currently appropriate.
2. @Zppix: You need to slow down, both in terms of the activities you're currently doing and the speed with which you rush in to new activities. Wikipedia is benefited more by two high-quality edits than 1,000 rushed edits that need to be fixed by other editors. When entering new areas, solicit advice from active participants in that area before entering it and actively seek and value constructive feedback throughout your involvement. That feedback may sometimes be that you aren't yet ready to contribute in that area. If so, take that for what it is; a sincere opinion that you're a good-faith editor who could better contribute elsewhere on the project. Please, accept this advice. I don't have it out for you. I genuinely want you to succeed as an editor, and I think you can if you follow that road map.
3. On the flip side, it's absurd to propose topic bans from as many areas as have been proposed here. If an editor so thoroughly drains the community's time that they must be topic banned from essentially all Wikipedia-space discussions, content creation processes, and copyediting, it's time to just block them. I do not think we're there yet, but if we're going to eventually take action to prevent the community from wasting its time, that action should actually solve the problem. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Yes, Zppix made a couple comments on ANI that made absolutely no sense whatsoever, which pretty clearly show that he doesn't understand how to comment at ANI (One had no relevance to the topic whatsoever, and cited policies that weren't even somewhat relevant[260], and one seemed like he hadn't actually read the ANI before commenting [261]). ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

If a couple of sub-par comments at ANI were sufficient to warrant a topic ban, I doubt there would be many of us left. I am sure that closing admins are capable of ignoring any nonsense. Concur with the numbered points made by BU Rob13 - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

What about a mentor for Zppix? If he is willing to get a mentor, I will withdraw my proposals for all topic bans except fordeletion discussions reviewing AfC. @Zppix: What do you think? ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I wasn't asking to topic ban Zppix from creating drafts at AfC, just reviewing them. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@ThePlatypusofDoom:  Reviewing request. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 14:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

 Editor note: Since both of you are common helpers at IRC, I request that both of you do not interact on IRC, in any way. Whether it is in private messages, -helpers, or -help. Helpees could be receiving conflicting advice, and that would just confuse them. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 15:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@DatGuy: After the mentorship proposal either works or fails, I'll make a proposal for a 2 way IBAN for 3 months between me and Zppix. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

That would be fine, but for now simply do not interact on IRC. Cheers, Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 16:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment I have zero time for a mentor as I have a life outside of Wikipedia... however I'm willing to take one as needed, I'll cordinate with someone. Also I suggest ibanning me and platy for around 4 months to calm things down. 3 months is way too short. I also suggest getting PlatypusofDoom a civility mentor or atleast someone who can help him work on WP:CIVIL just in general (Yes i am assuming good faith i'm just trying to make it fair for both of us). Pinging @SwisterTwister: because he should become involved per situation. Also I don't want to stop working at AfC, that's all i really do that and anti-vandalism. Why attempt to drive away people whom are trying to volunteer at a wikiproject which has the biggest backlog. I hope this proposal suits everyone's needs. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Zppix The problem is that in trying to reduce the AfC backlog, you (and SwisterTwister) are creating errors which require the attention of other editors to resolve. This thread is a timesink and the poor quality reviews you and SwisterTwister are undertaking are timesinks as articles queue up to be deleted or moved back into the Draft namespace. I would much rather see a backlog remain consistent as new Draft articles are correctly reviewed and approved or declined as appropriate, rather than the backlog be shrunk as a result of poor quality reviews being rushed by inexperienced editors, then the time of other editors be taken up trying to resolve the mess created (possibly leading, in turn, to increasing AfC backlogs once more).

I'm also becoming increasingly tired by what appears to be the incessant infighting displayed by Zppix and ThePlatypusofDoom, together with the tag-teaming efforts involving Zppix and SwisterTwister. This needs to cease, this is a volunteer project with worthy aims, not some role playing game where you conspire to get people blocked or sanctioned. The behaviour is bordering on being disruptive, consequently you're all shuffling towards more severe sanctions. I'm sure you would all rather avoid any serious escalation of this game of brinkmanship in which you're engaged currently, so I would strongly suggest is stops now.

Finally, the channel operators on IRC are well aware of the three primary antagonists and will continue to closely monitor the situation, ensuring behaviour is appropriate for an environment where users are being assisted online. Nick (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Nick: First, I am well aware that this is not a role playing game. Secondly, I've never even seen you on IRC, why do you think I am trying to indef Zppix? (Note that I haven't requested a block, just a topic ban and a mentorship). ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@ThePlatypusofDoom: Nick is NotASpy on IRC.

I'd take this statement seriously if I were you:

Finally, the channel operators on IRC are well aware of the three primary antagonists and will continue to closely monitor the situation, ensuring behaviour is appropriate for an environment where users are being assisted online.

It's safe to assume, from that statement, that you, along with ST and Zppix, are probably talked about among channel operators. However, I have the context of your PMs' on IRC to realize that you don't want Zppix blocked; however, you seem to have a "plan" where "If Zppix does A, B, or C, he gets blocked.", and wanting other people to request additional topic bans. I can see how other people would think you want Zppix blocked from Wikipedia.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 03:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I said that if you wanted, you could request another topic ban, and I wouldn't oppose. I didn't say that I would support. And yes, I would be willing to take Zppix to ANI twice (pretty much all the "plan" was is a potential ANI report if I still have concerns, as a last resort,), but that's only if this doesn't work, and he doesn't improve, which I think is highly unlikely to happen. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 10:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

This idea of planning future ANI reports in advance is sailing terribly close to hounding and stalking behaviour, for which a user can be sanctioned. I would strongly suggest such plans are forgotten as a matter of some urgency. Nick (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@ThePlatypusofDoom: ^{Nick might be interested in this, too.} If I recall correctly, you were the one to bring up "additional topic bans". -- I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 22:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@I dream of horses: I said that additional topic bans could happen (potentially), but I thought it was a bad idea, as I think that a mentorship could solve it and there's no need to propose more stuff. You were the one that thought mentorship wasn't harsh enough, and wanted a second topic ban Also, you were the one who said "You should take Zppix to arbcom if this continues and the mentorship won't work". ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Nick: Okay. Would you be willing to mentor Zppix? ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't mentor users. I am happy to answer questions and provide advice when asked, however. Nick (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

A Proposal

I propose that Zppix is topic banned from reviewing at AfC for 3 months or until judged competent by the mentor, ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• Partial support I don't think Zppix will benefit from mentorship. Mentors are, after all, an authority figure, and Zppix has issues with authority. So I'd support being topic banned from AfC for three months. -- I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 21:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment If you have read the ANI, I said I'll take an mentor, but I cannot do mentorship full time as I do not have time as my life isnt wikipedia only. Also I also willingly offered to back away and reduce my activity on AfC. --Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Second proposal

ThePlatypusofDoom and Zppix are banned from interacting, with the usual exceptions, for 3 2 4 monthsThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC

Strong oppose, unless it's a one-way interaction ban on Zppix. -- I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 21:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Seriously... One way? I suggest a two-way I'll be glad to not interact with platypusofdoom... --Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Support as a two way ban for 4 months as these editors seem to have difficulty interacting with each other and it is therefore reasonable to restrict interaction both ways. -- Dane2007 ^talk 19:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

If I may, let me make an observation. ThePlatypusofDoom, your threshold seems a bit low here. Maybe some of that was earned, but it is still lower than usual. I won't labor the point, your a grown platypus, you can fill in the blanks yourself. User:Zppix, you seem to have a history of biting off more than you can chew. This includes getting into areas beyond your skill level and your failed RFA. Enthusiasm is a good, but undisciplined enthusiasm is just annoying as hell to everyone around you. Forget about adminship for a long time. If that is an eventual goal, your lust for it will undermine your ability to get it, as you will make errors and those error will haunt you when you do go to RFA. I've never seen anyone that looked hungry for admin pass, so curb your appetite and try taking smaller bites. Otherwise, you look like a fool. I would avoid admin boards, AFC and the like, and help with vandalism and content, and maybe some simple AFD work, and just learn slowly, like the rest of us do. And you need to mature. So I'm advising you pull back a bit, stay away from admin like areas for a while, so you will stay out of trouble. The question is: are you mature and competent enough to do this? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Zppix: If you agree to do this, I'll withdraw the AfC ban and/or Mentorship proposal. Now that I think about it, an AfC topic ban is probably a good thing. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I seem to have to repeat myself... for the love of Jimbo, please read what I've BEEN saying I'm WILLING to do before proposing... I've agreeded with the first proposal twice now... --Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm tired of ANI, so I'm just going to take a break from this for a couple days. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Creating blacklisted title

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.

---

It's annoying that we have to create such titles (see {{R from Exif}}), but could someone create ImageMagick 6.9.2-7 Q16 x86_64 2015-12-02 http://www.imagemagick.org with the following contents?

#REDIRECT [[ImageMagick]]

{{Redr|from Exif|unprintworthy}}

– nyuszika7h (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done Katie^talk 02:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Burningblue52

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 newbie is having many problems and is not heeding suggestions or warnings. Seems the user knows all and is never wrong. Maybe someone can adopt them before they get themselves blocked. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

If they're willing to not be stubborn and learn, I'll do it. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 17:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I have not caused any problems, nor have I added any false information. I have taken the issues to the talk pages of the band Bon Jovi, as well as to the respective talk pages of the albums. User:Mlpearc's reverts are purely opinion-based and unfounded. I have cited my edits and stated the facts given. The above user is using cyber-bully language, and hearsay. I am not a 'newbie' and have contributed to much of this website's grammar, and structure error corrections. This one edit does not found a "blocking" nor an "adoption". Bon Jovi's album Burning Bridges is a studio album. Burningblue52 (talk)

Some background at Black Sabbath, check the 'tribs here and the related discussion here. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Burningblue52: Please stop making comments on user pages, that's what talk pages are for. User:Mlpearc and User:Campingfreak3599. Thank you, Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 17:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

The editor's comment on your talk page,[262] @Mlpearc: says "Hateful words and bullying online (cyberbullying) is against the law, as is hearsay. Stop doing so on other users' talk pages immediately". Does anyone else see this as anything other than a legal threat? Doug Weller talk 18:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Mlpearc, something went wrong with my ping. Doug Weller talk 18:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I didn't read it before I removed it, It can be seen as a legal threat, yes. Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 18:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

While I concur with Mlpearc on the content dispute, and have previously advised Burningblue52 so; respectfully, Doug Weller, that particular comment on Mlpearc's Talk page is not even remotely close to a legal threat (as defined by WP:NLT). We need far stronger, and clearer, threats of specific legal action to block. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ryk72: BurningBlue52 has already been blocked indefinitely for said "legal threat". Do you believe that action should be taken to remove the block? DarkKnight2149 00:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Darkknight2149, While I think there are a number of concerns w.r.t the editor and WP:IDHT and understanding of P's & G's, and that some administrative action might be advised; an indefinite block on these grounds is not supportable. I would speak in support of an appeal of the block. NOTE: I am not supporting of the comment at all; it's rude and incivil; but it's not a legal threat. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ryk72: I see. I went ahead and notified the admin that blocked BurningBlue52 of your concerns. Hopefully he will respond shortly. DarkKnight2149 01:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

User now seems to be abusing multiple accounts See diff editor and editors signature. Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 19:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Mlpearc Phone That's a rename. I've blocked the editor and told them how to get unblocked. Doug Weller talk 19:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Got it thanx. Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 19:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Might I ask why BurningBlue52's userpage was moved by Céréales Killer? I can't find anywhere in BurningBlue52's edit history requesting such a move. DarkKnight2149 20:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I have accepted his demand for global renaming:

De

Burningblue52

À

Lorem ipsum5656

Raison

I no longer wish to have the previous username

Statut

approuvé

Demandé

10 septembre 2016 à 20:34

Terminé

10 septembre 2016 à 20:55

Par

Céréales Killer

There was no mention of any block for this account, no reason to reject this demand. I am not a number (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Céréales Killer: Okay, thanks for the clarification. DarkKnight2149 20:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Just got back online. Lorem ipsum5656 (talk · contribs) as they are now called hasn't yet appealed, although they normally edit during the time period between my block and now. @Ryk72:, are you asking me to unblock the editor now or just saying that you'd support an appeal from them? The thing about such indefinite blocks is that they are normally easy to have undone, all the editor needs to do is make it clear no legal action - or support of others taking such action, is intended or planned. As it stands I think the statement isn't just uncivil but is chilling. If I unblock without an appeal from the editor, it could be seen as suggesting such a statement is ok. I guess I could unblock saying that another editor felt it didn't reach the level of a legal threat but if similar statements are made the block will be reinstated. Comments? Doug Weller talk 08:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Many thanks for the reply; appreciate it. Neither of us wish to be seen to condone either this particular statement, or the general behaviour surrounding it. (See this clarification, made for similar reasons). I do concur that the comment was chilling, but chilling of what the editor perceived as harassment/bullying. On the core question, I am explicitly not requesting that you unblock the editor now. In an ideal world, I would ask for the block log to be amended to reflect a different reason (civility, IDHT, or other), but understand that this is not possible. I would explicitly support an appeal (against a block made per WP:NLT, based on the block reason only), but, given the editor's rename, doubt that one will be made. I would, however, also support administrative action which obliged the user to seek a WP:MENTOR1 or to discuss reverted changes (1RR or similar). The editor has ~2800 mainspace edits, and an obvious commitment to the project, I'd like to think we could channel that into something productive. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:Ryk72. Thanks. Why do you think that the user rename might mean there won't be an appeal? Your suggestions sound good but I don't think they can be implemented as all I or anyone else can do at the moment, given the block reason, is to either accept an appeal if appropriate or deny it. Now if I'd indefinitely blocked (or even given a long block) for the reasons you suggest, we could negotiate a binding agreement as a condition of unblocking such as you suggest. And I'm kicking myself for not having remembered that. I sometimes think that it would be a good thing if we did have such alternatives to blocking that didn't depend upon the existence of some sort of other sanctions. Simply putting an editor on 1RR for a prescribed period of time might be an excellent alternative to blocking, but we can't do that normally. Technically I could reblock with a different reason, but I'm not sure that would be the right thing to do. Doug Weller talk 12:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I've sent some details offline; to be clear, I don't see the block as being the core reason. I was considering that 1RR or similar might be something that could emerge from an ANI discussion, rather than individual discretionary action; but giving admins alternatives to blocking is an interesting thought; provided the right check and balances are in play, of course. Concur that a reblock is probably not the right thing. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 05:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Clearly been up to no good. So it goes. 161.113.11.16 (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Gravuritas not behaving well

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: This ANI complaint and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent and unfounded allegation of Sock puppetry above have become linked because they both now address persistent unfounded allegations of sock puppetry (though this one addresses other unfounded allegations as well).

Note: I am not the author of the preceding (unsigned) note. --Mathmensch (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The user

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

is being impolite, as is indicated by the following of his edits:

[263], [264], [265], [266], [267]

I think that these might constitute breaches of WP:CIVIL or perhaps even WP:NPA. --Mathmensch (talk) 14:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The latter ones in particular. I've asked him politely to stop being unpleasant to his fellow editors. fish&karate 14:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Fish and karate:.....and I've asked you not to rush to judgement. I would like to respond, but it might take a little time.

Gravuritas (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I added a further impolite comment. --Mathmensch (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I would like to respond, but given that this has been brewing across a large number of actions by both MM and me, and I would like to present a clear picture, this may take a number of days. However, firstly, regarding the second of MM's list [268]. This was intended in a jokey fashion following a premature edit by MM, and when I saw that MM had mentioned it ruefully elsewhere, I realised that he had been offended by it. I posted a note of explanation on MM's user talk, which he presumably deleted, and if it didn't go the whole way to an apology for that specific post, then I do so now. I have to say that it is not playing the game fairly, MM, in excluding that note from this complaint. I don't know how to retrieve it: maybe you can? I added this [269] as an aide-memoire.

Regarding the fifth of his complaints, my allegation of stalking [270], then please look at [271]. MM had shown no interest in that subject before, and just made an entry just encouraging another editor with whom I was having a difference of opinion to oppose me. That's as clear a case of stalking as you can get in one post, and I assume that MM has only been stopped from a repetition by my clearly calling his action what it was. In the same post he implies that I deliberately distort the facts. That's all I have time for now, but I hope I will be allowed time to respond to the rest in a couple of days.

Gravuritas (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Noting an observation you've made of another editor and stalking are completely separate things. For example, I'm noting that your presupposition that MM commented to another editor about perceived behaviours equates to stalking is false. Now, by your apparent (apparent because that's what it looks like to me right now) definition, I am stalking you. Whereas in reality, all I did was make a note of your poor application of stalking. That's as clear a case of stalking as you can get; I'll give you a better one, an editor watches your every edit follows you to every page you touch and makes changes to your work. That's stalking. ElektrikFanne pointed something out to you btw, since you apparently haven't seen it I'll relay it again; Making allegations of that sort without evidence is a sure fire short cut to an editing block. Try not making tendentious claims with no evidence, one diff is almost never going to cut it. I've made a point of doing a quick interaction analyzer on you two, the results are here. Doesn't look like stalking to me. That doesn't discredit the possibility of stalking (you can stalk someone without actually interacting with them), but, given your single diff and limited overlap I'm not inclined to believe a claim of stalking without better proof. You've taken your little tantrum to various WP fora and got ignored; what tantrum? and where? in diffs please. That would go far further to credit or discredit the claim of stalking than their comment to Elektrik Fanne Does. Feel free to take the necessary time to address all of the above, you mention it'll take a couple days. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Let me clarify: my calling MM a stalker was based on the single post that I referenced. He has made no other moves that could be termed stalking. Your discourse above is somewhat devalued by your misleading quote, and your check, if you read my post, was completely unnecessary. You quote me as saying That's as clear a case of stalking as you can get but what I said was That's as clear a case of stalking as you can get in one post. I understand that people have shown much worse, much more extended, stalking behaviour: I choose to believe that MM was setting off on some behaviour and was only prevented from continuing by me labelling him with it quickly. If the verdict of the relevant admins is that I get blocked for screaming too early, so be it. But let me emphasise in fairness to MM, I am not aware of any other action of his which could be called stalking.

The tantrums and other less-than salutary terms refer to a series of actions by MM relating to UK railway privatisation, and I would ask you to suspend judgement on that aspect until my response to those is made.

Gravuritas (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I am indeed waiting for your full response before I make any judgement on the merits of the original post. Regarding misleading quote, ok I can see the difference but I will comment that I choose to believe ... labelling him with it quickly is a presumption of bad faith. I have a feeling though that both parties share some responsibility for this. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• I think Mathmensch's edits are worth considering too: this edit, for instance...? Deliberately provocative? WP:GRAVEDANCING? Both? _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Right here is my response to the remainder of MM's complaint, As mentioned above, I would like my stalker comment dealt with separately as responded to above, and the 'premature ejaculation' was a poor option by me, for which I have apologized. I'll take whatever is coming for those two offences on the chin.

As far as the rest goes, here is a partial timeline for MM's WP interventions. I doubt it is complete, but I don't have any more spare time, and am not familiar enough with the tools on WP to trace any other things he has done in this respect. The background is that MM has decided that he, and he alone, knows the way to statistical purity as far as the metrics used for seeing what has happened to the railway system since privatization and various other milestones in the UK rail system. There is also a huge amount on the relevant talk pages.

• 3rd Sep 12:21 added POV warning to page Impact of BR privatisation page

[272]

• 4th Sep 16:47 proposal for deletion

[273]

• 4th Sep ANI first entry in new section allegation of edit warring

[274]

• 4th Sep AFD lost 9-0 with some seriously dismissive comments of his proposal by other editors

[275]

• 4th Sep he’s withdrawn the complaint of edit warring, but still complaining about me

[276]

• 6th Sep Privatisation of British Rail

[277]

• 8th Sep 18:51 ANI Off-topic complaint of impoliteness etc in sock puppet thread

[278]

• 9th Sep 20:08 another off-topic moan in sock puppetry

[279]

• 11th Sep RFC / maths science & technology, can’t find a way of showing the diff.

Let's be clear, any one or two or three of the above are perfectly legitimate. Put together with all the stuff on Talk pages, where he has been very dismissive of any attempt to ask him to justify his edits, this can only be described as a tantrum. If he doesn't succeed in changing the article to solely reflect his POV, then he wants it deleted. I think 'throwing your toys out of the pram' is accurate. When prevented from inflicting his lonely view on a WP article, he casts aspersions on my honesty, alleges POV-pushing, or tries to find an appeal route. Self-criticism is not possible. He also thinks that we poor uninitiated are not aware of basic stuff like correlation does not imply causation. Some of his thrashing around WP has been directed at me, but I don't think this is particularly personal and I don't wish to include it in the discussion on stalking: I think that, like a toddler having a tantrum, he is just thrashing out in all directions and I happen to be the nearest thing. (By the way, can I nominate Absolutelypuremilk for sainthood? His patient questioning of MM to try so hard to get an actual meaningful justification out of MM has been impressive).

So I think that MM's actions, taken all together, deserve the epithets that I have addressed him by. I think this causes significant damage to WP by destroying enthusiasm for the whole process, wasting time on his flailing around. There are a lot of WP pages that are effectively edited by very small numbers of editors, and vulnerable to a POV-pusher like MM throwing his weight around. Unless stopped, and I appreciate that my chosen means of doing so is outwith WP rules, he will go on to more, similar damage elsewhere on WP. That completes the case for my defence m'luds.

Gravuritas (talk) 11:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The point I just made on your talk page still stands - you've recognised yourself that you've been very unpleasant to a fellow editor, now please stop it. I'll have a look at the diffs you've posted above, however. But two wrongs do not etc etc. fish&karate 20:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Administrator request This edit [280] by an IP and a couple around it on that page seem oddly in line with MM's views, and oddly timed in view of this thread. Please check for a sock.

Gravuritas (talk) 07:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Gravuritas: The chances of anyone performing a checkuser are vanishingly small. If you are to continue to make allegations of sock puppetry, you need to provide proper evidence. That two (or more) users have disagreed with you over an article edit is not evidence of sock puppetry. It is just evidence that they disagree with you, not necessarily that they agree with each other. You have done this twice now that I am aware of (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent and unfounded allegation of Sock puppetry for other example). I do not have the expertise to assess who is right and who is wrong over the privatisation of Britsh Rail, but where two (or more) editors are saying that you are wrong, you should first consider the possibility that you might be wrong (no matter how convinced that you may be that you are not), just as you were wrong at Causes of Brexit. You seem to have missed the warning (now twice): Making allegations of that sort without evidence is a sure fire short cut to an editing block. Or are you now going to accuse Mr rnddude and myself of being socks because we are agreeing on this point whereas you believe you can fire off unfounded allegations unchecked? You also seem to have ignored The first rule of holes: "When you find yourself in one - stop digging!".

I had suggested to the OP that this complaint was off-piste from the one above and should be raised separately. However, as it has developed, it has become more and more on-piste and that original suggestion may not have been as apposite as originally intended. My only defence is: that it was made in good faith. --Elektrik Fanne 13:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear EF. Please let's keep things simple. I have referred to you and the IP poster during our difference of opinions several times as sock puppets; you have complained further up this board; I have explained the grounds; the admins will presumably decide shortly whether my grounds were sufficient, and act accordingly. I await their decision(s). I have, as you kindly mentioned, been civil during our differences.

This thread has been opened by someone to whom I have not been civil, because in my view he showed a highly objectionable series of actions, any one of which was legitimate. I show some of his actions in the timeline above, and it would be consistent with those widely-varying actions if he tried to 'get his way' through yet another means, having failed with various others. I have raised a question here because it seemed the appropriate time and place, and I hope it will be responded to. If it were to be MM socking, then it adds to the timeline of actions under consideration. As in the complaint that you have raised against me, I await the court's judgement.

Gravuritas (talk) 13:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

"This thread has been opened by someone to whom I have not been civil... " (my emphasis). Confession? --Elektrik Fanne 13:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Elektrik Fanne, I think it's clear to anyone who gives us even a passing glance that we are indeed the exact same person. Let's not kid ourselves. :P On a more serious note, Gravuritas, AN/I is not really a courtroom with a judge, jury and if need be executioner. I think it should be noted clearly as well here that the accusation of sockpuppetry must be supported by strong diffs at the very least. If you can show similar editing patterns or behaviours than that is good as well. That said, editors agreeing with one another would not meet this requirement. It's perfectly possible for two completely different people to agree with each other. Also, As far as I am aware, admins are unable to perform sockpuppetry checks, only a checkuser may do that. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

1. I wasn't aware that sock-puppetry questions needed strong diffs. Those don't exist in MM's case, so my question about him is withdrawn with an apology.

2. I have explained my reasons for associating EF & the mysterious equally illogical IP, and the characterization of my argument as merely being two people disagreeing with me is laughable. I've bounced around WP for several years now, had a number of disagreements to various degrees, and don't recall ever having been mixed up in an allegation of sock-puppetry before now. [To my knowledge, I've never even seen a sock-puppet in action before] Moreover, what is not so funny now, Mr rnddude, is that by your joke you seem to be concurring in EF's wonky obvious misstatement of the grounds for my opinion, on top of already having misquoted me in a very misleading way in EF's thread. To be blunt, if there were a jury I would object to you being on it.

3. @Elektrik Fanne- a confession to incivility by me is not needed. My words to Mathmensch were obviously not civil. The defence is that they were accurate. If someone makes a racist comment, I assume that WP is not going to have a fit of the vapours if someone labels it as such. [For clarity, I am not accusing anyone around these parts of racism- it's an illustration) If MM did have a destructive tantrum, it's really not up to him to complain if somebody points it out. I would suggest a significant question for what I've now been told is a non-court or a non-jury is: Do MM's actions amount to a tantrum?

Gravuritas (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Ummm.... 1. on top of already having misquoted me in a very misleading way in EF's thread. I haven't commented on EF's thread it was this thread where I "misquoted you" and I'll refer to it later. 2. My joke was not directed to you, and you can choose either to laugh or not, it doesn't affect me. 3. Thanks for withdrawing your SP allegation. 4. Regarding and the characterization of my argument as merely being two people disagreeing with me is laughable you mind explaining this then; This edit [18] by an IP and a couple around it on that page seem oddly in line with MM's views, and oddly timed in view of this thread. Please check for a sock. It's not laughable, it is exactly what you said and did (I didn't even refer to the EF allegation of which I have no knowledge). 5. To be blunt, if there were a jury I would object to you being on it. 1. there isn't a jury and 2. the defendent doesn't get to strike jurors if there was, a lawyer however can. I quoted your words exactly having left the last few words out not thinking that it would change the meaning. I honestly thought in a single post was referring to your post and not MM's post. But that doesn't matter and I've already admitted to that mistake, so could you WP:AGF or naw? 6. I have explained my reasons for associating EF & the mysterious equally illogical IP you realize that's a personal attack right? you're calling EF and the IP illogical and not the premise or position or what have you that they are representing. Comment on content not the contributor, what's the illogical content? (I did say I haven't commented on EF's thread and have no knowledge of the complain). Mr rnddude (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

1. You are right, your misleading extract was in this thread. 2. Your joke was in sympathy with EF's complete mischaracterization of my point, so I don't accept the 'wasn't directed at me' response. If you are one of the ones sitting in judgment, or non-judgment, then I suggest you try harder to appear impartial. 3. You are welcome. 4. Yes, it is laughable. The question was raised by me because MM has shown a pattern of behavior, in that if the articles on rail privatization are not to his liking, he will seek to delete them, diminish them, or attack whatever gets in his way- including me to some extent. The 3 or 4 fast edits that drew my attention could be a match for that sort of behavior, and my question had absolutely nothing to do with 'disagreeing with me'. I used 'in line with his views' (which in any case is not the same point at all as 'out of line with my views') and not 'in line with his views and behaviour', which is what I was thinking, because I was trying to make the question as mild as possible. When you stressed that serious support was needed to even ask the question, I dropped it. 5. I was happy to drop it & assume WP:AGF until 2. above made WP:AGF a bit tougher to do. My personal judgment of your GF will remain open until I've seen a bit more reasoned argument as a conclusion. 6. I have explained the illogic of strawman arguments to EF until I am blue in the face. He/she has repeated them, extended them, diversified them, and continues with them. If you look at the Brexit threads, you will find around 20, I would guess. If you look at the EF thread in this board, you'll even find a couple there, too. At some point you have to admit that somebody manufacturing illogic on such a scale is illogical. It's not an attack, it's the truth. And, given that that the threads are becoming so intermingled, the IP address editor also created a straw man (slurring 'misleading' into 'deliberately misleading') using exactly the same words as EF. Given that few editors on WP are such homopalaephiliacs, then it was clear that they were equally illogical and I drew a conclusion that they were the same person. It may or may not have been right, but contrary to EF's assertion below, it was not based on zero evidence.

Gravuritas (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I re-read both your comment above and EF's original comment to which I made a joke to. I thought I had to have missed something and it occurred to me then that there seems to be a misunderstanding. First, you bring up my "impartiality" into question, can we differentiate between impartiality (treating everyone equally) and opinion. I have given my opinions to certain things you've written that I disagreed with, I haven't been partial to the OP as I think is evidenced by this I am indeed waiting for your full response before I make any judgement on the merits of the original post. I still haven't commented on the merits of the OP. I have commented on several things you've said that I thought breached policy, most notably your SPI allegations and stalking comments. I have commented four times on this thread. First, addressing your claim of stalking which you devalued because of my misleading quote, which I explained above and apologized for when I realized my mistake, would you like me to strike or amend that comment? since it's the only thing I can do. Second, to reply to you and inform you that I am not passing any judgement till you give your side of the story (I think impartiality predicates itself on letting both sides tell their story). Third, a joke to EF and an explanation that SPI's won't be accepted without strong evidence. Fourth, a long reply to you on your points about me. The Fifth now begins and is dedicated to point 2. since it's the only one that needs my response; Your joke was in sympathy with EF's complete mischaracterization of my point. Actually it was linked to this; Administrator request This edit [18] by an IP and a couple around it on that page seem oddly in line with MM's views, and oddly timed in view of this thread. Please check for a sock which you've gone ahead and clarified, yet acknowledge that brevity affected the meaning; "in line with his views" means agreeing with, whereas "inline with his views and behaviours" is actually more SPI related. You could only argue that it was my mis-characterization of your comment and not EF's since I posted it in my comment above again. I could sympathize with their mis-characterization given that it was also my own personal reading of that comment. I don't accept the 'wasn't directed at me' response, so you're implying my joke was aimed at you? even though I said anybody. Fine, read between the lines that don't exist. I say things I mean directly, directly. If it was aimed at you, if it was directed at you then my joke would have been; Don't kid yourself EF, Gravuritas has obviously recognized that we're sockpuppets of each other. Or something to that effect. But no, I specifically used something vague and non-specific; anybody. I don't know if you've noticed, but EF has been accused of SP before and it was dismissed without prejudice. I haven't been formally investigated for SP but have been asked questions. That is why I made the joke. We're so far off-topic at this point that I think we're done with this. Anything from here is just going to be circles. I'll give any judgement I have on the merits of the OP later on. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Posting 500+ words and then deciding that 'we're done with this' is a bit off.

Here's EF to me, a couple of posts before your joke, repeating her/his unsupportable assertion for the nth time:

Or are you now going to accuse Mr rnddude and myself of being socks because we are agreeing on this point whereas you believe you can fire off unfounded allegations unchecked?

Your joke:

Elektrik Fanne, I think it's clear to anyone who gives us even a passing glance that we are indeed the exact same person. Let's not kid ourselves

I think most reasonable people would at least acknowledge that it did not look impartial.

Gravuritas (talk) 05:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

So you're contending that my joke was in response to EF's comment? I thought that was obvious. I said it wasn't directed at you and that I was being non-specific so that anybody could be implicated. I thought that was obvious too. This is the offending statement; Administrator request This edit [18] by an IP and a couple around it on that page seem oddly in line with MM's views, and oddly timed in view of this thread. Please check for a sock which both myself and EF characterized in the same way.

Your assertion - This edit [18] by an IP and a couple around it on that page seem oddly in line with MM's views, and oddly timed in view of this thread.

My characterization - I think it should be noted clearly as well here that the accusation of sockpuppetry must be supported by strong diffs at the very least. If you can show similar editing patterns or behaviours than that is good as well. That said, editors agreeing with one another would not meet this requirement. It's perfectly possible for two completely different people to agree with each other. There's my characterization of that comment one more time.

EF's characterization - If you are to continue to make allegations of sock puppetry, you need to provide proper evidence. That two (or more) users have disagreed with you over an article edit is not evidence of sock puppetry.

Clearly, myself and EF agree. We wrote practically the same thing just with different words. This thread is about MM's complaint by the way, I still have no clue what's in EF's thread. I suggest you try harder to appear impartial - well, I will leave that for the judge to decide. I'll try and post a full response at the bottom regarding the actual complaint here. If you're wondering why I said We're so far off-topic at this point that I think we're done with this, it's because this has nothing to do with the merits of MM's complaint and also nothing to do with the merits of your response to that complaint. Also, and this is important, in this court of law, the juror's opinions are weighed by the judge. There is no simple guilty/not guilty verdict. It's a discussion. The closing admin will decide if I have said anything useful anywhere in this thread. I can assure you nothing I have said since 13:43, 14 September 2016 up to 12:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC) will be considered worthwhile since it's much ado about nothing. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I must admit that I am now confused as to the two threads, hence my request to keep things simple to EF earlier. I understand now that you may be successfully differentiating in your head between the two threads, but as a matter of practicality that is now hard to achieve. I would suggest that EFs post made it abundantly clear that she views this as a pattern of behaviour of mine, and so it seems strange that you 'have no clue what is in EF's thread' even if you haven't read that thread. My difficulty has been in understanding the verging-on the theological difference between you agreeing with EF in her stance to me regarding the single question I asked in this thread, regarding MM and SP, and you agreeing with her/his much repeated identical stance regarding my viewing EF and an IP as SP. If you do care to look at EFs thread, you will see how 'agreeing with EF' is not a tenable position, even if you don't agree with me. I think I now understand this incredibly subtle difference that you are capable of, and all I can say is if you can really maintain that sort of internal firewall, you're a better man than I am.

Returning to this thread, it appears that WP:CRUSH may describe some of what MM has been doing.

Gravuritas (talk) 14:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I had a five hundred word response, killed it in favour of two sentences. I'll take a look at the merits of both threads, I'll post one comment on EF's thread and one on this thread. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Gravuritas, your comments to me are now starting to slowly make sense. I have only just now realized that the comment that EF made was not only about this; Administrator request This edit [18] by an IP and a couple around it on that page seem oddly in line with MM's views, and oddly timed in view of this thread. Please check for a sock. But also about their own thread. Which you may note I have posted on. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

So let's just get this straight. You have repeated your allegations of sock puppetry yet again. And you have still not provided one single shred of evidence. --Elektrik Fanne 14:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Elektrik Fanne. Please accept that I am not intending to be provocative. If I am accused of alleging sock-puppetry, I can't discuss it without explaining why I think so. As far as I recall, my mentioning this belief has been limited to this board for the past few days, and unless needed to defend myself, and as the IP intervention has disappeared, then I have no problem promising not to repeat any such allegations in your direction unless there is fresh (strong!) evidence to do so.

Gravuritas (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear Elektrik Fanne & Mathmensch

Would you consider joining me in a request to whoever patrols this board to get on and close this and EF's discussion soon, awarding brownie points, citations for valour, or lifetime bans as they see fit? This is turning our respective differences, which already consumed considerable time, into an even larger consumer of time.

Gravuritas (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Gravuritas: I would not presume to request that the admins 'get on and close this'. They will get around to examining this at their own pace (and that is generally in proportion to the length of the discussion - so don't hold your breath). It would help your case if you posted a statement that you would not make any further unfounded allegations against anyone without submitting evidence. I should perhaps draw your attention to the Wikipedia policy no personal attacks In particular the bit that says "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence [is a personal attack]" and "even isolated personal attacks may lead to a block for disruption.".

You might have noticed that an editor who was trolling in the past decided to raise an SPI case (doubtless in retaliation for the opposition he had for all the problems he tried to cause). He was trying the same trick that you were: that is claiming that because someone agreed with me, we must be the same person. Problem was that in one of the examples, the agreement was heavily backed up by references (and at one point, there were no less than twelve for the claim in the article). The opposition editor was relying on a single reference that did not address the issue (and was using this lack of mention as somehow supporting his case (just like you did)). The SPI case crash landed after less than half an hour of flying time. --Elektrik Fanne 17:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

"He was trying the same trick that you were: that is claiming that because someone agreed with me, we must be the same person." Blatant falsehood. I've never done that in your direction, or anyone else's apart from seeming to admittedly, once with MM above, because I abbreviated my argument. But you were already claiming and repeating that falsehood before the single instance above. Gravuritas (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

That is exactly what you did. You kept trying to claim that a point that you kept reinserting at Causes of Brexit was a deliberate attempt at deception citing a BBC report that did not even mention deception. I disagreed that it was a deliberate attempt precisely because there was no evidence provided that it was. A passing IP address editor (I presume) just happened to notice the lack of evidence and posted pointing this out. You just kept trying to maintain that non deliberate deception was sufficient despite the topic sentence of the section containing the words, "using deliberate falsehoods". Ergo, you decide that the two people who disagree with you must be the same person. That is not evidence of anything, and you have not provided any other evidence whatsoever. Thus your allegations are unfounded.

As for you claim that, "I've never done that in your direction". A blatant lie because you did so with this edit "You and your alter ego keep talking about ..." and repeated it again with this edit "Just cut the masquerade and admit you are EF" and repeated yet again with this edit Edit summary: Socko McSock. But not a shred of evidence to be seen.

While searching for the quotes and the diffs, I had cause to read what the IP actually said more closely. The IP editor, in his first post stated that, "You both have valid points", and suggested finding a compromise. So he didn't actually disagree with you. You initially declined to compromise, though later did when another editor intervened - though you still have not put the agreed on version in the article. --Elektrik Fanne 12:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Stop at the second sentence in the para above. I was trying to defend (or insert, can't remember) inclusion of something in a section headed 'lies and misleading information'. Thus all I ever needed to show was that a WP:RS had said it was misleading, or the equivalent of misleading. You have continuously tried to twist this into a claim that insertion in that section meant something else: 'a deliberate attempt to mislead'; 'misinformation', or as above 'a deliberate attempt at deception'. That's not the criterion I was using, that's not the criterion that anyone reading the heading would expect to be used. All these twisted, exagerrated versions of 'misleading' only ever existed in your inventions: they are all your straw men. You saying once that I claimed my desired text was a ....'deliberate attempt at deception' might have been a mistake by you. Saying it as often as you have makes it a wiful, repeated falsehood. Now go away and find one, just one, diff where I claim what you assert I repeatedly claim, and when you can't find one, apologise.

The stress is on the 'without a shred of evidence'. I wouldn't dream of denying that I suggested the IP was your sock. But there was behavioural evidence: you are the biggest manufacturer of straw men I have ever come across, and the IP also produced a straw man in a short post. Not only that, but the straw man was your favourite straw man at that moment 'deliberately misleading'. That's evidence.

I am wasting too much on b$&@&$(()$cks at the moment to do anything much constructive. Maybe I will be available to play next week, or maybe not. Gravuritas (talk) 16:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Per you second para, "all I ever needed to show was that a WP:RS had said it was misleading, or the equivalent of misleading". Even if true, your so called WP:RS did no such thing. A committee, nearly half of whom were Brexiteers expressed an opinion that the Chancellor's claim was misleading but only in the sum of money stated (what a surprise that a committee with so many Brexiteers should do this). This is not evidence that the claim actually was misleading - that was WP:SYNTHESIS from the opinion (advancing a position not actually made in the reference). Not only that, but you were trying to claim that the entire statement was misleading (including the bit that the TSC clearly accepted). As I am fed up with pointing out, the topic sentence of the section makes it clear that it is discussing "deliberate falsehoods" (or 'deliberately misleading information' if you prefer).

We are still awaiting your supposed evidence to back up your allegation, which you have repeated yet again despite an undertaking not to do so. "I have no problem promising not to repeat any such allegations in your direction unless there is fresh (strong!) evidence to do so"). So you not only still owe us this original evidence (which has still not been provided), but this supposed 'new' strong evidence as well.

Since the same points keep getting rehashed over and over again, I suggest that we leave this for those that wield the mops to sort out. --Elektrik Fanne 13:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Please help me

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.

---

How do you get a prominent international recent death like Mandoza's to appear on the 'In the news' section of the main page. Ear-phone (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ear-phone:You'll need to go and suggest it here. Amortias (T)(C) 20:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

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

User talk:Mar4d

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.

---

Think this could do with the revdel treatment and its author dealt with. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeh, that is indef worthy. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Systematic attack on redirects to BDSM

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 seem to have a systematic attack on redirects to the BDSM article, which appears to have been going on for some considerable time. See, for example, edits to Bdsm and Bd sm. Most come from a /23 assigned to Korea Telecom, but we have others coming from (for example) 213.143.51.255 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 213.143.51.17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 213.143.50.199 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that show the same editing pattern and also suggest IP agility there. It's typically one or two edits, then a hop. There are all the usual tricks to try and confuse things, like tag-team editing with good and bad hands, misleading edit summaries, chaining redirects, cyclic redirects (eg. [281]) etc. etc..

I'd notify them of this report, but they are changing IP so rapidly it doesn't seem possible to do so at the moment.

I've tempblocked the four most obvious /24s, and started to semi-protect all the redirects to BDSM, but there are dozens, and I haven't had time to do the lot: see Talk:BDSM#IP-hopping vandal for the details. General behavior and timing suggest this may well be User:Ascvlvfkd back again: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ascvlvfkd/Archive. Can anyone help, please? -- The Anome (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Here are the redirects, 72 in total. I'll get to work from the bottom up if someone can meet me in the middle. Katie^talk 15:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm working downward, currently on Power exchange (BDSM). -- The Anome (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

A suggestion, perhaps an edit filter for low user_age (docs say that is 0 for IPs) and old_wikitext contains "REDIRECT"? Murph9000 (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

We could try it, but he's created a bunch of registered accounts and I wouldn't be surprised if there are sleepers. If it works, we can unprotect. Also, some of these are Neelix redirects that are pretty implausible – are we still working through those? I confess Neelix wasn't an area I tried to clean up. Katie^talk 16:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Possibly low user_age or low user_editcount, with the latter to catch sleepers? Murph9000 (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I've done some wildcard IP searches, and also searched for remaining redirects to Lie, Contradiction and Molestation, which caught a few more. They've been active at this for quite some time. -- The Anome (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

OK -- I've taken a look at all the ranges involved now, and reverted their edits as appropriate, leaving only the non-mischievous ones. That ought to hold things for now. -- The Anome (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@The Anome: feel free to ping if this picks up again, I could whip up a temporary filter to disallow these (if protecting/rangeblocking isn't working out) -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 19:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Samtar and Ponyo: Not the same editing pattern, but AsadaNamana (talk · contribs), AsadaNamani (talk · contribs), ReneSame (talk · contribs), Sro295 (talk · contribs) and The A- normal Anome (talk · contribs) look as if they may be more sockpuppets of Ascvlvfkd (talk · contribs), which (by general behavior patterns) looks like to be the source of the attack above.

I'll see if there's any workable patterns, but given the fact they're focusing on you it may not be needed - enjoy the attention! :P -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 16:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I also note that 213.143.51.32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 83.34.117.59 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) have just dumped on my talk pages on several other language versions of my talk page, and we now have a The Anome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agfabnor mal (talk · contribs) editing on Commons reverting my most recent changes. Is it possible to do a global checkuser on this, and possibly some global nameblocks/rangeblocks, to throttle this back? -- The Anome (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

And now 213.143.50.142 (talk · contribs) doing the same on my userpage on nlwiki. -- The Anome (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

They are now also bashing away with their other blocked-on-enwiki accounts: see https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usuario_discusi%C3%B3n:The_Anome&action=history Still, if they're spending all their time on this, they are now too busy to vandalise articles, so that's a win. And their blood pressure can't be doing them any good, either. -- The Anome (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

If there are ongoing attacks against editors or their talk pages I suggest you report it on WP:AVI and reference this discussion with a link in your report. Unfortunately this forum is not always the best place to go if you need a rapid response to an immediate problem. You may also wish to request page protection for your talk pages. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I think Anome, an admin, knows the above ... -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 16:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes ;-) I think they're fairly well under control at the moment on enwiki, which is why they are lashing out across other wikis. Blocking the interwiki stuff will need intervention from those with global blocking powers, which are beyond my current pay grade. I'm more interested in picking up and documenting their patterns of activity from this than anything else at the moment, to allow for the imposition of global measures if necessary . -- The Anome (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Same sockpuppetry as before on gl:Conversa_usuario:The_Anome, and a new sock, Phisxys (talk · contribs) -- they are trying very, very, hard to get me blocked there, using the usual deceptive tactics. Is anyone here an admin on glwiki, or otherwise able to help? -- The Anome (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks to User:Tegel for the global block on Phisxys (talk · contribs), Kind regards, -- The Anome (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Why are the Reference desk and talkpage both protected?

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.

---

Coming to the Humanities desk I see it has been protected for "persistent vandalism" by NeilN although there is no vandalism there at all - in fact he reprotected it even before the previous protection expired. So I went to the talkpage only to find it protected as well. I haven't looked at the other desks - can someone look into this, please? 86.128.234.7 (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Note I have blocked the IP for being a sock of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change - the person who is triggering these protects in the first place. Happy to explain the reprotects if needed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

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

193.85.211.55

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.

---

• 193.85.211.55 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This IP appears to have been blocked indefinitely by administrator: JzG (talk · contribs). Just wanted to put this at the noticeboard so an administrator (not necessarily the current blocking admin) can change/correct the block as they see fit. Generally, IP's should probably not be blocked indefinitely, especially shared IP's, as this one is registered to a school. 73.96.115.6 (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

They aren't blocked indefinitely. Its a soft block, which means anybody with an account can log in and edit freely. If it was blocked indefinitely, it would have account creation blocked. Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 01:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Yoshi24517: The time duration says "indefinite". It doesn't matter whether or not it's a soft block, IP's generally are not blocked indefinitely, I was just wondering whether or not JzG (talk · contribs) did this on purpose, or if it was just an accident. That's all. 73.96.113.50 (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Well, since this is about an action by JzG I've notified them of this thread. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 01:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
• JzG is still an active administrator. If you have questions about the block, the first step would be to discuss it with him, not post on ANI. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

School IP, soft blocked due to vandalism. I don't think that's a problem, but if anyone else wants to change the block they are welcome. This thread was started by a "brand new" IP with zero previous contributions. Not that I have recently expressed an unflattering opinion about Gamergate troglodytes or anything. Guy (Help!) 01:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, s/he seems fairly prolific on 73.96.0.0/16, doing the kind of gnome work where one would stumble on that block (AIV reports/IP ID tagging). Doesn't mean the GG kids aren't out to get you, but this cigar may just be a cigar. Kuru (talk) 02:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Can't see many (any) useful edits from this address over time. However, noting JzG's okay for changes and the provisions of WP:IPBLENGTH, I've amended the block to six months. Hope springs eternal that next year's students will be more constructive than this year's ones. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Mary Poppins would be proud of you :-) Me, I come from the September that never ended. Guy (Help!) 08:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Young people these days. It's not music, it's just noise. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually young people have started listening to and buying vinyl LPs again - you can even get them in Sainsbury's now of all places - so hope does indeed spring eternal. On a related note about "brand new" IPs, these drive me up the wall; not because of any direct edits they make, but because they're impossible to tie down to one talk page and keep a conversation going, and have no trail of previous history. The only sane thing you can do is treat them as if they might as well be a Gamergate troll and assume their edits have zero accountability. I'm not expecting a bunch of editors to jam up Heathrow Airport with big "IP Lives Matter" banners, though.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

"LP Lives Matter," too ;) _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Ritchie333: They can buy all the vinyl LPs they want, if it's a Lady Gaga or Panic! at the Disco LP, it doesn't count.

To be fair, I listen to music that is often referred to as 'noise' as well... ;) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Inappropriate editing, advocacy, and control of philo articles, by Flyer22 Reborn

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

---

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

---

Moved from WP:AN § Inappropriate editing, advocacy, and control of philo articles, by Flyer22 Reborn

 – clpo13_(talk) 22:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe this is the proper place. There's an issue with a number of philosophy pages by an editor, Flyer22 Reborn. The editor, who admits not being a philosopher and not having training in the field, has 'claimed' a number of philosophy articles. The editor, very directly, dictates what can and not not be in an article, even when demonstrating a fairly poor, and bias, view regarding much within the field of social philosophy. This isn't meant as any sort of insult, but on numerous instances, as noted, students have illustrated some truly abysmal scholarship. The latest example being an article on sexual objectification that, literally, details the issue as a disjunct between feminists and social conservatives. Such an approach would never be an acceptable, for any encyclopedia. This is one example of a number of social philosophy articles were some editors, such as Flyer22 Reborn, simply refuse to allow a scholarly approach, demanding its bias. It's really quite ironic how many times quotations from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy are directly contradicted in social philosophy articles on wikipedia. Editors who are clearly advocating for certain ideologies, such as Flyer22 Reborn, really need to be hemmed in honestly. Maxxx12345 (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

There is clearly more in heaven and earth, Horatio... Than your willingness to ignore When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. Know what we mean by that....? Cheers, _Muffled ^Pocketed 22:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Maxxx12345 you did not inform Flyer22 Reborn of this thread as instructed by the big orange box above the editing field. I have done so. You should be aware that all articles on WikiP can be edited by anyone - not just "philosophers". You have provided no examples to back up your assertions. This should either be closed or moved to ANI. MarnetteD|Talk 22:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I have moved the discussion to ANI. The box at the top of WP:AN says: If you are seeking administrator intervention for a specific issue or dispute, you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead. clpo13_(talk) 22:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Probably a quick close unless Maxxx12345 provides some solid diffs that show Flyer22 has been editing disruptively. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

This report looks about as valid as this one. Maxxx12345, I'd really like to see some diffs for your assertions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

There is an article "Sexual objectification". Flyer22 has (at least recently) made one edit to it (actually a series of three edits in a row), here, in April of 2016. The effect was to remove a section "Body Image and the NFL Draft" (which TBH looks like pretty dubious false-equivalence men's-rights material to me, but I haven't studied the matter). Maxxx12345's engagement on the talk page is not broad and seems to be of the the nature of "I have read up on Kant, and Kant used the term "sexual objectification" and therefore the article "sexual objectification" should be about the term as used by Kant, period" which I would think is highly debatable. But at any rate that is what talk pages are for. If Maxxx12345 is right he ought to be able to persuade. Not having done so (or tried really) not sure what Maxxx12345 expects to be done here. Do you want us to block Flyer22 Reborn or warn her or something? I'm not seeing a case here for that... Herostratus (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• I almost closed this for not providing any evidence of policy violation. I assume another admin will if Max isn't forthcoming with an actual cause of action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Reopening, it seems

Pinging Maxxx12345, clpo13, Dennis Brown, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, MarnetteD, NeilN and Herostratus. Since I didn't have the chance of commenting while this thread was open, I will comment now: Maxxx12345's accusations are false. For example, I have not claimed a number of philosophy articles, depending on how a philosophy article is defined, and I certainly am not WP:OWNING any of these articles. I'm not sure how many would categorize the Sexual objectification article as a philosophy article (at least solely as a philosophy article). And I am well-versed in the topic of sexual objectification and other gender/sexual topics. Another note, I don't remember stating that I am not a philosopher and/or that I have no training in the field. I don't comment on my profession(s) on Wikipedia. My problem with Maxxx12345 is that he tries to bias our articles without any regard for WP:Due weight, and he is always attacking me, including as an IP. Examples include this matter (keep scrolling) that was a result of his derogatory comments made as an IP at Talk:Sexual objectification, this matter at Talk:Gender where he used his registered account but also showed up as an IP to mention the "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy," like he did above in this ANI thread, and this section where he attacked me because he viewed a section of the Gone Girl (film) article as biased. In that latter case, I decided not to engage, except for leaving a singe note. Popcornduff responded to him and I left it at that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The 'ownership' section of wikipedia states, and I quote "It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article on a topic you care about − perhaps you are an expert, or perhaps it is just your hobby; however, if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you are overdoing it. Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia.". Now this is a quote of what Flyer22 said on just the latest article "This article is supposed to be about the topic as defined by WP:Reliable sources and as applied with WP:Due weight. WP:Content forking in this case would be a no." Flyer22's possessiveness is clear in this example, as it is with others where Flyer22 simply tells other 'no' when edits are proposed that they do not personally agree with, regardless of sourcing. As far as undue weight, as I noted, Kant is the thinker who penned the idea. The complaint is, literally, the person who penned the idea, and is also where MacKinnon bases her work, would be undue weight. The person who coined the term can't be included because it's undue weight. Here's a link clearly detailing that point is just factually incorrect (and it's obviously a reliable source) http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-objectification/ I've made numerous attempts to explain positions, such as what essentialism actually is and the resulting positions that are and are not essentialist, to no avail. The David Reimer case, as I tried to explain on my talk page with the editor, is another good example: the author has the crux of the matter actually backwards, with a strong advocacy position. I am accused of being bias, yet I am, literally, summizing the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy regarding Kant's work. How can a summary of what is usually considered THE most reliable source on a subject and its author in any way be considered bias, undue weight and/or not a reliable source? Such a position clearly is incoherent. Flyer22 openly admits being an advocate of certain ideologies on their talk page, and in a number of articles this has been a problem, including the Gone Girl article which, for a time, was an article which was mostly about certainly ideological stances and not the film. As anything can look and see, it was after I and some other editors objected (and we were initially told 'no' again) the article was in fact changed to coincide with proper Wikipedia standards. (Most of the article became an ideological position regarding third wave feminist views on the movie, and later revised once attention was brought to bear.) As I stated earlier, this is a problem for Wikipedia and should be addressed. Authors of ideas are considered undue weight. The most respected encyclopedias in publication today are not considered reliable sources. Attempts at helping articles, encyclopedic articles, shed ideological positions and mirror the top encyclopedias in the world are called bias. That's about as clear evidence as one could hope for that an editor is advocating for positions, particularly ones they note on their talk page that advocate. It's not others who are bias, such as myself and the Stanford Encyclopedia. Maxxx12345 (talk) 06:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Maxxx12345: ...did you actually read Dennis Brown's close? _Muffled ^Pocketed 06:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The latest above post by Maxxx12345 is exactly what I mean when it comes to his editing and views of me. It's nothing but more misunderstandings about how Wikipedia is supposed to work, mischaracterizations and false accusations, including the claim that "Flyer22 openly admits being an advocate of certain ideologies on their talk page." The only "ideology" that my talk page (the top of it) currently "advocates" concerns the WP:Child protection policy. Any other "ideology" of mine (at the top of my talk page or past that) is Wikipedia policy-, guideline- or essay-related, including the WP:Neutral policy (that many at this site, including Maxxx12345, commonly misunderstand), the WP:Sockpuppet policy...and the WP:Advocacy essay. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Maxxx12345, since you've ignored the closing completely and restarted the thread, let me give you this to ponder, as I change roles: Looking at your talk page contributions, what I find is complaining about the status quo without any real suggestions. Philosophical opining instead of concrete suggestions. This is evident on the talk page of Feminism and others. It is kind of like arm chair quarterbacking where you are happy to tell people what they are doing wrong without doing any work yourself. This isn't particularly useful or helpful, and is in fact, irritating as hell to the people who are actually writing the article. I empathize with them. That is not how we write articles here.

At Wikipedia, all are equal, so assuming you are an expert (we have no way to verify this) your input could be useful and appreciated, but must stand on the merits of the contributions themselves, not your self-proclaimed expert status. In other words, we follow the sources, which are considered the real experts. Note that "sources" is plural, not singular. You have to put your money where your mouth is, provide text, provide sources, expect some pushback, and politely and calmly defend your ideas. Let someone else add to the article page if you aren't comfortable doing so. Expect they will change some of the wording, which is no different than if you had put it on the page yourself.

I can't speak to all of Flyer's comments, as I haven't read them all (and I know her fairly well, although we don't work on the same projects) but I don't see the problem you see. I think she may be correct in assuming you misunderstand the role of Wikipedia in general. Wikipedia is a crowdsourcing experiment, not a free version of Britannica. We achieve neutrality by compromise and discussion, as everyone has a bias. Being "right" isn't enough, you have to persuade. Honey works better than vinegar, btw.

You have to change your methods. You must bend in the wind that is Wikipedia, not the other way around. Start small with simple content requests, throw them out there, apply a little humility, and listen. If you want to convince someone they are mistaken, you won't do so by criticizing or coming across in an arrogant fashion. Wikipedia does not "need" me, nor you. It is a better encyclopedia if we are here, talking, compromising, discussing, debating and seeking common ground, but not everyone is capable of doing this.

I'm trying to give you some help, some tools that will allow you to stay here. Once you understand what Wikipedia really is, including its many shortcomings and imperfections, once you accept them, then you will find it easier and more rewarding to participate. Or you might choose to not participate at all. It is your choice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I thought I was suppose to respond. As far as concrete suggestions are concerned, I've made quite a few and the only time they've been dismissed out of hand has been with this one editor, who as I noted, openly states they are an advocate for certain ideologies. While I readily admit being fairly poor at 'doing Wikipedida' this is an issue which I grasp quite well. If you read the analytic feminism page, you'll see I basically wrote teh article. If you look very closely you may notice, and find humorous, my lack of skill grasping much of this 'marking-up' so wrote the article around the sources already linked (linking references may seem simple, but I find difficult).

My claims regarding knowledge are fairly illustrated, I would argue, by the numerous concrete additions I have provided to Wikipedia. Just recently a number of editors thanked me for my insight regarding some legal and philosophy of law nuances which helped bring to light incorrect positions on Wikipedia that were being picked-up by larger news sources. Variety was quoting a Wikipedia article (on Nate Parker) that contained misinformation via a distortion of sources. While I was thanked for my input, which was collaborative and detailed in the talk page. Flyer22, however, points to the issues which I commonly edit (social philosophy oriented articles) as a sign of my bias. In fact, the only time I've run into any difficulty is with this one editor who has defended such positions as a movie article being predominantly a polemic on her (and others) ideological views. I have edited, provided sources (most often in talk pages as you are correct regarding my not being particularly comfortable making anything besides the most basic mark-up changes) and collaborated with others with the only time there being an issue revolving around Flyer22's strong views on third wave feminism.

I am all for discussion and compromise. Again I would point to any contributions I've made which Flyer22 wasn't involved. The Gone Girl article was revised once attention was brought to the issue. Others have noted that the lack of inclusion of analytic feminism within feminism (actually the dominant view in academia and policy circles) is a profound error of omission. I was thanked for my work on helping with the article on objectification, analytic feminism, western philosophy, and others. On talk pages I detailed my positions, provide sources and work with others. Flyer22, routinely, unilaterally decides what is and is not acceptable based on clear and strong advocacy of prominent views within third wave feminism and identity politics. In fact, on all occasions, every single one, when a number of other editors have become involved my additions were welcomed and the editor's accusations of issues of undue weight and POV were found to be in violation and her ideological input over-turned.

I apologize for my recent complaints on the feminism. You noted irritation, and would ask you consider that in reverse. Please see my history of doing precisely what you suggest regarding my contributions and then being told, unilaterally by Flyer22, those precise practices are unacceptable within articles they are extremely possessive of. It is quite irritating when someone with strong advocacy views, which have been reigned in on several occasions once other editors became involved, openly dictates to others what can and not be altered in 'their articles'. I would again note my contributions which have been noted as helpful and inline with Wikipedia standards, time and again (regardless of my poor ability to 'do Wikipedia') as evidence of my fully embracing the help you and others have offered.

When an editor openly states they're very possessive of articles, and does advocate for positions, please try to understand that is irritating to those of us who are simply trying to make Wikipedia better by providing scholarly level of input. Maxxx12345 (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Shepherding an article is different than WP:OWNing it. I can't vouch for Flyer's every edit, just saying there is a grey area that is actually helpful. There are some topics where politics have made editing the article hell, and in those articles there are shepherds who will make it a bit more difficult to edit, but it is a worthwhile trade off as it greatly reduced drama, and policy supports this. Feminism and gender topics are good examples because they attract so much POV editing and have spawned Arbitration cases that lasted months here. We are all a bit gun shy of changes to those types of articles. When I say "concrete examples", I was talking about the talk page edits where you are complaining. It is better to say "How about we change Section X to this: ""Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, duis imperdiet""..." than it is to just complain. Really, a complaint without a suggestion isn't helpful, it only makes you a critic.

You are still relatively new, which is why I'm willing to spend extra time to help here. Flyer is not perfect, nor a saint, but my experience has been that she is a pretty good person who can be reasoned with, one whose motives I've never had to question. You both have some fixed ideas, you probably need to approach each other slowly, but there is no reason you can't work together if you took the time to get to know each other. You need to be patient and introduce ideas one at a time and allow all other editors the opportunity to first disagree, then be gently persuaded. And be open minded to being persuaded yourself. Sometimes it is due to a policy that you might view as arcane, but it was forged out of serious problems and we had no choice but to institute the policy. That is the breaks in an open project like this. It's really on you at this point, your two ANI reports failed to actually present a cause of action (using our silly little rules). Your best bet is to grin and bear it, and believe it or not, you could learn a great deal from her regarding our policies on BLP and gender issues. I'm sure she knows them better than I do, I have to be a generalist here as admin. Once you have more edits and experience behind you, these rules will make more sense and be 2nd nature to you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

One final note: If you were editing US geography articles or other topics that are NOT prone to politics, you would not be running into issues like this. It is only the politically charged topics that frustrate editors, because so many rush in to push their point of view. Your choice of topic is the number 1 hot button at Wikipedia right now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Flyer22, why in the world did you bring this thread back from the dead when it was already closed with comments that couldn't have been more favorable to you? Why are you wasting everyone's time by defending yourself against dead accusations? It's over. EEng 08:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  I agree, but since Maxx has piped in, it was useful for the statement above. It did make it clear how much Maxx misunderstands the whole of Wikipedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  Fine, and now let it end here. EEng 19:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Musician pages are out of control

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

---

There is an artist here -- Brian Kelly (composer) -- who might be worthy of an article. Maybe not, but it seems like it based on several of those awards and nominations. That page itself has warnings about "a close subject creating the page." I'm not advocating deleting that page. All the pages related to it, however, are a disgrace to wikipedia, plain and simple:

• Pools of Light Solo Piano Songbook - there is no other songbook listed anywhere on wikipedia. What is notable about this book? Absolutely nothing. Delete it. It looks like Tomorrow's Daydream Solo Piano Songbook was also created once and turned into a redirect rather than deleting. Who is looking for that title? No one and therefore it should be deleted, not redirected.
• Butterfly Rapture is a page that was attempted to be deleted but no one came to visit the page so it stayed. Is that how WP wworks? If no one sees a "page for deletion" discussion, the page should exist? This is horrible.
• Look at the links to the page and you can tell someone went out and promoted this artist as if all of these pages are important.
• The template on his page includes four insignificant album pages. Those page should be deleted. The template should be deleted. One of the albums on the page is a redirect to Brian Kelly anyway. Just links back to itself.

Someone really needs to clean all of this up. I don't know how wikipedia lets things like this get out of control and I thought those template pages were only created by experts for important topics.

Please take a long hard look at all these pages. The artist has many nominations and he might be notable, but clearly the albums on their own are not notable and the songbook pages are pure vanity and unworthy of wikipedia entries. I know enough about wikipedia to add certain tags to pages for deletion, but I felt this topic is all-encompassing of at least six or seven pages so I just report the issue here.

Sn00per (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sn00per: While you have valid concerns, this is a content issue which means you should raise these concerns on Brian Kelly's talk page. This board is typically supposed to be for editors' behavior. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 19:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Accusations of plagiarism (directed at me)

The IP stated on my talk page that they would bring the issue to "Wikipedia admin" (I assume they meant ANI) requesting my block if I did not remove the plagiarism,[282], so I brought it here myself.

A week ago, a user claimed we had the dates wrong in the "Archived episodes" section of the article (originally showing 1972 to 1986, they said it should be 1972 to 1994); so I checked what was stated on the reference to the U.S. Library of Congress, and updated the article to use those dates (1978 to 1983). Initially on the talk page, an IP said "The dates are not revelant" and now wanted to drop their mention. Now another IP is claiming that my use of the dates in the article is plagiarism, on the article talk page I've directed the IPs to WP:CP.

This most recent dust-up traces back this edit (Apr 29th). I also semi-protected the article in May, and shortly after started a discussion at ANI about the disruption which resulted in some IP blocks (ANI archive), and that thread linked to more history on my article talkpage (my talk archive). I have been tempted to hand-out blocks to the IPs making continued false accusations and causing disruption at Talk:The World Tomorrow (radio and television), but would prefer to get additional admins involved. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how citing a reference for the dates of a TV program can be considered plagiarism. "I'm going to tell mommy on you!" sounds like a pretty shitty way to win a dispute, too... --Jayron32 17:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Once you edited the content[283][284][285][286] you became WP:INVOLVED and should not have used the tools on the article.[287] --Guy Macon (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Due to possible perception of improper use is why I have repeatedly brought issues at that article back to ANI, to review my actions or the actions of the IPs involved. This is the third or fourth time I've asked for review of the article and/or activity surrounding it just since the page protection was done. I fully acknowledge that, in hindsight, I should have requested that action at WP:RFPP. But, at the same time, given the long history of disruption over there, an uninvolved admin would have taken the same action. Also, minor technicality, but the first edit you linked from 2012 was extremely minor cleaning-up wording from another editors changes to the article. So, any potential impression of involvement would not apply prior to my edits earlier this year., --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

2004 link stricken from above comment. Good point. While WP:INVOLVED does say "In straightforward cases (e.g., blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion", this edit[288] was not reverting blatant vandalism, and I don't believe that "any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion". The fact that you made that edit and one minute later protected the page[289] certainly gives the appearance of using the tools to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. Your comment above ("I have been tempted to hand-out blocks to the IPs making continued false accusations") when the false accusations were made about you is also troubling from a WP:INVOLVED perspective --Guy Macon (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

As I said, in hindsight I acknowledge I should have submitted a request at WP:RFPP to avoid a perception of improper use. However, the labeling as "e.g." in the policy makes clear that blatant vandalism is just an example of a straightforward case, not the only type of straightforward case. That link you provided to my edit in the article should be viewed in combination with article and talk-page activity from Apr 21 through May 12th (as well as relevant user talk pages during that time). Given that history, I believe that any uninvolved admin would have made the same decision for page protection. Still, if you feel that my use of the tool requires greater scrutiny, I think it best if that be discussed as a separate thread (or secondary sub-thread to this one) - so as to keep each discussion focused. If the community does not agree with me after reviewing the related materials, I'll fully honor, respect, and abide by any consensus decision is reached. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

No need for further action or a separate section. "in hindsight I acknowledge I should have submitted a request at WP:RFPP to avoid a perception of improper use." is good enough for me. I suggest that we drop this now and move on to my comment below -- we still have a disruptive IP to deal with. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

BTW, none of this changes the fact that the charge of plagiarism is laughable or that that the IP is being disruptive. I think an uninvolved admin should step in and do what is appropriate to stop further disruption. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• This falls under "raw facts are not copyrightable", and yes Barek, I'm pretty sure this is the second ANI I've commented on where you've using the tools on an article you've edited. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Sigh...

• Burger Wars; This edit[290] followed by this use of tools[291] looks a lot like using the tools against an IP in a content dispute.
• Poulsbo, Washington; This edit[292] followed by this use of tools[293] also looks a lot like using the tools against an IP in a content dispute.

...and that was just checking a few recent uses of the tools. It is likely that I can find many more examples. Note: even if most editors would have made the same reverts, that just shows that the IP was on the wrong side of the content dispute, which is not the same thing as blatant vandalism that is exempt from WP:INVOLVED. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Why is user Barek so heavily involved in disruptions to this article. And why has he personally removed the mention of the fact and sourced content that Senator Bob Dole preserved this churches TV show into the Library of Cingress archives. Barek removed the Dole mention from The World Tomorrow page and the Garner Ted Armstrong page and refuses to reinstate the Dole preservation mention. Another conflict does involve the Assange World Tomorrow article in that the show was never aired or called the World Tomorrow. The title was changed to The Julian Assange Show prior to airing o. RT, Russia Today television network. The show only aired on RT, and it was not called World Toomorrow as planned due to trademark and copyright. No wiki editor will correct it and change the page title to The Julian Assange Show. And since IMDb is not considered a credible source the Assange IMDb link needs to be redacted. But, no editor will ma me this proper edit either. Barek cutting and pasting verbatim is not acceptable under Wikipedia rules. Neither is close paraphrasing. The article Archived Episodes section is a duplicate cut paste job. Lift the block so that this WT article can be corrected and so the Dole reference can be reinserted. Barek needs to recuse himself from further tampering and the appearance of wanting full editorial control of this article. User Werldwayd is clearly associated with the Armstrong Worldwide church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.29.37.22 (talk) 05:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I have not "refused". I have suggested an RfC to address concerns. The first time it was met with personal attacks and intensified demands. The most recent was ignored. However, as the demanded wording has now changed to match the source, I've gone ahead and added the material.

Please show me the alleged "cut paste job" as you call it.

As the the other article - it's landed in its current page as a result of an RfC it has been extensively discussed on the article talk page. The existing third-party references call it by its current name. The show's official website uses the current article name. As has been requested repeatedly by multiple editors, please provide third-party reliable sources to support your claims. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Lysimachi WP:OWN and WP:CIR issues

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

User:Lysimachi seems to have competence issues: constantly engaging in disruptive editing, a failure to discuss edits, edit warring to keep their own version of the article and total lack of response on their talk page. Here are some of the edits.

1. A total lack of knowledge about their talk page. I doubt they even know it exists.
2. Weird understanding of "redundancy". See diffs [294], [295]. I tried to discuss this here as well.
3. Repeatedly adding a bunch of citation needed tags [296], [297], [298], [299], [300], [301], despite being reverted multiple times by multiple editors [302], [303], [304],[305]. Even though a compromise edit was carried out [306], per another talk page discussion it was still reverted and the citation needed tags were added again.
4. The editor had engaged in similar behaviour about the language section for which I launched an RFC. However, this is extremely tedious. If for every small change we have to launch an RFC or a talk page discussion, it is seriously disruptive.
5. The editor never makes any attempt to initiate a discussion even though many of their edits are bold edits. On being reverted, the simply do the same edit again.
6. Failure to understand how references work. I removed this reference as it was essentially a youtube video - a recording of a concert. Nothing in it mentioned that the music was related to "Han Taiwanese" and the source is also not reliable. Yet it was added back again without an explanation [307].
7. The user also seems to have a "weird" understanding of NPOV. Apparently using the word "Chinese" in the article Han Taiwanese is not acceptable. The user has constantly changed Han Chinese to Han people even though one redirects to the other and our article is at Han Chinese. Diffs [308], [309], [310]. The user keeps saying that any mention of "Chinese" is a violation of NPOV. The user also keeps removing stuff to this effect - see [311], [312], [313]. To be honest, I am sick and tired of dealing with this. I had tried a dispute resolution on this (mediated by UY Scuti) but it failed as the user did not respond later. Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_141#Talk:Han_Taiwanese.23Lead_sentence_WikiLink.

I'm not sure what steps to take. I cannot keep calling an RFC for every small edit, so I am asking the community to have a look and decide what to do. The bigger problem which I feel here is the lack of response on part of the editor and an inability to understand that collaboration and discussions are important. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

See a previous complaint at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive324#User:Lysimachi reported by User:Lemongirl942 (Result: Blocked). On August 19th Lysimachi was blocked 24 hours for edit warring at Han Chinese. He seems to have strong opinions on how certain ethnic groups ought to be defined and will revert to enforce his ideas. For example, Lysimachi insists that 'Han Chinese' are not the same thing as 'Han people'. This appears contrary to normal Wikipedia practice, since we have a redirect called Han people which redirects to Han Chinese. The issue was discussed in the DRN mentioned above by Lemongirl942. The DRN had to be closed because Lysimachi stopped participating. In my opinion, an admin such as myself would be justified in warning Lysimachi that he may be blocked for disruption if he makes further reverts about the definition of Han-related groups without first getting consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

2. The "compromise" edit adds a footnote saying "Some sources refer to Han Chinese as "Chinese" or group them with other Chinese peoples". That footnote does not cite any reference at all, a clear violation of WP:V. In addition, how can those sources, if any, be applied to infer the numbers of Han people in each country without WP:OR? The current version of the article Han Chinese says there are "655,377" Han Chinese in Japan according to the reference 国籍（出身地）別在留資格（在留目的）別外国人登録者(Number of foreign residents by country in 2008). The citation itself even points out that the number is "by country"/"国籍（出身地）". Is Lemongirl942 saying that all Chinese are Han Chinese and all Han people are Chinese?

7. The article has always mentioned "Chinese" even before Lemongirl942's edits. The "(also referred to as Taiwan Han Chinese)" part that was added to the first sentence of the lead was removed due to, as mentioned in edit summaries at least three times, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:LEAD, WP:REDUNDANCY, and, I would add here, WP:OR and WP:V.

EdJohnston: Could you name a Wikipedia policy saying that a redirect on Wikipedia can be cited as a reliable source for two terms being synonyms? (Han culture is also redirected to Han Chinese, so according to the "normal Wikipedia practice", anyone can replace the former in any context with the latter?) Is there any evidence that "Han" and "Han Chinese" (or "people" and "Chinese") are used in all contexts by all authors as synonyms?

Regarding the the DRN mentioned above, I have said what I think in my last statement.

Additional question1: If both Lemongirl942 and EdJohnston think "Han" and "Han Chinese" are synonyms, why are they so keen in changing the former to the latter?

Additional question2: "warning Lysimachi that he may be blocked for disruption if he makes further reverts about the definition of Han-related groups without first getting consensus on the talk page", is EdJohnston implying that Lemongirl942 got consensus on the talk page before Lemongirl942 made changes about the definition of Han-related groups? Lysimachi (talk) 00:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

And you reverted again? You edit summary doesn't make any sense and your interpretations of guidelines are not shared by others. Please stop your disruptive editing. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing and stop pushing your POV. You have shown no evidence that "Han" and "Han Chinese" (or "people" and "Chinese") are used in all contexts by all authors as synonyms. Lysimachi (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Lysimachi: Do you think nobody has shown evidence backing up the statement that "'Han' and 'Han Chinese' (or 'people' and 'Chinese') are used in all contexts by all authors as synonyms" because nobody has said anything like that? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 20:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Lysimachi Could you please explain this edit? Your edit summary makes absolutely no sense. Could you justify and explain how the edit violates each and every policy you have cited. It is very clear that you have no understand of policies and it is competence issue. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

You tried to say Han Taiwanese are "also referred to as Taiwan Han Chinese" and cited five references [16][17][18][19][20]. WP:V: "anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." None of sources you cited seem to say so. In fact, [20] does not seem to mention "Taiwan Han Chinese" at all, while [16], [18] and [19] don't seem to mention "Han Taiwanese". Your claim is not verifiable. WP:OR: The claim seems to be your original research, for which no reliable, published sources exist. WP:REDUNDANCY: You made the first sentence unnecessarily redundant. WP:LEAD: "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." How important is "Taiwan Han Chinese" to be mentioned in the first sentence of the lead? WP:UNDUE: "Taiwan Han Chinese" is given undue weight. In fact, the only source ([17]) which mentions (but not equates) both Han Taiwanese and "Taiwan Han Chinese" also mentions "Taiwan-Han Chinese", "Taiwan Han-Chinese", and "Taiwanese Han Chinese". Why is "Taiwan Han Chinese" given special weight here? WP:NPOV: You are trying to push your view that Han Taiwanese are Chinese. Sure there are sources saying that, but this is clearly disputed. Even if there are sources saying Taiwanese people are Chinese or Taiwan is a part of China, you won't find it in the first sentence of the lead in Taiwanese people and Taiwan. Lysimachi (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you like high standards. Many of your own references do not mention anything about "Han Taiwanese" at all. In fact the population source says that 98% of Taiwan is "Han Chinese" and yet you wrote 98% of Taiwan is "Han Taiwanese". More important you have a total refusal to discuss anything. Do you know WP:BRD. If anyone reverts a bold edit of yours, you are not supposed to revert again. You fail to understand and neither do you even talk part in any discussions. This is nothing but status-quo-stonewalling. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Wow

Quote 1: WP:UNDUE: "Taiwan Han Chinese" is given undue weight. In fact, the only source ([17]) which mentions (but not equates) both Han Taiwanese and "Taiwan Han Chinese" also mentions "Taiwan-Han Chinese", "Taiwan Han-Chinese", and "Taiwanese Han Chinese". Why is "Taiwan Han Chinese" given special weight here?

What's with the hyphenation? That makes no difference and no sense at all. I'm not sure if you actually understand English.

Quote 2: WP:NPOV: You are trying to push your view that Han Taiwanese are Chinese. Sure there are sources saying that, but this is clearly disputed. Even if there are sources saying Taiwanese people are Chinese or Taiwan is a part of China, you won't find it in the first sentence of the lead in Taiwanese people and Taiwan.

Huh? This article is about an ethnic group. That fact that Han Taiwanese are "ethnic Han Chinese" is said by many sources (or you need to show a source whhich explicitly says that Han Taiwanese are not of ethnic Han Chinese descent. "Han Chinese" is an ethnic term NOT a nationalistic term. You clearly fail to realise the difference. Also NPOV is supposed to mention both viewpoints if there are both. Mentioning only 1 veiwpoint is clearly against NPOV. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem of here is that you are refusing to WP:DROPTHESTICK and persisting despite having a very weird understanding of the policies. This is extremely disruptive and it is not helping. I suggest you stop editing on that article unless you attempt to discuss. I have half a mind to push and indefinite block for you. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like we have a strong case of nationalism here, this won't end well. On a content point, it makes sense to identify the vast majority of the population of China as Han Chinese, since there is also a not insignificant population of non-Han Chinese, particularly those in the far western autonomous regions and up north in Mongolia. Taiwanese are, for the most part, diaspora from China that fled following the victory of the CCP at the end of the Chinese civil war. The term Han Chinese stems from their origins and I'm certain you will never find a source for an indigenous Han population on Taiwan. If a Han population were indigenous to Taiwan, then they're hardly likely to be referred to as Han, right? Blackmane (talk) 21:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

User: Chriscross619

I believe I reported on this issue last week, but a user has been disruptively editing pages about wrestlers in WWE. Last week it was just a user with just an IP address, but I have reason to suspect that he created an account to get around the fact that a certain page had been protected because of the disruptive edits. His editing style as well is similar to the previous IP address. His username is Chriscross619. I believe that something should be done about this user before he goes and disruptively edits everything. Thank you.

Also, here is why I have reason to believe they're the same person: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Usos&oldid=738993492 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2604:2000:7111:7E00:543B:36E5:8038:6BB2

The first is from the user Chriscross619. If you'll notice in the Usos Heel Turn 2016 section, he writes "The Usos turned heel in the process for the first time since 2010." The second link is to the same edit by an unauthorized user with only an IP address. They both use the same editing style. Also note that the Usos were heels in early 2011, they made their debuts in 2010 as heels, which is the issue here: he's been going around editing pages and changing the dates of when they were last heel or face.Dohvahkiin (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• I don't get the problem. You've explained a lot about how he might have been an IP but is now registered, but that isn't against policy. And he changed dates, but that by itself isn't against policy, particularly if it is true or he thought they were true, otherwise it is an editing issue, not an admin issue. You have to show malice. Not sure what a heel or face is, as you explained it in WWE jargon. If you want someone to actually respond, you have to keep it short, explain in plain English and demonstrate actual policy violations using diffs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oh, and you are OBLIGATED to tell the other party you reported them here. You need to go do that. Just look at the top of this page for the template. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• I had asked the user in question not to make the edits where he marked heel and face turns before I saw this thread. Generally, we try not to write articles using those words because WP:JARGON.LM2000 (talk) 03:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Let me simplify it then: He's proving incorrect information, and when I correct that misinformation, he just reverts it. No explanation given. The first time I noticed it, he actually left a note in the article itself, and told people to stop changing the date, yet, he was changing the date from the original one given. I've tried to contact him, but get no response. Even doesn't listen to any comments made on the revision history page either. This has been going on since last Thursday I believe. Page even got semi-protection because of the disruptive editing, and that's why he created an account.Dohvahkiin (talk) 04:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

In wrestling, the word "heel" means a wrestler who is a bad guy and the word "face" is used for his opponent, the wrestler the people are supposed to cheer for. "Turning heel" means changing your wrestling persona from one that the public adores to one that antagonizes the public. Please re-read the original post, and you will understand it. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

See, it is hard to tell if this is an editor or admin issue. The facts that he is removing, do you have rock solid citations for them? If you do, then he would be inserting bad info against sources. If you don't, then it is a matter of "he said / he said". Since admin don't take sides on content, we can only get involved if there is sourcing that clearly shows he is being disruptive. And thank you for the explanation, I have watched wrestling since Fritz Von Eric and Don "The Lawman" Slatton [314] were regulars on the Dallas circuit, many moons ago. (And it is a shame that Don's article is a red link. I knew him, he retired and opened up a bail bond business in Abilene, Tx., but I digress...) We need to be sure the facts are sourced, show the source, so we can see the edits are in bad faith. In the meanwhile, I will poke around and see if there is more obvious evidence. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

See, it's a bit more complicated than that. Whereas he's saying the last time they were heels was back in 2010, there is evidence on YouTube of them being heels until the first half of 2011. Plus, their Wikipedia article even mentions that they turned face in June of 2011, so that would mean any months before then, they were heels. It's more of implied facts than citations.Dohvahkiin (talk) 02:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe he's conceded defeat on The Usos. However, there may be more articles the user has edited that other editors are having issues with, as I noticed another warning posted under the warning you gave to him.Dohvahkiin (talk) 02:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

As per his talk page, user seemingly fails to understand what it means to provide valid sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chriscross619Dohvahkiin (talk) 03:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

And I warned him pretty strongly, but realistically, I have to have clear evidence that he is changing facts into non-facts before sanctioning him. Otherwise, it is a matter of you say one thing, he says another, and I pick sides, which isn't something I can do as admin. I have to verify via sources that he is adding bad info/hoaxes/incompetent/whatever. YouTube isn't really a good source, btw. This is one reason WWE and MMA articles are widely ignored by admin, its a pain to verify a lot of this stuff and we can't act without certainty. Previous warning templates aren't certainty, citations are. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

If I may chime in briefly, @NeilN: and myself have talked with Chriscross619 on their talk page, they did respond to a warning I issued to them, about sourcing and what not as this has been going on over several articles, bad information, unsourced material, etc. I don't think they had bad intentions just misguided. I am under the impression from their responses that there may be a language or understanding barrier either that or they are playing games, I'm leaning towards the barrier as they have made no edits since we talked. I am hoping that after this they will do some reading and understand things better. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 07:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks, and this is the approach we want to take. Sometimes it takes a threat of block to get their attention, but a real solution really takes someone taking the time to explain. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Dennis Brown asked for "clear evidence that he is changing facts into non-facts". Seems like a reasonable request.

In this edit Chriscross619 changes a fact into a non-fact.

This edit by user Dohvahkiin seems to be correct.

Let's look at the (non-reliable, this is wrestling) sources:

"On WWE SmackDown Live, The Usos reverted back to their roots and turned heel for the first time since 2011, attacking the hottest young, new tag team in American Alpha." - dailyddt.com

"But it’s not all over for The Usos and The Hype Bros, particularly the former tag team, who turned to the dark side for the first time since 2011." - blastingnews.com

So, maybe someone needs to check some more of Chriscross619's edits, and see if they are also incorrect.

(((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Been done, so far none were correct or sourced and were reverted. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 17:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• That kind of sourcing is reasonable for the type of article, I understand the NY Times doesn't cover it, so that is exactly what an admin needs. NeilN and I both have given him warnings, mine perhaps more blunt than NeilN's. I see this edit [315] was reverted, but the sources above seem to support it. They haven't edited much since the warnings, and edits since the warnings are what I would focus on for sanctions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Please block this user : 124.105.25.125 or anyone in the Philippines.

Dear Sirs,

This is a case of wrong revision and lie: This person : 124.105.25.125 has revised the PATAS wiki as per below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippine_Atheists_and_Agnostics_Society&oldid=737378971

and spread fabricated lies in some social media pages about me that I was removed and misappropriate funds in PATAS. That is not true at all..this is to smear my reputation.

I have also placed a request to protect the page PATAS or remove it in its entirety to prevent others from editing from anyone from the Philippines. I am taking back what is really mine. Some Filipinos are evil people, no matter how good you are to them.

Thank you and kind regards, Marissa Langseth, RN, MSN — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hapimarissa (talk • contribs) 20:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Hapimarissa: Hi. Did you read our guideline on conflicts of interest? If not please, have a look, because if you're the founder and a former chair of that organization you cannot edit that page. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 20:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Hapimarissa may not edit that page directly, but she may certainly request edits to the page. I agree that there is ill-sourced, controversial material that was in the article...and I say was because I just rolled back the article to as it existed before the recent edits by the IP, which started 2 September. —C.Fred (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

All this policy wonk aside, that edit is a blatant unsourced BLP violation that needs revdel. Blackmane (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

It's wrong anyway. The COI doesn't forbid people from editing the page (as cannot would seem to imply), it just strongly discourages it. (This is actually a good reason why we don't forbid it. I can't see the deleted edits but realisticly if it's a significant enough BLP violation to support revdel, no editor shouldn't face sanction for removing it. On the flip side, one reason why we strongly discourage it is it can be difficult for people with a COI to see the difference between a case like this and a legitimate content dispute or even material that should stay in.) Nil Einne (talk) 07:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I just did the revdel's and didn't really read the rest, but you are correct. COI editors MAY edit any page, they are just strongly discouraged from doing so. I edit some pages I have a minor COI on (no money, folks) but I tread very carefully. Most COI editors don't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Nil Einne:, I read the edit before Dennis revdelled it (thanks for that btw, Dennis). The IP had changed the existing sentence that draws from the source into a sentence that accused the article subject of criminal misconduct, but using the original source, i.e. blatant unsourced BLP violation. Blackmane (talk) 14:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Guy

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.

---

Guy has admitted on the Conflict of interest notice boardsystematically removing content from Wikipedia relating to me. It appears he holds a grudge against me because I represented people who were victims of cyber-harassment by Dr Andrew Lewis, who is a skeptic. Guy mainly edits articles relating to skeptics. He has gone to the extent of suggesting an article in which I was prominent be merged into another, knowing full well my work would not be notable enough to feature in the article after the merger. The way Guy has treated me on the Conflict of interest notice board - including references to systematically removing me from Wikipedia articles - many I won't know of - provides a clear basis that Admin should intervene to stop his vendetta against me because my profession includes helping people he happens to dislike, again evident from what he has said on that notice board. --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

BOOMERANG of the day. 2607:FB90:6820:CC85:184F:E7D7:3F25:52B2 (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Do you mean when he said: "I removed several cites to Bishop's websites. These sites have in the past claimed to be affiliated with Swansea University. Turns out they aren't. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)". If so, that is what editors do and as long as he is accurate, then it improves the encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

As you can see from my Talk Page in addition I have been accused of sockpuppetry, breaking WP:COI, and WP:OR. Be honest. I have taken on Josh Moon and Dr Andrew Lewis and Wikipedia is being used as a way to bully me for doing so. I was affiliated to Swansea University, and have uploaded my contract to Scribd for that to be verified, but I have no idea which links are being referred to. Because Guy is in the same circles as Dr Andrew Lewis - maybe Josh Moon also because a thread was started on my on his site because I helped that couple - I have become his target as these actions coincide with the fact Dr Andrew Lewis faced a strike-out application on Friday by the couple I've been helping get their reputation back --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 00:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Jonathanbishop you seem to have missed the big orange box above the editing field stating that you must notify an editor when you start a thread about them here. I have done so for you. MarnetteD|Talk 00:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Johnathan, let me just put this in plain English for you. You don't understand policy here nearly as well as you think you do. You are new, this is forgivable, it takes time. You are editing articles with a very strong conflict of interest. This is allowed but it is strongly discouraged. Why, you ask? Because most COI editors do just like you are doing, come here, try to quote policy without understanding the context of the policy, push your own edits and revert multiple times, then they get blocked. You are already about 75% down the road to that block, by my estimation. If you were wise, you would stick to the talk page of these articles and not edit them directly. I have no idea how wise you are, so I will make no assumption. Otherwise, you will end up blocked, it is just a matter of time. After you've been here a long time, it would be easier for you to directly edit, because by then, you would actually understand the policies you are currently misunderstanding. So, do what you want, but you have been warned. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I usually resolve disputes by taking people to court. Wikipedia rules say you cannot threaten legal action. From my point of view the talk pages are like arguing in the street the Noticeboards are the equivalent of a court room --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Notice boards are not a court room. Aside from how near you are to the WP:NLT policy you will want to read WP:NOTLAW. MarnetteD|Talk 00:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

At the end of the day I have been targeted on Wikipedia because of my professional life off Wikipedia and Admin should not allow that to happen because it is against Wikipedia rules. In the same way I ask judges for judgements when others treat me unfavourably, so Admin should look that all this started not with me breaking WP:COI or WP:OP but because I dared help a couple and teens that were victims of people Guy knew. It was guy who brought this dispute onto Wikipedia by targeting me and so it is him you should be criticizing not me --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

It turns out that the particulars of this are being discussed here Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Character theory .28media.29. MarnetteD|Talk 00:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

You need to provide evidence of the claims that you are making. So far you have not done so. Other policies that you should be reading a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:NOTHERE MarnetteD|Talk 00:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I have referred you to the conflict of interest notice board where Guy made clear his actions were linked to the couple I have been helping. His actions are clearly malicious and in opposition to the fact I have helped this couple. If you look at the sentiment in what he says he is clearly motivate my malice to me, including by using Wikipedia as a doxing platform, and any reference to Wikipedia policy by him is a way to try to justify this malice.

For instance "I did remove a number of citations to Bishop's websites all added as far as I can tell by Bishop himself, or by user:DigitalDisconnect, who I strongly suspect is an associate. This was a straightforward janitorial matter. Guy (Help!) 21:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)", "Admins may also be interested in the deleted history of Jonathan Bishop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | views). The debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Bishop (3rd nomination) says enough for non-admins to understand the issue. Look at some of the archive COI and spam reports linked at Special:WhatLinksHere/Jonathan Bishop, e.g. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 26 § Jonathan Bishop. Guy (Help!) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)", "Update: I had forgotten just how surreal the "harassment" claim against Lewis by Garden and Paris was. It's relevant here because Bishop apparently considers this to be an entirely legitimate claim. As an "expert" in online harassment, he considers Lewis to have harassed and bullied these two. In reality, the shoe is firmly on the other foot. Even knowing that he wanted nothing to do with them, they still turned up at an event where he was speaking, forcing him to leave to avoid a scene. They sued him for libel because he failed to publicise their claims of a victory against a Waldorf school in New Zealand. Now I thought that must be a bit of rhetorical exuberance but in fact the judgment supports the statement absolutely. Their chief source of grievance against lewis is that he did not give them a platform, and then that he made a couple of tetchy comments when they would not stop demanding that he publicise their claims. Bishop considers himself an expert on online harassment. I do not know anybody with any expertise in this who would agree with him that Lewis, rather than Garden and Paris, were the problem here. Note that they fired their legal representatives - this is rarely a good sign. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)"

As you can see here [316]] it was Guy that made the first move by removing reference to me from the Character theory page, and it is my view this was an act of retaliation for me supporting a couple who have been affected by a skeptic and this offended him so much because most of his contributions on Wikipedia relate to propping up skeptics --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 01:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

In essence it is Guy breaching WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:NOTHERE and that is why I think Admin should take action because I am being targeted on Wikipedia because of my professional life off Wikipedia --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Propose WP:BOOMERANG per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT 74.70.146.1 (talk) 01:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

IMO for BLP reasons you should refrain from claiming here on Wikipedia that anyone cyber harassed anyone. AFAICT the people you are referring to here suffered an epic failure in their case even if it was about defamation rather than harassment since they abandoned their harassment claim. I presume you know about this since it's basically what you're referring to. Nil Einne (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Let us take them in order shall we?

• 1. Garden and Paris spectacularly had zero chance of winning their case against Lewis. Any sane reasonable person looking at even a brief summary, understands on which side the harrassment was.
• 2. When you come to wikipedia and claim someone removing material (that you have added) that is unreliably sourced (chiefly to your own websites which have in the past been fraudulently claiming affiliation with Swansea University, to the point where the university C&D'd you) is 'harrassment', coupled with your views on point 1, it indicates you really do not know what harrassment is. When you go somewhere and make demands, it is not harrassment when you get told no. This appears to be a blind spot you share with Garden and Paris.
• 3. You made at least two personal attacks in the above, a couple more at COIN, and lets gloss over the bordeline legal threat which had Dennis been a less kind admin, might have earned you a swift block. I suggest you go away and think about what people have told you.

Otherwise you may want to duck the curved wooden stick hurtling towards you. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• The IP editor at the top had it right. Not only is this the boomerang of the day, but it should win awards for how swift, heavy, polished and WP:POINTY it is. (To explain the last: His self-promoting original research was removed from the article in the diff by another user with the same edit summary as Jonathan used. Jonathan responded by removing the single most well known and widely used set of personality archetypes from the page, with an identical edit summary. This is obvious from the diff and the diff of the previous revision.) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

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

24.141.6.209

24.141.6.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making various kinds of threats via various pages. Please deal with them. Feinoha ^Talk 05:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

User got blocked by an admin. Case closed. Feinoha ^Talk 05:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Block is only for a period of 24 hours, wait it out and see if they return to continue with said behaviour or disappear. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Not likely to be back on this IP since has already been blocked on multiple IPs tonight:

• • • 78.127.222.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    • 89.216.156.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    • 188.61.207.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    • 92.98.150.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Dozens of rev dels, and at least three pages protected. Meters (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

These IP's are most likely blocked User:Nate Speed, and yes, pretty much every page they touch needs both article and corresponding talk page semi-protected. Sro23 (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Recurrent problematic behaviour from user 167.246.60.1

The present request was first motivated by the fact the user 167.246.60.1 (talk · contribs) is regularly deleting sourced quotes and inadequately altering the same section on Kevin Roberts. Moreover, this user tried to intimidate me with comments like:

• "The Editor who continues to push their narrative has been reported",
• "Take your bias somewhere else",
• "A contributer to this article has a history of biased editing",
• "User Lspiste is a biased editor. Both on this page and in his/her edit history", and so on.

He also put a {POV-check} on the same section, but without starting any discussion after that.

What is worse, as one can see by checking his talk page, is that this user has a quite long history of similar behaviour on WP. As many users did before, I notified him on his talk page, with no result as today. So I think admins should take appropriate actions to address this problem. Lspiste (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Looking further into its edit history, I see that this IP is regularly editing biographies and pages of the pharma and advertising domains, showing very in-depth technical and business knowledges in a way that strongly suggests the IP is violating WM's terms of use regarding paid contribution disclosure.

I know for a fact that administrating WP is quite a busy job, but even then I was wondering if someone could look at this request and maybe give it an answer? Thanks. Lspiste (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

∆ → ∅ Lspiste (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Webzen Games

An editor, Zenoknuckle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), recently popped up trying to add POV-style info about the this game company supposedly banning its userbase, etc, using bad sourcing (youtube videos), and appealing to popular opinion as a reliable source for community outrage, etc. Part of the stuff they added was well-sourced, but they've started deleting this well-sourced info as well in anger after being told that some of their additions were in violation of WP:RS, WP:SPS and WP:VG/S. It doesn't seem like I'm getting through to them on their talk page, either. Eik Corell (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Zenoknuckle? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 00:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, corrected it. Eik Corell (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Better to just fix it from one of the diffs, which I did. Wastes less time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Wasn't sure if that counted as a re-factoring no-no. Also: why has this person not been warned about 3RR, which they're extremely in violation of? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 00:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• I'm in the middle of giving him a warning on his talk page. I prefer to go that route since he is new. Explain a few things, including how he will be blocked if he continues. No one has warned him on his talk page or explained any of this outside of a summary. And to answer your question: refactoring is changing someone's text to give a different meaning. Fixing something like a very obvious technical error is acceptable. Correcting their general spelling or grammar, no, just technical things. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

  @Dennis Brown: Got it. Thank you. It's also worth pointing out that this editor hasn't been here in several hours so maybe this whole thread should be moved to a more appropriate locale. Is this really an ANI issue? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 00:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Its fine at ANI, we aren't slavish to any format or hard standard. The goal isn't to block him, its to get him to stop, and now he has enough warning that it is up to him. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Still no edits since this started, so I would say that it is over for now and can be closed. He has been warned which is sufficient for now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: He's still at it, unfortunately. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that one edit can't be definitely pinned on POV. Looking at it, I can see others doing the same, and I can see others disagreeing. It was a primary source, not a 3rd party reliable source, after all. The whole article is a mess of tables where none should exist, all that should be prose. He isn't barred from editing that article, he just has to follow the same rules as you I. I think that one edit falls under WP:BRD. WE have to give him a chance to conform. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

JamesJohnson2 v. Philip Cross

JamesJohnson2 (talk · contribs) Philip Cross (talk · contribs)

Originally posted by Philip Cross (talk · contribs)

This editor is intent on adding claims to the Trial of Slobodan Milošević page that Milošević has been 'exonerated' by the ICTY in The Hague. This is sustained breaking WP:PRIMARY, but the claim has been made recently by contributors to multiple non-RS sites like Global Research, the website of the pro-Putin Russian RT (TV network) and other sites which defend Milošević. It is also an issue on the main article about Slobodan Milošević, but this has not yet turned into an edit war. There are multiple articles on reputable sites which debunk these claims. This is probably not a complete list: "Milosevic’s Old Allies Celebrate His 'Innocence'", Balkans' Insight, August 16, 2016; William Marsden "Milosevic doesn't deserve exoneration for war crimes", Ottawa Citizen, September 7, 2016; Serge Brammertz "Slobodan Milosevic is no hero", Al-Jazeera, August 24, 2016; "Ex-Hague prosecutor upset over 'rehabilitation' of Milosevic", b92, August 17, 2016; Gordana Knezevic "Milosevic 'Exonerated'? War-Crime Deniers Feed Receptive Audience", RFE/RL, August 9, 2016. The account of JamesJohnson2 appears to be single-issue. Philip Cross (talk) 07:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I should have mentioned that the ICTY has been quoted in the articles as rejecting the interpretation the other user insists on using. Philip Cross (talk) 08:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Originally posted by JamesJohnson2 (talk · contribs)

User Philip Cross is making false claims about my modifications. At the same time he is making opinionated changes on Trial of Slobodan Milošević article based on opinionated and unreliable sources. None of the articles he presents have any evidence in them, but are in fact personal opinions, of journalists or of people they are interviewing. At the same time they are ignoring direct evidence provided in court transcripts from "International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia" including following reports: "Public Redacted Version of Judgement Issued on 24 March 2016 in Prosecutor vs. Radovan Karadžić, p. 1303", International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, 24 March 2006; Case No.IT-95-5/18-T

Other then opinionated articles he has listed above which present a point a view of individuals and nothing more he is yet to show any evidence why my conclusion is not correct. There are many WP:IRS articles which support my point of view and some that support his point of view, but the fact to the matter is that my point of view is also supported in WP:PRIMARY I have listed above. Bellow are some WP:IRS sources I have found that do support my point of view ignoring the fact that Philip Cross has already mentioned some above in abhorrent effort to discredit them: "Milosevic exonerated, as the NATO war machine moves on", RT, August 2, 2016; Neil Clark "ON TARGET: War crime blame game not so cut and dry", Herald Opinions, July 31, 2016; SCOTT TAYLOR "Milosevic exonerated—but who’d know it? The media keep mum.", The Greanville Post, August 31, 2016; JOHN PILGER "Slobodan Milosevic exonerated by the ICTY", caucus99percent, August 1, 2016; Alex Ocana "The Exoneration of Milosevic: the ICTY’s Surprise Ruling", CounterPunch, August 1, 2016; Andy Wilcoxson "Blair admitted it, Milosevic found not guilty, but Hillary remains unrepentant", globinfo freexchange, August 16, 2016; "Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic Found Not Guilty of War Crimes", The Conservative Papers, August 6, 2016; alpineski "Hague Tribunal Exonerates Slobodan Milosevic for Bosnia War Crimes Ten Years Too Late", slobodan-milosevic.org, July 18, 2016; Andy Wilcoxson "Milosevic Exonerated by International Tribunal, Media Is Silent", telesur, August 8, 2016; "Former Serbian Leader Milosevic Exonerated from Genocide Claims", NTFU, July 24, 2016; Hmk Enoch

• 1. Why is this issue here? There is NO discussion on the talk page of the trial article at all. That's where you both need to head NOW.
• 2. Edit-warring on the article is not going to help anything. I have no idea why JamesJohnson2 (amongst others) was not blocked on the day he reverted the article around ten times.
• 3. If you're going to use a 2,615 page PDF as a "source", you'd better damn well say where in the document supports your claims. or your "sourcing" is worse than useless.
• Black Kite (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I did not use the talk page, because few other users are likely to access it. It also seemed likely that a problem with the dubious sources which put forward an utterly false interpretation that have been debunked by numerous writers, on a contentious subject, was likely to persist. For such a significant issue a decade or more ago, it is astonishing that the article has fewer than 30 page watchers. As you point out Black Kite, User:JamesJohnson2 has been reverting for several weeks. He also removed the reliable sources I added to try and prevent such sites as slobodan-milosevic.org, a site for Milošević's apologists, being treated seriously in error. Milošević is one of the most contentious political leaders of recent decades whose supporters write articles for obscure websites which are hardly RS. Quite a few of these should have been blacklisted long ago. My intention was only to protect Wikipedia from such material as quickly as possible. Philip Cross (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit by JamesJohnson2

• 3. The reference is on page 1303. in finding 3460. The page reference is included in original wiki article I forgot to add it above. The reference has been updated.

Not sure what reason Philip Cross had to hide the discussion on this page, rather then to start it in appropriate place. Also it is highly hypocritical of him to accuse me of removing "reliable" sources like B92 and other pro NATO proxy news agencies, in which word of Milosevic's prosecutor is taken like a gospel, with no other proof necessary, not only that but he has at the same time been removing the reference to "International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia" finding which is only real reliable source in regard to this issue.

Addition by Philip Cross

A new editor, User:Danielstn, in reverting JamesJohnson, has made this entirely reasonable comment in his edit summary: "Removed irrelevant Karadzic trial references. Even if this wiki page were titled "Accusations of genocide against Slobodan Milosevic", the Karadzic trial cannot be cited as an exoneration, as the prosecution weren't even trying to prosecute Milosevic." Philip Cross (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit by JamesJohnson2 16:55 14 September 2016 (UTC)

In reference to User:Danielstn comment, his statement makes absolutely no sense for following reasons:

• Accusations brought against Slobodan Milosevic's and his alleged crimes are present in the article as they should be, as they are part of information related to him. Therefore it follows that any court findings about this alleged crimes, should also be present on the page. If we were to follow his logic we should also remove allegations against him as well which is ridiculous.
• While the trial was not about him, the court has investigated his involvement in Bosnian crimes and has found that there is no evidence which supports the claim that he has participated in the alleged crimes. Therefore this relates to the allegations against his person and should be present on the page.
• We are here to present the facts not to hide them, and it is a fact that "International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia" has investigated Slobodan Milosevic crimes during Bosnian war and has found that there is not enough evidence to support this accusations. As a Wikipedia editor you should present the facts not hide them, regardless of whether you like them or not. After all we are not here to say one side of the story.
• If you want to challenge the courts findings go to court do not pretend that they do not exist.

I've opened a talk page on this issue, and made some changes to the article that retain a reference to the Karadzic trial. However, I've removed the misinterpretation of the ICTY's judgement on this issue as "exonerating" Milosevic - please see my talk page comments for details.

With reference to the specific comment by User:JamesJohnson2 above that "the court has investigated his involvement in Bosnian crimes and has found that there is no evidence which supports the claim that he has participated in the alleged crimes." - this is not true. The court made an inconclusive statement about his involvement in a subset of the Bosnian crimes, which are themselves a subset of all of the crimes Milosevic was charged with.Danielstn (talk) 13:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

To User: Danielstn, I recommend you read the finding in article 3406 on pg. 1303 a little bit better, as it clearly states that court could not find enough evidence to support the claims that Slobodan Milosevic was involved in the "common plan". "Common plan" to which they are referring to, is outlined on pages 1294 to 1306 and covers all the crimes allegedly committed by Serbs in Bosnia. JamesJohnson2 (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a brilliant example of WP:SYNTH and misuse of WP:PRIMARY sources. EEng 19:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

To User:EEng#s, actually it is neither, for it to be misuse of WP:SYNTH I would need to combine two different sources to reach a new conclusion and I am only using single source. In addition to this I am not combining different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. Both references are from the same section of the document and my conclusion is the same conclusion that is made in source provided.

Also I am not offering only WP:PRIMARY sources if you read the article on WP:PRIMARY sources it states that they are account close to the event like witness statement about the event or witness testimony. In this case ICTY (International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia) Can only be a WP:SECONDARY or WP:TERTIARY source, and witness statements, witness testimonies and reports provided during the trial are WP:PRIMARY based on which ICTY has made its informed decision. We are talking here about a body which has been licensed to make a legally binding decision not about some proxy news agency, which appear to be only sources your side of the argument used. Also there are plenty of other WP:SECONDARY sources I have provided above. JamesJohnson2 (talk) 01:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Cobbling together different bits of one source is still SYNTH, and anyway court opinions are primary (except possibly, in limited cases, for their recitation of uncontroverted background facts). EEng 02:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

You are not reading WP:SYNTH page again, it clearly states "Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source", my conclusion is clearly explicitly stated by the source, and I am not using two sections as finding about Milosevic is sub section of the single common plan section, therefore this can not possibly be WP:SYNTH. Its ironic that you were discussing misuse of WP:SYNTH and you keep misinterpreting it.

I respectfully disagree that court is WP:PRIMARY as I have already explained above. In any case its unimportant, as I have already provided big list of WP:SECONDARY sources with same conclusion as mine in replies above, which in interest of non spamming I will not list again. JamesJohnson2 (talk) 02:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I was responding only to your post saying, "I recommend you read the finding in article 3406 on pg. 1303 [blah blah] 'Common plan' to which they are referring to, is outlined on pages 1294 to 1306 and [blah blah]", which is SYNTH. You can explain all you want but court decisions are primary as to the own conclusions and formal statements, which can rarely be taken at simple face value. If you listed any secondary sources they're lost in your TLDR.

You're an SPA with 33 mainspace edits. If you don't start listening to experienced editors trying to help you understand how things are done you're not going to last long here. EEng 04:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

And I have already responded to your so called SYNTH and other [blah blah] statements in extensive details, repeating the statement with out any further insight does not help your argument, just the opposite in fact.

Is the second part of your statement a "threat"? If that's how things works around here (threats and insults with no insight) I would not want to stay around here anyway. Thank you for your "experienced" help. but no thanks. JamesJohnson2 (talk) 05:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Not a threat, a prediction. Ignore at your peril. EEng 05:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

That sounds allot like what movie villains say after being asked about the threat they have just made. JamesJohnson2 (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Except on Wikipedia there's no screenwriter to save you just before the axe falls. EEng 07:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that it is a threat. JamesJohnson2 (talk) 07:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Whatever you say. EEng 07:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Gross incivility and edit war from Engleham

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: reopening this discussion per clear consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Request for review of close on WP:ANI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC))

Engleham in response to an EW warning wrote: [317] notified at [318]

@Collect Nice try at a wind-up. Well you know I consider any suggestions you offer to anyone regarding good behaviour, are completely and utterly farcical, given the record suggests you to be one of Wikipedia's most chronic, trivial and homophobic WP:CRUSH edit warriors and, --- need it be said once again --- seasoned stalker. Engleham (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I rather think this series of string accusations gores well beyond the pale. I note that the editor has been sanctioned repeatedly for "disruptive editing"

His edits at Cary Grant include

1. [319] 24:04 12 Sep adding material in nature deleted by strong consensus in the past,
2. [320] 14:35 12 Sep asserting that the claims were fully backed by the sources given,
3. [321] 14:50 12 Sep asserting again (erroneously) that the claims were backed by the sources given, and
4. [322] 14:13 12 Sep using the same material in another article, even though the sourcing and claims were questioned by several editors.

Thus he has also clearly engaged in edit war as well as calling another editor "homophobic" "seasoned stalker" "edit warrior" etc. Collect (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, his addition was poorly worded and written like a tabloid too, affecting the neutrality. Rather than discuss it this editor immediately opened an RFC, which I doubt will prove productive.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Any yet another [323] example of him calling me a liar. Please - someone, anyone, do something. Collect (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I made two edits to the Cary Grant article, which were cited by reliable sources, and qualified in their claim. Collect reverted it with "Gay edit reverted - please get consensus before trying this type of edit" Charming. That's the kind of incisive encyclopaedic editing one really responds to. I reverted it and continued to add further citations and saved. Blofeld reverted it so I set up an Rfc. Collect has been stalking me for over a year, on and off. The previous example (one of several) is documented below by me, should you wish wade through it. I'm a careful and conscientious editor, but sometimes one has to put up with nonsense. How much time has he wasted on this page on trivia involving others this year? Never mind. What he doesn't like, and what's driving this, is his being called to account on his WP:CRUSH tactics. Anyway, we move on. Well at least I do.

---

You very well know I've had to address your stalking of my edits in the past. But let's look more recently, shall we? On the 17th, although you only made a handful of article edits, you directly and indirectly stalked me. 1. On 17 August I edited William Drummond Stewart adding the review citation of Benneman. 2. The same day you run across to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard taking issue with Benneman, slagging the suggestion that he's a reputable scholar. When that didn't work, you claimed your issue was that it constituted a single source. Someone else pointed out an additional source, which you dismissed. That's not enough for you. Because you can't win you... 3. Start incorporating mention of Benneman as a "law archivist" into the body of articles! First for the article on William North. Then that of Count d'Orsay. Your background knowledge of both topics is so poor, you think Benneman is the only scholar to suggest both individuals may have been bisexual. To repair your damage to the articles, I added a slew of pertinent new references and remove Benneman's name from the body of the text - and completely from the d'Orsay article as there are more pertinent sources. Incorporating scholar's names into the body of articles is never best practice unless they have dramatically changed the field of studies. And it has been abused for vanity purposes. It certainly shouldn't be employed to pursue a personal agenda, as you have been doing. 4. The day wasn't over. You chose to revert a quote on Frederick the Great's article I'd added just two weeks prior. 5. Having obviously looked at my edit log, from the hundreds of articles up for deletion, you THEN chose to vote opposing me on Frederick Blond, which I voted on only a hour or so before: [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friedrich Blond]. And that's just in one 24 hour period when you're on a vindictive roll. As I've said before, you need to grow up. You clearly have a very strong bias against the incorporation of any suggestion of homosexuality/bisexuality into articles, when relevant, however many sources are supplied. And you have a very clear bias against myself – completely understandable, as I've shown you up, and your WP: CRUSH modus operandi repeatedly. And I know how much that infuriates you. Well, you need to get over it. I'm a very cautious editor with a loathing of supposition beyond what can be established by sources. And will delete anything that steps over that mark. e.g. with regard to William North - if you Google "steuben + "extraordinarily intense emotional relationship" + will" you'll find a slew of articles stating that this phrase was in Steuben's Will but edited out by an earlier biographer. A few articles even suggest the Will reads "like a love letter". I checked the 1930s biography, and the Will, and the claim is complete tosh. The phrase came from a biographical source which I identified and added, and inserted a note in the citations, which will hopefully quell this canard. And I've deleted other similar gay overclaims elsewhere in the past. However, there is a point where the amount of circumstantial evidence can sometimes tip to "beyond reasonable doubt". No one ever saw Oscar Wilde engage in homosexual acts, he denied it in a public court, and he was married with two children. Does that make him straight? I hate false history. Including gay history that makes false claims or exceptional ones that are not supported. But neither am I a friend of bigotry that seeks to distort history. There is a seachange going on in historical studies where previously suppressed material is being published, and existing material re-evaluated, and if it is relevant, then I will endeavour to incorporate it, after filtering it through the editorial lens. Engleham (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment @Engleham: now I have no dog in this fight, however I do take into question your choice to misquote Collect's edit summary, the edit summary reads as follows, "BRD "Gay edit" reverted - please get consensus before trying this type of edit". You removed the " " from around "gay edit", denoting the content of the edit, not the edit itself. That behavior, if common with you, could get you into trouble for lying or misrepresenting facts. Personally, I think an apology is in order for that at least. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 17:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I removed the commas not to change the content but for formatting. I actually think the commas make it appear even more flippant! Anywaays, I think I'm very forbearing, but when it comes to childish WP:CRUSH tactics, which are just corrosive to the spirit of Wikipedia, I admit I have a short fuse. I note that in January of this year, I added this to Collect's Talk page: "YES, you were stalking me. And YES, I'll call you out again if it happens again. I've read what people have posted about you, so I realise my experience with you is far from unique. They got your number, and, so have I. By that I don't mean 43,000 edits, which impresses me not one whit. As I believe has already been pointed out to you, some of the most prolific and barnstarred editors on Wikipedia are some of the very worst. And your crowing as to being a crusading white knight of neutrality also impresses me not a whit: those who truly exercise it don't feel the need to go on about it; I've also witnessed several pathological manipulators claim the very same. You seem to hold the delusion that YOUR personal vision of Wikipedia, is the one that should prevail....Being flexible with some edits and content that may grate your teeth, if they don't blatantly contradict policy, is the way it works. In other words, with a measure of generosity... you are acting FAR from the neutrality you proclaim. Neutrality on Wikipedia also demands being reasonable, and not egotistical. I echo the advice of others to you: being more considered and generous in judgements, by editing less rather than more, would benefit not only Wikipedia, but also yourself." Fortunately, I usually don't have much to do with him -- its only when I move from drier or academic articles to popular articles such as - God save us - bloody Cary Grant, that there's intersection. But he clearly does stalk and needs to chill out -- including I'd suggest, with the amount of time spent tying up editors' and admins' time here and elsewhere with trivial issues. Is there a secret list maintained of chronic abusers of people's time and good will? Perhaps there should be. Engleham (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• • Moved to correct section as per Clpo13 many thanks ;) ** _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Did you mean to add this to a different section, perhaps? clpo13_(talk) 18:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I've recently reviewed the secret list of chronic abusers of people's time and good will. User:Collect does not appear there. Based on OP's TLDR WALLSOFTEXT and baseless accusations of homophobia and wiki-stalking, I've sent an in camera nomination of OP to be honored by inclusion on this occult list. The secret overlords will be holding their monthly clandestine meeting at a confidential time and undisclosed location of their choosing. After their Star Chamber proceeding, all will be set aright. David in DC (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

If you haven't got anything useful to add to a discussion here (which clearly you haven't), it's probably not useful for you to post here at all. Black Kite (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Engleham:, I don't buy the "formatting" excuse, not from someone who claims to be a "careful and conscientious editor". But I don't want to get distracted by the side show - the main point is that you labeled another editor in a way that is a gross violation of civility. It is now up to you to decide whether you wish to stick by that comment. Note carefully, I am not asking whether you happen to believe it, but whether you think it is a proper thing to say here. If you think it was not a proper thing to say, you can think about appropriate next steps. If you think it was a proper thing to say, I'm going to request a community ban.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick Calling out an editor for engaging in WP:CRUSH; homophobic editing rather than fair editing; and stalking, isn't a "gross violation of civility" if the record supports the accusations and/or the other editor sincerely believes it is so. It's simply a plain english statement. What possible euphemisms could otherwise be employed? Whether, as here, the editor wishes to play-act at taking 'offence' at being confronted on their behaviour is up to them. After the expense of exceeding patience and civility, it needs plain stating if one is to have a hope of seeking modification of it. Let's briefly take just one of those accusations, the one you might consider the most difficult to prove, and I'll give you a single instance, and one that doesn't involve me. The article for Frederick the Great states: "Recent major biographers of Frederick, including Alings, Blanning, Burgdorf and Hahn, are unequivocal that he was predominately homosexual, and that his sexuality was central to his life and character." After that statement there's five citations. The statement is exceedingly clear. Last week I noted an editor added a link on the article to the LGBT Royalty page. Fair enough. It was swiftly deleted by Collect with the statement "very weak categorization at best". Now: given the contents of the article, you could not call that in any way an edit made in "good faith". I didn't bother addressing it, because it's pointless. And yes, one can characterise this a minor incident, which it is, but multiply it by 100 edits and the material begins to look quite compromised. Multiply the civilPOV pushing and stalking activity, and you may appreciate that my tolerance of it is less than what it was. Should they be subject to a ban? Or is such behaviour always too, too laboursome to prove? Hopefully, such exposure may give this editor pause. I think a sanction of myself for plain stating would be wrong, and send entirely the wrong message to them. Engleham (talk) 01:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I just want to point out that I did not respond earlier, because I had not seen this until now. Despite the opening, it is not a ping. I don't see any value in responding at this late date.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Community ban requested

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 had hoped that a little introspection would persuade Engleham that, even if they were convinced that Collect was homophobic, it is incivil to make such an assertion, and there are better ways to approach the issue (such as suggesting that particular edits were problematic, which is fundamentally different than smearing an editor.) I was wrong, and Engleham has declined to apologize and/or remove the castigation. I am very forgiving of editors lapses, if there is contriteness, and oppose blocks or bans associated with one-off events, but if one is specifically asked to think hard about a comment, and one still stands by it, then I don't want that editor contributing. Perhaps some time away and some introspection will persuade the editor to come back in the future with a more civil approach to editing.

• Support (as proposer)--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 02:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Homophobic is considered a standard description of a behavioural motivation. Some consider it an honour. Suggesting there's another way to describe that Frederick the Great edit and the similar one's he's made as anything other that what they are, is being utterly disingenuous. And as I stated, sending the wrong message to the wrong person. If sitting at AIDS death beds taught me anything, it's not to tolerate bigotry, and to know for fucking sure what I stand for. Consequently, if bigotry and the distortion of articles that flows from it is what you're willing to mollycoddle: after 10 years contributing here, I won't be back. And it will be a very easy decision. Finis. Engleham (talk) 02:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, it was easy for me to support when you willfully misrepresented an edit summary as I mentioned above and I don't buy your excuse for a second. Not to mention your tone in your comment just now, yeah, that's not helping your case. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 02:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

As I stated, I did not change the message summary intentionally to alter its meaning, and I have no idea how you think the removal of the commas does. Do tell me, because for the life of me, I read it the same. If anything, it makes him look better and less anomalising of the expression. And I certainly wouldn't have intended that! As for leaving permanently, I'm serious. Have you looked at Collects back history? I mean genuinely gone in and looked. Because I'm making all this up? Engleham (talk) 02:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

They are not commas, they are quotation marks. It's important to copy the edit summary as it is and remove nothing. Also, as I said in my first comment on your issue, I have no dog in this fight, I know nothing of either one of you. My problem with you is that you removed something from the edit summary that could have and in my case did affect the interpretation of the summary. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 02:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Repeat: If anything, it makes him look better and less anomalising of the expression. And I certainly wouldn't have intended that! Engleham (talk) 02:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

And I repeat (notice I'm actually using quotations properly): "...removed something from the edit summary that could have and in my case did affect the interpretation of the summary." as in, your removal of them affected my initial interpretation of the summary. So, as I said, that's why you copy and paste them exactly as they are written. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 02:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I said I'm sorry. I quickly edited several commas in Source because things were italicising oddly, and I'm sorry I removed the inverted ones. I'm happy for you to read it any way you want, and interpret it any way you want. Christ: now I know how Hillary feels when she sneezes.Engleham (talk) 03:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support This is not a "one-off", rather it is the latest in a chain of long term problems with this editor. Personal attacks such as this are unacceptable, and Engelham's response indicates no intention to change course. There seems, therefore, no alternative to imposing the next block in the escalating series, as a minimum, as previous sanctions have failed to prevent recurrence. I'd further support an indefinite community ban on this occasion, since time-limited blocks have proved ineffective, and unblocking therefore needs to be only after the community is convinced the reasons for sanction are understood, and will not recur.-- Begoon 02:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Begoon Mmm. Given Collect has even blocks than I, and for edit-warring,[324]what sanction does that formulate for you? Engleham (talk) 05:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

One further observation: it appears this has quickly assumed, thanks to @Sphilbrick, the format of a trial. I thought in a trial the evidence on both sides was carefully examined. That isn't happening. What's happening looks like both the easy cop-out, and pettiness. Well, that won't be a first here. As someone has previously noted, the AdminBoard's response to CivilPOV pushing has always been particularly poor given the time it takes to research. Engleham (talk) 03:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support - I'm not going to comment on the merits of Collect's and Engleham's dispute, but per his block log and seeing how Engleham has continued to decline to apologize, I have to agree with Sphilbrick's sentiments. Yes the editing gets hot at times, but it's no excuse to not engage in a reasonable and not combative manner. If you are unable to do that and insist on playing a part in furthering conflicts and making others feel attacked, then you don't belong here. Calling others "homophobic" is contrary to our collaborative atmosphere, it does not matter if you think another contributor is "homophobic" or not, you're supposed to keep comments like that to yourself. As a formerly banned editor myself, I know from experience that eventually an editor should have to verbalize what is the problem with their editing/behavior before being allowed to continue to participate. I think this is such a circumstance. —Mythdon 03:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I'm never going to apologise for naming homophobia IF, after making every possibly concession, and being civil, it appears transparently clear that this behaviour is driving and and distorting edits. Because there's no other word in the english language that describes it so it can it can discussed, and hopefully mediated. That's why we have this clumsy word!!! Engleham (talk) 03:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

By way of a drive-by meta comment, what you seek, Mythdon, is not an apology but a change of mind, which is usually far more difficult. An apology without the change of mind would be insincere and disingenuous, and I doubt you want that. It is not an unimportant distinction, since it affects how we think about these disputes. In my most humble of opinions.
Also it's not clear how many participants here understand that accusations of homophobia, like just about any accusations at Wikipedia, may or not be PA, depending on whether there is evidence to support them. Homophobia does exist in the world, it can affect Wikipedia content in a seriously bad way, and it's appropriate and necessary to call a spade a spade. I say that knowing absolutely nothing about this case and without taking a position in it.
What constitutes adequate evidence of homophobia? I have no earthly idea. I doubt there is a "correct" answer to that question, just varying opinions. But the debate needs to be framed in the correct way unless we wish to overhaul WP:NPA, outlawing pejoratives outright.
My reasoning does appear to conflict with that of Sphilbrick, a more experienced editor than me, so I would be interested in his/her feedback. It's possible this is yet another case of conflicting community consensuses being allowed to persist because it's too difficult to resolve them. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I do disagree with your position, but it is a difference of nuance, albeit a non-trivial difference.

As a community, I believe we have stressed the importance of distinguishing between edits and editors. Thus, if editor A makes an edit that sounds like the type of edit a homophobic person might make, we describe the edit as consistent with homophobia, but do not leap to the conclusion that the editor can be described that way. There are multiple reasons for this. The editor may be unaware that the comment is viewed as homophobic by some. The person perceiving it might be wrong. There might be a misunderstanding in general.

The situation becomes a bit muddier if multiple edits occur. It becomes harder to separate the editors from the editor, but that's what we are supposed to do. Accusing an editor of being homophopic is a whole different discussion than debating whether edits 1,2 and 3 should be viewed as homophobic.

Engleham has declared the right to label someone as homophobic. I believe our community has said that such a labeling is not acceptable even if true (I happen to think it is not true, but that's not the central point.) Our message to Engleham ought to be that they are entitled to their beliefs, but we as a community have decided that they should not be expressed openly. Perhaps the community would like to revisit that position (or correct me if I have it wrong) but Engleham has essentially said, on more than one occasion - I don't care about your community standards, my views trump your rules If we do not enact a community ban, we are saying that a view good edits mean you do not have to follow the community rules. Enacting a community ban means that we, as a community, do have a right do decide what is acceptable discourse.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, and I agree with that. I still think an apology, by itself, would be meaningless so demanding one, by itself, is pointless. Perhaps I took Mythdon's comments too literally, or perhaps we're using different definitions of "apology". ―Mandruss ☎ 17:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree that demanding an apology is useless. What I think is needed is for the light to go on. I don't look for I apologize for my views, but I understand that expressing those views is contrary to the community norms, so I promise not to express them in the future. I retain the right to argue, even strongly, for my version of how the article should read, but I will cease labeling an editor based upon my opinion of their motivation.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Copy-and-paste not allowed. ;) ―Mandruss ☎ 20:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Sphilbrick sums it up my position as to exactly what I was meaning by "apology". Took the words right out of my mouth. —Mythdon 20:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support I witnessed this user's behavior on Talk:Gary Cooper, where they tried to insert material on another golden-era Hollywood star's alleged homosexuality. In-between RfCs, Engleham received a one-month block for, among other things, a disgusting antisemetic attack on a fellow editor. After returning, Engleham proposed an almost identical RfC. Engleham didn't WP:DROPTHESTICK in the dispute, so it comes as no surprise that they continued to make ad hominem attacks. Some time away from the encyclopedia may be the best solution in this case.LM2000 (talk) 03:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@LM2000 among other things, a disgusting antisemetic attack on a fellow editor. Christ. What an utter bald faced liar you are, whoever you are. I've never been antisemetic in my life.Engleham (talk) 04:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Read the comments you made on your talk page on May 24. Right before your most recent block.LM2000 (talk) 04:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm well aware of what was suggested, which was an utterly ridiculous and gross misrepresentation of lighthearted comments, (and taken as such by the balanced and sane), which had nothing whatsoever to do with antisemetism. Engleham (talk) 04:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support I was going to fast-forward past this section but the 03:22, 13 September 2016 comment above made me read enough to see that Engleham needs a break until ready to join the community. People disagree (aka fight) about edits all the time, but participants need to focus on edits and sources without claims about the motivations or honesty of others. Johnuniq (talk) 03:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support Noting my comments at User_talk:The_ed17#User_talk:Engleham where I note Engleham's comments:

your very own endlessly tedious soapbox lecturings on bias. (But as everyone who has ever crossed you knows all too well, such injunctions don't apply to you -- especially if you think you can get a rise out of the other party, puerile unhelpful rubbish that some other editor will eventually delete anyway - and not just your nemesis User:Dr. Blofeld.,

Your predicable baiting bullshit can rot by itself, Rosenfield's biography of Hepburn never appeared. Why? Because he suicided the same month as he wrote the review slagging Higham,

What?! You left out the part about the Gay Illuminati Conspiracy.,

If this material fails to convince anyone of Engleham's fairly clear incivility, I do not know what would. Well, maybe his remarks iterating his attack should make the case clear, I suppose. ("I'm never going to apologise for naming homophobia" appears to be an attack and refusal to even make a pseudo-apology for his attacks and disruptive editing , as I do understand English fairly well) Collect (talk) 03:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, @Collect that's correct. As a master of disruptive CivilPOV pushing edits, which many, many, many people have called you out on, I too am calling you out on it. And on your stalking. And on your homophobic edits. Will you admit to being homophobic? Because your edits, blind to fact or any semblance of concise rational argument, certainly have all the markings of old geezer bigotry, and are wildly distortionary in that respect. Engleham (talk) 03:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Support permanent ban at this point I think that Engleham has now set a record. At least he has not used anti-Semitic slurs as he did about another editor. Please, someone, act. I think he has dug a hole large enough at this point. For the record, I am not "homophobic" as my friend and neighbor who was an early AIDS death could have told you. Your repeated namecalling is extraordinarily ill-aimed, and makes me less than pleased with your view of civility. Collect (talk) 04:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Collect. Yes, I'm sure you did a nice neighbourly line in patronisation. Contrary to what you state, you ARE clearly a liar peddling LM2000s gross falsehood. Which you know to be so. Obviously that cancer didn't grow on its own! Engleham (talk) 04:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Collect. Oh dear. I now see the dear Dr is accusing you of lying as well! Aren't people simply ghastly! And on such a VITAL self-award! It must have been shattering. It was wise to scrub his comments from your Talk Page. But then, scrubbing all that endless negativity from others must be exhausting. I prefer to let people's silliness, like here, just sit and fester, so others can come along later and smirk at it in wonder. Engleham (talk) 05:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

So now you add "liar" again to your incivility? And I peddle gross falsehood? I think now you need a permaban more than ever. And you were warned by an admin recently that he would impose a far stiffer sanction if you repeated your recent behavior? I simply suggest that at this point, you are not only not here to build an encyclopedia, your actions appear well bent on destroying it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support with regret. I was going to oppose this as s serious overreaction to a legitimate grievance. The term "homophobic" in the modern world is a slur. It is a blatant accusation of bigotry and Engleham should know that. But a CBAN is the closest thing the project has to capital punishment and I am not a fan of that in any form. (If I have ever voted for a CBAN I can't remember it.) Unfortunately as I read through the comments, including his 03:22 statement it is becoming uncomfortably clear that Engleham just doesn't get it. The final nail in the coffin was a look at his block record. This is an unrepentant serial offender. An indeff block would work for me. But we are where we are. The bottom line is that too much time has been spent over the years dealing with this kind of disruptive behavior from one editor. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose community ban. An indefinite block would be sufficient in this case. Community bans should be reserved for the very worst of the worst, and this editor isn't even currently blocked at all. Most admins that oppose community bans point out that a "de facto" ban is automatically put in place when an indefinite block wouldn't be reversed by any reasonable admin. I see this as overkill. Indef, if needed (currently it apparently is not), then go from there. Doc talk 06:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Doc9871 The ed17 stated on Engleham's talk page: "@HighInBC: I've upped the block to a month. The level of disruption is just too much to ignore, and there have been several previous two-week blocks. Next one will be indef. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC) " Yes - the user has specifically been warned that their next block would be indef. So the conditions you mention do exist already. And this violation is worse than any admin has ever tolerated in the past. Collect (talk) 08:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Shall we go through your blocks, Collect, step by step? Engleham (talk) 09:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Meh. The die has been cast. But I don't buy it. I'm sure I'll be the only oppose here. A CBAN is overkill, absolutely. CBANs are for prolific trolls. This guy is unpopular. Why is he still allowed to comment here if he needs to be CBANned? A block would not suffice, to prevent disruption? PC overkill. Doc talk 08:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support After seeing the comment "More of this A Type New York good jewishboy overthinking and anxiety, and you'll be in the coronary ward nursing your new stent" on their talkpage it is clear they are unable to avoid personalising disputes. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

That was in response to the fabulous NYBrad after my No vote for the lovely Oz Admin. Bless him: in the office we all thought we'd die. Speaking of dying: I think Doc9871's suggestions are slightly confusing. I admit I'm not on the distinctions between these two sanctions, but the difference between them appears a mere matter of semantics, and the kind of thing that makes non-Wikipedians hoot. One appears to be Death, and the other, Death With Spit. Rather Monty Pythonesque, non? Especially given the most enthusiastic potential rock thrower here is - quelle surprise -- Collect who lodged the whinge. Also perhaps not surprisingly, hypocritically he has a longer block log than myself..... for edit warring. And it was my refusal to tolerate any longer his particular tactics in that regard which created this situation. We know Wikipedia doesn't grasp irony well, but I'm feeling quite martyred. Messiah like, even. So whatever is most suitable Death Option in that situation would surely be the preferable one. Engleham (talk) 08:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

To get to the point where you make a 'Jew' joke/insult/whatever targeted at another editor, you have to firstly identify they are of Jewish heritage (in this case fairly easy), then think its appropriate to do so. Firstly I think its telling you think its appropriate at all to make that sort of racist stereotyping comment, secondly deliberately personalising a dispute in that manner is against any number of policies. RE the difference in sanction, an indefinite block means that any administrator can unblock you on a suitable display of contrition. A community ban means a discussion has to be had by the community. A community ban is proposed when when editors think there is little chance of rehabilitation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

You'll need to read my original comments somewhere on the admin voting page, then mix yourself a cocktail, and read his interpretation of them. I think you'll find it was a light-hearted but well-framed joke. My litmus test is a similar gay joke against myself. If I took offence: well fuck me for taking myself so seriously. I didn't hear back, so hopefully he got it. In the new world of perceived slights and the constantly triggered, I don't particularly care. Ta for the explanation on the sanctions. So I was right! ;-) No, I certainly have no contrition with regards to this one. Any gay man truly worth their salt would slap themselves for pandering and conceding as much as I have to such persistent homophobia. It needs to be named. The idea, floated upthread, by @Sphilbrick that there are other ways to approach the issue and suggest the edits are problematic ---well, dur -- but genuine bigots will never negotiate even in the face of fact, so one either walks away, become another victim of WP:CRUSH, or call their bluff - which, after a long, long history of revisions and realising no level of concession was considered acceptable, is what I did. Engleham (talk) 09:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The majority of editors that really need to be community banned would have been blocked and forbidden from commenting here a bit ago. Congratulations! You have the ability (for now) to comment on your death sentence. An unusual situation. Doc talk 09:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm surprised Madam Defarge has prolonged it. Bring on the purple, I say. I believe everything that needs to be said has been said. I acknowledge Wikipedia operates in a collegiate manner. However, occasionally, one may have to make a call within that paradigm. Consequently, I believe I did the right thing; the guiltier party is going unpunished and will so continue their behaviours to the detriment of fact. Process wins over fairness, and content suffers. Engleham (talk) 09:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Dickens, eh? Typical. Ban this upstart. Forthwith! Doc talk 09:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support', pace Doc, who makes a very good point. Yes there is a distinction, but IMO a block is a unilateral action and something that has consensus from a larger group is basically a ban, so a debated sanction like this one is a ban whether we call it that or not. Guy (Help!) 08:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Should I do the closing summary? A sad discussion regarding an editor trying to deal with long-term bigotry by calling it out, and which could have addressed what is a familiar but occasionally deeply problematic issue in a more empathetic and innovative manner, but instead chose to go down a predictable route of simple condemnation of the response, but not of the triggering action. Unsatisfactory resolution that offered no insightful discussion on a very real problem that can impact on editors, or ideas for fresh approaches to rigid editorial walls shaped by belief. Departed of his own volition. Engleham (talk) 10:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Silence, Fiend. Doc talk 11:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

For a tender shimmering breast-clutching moment I thought that read 'Friend'. Engleham (talk) 11:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Friend only to the foul denizens of the abyss! Begone, Thing! Unspeakable. Banished and accursed! Doc talk 11:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't.... stop. Let me just undo a few buttons. Engleham (talk) 11:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Heh. Now, seriously. The cart has been put in front of the horse here. Yer basically screwed for being un-PC. "Consensus" on this thread will have you community banned. It's not due process by any means, but it's reality. Sorry I couldn't do more to sway the mob. From now on we should have NOTHERE be a community ban criteria, BTW. Doc talk 12:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Yer basically screwed for being un-PC I haven't said a single word about the hair of ArbCom. But yes, that sense of unease when justice seems ill-served and peremptorily, does hang like a vapour. Engleham (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - An indefinite block is enough here. The comments by Engleham have overstepped any bounds of civility, no personal attacks and arguably aspersions and on the one hand left my jaw slack, but, on the other hand came from a misguided attempt to uphold the rights of the homosexual community. I have no qualms with standing up for what you believe in, but, when every single editor says in one form or another "you fucked up" it usually means that "you fucked up". That's where the request for contrition comes in. You could have and should have said to yourself; okay, I may be wrong here. I hate false contrition though, absolutely despise it. So to be honest, I actually prefer Engleham's brutal honesty (honesty regarding what he thinks) to some false half-baked apology. Now if you showed some genuine contrition that's fine, but, it's not going to happen. Besides, Departed of his own volition. Goodbye and good luck, and please avoid using slurs on possibly innocent people. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Note on Re-opening: This discussion was closed yesterday by User:Ritchie333 with the following summary:

Engleham (talk · contribs) is blocked for one month for repeated personal attacks and failure to drop the stick in disputes. Although this is considerably less than the community ban people are calling for, those who have opposed the ban (especially Doc9871) are still comfortable with a block, and one month off (per precedent set by The ed17 in May and escalating accordingly) seems to be about the lenient I can make it given everything that has been discussed here and not make it sound like a witch hunt. Engleham is reminded that repeated behaviour in future may well result in an indefinite block. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Per a clear consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Request for review of close on WP:ANI, this close did not reflect the consensus of the community who had commented so far. In that AN thread, some proposed reopening this discussion, others proposed changing the 1 month block to a community ban. I'm opting to reopen this, both to see if there is a late surge in people who agreed with Ritchie's approach, and because community ban discussions typically last at least 24 hours. The 1 month block while the discussion is going on throws a bit of a monkey wrench into the plan; however, I think Engleham has commented adequately (and to his great disadvantage) in this thread already, and there is universal agreement that a 1 month block is at the very least justified, so I am not going to unblock so he can make more personal attacks in a thread about him making personal attacks. if he wishes to comment further, he can post something on his talk page with a {{helpme}} template, and if it does not contain personal attacks, someone can move it here. I will let him know about this change to the situation on his talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support community ban. Engleham got his first block for personal attacks in 2007, and his latest one last May (the current block not included), and was blocked multiple times for personal attacks and harassment in between those blocks, clearly showing that he either can't change his ways or doesn't want to change his ways. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support for CBAN An extensive block log is one thing, but having just reviewed Engleham's recent user talk page comments and their contributions to recent discussions, it's clear that their present perspectives on what constitutes appropriate engagement on this project fall so woefully short of even the most baseline community standards regarding civility that this must be considered a basic competency issue. Nearly every criticism of their behaviour or comment by a concerned community member is met with a PA--including recurrent references to race, old age, and other personal characteristics that some might say cross into the territory of hate speech, but which certainly, at the very least, are crass and caustic. Volunteers who have attempted to reach out and advise that the worst of these behaviours be avoided, as civilly as they might advise on such, have been derided to an extent that can only be appropriately classified as heckling.

Indeed, for me there seems to be more than a little bit of a sense here that Engleham thrives on this kind of discord--a notion supported by his repeated (and quite frankly creepy and deeply inappropriate) references to sexual gratification whenever someone expresses a particularly strong objection to his behaviour. The overwhelming impression I got from reading his talk page in particular (and the often self-amused, gleeful way in which he responds to concerns there), was that he just thinks he's a very clever chap, and that he need not regard the concerns of his fellow community members as anything more than an opportunity to prove his wit through naked insults and by relaying the insights he feels he perceives into the character of others. This impression is bolstered by the fact that even long-term blocks do not seem to concern him and do not seem to have modified his behaviour in the slightest.

Taking all of this together, my impression is that this editor lacks a temperment necesary to contribute to this project in a constructive manner and a community ban is in order--and especially necessary so that the editor is blocked from returning unless they convince the community that they have taken the time to truly understand and internalize this community's most basic behavioural standards, rather than potentially manipulating a single admin who might be unfamiliar with their track-record for disruption and vitriolic treatment of others. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• copied (and updated [e/c]) ( Begoon 03:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)) from Engleham's talk page:

  {{Help me}}

  Thank you @Floquenbeam and again, @Ritchie333 @Doc9871 I would like to say on the re-opened thread:

  I was endeavouring to get the behaviour of the complainant to stop. It is something of no little surprise to me that no one has commented on that fact, or whether the statements made were true, or possibly true. The other party's harassing behaviour has been beyond endurance. I stated firstly that they had been "S---g" i.e. relentlessly following my edits, even when repeatedly asked to stop. And I pasted upthread a review of their actions on this over a single 24 hour period to enable some perception of it. I stated that they had been civil POV pushing and "H----c" in their editing. Whatever personal views an editor holds I care not a whit. However, it is a different matter if in their editing their personal disapproval refuses to allow neutrally worded facts, supported by reliable sources. The other party has 10 previous bans, mostly for edit-warring. That suggests, does it not, that there may be truth in my statement they are civil POV pushing, and that they have generated a huge amount of frustration in other editors, not only myself - frustration that leads to frankness. As for the second statement, I don't know any euphemism to describe 'H---c' behaviour in editing - does anyone? Not conceding neutrally worded material backed by reliable sources, isn't just unfair, and compromising: it's enormously frustrating for any editor. There's lots of material most of us don't like on Wikipedia, but if its neutrally worded and backed by reliable sources, we don't touch it. To sum up: (a) I wrote what I did from deep conviction that it was true, and repeated bad behaviour (b) I wrote it in order for the behaviour to cease and (c) and I don't any other words to describe the behaviour. (I don't believe 'H----c' is uncivil when it describes the specific nature of the edits, and I'm only blanking it to ensure this is hopefully posted.) To install a lifetime ban for this seems extraordinarily unfair. It also seems to be sending a very wrong message: that YES, you can get away with any amount of bad behaviour on Wikipedia, provided you are very keen, very cunning, and ingenuously civil. And I believe most experienced editors here would at least privately concede that they are aware of this invidious loophole. Engleham (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding, or pretending to misunderstand, the nature of the observations from the numerous members of the community who have decided to endorse a community ban against you--an extremely rare sanction that most of us don't like to consider for any but the most hopeless circumstances. If this were a mere dispute between two editors, no one would have contemplated that action. But your personal attack directed at Collect (who, it must be admitted, has a checkered history of his own) is simply the last straw for a community that has given you rope just one too many times, only to have you return to the same disruptive, incivil behaviour. Your conduct in this thread alone makes it fairly obvious how hopelessly incapable you are of taking criticism or advice from anyone; ever attempt to get you to reflect meaningfully on your behaviour is met with snide, sarcastic remarks which you seem to feel represent wit, but which in reality is just an unflattering composite of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT, personal attacks, and outright WP:TROLLING.

Your talk page is even worse. Any attempt to restrain your incivility there is met by truly caustic reprisal. When one particularly patient and well-intentioned editor reached out to you with excessive politeness as part of an effort to get you to reform your behaviour with the softest approach he could manage under the circumstances, you zeroed in on his Jewish ancestry instantly, in a comment which only didn't get you banned then because he chose not to report it. And really, you need to stop trying to convince us that comment was meant collegialy; no one says, in essence, "Oh stop overreacting, Jew--you'll have a coronary!" in a spirit of comradery. The fact that you either think (or more likely, want to pretend) that Newyorkbrad didn't respond because he took that light-heatedly demonstrates your basic lack of social competency here. I can pretty well guarantee you that he didn't respond not because he was chortling away at your quick wit but because he chose to take the high ground and not enable you in pulling him into the kind of mud-wallowing that seems to be your modus operandi here--an act of cool deliberation and indifference to your blatant trolling that is so impressive, I intend to give him an anti-flame barnstar for it. All of which doesn't even touch the comments where you respond to criticism with creepy sexual or violent undertones that you can't possibly not recognize as inappropriate in this environment.

These acts are not isolated incidences, but indeed (insofar as I have been able to tell from any page I looked into when considering my position on this community vote) entirely typical of your approach to disagreements with others on this project, straight through to your most recent interactions. Worse still, you can't even admit that there is anything whatsoever wrong in your approach to these situations, no matter how many editors attempt to articulate the issues to you, no matter how they do so, and no matter how many sanctions you are handed for this behaviour, making it absolutely impossible for us to consider giving you further rope. Your efforts in your most recent post to reduce this to just an issue between you and Collect (despite all of the commentators above making it clear that they are endorsing a ban because of your general behaviour), so that your actions will somehow be "justified", shows just how completely you are missing the message here; even if Collect's behaviour was just as deplorable and unacceptable, that would only mean that we would be discussing two community bans instead of one.

I think you need to accept that you blew past your point of return a while ago (and with people trying to flag you down to warn you). This ban has universal support from everyone who has commented--the extremely small minority that don't think you should be CBANned are still suggesting a "mere" indefinite block. It seems to me that this ban is going to happen--and must happen, because you are not presently equipped with the social tools and the perspective necessary to correct your behaviour. So my advice to you is this: take this as a learning opportunity. Leave the project for a time, and reflect on what got you here. By which I mean, not what other people were involved in you getting here, but what you did that brought you to this point. Pursue other collaborative ventures if you can, and, if you still feel called to our community endeavour, come back in a year or two (surely six months at a minimum, but I daresay that would be pushing it in this instance) and make your case based on what you feel were the issues that prevented you from getting on in a civil fashion here. This is a very lenient community that generally wants to see the best in its own, and we need every experienced editor we can get. So if you find the words, and you mean them, you'll probably be welcomed back.

You say that you are a person who has seen a lot of ugly intolerance in your life and that you think of yourself as someone who would never put that kind of negativity into the world--I take you at face value when you say that. But you need to try to hear us when we tell you, the way you have presented yourself here is a source of discord and animosity, and nothing short of self-reflection and honesty will fix that at this point. I wish you luck, but I for one will not be changing my position on the resolution at this time. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• further comment copied ( Begoon 06:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)) from Engleham's talk page:

  One further thing: it should be noted that, a glance at the other party's blog log shows only the equivalent of hand slaps for their behaviour and, unlike mine, no escalation in their blocks whatsoever. In fact, theirs have actually gone backwards in length: "2 weeks, 1 week, 1 week, 48 hours, 1 week, 72 hours, 24 hours, 24 hours, 48 hours, 24 hours". [325] So obviously this supports to a degree the contention that you can get away with any amount of bad behaviour as long as it is civil -- just don't make the mistake, when you call it out, of stating it exactly for what it is! (Which also begs the question: if my review can be reopened, why not theirs as well?) My mistake has been never to lodge a complaint with ANI, but attempt to deal with incidents alone. If I'm given a reprieve, that's one mistake I won't make in future. Engleham (talk) 06:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose CBan as being WP:OTT. The block as is is sound. Rather distasteful, actually, the desperation with which the 'community' is scrabbling around for its pound of flesh *sigh* Highly unnecessary. _Muffled ^Pocketed 07:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

  Ah yes because a CBan can be WikiProject Ottawa. Got a better link there? -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 19:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

  This illustrates the absolute absurdity of this CBAN request to me very clearly. "All of which doesn't even touch the comments where you respond to criticism with creepy sexual or violent undertones that you can't possibly not recognize as inappropriate in this environment." Creepy violent or sexual undertones. What the hell is an "undertone"?! Doc talk 08:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

It's like an overtone but lower. EEng 08:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Jeez, EEng, it's only the band that made one of the greatest singles ever..... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Well Doc, maybe I'm talking about the post immediately above where he responds to your (apparently insincere?) criticisms with "Don't.... stop. Let me just undo a few buttons." Other examples include, "let me get the ", "it's making me so HARD!", ect. Do you find that to be appropriate conduct in a volunteer workspace? If so, I daresay you are in the minority here. Mileage may vary with regard to the use of violent imagery as a metaphor and whether it's appropriate, but it's worth mentioning as part of the issues that Newyorkbrad brought to Engleham's talk page which earned him such volatile rebuke, including reference to Brad's supposed predilection towards "overthinking and anxiety" as an "A Type New York good jewishboy"... Snow ^{let's rap} 08:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

"can't possibly not recognize as inappropriate". I don't even know if that makes grammatical sense. Can you specifically point to actual reasons this editor must be CBANned without launching into a philosophical dissertation? The essay you wrote above? It doesn't convince me that this specific editor must be CBANned. Doc talk 09:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, what lead you to the assumption that it was meant to convince -you- of anything? It was clearly written as a response to Engleham's assertions that his behaviour was justified and that discussion here should focus solely on his conflict with Collect. And to a lesser extent, also an honest attempt to impart to him what would need to be done to return to the community if he is banned. That you don't find it compelling doesn't weigh heavily on me, but it's certainly not philosophical--these are pragmatic concerns. And yes, the sentence is grammatically sound. Just as a side note, I won't be engaging with you further here; there's enough distraction attached to this thread without chasing you down this rabbit hole. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

You're an admin hopeful, eh? Keep hoping. Diffs are better for proving actual bad behavior than your bandwagon little rant. Bye. Doc talk 09:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Why on earth would I provide you a diff for a post that he directed to you and that you clearly were aware of? But ok, let's see if I can remember how this diff thing works: here's a diff of someone being incredibly incivil and needlessly personalizing a discussion by apparently going to my user page to look for something personal about me that they can work into a petty insult that has no bearing on the discussion at hand, just for the sake of it. I think you should pause and consider where you are taking this; none of this nastiness is helping Engleham's situation. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Can any editor demanding a community ban briefly explain why a block (indefinite, if need be), is insufficient to prevent disruption in this case? Why is a CBAN needed? Has there been block evasion? Is blocking just simply not going to work here? Doc talk 10:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Doc9871: The main difference is that community bans can only be undone by the community (through consensus among editors) and the Arbitration Committee (see WP:UNBAN), while an indefinite block can be undone by any administrator at any time, simply through unblocking the editor. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. So extreme caution must be taken with this editor? Because if just any admin unblocked them it would be a serious mistake? Doc talk 13:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

While you can unilaterally overturn a vanilla block just by hitting the right buttons, don't expect to walk away from it without being dragged to this very noticeboard, tarred, feathered, and if you're really lucky, emergency desysopped. You cannot win against a blocking admin who really wants to win. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - Community ban. Support a one month Civility block (Ritchie333 was on point here). Block log and positive contribution history do not indicate that a more severe action is called for. Carrite (talk) 14:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Do you think it is acceptable, not just to violate community norms, but to openly state, more than once, that they will continue to break the rules? If that doesn't earn a ban, what does? --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment copied from Engleham's talk page. Huon (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick "to openly state, more than once, that they will continue to break the rules?" That makes me seem like some mad rogue element! What I specifically wrote was: "I'm never going to apologise for naming homophobia IF, after making every possibly concession, and being civil, it appears transparently clear that this behaviour is driving and and distorting edits. Because there's no other word in the english language that describes it so it can it can discussed, and hopefully mediated. That's why we have this clumsy word!" The naming of the stalking or Civil POV pushing doesn't seem to have been such an issue. If you can suggest to me some way to describe homophobic editing so it can pointed out to the other party in a way that would be acceptable, I'm completely willing to adopt it. Providing it's as clear as the current word. Does that make sense? When you're trying to moderate an action one has to name it somehow. Get where I'm coming from? n.b. I don't object to homophobic editing if it's balanced and backed up by sources. It's the blind blocking of the other perspective I object to, even when heavily sourced. Engleham (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Engleham: The problem is that your opinion about what is or isn't a proper source doesn't match Wikipedia's definition of proper sources (see WP:RS), as was painfully evident on Gary Cooper where you repeatedly added what was nothing but rumours and wild speculations, sourced only to fringe books, material that isn't even mentioned in any of the major recognised biographies and is contradicted by other sources. Your definition of what constitutes "homophobic editing" also doesn't match the general definition of that here, or in society at large, and demanding that all other editors adjust to your definitions just isn't acceptable. Accusing other editors of homophobia just because they revert your improperly sourced edits, as you did with me on Gary Cooper, also isn't acceptable. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose a community ban, but support more stringent blocks if the trolling and unacceptable comments continue. GAB^gab 15:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose indefblock or community ban. I became familiar with this editor from a dispute in May and realize that he seeks to make substantial good-faith contributions to the project. It must be said that after he was brought up short in May regarding his sexually laden comments, so far as I know he ceased to make such comments, nor has he returned to the RfA pages where that dispute originated. There are aspects of his recent contributions that obviously are problematic, but I would favor a much more nuanced response than Engleham's permanent exclusion from the project. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: From this very thread. Look, if you want to try to see the best in this contributor, that's admirable, and I for one won't attempt to sway your !vote, but I think you just illustrated the very heart of the problem here: no concern that the community brings to this editor, as proactive individuals such as yourself or collectively, ever gets corrected (or even so much as acknowledged by him as an issue). He just waits out his block and then goes straight back to the offensive behaviour. When you brought that issue to him from the RfA, he just laughed at your perspective (literally, he said he was laughing), insulted you as a wound-up jew, explicitly told you he was going to change nothing in his approach, and then did exactly that (as evidenced by the fact that he's continued with that behaviour here). I think you may want to go back and read his responses to you before you declare that he was "brought up short", because he blew right through your objections (as he does with the community at large) and just continued with his usual, disruptive behaviour.

And the sexual thing is really the least of it. Yeah, it's weird and unsettling and unacceptable in spades. Telling someone that you want to touch yourself because that's what their being upset does for you is a behaviour that, if done in the workplace, would be considered textbook sexual harassment. I don't think we should view it any differently just because the people here choose to volunteer their time, and I know from your comments to him that you feel much the same way. But it's not even this editors most disruptive behaviour. Not even close. The various racial and ageist comments are probably what concern me most--though there's a true packet of inappropriate behaviours to choose from here. The irony is that this whole discussion kicked off because Engleham wants to fight what he perceives to be homophobia, and he's willing to make leaps in judgement about what other editors feel in that regard and what he speculates to be the motivation for their actions. And yet, he has no problem with insulting people on the basis of their heritage or age or other group features--in an outright and unapologetic manner. We know that he considers it perfectly alright to suggest that you are prone to nervous energy because you are Jewish, but what do you suppose he would have to say if someone attributed some offensive characteristic to him because he is gay? Holy moley, can you imagine the result?

And yet he still cannot acknowledge that any of his behaviour is problem. Look at the above--not on one occasion does he concede even the smallest issue with his approach. In fact, he tells us outright that he will not change anything, no matter what we say. Either everyone who criticizes him is being too PC, or we don't get that Collect "made" him say what he said with his edits. Look at his talk page, same story; all of those issues brought to him and he just laughs them off and insults the people bringing them to his attention. That's why we're considering this ban now. We don't need contrition from him, but at the very least we do need an acknowledgement that there are issues and promise that he will work to bring his behaviour within our community guidelines. He seems to be psychologically incapable of making that concession, so what options do we have left aside from to conclude that he is going to remain unable to contribute to this project, and interact with it's other volunteers, without this continued disruption? Snow ^{let's rap} 22:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad:, as the author of the request for the community ban, it wasn't remotely my goal to push for a "permanent exclusion from the project". I have a strong dislike for indefinite blocks, so have never supported one, but I strongly support the community's belief that civil discourse allows negative comments about edits but not negative comments about editors. Had Engleham acknowledged that distinction, and simply stated that in the heat of the moment they inadvertently stepped over the line, or even that they didn't appreciate the distinction, and now that they know, they would refrain in the future, I wouldn't be calling for a ban, or even a short block. But even after being told that such behavior will not be tolerated, they openly stated their intention to repeat it. I don't think we should allow such a person in our community, but as soon as they claim they will follow the community rule to comment on the edit, rather than the editor, I'd be happy to let them return. I see that a ban is not supposed to be short-term, so perhaps an indef block would be more in line with my position, but I still dislike them, so I'll stick with support for a ban, to be overturned as soon as the editor agrees to follow the rules.

@Doc9871: You asked why a ban not a block. I'll try to give my rationale, which is mostly semantics (which is often invoked to mean it isn't important, but I am using it to say it is important.) Imagine an editor who mostly does good edits, but then commits a copyvio. They get warned. They do it again, and again, and eventually they get a short block. If they keep doing it, they get an indef block, with the message that we will welcome them back when they can demonstrate they understand the rule and commit to not violating it. I would characterize that editor as a member of the Wikipedia editing community, who has a problem that needs to be addressed. They haven't claimed that copyrights should be ignored, they haven't declared that they will deliberately violate copyright policy, they've just been sloppy and haven't taken on board that we intend to respect copyright. If someone asked me to talk about our community, I would describe it and would count that editor as part of the community. In contrast, Engleham has been told that labeling a person, rather than an edit, as homophobic, is contrary to our policy. The response isn't "oops, I will try to avoid that". The response is "too bad, I'm not stopping". I do not want that person to be part of our community. They can respond - "it grates at every fiber of my being not to label a person the way I see fit, but I accept that your rules prohibit it, so Ill stop." If that response, or the equivalent is given, I'd support lifting the block now. So, in my mind, someone who is subject to a block is a member of our community, but currently blocked so unable to edit presently. Someone subject to a ban is someone we do not want as part of our community, as long as they insist they retain the right to personally attack other editors. Functionally, not much different, but the mindset is important to me.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support - per his own statements in this thread - (1) I'm never going to apologise for naming homophobia - doesn't seem to recognize or even acknowledge that calling someone homophobic is a personal attack. (2) it appears transparently clear that this behaviour is driving and distorting edits - if it's so clear, then it should be easy to provide evidence in the form of diffs to support this argument. (3) Collect has been stalking me for over a year, on and off - here's their interactions for the last year. And it appears to me from just a random sampling of those interactions - Bowers, Kelly, Holt, Beaton - that Collect was correct in his reverts, and there is no evidence (that I can find in their interactions) of "homophobic editing". And yes, Collect is keen on removing speculation/insinuation/gossip/innuendo and poorly sourced content about people's sexual orientation, and he should be thanked for that, rather than being labeled and attacked.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

  copied ( Begoon 02:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)) from Engleham's talk page:

  "And it appears to me from just a random sampling of those interactions" The Beaton addition isn't mine; the Bowers edit removed a quote from The Independent which supported the subject in his claims: its sneaky erasure made him seem less reliable; his Kelly edit removed information cited with the two leading newspapers of Australia (the individual was Australian, but hey, what do they know), and the Holt one he actually lost to a host of other editors (see the Talk page thread: it's slightly shorter than the Bible).

  "A personal attack" See my clarification to Sphilbrick upthread.

  "where you repeatedly added what was nothing but rumours and wild speculations, sourced only to fringe books" Yes, because everyone knows that publishers like Viking, Doubleday, and McFarland & Company must not be reputable. And yes: the theories were very wild. I wasn't permitted to state even the name of the Cooper's closest friend, actor Anderson Lawler. I certainly won't make the mistake again of wasting my time editing Hollywood bios, when every source put up, not matter how authoritative, is rubbished by keepers of the flame. As another editor wrote on my page: "Cooper is a conservative poster boy….I faced a similar battle..It's just not worth the hassle to try to insert facts about people that a certain element don't want to hear, so save yourself the heartache." Engleham (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support per Snow Rise, who has made several extremely insightful comments here, and per why I blocked Engleham back in May. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Further thoughts (with apologies for commenting after closure)

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.

---

@Drmies, Collect, and Engleham: I am disappointed that I returned to this page today to find this discussion closed. There's nothing wrong, procedurally, with the closing, and I had, and have, significant thoughts that I would like to have considered, and my "relative silence" was based upon my thinking through how best to express them. The concerns here do not arise from silly behavior such as Engleham engaged in a few months ago, or from the obnoxious types of comments he was making then, but seems to have mostly stopped making now. (Bear in mind that I'm the person who went to his talkpage and read him the riot act at the time, which he didn't appreciate one bit.)

Rather, what is raised here is a fundamental issue about the treatment of the sexuality and private lives of historical figures. What Collect sees as immature gossip-mongering based on dubious sources, Engleham may see as socially productive recognition, based on the best albeit imperfect sources available, that members of today's LGB+ communities had historical predecessors, and that their need to live closeted lives in the twentieth century to avoid stigmatization, career loss, and worse does not exist today when the article subjects are long gone. Engleham sees Collect as a "homophobe," and he is wrong about the substance of the allegation and doubly wrong in how he has expressed it—but Collect sees Engleham as a POV-pushing introducer of pointless salaciousness into the encyclopedia and I don't think that is right either.

What exactly is to be done with this is not an easy question; obviously we don't want the name-calling, and we may not want some of the content Engleham is proposing, though I don't think it's all as beyond the pale as Collect suggests, either. Compounding the problem here is that Engleham's wiki-personality is one that won't back down from a fight—or to put it more correctly, won't admit he's backing down from a fight. He never acknowledged that his RfA comments back in May created a completely unnecessary mess—but he hasn't been back there. He never acknowledged that some of his personal remarks were making people uncomfortable—although he did write at one point about understanding that different Wikipedians come from different experiences—but he's stopped making them. He never acknowledged that his references to my parents and my religion were ham-handed and ill-advised, but he dropped the subject. I think with a little bit of thinking he'll realize that the term "homophobic" is inflammatory and unnecessary and he'll stop using it, even if he's unwilling to admit that he shouldn't have used it or regrets having done so.

But maybe it's all moot after all, or maybe I'm just misguidedly trying to save someone who's too high-maintenance to bother with. Any thoughts? Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Brad, no apology necessary for commenting after the close, but please accept mine if you felt I closed it too soon. Your various points are well taken, and I just want to say that my close had less to do with the substance of the matter and more with the manner in which things were expressed--a manner which, apparently, is pretty soundly rejected by the community. I suppose that is part of the essence of civility. I hope that Engleham realizes that there is a way back into the community, but considering the previous history ("pre-existing narrative", in the context of the current US election) and the strong statements made by commentators in this thread it seems that simply dropping the matter isn't enough, nor did the editor actually drop the matter while this discussion was going on. I really can't comment on Collect's role in the dispute since the discussion--which has been going on for a while--didn't focus on it. It is entirely possible that Collect doesn't come to this with clean hands but the discussion didn't produce anything that lets me point a finger at him. I hope indeed that Engleham comes to the realization you describe above, and that they will be wise enough to take the appropriate course of action, which might include you as a champion. That kind of role is one that I have always admired in longterm editors including yourself and that on occasion I have been able to emulate. I think you know better than most people that that is a lonesome occupation, and I hope that others appreciate that.

  If editors wish to reopen this because it was closed too quickly, I have no problem with that whatsoever. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I have no issue with the way you conducted the close, but, I preferred the outcome of Ritchie333's close to this one. I thought an indef was sufficient since it could be overturned by an administrator if they were given good reason to do so. A community ban requires community consensus and to be honest I don't think anything would come of an appeal by Engleham. I think if so many editors were able to jump on this so quickly in support of CBAN than an appeal doesn't stand a "snowball's chance in hell". I don't like throwing out an editor that does contribute out the door in this way. This isn't a WP:NOTHERE case and so I hate to see the CBAN implemented. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I would indeed like to see this reopened, as I remain troubled by either an indefblock or a ban as the outcome, but there's no point unless someone agrees with me. It's quite likely that Engleham will never check here again anyway. We need to find a way to resolve issues that isn't too fast-moving in banning a ten-year contributor, as happened here, nor too slow, as in noticeboard threads that languish, or monthslong arbitration cases. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Brad, whilst I supported here (which I guess makes me a part of the 'lynch mob shouting "Ban him! Ban him! Ban him!"[326]) I don't disagree that a better way to deal with long-term user issues like this one is sorely needed. As you say, it can't be arbcom (whose last two accepted cases, incidentally, seem to me far better examples of "lynch-mobs" than this is - although, on the positive side, the "mobs" may not ultimately prevail there...), and this board does not always do this well. So what does that leave us with? A revamped version of RFC/U, which, despite its flaws, was capable of some good? Discussions for elsewhere, I guess. I also think people are being overly pessimistic about the response which a considered appeal from Engleham would receive. Sure, it would need to satisfy folks that the issues were addressed, but plenty of people manage to express strong opinions here in acceptable ways, and the community has a long record of accepting appeals which it feels have a chance of a successful outcome. -- Begoon 02:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone else have thoughts here? I recognize all the ironies of my being the one to take this position, but I still think the outcome here is a mistake, albeit one for which in the absence of a further appeal by the banned person himself, I probably have no remedy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

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