Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957

Miss Grand International 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.

---

Hi. Could an admin please check whether Miss Grand International (MGI) and related articles by User:Burhanul Aminudin (including Miss Grand International 2016, Miss Grand International (MGI) 2015, Miss Grand International (MGI) 2014 and Miss Grand International (MGI) 2013) are G4 violations? (Latest discussion here.) The creator removed a CSD tag I placed, and I'm not sure they're all identical re-creations. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

The Miss Grand organization has been pushing their contest on Wikipedia for years with numerous pages and intricate unsourced detail. Please nuke it. Legacypac (talk) 07:46, 16 June 2017 (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:Amichael121190

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:Amichael121190 first came to my attention in February of this year due to the user placing a number of non-free images on his userpage, in violation of WP:NFCC #9. After multiple warnings ([1], [2], [3]), he finally ceased this behavior.

Today, I discovered a large number of copyright violations on his userpage. The material came from a variety of news stories he apparently found of interest. I began removing these (example), and subsequently contacted him on his talk page regarding this issue as well as two other issues (using Wikipedia as a host, and copying material from Wikipedia articles onto his userpage without proper attribution). That message was here. Within that message, I also encouraged him to use a free blog hosting service, such as weebly.com, if he wanted to continue doing this sort of work. Despite my message, he introduced copyrighted content onto his userpage again with this edit. I then placed another warning message on his user talk page with a large STOP sign [4].

Two minutes after this, he deleted the message from his user talk page (which is fine), indicating he had seen the message. After this, he reintroduced copyrighted content with this edit, which directly copies material from this cbsnews.com source.

I removed this content [5], and gave him another warning message, this time a clearly labeled FINAL WARNING message with another big stop sign [6]. 4 minutes later, he removed the notice and replaced it with the same copyrighted content from the cbsnews.com source [7], as well as placing the same material onto his userpage yet again [8].

At this point, he is willfully violating our Wikipedia:Copyright violations policy, and WP:NOTHOST and WP:COPYWITHIN guidelines, all of which he has been pointed to and ignored. I was hopeful he would follow the warnings I gave him, as he was finally able to do so with the WP:NFCC violations from February. This hope was not fulfilled. I am sensitive to the various conditions from which he asserts to suffer. Regardless, this does not permit him to edit in the way that he has. I have tried on multiple occasions to communicate with him without success. He refuses to respond to any warnings and continues his copyright violations and guideline violations.

>99.5% of his nearly 1000 edits are to his userpage and user talk page. The 5 edits he has made elsewhere have been reverted or trivial [9]. I believe he is not here to contribute to the project.

Since all of his problematic edits are to his userpage and user talk page, I am requesting he be blocked from editing with a suspension of his ability to edit his user and user talk pages. Further, his userpage should be deleted as violating WP:NOTHOST, along with a large number of copyright violations sustaining in the edit history. The same applies to his talk page. Failure to suspend his userspace editing privileges will very likely result in his continued abuse of our copyright policies, as he has already demonstrated.

User:Amichael121190 has been notified of this discussion [10]. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• Subsequent to his being notified of this discussion, he deleted the notification and then vandalized the header of WP:AN/I with this edit. Then he deleted another editor's comments here with this edit, then posted this, indicating he was going to do as he pleased. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

*cough cough* TimothyJosephWood 19:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I concur. They'll never be a productive member of the encyclopaedia and nor do they wish to be. Canterbury Tail talk 19:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked the account and deleted their user page. Although it's not standard to delete a user talk page, the amount of inappropriate and personal information (if true) on the page warranted it being deleted as opposed to just blanked. If anyone disagrees they can restore the page but please ensure that the massive amount of inappropriate content is rev-deleted. I've left talk page access for now, but it should be pulled if their is any further disruption/shenanigans.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Upon further review of the deleted content, it definitely should not be restored even if rev-deleted. I've adjusted my comment above accordingly.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• Well, it's been restored and revdel'd :) --Hammersoft (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2017 (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.

32.218.41.31

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.

---

32.218.41.31 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Could someone pls have a look at the contribution of this IP and block them if approppriate? After they reverted my contribution as "moronic" and "vandalism", they decided to turn to teach me English by explaining that moronic is not the same as moron. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Notification reverted with yet one more personal attack in the edit summary: [11].--Ymblanter (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

He seems to have a point. This is a very poorly formed report considering you are an administrator. From what you have linked there are no personal attacks and you've failed to provide any indication of where this arose. Considering the subject matter of his recent contributions (Wisconsin), this appears to be a prolific editor of place articles who edits from a dynamic IP in the 32.218 range. John from Idegon (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I would say that calling someone an ignoramus is a personal attack, as well as referring to that same person's talkpage message as moronic would fall into this same category. You seem to be familiar with this editor - is this the norm for how they communicate with others on this project? SQL^{Query me!} 19:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

There's also referring to specific editors as clueless. SQL^{Query me!} 19:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

On my talk page, I explained them that they (i) created two almost identical articles; (ii) by doing so and copying large amounts of text without attribution, they violated copyright, but their only response was to call me a vandal.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

There are several edit summaries with personal attacks, and they are not difficult to find as the contribution of this IP is no more than 20 edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2017 (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.

Note: I assume it's the same editor as 32.218.43.141‎ (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who's the reason that Trader Joe's is now semi-protected. --Calton | Talk 12:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

user:Tnguyen4321's personal attacks

user:Tnguyen4321 user keep denouncing me as conducting vandalism while I'm only conducting regular, legitimate editing on Battle of Ia Drang. He indiscriminately repeats about this, even in an RfC of which content have nothing to do with the topic of vandalism at all.[12] In fact, I doubt that some of his own editing may constitute vandalism or at least disruptive editing. Please take note. Dino nam (talk) 17:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

No "personal attacks" here. I only denounce deletions of relevant sourced data as act of vandalism, nothing else [13]. Furthermore, these are repeated multiple deletion of relevant sourced data as act of vandalism done surreptitiously [14]. Let me refer to WIKI: "Assume good faith (such as that the user is simply unaware of the policies and guidelines), but only if plausible. Circumstances may warrant no assumption of good faith, or indicate bad faith; respond accordingly."Tnguyen4321 (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

This is another evidence of his personal attack, as he failed to assume good faith according to WP:AGF. WP:VANDAL has no definition as "deletions of relevant sourced data"; without any evidence and perception of the concept, user:Tnguyen4321 had the responsibility of refraining from such denounciation. Dino nam (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Sneaky vandalism cannot be considered done in good faith [15] and [16].Tnguyen4321 (talk) 13:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Those edits don't look like vandalism to me. Please consult WP:Vandalism to learn the difference between vandalism and a good faith attempt to improve an article. fish&karate 14:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I did. Not only vandalism but specifically "sneaky vandalism" in terms of wiki terminology. The issue in question pertained to :"Plausible, subtle changes not supported by sources or by text elsewhere in the article, particularly without an edit summary, may suggest vandalism". By the way, we are disputing about "personal attacks" here not vandalism which I am about to submit to the proper noticeboard/vandalism if Dino nam continued deleleting sourced info.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tnguyen4321: First, this is only a sign to identify vandalism (as the section of WP:VANDAL suggests), not the def of vandalism itself. Second, none of my editing at all have come without edit summary since the dispute began, so even this sign doesn't apply. Ironically, it is you yourself who have done many editing without summary (e.g. [17], [18], [19], or [20]).

I beg to differ: you covered up your deletions while doing other editing that you indicated in the summary. Those are sneaky vandalism.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tnguyen4321: First, unfortunately (for you), WP:VANDAL doesn't have such a definition. Second, I didn't do anything to cover up anything; all my editing has edit summaries or further explanation in the talk page. Dino nam (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Wiki:Types of Vandalism:Sneaky vandalism:hiding editing (such as by making two bad edits and only reverting one) In the case of the 7 deletions, you hid your editing/7 deletions while reverting my editing. In the summary you only stated: "I didn't say the whole section. Wait until consensus reached" without mentionning the 7 deletions. You used the same subterfuge in the other case by deleting all the data I had added since 9 April.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 23:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tnguyen4321: You've totally misunderstood the concept. "Making two bad edits and only reverting one" means refusing to remove enough bad editing; for instance you vandalize the page twice but only revert one of that editing. It's not the same thing as reverting multiple of your editing (or disruptive editing I should call) to the last good version. Dino nam (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I did not paraphrase the (such as by making two bad edits and only reverting one), which is an example of sneak vandalism.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 02:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tnguyen4321: OK nobody could see what your basis and reasoning is then. Dino nam (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Nobody?Tnguyen4321 (talk) 03:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

p/s: I must remind that a report of avoidant vandalism is waiting for you with your kind of behavior. Dino nam (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of article tag? Violation of copyright tag?Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Fish and karate: user:Tnguyen4321 continue with his baseless denounciation. He restored his invalid warnings once more on my talk page.[21] Sounds like we gonna need some stronger measures to stop this. Dino nam (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Dino nam has been warned at least twice posted on his talk page. It appears there is no effect. He deleted the two warnings [22] Tnguyen4321 (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Please do something to stop him. user:Tnguyen4321 has continued his personal attacks 5 more times on my talk page here[23], [24], [25], [26], and [27]. He hasn't got any sign of stopping. Dino nam (talk) 04:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Ink Master disruptive editing

I was updating and expanding the pages as I was getting ready to create a List of Ink Master episode pages until Realitytvshow starts fussing and moaning about it. This user said my edits suck, that's why he/she keeps reverting them. Tried to warn that person not engage in an edit war multiple times but didn't listen and even threaten to block me. I am hurt by what this user said to me. First off, they don't suck and I was just making the season pages more appropriate just like several reality shows who had this progress table format. Could you please prevent this user from threatening me again. Unicornaholic243 (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I have added the necessary notification to the respondent's talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

YOU ARE THE ONE DOING THESE UNNECESSARY EDITS NOW STOP. YOU ARE THE ONE CAUSING THE EDIT WAR NOT ME. YOU ARE RUINING THE PAGES NOW STOP IT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realitytvshow (talk • contribs) 19:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

No you're causing me a big headache with your usual edit wars. Yet you refuse to accept the warning your receiving. Unicornaholic243 (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that all the "Ink Master (season X)" articles should be fully protected for a while (one editor is confirmed, so semi-protection won;t work) until these two editors can stop edit warring and yelling at each other and start talking. The other possibility is to block both of them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I just don't see the reason to block me when they are the person vandalizing the pages and i'm getting in trouble for it. They are ruining the pages do you not see that. There's a reason that it hasn't changed because it's perfectly fine. If I get blocked it's complete bull. First off the color and the contestant(s) should be separate like every other tv show. Second of all they are referred to their whole name throughout the season, so that shouldn't change. So don't sit their and blame it all on me when it's their fault.

I'm inclined to block all parties: "it's all their fault" isn't a justification for edit-warring. Your choice, everybody stop right now or expect to be blocked for obvious edit-warring. Acroterion (talk) 00:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand why there just can't be an agreement to one edit. If they would just stop their edits we'll all be good.

Then take it to the talkpage and find a consensus. Right now everybody's well past 3RR and are subject to summary blocking for edit-warring. Acroterion (talk) 00:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I do not deserve to be blocked. Look, I was getting ready to polish the season pages for an upcoming list of article until Realitytvshow started to complain and thats when shit starts to hit the fan. This is a prime example of why that user deserves to be blocked because of its usual disruptive editing with others and not only that, this user refuses to accept the warnings he/she is receiving. Still can't forgive the fact he/she disrespected me. I'm not looking for trouble, I just wanted to help out. That's all. Unicornaholic243 (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Since neither user exhibits any interest in working this out, both are blocked. Realitytvshow was previously blocked for two weeks for edit-warring, so I made it a month this time. Since both parties seem to be equally stubborn, the same term was applied to Unicornaholic243. Looking at IPs now. Acroterion (talk) 00:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I concur that both parties have been edit warring and blocks are justified. I also agree that Realitytvshow's past record might justify a longer block. But a 1 month block for an editor with a grand total of 92 edits and who has not been blocked before might be maybe just a teeny bit harsh. That said, I'm not going to unilaterally modify any blocks. Just thinking out loud... -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP as evasion during an edit war by Realitytvmaster, who's done this before and got blocked for it for two weeks. I set the blocks to be symmetrical since both parties were at fault in the edit war and I don't wish to hand an advantage to one side, but I agree that a month for a first time is long. I'm open to reducing their block, but I'd fully protect the subject articles since they'll be autoconfirmed shortly. Acroterion (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

That's a good point. I think the easiest way is to offer a conditional reduction in the block. Offer to cut it to 72hrs conditional on their agreeing to a voluntary topic ban until Realitytvmaster's block expires. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe that and set ECP on the articles for a month to make it easier to stay on the straight and narrow. The Wrong Version is, of course, protected with the blocking in any case.Acroterion (talk) 01:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

On a side note, I'm not thrilled by Realitytvmaster's less than civil, if not downright BITEY manner of communicating with a new editor and I really do think that there are unequal degrees of blame here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

That became apparent the more I looked at the situation and their history.. I've left a note on Unicornfanatic's talkpage. I do want them to understand that neither of them has presented a model for other editors to emulate, but I think in any case 72 hours and some extended protection would take care of things. I do want them to understand that they should construe their topic ban broadly and not transfer to other articles on the series. Acroterion (talk) 01:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I just need to chime in here that realitytvshow is a previously banned editor who uses logs out to do sockpuppetry. He or she constantly gets in edit wars then claims and yells they have done nothing wrong and it's all the other person or people. ink Master is not the only page with issues from this user. Same User was previously banned as user Starbucks6789 and other user name for similar issues. Sdfakjdfjklklasdf (talk) 06:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

If you compare this, this, and this, they're all pretty much the same. I'll indefinitely block Realitytvshow (talk · contribs). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Can you please protect Real World: Ex-Plosion and The Challenge XXX: Dirty 30 so he/she doesn't edit them with up accounts? 2601:602:9A01:6F70:80D7:6D22:213C:68F (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

User SEEMS to now be editing from user up of 192.173.194.218. made edits to something they've gotten in edit wars about again. Can I get protective locks for The Challenge: Battle of the Exes II and The Challenge: Rivals? That IP is located in a city in Wisconsin close to city of other ip he once used (that should be blocked although defunct) of 68.190.153.14. he is the only editor who thinks the contestants should not be marked as DQ despite a disqualified graphic literally popping up on the screen. Many reverted his edits over months but they eventually gave up. Now that he is locked I went to change it and low and behold within hours he couldn't resist changing them back. Sdfakjdfjklklasdf (talk) 05:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Global accounts / COI

I have been following a case of edits by a professional, paid editor on English Wikipedia and would like to raise some observations for broader discussion. The core of the discussion lies in the different approaches to username policies and paid editing between different language Wikipedia projects. In this particular case, user CommHa has been registered with German Wikipedia. Following their username policy, the company "Communication Harmonists" has registered the shared use account "CommHa" through a process of identification. The user page on German Wikipedia states this is a marketing and communication firm working on behalf of a promoter of exhibitions and that the shared use/company name account has been verified with the German Wiki support team. They are actively editing their primary client Nuremberg expo and, presumably, exhibitors at Nuremberg expo, such as de:RKW-Gruppe. Where English Wiki articles exist for exhibitors, they are editing or requesting edits in a similar modus operandi to German Wiki, such as here. I hope this makes sense. My immediate thought is that the rules of English Wikipedia prevail in this edition and should disallow the username and a personal username should be used in addition to following proper COI disclosure policy and request of edits through related processes. However, there may be views that usernames and processes can be "inherited" in a kind of "home wiki" rule. I am keen for thoughts. Many thanks. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

You could always explain this wiki's username policy to them, and ask that if they are editing here they do so under a different name (and perhaps direct them to the rename request page). Otherwise, unless they start routinely editing here, I don't think it's worth worrying about. It's not an obviously promotional name in English. Just my 2c of course. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 07:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It's hard to see a 'home wiki' rule working; that would just encourage editors to claim whatever wiki had the most favourable policy as their home wiki. GoldenRing (talk) 11:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

This is another case where ENWP's naming rules are out of date and not best practice. As a COI identification issue, we *want* people using SUL who have a declared COI on another wiki to use the same username here, it makes them far easier to track. If we insist on our local policy superseding SUL, its just cutting our nose off. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I agree with GR here. We don't want to put ourselves in a situation where the Choctaw Wikipedia, with all of its six articles and less edits than your average en.wiki user ([28]) becomes the Eastern District of Texas for registering user names because they happen to have the most lax policies, or none at all. Individual projects are kingdoms unto their own, and it has to be that way because one project cannot be expected to respect a consensus they cannot take part in.

Whether the username is obviously promotional to a unilingual English speaker is not really an issue, since we know it is in fact promotional, does in fact imply shared use, and well... basically every username in a non-Latin alphabet is not obviously promotional by the same standard, regardless of how promotional it actually is, so the idea doesn't make any sense if applied consistently.

They've not edited much, but what they have done is create an obviously promotional article including COPYVIO, and that combined with the username is plenty for a block in any other circumstance. They are promotional, they have been active, they are active on de.wiki, and there's plenty of reason to expect them to return to en.wiki and continue to engage in conduct that violates our long standing policies. TimothyJosephWood 12:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

To that point, one might think that the creation of the RKW Group article may have been dipping the toes in creating articles on en wiki to see what happens next. Then of course, it could just be a lack of awareness that rules in different language wikis are different. I like the idea of looking at the various editions as being their own kingdoms or states. En wiki, en wiki rules. I do see the point though of fragmentation if people use too many different log ins - which in itself may contradict the (universal?) wiki rule regarding multiple persona/sockpuppetry. Unless there is a nuance in the rules that I am not aware of, the strictly correct course of action would be an edit block on en wiki on the basis of their promotional and shared nature (and quite obvious activity in that spirit). Alternatively, a softer approach would be to raise awareness of the issue, offer them to create personalised accounts if they intend to edit en wiki, which they will then use with full COI disclosure in line with WP:PAID. Once the conversation has been had, block the current user. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 20:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

• This is an interesting discussion. The clash between USERNAME policies is ... difficult, but is really not our problem. It is something for the user to get worked out, I think. The account should be softblocked per CORPNAME. Also, people need to be notified of discussions here. I have done that. Jytdog (talk) 02:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• • Thanks for leaving a notice regarding their username. I've also left a more personal note. If they don't get back in a day or so, I'd say a softblock is the next step. GoldenRing (talk) 09:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Repeated disruptive edits by User:Fydcinnz

Fydcinnz (talk · contribs) Has made a number of pointless edits (see their edit history) and then self-reverted despite multiple warnings including this explicit one a few days ago. User has resumed this behavior with this edit (note the misleading edit summary) followed by this revert (also with a misleading edit summary). User has displayed a continual pattern of disruptive edits (along with occasional worthwhile edits) in the 3.5 months they have used this login (their early edits appear to be that of an experienced editor). Edits are almost exclusively within the scope of Category:Longevity which would place them under the scope of Discretionary Sanctions for this topic, unfortunately no DS notice has been posted on User's talk page (my bad) hence this notice. Most users are no doubt aware of the plague of IPs whose sole purpose is to disrupt Wiki by making minor pointless edits and then self-reverting. This user's editing may have a different intention but is disruptive nevertheless and they have chosen to ignore all attempts to make them desist. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I added the DS notice to the user's talk page. Their habit of adding a single character then immediately reverting themselves does seem odd. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 06:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm inclined to indef as NOTHERE - this smells a lot like determined ECP-gaming to me. Anyone else think differently? GoldenRing (talk) 09:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I've given them a final warning. The contributions list is certainly strange, with the additions and self-reverts. But usually, when it's about gaining Extended Confirmed Protection rights, there's a lot more of it — edit, revert, edit, revert, fifteen times in as many minutes. We saw a case of that recently. This could still be some sort of... I don't know... but something else. It would certainly take while to get ECP, at the rate they're going. Let's see if they heed my warning. Bishonen | talk 10:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC).

• There was a case- possibly the same one mentioned above- where X was blocked for attempting to reach ECP like that; they even acknowledged where they had gone wrong, with a parting shot of 'I'll have to remember to do it a lot slower next time,' or some such. And there we have it, if desired, awareness of obviousity. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 10:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

user:Tnguyen4321's disruptive editing

As an RfC is taking its course with Battle of Ia Drang, user:Tnguyen4321 has done multiple disruptive editing on the article, particularly:

• Editing the disputed content without consensus:[29], [30], [31], [32], [33] (he unilaterally moved the info to another section [34], [35], and [36]), [37], [38], [39], etc.
• Removal of tag without consensus: [40], [41], and [42].
• Disruptive editing on the talk page: [43], [44], etc.

I've told him to stop these and further read the regulations, but it has been replied by even more disruptive editing. As this kind of behavior has prolonged for days, and ruptured the article remarkably, I request for some strong measures to stop him from doing this (e.g. a 24-hour block). Because of his relentlessness and intentiousness, I assume that some of these can be even considered vandalism (e.g the multiple removals of tag can constitute avoidant vandalism, or the deletion of large part of the section before consensus can arguably be blanking vandalism); however I'm waiting for other opinions to reach a conclusion on that. Dino nam (talk) 02:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

YHere is my response to his complain: @Tnguyen4321: Stop moving the info around from the section. You're not allowed to do that until consensus reached. Dino nam (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Based on what regulation am I not allowed to do that? The template states: Please help improve this section by clarifying or removing superfluous information and nothing forbid me to add sourced data to the article [User:Tnguyen4321|Tnguyen4321]] (talk) 02:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore you fault this section for containing "repetition of what has already been mentioned in other section".Tnguyen4321 (talk) 02:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Didn't you tell me this: All right then the info should appear in the "Aftermath" section rather than an independent section like this. Dino nam (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC) ?Tnguyen4321 (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

May I further point out that I have been providing tons of sourced data without challenged from other editors since April 9 until Dino nam cause disruption starting 08:24, 30 May 2017‎ Dino nam (talk | contribs)‎ . . (83,061 bytes) (-12,381)‎.(See revision history)Tnguyen4321 (talk) 03:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Please note that I have warned Dino nam for disruptive editing twice and he vandalized his talk page twice by deleting three times those warnings [45] [46] [47].Tnguyen4321 (talk) 03:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Please respond quickly with some measures. Looks like user:Tnguyen4321 is trying to drag me into edit warring. As there have already been too much reverts and unreverts, I've reverted his disruptive editing for the last time in the day. Dino nam (talk) 03:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment this appears to be the only main-space page either author has contributed to this month. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
• Both blocked 48 hours for edit warring, and given advice on what we expect from them when the block expires. If they continue edit warring then I recommend a significantly longer block and a topic ban -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 10:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Steve Scalise article

Resolved

I've checked the history of Steve Scalise and there aren't many admins. We need more eyes on that article now...he and others were shot this morning in an attempted assassination.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

• Adding the new article for this...June 2017 Virginia attack.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
• Additional Congressman shot Roger Williams (U.S. politician).
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The latter looks to have been an incorrect report from FOX News. He was injured while diving into a dugout.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

...Do we... really need a blow-by-blow on ANI? TimothyJosephWood 14:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

We could always just replace ANI with listen to Wikipedia. It may be a substantial improvement. It goes surprisingly well with Bach. GoldenRing (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Listen to Wikipedia? I expected more screaming and cat-herding noises.. -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 15:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Isn't this stuff is under post-1932 American politics discretionary sanctions? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I was wondering the same, but I'm hesitant to put that notice up just yet because 1. The editors are actually doing a good job of policing themselves. 2. It is rapidly changing and 1RR might actually get confusing because information is changing rapidly. There are a few admin (including me) on the talk page that are mopping up but not participating in the decisions or editing. In a week (or if it gets ugly now) I would agree, but think delaying is best under WP:IAR. It is chaotic, but everyone is getting along well. In short, the reader is best serve if we wait a week. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

User:M.Shoaib Anwar appears hellbent on promoting himself

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.

---

• M.Shoaib Anwar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

M.Shoaib Anwar has a history of contributions and deleted contributions that seem solely aimed at promoting his own software and game development business. This user appears to be a young person from Pakistan, so there might be an issue of comprehension of the many warnings he has received. As this user has made no attempts to discuss the warnings he has received, I believe a temporary block might be in order to better catch his attention and perhaps prevent further improper page creations and requests. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Blocked the user for 24 hours—in part, to get their attention. El_C 21:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

That did not help, unfortunately, since after they block expired they immediately created Draft:M.Shoaib Anwar and continued fiddling with their user page (which should maybe be deleted as CSDU5). No attempt to address their warnings or change their behaviour. --bonadea contributions talk 05:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Now blocked indef by User:SpacemanSpiff. EdJohnston (talk) 11:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Ongoing promotion and vandalism at Help talk:Userspace draft

An SPA editor keeps vandalizing Help talk:Userspace draft (by deleting the previous content, and replacing it with promotion for his/her business). The editor has been blocked, but continues his/her disruptive editing using socks. Blueboar (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I have semi-protected for some hours. Lectonar (talk) 12:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I've added {{Article creation editnotice}} as well. – Train2104 (t • c) 13:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Mik3bm

Mik3bm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly adding unsourced and promotional material and a good article symbol (when it hasn't been through the review process) to Budi Margono, and has now removed an AfD template from the article twice, despite being warned against this. See here. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Note that the external link at User:Mik3bm suggests that this user has a conflict of interest. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The article (Budi Margono) looks like an A7 to me... regardless, I've given the user a final warning, and will block if they continue. @Cordless Larry: is there anything further you'd like like admin action on? -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 08:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, There'sNoTime. The reason I didn't nominate for speedy deletion is that Mik3bm's revision contained claims to significance, such as "Widely considered the visionary American Asian Indonesian and the wealthiest wisdom knowledge technology in modern history...". I'm happy with a final warning for now, although I suspect it might not do the job. Let's see. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The user is now engaging on their talk page, so hopefully this issue is resolved. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I spoke too soon, it seems. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think stating a person is "widely considered the visionary American Asian Indonesian and the wealthiest wisdom knowledge technology [sic]" is a credible claim of significance, so I would say A7 applies. Bishonen | talk 10:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC). Of course I understand it's partly a language problem, but even so. Bishonen | talk 10:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC).

I've blocked the account indefinitely. I'll leave a follow-up in a moment, on the user's talk page. --Yamla (talk) 11:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, the account doesn't seem to be blocked, Yamla. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The problem was, I hadn't had my morning coffee yet. As I am now sufficiently caffeinated, I was able to find and hit the 'block' button. --Yamla (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

It's the thought that counts? -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 11:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I recognise that problem myself, Yamla! Thanks for dealing with this. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Civility on Talk:Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present)

This article is having civilty issues, and is having issues with a failure to assume good faith. The tone of discussions is degrading and spiraling into little more than is some cases whole discussions titled as a critiquing a single user. Can this page please be looked at as it is becoming poisonous for me to continue trying to participate in discussions as I am having wild and unfounded personal attacks made against me. this discussion here and other discussions which are on the verge of devolving, as a result of ad homenins made by Arcadius Romanus here and El cid, el campeador here, along with this unnecessary incident. Sport and politics (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Neither of those are ad homs. Not only that, you failed to notify both users AND this looks to be a retaliatory report for the two of them reporting you to the edit warring notice board.

I suggest you withdraw this before you get hit by an indigenous Australian weapon. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 09:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I singled you out because it was you alone who deleted half of the article's content. There was no consensus and not even discussion about removing all of the terror incidents. By no way did I create a poisonous atmosphere. I even stated that you started with valid criticism. But it is simply a fact that you removed most of the incidents without discussing them first. You posted a list of 16 questionable entries but removed later almost all entries. --Arcadius Romanus (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I simply want this to all calm down and to be able to edit without being personally shouted at on a discussion page, stating WP:boomerang here is simply a scare tactic, I am frustrated by users going about making wasteful and inappropriate referrals to noticeboards, and not participating in civil discussions, I am simply editing in good faith and I am being made to feel like other users can get away with playing the system, and going ad homenin.

For what it is worth how is stating I have a 'Personal vendetta' and making a bare commenting accusing me of POV pushing not an ad hominem.

If you are un aware of what an ad hominem is, an ad hominem is an attack on the motives or character of the user, and not on the content of what is being said. All I simply want is to be able to edit without being personally attacked. It my be sounding like I am being sensitive here, but that is a load of nonsense, here It cannot be that a user makes wild attack, and then another user makes wild attacks, nd when I say can we get some input here to put a stop to this. I am told to go away or I will be in trouble. This feels very exclusionary. I am not asking for individuals to be blocked or banned, I am simply asking for individuals to calm down, and it seems that outside input is needed here. I find it very upsetting and very off putting that I am simply being told to get lost by 74.70.146.1. Sport and politics (talk) 09:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

On an aside I was unaware I was required to inform them of this discussion, I assumed the fact that it would appear on their alerts was enough, but as I have now been informed of this I shall make the notification. I simply missed that part of the top of the page as I was too focused on this part of the screen, anyway that has now been resolved. Thank you for pointing that unintentional omission on my part out. Sport and politics (talk) 09:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I dealt with the edit warring report, and opted to fully protect the article and asked those involved to talk it out. I'm starting to get to the point of not being able to see the forest for the trees, as obviously the topic area is one which always causes emotive "discussions" and frankly I'm no longer sure who if anyone is to "blame". @Sport and politics: I appreciate you feel put down by all of this, and understand the point of your report here is to try to get some help resolving the dispute - have you had a look at our dispute resolution pages? I don't want you to feel like you're being redirected away from your report here, but AN/I tends to cause escalation of an content dispute style issue (and then blocks) rather than a meaningful discussion. -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 10:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Prolific long term editor not reading talk page or dealing with issues

Somewhat similar to this recent report, User:Carolineneil is a recently returned useful article creator and editor in the topic area of chemistry and statistics, the latter especially being a topic area where we need more editors. My concern however is her articles are invariably overly technical and lacking context such that two years ago she was reported on ANI as her articles looked like they were being "robocreated". Despite the attempts of numerous editors (and the ANI) asking that she add ledes to her articles, less jargon and meaningful titles, it appears that she has not responded to feedback either on her talk page or rejected drafts (of which there are many)- in fact it appears that she rarely if ever returns to declined drafts so any feedback given is useless, with many deleted under G13. This is a shame as her articles are very useful and doing these simple things to her articles before submitting would allow them to be accepted as AfC reviewers are unlikely to be experts in statistics so it is hard for us to add ledes etc. ourselves. However the articles do fill in useful caps in Wikipedia's coverage and it would be a massive shame to lose such a useful editor, but given she has never edited in the User talk or talk space, I hope that this will attract her attention. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Pinging User:Primefac, User:Joe Decker and User:Robert McClenon all of whom have left advice to this editor.

User:Jcc - What are you requesting here at WP:ANI? ANI is an administrative noticeboard. Do you want her blocked or topic-banned? Neither seems appropriate. It is true that she is ignoring advice, and that doesn't do her or the encyclopedia any good, but is there anything that we can do that won't make things worse? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: To attract her attention. If this doesn't attract her attention the only time that's wasted is mine. If it does then it saves the time of many AfC reviewers: the important thing to note here if that if it was one or two drafts this wouldn't be an issue, but per the last ANI discussion, it's the volume of drafts with good content that are getting rejected, so if this attracts her attention then that's good. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Jcc: WP:G13 mate, I think? Just FYI, etc. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks- was just dealing with a copyvio draft on AfC and got them confused. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Np; let me know when my 'Pedant of the month' award arrives  ;) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Why are we whispering? EEng 18:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I would recommend against blocking to get her attention. El_C 19:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• Wait, why would we block an editor who is doing nothing to violate Wikipedia policies, and is positively contributing to the encyclopedia. Sure, her articles need clean-up, but that is just an argument against giving her autopatrolled. I think that what we should do is to have her explain terms or use less jargon at the AfC stage, which is where she creates a lot of drafts. Maybe have articles that are especially jargon laden should be denied until they are improved. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 19:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@RileyBugz: I didn't mention the word 'block' once in my opening statement. "Have her explain terms"? That's a comment that has been left 14 times (and probably more on G13 deleted AfC drafts). "Have articles that are especially jargon laden should be denied until they are improved"? That's been done 11 times. Because she doesn't read her talk page she doesn't return to improve denied drafts- I shan't count the number of deleted drafts but one look at the talk page will tell you. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about the misunderstanding. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

What would you see admins do?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: I've responded to Robert who asked a similar question above and I guess that the purpose of this post is to get her attention. It's the logical next step- comments have been made on her drafts, that's been ignored, comments have been made on her talk page, that's been ignored so the next step is a post on ANI. You'll note that on her talk page I put the notification under a please read and a summary of what she needs to address to stop her articles getting rejected. The ideal situation would be that this would attract her attention, AfC reviewers stop wasting time leaving the same comment over and over and good content doesn't get rejected. If this doesn't attract her attention the only time that's wasted here is mine. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Carolineneil and anyone else - I will note that I tried to review three of your drafts. I neither accepted nor declined them. They were and are seriously underlinked, so that I would have had difficulty assessing them in context. It appears that you have not been responding to comments by various reviewers. Your drafts have considerable useful content but need work, and some of us (reviewers and editors) feel that we aren't able to provide the work as well as you can. If you don't respond to the comments and improve your drafts, they will eventually be deleted. Please either respond to the comments or engage in discussion with the reviewers. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

The absolute lack of communication is- worrying to say the least. I mean: prolificity and length-of-tenure not withstanding, communication is vital in any community, and particularly one based on discussion and mutual consensus. The stats show no talk page edits in three years! This is slightly bizarre. We do usually block to gain an editor's attention; whilst this isn't the usual 'type of editor,' I don't see it is that much different. The fact that other editors' time is being taken up- and effectively wasted- is disruptive, however harsh that sounds. As someone once said, editors' time is one of our most precious resources, and those who expend it should not be made to feel they are simply wasting it. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I left a note and linked them to WP:Communication is required. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Carolineneil should be trouted for using the Wikipedia:Article for creation process, instead of publishing directly as any other registered user. Since nobody has pretended that the covered topics were not notable, one can only conclude that this user is publishing stubs about notable topics. If someone pretends that something is missing, or poorly wikified, the said someone can do the work by himself. Who knows, may be User:Carolineneil would be more open to cooperate with cooperative co-authors, rather than to listen the templating people. Pldx1 (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually that is not the case. Looking at their user page, the vast majority of templates are auto-generated by various software (AfC / Dab /G13). Nearly all of those that are not, are personal- (non-template)- messages (e,g., 'Three suggestions', 'Hello', half of 'ANI Notice' and 'Please read'. All 'handwritten' in copper plate, with a live body behind a keyboard, just for their personal consumption. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 15:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Update on User:Carolineneil

The author in question just submitted three sandbox subpages via AFC. Two of them were pages that she had already previously submitted, Draft:Intramolecular Aldol Reaction and Draft:Chiral controller strategies: Carreira chiral titanium catalyst. The latter had been declined, and she hasn't responded (because she never responds). The former was accepted, and was then merged into Aldol Reaction, so that her work has added value, but only with additional effort by other editors who collaborate. I have nominated the two duplicate sandbox drafts for Miscellany for deletion. I moved Draft:Generation of Carbocationic Synthons to draft space, where it is waiting for review. It needs a more detailed review. It also needs to have links added to related articles. As I have noted, none of her drafts have links to other articles, which makes it harder to assess whether they add useful new content. I don't recommend a block, but she is a strange case. She is in effect not here to add to the encyclopedia, but is doing no harm and a little good with her articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

From what I can see she normally produces her articles in two edits with a gap in between. It might be a bit unorthodox but leaving a comment on the next draft she makes after her first edit might compel her to read it? jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment - I recommend that this thread be closed without administrative action, since she isn't actually doing any net harm, but with one more caution to the editor that it really really really would be a good idea for her occasionally to respond to comments. I think that comments about her submissions should go to WT:WikiProject Chemistry so that other editors can respond to them and improve them. Some of them are potential articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

New Update

It now appears that the author submits sandbox drafts to AFC even after the same draft has already been accepted into article space. On the one hand, I don't have a clinical degree or clinical license, and am not qualified to make a diagnosis. On the other hand, I do have a degree in computer science, and I can say that this authordoesn't appearappears to be trying to pass the Turing test. (This author isn't passing the Turing test.) Either she is a human, but isn't trying to pretend to be either a human or a bot, or it is a bot, and isn't trying to act like a human. At this point, I recommend a block, in order to get the author to make an unblock request. Yes, this is a case of Ignore All Rules about blocks, but this is weird. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Godsy back to Wikihounding - how to stop it?

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:Godsy is WP:HOUNDING me again. Interaction tool show 36 content pages [48] in the last few days Godsy edited just after me and zero I've edited after him. I'm not sure how to tell exactly what percent of pages I edited that is, but it's alot. Although I have 8000+ pages on my watchlist it shows Godsy, Godsy, Godsy, Godsy, on about every other line. Godsy's past hounding and harassment in various forums was a key reason I stopped editing for months until recently. I've posted some nice and some more pointed requests on his talk page to stop the stalking but he deletes them with snarky comments and keeps stepping up his "oversight" of my edits. Surely Godsy can find some other pool of articles to work on then those in my logs. One solution might be to restrict him from editing any article I've edited within the last week. Sorry to bring this to ANi, but I've got no other way to stop his behavior which is ruining my enjoyment of editing (except to stop editing again). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 03:54, May 31, 2017 (UTC)

• To basically repeat what I said here: "Appropriate use of others editing history includes but is not limited to fixing unambiguous errors and correcting related problems across multiple articles (paraphrased from WP:HOUNDING). I've done nothing outside of those things. That aside, many of the pages we've both edited recently have not been reached through your contribution history, e.g. pages at and related to miscellany for deletion (a venue which I frequent)." — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• Just looking at this as someone who is not familiar with the history between you, Godsy's edits are improving the articles. One way you might handle this is to examine the edits that he's making and try not to duplicate any patterns of mistakes that you see. For example, I see at least a couple of times where he has made categories visible hours after you moved a draft. If you slow down your editing just a bit and unhide the categories yourself next time, that would be one less reason why any editor would have to come behind you and clean up. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• (@Godsy) You're ignoring what comes before and after the statement you quote above:

  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.

  Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. ... The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason.

  Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• I agree this is continued wikihounding, and I suggest a one-way interaction ban on Godsy relating to Legacypac. This has been going on long enough, and Godsy has been warned numerous times. Softlavender (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• Per BMK's quote from WP:HOUNDING above, I have a suspicion that Legacypac's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. I support a one-way interaction ban to avoid Godsy raising similar suspicions again and again. Johnuniq (talk) 10:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• I've given Godsy a 24-hour block; one-way interaction bans are rarely useful, and a two-way ban would be inappropriate for Legacypac. The bit paraphrased from WP:HOUND is for editors whose work actively needs to be cleaned up, e.g. the same person's consistently mis-tagging pages for speedy deletion, adding copyright infringements, just simply writing in poor English, etc. What we have here is nothing of the sort: it's simply finding anything, even minor spacing errors or missing punctuation, and you'll note that many of the edits are made to content that Legacypac did not create or modify. In other words, there's absolutely no reason to go after Legacypac's contributions, because Godsy's not modifying any of Legacypac's actions. All he's doing is making clear statements of "I'm watching you and following you wherever you go", a sense reinforced by the fact that a bunch of these are new creations that Godsy can't possibly have found any other way. Nyttend (talk) 11:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• 'One-way bans are rarely useful' - the exception I have found is where one editor is clearly and unambiguously stalking another. From looking at the above editing history where, as far as I can see, there is no other explanation than stalking for Godsy to show up, I would say this qualifies as umabiguous. So I would support a one-way ban on this occasion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• And in most of those cases, the stalking is significant enough that we need to block, not merely Iban. Bans are awkward to keep track of, especially one-way interaction bans, and easily gamed, including by third parties; if he decides to stop stalking, the ban will be a pain with no benefit, e.g. punishment not prevention. Either Godsy will stop stalking after the block expires (so why saddle him with a ban?), or he'll keep it up, and a longer block will follow. Nyttend (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Am I correct in reading this as "I didn't wikihound but I'm going to wikihound more aggressively? [49] I have so much to look forward too. Legacypac (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I read it the opposite way. "I'm in the right, but I'm willing to stop fixing all Legacypac's mistakes until the arbitration case is done". Nyttend (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

He plans to research my edits and start an Arb case. That sounds like even worse hounding, not a promise to stop. Legacypac (talk) 03:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Use of proper community processes to address problems, particularly ones where there's a significant chance of a boomerang (ARBCOM and ANI), should really be considered exempt from the definition of hounding. Of course, if the use of those processes becomes abusive to the processes themselves, access to those processes might be restricted (though I generally oppose such restrictions there is precedent for them). One of the primary goals of anti-wikihounding policy is to keep editors from following each other around to other articles, and having their personalized dispute impacting articlespace. Another primary goal, of course, is to prevent the loss of useful editors through harassment. But there has to be a safety valve for such policy, either where it's misapplied or where the person being protected has also engaged in bad acts. Allowing ARBCOM and, perhaps to a lesser extent, ANI to handle these complaints strikes me as a far better answer than the alternative. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• Looking at two of these articles (Ya cai and Pacific Premier Bancorp), I feel User:Legacypac should do more janitorial work when moving articles out of user space. Most of Godsy's edits appear to be non-controversial things like fixing categories and/or templates, while the articles themselves are "barely notable at best". Glyptography is egregiously bad as a new article. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• I actually agree with this. While I'm absolutely sympathetic to the fact that perceived stalking is not welcomed behavior, Godsy's case that there was actually a valid reason to review this user's page moves doesn't seem entirely unreasonable, and I wouldn't go so far as to consider this 'unambiguous stalking'. I will also point out that this is part of a long term dispute that appears to be in need of arbitration proceedings. Oppose any one-sided sanctions. He should obviously leave Legacy alone from now until arbcom proceedings begin, but this dispute should be addressed via dispute resolution rather than a rushed censure of one party. Swarm ♠ 05:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Swarm you rightly make the point it is a long term issue - one where Godsy drove me away for months with his harassment and cherrypicking words from a certain RFC he helped engineer to give himself ammunition against me. I've warned him multiple times nut he persists.

You miss that any page I send to mainspace goes through NPP where there are hundreds of editors that specialize in cleanup and further checks. I've found that they do great work and I appreciate them. Further I watch and revisit promoted pages to further improve them. Godsy's hounding is not required to protect the project, and I feel you are implying I'm some sort of vandal that is hurting Wikipedia and needs to have every edit scrutinized.

Pacific Premier Bancorp is a $6 Billion NASDAQ listed bank so its a strange example of "barely notable at best". Legacypac (talk) 05:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not implying anything about you nor am I justifying Godsy's behavior, nor am I disagreeing with the validity of the block. I'm just agreeing with the obvious fact that Godsy's edits are actually helpful, and pointing out that there's an underlying dispute between two established editors and an IBAN would unfairly constitute a summary judgment of bad faith against one of them and indefinitely prevent DR proceedings. DR processes up to arbitration are the way to go about handling this and if undertaken in good faith then there's nothing wrong with that. Of course, there's no more room for this "feuding" behavior. Swarm ♠ 07:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me the feuding is all coming from Godsy despite numerous warnings, and needs to stop. This bad-faith hounding cannot and should not be painted as a positive thing. If Godsy had been in good faith he would have simply noted to Legacypac on his talk page how to be more careful with his draft moves (or whatever), or brought up his concerns neutrally in some neutral quarter. Instead, he has engaged in bad-faith feuding and hounding for over a year, and has been asked to desist numerous times. In my opinion the community as a whole is beyond assuming good faith at this point. We can see blatant stalking and harassment when it continues over more than a year despite warnings, and even an RfA which failed because of this harassment. Softlavender (talk) 07:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I offered Godsy a conditional acceptance of their unblock request in exchange for, essentially, a show of good faith. Their offer was an RfC as to whether WP:HARASSMENT actually applies to this situation. If validating their own behavior in a dispute stands out to them as the most important aspect worth devoting resources to, I see no reason to try to aid them further in seeking DR. Swarm ♠ 07:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• I'm puzzled that an editor with a clean block log has been blocked without a single warning or chance to desist. I'm also puzzled by the statement that "one-way interaction bans are rarely useful", when there was already a clear consensus for the one-way, and they have generally worked in this sort of situation. All of that said, I'd like to forewarn Godsy: If you file an ArbCom case request, in my opinion one (or both) of two things are going to occur: (1) It will be thrown out due to lack of exhausting other forms of dispute resolution (other than your personal vendetta against Legacypac, neutral forms of dispute resolution have not been exhausted) or as a content dispute which belongs elsewhere; and/or (2) you will be hit with a boomerang, which may actually be harsher than a one-way IBan. You've already had your RfA fail because of this nonsense. One would have thought you could take a hint then, but you didn't. I hope you'll take a hint now. Softlavender (talk) 05:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• There is nothing wrong with reviewing Legacypac's edits, Legacypac's CSD tags, and Legacypac's page moves. Editors have public contribution histories for good reason. Legacypac has returned to very active editing, and some of what he does has somewhat dramatic. I find Godsy's alarm understandable. Few others review Legacypac's actions, and it is entirely possible that his actions may include bad actions. Bad actions may come about because: (1) Legacypac does things quickly; and/or (2) when cleaning out large amounts of crap, it is normal to have your judgement on borderline things desensitised.

I think Legacypac should stop objecting to scrutiny. If Godsy is "hounding", better evidence needs to be presented. Legacypac should welcome critical review of his valued cleaning efforts. It is my experience that Legacypac responds perfectly well to polite conversation.

I think there is no case for bans, no case for admonishment, but both editors would be well advised to keep teir interactions (1) polite; (2) collegiate, (3) professional; and (4) product focused. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• I've been rather reserved here, but remaining so will allow a boisterous accusation of harassment and a hasty block for it (which I maintain was inappropriate) to remain partly unchallenged. Wikipedia:Harassment states: "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." and vaguely alludes to "overriding reason(s)" (WP:HOUND) – this clearly applies to the interactions referenced in this case; "It can be seen as a personal attack if harassment is alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually harassment, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment themselves if done repeatedly." (WP:AOHA) – This thread, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive919#Godsy Disruption & GAMING the System, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Godsy/sandbox, etc. may show the accuser engaging in that; "Incidents of wikihounding generally receive a warning. If wikihounding persists after a warning, escalating blocks are often used, beginning with 24 hours." Wikipedia:Harassment#Blocking for harassment – I was never warned, except for complaints by the accuser. If an administrator had warned me and stated that I would be blocked the next time the behavior they believed to be inappropriate occurred, I would have ceased and sought relief from the community.; "However, there is an endemic problem on Wikipedia of giving 'harassment' a much broader and inaccurate meaning which encompasses, in some cases, merely editing the same page as another user." and "Neither is tracking a user's contributions for policy violations; the contribution logs exist for editorial and behavioral oversight. Editors do not own their edits, or any other article content, and any other editor has a right to track their editing patterns, and, if necessary, to revert their edits. Unwarranted resistance to such efforts may be a sign of ownership behavior and lead to sanctions." (WP:HA#NOT) - again, this clearly applies here. No diffs have been provided that show me being tendentiousness, disruptive, making personal attacks, or being uncivil (as one user once said regarding my behavior during this situation "Godsy was quite civil in all of the dispute that I've read. At worst he sounded frustrated, but he certainly wasn't rude.") because I haven't done any of those things. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 22:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

• "Jytdog is starting down the behavior path of Godsy". — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

BLP concerns

Following on from this, has anyone actually looked at the sample articles from the original interaction tool link, above? Looking at a few of the subjects, found the following:

• Naomi Schiff moved from draft to live here as the article "Appears notable". Well, either it is notable, or it is not. Now the article at this stage has no refs. So that's an unref'd BLP moved into the mainspace. Do they meet WP:N? Well, there's nothing to WP:V that at the point of move.

• Lena Gorelik moved here with the rationale of "Stale draft meets a red link on page where she won a major prize". The ref in the article failed verification, which was tagged by an editor with the next edit. Again, at the point of move a WP:BLP failing WP:V.

That's just a couple from this small sample. Who knows how many more have been moved in this state. So, is it acceptable to move unsourced, draft articles of living people into the mainspace without a) attempting to source them or b) verifying that the content in them is actually true and they meet some sort of notability? Or, to put it another way, if an editor was creating BLPs from scratch straight into the mainspace, didn't source anything, how long before they were at WP:ANI? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing controversial about the author or race car driver and they both easily meet WP:N. If you are so concerned you could have added more refs in the time it took you to post at ANi and making unfounded broad attacks. The each had at least 1 source so were not Speedy deletable under BLP .Legacypac (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:CIR. You should be taking a lot more care in what you're doing. If you can't see what the issues of moving an unref'd BLP into the mainspace, then you should not be doing it. Thankfully this issue you have created has now been brought to the attention of the community. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:AGF and not making false allegations are also important. These were not referenced BLPs, and I did Verify so kindly retract. Many editors put unreferenced BLPs in mainspace every day and I don't see you attacking them at ANi. Further, BLP policy is manly concerned with negative content, not author wrote a book and won an award stuff. Legacypac (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a concerning statement. We delete unsourced BLPs, Legacy. Swarm ♠ 17:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The pages had sources ♠, they just could have used better/more inline references for uncontroversial content. I've already added some additional inline references, as is my normal practice to review and improve these pages soon after unearthing them. Legacypac (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

They did not have sources when YOU moved them. You just left them. They've only been sourced after this issue was brought to your attention. The WP:BURDEN is with you, and you alone, to source any draft BEFORE you move it back to the mainspace. Pretty poor work. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Lugnuts that's inaccurate. As far as I know every BLP had at least one source and I've added more within several days. Retract your personal attack or back it up. I did not write these pages I handled them, so there is not much more burden on me then Godsy or a New Page Patroller to make them perfect. Further we've established Godsy has been stalking my edits on nearly every page I touch but he was not tagging the alleged serious deficiencies, he was adding periods and cutting out extra spaces. Anyway you show up and throw mud at me every chance you get and no amount of facts will dissuade your ugliness.

The diffs are in the opening lines of this section, above. I'm retracting nothing, as you clearly moved unsourced BLP articles. Those are the facts. You clearly don't understand the serious nature of this. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

well you continue to post false statements here. Legacypac (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

You have a bad case of WP:IDHT. Show me what statments are false, and I'll show you how wrong you are. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: As I mentioned below in response to Iridescent I wonder if this confusion arises due to different interpretations of 'unsourced'. Both the examples cited lacked working inline references at the time they were moved, but did have a single working external link to an official page. An official page isn't enough to support a BLP, but it does make it ineligble for BLPprod assuming it supports some statement in the article (AFAIK anyway) which it probably did. Also I keep mentioning working since I'm pretty sure the reason why Lena Gorelik failed verification is because the link is dead which doesn't necessarily make a difference compared to the reference just didn't say what was claimed, but probably will to some. Nil Einne (talk) 04:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Non-Admin Comment glance at my recent ANIs, initiated by Nyttend and Legacypac, to see examples I provided of other questionable treatment of userspace drafts. Legacypac has (rather obliquely) assured me that they do not purposely move articles out of draft to get them deleted, as I had naively thought, so it seems that at least for Legacypac, "Stale user- or draft-space articles" are apparently a problem that calls for resolution in each case by one of four remedies: Speedy deletion (on broad criteria), MfD (if speedy deletion seems too dubious), AfC submission (which seems like a bit of a shell game if the user submitting has no intention of doing further work on the article), or movement into mainspace in hope that issues will be resolved (by other editors) there. However, I have not seen such a "userspace draft policy" approved anywhere, and this procedure seems to violate both the spirit and the letter of WP:STALE. Newimpartial (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

This post, given the wide rejection of this editor's other misunderstandings of deletion policy, could be the beginning of more trouble for Newimpartial. See his talk ANI closed with a warning and threat of a block next time and look through current Mfd discussions [50] for editors nearly universally rejecting his spam protection ideas.In addition to the options he listed, Blanking, redirection to mainspace, and removing valid userspace pages from the userspace draft category are good options. Legacypac (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

You don't mention that your request for a topic ban for me here at ANI received no votes of support and multiple "Oppose" votes. And I have not been participating in any XfD or CSD issues since the first ANI by Nyttend, except for a CfD where an admin asked for my input today. Also note that my voting record on AfD was better than on MfD :) but anyway that is all in the past. This discussion right now really isn't about me at all. I don't see how you can read my post immediately above as anything but good faith participation in the discussion of BLP draft moves - it isn't personal.Newimpartial (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

And thanks to Legacypac for their link - I now think I see the heart of the issue. The instructions on <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Stale_userspace_drafts>, which presumably reflect a local consensus, conflict openly with WP:STALE. Newimpartial (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

"Newimpartial, with your minimum experience, if you want to avoid being called to this page and risk getting blocked, I suggest that you focus on adding new content or cleaning up vandalism - you just qualify to enroll at the WP:CVUA - and leave the heavy maintenance areas to people like Legacypac and admins like DGGwho know perfectly well what they are doing with user sub pages and Drafts, user names, and spam. You probably think you have been acting in good faith, most new users do, and I think you have, but the onus is on them to read the rules. People are calling for a block here, there won't be another warning. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)" ... and yet 4 days later Newimpartial has become expert enough to come to ANi and criticize my handling of these exact issues and tell us that instructions that have not changed in years are wrong? With your recent 200+ consecutive edits of pure disruption around MfD topics WP:CIR, WP:NOTHERE WP:CLUE all apply. Legacypac (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

90% of my recent edits are content work, mostly in article space. All I am doing here is pointing to the apparent conflict between this [51] and WP:STALE, as an issue arising from an ANI about editing of articles recently moved from draft space to article space. Nothing personal, and basically an FYI for admin who may be interested in raising the policy issue. It seems clear that the stale draft guidelines were never revised in line with last year's stale drafts discussions and the consensus arriving therefrom. Newimpartial (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Um, reread your first post. Pretty clear you don't think I follow policy and that is why you posted here. Legacypac (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Per my first post, I have the impression that you, Nyttend and some of the other "Stale draft cleanup" crew are not following, or are tendentously interpreting, WP:STALE. I now understand that your local consensus is reflected here [52]: thank you for drawing that to my attention. As several admins here have expressed interest in the treatment of user- and draft-space articles, especially in this case their being moved into article space, I am offering my piece of the elephant. Nothing personal directed at anybody.Newimpartial (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The tagging of a userpage by someone or a bot as "Stale Userspace Draft" [53] does not mean that only WP:STALE applies now and we should ignore WP:UP#NOT. A tiny minority of pages so tagged are legitimate efforts to draft an acceptable future article. Most are spam/promotion, fake articles, garage bands, inappropriate copies of mainspace, hoaxes, general meaningless nonsense from throw away accounts, copyvio, zero chance of notability ever and more. The pages Lugnuts is complaining about is some of the best content from that category! If the pages I'm promoting are so bad someone wants to ban me from promoting pages, than let's save everyone a lot of time and mass delete the current 30,000+ pages tagged Stale Userspace Drafts. Legacypac (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Propose "topic ban" for Legacypac

I'd suggest 'topic banning' Legacypac from moving any type of draft content into the mainspace, instead allowing/requiring them to move potential new articles into the Draft namespace where they can be submitted/reviewed through the Articles for Creation review process. That way BLPs and other content with verification and referencing issues remains out of the way of search engines and the 'encyclopedia proper' until it's checked by a AfC reviewer. Nick (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Interesting idea Nick. Do you trust me less than every spammer or new editor that can directly create content in mainspace?

Every new article goes into WP:NPP and is not indexed by search engines for Not Enough 90 days/until marked reviewed anyway. These have such old creation dates they go to the back of the list where they are quickly reviewed by people that work the oldest first. There was backlash from the peanut gallery of rabid inclusionists willing to protect spam that submission to AfC could be a back door to deletion, so I don't use that option much. Crazy but true. Legacypac (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

It's 30 days, not 90,[54] and my reading of the source is that it goes by page creation date, not when you move it into mainspace. (I'd be happy, on a number of levels, to be shown to be wrong about that.) —Cryptic 15:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Update here - there is considerable confusion among involved admins about 30 vs 90 days but the best evidence is it's 30 days no index currently, but 90 by default, and probably consensus and a way to make it 90 Days of no indexing. Legacypac (talk) 07:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I was working from memory having read all the NPP pages recently. I could be wrong on the 30/90, and I can't find where the discussion was now. User:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง should know. Does the code look for creation date of the content or the creation date of the new mainpage page? If the former, a spammer could create nonsense in no index userspace and just wait awhile to move it, circumventing the noindex on new pages. Also, noindex anywhere is not foolproof, as I found recently when I searched a user coined term and the first Google result was the supposed to be no index user draft I was evaluating. Legacypac (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support, at least with regards to BLPs. Given the BLP policy is manly concerned with negative content, not author wrote a book and won an award stuff and other responses from Legacypac, it's very clear that—regardless of whether Godsy was acting appropriately or not—Legacypac has a serious misunderstanding of one of Wikipedia's most fundamental policies. ‑ Iridescent 18:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

  Escalating to support total ban from moving pages to mainspace in light of The pages had at sources^(sic), they just could have better inline references for uncontroversial content. The pages in question were this (no references of any kind) and this (reference that obviously doesn't contain what it's supposed to). Either LP is intentionally lying, or is so sloppy they shouldn't be trusted to make decisions as to what is or isn't appropriate for the mainspace. ‑ Iridescent 18:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out in case people either don't check or missed it that although both lacked working inline references, both did actually have a single working external link to an official page. These weren't inline but I presume they both supported one claim made in each article. I mention this because although I still think (as mentioned in great detail below) they shouldn't have touched main space in the form they were in, it does mean they weren't AFAIK eligible for Wikipedia:BLPPROD. (I haven't been involved in BLP much in recent times, so I'm also not sure how BLPPROD treats cases when a reference is dead. Particular in this case where robots.txt meant the page wasn't archived at archive.org. Ultimately of course if the reference isn't easily recoverable then it can't support any statement made in the article.) Nil Einne (talk) 04:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support per Iri. BLP is something we have to get right. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
• Reality Check If you are really concerned about BLPs there are 99,787 mainspace BLP articles lacking sources [[55]] to delete. Be sure to bring all the creators to ANi to BLP ban them all. Start with the ones created June 2006. Legacypac (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• You think "We have a huge admin backlog so I'm deliberately adding to it" is helping your case? To be frank, while I haven't looked over your contribution history, just judging by your comments in this thread I wouldn't oppose your being community banned; I appreciate you're under stress, but you clearly have a spectacular attitude problem. ‑ Iridescent 18:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't patronize me. I don't recall interacting with you before, but you are misrepresenting my edit history which you admit to not checking. Anyone on earth can create completely unverifiable BLP content. There are almost 100,000 pages live we know about. Pushing punishment on me for not adding more refs in 4 days to content I did not create but only managed to try and improve the project is crazy when you are not seeking to punish people that created similar content last month or 10 years ago. Most of my effort goes toward deleting vandalism. Occasionally in that effort I surface something that appears to be useful. Sometimes it just needs to be merged and title turned into a redirect. A core idea of Wikipedia is its a work in process and no editor is required to make everything perfect. Legacypac (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Question for clarification how is sifting through stale userspace drafts "deleting vandalism"? Now I am even more confused than I was before. Newimpartial (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The above editor is a clueless newbie who recently had a dispute with Legacypac. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Support per [I agree with] Iridescent. A similar boomerang restriction was proposed last time they opened an an/i thread regarding me, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive919#Proposal: Temporary restriction on Legacypac (a thread which includes evidence that they have made many more inappropriate page moves). They also recently introduced Glyptography into the mainspace which was deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 19:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support his attitude stinks and he refuses to understand why his edits are problematic. The block of Godsy was probably a bad one. A block of Legacypac looks increasingly like a very good idea. Lepricavark (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

  FYI the admin who placed that ban on Godsy stated, in an earlier ANI targeting me, that they would have banned me if I hadn't coincidentally initiated a deletion review (which they misinterpreted as a game on my part but was nothing of the kind). That ANI however produced no support for a ban or any sanction on me as long as I take time off XfD and play well with others. That admin seems to see a ban as the tool of first resort... Newimpartial (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

q.v. the same admin threatening a block in response to a policy question here.[56] Newimpartial (talk) 03:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The above editor is a clueless newbie who recently had a dispute with Legacypac. Beyond My Ken (talk)

• Not supporting or opposing this, but a comment. Legacypac has the dubious distinction of being the only user I've ever had to give three separate "stop-doing-this-immediately-or-I-will-block-you" warnings to for three completely different things. Though all of them are well in the past, one of them directly relates to the proposed remedy here. I don't watch his talkpage anymore, and don't have the heart to check if he's been misdirecting AFC comments to his talk page again since he returned to Wikipedia. I'm frankly afraid to even look, because I don't feel up to dealing with the dramahz involved. —Cryptic 22:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support - WP:CIR and in light of Legacypac's comments here alone, I am not seeing a readiness to handle moving any drafts into namespace.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support - At best these are questionable moves, at worst incompetent, and their responses here, especially regarding BLP policy, are cause for serious concern. I was agitated by Godsy's "I did nothing wrong" attitude, but Legacy is taking that position in response to actual problems they're introducing into the mainspace. Swarm ♠ 00:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support The easy explanation is per Iri, but I had independently reached that conclusion by the time I got to Iri's position. I'm merely stunned that an experienced editor would move an unreferenced BLP into mainspace, but I'm gobsmacked that the reaction isn't contrition, it's effectively Other Stuff Exists and NPP will clean-it up. Absolutely. Unacceptable. --S Philbrick(Talk) 00:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. If we're actually worried about BLP competence, then the proposal should be a topic ban from BLPs entirely. It should not be confined to moving BLPs to mainspace, and it should not include moving non-BLP articles to mainspace. As it is structured, this proposal improperly exploits the community's strong policies regarding BLPs to achieve the longstanding goal of a few editors to prevent Legacypac from moving stale drafts to mainspace. I urge those supporting to reevaluate the logic behind this proposal from an objective basis. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Seems to be a bad faith strawman. I have nothing to do with this purported "longstanding goal" of preventing Legacypac and his page moves. I merely reviewed the situation as an uninvolved administrator and the problems associated with their moves were obvious to me. Also, the problems regarding his interpretation of BLP are obvious to most of us. The claim that the proposal is twisting BLP in order to achieve a subversive goal is also ridiculous, considering the even just the examples presented by iridescent. It's poor form to oppose a proposal based entirely on an assumption of bad faith. Swarm ♠ 02:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• I wasn't talking about you. Might want to strike your entire response. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• What? I never thought or claimed you were referring to me, and your suggestion that I strike my response is fallacious and bizarre. Swarm ♠ 07:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• I have nothing to do with this purported "longstanding goal"... seems pretty clear to me. Unless your argument is that by your participating in this discussion somehow negates my point: It wouldn't be ANI if the threads didn't attract noise, masking the underlying problem. Your retreat to AGF as somehow negating my point is equally bizarre: Where did I assume bad faith? The individuals, such as Godsy, who have long sought Legacypac's removal from draftspace and MfD genuinely believe they are acting in the best interests of Wikipedia. I would almost rather their actions be taken in bad faith—those would be much easier to correct through blocks and bans, for it wouldn't be powered by the moral imperative and righteous indignation we've seen, time and again, in this dispute. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Kibbitz from what I have seen over the last couple of weeks, most of the moral indignation has arisen on the Legacy/Nyttend side of this dispute, for what it's worth Newimpartial (talk) 15:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The above editor is a clueless newbie who has had a recent dispute with Legacypac. Beyond My Ken (talk)

requested review here [57] I've requested a complete review of my move logs for the last 30 day. I'm well aware my judgement may differ from others and that I occasionally make mistakes. Cryptic even picked up a many years old copyvio I missed (embarressing!) Instead of Allowing people to continue to make unsubstantiated false allegations here, I'd prefer that an Admin take me up on this requested review. It should not take very long as there are not many moved articles involved. Legacypac (talk) 02:16, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose at this time, since there has been no previous warning. I'd recommend a formal warning from an admin that continuing to move unsourced BLP articles into mainspace will result in a block, which could escalate at that time into a topic ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Premature. There are things to be worked out, but I see no evidence of actual damage being done. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support User is increasingly showing signs they don't understand the problems this causes in relation to BLPs with possible WP:CIR issues too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support as per the previous comments. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support. In the past, Legacypac was admonished by the community for moving drafts into mainspace to nominate them for AfD. This was done with the self-proclaimed goal of getting rid of non-notable drafts or drafts that are incomplete. Now, about a year later if memory serves, Legacypac is moving incomplete and potentially non-notable drafts to the mainspace with frequency and leaving them to be reviewed by new page patrollers. I don't think it takes a genius to connect the dots here. As the disruption has continued, a topic ban is appropriate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. We need to apply at least a semblance of fairness. We are not talking vandalism or blatant disruptive editing in disregard of all rules. Sure, there have been valid concerns about Legacypac's WP:GF editing, especially that we do specifically insist on sources for BLPs. But trying to resolve such concerns by applying blanket bans usually results in more harm than gain to the project. For an established editor who edits in a poorly regulated policy areas (per above discussion on STALE), the very fact of having this debate should be enough to modify his/her behaviour; a formal warning will be more than sufficient. We are not a kindergarten here. — kashmiri ^TALK 12:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

New non-admin comment I would suggest that edit is pertinent to the discussion here. Newimpartial (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

'Also, [58]. Legacy continues to submit articles to AfC he does not intend to work on then delete the feedback from his talk page, and to move articles to mainspace which other editors are then required to move back, in spite of the entirety of this discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't forget to sign your posts, Newimpartial. And so far Legacypac is completely entitled to do what he does. If it's a smart thing to do is another question but that's up to him. Yintan  12:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry; I was having trouble with that mobile edit. Fixed. The point was that, while he is not subject to any kind of a ban, Legacypac is continuing to do the moves which the majority of those posting here agree that he should either be banned from doing or should refrain from doing. There are various ways to proceed in advance of a ban, and Legacy has clearly chosen to stick with his previous course. Newimpartial (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Newimpartial you have demonstrated beyond any doubt to be WP:CLUEless in regard to deletion policy and handling of drafts (multiple experianced editors have said this). You experiance in the area is limited to roundly rejected MfD disruption and running around the site accusing me of not knowing what I'm doing. I've never seen you nominate a page for deletion or move a draft or anything. Yesterday you posted on DES's talk you are not interested in such activity. Since you have no experiance or interest in this area I invite you to stop posting about it. Yesterday you accused me of hounding you - but your "contributions" suggest you are hounding me. Advice from people like User:BeyondMyKen should be heeded. Legacypac (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I am heeding all advice given and acting in good faith. For my reply to Legacypac'a accusations, see the new section of the ANI they filed against me, above. Newimpartial (talk) 20:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per Kashmiri above. However, I do urge Legacypac to be more careful with the BLP moves and a formal warning sounds like a good idea. Yintan  09:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't be confused by the baseless accusations here. Not all editors are acting in good faith. There was no BLP moves that qualified for a BLP Prod (Ie no sources) and I improved the sources before anyone did anything but tag the pages as needing better sources. Legacypac (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not confused. Yintan  19:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Has anyone with admin privileges spot-checked any of the thousand or so speedy deletions Legacypac has flagged in the last couple of days? I was just wondering. Newimpartial (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Admins don't "spot-check" my CSDs they approve nearly all of them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Legacypac/CSD_log Legacypac (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

And sometimes do so in error. Any time someone tags a thousand pages in such short order, a spot check would seem reasonable to me. :) Newimpartial (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Drop the horse. EEng

Newimpartial, drop the dead horse already. I've been staying out of this so far but enough is enough. Everywhere I turn around, there you are hassling Legacypac again and again, well beyond the bounds of the reasonable discussion of the reasonable editing concerns brought up by others earlier in this thread. If it's not one thing with you, it's another, and it appears to be downright personal. I notice you don't have even close to the same level of concern or interest in any other editor's editing habits. Today it's a suggestion for spot-checking Legacypac's CSDs? What next, a suggestion that we notify you and an admin every time Legacypac edits, so we can spot check everything he's doing to make sure it's to your liking? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion so far.

It's basically a pile of mashed up guts at this point. —JJB^ers 02:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Fine. <stepping away from the horse>. But I will point out, contra PMC, that the only place I have mentioned any of Legacy draftspace moves in the last week is here at ANI, that I do not see a consensus that these moves have generally been ok, that I am not trolling, and that Legacy's revert of my above comment, here [59], is not in accord with ANI norms as I have seen them expressed. But I will defer to my "elders" and leave this thread alone now. Newimpartial (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• Now can we put this horse properly away now. (aka close the whole thing) —JJB^ers 03:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

  I was serious, can someone close this! —JJB^ers 15:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Response moved out of premature archive as still relevant to other allegations.

• 100% CSD acceptance rate [60] since I fixed my log, and close to perfect before that based on how all the pages I CSD in edit logs turn red. I've always followed up to ensure CSD tags were not removed by someone or if an admin declined.
• 100% success at MfD nomimations [61] recently AFAIK, and
• not much red on my page move log [62] indicating that pages I promote are rarely deleted.
• In my participation in all XfD my vote is nearly always in line with the conclusion. [63] ie 82% at MfD.
• No documented BLP violations or warnings in recent years
• My record demonstrates a strong and ever improving understanding of existing deletion policy and I actively engage in discussions to improve it.
• I don't recall ever making a substantive edit to any deletion policy page, and certainly not in the last year.
• I'm an approved Pending Changes Patroller, and was recently approved as a New Page Reviewer but held the previous version of that user right. I don't abuse these rights.
• I do a lot of useful work even if some people don't appreciate it's value WP:NOTNOTHERE says in part "A user may have an interest in creating stubs, tagging articles for cleanup, improving article compliance with the Manual of Style, or nominating articles for deletion. These are essential activities that improve the encyclopedia in indirect ways. Many "behind the scenes" processes and activities are essential to allow tens of thousands of users to edit collectively."
• My work is fully in line with the project WP:ABANDONED and long standing instructions at Category Stale userspace drafts which I had no part in drafting. [64] where I've made significant progress on a huge backlog.
• I'm at times a prolific editor so it is possible to pick out the odd mistake, but there is no pattern of incompetence as my logs prove.
• I have not been engaged in any dispute with Godsy since returning to editing 6 months ago, except for this WP:HOUNDING report. In fact I have been carefully avoiding any interaction with them including generaly skipping XfD they comment on etc. Therefore any attempt to punish me for alleged or actual behavioral issues a year or more ago is misguided.
• This proposal below amounts to a complete ban from the areas I enjoy most and goes against my established track record of work in line with existing policy and practice. Legacypac (talk)

Allegation re Pending Changes Approval

• Support and Remove advanced permissions per the user's disregard for WP:BLP, WP:CIR issues and WP:COPYVIO. This came up on my watchlist yesterday: they used their pending changes reviewer right to accept this edit containing 7,000 bytes of unattributed quotation. From Wikipedia:Reviewing_pending_changes: "The process of reviewing is intended as a quick check to ensure edits don't contain vandalism, violations of the policy on living people, copyright violations, or other obviously inappropriate content." zzz (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

That's a pretty damning diff. I'd be intrigued to hear the explanation. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

No surprise: apparently my fault, or something, as expected. zzz (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Yep, this is 'pac's modus operandi. Have him banged to rights on having massive WP:CIR issues, complete with solid evidence, but he'll remain in denial, blame everyone else and throw his toys out. Maybe everyone else in this thread is wrong too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

This is completely outside the scope of the TBan discussion, which only deals with pagemoves from draftspace. You're welcome to start a new proposal regarding the removal of PC reviewer rights for this one instance. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Signedzzz are you still topic banned from Boko Haram or all things ISIL or did you get that restriction formally lifted? As someone who is not a Pending Changes Reviewer, you may not understand the purpose of the right is to prevent vandalism. The edit I approved may not be perfect but it is a major expansion on an important subtopic, well researched and heavily referenced to top quality sources like UN documents, the exact opposite of vandalism. Had I declined the edit I would have insulted a promising new editor and maybe driven them off the project. Normally if there is something you see that could be improved I'd suggest fixing it but given your history on the article and especially if you remain topic banned I'd suggest taking the article off your watchlist to prevent temptation. Thanks for showing up at ANi to make ridiculous accusations. I appreciate your consistency in hating me for finally stopping your abuse of the Boko Haram pages. Legacypac (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

No, I've never been banned from the article; see my !vote, above, for what pending changes reviewers are supposed to check for. zzz (talk)

Allow me to refresh your memory (also put on your talk page, but you deleted that):

Blocked – Signedzzz is blocked four days for long-term edit warring at Boko Haram, as well as a 3RR violation on 8 January. The closure of this complaint was delayed due to discussions which took place both here and in a report above. It appeared for a while that Signedzzz was agreeing to take a break from the article, but he made this controversial edit on 10 January which removes article tags, showing that he has not stopped editing at Boko Haram. This block can be lifted if Signedzzz will accept a topic ban from Islamic extremism and Boko Haram, which will apply everywhere on Wikipedia on articles, talk pages and noticeboards. Signedzzz is already banned from editing on WP:GS/SCW per an earlier complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[65]

Result: User:Signedzzz is banned from the topic of the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant on all pages of Wikipedia including talk and noticeboards under the WP:GS/SCW community sanctions, for three months. EdJohnston (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC) [66] This expired, so he is ok to edit again as far as I can tell but note Boko Haram is an ISIL affiliate so the topic ban covered the page in question. Legacypac (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

No, it didn't. zzz (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Signedzzz's allegation, seconded by Lugnuts, that I accepted copyvio is false. The UN material is in the public domain, as I fully expected. See here [67] for further explanation. Legacypac (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

No, I "alleged" that it was "7,000 bytes of unattributed quotation". I was unable to ascertain the copyright status. zzz (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't get cute. You linked WP:COPYVIO as a reason you want me sanctioned and claimed it was copyvio in the quote in the same post (the only thing listed that matches "unattributed quotation") and you deleted the whole article section claiming copyvio in the edit summary [68] Legacypac (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

"as I fully expected" - in other words, you only just realised. Which is all beside the point, since 7kb of unattributed quotation is "obviously inappropriate content". (Wikipedia:Reviewing_pending_changes: "The process of reviewing is intended as a quick check to ensure edits don't contain vandalism, violations of the policy on living people, copyright violations, or other obviously inappropriate content.") zzz (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

but you falsely accused me of passing copy vio and when confronted with the evidence you are wrong you resorted to saying you are not qualified to judge. If unqualified, you should never have made the accusation at ANi. Legacypac (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The issue as I see it, and the reason your rights need to be removed, is that when you accepted the edit, you had no idea about the copyright status - when I raised it here, you assumed as I did that it was copyvio, and nevertheless insisted that you were right to accept it, for some reason. zzz (talk) 23:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Wrong, wrong, wrong. I know instinctively from all the law courses I've taken and working in HQ of an NGO operating in 140 countries that short quotes from a UN publications are fine, I only needed to find the proof. Legacypac (talk) 10:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The edit needed 7,000 bytes of pointless unattributed quotation/copyvio immediately removed, and the rest totally rewritten (suicide bombing = "altruistic suicide", etc.) You definitely did read it, then, and not just accept it blindly? I'm not sure which is worse. Either way, there is nothing more to discuss, since you still cannot see any problem. zzz (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

"Wrong, wrong, wrong. I know instinctively from all the law courses I've taken" Hahahaha. Priceless. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

section break

• Support Just looking through the moves from draft Legacypac provided in their first post there is a slew of awful stuff. Promotional, redundant, badly sourced. I see no benefit in this continuing. Capeo (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support the competency issues are fairly glaring. Iridescent sums things up nicely, but Signedzzz makes some good points as well. I think we'll be removing advanced permissions sooner rather than later. AniMate 19:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support at a minimum for BLPs. On Mendaliv's point, I do have concerns about LegacyPac editing BLPs point blank, but haven't seen enough evidence to support a general topic ban. It isn't unheard of that editors may have a specific problem in one area of BLPs. As for extending this to non BLPs, the urgency isn't so great there but still the evidence presented suggests this is a longstanding problem that LegacyPac is moving stuff to the encyclopaedia proper when they shouldn't be, causing problems and considering that this has happened with BLPs it's not something we can let slide. In other words, were it not for the BLP problems I'm not sure we'd be considering a topic ban, but since we are considering a topic ban, the question then is how far should it go to minimise problems to wikipedia. By that same token, I don't see the need for a clear cut warning. (And I see even less reason for a warning from an admin.) An experienced editor need to be familiar with our sourcing policies and also BLP and if they've already been causing problems and had people talk to them about it, they need to take that feedback on board warning or not and especially shouldn't be allowing their problems to extend to BLPs. I don't really understand and frankly don't give a damn about the politics here, whatever disputes LegacyPac has had with other editors about how to handle drafts in the past, the thing which matters here is whether LegacyPac's behaviours is causing sufficient problems to wikipedia to merit a topic ban. If sanctions of other editors is suggested, I'll consider the evidence and weigh up the appropriate course of action. Regardless of how editors feel about how to handle stale drafts, moving clearly unacceptable articles, especially BLPs, to main space is definitely not the way to handle them. (Drafts obviously aren't immune, if a clearly unacceptable draft BLP is preserved despite no sign of editing, then yes this is a problem too.) Nil Einne (talk) 06:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, see, there's the problem. This discussion started about, and has largely focused on, the concerns regarding BLPs. Few of the comments make or even consider the point you make, that even though the BLP rationale cannot justify a blanket pagemove ban, the other effects of pagemove behavior are problematic enough to justify it. With respect, "minimizing disruption" as a justification requires we agree on whether something is disruptive. To my understanding there is no consensus that Legacypac's pagemoves are, as a matter of policy, disruptive. Rather, this argument seems to push the blame for the disruption caused by the interaction between Godsy and Legacypac entirely onto Legacypac's shoulders. Moreover, we should not, and probably cannot, enact new policy through an ad hoc behavioral sanction. There is no reason to believe that, should a consensus form that stale drafts should not be moved to mainspace, Legacypac would persist. This is not a preventive measure at all: It is purely punitive. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Except the interaction between Godsy and Legacypac is irrelevant to my my concerns. My concerns are their behaviour in moving clearly unsuitable articles to main space. I don't care whether they are stale, I do care that they lack any sources, and that Legacypac said they did. This is more of a problem with BLPs, but it's still a problem with normal articles. Whether or not it's okay to move a stale draft to main space is irrelevant, what does matter is when you move an article to main space, you are to some extent taking responsibility for it. This means if it has severe problems, like lacks any sources, you should not be doing so. Again I don't give a damn whether it's stale or not, only whether the article is in any shape to be in main space. I.E. If it we created, in current shape, does it have hope of surviving AFD? If it does not, then it does not belong in main space, and anyone who creates problems on main space by moving it there should rightfully be sanctioned. Again I don't give a damn about the politics of involved, I only care about the harm to wikipedia caused by going against our existing guidelines and policies, and these guidelines and policies do not allow people to continually create mainspace articles which are AFDed which is what LegacyPac is doing by moving these to mainspace. Admitedly I WP:AGF when making the argument above that Iridiscent was correct and that the articles mentions had zero references, however looking more closely at them both did have links to official sites. This does mean the problem isn't quite as severe as I thought. Still the articles moved still have no bsuiness being in main space in the form LegacyPac moved (created) them. Now if LegacyPac was the one doing the cleanup, this would also be okay. I'd prefer them to do it before moving to main space, still someone who creates multiple junky articles in main space, but quickly fixes them isn't going to be sanctioned. But the history seems to suggest this often isn't the case. (It does seem to be the case for the two examples highlighted by Iridescent but the comments above strongly suggest this often isn't the case.) In addition, frankly as a BLP hawk, I'm very reluctant to let anyone with such a fundamental misunderstanding of BLP create any article on wikipedia (actually edit point blank if possible) unless they quickly correct that misunderstanding because even normal articles can easily involve LP which is another nail against LegacyPac. In this case, in many ways moving an article to main space is actually worse since you didn't actually write everything, and if there is evidence you aren't actually looking closely at what you're moving, there's a good chance you may inadvertedly move something with a major BLPvio to main space. In other words, the slopiness demonstrated thus far makes me think that if an article on some place said in Kenya said "There are rumours Barack Obama was born here", this article is going to be moved to main space because if you don't know the history this isn't inherently negative so who cares if it isn't sourced right? Wrong of course. (This isn't the best example because of how well known the controversy is and also because Barack Obama is such a notable individual these sort of things aren't actually the sort of BLP issues that worry me that much as there's already so much other nonsense, however it would be much harder to understand where I was coming from if I would come up with an obscure example.) And let me repeat for one more time, this has nothing to do with the interaction between Godsy and LegacyPac. Frankly I know very little about this interaction. Or for that matter the history of the concerns over LegacyPac and Godsy's editing. I think I vaguely recall hearing LegacyPac's name before. I have heard over the fights over stale drafts but frankly they bore me. My only concern is protecting wikipedia, particularly main space and it seems clear that moving junk which has no business being in main space to main space without then being putting in the work to allow it to stay in main space is not allowed by common policies or guidelines because anyone doing so is taking responsibility for the "creation" of this article, and we do not allow people to regularly create junk in main space. And the evidence presented here suggests that LegacyPac has done this recently and has a history of doing so. I don't care why they are doing so, simply that they are doing so and so harming wikipedia. P.S. In case it isn't clear, I'm generally a deletionist and it looks to me like many of these drafts have no business being on wikipedia. If we can't come to a consensus to delete them because they're drafts, that's unfortunate. I wouldn't personally mind moving them to main space to AFD them, at a resonable rate. Still as I understand it this has been rejected before. Whatever does or does not happens, what is clear is that moving them when they are utter junk and have no business being in mainspace and then leaving them like that and hoping someone else will come along and fix them is not acceptable anymore than creating them like that in the first place. This problem is of most concern where the article appears to be a BLPvio (e.g. lacking any real sources), and as said, at this stage I'm not sure if we should have bothered with a topic ban on moves were it not for the BLP concerns. Not so much because it isn't justified but rather such a discussion tends to waste a lot of time so we have to ask whether it's worth it yet. But since we were forced to have this discussion anyway, the question then becomes how far should the ban extend and my believe is that the problem is bad enough that even if the concerns aren't as high with non BLPs, they are still high enough to merit a topic ban for non BLPs. And yes we accept stubs etc and aren't generally going to sanction someone for creating a lot of notable stubs. But there's a difference between notable stubs and junk. And yes, editing is a collobrative process, there's nothing wrong with an editor creating a not very good article, particularly a new editor, and with other editors coming later to fix it up but it also depends on how bad is "not very good" and how often you're doing it (WP:CIR etc). In other words if LegacyPac were moving content that was bad, but not bad enough that it had no business being in mainspace then yes there would be no problem. Likewise if LegacyPac only did it once or twice instead of having done it over a long period. While it would be nice to think they will learn from this experience they need to pay attention to what they are moving and not just move any old junk. Or perhaps more likely, to understand what is and isn't acceptable in main space as I think this is the bigger problem. Unfortunately, there seems to have been a long enough history of problems that I have no confidence this is going to happen. Hopefully time away from this problematic area will give LegacyPac the room to learn what is and isn't acceptable in main space (or the need to consider what you are doing properly before doing it, whichever the actual problem is) and they can return sometime in the future. And yes I think I've repeated myself about 3 or 4 times now, it's an unfortunate habit. Still I tried to clearly explain my concerns without much repetition in my original long post, but it still seems to be misunderstood and have no desire to come back to this discussion, so I'm hoping it won't be misunderstood anymore. Nil Einne (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
• Needs more work, but generally Support. Those moves I've checked are mostly clearly inappropriate and are mostly not adequately cleaned up. Unless it is appropriate to request deletion of the drafts, they shouldn't have been moved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 22:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

• I absolutely support a TBAN for Legacypac from moving drafts into mainspace. There was a class last year (Wikipedia:Education_program/B_K_Shah_Medical_Institute#Year_of_2016) that was badly managed and started drafting a bunch of medical articles that were full of COPYVIO, used bad sources or no sources, and were written in English that was highly technical and often terrible. Legacypac just came upon them and moved them three of them to mainspace with edit notes like this, Looks like a complete page. and Decent page (diff). Unbelievable. If this is the kind of "work" they do, they have no business doing it. Shoveling garbage into mainspace with that kind of cursory review in order to clean up draft space is insane. Not to mention the disruption they have caused over the last year and a half. Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

You seem to confuse ANi with MfD or AfD. I believe these pages would survive either. When/if you can show a high percentage of pages I promote have been properly deleted at XfD we can discuss my judgement. Legacypac (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this more. Your work cleaning up draft space is important and as I have said several times now it is important and I will add that I am grateful that you put so much time and energy into it. You have said several times that your stats on getting stuff deleted are very good, and I have not responded to that. They are very good. You get a lot of unuseable stuff deleted. But that isn't the problem. If you only focused on deleting stuff, there would not be all this ruckus. It is moving things to mainspace where you get into trouble. Going back and looking at the ANIs, that has been the center of all of them. Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not going to offer a "vote" because I was recently in a very short and minor editing dispute with Legacypac a few days ago. But I will say that Legacypac added this unsourced negative material which I removed from a BLP a few days ago. Legacypac restored it immediately, again without a ref. When Legacypac brought it up at the talk page, they refused to accept that negative material requires an inline citation. To Legacypac, it seemed to be more important that the material be in the article than Wikipedia policy be followed. This has since been resolved.--v/r - TP 02:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
• Note. I removed his "new page patroller" bit as the bit was originally added as a "non-controversial" addition of the bit as a regular NPP, without noting that his actions as NPP were questioned at the time (in a different forum). I won't object if the bit is restored, considering his current activity. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: One-way IBAN on Godsy towards Legacypac

I propose a one-way IBan on Godsy towards Legacypac. Any gaming of this IBan by either party may incur further sanctions or a block.

This IBan already had support above, so now that this is a formal proposal I am pinging those already who directly or indirectly opined on it above: Beyond My Ken, Johnuniq, Only in death. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support, as nominator. This harassment and hounding has been going on for over a year, and Godsy has been warned numerous times. He is also now trying to use a policy talk page to subvert/avert sanctions on his behavior: [69]. It's time to put a stop to all of this extensive targeted harassment, which has lasted well over a year. Softlavender (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support - I was hoping Godsy's old RfA and the 24-hour block would discourage him from any further hounding. Instead, Godsy has engaged in forum shopping for consent to carry on as before. Now is not the time to keep calm and carry on; now is the time for Godsy to reevaluate their behavior and leave Legacypac alone.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - This has already been raised in the first section and no consensus has been gained. Furthermore, Softlavender has only pinged individuals who supported it and not those who opposed it, which seems like cavassing to me; blanket pinging all participants here except the individual who started this thread i.e. EricEnfermero, Beyond My Ken, User:Johnuniq, Nyttend, Only in death, Mendaliv, Power~enwiki, Swarm, Lugnuts, Newimpartial, Nick, Iridescent, Ealdgyth, Lepricavark, Cryptic, and TheGracefulSlick to counter that. I'd also ask that all those who have already expressed opposition here but do not do so again still be counted in opposition. That aside: I have not harassed anyone. The contributions in question here are unambiguous improvements to articles. If I notice any editor regardless of their experience moving pages from the userspace of others to the mainspace that are in poor shape, I should have the right to unambiguously improve them. I do not understand why anyone, including the mover themself, would oppose that. In fact, such actions are explicitly protected by the harassment policy, i.e. "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles."; fixing unambiguous errors is an "overriding reason" (quote's from WP:HOUND). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Missed Sphilbrick, please see above. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose One-way interaction bans are always trouble. If a single contributor can't work well with others or harasses someone, block them. If they're both going at it, do a two-way interaction ban. One-way interaction bans allow one person to enter a discussion and force the other to leave. That's a recipe for disaster. I also don't think following an editor known to make a particular type of error to fix that error is actually objectionable. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't read the part of the proposal that says: Any gaming of this IBan by either party may incur further sanctions or a block. We have had plenty of effective one-way IBans -- that's why the option exists, and they are the only viable sanction for a case when only one party is tracking/hounding the other. WP:Blocking longterm editors in good standing (i.e., with no prior block logs) is a drastic solution, and should only occur after other attempted sanctions have failed or been breached. Not to mention the fact that blocking does not prevent the blockee from resuming their behavior when the block expires. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support - I don't agree that one-way interaction bans are unworkable or ineffective, and since Godsy doesn't seem to be willing to curtail their behavior, I really don't see any alternative which would keep Godsy as a contributor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm not an admin and I'm not familiar with the full history of this case, but it seems both parties are at fault here; I oppose any one-way sanctions. I might support this if Legacypac was banned from moving articles into the main namespace, as that seems to be the cause of most of the contentious edits. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Power-enwiki, you've been active on Wikipedia for one month. Why are you even posting here? You know nothing about the history, and nothing about Wikipedia policies and sanctions. I realize you came to ANI when you posted a thread on the Greg Gianforte article a few days ago [70], but you really shouldn't be opining on other threads. See the top of this noticeboard: "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors." No offence, but as a vastly inexperienced editor (one month, 1,400 edits), you should not be opining here; it just muddies the waters. Softlavender (talk) 05:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

You and Godsy are both canvassing people for this topic; based on that I figured my opinion was warranted. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support per BMK, though I suspect the point that there's little other hope of retaining Godsy as a useful contributor will quickly be mooted given Godsy's stated intent to bring an ArbCom case against Legacypac. This obsession with Legacypac's actions is unhealthy and the repercussions will certainly lead to burnout in the not-too-distant future, no matter what the outcome of this as-yet-unfiled ArbCom case is. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support- Godsy could be considered a contentious and somewhat invasive editor. I worked extensively with them on Gun show loophole while it was being considered for good article status. It seemed as though Godsy only started editing after it was being considered for GA status. In any case, I did not mind Godsy's technical acumen and ability, but Godsy was extremely bossy and tendentious IMO. As I was under pressure from the GA nomination, I had no choice but to compromise with Godsy. At least, that's how it felt anyway. Darknipples (talk) 05:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Godsy's review of Legacypac's actions is important. Legacypac has a reputation for pushing the envelope. No one else is reviewing. Some more civility in interactions on both sides should be advise, but bans? No. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Jytdog below. If there are userspace-to-mainspace moves requiring cleanup, what is the issue, really? El_C 05:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The issue is bad-faith WP:HOUNDING, which has been going on for over a year and which Godsy has been warned about numerous times, including at his failed RfA six months ago. Softlavender (talk) 06:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

If Legacypac makes moves with too many errors, why would they be objecting when those errors are fixed, by anyone? El_C 06:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The presence or absence of errors is not at issue here. The issue at hand is WP:HOUNDING; please read the quoted passage from the WP:HOUNDING policy page that BMK posted in boldface at the top of this thread. Godsy recently stalked Legacypac to 36 articles in the course of just one week. He has been similarly harassing Legacypac for over a year, and has been warned about it numerous times, including at his failed RfA six months ago. It has to stop, per WP:HOUNDING. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Did Legacypac make errors in 36 articles in one week? If so, I'd like to thank Godsy for cleaning up after someone leaving a mess behind and trout Legacypac for not being more careful. If not and they're unjustifiably following around Legacypac, then we have something to talk about. What you're calling hounding, most Wikipedians call cleanup. We have a contribution history for a reason. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I have now looked more closely at the inteactions that legacypac listed. They are not all moves to mainspace. If they had been I would have been completely unsympathetic to legacypac. But a good chunk of them are not and really do look like hounding (please do take some time and look at them -0 I should have done that); Godsy lost any high ground they may have had in my view. The high ground is still there! There is a dispute about how to best clean out draft/user space and legacypac is moving sometimes (not always) pretty crappy things into mainspace. Messy. Jytdog (talk) 07:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Besides edits to deletion discussions (some of which are articles for deletion discussions which were started by other users due to Legacypac's page moves from the userspace to the mainspace), which I frequent in general, the edits to pages in the userspace and draftspace which I edited after Legacypac are because Legacypac listed them at miscellany for deletion (e.g. User:Annejacqueline/Yasmine modestine, User:Annadurand/Local Suicide, and User:Annswer1/Royal Park Flats). I commonly do a bit of cleanup to pages nominated there so they are easier to evaluate by editors who review them before commenting. I have patrolled a large majority of miscellany for deletion discussion subpages (i.e. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/X) (and the nominated pages themselves that have not already been patrolled) since October 2016 created by every user that is not autopatrolled or an administrator (I started this practice when the ability to patrol pages was restricted to those with the the newly created new page reviewers user right and administrators instead of being available to all autoconfirmed users as it was before) which is viewable here. I view every miscellany for deletion discussion subpage; I often close them early when appropriate, e.g. if the page has been speedily deleted and the administrator did not close the discussion or it is the improper forum for the page (e.g. if a redirect, mainspace disambiguation page, non-userbox template, article, etc. is nominated there), or choose to comment. Basically, to summarize, I try to help keep miscellany for deletion running smoothly. SmokeyJoe can perhaps attest to part of those statements (they are also a regular at mfd). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per my comments above, the hounding claim is somewhat weak given the legitimate concerns of many users including myself regarding the content issues. Any one-sided sanction would apparently validate the other user. The source of this drama is one user's bizarre insistence to perform a maintenance task of low priority, poorly, and when questioned as to why there's such an apparent competence issue, they demonstrated a troubling lack of clue. Would there be hounding without the competence issues? If you have to ask that question, it's not obvious harassment. Swarm ♠ 07:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

If you look at Godsy's actual edits [71] you could rightly call them "one user's bizzarre insistence to perform a maintenance task of low priority, poorly". Deleting spaces and the like in pages that are almost surely going to be deleted at MfD in less than a week is exactly that. Edits made to random articles minutes or hours after me is no coincidence. It only serves to tell me he is watching me after I've told him to leave me alone. If Godsy was truly concerned with how bad my editing is one woild expect him to make substantial edits to fix it not trivial meaningless ones. Legacypac (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support with Conditions There are clearly serious issues with Legacypac's behaviour and attitude, all of which are part of the reason Godsy is following their contributions and why allegations of WP:HOUNDING have been made. The problems that Legacypac is creating, the issues with their behaviour, their disruption and fairly blatant disregard of the WP:BLP policy are all issues which have been raised previously, and which unfortunately did not attract sufficient community attention (contrary to the claims by Beyond My Ken and SmokeyJoe, Legacypac has been made aware about moving poor quality drafts previously and has continued this, so we are past the formal 'please don't do that again' stage - see [72] and [73]) which is why I proposed a topic ban which will allow Legacypac to continue moving good quality material out of userspace and into the main encyclopedia eventually, but which will prevent unsourced and unverifiable content being moved there with little or no oversight. Godsy has clearly got himself into a position where he's slightly too obsessed with Legacypac's behaviour (though that's perhaps unsurprising, as the community didn't want to deal with it the last time it was brought to ANI) and he now needs to disengage. If the proposed topic ban against Legacypac is successful, there should be no reason at all for Godsy to be reviewing Legacypac's page moves and contributions, as the AFC route will present Legacypac's page moves to the AFC reviewers. It's probably still sensible to keep Godsy away from Legacypac in general, but I can only support such an IBAN if there's simultaneous attempts at resolving the underlying problem of Legacypac's editing issues, particularly when they demonstrate such ignorance of the BLP policy and display a 'someone else will fix it' and 'other stuff exists, so what' attitude. Nick (talk) 09:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Nick, last year Legacypac did make some improper moves to mainspace, but is there evidence of him doing it recently. He claims to be only moving the very best. Unsourced material is not strictly forbidden, but you also say "unverifiable". Can you point to things unverifiable that he moved to mainspace? If so, it is worth a discussion. Godsy seems to me to be rules-obsessed, and Legacypac seems to be rules-casual. Neither approach is uncommon, but it does explain much of the friction. If there is to be an IBAN, I think it must not prevent Godsy from participating in any XfD discussion. There has been several mention of BLP, can someone help me see where Legacypac has violated WP:BLP? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support Comment - The key thing about harassment is that being right is not an acceptable excuse for doing it. I do not condone this behaviour and am perturbed by the amount of gall being displayed by Godsy in !voting on all of the proposals here. I personally do not think that people should be given the opportunity to vote on matters that concern them - have you ever seen the defendant act as a juror to their own case before? I urge Godsy to strike their votes here and on the other proposal. Leaving a comment is fine and the reason for posting here for the sake of having a fair trial is understandable, but, for a long term editor to show such disregard in voting on the matter is disturbing to me. Not least of all the fact thay the matter at hand is more harassment of which this just seems to be a continuation of that same behaviour. This hounding is not limited to page moves. There is a ridiculous amount of very obvious following around. Look at Nam (war) or Fume for the most blatant examples of stalking. A lot of it is page moves, but, that is zero excuse for this. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @Mr rnddude: I appreciate you bringing up specific examples; my edits to Nam (war) and Fume were absolutely not stalking. They resulted from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 28#Fumed and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 8#Nam (war). I regularly comb through listings at redirects for discussion and I've commented on hundreds and hundreds of of redirects listed there. I'll also consider changing my support on the other proposal to a comment. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 12:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose given the severe attitude and competence issues demonstrated by Legacypac throughout this conversation, we really don't need to validate his misguided notion that he's being persecuted. I see this more as cleanup than hounding and I don't understand this escalation toward sanctions. We've had a hasty and bad block and now a push for an unfair topic ban. And some of you wonder why Godsy has dug his heels in. Lepricavark (talk) 10:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Give me a solid explanation for the interaction for the articles I posted above. These were not cleanup, they were hounding. Then do a detailed review of their editing interaction and notice how many times theyve done that before. Then answer your own questions. Godsy has done precisely that. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Godsy has provided an explanation for both. Godsy, I am satisfied with your RRD explanation for the two specific incidents I mentioned. Indeed I appreciate the time you took to provide me with that information. I see now that you are an active editor at RRD. I'll take some time to reconsider this in light of this information. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support Looking through the history, this is clearly a case of wiki-hounding. The behavior is clear and clearly requires correction. David in DC (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Question is the consensus that (uncontroversially) making improvements found by following an experienced but controversial editor's contribution history always wikihounding, or only when there is a precious history of history of extensive conflict, as appears to be the case here? Newimpartial (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Case-by-case basis. Here, the 36 instances mentioned below by Softlavender alone are darned near dispositive. As User:Jytdog observes, some are nearly impossible to explain absent wiki-hounding. David in DC (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

But have you actually looked at the "36 cases"? I had avoided that, until just now. That number includes the handful of pages that Godsy edited first, as well as a number arising from what seems to be their routine participation in XfD discussions, which (by timestamp) doesn't seem to have anything in particular to do with Legacy. It also includes responses - editorial improvements and/or Moves - to Legacy's outlying treatment of userspace drafts, which seem good faith to me and not HOUNDy in anyway. I don't actually see anything reflecting the key descriptors listed in WP:HOUND.

Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors ... to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. 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.

Godsy received a temporary block within the course of this ANI, in spite of these criteria not being met.

I would also point out that, if I understand how one-way bans work, the result would be that Godsy could no longer participate in any XfD discussion initiated by Legacy or in which they participate. I for one do not believe that such an outcome would benefit the project. Newimpartial (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Newimpartial maybe you don't understand the interaction report. All 36 content pages were first edited by me, then Godsy. You should not count posts to high traffic project pages. Kindly stop posting misinformation. Legacypac (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Strong oppose per SmokeyJoe. I don't see anything alarming from Godsy's behavior, rather someone cleaning up after an editor who seriously needs some cleaning up after. If there's a claim of hounding, I'd need to see some questionable behavior such as personal attacks or harassment by Godsy, and that's been severely lacking here. I also agree that interaction bans are more trouble then they're worth. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Travix I respect you, but it appears you have not looked at this carefully. There is significant evidence of the hounding in this thread, its much longer then this week. Godsy lost his RfAdminship over his harrassment of me 6 months ago and he has been told repeatedly to stop stalking me but instead he fills my watchlist with his name by removing extra spaces and other little edits. The hounding was already proven and resulted in a block. He came off the block and went right back to harrassing me. Legacypac (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

First off, it's Tavix, not Travix. I've followed this dispute from a distance for a while now, especially when it spills over into RfD where I'm active. For the most part, I understand where both of you are coming from. I don't have any opinions on the heart of the dispute at hand, but the way the both of you have carried out your respective agendas have been vastly different. Godsy is someone is who very methodical and by the book (perhaps too much at times). Just about everything he does is backed up by a TLA shortcut explaining his actions. You, Legacypac, come off to me as almost the complete opposite. You're reckless and oftentimes inattentive, and Godsy has been the one to clean up after you for a long time. If there is to be an interaction ban, I would need to see evidence of Godsy personally attacking you or harassment of the sort, and the examples I've seen are fairly harmless. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Disclosure: I've had a fair amount of unpleasant dealings with Legacypac (I ended my interaction with him at the RfC I created as a proper measure), but I'll try to be objective here. Godsy is constructive and this IBAN goes further than just infringe on his editing abilities. Softlavender (not just them) has again and again found Legacypac to be in the right and Godsy in the wrong, even when that is not the case (refer to the numbers of cases beforehand), so I find it really underhanded that an established editor would use this opportunity to establish their unjust cause. I think Tavix, Swarm and SmokeyJoe have stated why this proposal does not deserve to be implemented and that is pretty clear, I just gave some added backstory in case anyone thinks this proposal is neutral or intends to actually make a "constructive" change rather than a blatant invalidation of an editor. --QEDK (愛) 18:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Godsy cleaning up, as best as they are able, the relentless dreck Legacypac keeps digging up from draft space should be commended. There is no inhibiting another editors "work" when that work amounts to putting crap into WP, leaving it to new page patrollers, all in the hope it's going to get deleted anyway. Capeo (talk) 06:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. As I've mentioned in other discussions, it's accepted and supported practice to follow another editor when their edit history raises significant concerns. However this can rise to hounding if it goes to far, especially with a long term editor and if the actions of the follower are sometimes not supported by the community. I'm not certain that this case hasn't crossed the threshold, but I don't think it's clear enough to support action in light of the fact there may be a significant change if the above topic ban is implemented. Nil Einne (talk) 06:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as long as this does not lead to edit wars. There is nothing wrong in one editor following another's edits, especially if they have a history of problematic editing. I have done this on many occasions. Wikihounding is something entirely different - WH's purpose is not to improve the project but to intimidate the hounded editor. I do not believe this is the case here. — kashmiri ^TALK 12:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Clearing up bad/sloppy edits by one user should not equate to an i-ban. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
• Weak support. Godsy should have realised by now that his behaviour, even if it is within WP guidelines, is causing friction. There's no need for him to stay on Legacypac's tail, there are plenty of other editors who can do that, and I frankly don't understand why he didn't step away earlier and defuse the entire situation. Now it has escalated, there's been a block, there's talk of ArbCom, etc. However, I do find an IBAN a bit Draconian, hence my weak support, and I prefer to see a friendlier solution. Unfortunately there doesn't appear to be one. Should one come up, I'd happily strike my !vote. Yintan  09:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, generally per Lugnuts. I might have more to say about Legacy's edits, but that would be appropriate for another section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 22:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, as it would rather obviously be shooting the messenger. VQuakr (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. As the above discussion makes clear, Godsy has brought to light problems that would otherwise have stayed problems. That is not the sort of activity that we should be punishing or preventing. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Stop the presses?

So the issue here appears to be that some people are very concerned about old junk (especially promotional or BLP-violating junk) piling up in user/draft space and have been trying to various approaches to get rid of it, which has upset various other people in various ways.

This has been through boatloads of community discussion:

• 2015 Nov: ANI: User:Legacypac -- NAC closes as "delete" about AfDs in main space
• 2015 Dec: ANI: Attempt to subvert the AfD process - this is about redirecting articles that survived AfD in mainspace
• 2016 Feb: small ANI -- MFD relistings - withdrawn by OP, Ricky81682 - this was about SmokyJoe fiddling with relistings, which has to do with old stuff being retained in draft/userspace. Apparently where LegacyPac got interested in draft/user space junk? (commented: The really bad thing is that any random editor can create a page of nonsense, but it takes real effort to get rid of it. The page has to be analysed, CSD criteria considered, and (if no CSD fit exactly or CSD declined), listed to MfD. Very few editors comment at MfD. If no comments the junk page is retained?
• 2016 March: mammoth ANI -- MfD end run GAME (closed with no action -- this was about Legacypac moving user/draft space junk to mainspace to try to get it deleted there)
• 2016 April: mammoth ANI -- Godsy Disruption & GAMING the System - closed no consensus. Led to RFC
• 2016 May (closed): RfC1 RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring (please read; nice close. calls for another RfC with respect to what counts as an "inactive user" for userspace drafts)
• 2016 May (closed): RfC2: Should old user space drafts have an expiration date? (close = no expiration date but can be deleted...)

It seems to be (?) that Legacypac has responded pretty well to the RfC. The ANI thread above appears to be about Legacypac trying to move ~near~ good enough things from draft/user space into mainspace as fast as possible, and Godsy being concerned about the quality and following up.

On the specific issue of hounding... As far as I can see Godsy has done nothing to move anything back out of mainspace (which I would think would be Legacypac's main concern), and has just cleaned up after Legacypac's moves - no personal attacks or anything, just following and cleaning. I do not understand why this is offensive to Legacypac and I very much do not understand Godsy being blocked for doing this, or prevented from doing this. (perhaps i am missing something) Things in mainspace should be minded.

On the bigger issue:

• I get the urge to clean up user/draft space but I don't care about it. Not indexed, and we are not running out of server space. So I don't really understand this.
• Pretty much all efforts to push the envelope to clean up user/draft space have been met with resistance, which has generated loads of drama, that we have not resolved. The 2 RfCs for the most part affirmed the status quo (it is almost impossible to clean up userspace; we already have processes for draft space that just need to be given their time)

From what I can see, Legacypac's desire to cleanup draft/userspace is fine, but they need to understand the background and that their page moves are going to be scrutinized. They should not make drama over that, especially when the edits are constructive and not personalized. Following up is not hounding. Legacypac should be extremely careful not to push the envelope on this, including bringing this kind of ANI. Jytdog (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Reasons for wanting to reduce the pile of draft/user stuff include:

• Many are WP:NOTWEBHOST violations that contain inconsequential content or blatantly misuse Wikipedia for promotion.
• Some may be WP:BLP violations—possibly not blatant "Joe Smith commits fraud" but more subtle nonsense or WP:CHILD violations that are lost in the pile of inappropriate stuff.
• Some may be copy/paste WP:COPYVIO violations.

In all cases, keeping the pages encourages more, and encourages more extreme cases. The only reason to want to keep inappropriate draft/user pages is the hope that someone will one day find a gem that can be turned into an article. However, the growing pile of junk makes finding gems very difficult. If the ratio of junk to plausible pages were reduced, editors might be encouraged to look for content that could be used in the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 05:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• You've failed to address the WP:HOUNDING issue (which is what this thread is about), or the fact that Godsy has been hounding and harassing Legacypac for over a year, and has been warned numerous times about it. As I mentioned above, I think the community is beyond assuming good faith on Godsy's part at this point, given that not only has he been warned numerous times over an entire year, but he also he lost an RfA 6 months ago because of it. In my opinion anyone acting in good faith would have taken any other course of action but to hound/stalk the same user after all of those warnings. Softlavender (talk) 05:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it has been established that edits to articles Legacypac moved into article space, which uncontestedly improve said articles, constitute hounding, however. At least it has not been established to the point of consensus. Newimpartial (talk) 06:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Softlavender thanks for your remark - as you know I respect your judgement a lot. Is it really hounding, or have they been on the opposite sides of this underlying argument for a year? I am open to hearing and might be missing something. Jytdog (talk) 06:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

He followed Legacypac to 36 articles in the course of just one week. He has been harassing Legacypac for over a year, and has been warned about it numerous times, including at his failed RfA six months ago. Please read the quoted passage from the WP:HOUNDING policy page that BMK posted in boldface at the top of this thread. Softlavender (talk) 06:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes he did; I looked at them and some of them are indeed hard to reckon outside of a HOUNDING context. I would have been more sympathetic had they all been articles moved to mainspace but they are at drafts nominated for deletion and other inexplicable places. So I am more in agreement with you than I was before. I went and read the RfA - thanks for pointing to it. Godsy's answer -https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FGodsy&type=revision&diff=752223007&oldid=752216810 here] says that the interactions with Legacypac were driven by his opposition to legacypac's methods in trying to clean up draft/user space. Godsy was not the only one who opposed the methods right? But meh, Godsy has shot himself in the foot and should avoid legacypac in the future. I agree with this now. Jytdog (talk) 07:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• • (ec) I don't agree that the hounding allegation has been substantiated. Instead, I see plenty of good intention, just with some poor interactions. Godsy could be more relaxed, Legacypac could be less sensitive. Both are doing worthy jobs. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• As you note, Jytdog, there have been numerous mammoth ANI threads on this in the past with little or no resolution. I had stepped into the MfD morass some months or a couple years ago, I forget exactly, only to find some very entrenched positions. I'm not a big fan of Legacypac's sink-or-swim strategy for stale drafts, but I'm not about to condemn it when I've not seen a consensus that it's impermissible. We must make progress beyond the current state of using draftspace as a bottomless pit where we throw failed articles and article drafts to be forgotten. What I find particularly disturbing about the BLP panic above is the counterfactual assertion that moving BLP violating drafts to mainspace somehow makes it worse: BLP applies project-wide. Perhaps Legacypac should be sending those drafts to MfD, I admit. But perhaps instead of demonizing Legacypac, we should do something crazy like make MfD actually useful, or create DfD, or create CSD criteria that apply to non-AfC article drafts. Something constructive to break the back of this dispute. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey Mendaliv. The big RfC I linked above had several areas where followup RfCs were needed and no one has done them - like the application of NOTWEBHOST to userspace (right now its application is unclear but I betcha we could get that applied). Also what to do with drafts that appear to never be able to reach GNG. One thing the close didn't say but that I found everywhere confirmed is that things like BLP and COPYVIO apply everywhere including user and draft space. If there are not speedy tools to get rid of violations of those two core policies, there would probably be consensus to create them. I am not clueful with regard to draft/userspace and the intricacies of deletion policies but someone who is should tee up those RfCs. I think they would help break the back as it were. I agree with the concern you and Johnuniq are raising. Jytdog (talk) 06:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Point of Clarification: the 36 pages edited firet by me then Godsy only unambigiously prove the hounding. It is an attempt at intimidation and a "I'm watching you" by an editor hell bent on driving me off the site. It's not the removal of a space or insertion of a period that is problematic per se, its the repeated moving of otherwise usable pages back to stale user space with zero notification, running from MfD to ANi to Talk pages to proclaim I don't know what I am doing, starting bogis RfC's (see WP:HARASSMENT talk for the latest one) and making repetitive unsubstantiated accusations that tarnish my reputation. Ya I'm bold and ya I push the envelope sometimes but only to improve wikipedia so it can be a more useful place. Godsy's continual harrassment drove me off the site for months. I only came back when a concerned editor contacted me about his RfA, which failed largely because of his outragious behavior toward me. Now, in the thread that already resulted in a 24 block for hounding, he is throwing up more nonsense trying to get me punished. (Maybe Revenge over his RfA, stupidity, some strange fixation with his narrow interpretation of policy for policy sake?)Enough already! This is supposed to be a relaxing hobby where I can read lots of interesting topics and enjoy doing some writing. I don't come here to be hunted like some monster and vilified like some vandal. It's ironic that some of the same editors complaining about promotion of content to Main-space today have in the recent past freaked out about deletion of content mosylt people consider spam in userspace because it might be useful in mainspace someday. Legacypac (talk) 06:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Legacypac you are doing pretty controversial work and you need to expect to be scrutinized. Every time I deal with a COI issue I am very aware that if I mis-step there are plenty of people who will come down on me like a ton of bricks. I don't complain about that -- I understand the underlying concerns and I know that I need to be mindful that there are conflicting values in the community. I struggle to see what is offensive in Godsy's doing clean up after you. I acknowledge I might be unaware of such bad blood that even seeing his name on your watchlist is upsetting but you have not described him doing anything harmful - not attacking you, not screwing up articles, not moving them back out of mainspace. Your complaint ~looks like~ over-sensitivity to me. To me, based on what I know now. I don't think you are any kind of monster, fwiw. You are pursuing what you think is important, and have pushed that a bit too hard sometimes. I can sympathize with that. Jytdog (talk) 06:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

So let me make a point here: There is nothing in Wikipedia policy that forbids editing that some editors disapprove, but has not been expressly prohibited by policy. We might discourage it as a matter of keeping the peace, but we don't forbid it, especially when it's done with a genuine intent of improving the encyclopedia. We likewise don't prohibit editors from cleaning up the problematic aspects of other editors' editing practices. However, we do frown upon editors who have a history of antagonizing—intentionally or unintentionally—from following their victims around the encyclopedia. I'm reminded of C. S. Lewis quote: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies." It would be best for everyone if Godsy just dropped the stick, because the negative effects of his conduct far outweigh any positive effects. Legacypac should, and presumably does, expect scrutiny. There's nothing wrong with reasonable scrutiny. What's happening here is far outside the norm. Above, we're getting a few possible mistakes being bootstrapped into proof positive of incompetence, with ANI ready to steamroll over a victim of wikihounding. Mistakes that, though perhaps contrary to policy, are within the "error rate" we tend to accept out of every other editor without dragging him or her to ANI to have a topic ban implemented. Wikipedia has never demanded perfection. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Legacypac's treatment of user and draftspace articles is certainly in violation of policy, both in the imprecise and unauthorized use of CSD criteria and in moving unreferenced or improperly referenced articles to mainspace. As far as I can tell, there are only a handful of editors or admins who actively endorse this "local consensus", which will consistently produce issues of the kind Godsy was (mostly quietly) cleaning up. This isn't a matter of "error rate". Newimpartial (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Legacypac's treatment of user and draftspace articles is certainly in violation of policy Says you. But the tban discussion above is not about this, it's about BLP (and yet, as I've pointed out, paradoxically is targeted at all draftspace articles rather than draftspace BLPs, and does not involve mainspace BLPs). If you want to start a RfC on whether Legacypac's moves are outside of policy, you're welcome to do so. So far the tban discussion above is about a few diffs that may well just be isolated incidents. I've seen no proof of a "consistent" flow of problems as you claim, without evidence, exists, let alone evidence that such problems are so far outside the acceptable error rate as to merit the draconian response proposed here. You can't bootstrap a consensus to stop Legacypac's work in draftspace by tapping BLP panic. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, says me. And my only claim to say so is that dubious user- and draft-space decisions were what I originally observed (re: userspace articles), and my (crude and impolitic) attempts to raise these issues so led to threats from Legacy and Nyttend and two ANI reports against myself (in which no admins voted for sanctions, but still).

So what I am saying now - my piece of the elephant - is that the pattern of poor decision making by Legacy WRT CSD tags, moves to mainspace, and BLP violations emerging from the latter (all of which have been documented by others) is precisely how we arrive at thus ANI, in all its complexity. Newimpartial (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: You are an editor with a little over 1,000 edits, less than half of which are to articles, yet you keep sticking your nose into these noticeboards, despite the fact that you obviously don't know jack about Wikipedia policy or customs. I strongly suggest that you stop doing that, because if you don't I'm going to open a thread suggesting that you be formally banned from posting here and on AN. Edit articles, please, and forget these pages exist until you have a better idea of what's what than you do now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Moving BLP vios to main space clearly does make it worse. While it's true BLP applies to all places, there's a reason why for example it's okay to have discussion about the possibility of including some content on an article's talk page, and even discuss this on BLP/N etc and even preserve is once it's decided no way, but adding it to the article will be instantly reverted. There are clearly problems here that need to be dealt with, many of theses drafts should be either fixed or deleted. If LegacyPac were deleting these or fixing these, then LegacyPac should be commended for fixing a bad problem. Instead they're turning a problem from bad into severe. Clearly that isn't a desirable out come. Whatever failings of the community, there's no excuse for damaging the encyclopaedia in this way. As you say, I'm sure LegacyPac is trying to help, they aren't causing this damage intentionally, but ultimately they are causing damage by moving junk that has little business being on the encyclopaedia but which at least isn't presented to the reader, or search engines etc as normal content, onto the main space where it is and generally leaving it there with the hope someone else will fix it, in some cases even when these are BLPvios. Often this may be fixed by others, but LegacyPac has now of guaranteeing anymore than they would have if they were creating these messes in the first place. Nil Einne (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I've looked at the history here, and it does look to me like this is unfortunately probably going to need to go to arbcom. And it does look to me like both Godsy and LegacyPac should have been sanctioned long again. However as much as I'd like to sanction Godsy now, the issue is that their current edits don't seem to be the sort that actually made the encyclopaedia a worse place, unlike with LegacyPac's edits which did, or quite a few of their historic edits which also did. Of course hounding is making the encyclopaedia a worse place, even if those edits were otherwise good, and it does seem Godsy is very close to that line if not already crossed it, but I'm still not sure that cross is clear enough to warrant sanction especially since the edits nearly all seem to be good. If Godsy was still doing dodgy crap like moving these drafts, particularly the BLP vios back to draft space rather than either fixing them or AFDing them then yes, sanction would be warranted. Thankfully it seems they've mostly stopped that. (And yes moving this crap back to draft space isn't the way to go, the fact it should never have been moved to article space doesn't mean it's justifiable to keep it around by simply moving it back to draft space now that it's been found. It needs to either be fixed or deleted. These are all examples of compounding an already bad problem: Bad article, particular BLP -> Moved into articlespace without fixing or nominating for deletion -> Especially in a BLP case, moving back into draftspace again without actively fixing or nominating for deletion. You can't make a bad problem worse, and expect not to be sanctioned.) Nil Einne (talk) 03:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• I am going to withhold !voting above until I hear the answers to these questions to User:Legacypac and User:Godsy:

1. Please give a simple yes/no as to whether you understand and agree with the following -- if the community needs to send this to Arbcom, your entire WP histories will be closely examined. All of it. Arbcom tends to have a "off with all their heads" approach to resolving these kind of long term disputes, and the most likely outcome will be that both of you will be given pretty severe editing restrictions - as or more severe than what is being proposed above. And the process will suck up yet more community resources. Neither of you will "win" - and the community will lose - if we need to send this to Arbcom. Again please just provide a yes/no.
2. Neither of you have acknowledged that you have done anything problematic. Both of you have been provided clear feedback on your own behavior here. Would each you provide a statement about what you yourself need to improve in your own patterns of behavior? In other words, what have you done wrong?
3. following on that, what are you yourself willing to commit to doing differently in the future?

Please note that if you don't answer, or don't give an answer that provides hope that you each understand the issues with your own behavior, that I will recommend TBAN(s) from a) draft space and b) userspace outside of your own userspace and other people's Talk pages. That is the only way I can see for the community to end this, if you will not each fix it yourselves.

Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

response to Jytdog

1. I'm interested only in being able to edit as a hobby. If I wanted an extended "legal" fight I can do that in real life where money is at stake. If taken to ArbComm I will likely stop editing and let the haters hang themselves. A yes/no answer would be inappropriate

2. I've always maintained I make errors. Sometimes stupid one. AfD and MfD proves there is a wide variety of opinion as to what is suitable or notable. If you look at my moves log you will find the vast majority of my moves are blue not red articles. There has been no rash of AfD or CSD nominations even though all go through NPP and this thread has people crawling through my edit history looking for any excuse to hang me.

As noted in edit summaries sometimes I feel the material may not be a good stand alone page long term and should be merged and redirected, but putting it in mainspace creates the title and as others categorize and attach the pages to Wikiprojects the new pages get on the radar of subject experts who can consider the correct course of action. This is after all a collaborative project where no one is required to make every page they touch reach perfection. To editors that say "he should spend a lot more time on each page" or that I'm responsible to remove extra spaces or reformat a ref so Godsy does not have to clean the page up, I could just as easily say they should be spending their time deleting spam in userspace or doing NPP. We each should do what we enjoy.

3. I'm constantly looking for ways to improve the quality of My editing and implimenting new tools to make evaluating content easier (I finally figured out why CSD log was broken, and added a copyvio script just this week.) I continue to expand my knowledge of policy by reading and asking questions.

I welcome fair objective editors reviewing my edits and regularly thank editors for improving the pages I touch. For example I don't have a good grasp of categorization or formating refs to prevent link rot and I sincerely approciate the editors that do such work. On the flip side, Editors that have a grudge over some past dispute are not welcome to harrass me by WP:HOUNDing which was the point of my ANi request.

We could all find some problem edits out of any 36,000 edits. I believe one needs to look at the percentage of errors and remember there is a range of opinion on all issues at Wikipedia. A look at my User:Legacypac/CSD_log or my MfD (especially recent ones) AfD and (in the more distant past) RfD nominations or my page moves going back for years will show my error rate is well within acceptable ranges. I consider my success rate in these areas to be very high and getting better over time.

Finally I'm quite tired of Godsy harassing me. I've avoided interacting with him and especially debating him for a long time. His opinions will never be changed by anything I post so I don't bother. When he started getting on my case again when I returned to active editing, I asked him to stop. He took that as a cue to increase his stalking. Now I'm being viciously attacked at ANi because I felt the only way to stop his escalating WP:HOUNDING was a limited report about his behaviour over the last week, not dragging up diffs from months or years back. This whole thing is very discouraging. Next time I'll take a different route to deter such unsavoury behaviour. Legacypac (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. This response is messy. It is great that you acknowledge making mistakes sometimes, but I am not hearing clearly that you see any pattern of behavior that you should improve. The lack of that leads me to believe that the problems that you have been part of - that you have a role in - are going to continue. If you cannot see the problems so that you can work on fixing them yourself, that means we need to restrict you. I don't want to see that happen. If you want insight, you can read what others have written here, or ask me and I can tell you what I think. If you are not interested in discussing this further, please see say so and I (and others reading here) will take that into account. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to address specific issues or edits, perhaps on my talk page, the article talk page, or during an AfD as most appropriate. An extended mud throwing session at ANi is not appropriate and spending a lot of effort defending false or sweeping allegations where no difs are provided seems pointless. It just makes me look combative. Legacypac (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

For you to address what you (not Godsy) has been doing wrong and make it clear that you "get it" and will try to address it, is the opposite of combative. From my perspective, if you cannot or will not do this, here at this ANI, then the community should proceed to restrict you. This has been going on over a year now. (My perspective is the same with respect to Godsy btw) So again, pl will you please do that? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

This is rarely a fruitful forum for general issues. It's probably better to keep discussing on the editor's talk page and be more specific there. Jonathunder (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

That is not the point. If Legacypac (who has at least tried to respond) and Godsy cannot see and acknowledge what is problematic in their own behavior that has driven this year-long disruption, then the community needs to take action, as we have no reason to hope that these two editors will self-correct; these disputes will just keep arising and will keep sucking up other editors' time. I wanted to give each of them the opportunity to give us hope that they will self-correct. If they had, this could have been closed with no action for now. Please see below. Jytdog (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Are you willing do discuss what is problematic with your own behavior, here in this forum, as an example and show of good faith? Bomis Babe (talk) 02:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@Bomis Babe: Intriguing. Can you tell us more about yourself?Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Bomis Babe is blocked indefinately, per NOT HERE, but also for the implied connection to Bomis Babe. Jonathunder (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposal - TBANs for both from draft/userspaces and NPP

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.

---

Mendaliv mentioned above "breaking the back" of this dispute. In my view, the underlying dispute is how to handle stuff lingering in draftspace and userspace. For over a year Legacypac has been at the center of efforts to find better ways to handle it, and has unfortunately often pushed the envelope in doing so, in various ways. Godsy has been one of the main people pushing back. The community is unsure how to manage stuff lingering in draft/userspace, but the behavior of these two in that ambiguous situation has disrupted the community for over a year now.

Neither editor has shown any insight into their own problematic behavior around this issue. In my view, this means that both are very likely to continue causing disruption; we have no valid reason to hope that the disruption will stop.

Therefore I am proposing that the two proposals above be abandoned, and that both editors be topic-banned from:

a) draftspace

b) userspace outside of (i) their own userspace and (ii) other people's Talk pages

c) new page patrol activities in mainspace, broadly construed

d) directly editing policies/guidelines related to draft or userspace (they are free to participate in discussions on the associated Talk pages or elsewhere in projectspace about how to improve them)

If this enacted, we should not see further disruption. -- Jytdog (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose restrictions on Godsy (myself). I have done nothing inappropriate in draftspace, userspace outside of my own, or while patrolling new mainspace pages, and I have not inappropriately edited any draft or userspace policy or guideline. No diffs that show me doing anything inappropriate or disruptive in those areas have been provided because none exist. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 19:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as draconian and not properly targeted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. BMK said it better than I could. The above proposals are much better focused, and the one against Godsy isn't going to pass anyway. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as against Godsy. He can be annoying but the proposed restrictions are not warrented nor is there any evidence presented to support them. I posted my Response right below the proposal but Jytdog keeps messing with subheadings to throw it out of order or make it harder to identify. I consider voting! on yourself misguided as we all know no one wants a restriction. Legacypac (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. While the two undoubtedly keep clashing, the net worth of their edits is a definite plus for the project. Banning them from their work may leave us with one conflict less (out of thousands) but will more significantly degrade the work in draft/userpaces. A net loss for the project. Additionally, I am not sure of Jytdog's awfully patronizing posture towards the two editors (unless he is a judge by profession, in which case I put it on professional bias). — kashmiri ^TALK 01:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Continued discussion

• User: Beyond My Ken it is kind of draconian, but as I said neither editor is able to see their own role in causing this year-long disruption (see legacypac's post above and here at my Talk page, and note Godsy's lack of response to my question as well as their response to their block). The behavior of both editors over this vexxed issue is the problem, and many editors have named the problematic behaviors in this vast thread as well as the preceding ones that I listed above. Removing them both from the topic will definitively end this disruption, and in light of the lack of self-insight that both of them have displayed and each of their convictions that "I am Totally Right and The Other Guy is Totally Wrong", anything else is a half-measure that will simply lead to yet more boundary-testing and conflicting, and more sucking of community resources. Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I never said I was always right, I have instead provided solid evidence I edit well within community standards. I also never said Godsy is always or even mostly wrong. He does plenty of good work. I just want him cut out the WP:HOUNDING as it is quite unpleasant. Legacypac (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2017 (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.

Move to close

I think the consensus is pretty much divided on whether the users involved are constructive or not and as of now, there's nothing that we've been able to resolve. Following observations as to why there is nothing left other than to close this huge thread which is composed of mostly rants.

• There's no consensus for an one-way IBAN.
• Two-way IBANs would perhaps hinder their work in the same field (which they mostly do). And quite some people didn't agree with the idea too.
• Topic bans were a no-no.

As far as I'm aware, we're out of options atm and maybe we can get back to this as and when Legacypac feels like making a thread about someone (which is quite soon). --QEDK (愛) 20:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Arbcom will likely be the next stop, as it deals with editor behaviour. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Anything which helps them sleep at night. --QEDK (愛) 20:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with your conclusions but agree that an uninvolved admin should come by and close this. I feel like there's a consensus to topic ban Legacypac, but I'll leave that up to the closer. AniMate 16:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• I'm neither un-involved nor an admin, but it seems obvious this should be closed. Both editors have had a magnifying glass on them for 2 weeks due to this mega-thread, that should be enough. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - I haven't read through all of this, but I would suggest that this thread be closed with only a warning to all parties, and with the recommendation of the community that any further drama involving these editors should be taken up by ArbCom. (ArbCom gets to decide what cases to take, but the close should include that it is the opinion of the community that any further conduct issues involving these editors go to ArbCom, which can wade through the tons of details in a way that the community cannot.) Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

AniMate is incorrect. Unsubstantiated allegations and a bunch of !votes by editors who have not researched or justified their opinion is insufficient. The reasoned posts by experienced editors in the same areas I work in are quite clearly against any topic ban. Legacypac (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

AniMate is correct. Legacypac is not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• Close this please. I think there is plenty of consensus to close this issue with no further action. We have far worse issues with other patrollers to resolve, no patroler is perfect, even I'm not, so let's not keep messing Legacypac around otherwise we'll lose his services for good and then probably along with others. The foundation is already complaining that we are being too strict with our reviewers and demanding too much of them and using it as an excuse for not updating the curation software - and we don't want to lose the Foundation's cooperation as well. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support closure: None of the proposals above can be said to have reached consensus, and the discussion seems to have reached a point where it's not progressing. Kudpung, as usual, makes some highly salient points in favor of closure, as well. I have no doubt that we'll see an ArbCom request at some point, though I'm hopeful the parties can resolve their differences of opinion in a less adversarial context. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• Keep open. Someone needs to read WP:DEADHORSE and WP:GAMING. See below. --Calton | Talk 14:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
• Just take it to arbitration. You've both got enough defenders/apologists/enablers (take your pick of label) that nothing's going to get consensus here, and - with almost half of ANI is taken up by your squabbling - the dispute itself is objectively disruptive regardless of whether the underlying actions are. —Cryptic 03:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

• A new opinion after the latest kerfuffle: Ban Legacypac for 24 hours for canvassing, and Godsy for a week for WP:HOUNDING. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Again...

(Moved from below. Someone needs a read of WP:DEADHORSE. --Calton | Talk 14:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I've been busy doing other things when my Watchlist fills with Godsy edits. I SO hate to bring this for Admin attention, but...

In the last 24 hours:

• He's followed me to (and edited) at least 43 pages I MfD'd or Promoted or discussions I started. [74] Note 100% blue in my column.
• Involving over 80% of his last +/- 100 edits [75]
• Including editing my MfD vote or comments [76] and [77] and
• making trivial edits on pages that will be deleted shortly [78] [79] [80] [81] and more that you can see in contributions
• When questioned by User:Calton about these trivial edits he refactored Calton's section header [82]
• After a run through my MfDs, From 20:53, 16 June 2017 to 21:28, 16 June 2017 he made 18 consecutive edits to 14 mainspace pages I've promoted during AfC work. He's only touched 3 other mainspace pages today as of this post. [83]
• I'm respecting his demand to stay off his talkpage and see no need to notify as he watches ANi closely.

No edit today could be justified as "fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles" (quoting WP:HOUND) I especially don't see the need to tidy up MfD'd pages or touch my comments. This activity has caused me more distress. Reviewing the activity and typing up this report gives me zero pleasure - it's a big pain in the behind. I'm completely happy to have my edits scrutinized by any reasonable editor but this is over the top harassment to make a WP:POINT.

I'd also ask that no other editor make any more allegations against me in this thread and that admins delete any such posts as off topic. I'm looking for a solution, not an extended debate. Legacypac (talk) 06:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I've been pinged, and this seems to have answered my question on Godsy's talk page. I'm reminded of a bratty little brother, sitting in the back seat of the family car and ordered to not touch his sister again, holding his finger an inch away from his sister and saying, "I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you. Not touching you. Still not touching you. Not touching you..." --Calton | Talk 11:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

These edits are all technically acceptable, but that doesn't mean that they're not also a disturbing pattern of behaviour, especially the refactoring of others' talk page comments. Godsy, go and find something else to do for awhile that does not involve Legacypac in any way. I'm sick of seeing this constantly pop up here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC).

Pinging Godsy to make sure that they are aware of this discussion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC).

This should be merged with Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Godsy back to Wikihounding - how to stop it? as it is directly related. I've already justified my edits at miscellany for deletion, see here. AN/I notices are exempt from WP:NOBAN and still required. WP:TPOC states "Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels, ..." (emphasis added by me). I commonly fix indentation levels at deletion venues; it doesn't change the substance of comments. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 14:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why you feel the need to fix minor formatting errors specifically in the comments of someone who has expressed discomfort with you doing so. Why can't you just look at the bad formatting, see that it belongs to Legacypac, cringe internally, and move on? Either someone else will correct it or nothing bad will happen because who cares it's an indentation error on MfD of all places. The fact that you insist on continuing to do something after someone has asked you to not do that exact thing, and then fall back on "well the rules say I can so I have to be allowed to" is disingenuous rules-lawyering. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of disingenuous rule-lawyering, PMC, this recent edit to my personal talk page [84] is hilariously POINTEY, given the discussion here. By Legacyfac, no less. Newimpartial (talk) 06:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about that. If we assume that Godsy's position is correct and indentation mistakes are a problem of such staggering importance that it would be inexplicable not to correct them immediately regardless of who made them and where, then I'm afraid I can't see how Legacypac is in the wrong here. On the other hand, if you accept the slightly-more-rational proposition that indentation errors are not actually a huge deal in the grand scheme of things and we can probably hold off fixing every one we see especially when they belong to people we are involved in disputes with, then I can absolutely agree that Legacypac's edit was a dick move. But it can't be both, now, can it? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow you. Isn't the whole POINT of WP:POINT that when an editor makes edits that editor does not believe in (in this case, formatting errors on other editors' talk pages), in order to dramatize the principle another editor appears to be following, is POINTey and not really OK? If Legacy feels such OWNership of their own talk page that they feel free to edit the subject headings placed there by other editors (which they do), why would they come to mine in order to indent? Smells like irony.

For the record, when people with a history of threatening me on my talk page, go ahead to change the indentation on my talk page, I do think it is a "dick move", as you say. But my appreciation of irony (and POINT) is the prevailing reaction, rather than WIKIlegalism. Newimpartial (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: I intentionally did not indent my comment in the case being referred to above because it was not intended as a reply to Legacypac, but a fresh note to Newimpartial. I don't believe any of the lack of indentation or indentation errors by Legacypac were intentional (or I wouldn't have fixed them), but rather they were due to their haste and lack of attention to detail (i.e. the manner in which they usually contribute). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 18:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: I noticed who made this error because it is so unusual. I would not have been able to state who was involved with the format problem in the other discussion before this an/i subsection because it occurs so commonly. See here for another recent example. I do not understand why anyone would find indentation improvements disagreeable. It improves the accessibility of our website (see MOS:LISTGAP) and makes discussions easier to read in general. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 02:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I think Legacypac has made it fairly clear why he finds your edits to his comments disagreeable, but it really doesn't matter. Whatever his reasons, however stupid you may or may not find them, the fact of the matter is that he has asked you numerous times to not touch his comments. The bare minimum of human courtesy in such a case, even if you can't possibly understand his reasons (which I find somewhat hard to believe), is to refrain from doing something that someone has asked you not to do. Just...don't touch the comments. Close your eyes, bite your lip if you must, and scroll two inches down the page. MfD will not be rendered unreadable because Legacypac has managed to substitute a ^ for a *.

Whatever the outcome of the rest of the issues between you two, I think as an adult you can probably handle not twiddling with Legacypac's comments. At a bare minimum, I don't think that's a remotely unreasonable thing for him to ask. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: I've always been reasonable, so I somewhat agree with your comment above. I usually fix such errors without much thought, so it would require me to check who has made them. If the errors are once in a blue moon, that is one thing. However, if an individual starts making indentation errors in every other discussion etc., that does become disruptive. Also, I have a problem with being told by them that such edits are generally inappropriate when the "Fixing format errors" bullet point of WP:TPOC clearly allows such actions and such fixes are widely accepted by the community in general (I don't think you have done that, but by others have). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 19:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Canvassing by OP. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The canvass actually began with [85]. It wasn't an impulse canvass lol. Newimpartial (talk) 04:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I lurk AN & ANI, and have been specifically keeping an eye on this thread (which I commented in above). I would have seen it and commented again regardless of Legacypac reaching out to me. You'll note that I made a point of telling him on his talk page that I would not act in an admin capacity due to my previous participation in the thread and my heavy participation at MfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Nothing improper on you, but they were still canvassing. Newimpartial (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

For the record, the exchange on Godsy's user-talk page that dragged me over here, including the stuff Godsy conveniently left out, hidden below. The last comment is referring to Godsy altering my section header. --Calton | Talk 23:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Minor, pointless edits

Would you mind explaining why you've been making a series of minor -- sometimes essentially invisible -- changes to pages on the verge of deletion? Such as: two separate single space changes to User:Therese Dvir/sandbox This addition of three blank lines at Draft:Top 100 Airlines in the World 2016. This fomatting change at Draft:Five Secrets of Family Business. What particularly caught my eye was this minor edit of bolding the name of Draft:Newton's 7th Law, followed two minutes later by a vote at MFD to delete. In other words, you've made a pointlessly minor edit you WANT to be deleted. This is the equivalent of taking junked cars and reattaching their radio antennas just before they go into the crusher. --Calton | Talk 00:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC) @Calton: I commonly cleanup pages nominated at miscellany for deletion. Firstly: if a page is deleted, the unambiguous improvements do no harm; if a page is kept, the unambiguous improvements are beneficial. Secondly, cleanup may aid others who wish to evaluate the content of the page (the changes to this page are an example of more substantial cleanup). A minor point of correction to your second bullet point: I removed three blank lines, I did not add them. Lastly, I do not find any of the format errors that I corrected which you listed above to be "essentially invisible". In fact, I find them glaring, but that's probably because I'm used to noticing and correcting them. Best Regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC) Lastly, I do not find any of the format errors that I corrected which you listed above to be "essentially invisible" Guy, EVERY SINGLE ONE was essentially invisible, provided no real benefit even if the pages were somehow kept, and provided no actual clean-up and no detectable improvement in judging the pages's suitability. The last one was not only a waste of time, by voting delete two minutes later you implicitly acknowledged that it was a waste of time. So I'm having real trouble buying your rationale. --Calton | Talk 11:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC) OK, after seeing Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Godsy_back_to_Wikihounding_-_how_to_stop_it.3F and this, I see what you're doing. I'm reminded of a bratty little brother, sitting in the back seat of the family car and ordered to not touch his sister again, holding his finger an inch away from his sister and saying, "I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you. Not touching you. Still not touching you. Not touching you..." Oh, and don't alter my comments. "Minor, pointless edits" is what I wrote, and "minor, pointless edits" is still what I mean. --Calton | Talk 11:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@Calton: WP:TPOC states "Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc." It especially appropriate for me to alter section headers on my own talk page. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 02:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

also says "To avoid disputes, it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial." But that has not been followed. Legacypac (talk) 03:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

"Traditionally Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit." WP:UP#OWN. Your point might be reasonable if it was not my own talk page. @Legacypac: Furthermore, put your money where your mouth is: Did you discuss this section header change on your own talk page with Jytdog? I don't think so. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

My editing of pages listed at and discussions at miscellany for deletion is unrelated to any involvement Legacypac may have with them. For a recent example, see Draft:Kurt Aust/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Kurt Aust, which they have had no involvement with. See my patrol log more generally (I patrol all unpatrolled miscellany for deletion discussions and unpatrolled pages listed there). Of the current discussions (~130) at miscellany for deletion, approximately 50% of them were started by Legacypac, and they've participated in probably 65%+ of them. One could not actively participate there and avoid them. Skimming those same discussions, it appears that Calton and Legacypac have agreed in every discussion they've both participated in, though to be fair I don't think either of them have expressed a view other than delete (bar a nuke !vote by Calton). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 02:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

the occasional pointless edit to a page someone else nominated for deletion appears only as deliberate cover for your stalking behavior against me. Legacypac (talk) 03:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

False speculation. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with replying to every MfD. But Godsy making pointless edits like this on MfDs he isn't commenting on is obviously inappropriate behavior in the context of this long discussion. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

For the love of all that is holy...

I've been gone for a couple weeks, check in, and this thing is still going on? With a new report at the bottom of this page no less? Where are the admins? There's multiple proposals above being ignored that need some kind of closure. Do it. Or close this whole thing as no consensus and punt it to arbcom but do something. Capeo (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Here here. I have no desire to continue this discussion and no "dispute" over any content. My complaints were clearly articulated and documented. A 24 hour block was issued but Godsy learned nothing from it. So far no Admin has been willing to act again, which is their right. I'll deal with or ignore any further hounding or other harassment as I see fit. I have more interesting things to do than responded to childish games. I'm genuinely sorry I reached out to any Admins for their opinion first and for coming back to ANi. Obviously there is no teeth to the harrassment or BLP policy when it comes to fellow editors. I'll govern myself accordingly. Legacypac (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Idk, get some sleep, guys. I don't think there's much of a point reiterating or saying anything. This will end up at ArbCom and that is that. I recommend people to just ignore this thread but given that it occupies half of ANI, I don't think that's possible. G'day. --QEDK (愛) 20:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Or just indef them both and we can get on with our lives 207.38.154.23 (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Says the guy with 11 edits in 10 months here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

A close is due. For the record: A hasty inappropriate block was issued due to Legacypac's false claims of harassment, a notion that is further reinforced by no administrator being willing to act again, as well as the community not concurring with them that my reasonable behavior constitutes harassment. In regard to Legacypac's admission to and apology for canvassing, I hope that they do not choose to repeat such behavior in the future. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 21:43, 18 June 2017 (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 won't let me log in

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 to WP:VPT

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this...

This is The Transhumanist.

I've been trying to log in, and I keep getting this message:

"There seems to be a problem with your login session; this action has been canceled as a precaution against session hijacking. Go back to the previous page, reload that page and then try again."

I followed those instructions, but I keep getting the same message.

Please help!

The Transhumanist (Talk page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.219.175 (talk) 03:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

• This has nothing to do with anything naughty going on. Try a different computer, or try using the browser in private mode. If that doesn't work, ask at WP:HELPDESK. EEng 03:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
• This may be a caching issue, try to delete your cookies related to anything WMF and try again. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

That too. But this is not an ANI matter. EEng 03:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Medieval jobs

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.

---

My closure of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Medieval jobs needs to be restored. WP:NACD states "If an administrator has deleted a page (including by speedy deletion) but neglected to close the discussion, anyone may close the discussion provided that the administrator's name and deletion summary are included in the closing rationale–." and "Closures may only be reopened by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, giving their reasoning, or by consensus at deletion review." My close was clearly appropriate and lacking controversy. I commonly close discussions there under similar circumstances, e.g. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Amcskillet and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Abuse of dominant position (Competition Law). Legacypac is neither uninvolved or an administrator (their revert). Warning them not to revert others' closures in the future may also be due. Courtesy ping to Spinningspark who deleted the page. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely any other editor is welcome to close any of my MfDs, just not my personal WP:HOUND. Legacypac (talk) 04:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Done. Sometimes you get what you ask for. Newimpartial (talk) 04:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes you get what you ask for. Which means...? --Calton | Talk 04:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Legacy said that "absolutely any other editor is welcome to close any of my MfDs", so I closed the MfD in question as Godsy had also asked. And yet, for some reason, Legacy withdrew his welcome and reverted again. Is this edit warring? Newimpartial (talk) 05:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

You did not close the MfD you restored Godsy's out of order close. See below - his close violated WP:NACD Legacypac (talk) 05:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

At the time I restored it, nobody had indicated that it was out of order. You had only referred to hounding. Newimpartial (talk) 05:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

By "commonly", it appears to mean "once a week" -- at least until recently. The timing, I'm sure, is a coincidence. But I think Wikipedia will survive you missing your weekly task. --Calton | Talk 04:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

By my estimate, I've closed about 150 deletion discussions this year, which averages to about one per day. When the work becomes available (i.e. a page listed at a deletion venue gets speedily deleted; that type of close constitutes the majority of my closures) is irregular. I've probably personally closed at the least the majority (i.e. over 50%) of miscellany for deletion discussions where a page listed there is speedily deleted during the discussion this year. Other editors sometimes close them before I notice or get to them or I may choose not to close one for various reasons. Every contributor is replaceable, but there was nothing wrong with my closure of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Medieval jobs, hence the reversion of it was improper and there is no need to double the work by making someone else close it. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Improper closing of an MfD by Godsy

WP:NACD also says "Do not close discussions in which you have offered an opinion" Tagging that page for speedy deletion is clearly an "opinion" making the MfD NAC improper. I recall your tag coming across my Watchlist, followed soon after by the NAC. Please activate User:Godsy/CSD_log for transparency. Legacypac (talk) 05:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

"If an administrator has deleted a page (including by speedy deletion) but neglected to close the discussion, anyone may close the discussion provided that the administrator's name and deletion summary are included in the closing rationale." (emphasis added by me) WP:NACD. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Why should anyone care?

It's a WP:G2, an admin considered the G2 tag and deleted it, it needed closing, it's closed, precisely who closed it seems entirely irrelevant. This seems extremely WP:POINTy and crossing the WP:BURO line. I strongly suggest that everyone should just move on from it, before something unnecessary happens. Nit picking and wikilawyering the precise wording of policies and guidelines in a situation like this serves absolutely no purpose, it does not move the project in any useful direction, and goes against all good common sense. Murph9000 (talk) 06:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank-you. I reverted an out of process close by my personal WP:HOUND who brings it to ANi. He selectively quotes policy to justify every stupid action. Another block of Godsy for hounding may stop the drama as least as long as the block lasts. Legacypac (talk) 06:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

But if it isn't out of process, though, why the drama? It seems that the close was, in fact, in-process.Newimpartial (talk) 06:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Legacy, you're missing the point of my message. Regardless of past history, reverting an obvious close of a G2 (twice) that has been deleted by an admin seems extremely POINTy and across the BURO line. Who closed it seems entirely irrelevant. It should have been a simple close that everyone could just easily move on from, to do something productive. It seems to me that continuing to push the issue may not be in your best interests. G2 seems like a particularly silly hill to battle on, when the G2 status seems entirely undisputed. I really think you should reconsider your position, and perhaps take steps to reach a peaceful conclusion. Murph9000 (talk) 06:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Regardless of whether the closure was appropriate or not (it was appropriate), your reversion of the closure was unambigously inappropriate; "Closures may only be reopened by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, giving their reasoning, or by consensus at deletion review." WP:NACD. I have never hounded anyone; your repeated false allegations along those lines have failed to convince the community above. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 06:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Infact, 'Pac has helped to convince the community that he has little or no understanding about BLPs, notability and copyvios. The irony is that he's complaining about being hounded, now there's a lot more editors taking a very close look at his contributions. Careful, 'Pac, those boomerangs can hurt when they smack you in the chops. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Note that 'Pac thought he could remove this post. All the evidence to back up what I've said are clearly shown in the massive thread he started at the top of this page. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm loving the new nicknames 'Nuts. Perfect for you. Please read WP:NPA Legacypac (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Generally speaking, it's not a very bright idea to mockingly shorten someone else's name in a manner that could reasonably be considered a PA if you're going to also cite WP:NPA in the same post. And your removal of Lugnuts' post was a very foolish action. Lepricavark (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's not an "attack", as it's been proven that you do not understand BLPs, notabilty or copvios. It's in that massive thread at the top if this page. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

'Pac is somewhat gung-ho, not up to speed with the fine text before doing things, a lot of things, mostly good things. 'Pac is keeping logs, and I like his ratio. Godsy is versed in the fine text. BLP fine text. How-to-indent fine text. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this is a much ado about nothing but I find fault all around. Legacypac should have just let this be. Once the page had been deleted there was zero point continuing the discussion, and zero point making a big deal over hounding or involved closure, especially since AFAICT, Legacypac doesn't dispute that it was pointless continuing with the discussion when the page had been deleted. Further they need to make clear whether they consider this Hounding, involved close violation or both. They can't say it's one then when someone does something suddenly bring up involved closure. Also when someone reverts to a closure like that, they are taking ownership of the close so NAC doesn't really apply anyway. Making a big deal over this damages any claim for hounding.

Still I'm not letting Godsy off the hook. I WP:AGF on their claim that they regularly close XfDs of this sort where the page is already deleted and that they just came across this when checking out XfDs. But did they not notice Legacypac was involved? If they say they did not then I'll AGF on that and let it be. But if they did notice Legacypac was involved it was silly to close. Yes it may be something they do all the time and they didn't come across it by following Legacypac, but considering the history of concern here, including from other parties, Godsy should stay away from Legacypac for unimportant stuff. There was no reason this was important. Yes it wastes a small amount of time for people to check it out, but people should notice the redlink and probably that the page is gone when they visit it. If they don't I don't think they should be commenting but in any case it's their own fault. So the time wasted is only in briefly looking through the XfD not in actually comments. In other words, the negative effect from leaving this open is minor and since Godsy themselves have acknowledges others regularly do this work, they could have simply left it for someone else to close rather then yet again involving themselves with Legacypac.

Finally while as I said earlier, nominally when you revert to a closure you are taking ownership of it, it would have been good if Newimpartial had made this clearer. More to the point, while Newimpartial hasn't been accused of hounding Legacypac AFAIK< they seem to be awfully involved in supporting Godsy and opposing Legacypac in recent discussions. Considering this, again it would have been far better if they simply left it for someone with less of a history. Again while this whole fuss is silly and the closure needed, there was nothing urgent so just let others deal with it rather than strongly risking aggravating the situation.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Just for the record, I have never been involved in "supporting Godsy". The only reason I've been on ANI at all is because Legacy and Nyttend sent me here, and the only reason I noticed Godsy is that Legacy and Nyttend accused me of being their/them of being my "proxy" - otherwise I wouldn't know who Godsy even was. But as a result of those interactions, I have had to observe Legacy's actions in order to protect myself, which has resulted in the occasional non-admin comment on my part.

I closed the AfD because 1) it needed to be closed 2) they both apparently agreed that it needed to be closed and 3) resolving the issue was one click away. I wasn't WP:INVOLVED in the discussion there in any way. Newimpartial (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

This is probably the first time I have ever seen someone get mad that an XfD they initiated was closed as speedy delete. The page had already been deleted, so Legacypac's reversion of Godsy's closure was an utterly unnecessary escalation. Godsy hasn't been IBANNed, so there is no reason why he can't close the discussion in question. This disruptive, time-wasting, wikilawyering by Legacypac verges on being a blockable offense. Lepricavark (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2017 (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:Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade

There is a long history of persistent disruptive editing at Talk:Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade. Please see the page's history. This is long term abuse by a vandal described at here: User:Salvidrim!/Macy_VG_IP_vandal. It is clear that this problem is not going to go away for a long time. Is semi-protection or pending changes for this talk page and other targeted talk pages reasonable in this situation? Is there maybe a way that an edit filter could help? Deli nk (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

While any action would be helpful, their range of disruption is rather large. They litter the site with bogus video game announcements and hoax games. It's cleaned up almost immediately by the video game community though, at least, as their attempts are blatantly stupid if you know anything about the industry. Still, it's been an irritating thing to cleanup for years now. Sergecross73 msg me 13:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, pretty sure technical restrictions or something prevent pending changes on talk pages. Sergecross73 msg me 14:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

So semi-protect it already. How often does the Macy's parade require real discussion anyway? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Done, though as I mentioned, this guy does this across hundreds of articles, so it doesn't really deter things as much as you'd think. Sergecross73 msg me 14:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Can anyone with experience with edit filters advise on whether an edit filter would be more helpful or more deterent? The one month semi-protection of one page will help a bit, but as Sergecross73 says, this is a much wider problem. It's been going on for at least four years as far as I can tell. Deli nk (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I range blocked 70.214.64.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), which should help some. He also seems to be using 2600:1:f410::/44 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and 2600:1017:b400::/44 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), but I can't get Wikipedia to show the contribs for these IPv6 ranges. Normally, if you enable wildcard searches and do a search for 2600:1017:b40* (talk · contribs · WHOIS), it'll spit out the contribs, but not this time; I get an error message instead ("No changes were found for this wildcard/CIDR range"). If someone tells me the range blocks are OK to perform, I could do them. I'm not really familiar with the edit filter. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate:: It works if you use capital letters: 2600:1017:B40* (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Thanks for the range blocks. Deli nk (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, what a pain. Alright, I'll check that out and see if I can do more range blocks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

It turned out there weren't all that many contributions on the ranges and was easy to look through. I range blocked them all for a month. There's some Donald Trump troll active on here, too. It looks like a 2-for-1 range block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Misuse of Wikipedia as a web host by PantherLoop

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.

---

PantherLoop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been using their user page as a web host, adding results tables for non-existent seasons of America's Next Top Model [86]. I warned them twice on their talk page about this [87][88] after removing the material [89][90], but they reverted me [91][92] before leaving the message "Dont do that again!!! This is my page not yours and I can do what I want with that!!!" on my talk page [93]. They've made few edits to other pages recently, and this behaviour seems problematic. What should be done? Linguist^talk|contribs 14:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Right now the page is at your version, Linguist111, i. e. it's blank. I'll watchlist it and delete per WP:U5 if they put back the material. Bishonen | talk 20:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Thank you. Linguist^talk|contribs 07:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Update

PantherLoop re-inserted the material after being warned not to, and their userpage was deleted by Bishonen. We've discussed this here now as well. Linguist¹1¹ 19:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

And now PantherLoop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has made this comment on Bishonen's talk page. Calling one of our most respected colleagues "sick in the brain" is completely beyond the pale. As you can see from his contributions, he's not here to build an encyclopedia. Would some kind admin please take appropriate action to ensure that he causes no more problems here until he's grown up. --RexxS (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I've made a try to get through to them with a handwritten message on their talk page. I hope they will be able to better their conduct, but I feel they're perhaps just not ready to contribute to Wikipedia. They say on their user page that they are from Germany, and their messages aren't written very coherently, so I'm assuming there is also a language barrier. Because of this, I think they're not on equal footing with other contributors, and if they continue, I'd be in favour of having them blocked until they are more ready. Linguist¹1¹ 17:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Are they active on de.wp? If not it may be a good idea to point them there. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Ja, das stimmt.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2017 (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:Asileb

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

---

This user is constantly edit warring with me whenever I contribute something to article page CeCe Peniston discography. In my edits, I try to make it easier for readers to understand an abbreviation "DCS" by changing to "Dan." or "Dance" since it doesn't affect any of the chart perimeters. Also, a confusing edit that says the song "Keep Givin' Me Your Love" peaked at number 1 on the Hot 100, which is false information. However the song went to number 1 on the Bubbling Under Hot 100, so I tried to change the number 1 to number 101 or simply just have " — " there under that column. All of those edits were reverted by User:Asileb. After a series of reverts by this user, I left a message on their talk page and have yet to receive a reply but they continue to show ownership of content behavior by not letting anyone else contribute to the article. I also opened up a discussion about the other issues on the page, but I know if I were to edit, it would just be reverted the mentioned user. In closing, I want to be clear that I'm not hoping this user to be blocked or banned, but to let someone else contribute to the article too. Horizonlove (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Horizonlove, you can keep telling yourself what ever makes you happy, the history of your desperate actions speak for itself. End of the story. Asileb (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Asileb: This shouldn't be news to you. I've saying this since the first edit and the summary that said "False info. And I replaced the chart initials to make it easier for readers." Yes, the history does speak for itself because 3 days later (to date), you still haven't replied the message I left on your talk page. In a reverted edit and edit summary by you, you said "The legend is clear as said, whether you like or not. And once you post a message, you wait for a reply first", which also displays WP:OWN. No user is bound to have to consult with you before they can edit the page, I just left you a message so we could talk it out. Horizonlove (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Well both of you are into territory where you could potentially be blocked for edit warring, and both of you have barely used the talk page, if at all. This is typically the order things go in, and if you're not going in that order, you're typically wrong: Edits → reverts → talk → RfC/other WP:DR → sometimes "lower tier" notice boards like WP:BLPN, WP:RSN and WP:ORN → nuclear noticeboards like WP:ANEW and WP:ANI. It seems you've both basically skipped the talk part altogether, opened an RfC with no discussion, and before a single person could comment, opened an ANI thread. If this wasn't already here, and I'd come across the article, I'd have been tempted to report you both to WP:ANEW, or just take the page to WP:RFPP as a content dispute. TimothyJosephWood 21:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: Actually I'm not in the territory of being blocked as per Wikipedia:Edit warring, "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." I do not fall under the violation as I have only reverted a total of 4 times throughout a period of 3 days, but never 3 or more within a 24-hour period. I have opened up a discussion on the article's talk page whereas I talked about the issues and requested that another user comments. Also as stated above, I have also opened up a discussion on the user's talk page. Horizonlove (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring does not equal 3RR, and plenty of editors have been blocked for slow moving edit wards that don't cross 3RR. You opened an RfC. You should have opened a run-of-the-mill discussion prior to that, and you should have waited for the RfC to conclude, or at least get some feedback before coming here. TimothyJosephWood 21:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: It was made clear to me Asileb saw the message I left him on his talk page. And my edits weren't just a plain-out "edit war" if that's what you're calling it, I was removing false information from the page. That was consistent throughout the time I edit the page and I talked about it on talk pages and in the edit summaries of my edits. Those edits were however reverted by the user. Horizonlove (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

"False information" or some variant thereof, is the rationale given by probably 65% of editors who get blocked for edit warring. There are very few instances where "fixing the article now" is really that important, and those are exceptions to edit warring, like copyright violations and violations of our biographies of living persons standards. Other than that, if you're right, and it's controversial, then get consensus to back up how right you are. Most articles go through spurts of intense editing and then lay dormant for months or years without any substantial changes. So if it takes a few extra days to establish a firm consensus, it's not gonna kill anyone. TimothyJosephWood 21:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Very respectfully, regarding how many users may use that as an excuse is a little irrelevant especially when it proven to be true. I wouldn't call the need to remove it from the page urgent or high-priority, if that were the case, we wouldn't have been 3 days ago. But I definitely wouldn't want it constantly sitting on that page while readers are believing something that isn't true. One of the two things I removed from the article was under Singles, the song "Keep Givin' Me Your Love" did not peak at #1 on the Hot 100 as they claim. Anyway, the proof is here on this link as there is no mention of the song on the page. Furthermore, I read the link] given it said "the song was #1 on Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles", and there is still no mention of the song in that article link. But let's assume in good faith if that "references" said that "the song was #1 on Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles", wouldn't be more appropriate to change the "1" → "101" or just put a " — " under that column? Again respectfully, I've waited 3 days "to establish a firm consensus", so how much longer are we going to wait while false information sits on the page? Horizonlove (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no deadlines. You WILL wait for consensus. If you have a problem with that, Wikipedia is not for you. --Tarage (talk) 22:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Horizonlove: There is no false information, it is obvious and you were told so a number of times. The article has a clear legend whether you ignoring it on purpose or else. Simple as that. Asileb (talk) 22:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I can't speak to the edit-warring, but based on the article, Asileb's edits are deliberately misleading. Being number 1 on "Bubbling Under" should be considered as #101 on the "Hot 100" column. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• Being right is not an excuse to edit war, plain and simple. This page gets viewed by an average of 23 people a day and a good chunk/most of that is probably you two. Get over it, and go to the talk page. TimothyJosephWood 22:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tarage: Calm down, I never said it had deadline. Also respectfully, please read the entire discussion as this has partly about meeting a consensus. Part of this about allowing someone else to edit the page and not display ownership of the page. The page CeCe Peniston discography is just an example of how this user asserted ownership of it by constantly reverting it back to the misleading content after I have removed the false information. @Power~enwiki: I agree. And that is one of things I tried to change it to until I realized that the song wasn't even #101 on that chart too. So that was another false statement on the page. @Timothyjosephwood: Respectfully, I can't speak who about the 23 people who read the page on average as I do not know who they are specifically. If I help make up that 23 average, that's fine. I just happened to come across the page and notice the problem whereas I then tried to correct it. And that lead to a series of reverts. Horizonlove (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: Nope, you are not right. The Hot 100 chart includes 100 positions, not 101 positions or more. And that would be the "false information" in Horizonlove's vocabulary. Asileb (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

This is the discussion that should have been had on the article's talk page. Use it.TimothyJosephWood 23:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Asileb: The "Bubbling Under Hot 100" has often considered an extension of the "Hot 100". So many Wikipedia users will often add 100 to the value of the chart position. For example, if a song charted #34 on the "Bubbling Under Hot 100", some users will put #134 on under Hot 100 chart column. Other of course will just put a dash ( — ) there with a foot-note that says something similar to "'Song title' did not enter the Billboard Hot 100, but peaked at number ## on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles chart." Originally I was not opposed to having any of those suggestions on the page, as I tried to add that there myself and it was reverted repeatedly. But where it currently stands suggest misleading info, especially because there is no source that says it charted on either of those charts. Now if Asileb can WP:PROVEIT, then I'll stop calling misleading or false. Horizonlove (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

...seriously... Post this on the talk page, and if needed, use WP:DR. If you do all that and the other party is still unwilling to discuss, then come here. TimothyJosephWood 23:24, 16 June 2017 (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.

Donmust90

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.

---

• Donmust90 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

User:Donmust90 keeps peppering the reference desks with questions, mostly without any indication that he reads the responses. Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Might I suggest a warning from an administrator followed by a topic ban if the warning doesn't do the trick? --Guy Macon (talk)

• Support immediate warning per Guy Macon. I'd be tempted to go straight into a Tban as well, notwithstanding that there has been no previous warning. This is because I'd assumed this was a new account that didn't know better. Wrongly- the stats are completely bizarre. 298 edits in total- 291 to the ref desks??? Account active since October 2012?? I think they know very well what the purpose of the encyclopaedia is, by now- and they don't appear to be interested. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 07:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
• I think Guy is on target here. At the very least, this Don posts questions about very specific but seemingly obscure topics, with a tone that suggests everyone must have heard of what he's talking about. (That is, he doesn't link to any articles.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
• Further to the above: of the 291/298 edits being to the Ref Desks - a visual scan of the 50 most recent shows the great majority are "new section" - i.e. no participation in follow-up. I recommend these queries be turned around as a question to the OP User:Donmust90 requesting clarification. If User:Donmust90 doesn't respond - hat the query as [some form of RD abuse?]. Otherwise - is there a precedent for limiting a querent to one New section post/day/desk (or all desks)? -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• ...and the edits that are not marked "new section are mostly minor edits to questions he has already asked, not reactions to responses and/or answers. It really does look like he mostly posts a question and then never checks back to see if anyone answered.

• I think he is trolling. The sophistication of some of the questions tells me they aren't stupid and are likely just wasting someone's time just to waste it. I'm trying to think of a reason to not just block them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose warning or any other action. Show me the policy that says the questioner has to read responses. Show me how you know the questioner has to read responses. If you think there should be a policy that someone should thank you for a great answer, or limit his questions to N a week, or not register an account mostly to ask questions at the Refdesk, you can propose that policy, and I will most likely vote against it. Sensible questions are a resource that we archive for future use, and which may already be in use by commercial question-answering applications whether we know of them or not. Sensible questions keep volunteers at the Refdesk because it gives them something to do. Do not randomly sanction people, nor admonish them, without a reason. Note that WP:NOTHERE is specifically not a good reason because we apparently believe, as a community, that the Refdesk is useful to have; therefore participating it is a valid reason to be here. That said, I would not oppose for people to speak to this editor and try to persuade him to write better questions (with more context, links to works or ideas being asked about) in order to get better answers. I am not convinced this is a troll; it may just be someone who thinks/acts a little differently than most. Wnt (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
• Weak support. A warning is well in order but a ban? I'm sure the people at the Ref Desk are smart enough to recognise Don by now. They could just ignore him and don't feed the troll. Yintan  06:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment The RefDesks, like their real-world namesakes, have long been interpreted as a service for encyclopedia readers as much as anything else. If "Not here to build an encyclopedia" is really a good argument to topic ban someone from the RefDesk, its entire purpose and mandate needs to be reexamined. ApLundell (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• I do not believe that this is a reader who benefits from any answers he gets. In fact I do not believe that he reads the answers. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: What is your evidence that he does not? Wnt (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC) How can web sure that all the people who post questions read the answers afterwards? Also shouldn't we warn Donmust first before posting at AN/I?Uncle dan is home (talk) 21:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Guy, that's a fair point. I was objecting only to "Not here to build an encyclopedia".

How we gauge if he's "here to use the reference desk legitimately" is a question I'm not personally comfortable answering, but I certainly agree that some users ask a whole bunch of random questions that they seem to have only a passing interest in, while others ask specific questions they seem to have a real desire to know the answer to, more similar to what you might ask an actual reference librarian. And I agree that it would be better if we had less of the former, and more of the latter. ApLundell (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

At what point does asking many, many questions and pretty much never entering into a discussion about the answers become disruptive? Clearly posting one or ten questions is fine, but a hundred? a thousand? a hundred thousand?

Well meaning, but a bit overkill here... Dennis Brown - 2¢
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Scene: A cafe. One table is occupied by a group of Vikings wearing horned helmets. A man and his wife enter. Mr. Bun: Morning. Waitress: Morning. Mr. Bun: What have you got, then? Waitress: Well there's egg and bacon; egg, sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg, bacon and spam; egg, bacon, sausage and spam; spam, bacon, sausage and spam; spam, egg, spam, spam, bacon and spam; spam, spam, spam, egg and spam; spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, baked beans, spam, spam, spam and spam; Lobster Thermidor a Crevette with a mornay sauce served in a Provencale manner with shallots and aubergines garnished with truffle pate, brandy and with a fried egg on top and spam. Mrs. Bun: Have you got anything without spam in it? Waitress: Well, there's spam, egg, sausage and spam. That's not got MUCH spam in it. Mrs. Bun: I don't want ANY spam. Mr. Bun: Why can't she have egg, bacon, spam and sausage? Mrs. Bun: That's got spam in it! Mr. Bun: Not as much as spam, egg, sausage and spam. Mrs. Bun: Look, could I have egg, bacon, spam and sausage, without the spam. Waitress: Uuuuuuggggh! Mrs Bun: What d'you mean, uugggh! I don't like spam. Vikings: singing) Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam ... spam, spam, spam, spam ... lovely spam, wonderful spam ... --Guy Macon (talk) 23:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC) Well, if he gets to a thousand, maybe you can make some kind of policy. Maybe a seed-to-leech ratio wouldn't be completely out of the question - if you ask >50 questions, try to answer at least 2 for each new one after that? Least that way you'd get to hear if he's as erudite as his questions make him seem. But again -- you make the policy first, then enforce it. I know that's not popular in governance nowadays, but Wikipedia should aspire to be old-fashioned. Wnt (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC) (Psssst... Guy Macon... are you sure it's a good idea to post the entire script of a copyrighted work here?) Yintan  06:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC) I didn't post the entire script, just an excerpt. The Copyright Law of the United States (Title 17) says: "107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use" "Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:" "(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;" "(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;" "(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and" "(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." Further advice from the copyright office is here. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC) Okay, fair point. No need to quote the entire law at me ;-) Yintan  08:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC) I see what you did there. (big smile) --Guy Macon (talk) 09:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose He's done nothing wrong. Asking questions at the reference desks is not against the rules, and he's not required to check in afterwards. Demanding a ban because he's done those two things is ridiculous. Leave him alone. --Jayron32 02:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support - This is trolling, pure and simple, deliberate disruption of the RefDesk. Jayron32: every inquiry in a DOS attack may be legitimate, but the collection of them in mass amounts makes them a problem. The pattern is what's important, not each individual question. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Banned editor?

The foot model in Toronto made a very obscure edit at Commons to tag a file that is a variant of a more used one. The thing is that this file isn't used very much and was uploaded by banned editor, Beh-nam aka Le Behnam at Commons. He used one of his Toronto area IPs to dissociate from en.wiki. Also, the other IPs that touched that file are primarily from the Toronto area except a couple from Manitoba and one UK address.

Following his IP led me to this which when I go look up this article here, it leads me back to Beh-nam.

Examination of their questions as DonMus look to be quite inline with the banned editor's topics. I will let others analyze.

The inconclusive bit. I believe that there are likely sock cases that could be tied in here. This Italian ref by DonMus may be significant because there is some crossover with this editor and that sock case (speaks Italian?). I also had to consider the crossovers to this case. I'm leaving this post because I can't work anymore at the present and will let others begin looking to see what they may turn up.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems like you were a bit too successful here. First you link him to one banned editor and one country ... then to another banned editor and another country? I mean, so many long-serving and formerly respected editors from wikipedia have been banned that it is very easy for an editor who modifies files on Commons to end up touching one of their images. Finding a city based on coincidences of several IPs with a number of questions doesn't totally clinch the case in my mind. Wnt (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

If I were sock hunting, I would start with User:Sagittarian Milky Way, and see if he passes the WP:DUCK test compared to Donmust90 --Guy Macon (talk) 03:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The editors don't seem particular similar. Donmust90's question suggest to me a immigrant to Canada probably Toronto and probably Muslim and of South Asian descent with imperfect English. SMW is a young editor in the US, just finished middle school a few years ago. In both cases, their questions and comments tend to reflect that. Notably Donmust90's interest seem to often relate to their religion or less commonly other religions, South Asia, Canada, elections, or politics. SMW I'm lazy to pin down but space etc is one area they seem particularly interested in. (Donmust90 has asked a small number of space related questions but AFAIK it isn't much of s focus.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

BTW, AFAIK Donmust90 has been around for many years (at least 2007 if not earlier). In the earlier years, they use to ask a lot of weird demographics related questions, primarily relating to immigrants particularly but not exclusively people from Muslim majority places. I think in the early years these were generally relating to Toronto or at least Canada e.g. Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 January 5 (probably), Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 July 31#Sri Lankans tamil Toronto, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 November 22#Ethnic breakdown of Toronto, Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2008_February 1#Somali-canadians in toronto, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 March 11#Toronto demographics but they seemed to branch out to other areas like Indonesians in the Netherlands Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 June 3#Largest Muslim population in Europe 2 and Central Africans in Belgium Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 August 25#Africans in Belgium Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Entertainment/2011 November 6#football teams by cities in Belgium with African population.

As evidenced in those discussions and elsewhere (e.g. the RD talk page such as Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 86#Which cities in (random country) have immigrants from (other random country)) people did get frustrated with this editor at times, especially as their questions got more obscure like football teams or were asking many different populations. And also given the number of different questions, the editor didn't show signs of checking basics sources like wikipedia articles or demographic sources that had been pointed out earlier. Actually I think there was also a concern over whether the editor was even reading the responses given that they often asked very similar questions and as said didn't seem to check basic sources despite repeated requests to do so. They also at least one made the questionable claim that they weren't the same editor who'd been asking all the questions Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 December 24#Torontonian Enclaves in response to the frustrations.

That said, reading some of these I'm not sure how often they actually asked the same question again or it was mostly a very similar but subtly different question perhaps indicating they had read. (With the number of different questions and the similarity it was easy to get confused.) There was also a thought that even if they were reading, they didn't seem to really understand or were incapable of learning given the lack of searches, source check etc.

But in any case, I'm fairly sure we never came close to sanctioning them probably since they seemed sufficiently sincere and while there were occasional peaks, it generally died down; although I think many of us gave up on trying to help. Perhaps the fact their IP changed a lot (although generally belonging to Bell Canada and geolocating to Ontario usually Toronto IIRC) didn't help.

Anyway I've always been fairly certain and I don't think I'm the only one who believes Donmust90 is the same editor, especially since some of their earlier questions were similar e.g. [94] [95] [96] [97]. I thought they had another account too which they abandoned but it may have been the Donmust90 one as they were inactive on it for a lot of 2013 and 2015, and all of 2014.

Note that if you look at the contributions of some of these IPs e.g. some of the earlier links and also Special:Contributions/65.92.154.228, Special:Contributions/65.92.154.112, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 December 28#UN peacekeepers Bangladesh Sierra Leone, Special:Contributions/76.64.129.222, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 July 25#Bangladeshi Parliamentary seats (probably) you can also see an interest in areas besides that demographics focus that is similar to Donmust90.

Anyway my ultimate point is I've never been convinced Donmust90 is a troll. Whether the RD is the right place for them I don't know but I'm not sure if a sanction is needed. There are also other regular question askers that are probably more frustrating, a certain IP comes to mind. I haven't looked that well at the socking thing but since it's from 2007 it's by now sort of the almost clean start thing. Not a proper clean start since if it is them they are banned and in fact, they were definitely using IPs on the RD before the ban and basically continued until and after they made the account. Also their questions on the RD do seem to have been in similar topic areas. That said what got them banned before looks very different from any problems they may have now which as said I'm not sure are sufficient for sanction by themselves.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I also am having doubts about sanctions, but I am also concerned about a larger issue, which is the reaction on the reference desks to Donmust90 and certain other people who only ask questions. Previously, these editors would end up generating long, pointless threads on the refdesks talk page as other editors complain about them. This has been happening on a weekly basis. Based upon the basic principle that we should discuss user behavior here instead of on the refdesk talk page, I raised the issue here. I thought about asking about an IP I have in mind (much worse offender), but was concerned about the fact that we already have admins actively trying to deal with the IP troll, and I doubted that an ANI report would be helpful.

So what is the answer? Looking at how the discussion is going here, I think we can wait until an admin closes this (please don't let it time out and be archived; we really need admin help here!) and then if anyone start a thread complaining about Donmust90 on the refdesk talk pages, ask them to stop because it has already been decided. Repeat for any new editors that a lot of people on the refdesks think are problems, with some of the ANI threads ending in sanctions and others ending up with a consensus to drop the stick. Eventually we will run out of people to complain about. The alternative is more long pointless threads on refdesk talk forever. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

But Donmust90 has been here for over 10 years now in some form. The longest discussion I could find about them is the one above from 2011. There were some brief mentions elsewhere but nothing substanial. So bluntly I think you are wrong. Also I fail to see how this thread is any better than anything on the RD talk page anyway and frankly most of the other ANI threads about the RD seem to have similarly achieved nothing, not surprising given how poorly structured they were.

Which is not to say WT:RD pages have always achieved much but they have sometimes achieved more and other times ended a merciless death and at the very least they don't mess up ANI with something pointless and worse, make non RD regulars avoid ANI RD threads like the plague. (One big issue of course is that it's generally easy to ignore an WT:RD thread but if you do so with an ANI thread there's always the risk something will happen which you don't want.)

In those cases where it became clear sanction was warranted, this has been brought to AN or ANI or wherever appropriate (e.g. WP:SPI) with a much more likely effective outcome because necessary evidence was presented from the getgo and there weren't long discussions which put lots of people off. (I'm not saying this always happens, or it always needs to happen but rather WT:RD threads are always as harmful as you seem to think.)

Other times, the person discussed has taken the feedback on board and improved the behaviour. Ideally this should have happened at their talk page but there are reasons why it often does not. It's perhaps true that to some extent WT:RD threads can sometimes head towards the direction of the rejected WP:RFC/U but not always, they actually often do have a different characteristic (i.e. seeking feedback on whether you're wrong to feel there is a problem with the editor rather than listing all the faults of an editor).

Having had this thread here is not going to stop a WT:RD discussion about Donmust90 in the future should someone feel the need since consensus can change and almost no one not involved at the RD has contributed anyway and those that have have tended to support sanctions. In other words, this thread has just wasted time which you are supposed to be avoiding and it hasn't helped the RD in any way. Nor is it going to change anything about what goes on there. While there's nothing wrong with proposing sanctions when you are serious about them, if you are unfamiliar with the history you really need to do some better basic research before doing so which you failed to do.

Unfortunately as I indicated it's a common trend (not just from you) that ANI threads on the RD are doomed to fail due to a lack of research; and insufficient evidence presented to actually support the proposal (which doesn't always mean it doesn't exist, I've long been of the opinion that some specific sanctions would have got support if someone could be bothered to do the necessary legwork but I don't blame them since it is a difficult and thankless task). And often too because the originating example is not a great example of a problem but rather one where actually a fair few people support the editor concerned. (People say there is a wider problem and not to focus too much on the example which started the complaint but it's always difficult to tell people to do so when then first thing they come across is not something they are concerned about.)

I mean even ignoring this case the last ANI thread I remember i.e. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive956#Problematic behavior by User:Medeis at the reference desk was one where it was obvious nothing was going to happen from early on as me and others pointed out. (I would have done so even earlier if I had seen it and could be bothered.) Yet it continued long after that and achieved nothing. As mentioned by others it wasn't even the right place for a lot of what was proposed anyway, rather an RFC or similar. (Although I'd caution against hasty RfCs, they've also similar spectacularly failed.)

Nil Einne (talk) 06:22, 11 June 2017 (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.

WP:DE by 1989 (talk · contribs)

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

---

This user could be said to be disrupting progress towards improving an article or building the encyclopedia. I thought my explanations concerning Japanese naming conventions, along with common knowledge towards respecting the original work/intent would be enough. I certainly wouldn't want to see this encyclopedia regress into an inferior state. Taopaipaisama (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the next step should be a block of User:Taopaipaisama for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Just did. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG -- 1989 22:12, 19 June 2017 (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.

WP:DE by Taopaipaisama (talk · contribs)

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

---

This user is repeatedly switching names in a specific order after being warned multiple times. When warned the first time, and a MOS page linked, they edited the page to get their way (it was reverted). The second time, the user is now moving pages to a "surname" format after being told that it was not allowed. Could someone please block this user and revert their page moves? Thanks. -- 1989 21:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't usually involve myself at ANI, but I've reverted their page moves and have given them a warning. Other administrators are free to pick up the torch from here. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 22:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked 72 hours for disruptive behavior. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:10, 19 June 2017 (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.

PerfectlyIrrational

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.

---

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

After a 2 week block ended today, he's immediately making disruptive changes without discussing on the talk page. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

That information was already posted in Presidency of Donald Trump and I posted for consensus on the talk page. I didn't add or delete anything at all, but simply moved existing information. If you have a problem with that section, that is something that should be handled on that article's talk page. If anything it just needs more counterpoints, which are currently lacking. PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 21:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The change Power-enwiki is talking about is this addition: [98]. Power-enwiki, if you want your reports here to be taken seriously, you need to include diffs. --MelanieN (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

My evaluation of the situation (not speaking as an admin, since I am WP:INVOLVED at that article): Perfectly made a sourced addition to the article. Power reverted it. Perfectly isn't going to restore it, since Power has challenged it and the article is under DS. What's supposed to happen now is discussion. It seems a little - what shall I say? premature? - to rush immediately to ANI over this. --MelanieN (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

It possibly was premature. Due to his recently having been blocked two weeks for behavior on articles like this, and the existence of discretionary sanctions, I may have been excessively biased towards action when none was necessary. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

For context, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive956#PerfectlyIrrational was the case that led to the earlier block that very recently expired. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• That is one huge edit, no one should be shocked it would get pushed to the talk page, DS or no DS. I would note that just because the material was used on a different article, that is not a guarantee that it would be used in this article. Each article has it's own scope, which is again, why it needs to go to the talk page. It is not required, but on DS articles, I would suggest going there first when you want to add 13k of purely negative BLP material. I don't see anything that requires admin action at this time, it was just a single, very bold edit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Cordial discussion now going on at the talk page. Power~enwiki, might you consider withdrawing this report? --MelanieN (talk) 01:27, 21 June 2017 (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 I.P. editor on Talk:Spacetime

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.

An I.P. editor, 47.32.217.164, (Special:Contributions/47.32.217.164) has been in violation of WP:LISTEN on Talk:Spacetime for weeks now and is beyond tenacious. The underlying reason for the dispute is the I.P. disagrees with the consensus view that the article should limit itself to the widely accepted principles of Einstein's view of relativity. The I.P. wants to broaden the article so that it can apply to space with other than three spatial dimensions and time with more than one dimension. No one else agrees with the I.P.

This is no longer a content dispute. The I.P. continues to harangue on the talk page, uses wikilawyering terms like “being shouted down” and “personal attacks”, “railroading” and “fake consensus,” in addition to doozies like this comment: I feel it would be best if you stayed out of this discussion until my concerns have been addressed adequately.

The I.P. refuses to register, consistently fails to sign posts, sometimes comes in under a different I.P. address, has no interest in working on a broader-version (Non-relativistic spacetime) of the article the lead contributor there (User:Stigmatella_aurantiaca) created for the I.P., and recently wrote (∆ edit here) as follows: My concerns have been raised, but not addressed. Unless you're volunteering to address them, I'll think I'll stick around a while longer. The lead editor, I, and, and others have discussed the I.P.'s concerns ad nauseam but are unanimous that his idea is a poor one. His last post amounted to “If I you don’t get what I want, I’ll continue to badger everyone on this.”

I think the proper remedy is an I.P. block on this user. I’ve notified the I.P. on his talk page that I’ve started this thread.

Greg L (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

If anyone here cares to hear my thoughts, I'll check my talk page periodically. I've responded to most of these accusations before, and I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to be able to use the talk page for constructive discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.32.217.164 (talk) 00:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Good lord that talk page is a tremendous tl;dr. Suggesting a block for our IP editor here, as he is wasting everyone's time. --Tarage (talk) 06:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

If you can't be bothered to read, and just take everything at face value, you'll miss the rampant hypocrisy and abuse. He may talk the talk, but he doesn't walk the walk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.32.217.164 (talk) 08:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Says the editor with "Retired from Wikipedia" on their talk page. You don't seem very retired to me. --Tarage (talk) 09:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I tried contributing again. I can remove that message, if you like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.32.217.164 (talk) 09:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I.P. 47.32.217.164 is a clear-cut case of a single-purpose account who refuses to accept the community consensus. The other editors leaned over backwards for the I.P. far more than they should have had to endure, just to ensure they weren’t biting the newcomer.

Unfortunately, the I.P. steadfastly refuses to "get the point" and repeatedly complains that ‘discussion is being shut down’, he’s perpetually being ‘shouted down’, that he’s being ‘railroaded’, that ‘no consensus exists’, it’s a ‘fake consensus’, and ‘more discussion is needed’ until his “concerns have been addressed adequately.”

The I.P.’s penultimate post on the talk page was an outright threat (or “pledge” to be milder) that he fully intends to badger editors on the talk page to flog the same dead horse. For the last few days his message and tone has been a crystal-clear one of “If I don’t get my way, then I’ll be disruptive for revenge and sport.” The I.P. is purely disruptive and an I.P. block is clearly the proper remedy here. Greg L (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to see evidence for the leaning over backwards; I haven't seen it. I think it's fair game to ask for discussion to address concerns; that's not the same as getting my way, which it continues to be painted as. Telling me to listen and "get the point" might be reasonable, had there been prior discussion of my concerns. My intention is/was to improve the article, and has been consistently. Greg's characterization to the contrary is simply his opinion, and he has repeatedly decided to put words in my mouth (certainly makes it easier to make me a bad guy). Since he brings up flogging a dead horse, I will note that he is in fact repeating himself here. I think he does that to help him attempt to reframe things back to his POV (again, makes it easier to paint me as he chooses). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.32.217.164 (talk) 21:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments by User:Stigmatella aurantiaca

• On 23 March 2017, User:Greg L and I (mostly me) began a major rewrite of the article Spacetime.
• I was out of the country with no access to the internet for a week between 14 May 2017 to 21 May 2017. The state of the article at the time of my departure was this.
• From 16 May 2017 onwards, IP 47.32.217.164 took my absence as an opportunity to completely rearrange the article. Greg and I were not happy. In talk discussions, IP 47.32.217.164 was extremely uncooperative, not willing to concede any points to either of us.
• On 29 May 2017‎ I made a BOLD Revert for discussion.
• On 12:28, 30 May 2017, Sławomir Biały gave his support for the version of the article that Greg and I had created. Greg and I considered this clear evidence of consensus.
• Since then, IP 47.32.217.164 has used extremely strong language to express his opinion that he does not consider a 3-to-1 consensus real. The consensus ratio is actually higher, but it is probably not fit to quote strong words written by another contributor to Spacetime that were not shared on the Article Talk page, but were rather made on my personal talk page.
• Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

As an admin, I've looked into the history of Spacetime and the talk page and do see a few disagreements involving the IP 47.32.217.164 (talk · contribs). At present I don't think there is a case for a block or semiprotection. The IP made a set of edits in late May that appear to be well-intentioned and reasonably competent, though I don't know if the changes enjoy consensus. I suggest that the participants try to follow the ordinary steps of WP:Dispute resolution and see how far they can get. One possibiity is a WP:Request for comment. If you think you are stuck, let me know. EdJohnston (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is far from what I want to consider ordinary. I'm assuming that would be a large time investment on my part (and that of others). I don't normally edit like that (as I tend to prefer the low-risk, high reward route), and I've already invested a lot of time in this, with next to nothing to show for it.

I don't solve most of my problems in real life with referees or lawyers, and I'm rather disheartened that should be required in this case. I was also rather disheartened to read the talk page of Tarage, after his out-of-the-blue appearance into this discussion (am guessing it's an alternate attack account for one of my abusers). While this is the worst abuse I've seen in over a decade here, it became apparent in reading his page that even worse abuse is routine, and largely unchecked. That's really not a community I want to be a part of, and it makes me question how I will ever feel comfortable being here again.

Thanks for looking into this, and not assuming I'm the antichrist. It's probably time for me to disengage for a while, and see if there's any reason to return. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.32.217.164 (talk) 02:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Motion to close: Judging from Tarage’s talk page, he/she appears to be a bonafide editor and not a sock puppet (or, as I.P. guesses, “an alternate attack account” from one of I.P.’s “abusers”). I certainly know it's not a sock of mine; I don’t operate socks and wouldn’t know what to write about German nationalism.

I would have thought that the record of I.P.’s tendentious railing against consensus would merit an I.P. block. But if that isn’t in the cards, then at least ‘thanks’ for looking into this.

I would propose, for future reference, that if the I.P. ever returns, we not waste so much time falling into the trap of circuitous arguments and instead just perform a quick RFC on the Talk:Spacetime page, identify the consensus view, and move on. It seems we’re done here. Greg L (talk) 02:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Further observations by Stigmatella aurantiaca

• Neither Greg nor I know Tarage. Tarage's contribution to this discussion represents an opinion by a totally uninvolved editor.
• The IP's rants against Tarage, accusing him/her of being nothing more than a sockpuppet of Greg or myself, represent a disconnect from reality.
• Prior to his current address, IP 47... was 75.139.254.117 (talk). In the talk page history of his previous account, he displayed a contentious editing history.

1. Evidence that IP 47... and IP 75... are one and the same person is clear.
2. With this edit, IP 47... identified himself as being "One of the editors who happened to agree with the redo sentiment".
3. The only IP editor contributing to the referenced discussion was IP 75...

• I was reluctant to post this edit by YohanN7 on my talk page, but it is too relevant to the current discussion to ignore.
• IP 47... believes that he is a persecuted individual beset upon by bullies who refuse to acknowledge his many positive and insightful contributions.
• Wikipedia needs to be protected against earnest, well-meaning editors of his sort.
• Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

---

The IP's response above is not encouraging. If the IP editor won't give assurances of good-faith participation on the talk page of Spacetime I think it's logical to consider semiprotecting the talk for a period, such as two months. I assume the registered editors who are now working to improve the article would take advantage of his absence to work further on it. A block wouldn't work because he jumps IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

My good faith on the talk page has been met with nothing but hostility. I don't intend to continue to subject myself to that hostility. My IP has changed, yes, but not due to anything under my control.

Comment by Greg L

All: It might be good for everyone to step back and take a 37,000-foot view and short history lesson.

The article greatly benefits from the contributions of Stigmatella aurantiaca
Some number of months ago, the Spacetime article was an utter mess; about the worst I’d seen on Wikipedia. I left a note on the talk page stating as much. The lede in particular was nothing more than bucket-full of buzzwords thrown at a wall, so it was inaccessible to a general interest readership from the start.

The project now benefits from a rare instance of having a knowledgeable editor who backchannels with Ph.D.s to ask them to review his work. I’d done the same thing when working on our Kilogram article; I back-channeled with a Ph.D. who was working at the NIST. Accordingly, I am keenly aware of the dedication it takes to invest that time while maintaining so much rigor and attentiveness.

Moreover, in most of the articles I labored on, I created animations and illustrations. Those take a lot of time but add immeasurably to articles, particularly highly technical ones. Stigmatella aurantiaca created 20 of the 26 illustrations on the Spacetime article.

Importantly, Stigmatella aurantiaca takes feedback from the community. More than that; he solicits feedback from the community. Having seen my post on the Spacetime talk page criticizing the abysmal state of the article (it was a subject matter beyond my ability to fix it), he reached out to me and asked me what I thought of his recent edits. Thus began a true collaboration, with me writing most of the lede (I am a professional technical writer and know how to make complex simple). I (as well as others) have helped Stigmatella aurantiaca throughout the rest of the article.

The essential take-away at this point: The project greatly benefits from Stigmatella aurantiaca’ involvement in the Spacetime article at this juncture. Now…

What the I.P. wants (broaden the scope outside of widely accepted physics like Special Relativity) is completely against consensus
The article is grounded in the fundamental principles laid down by scientific greats such as Lorentz and Einstein. They, and the vast majority of those who build upon their work accept that space has three dimensions (X, Y, and Z) and that time adds an additional dimension—the result is a 4-D “timespace.” The Spacetime article is built upon a foundation that is in perfect harmony with Special relativity. Though there are alternative theories where space has other than three dimensions, the unanimous consensus (except for the I.P.) is that the article should not be revised to broaden it so it is compatible with timespaces other than four dimensions; doing so would make it an unfocused mess. The I.P. doesn’t like that consensus and has one, persistent message that no one agrees with: This article is hugely biased towards special relativity (∆ edit).

I.P is disruptive and his arguments imagine non-falsifiable conspiracies against him
The I.P. is single-purpose account who steadfastly refuses to accept the community consensus and is a classic and extreme case of failure to WP:LISTEN. Every single attempt at reasoning with the I.P. goes nowhere because the I.P. employs wikilawyering-lingo where ‘I'm not getting my way’ equals he’s being shouted down (∆ edit) or he is the victim of lining up "friendly" editors for a false consensus (∆ edit).

The I.P. invokes non-falsafiable theories; either the I.P. gets his way, or any and all who oppose him are part of a hostile conspiracy. He’s constantly tilting at windmills whenever he’s not getting his way, which is always.

The proper remedy is clear
All the other editors shouldn’t have to deal with any more of this. Far too much valuable time has been wasted dealing with I.P. A single-purpose account that tendentiously rails against the consensus view is the very definition of disruptive. I’ve seen the I.P. only at 47.32.217.164 and 75.139.254.117. Let's just block those two I.P. addresses and move on with less drama so Stigmatella aurantiaca and others can move on with improving the article. If the I.P. comes back after having been blocked, we can cross that bridge when we get to it. Greg L (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2017 (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.

Revrant and BLP issue

The initial edit was this unsourced contentious claim about a living person, claiming the person was " cheering death squads and bombs cutting down 1,400 Palestinian civilians."[99]

I reverted the edit, citing BLP[100] and warned Revrant.[101]

Revrant restored the claim with a source that has the BLP stating, "I am sending my love and prayers to my fellow Israeli citizens,” she wrote. “Especially to all the boys and girls who are risking their lives protecting my country against the horrific acts conducted by Hamas, who are hiding like cowards behind women and children...We shall overcome!!! Shabbat Shalom! #weareright #freegazafromhamas #stopterror #coexistance #loveidf" The BLP does not directly state (and the source does not otherwise say she did) that she supports "death squads and bombs cutting down 1,400 Palestinian civilians."[102]

A similar statement with reverts and BLP warnings on Revrant's talk page followed, always with the same source. I asked that they discuss the issue on the BLP noticeboard and not restore the comment until that had taken place. After a posting to ANV (and Revrant's counterpost), Revrant has not restored the material thus far, but clearly does not agree that there is a problem with the claim. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

• Left message on their talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Incivility in edit summary by Swaggum13

Swaggum13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In the edit summary of this edit, the editor refers to another editor (an IP) as "nigga" (albeit with emoticons replacing the "g"s). While the editor's other edit summaries don't reflect this kind of incivility (most include no edit summary at all), the editor should be mindful of the extremely offensive and provocative nature of that term in English. The editor does not appear to have edited this article before and does not appear to be engaged in a dispute. General Ization ^Talk 00:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the edit in question was removing "Dio Brando" from a list of Marlon Brando's children. Apparently "Dio" is a fictional character in JoJo's Bizarre Adventure. I'm not at all familiar with the source material, but I'm guessing it was an in-universe reference of some kind. The editor might not be familiar with the full nature of the word. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I suspect you're right in that both the edit being reverted and the edit summary are in-universe references; information here tends to support that. Nevertheless, the editor should be aware that Wikipedia (and the article they were editing) are not in-universe, and a reference that could be considered harmless by devotees of that genre could well be considered harmful and disruptive here (as this particular term would if, for example, shouted on a street corner). General Ization ^Talk 03:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

PerfectlyIrrational

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.

---

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

After a 2 week block ended today, he's immediately making disruptive changes without discussing on the talk page. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

That information was already posted in Presidency of Donald Trump and I posted for consensus on the talk page. I didn't add or delete anything at all, but simply moved existing information. If you have a problem with that section, that is something that should be handled on that article's talk page. If anything it just needs more counterpoints, which are currently lacking. PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 21:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The change Power-enwiki is talking about is this addition: [103]. Power-enwiki, if you want your reports here to be taken seriously, you need to include diffs. --MelanieN (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

My evaluation of the situation (not speaking as an admin, since I am WP:INVOLVED at that article): Perfectly made a sourced addition to the article. Power reverted it. Perfectly isn't going to restore it, since Power has challenged it and the article is under DS. What's supposed to happen now is discussion. It seems a little - what shall I say? premature? - to rush immediately to ANI over this. --MelanieN (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

It possibly was premature. Due to his recently having been blocked two weeks for behavior on articles like this, and the existence of discretionary sanctions, I may have been excessively biased towards action when none was necessary. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

For context, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive956#PerfectlyIrrational was the case that led to the earlier block that very recently expired. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• That is one huge edit, no one should be shocked it would get pushed to the talk page, DS or no DS. I would note that just because the material was used on a different article, that is not a guarantee that it would be used in this article. Each article has it's own scope, which is again, why it needs to go to the talk page. It is not required, but on DS articles, I would suggest going there first when you want to add 13k of purely negative BLP material. I don't see anything that requires admin action at this time, it was just a single, very bold edit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Cordial discussion now going on at the talk page. Power~enwiki, might you consider withdrawing this report? --MelanieN (talk) 01:27, 21 June 2017 (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.

Anonymous socks edit warring. BLP issue

At Ion Cuțelaba, "two" anonymous IP users keeps (re-)adding unreferenced information in violation of BLP policy.

Diffs: [104][105][106][107]

Based on the latest two edit summaries, seems that they are familiar with WP customs & policies, and as they are ignoring the BLP policy and are "warning" other users, this looks to me like some kind of wiki-trolling. XXN, 15:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I've semi-protected this for three days. Please discuss the issues on the talk page and leave posts on the IP talk pages inviting them to the discussion.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

User:TheOldJacobite behaves like he owns 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.

---

User:TheOldJacobite keeps reverting encyclopedic and sourced contributions in the article Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (film) and only refers to a poster. He/(she?) behaves just like an owner of the article. Only his interpretations are valid and he has twice called me a vandal at my talk-page. He has just written one tiny comment at the talk-page. Administrative assistance required. User is impossible to talk with and accepts only his own versions. He even denies that David Dencik has a casted role in this film, despite three internet links and the fact that his name is mentioned in the film/motion picture together with the film title, director and the other actors as well as in the casting credits of the film. (As if he has something against this particular actor). It's the general behavior I haven't encountered here ever before which I find very troublesome. All other ways but his/(her) are vandalism, the user appears to think. Boeing720 (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Boeing720, issues about article content need to be discussed on the talkpage of the article, not here at ANI or on user talkpages. If you have questions or concerns, bring them up on the talkpage of the article. If you need further assistance, you can inquire neutrally at WT:FILM, or engage in some form of dispute resolution. Softlavender (talk) 04:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, that is very fine with me - however not with User:TheOldJacobite who (twice) did leave a notice at my talk-page, which includes a link to this page, and that he thinks I'm a vandal. I'm not used to make complaints such as this - and it wasn't really a question of article content, but of behavior (including example). I will however make yet another effort at the talk-page. Boeing720 (talk) 04:42, 21 June 2017 (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.

Socking and Series of Draft-like User Pages

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.

---

• Inspirasi Indonesia. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Empiris and Positif. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Terestrial. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Investor dan investee bisnis. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Business Conglomerate. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Politik Ekonomi. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Business Akuisisi And Merger. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Strategi Business Akuisisi dan Merger. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not sure what's going on, but all of the above accounts have user pages that appear to be drafts for the same company. CSD per A11 seems reasonable, but give the number of pages and accounts, thought an admin might want to look into this further. Perhaps an SPI is in order? EvergreenFir (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

It's highly likely to be one individual using multiple accounts. I can't really tell if this is some kind of attempt at advertising or promotion, or if this is just a misguided new user. I moved one copy of the user page to Draft:Kompas TV and deleted the others per WP:CSD#U5. Aside from a {{softerblock}} I gave Inspirasi Indonesia, I'll leave it up to others to decide whether SPI or blocks are needed here. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

• {{Checkuser needed}} Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Checked. Katie^talk 22:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • There are three groups here that are  Confirmed to each other, and I'd say they're  Likely the same person or persons. Based on the user agents, I think this is a group of people, not one individual. Blocked all, along with a slew of accounts that didn't complete the registration process. Katie^talk 22:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
    • I've made a pro forma report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Terestrial.. GAB^gab 23:38, 20 June 2017 (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 vandalism

Resolved

 – Article semi-protected by Dlohcierekim for 2 days. TheDragonFire (talk) 13:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

There is repeated vandalism on the Vanita Gupta article by IP's. Mitchumch (talk) 05:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested temporary Semi protection at WP:RFPP. No point discussing here. Yashovardhan (talk) 05:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

User refuses to gain consensus for major changes

User:Tvx1 recently (about two weeks ago) began making major changes to the way race schedule tables are laid out in IndyCar season articles (e.g. 2017 IndyCar Series). He did so without opening discussion on any talk pages or project pages. He unilaterally reversed a long-standing practice of color-coding different types of tracks in these tables. I am simply asking that these tables be reverted to their prior appearance and a discussion opened with other editors regarding this change. I am absolutely fine with supporting his changes IF he achieves consensus, but he absolutely needs to do so before making such major changes. Furthermore, he has accused me of edit warring and violating WP:OWN, despite the fact that I am only suggesting that he follow the norms of editing on Wikipedia and actually interact with others. I believe this behavior is shameful and insulting and he should be warned against doing it in the future. Eightball (talk) 15:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, you are at 3 reverts over the same edit. Under 24 hours? I don't know. My math is off today. I've had like 6 hours of sleep. Secondly, this is a content dispute. It doesn't belong on ANI. Thirdly, there are no rules that require seeking consensus over WP:COLOR guidelines and such. You don't own the article, it doesn't require consensus. Nothing in Tvx1 suggests "shameful and insulting" behaviour. I propose this thread be closed. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 16:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I will also add that Eightball has also been launching personal attacks at me on my talk page. Additionally to the actions of Eightball, JoeyofthePriuses has been blanket reverting my edits on numerous IndyCar Series season articles (e.g. 2016 IndyCar Series, 2015 IndyCar Series over the last 24 hours. That user does not provide any explanation in their edit summaries as to why thy revert to a less accessible version of these articles. Prior to starting to make these articles compliant with guidelines and policies, I had a discussion on my talk page with Mark McWire supporting my actions. I even keep track there which articles are done and which still remain to be done. Lastly Drdisque also reverted Eighball's actions earlier today, so I'm certainly not acting against everybody else.Tvx1 19:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Well Eightball's edits and comments on Tvx1's talk page are extremely concerning here [108]. This is quite alarming "This isn't a debate, this isn't an argument, this is what you're going to do. You're going to post on the talk page of that article and you are going to SUGGEST the changes you made. And if people agree those changes are good, we will make them. You do not get to unilaterally decide to make those changes. You know full well that's how this website works. I do not care one bit about wiki guidelines. They are non-binding and I will ignore them as such. They are almost universally poorly thought out. You will explain why you think your changes are for the better, you will support your arguments with real evidence, or you will move a long. Act like an adult. " Canterbury Tail talk 19:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm most worried about the "I do not care one bit about wiki guidelines. They are non-binding and I will ignore them as such. They are almost universally poorly thought out" in that quote and the blatant personal attacks launched at me in this subsequent post on my talk page. WP:COLOR isn't poorly thought out. Quite on the contrary, it's carefully thought out to make our content as readable as possible and it also takes into account that there are wikipedia readers who don't have the ability to see color at all. Moreover, entire row coloring, like the ones contested, is not accessible to people using assistive software like screenreaders. That's why I can't see a good reason to blatantly ignore that guideline.Tvx1 20:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

JoeyofthePriuses has now posted a message similar to Eightball's on my talk page.Tvx1 20:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

To say "Act like an adult" is seriously uncalled for. His behaviour is alarming. I withdraw my previous proposal and move on to a WP:BOOMERANG. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I have now reverted JoeyofthePriuses' edits. If they continue to revert, I think RPP is appropriate until we can get this resolved. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, assuming they aren't the same person, this edit summary is very own-y. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, there's now some major stalking going on by Eightball and JoeyofthePriuses of Tvx1's edits. Tvx1's edits seem quite reasonable and stood for over a week before Eightball (a very infrequent editor often warned for edit warring and attacks/harassment who incidentally has never edited these Nascar article's before) decided he didn't like the edits and seems to have claimed some kind of ownership on them. I say that TVX1's edits were good, made in good faith and were not challenged at the time. The disruptive editing is coming from Eightball and JoeyofthePriuses who are engaging in an edit war over something they've decided they don't like. Quite telling that Joey edited the main article at the start of this dispute after Tvx1's original edits and seemed to have no issue with them until Eightball came in with the disruptive editing. They should be the ones taking to talk, not edit warring and insisting Tvx1 should take to talk. I think a huge boomerang is due to Eightball and Joey here. That being said, Tvx1 stop reverting constantly. Canterbury Tail talk 21:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

You know what, I've done a skim through all of Eightball's edits and their talk page. It seems every single time they edit a page they get warnings for edit warring or harassment. They're WP:NOTHERE and I suggest we just block them indefinitely. Canterbury Tail talk 21:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I fully protected 2017 IndyCar Series before I saw these last few messages. Maybe an indefinite block would be a better solution. Otherwise, it seems like we're going to fully protect a dozen articles just because of ownership issues. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail, I will not revert on any of the articles involved as long as the issue has not been resolved here. I have no intention whatsoever to cause disruption. I'm just trying to make the articles which fall under the scope of WP:AOWR friendly to read for all (or as close as I can get) of our readers. To clarify on my actions, I have not started doing this recently, contrary to Eightball's claims. The first time I made such an article compliant with accessibility guidelines was in in August of 2015 and these edits stood until an IP returned the excessive colors roughly six months later. I also made the articles on the 1986-1993 IndyCar season compliant with the guidelines in February and those edits still stand. Thus this is not a spur of moment, but merely a daunting tasks which I have been executing over an extended period. I then had a friendly discussion on my talk page with Mark McWire and have been gradually tackling the articles since. I takes time though. I try to do at least two article every day (in the evening) but unfortunately I don't always find the necessary time. Nevertheless I'm already over halfway.Tvx1 21:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

So where do we stand with this? What sort of resolution should we go for?Tvx1 19:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

While the MOS can in some cases can be ignored, WP:COLOR is an accessibility issue which affects lots of our readers, which means it should be followed unless there is a very very good reason not to. And I have yet to see one presented. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. As far as I'm concerned your edits in this area have been around for a while and as a result have an unspoken consensus, and some of the earlier talk has written consensus from other editors. It seems it's only two editors piling on each other that have issues. If Eightball and JoeyofthePriuses take issue with these changes then they need to take it to talk instead of throwing around threats and harassment. If they start reverting again without discussion as to why these changes shouldn't be implemented and going against WP:COLOR they'll be treated as disruptive edits. Canterbury Tail talk 13:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I think there's also the question of OWN. The two editors' main concerns revolve around getting consensus for major changes. There is no policy or guideline for such. We don't have to reach consensus for all edits. It's called WP:BOLD unless you're unsure of the content you want to add. COLOR is a guideline to help readers with contrast issues. I don't see how that requires consensus? It doesn't. When Tvx1 made a bold edit, Eightball just quickly reverted insisting on getting consensus when it wasn't necessary in this case. While I do agree that Tvx1's behaviour was a little too much, Eightball's was worse. With various edit summaries from yelling, OWN behaviour, not citing actual policy, demanding a policy be cited, etc. It's problematic. This is all the same for JoeyofthePriuses. None of the users have been activate since their last revert and have been silent. I think their method is to let it slide and avoid consequences. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 13:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually Tvx1's edits weren't that bold, they've been making these kind of changes in this area of articles for months. And Eightball had never even edited the article in question before deciding they didn't like it. Canterbury Tail talk 14:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I'm afraid that at least Eightball won't let this slide. On one of the rare occasions I have crossed paths with them I have been involved in another case were where they posted to a noticeboard with the request of "tell the other guys I'm right", only not to edit Wikipedia at all for nearly two weeks before returning and reacting with this when they found out that the discussion hadn't gone their way.Tvx1 21:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry about Eightball. If there are any issues let me know and I'll look into it. Canterbury Tail talk 13:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I find it quite bizarre that neither involved editors have edited wikipedia at all since roughly the same time after the initiation of this discussion.Tvx1 15:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Mass harassment

Please have a look at the abuse log here. This appears to be some type of off-wiki-organized mass harassment. The abuse log seems to be stopping most of it. I've blocked a bunch of accounts and protected the page, but I'll be offline shortly, so more admin eyes might be needed. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism on request apparently. Salt the page in question? It has already been deleted. Kleuske (talk) 21:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

There's also another target mentioned. Kleuske (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• I protected Nudah after one edit there; not quite in the same vein as deleted posts above, so not blocking anyone. It was kind of an IAR WP:CSD#A7, anyone is free to unprotect if they disagree. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Beast Donald

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've tagged a large number of images uploaded by Beast Donald (talk · contribs) for speedy deletion as they are unused in article space nor would their use comply with WP:NFCC#8. The large major of these uploads feature the character Shizuka (a minor) from the anime series Doraemon including panty shots, nudity, or in other sexually provocative situations. On top of that, the editor only uses the account to upload the images or create new articles, but uses IPs to include some of their images in articles.[109][110][111][112][113] —Farix (t | c) 13:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked and nuked most of his uploads. One of them may have been illegal in the US, showing cartoon children in explicit positions. Feel free to mark any of the others for CSD. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:07, 19 June 2017 (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:JohnWilkinson (re-opening case)

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 is a continuation of a previous case from December 2016 / January 2017 (although I think may be getting my noticeboards confused; am I in the right place?) Either way, long-term unconstructive editing dating back to October 2015. Today, User:JohnWilkinson is back to his old tricks at Gennady Golovkin, loudly spouting his nonsensical agenda against the IBO and presenting himself as some all-knowing authority on boxing. When it comes to utter nonsense like this, the phrase I'm looking for is "I cannot". Again, I dread interacting with him in any way, but please do something. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

He rarely if ever used talkpages, refuses to engage... a short block seems necessary. --Tarage (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

He's been making these edits for almost two years, but only returning every few months to do so. A short block won't ward those off. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Topic ban? --Tarage (talk) 21:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Since he has no existing block log, a short block is the obvious next step. I'm prepared to do it if this recurs. Deb (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• I think we need to be a bit more strict here. The user is clearly NOTTHERE- he wasn't on this last username nor the one before that. The user has been given chance after chance- the first ANI thread got derailed after unintentional OUTING and the second ANI thread (ironically enough opened by himself) raised serious CIR issues- a 'last chance' if you like. At this point, I can only conclude that this user has serious CIR issues between the anti-IBO agenda and nonsensical edit summaries and is just NOTTHERE to build an encyclopedia. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

This is absolutely ridiculous. This might be low-level and intersperesed by months of inactivity, but it's no less trolling for that- or disruptive. Frankly they should probably be indef'd and get it over with. They narrowly escaped sanction in (two) previous ANIs, as a result of doing their usual M.O. disappearing act. At the last one, NinjaRobotPirate was pretty clear as to the consequences of any continuation. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 07:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It's true my talk page message was supposed to be a final warning, but maybe I wasn't clear enough about that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

No issue with another admin blocking now but I'll be alerted whenever JohnWilkinson edits and will block if they don't heed my clear, final warning. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Should that happen, do I come back here yet again or just let one of you know? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Mac Dreamstate: I'll be alerted whenever JohnWilkinson edits and will monitor them so there's no need to notify me. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Here he goes again.. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Already indefinitely blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

After doing a little bit of poking about on the net, this block is as much for his sake as it is ours. Blackmane (talk) 03:55, 19 June 2017 (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.

Short block needed to get the attention of an IP-hopper using IPv6

Someone using 2405:205:A0E1:39F0:* (i.e. a single user, since that's what people usually get when using IPv6) is repeatedly adding irrelevant material on RCI (company), one of the largest time-share brokers in the world with operations in 100+ countries, detailed information about their office in Bangalore, India (one of more than 100 local offices of theirs...), and names of staff there, probably because of wanting to have their name on Wikipedia (see page history of the article...); so far having used four IPs in that net in quick succession, and getting four identical messages (see User talk:2405:205:A0E1:39F0:471B:4F8:59E9:744D), but obviously not having read any of them. So could someone please block them for 12-24h to get their attention? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

• I protected. Kinda pushing the number of reverts since it wasn't vandalism, even if it was disruptive, so please be careful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Soumyabratabhat8974 - Exploration Mission 2, Orion (spacecraft)...

Hi. For about 3 weeks, the user Soumyabratabhat8974 frequently edit the "Exploration Mission 2" (and lot of other pages like "Orion (spacecraft)"") with fantasist or irrelevant assertions, that are always reverted by me or other editors. Is it possible to block him on this page ? Thanks. --FlyAkwa (talk) 13:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• He was already blocked two days ago and obviously hasn't edited since. You didn't notify him that you bought a case against him here, something that is required and noted at the top of this page. I have provided notification but you need to do this yourself in the future. Since they were already blocked for 48 hours, there isn't anything else for us to do. BTW, you would be expected to provide that information in your complaint. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • My mistake : I put the notification in his "user page" rather than his "talk page". Thanks for your answer. --FlyAkwa (talk) 10:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Rape in India

some people keep on not letting me add information from the Times of India report on India's Rajya Sabha - which is indian parliament upper house - being told about India having third highest number of rapes in the world. On the page Rape in India.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_in_India&action=history

i used correct good sources. that can be checked on my version. but still one user said its not reliable source (actually times of india is of india's top newspapers). and when i add with another Google books source someone else deletes my contribution again and uses reason of 'last stable version' and other people keep on helping each other to delete my paragraph with no good reason. wikipedia allows everyone to contribute. 169.149.0.79 (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey anon. What you should do when you have a content dispute with other editors is go to the talk page at Talk:Rape in India, discuss the disagreement and try to reach a consensus. The others, like User:Capitals00 and User:El C should probably join in the discussion, and explain why they disagree on which version of the article is the better one. TimothyJosephWood 13:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: thanks for pinging. Certainly, what IP says is actually disputed by our better article Rape statistics#By country which shows that there are enough reliable sources that estimate other countries having huge amount of rapes and they are not appeared in the list that IP user is talking about. While there would be almost no argument against "no.1" candidate, dispute starts with "no.2", "no.3" and anything after that. Capitals00 (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Meh. Wouldn't hurt to post that on the talk page, for the sake of WP:BITE and all. You know, some people end up on ANI when they meant to click on the Teahouse. TimothyJosephWood 16:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Fair idea. Done. Capitals00 (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Deletion and move request

Could an admin please delete the article currently at OnePlus 5 and replace it with the version at Draft:OnePlus 5. Please ping me on here when it is completed. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

• The draft version is just a fraction of the size of the current version, why aren't you just adding/subtracting the text? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Dennis Brown: Well, I tried to fix this, but before I could finish the round robin move the draft was recreated. I've redirect the draft to the article, and marked OnePlus 5 Placeholder, round robin for G6. So someone should come through and clean it up soon. Or if you feel like it, you can do us the honors. The placeholder apparently had copyvio issues too, so two birds one stone I guess. TimothyJosephWood 16:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I just had figured that out. I was looking to hist merge the two articles actually. Done. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you two for your help. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah... good luck with that hist merge. It looks like they were created in parallel. BTW Emir, you may want to consider applying for Wikipedia:Page mover rights. This allows you to suppress redirects and IMO is pretty essential if you are involved in moving things between main and draft spaces. Otherwise you end up leaving a bit of a mess that has to be cleaned up. It also allows you to do round robin moves so you can (usually) take care of things like this yourself. You've got almost 20k edits and a clean block log, so I don't see anyone turning you down. TimothyJosephWood 17:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Merges are easy with the delete/undelete tool, click a couple of buttons, then revert to the best version. It's just pointless if you have persistent copyvios. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

User:DonitzLiebt

Could somebody have a look at this user's recent contributions please. Edit-warring on at Lochtegate and Otto Warmbier, and some very aggressive recent edit summaries. (I have not checked the contributions of whoever s/he is arguing with, so make no claim about whether they are or are not problematic.) Many thanks. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I reported the user DonitzLiebt's edits at AIV, but I believe more attention is needed. This user repeatedly added Ryan Lochte and Lochtegate, which have been reverted by mostly Yoshiman6464 and others. I reverted one of the user's edits, but look at this and that. There are too many diffs to offer, but [114][115] should suffice. --George Ho (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I would also like to mention that the user in question mentions "white privilege" in the Loche article, but denies it in the Warmbier article. Plus, if you try reminding of the user of the contradictions in the Warmbier, DonitzLiebt will claim that you are delusional, like here, here and here. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 16:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, the user added in the unneeded article, Ugly American (pejorative), in both Otto Warmbier and Lochtegate. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 16:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

This user is also in edit war with me. I warned him 3 times, but he continues. I support this report. -- » Shadowowl | talk 16:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

In raising it here, I had in mind mainly this edit summary and this one. (I haven't checked whether these are the same diffs already mentioned above or different ones.) --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Indefinite banned by User:John Reaves -- » Shadowowl | talk 16:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I've just realised that I failed to notify the user in question in accordance with the requirement shown above. I doubt whether it would have affected the outcome in the circumstances, but nonetheless, I should clearly have done so, so please accept my apologies. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

No worries, Money money tickle parsnip; I already did. --George Ho (talk) 17:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Mrakd002.302 Continued addition of unsourced material

This user has a long history of unsourced additions, mostly with a focus on music, specifically Stevie Wonder. User has received multiple final warnings, each of which was WP:REMOVED by them ([116], [117], and [118]). The latest final warning was not only removed but the issue was replaced to the article without sourcing (see [119] and [120]). Additionally this user has received numerous warnings on refactoring other people's comments on talk pages, including at at least one of the many AfDs of this user's articles ([121]).--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Crazybob2014 and unsourced content

Crazybob2014 (talk · contribs) is an infrequent contributor, but when he's around, it's usually to add unsourced content. Recently, I've been trying to clean up the massive amounts of unsourced content and original research in film articles. This has been an uphill battle in some quarters, because some people aren't used to having to source their edits. After becoming frustrated with this, I raised the issue here, where a consensus found that production companies need to be explicitly sourced. Yesterday, in List of Columbia Pictures films, CrazyBob2014 added unsourced content. I reverted it, only for Crazybob2014 to wordlessly revert me back in this edit. When I pointed out I'd already given him a level 4 warning for adding unsourced content, his response was that content doesn't need to be sourced, and my "unsourced rule" is "stupid". I honestly don't think Crazybob2014 is going to stop adding unsourced content. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Well considering a consensus exists, they've been warned against their actions, they've responded to (and thus read) the warning the next step here would be a block. @Crazybob2014: I'd be keen to hear from you regarding this -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 11:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

• I've left a clear warning on his page. We will see how he reacts to that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • He didn't react well. He's still restoring unsourced content. He finally added a citation in this edit, but the source fails verification – it doesn't mention Columbia. Can someone please block him so I can continue sourcing this article in peace without being reverted by an incompetent editor? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Im not incompetent, im protesting this article. Crazybob2014 (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
      • Two things come to mind. First, have you tried to find sources NRP? You aren't obligated of course, just saying sometimes that is easier. Second to Bob, I'm really not interested in your protest. I will give you credit for adding the source (which is why I'm writing this instead of blocking you) but protesting isn't going to help. All contested additions to all articles require sourcing, preferably from 2nd party, WP:reliable sources, although there are some exceptions where we use less then perfect sources (like you used) or primary sources (from the company that put out the movie). No one is singling you out. On the contrary, we expect this from all editors. To treat you different would be to single you out, in fact. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
        • Most of the sources in that article were added by me. I've also sourced the production companies and distributors in The Emoji Movie, one of the contested entries. I haven't gotten around to The Star (2017 film) yet, but it's listed here in Variety Insight's database. I dislike working on this kind of tedium – production companies, film distributors, etc are all terribly uninteresting to me – but, as I said above, I'm trying to fix a large number of mostly-unsourced articles that have languished for years. Several editors have objected to what the sources say, and I'm tired of dealing with it. I would like the area cleared out of disruptive editors so that I can get back to work on these articles. And, yes, I'm adding sources to the article for the entries that are sourceable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
          • I appreciate. Like I said, you aren't obligated to, but if was just one or two, it's easier. There are a couple of different areas where we have problems with editors that won't source and demand their additions are included. Musicians are one, cinema is another. At this point, I think I've given Crazybob2014 fair warning and made it clear that if his edits are challenged and reverted, he needs to either leave the material out or go find a source. I will say that my standards for some of these are pretty low when it comes to WP:RS if it is likely true. It's the old "I would rather be happy than right" thing that I live by. If the source he uses is passable but imperfect, I would leave it until someone else finds a better one. That doesn't mean you have to do the same. I just try to not sweat the small stuff and instead focus on the contentious stuff. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Paid editing and sarcastic comments plus 3RR regarding Exemplo347

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.

---

Resolved

 – Hotelpool indef-blocked as a sockpuppet. Nothing more to do here. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

After my cresation of the article Worldventures User:Exemplo347 added a G11 tag. I removed it and started a discussion on his talkpage as well as the article talk (which he has not replied to) After he reinserted it I notified him of the creation of this thread he replied "Please, please do that. I'd really like it." He also broke 3RR by inserting it again. He seems to be biased with the articles content which leads me to believe that he is a paid editor. Hotelpool (talk) 13:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

We've got lots of biased editors who don't get paid a lick. Is there a specific edit that says "Paid editor"? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• Actually, I've deleted it now. Since you started the article, you aren't supposed to remove a speedy delete tag, so frankly I'm not concerned about how many reverts they did. If anyone should be blocked, it would be you for continually removing the tag. What you created was unambiguous Grade A Spam with no encyclopedic value. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Hotelpool: Please do not remove CSD notices from pages you have created yourself. Please 'contest the deletion' and let the reviewing admin decide- as, indeed, they did. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Enjoy your day folks. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I have recreated the article. I will start other measures to combat this if this fails Hotelpool (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• Deleted again and salted by Black Kite. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
• No, you won't. I have deleted the article again, and if you re-create it you will be blocked for persistent spamming. Black Kite (talk) 13:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
• Final warning given - Hotelpool, I really recommend you cut it out, as I or another admin will be blocking you the next time to attempt to re-create this article -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 13:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Can someone please deal with this - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Exemplo347? Thanks. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked 12 hours - we've all got better things to be doing here than mopping up inappropriate articles, arguing or dealing with silly SPIs -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 13:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest looking a little deeper into Hotelpool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s contributions. Their 6th edit was a level 4 warning [122]. Within three hours of creating their account, they added a speedy deletion tag to an article [123]. Then this doozy[124]. Here's another grossy unwarranted level 4 warning [125] for this edit. This is not a new editor, probably a troll, and almost certain a sock of another blocked user.- MrX 14:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd agree. I don't care who you are, posting "have a nice block" on someone whose only warning is a level 4 you put there... nope. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

{{Checkuser needed}} Chrissymad raised some concerns that this could be Swissfishpool but I'm not familiar enough with them to duck-block.. A checkuser would be appreciated -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 15:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Then Chrissymad should file an SPI linking to here. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Rob, and I've deactivated the Checkuser request. As an SPI clerk I'm not going to go hunting around to this-and-that discussion here and there to find the evidence. Put the evidence in a proper SPI and then we'll see about Checkuser. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The Swissfishpool case is also  Stale for what it's worth. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• I had already echoed the possible linkage and Bbb23 deleted the SPI, so he obviously saw it, thus a CU has already reviewed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Just adding this note here for future reference ... regarding the site involved; see also the history at WorldVentures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah ... it could have been deleted as G4, though I'm quite glad it wasn't, as I've never been claimed as a sockpuppet at an SPI before. There's a first time for everything. Black Kite (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Block review - impersonation

Resolved

 – Clearly the right thing to do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I just blocked Yamla's Brother (talk · contribs). Whoever this is has been setting up impersonation accounts on a number of Wikimedia projects. I have admin rights here and blocked this for evident reasons. I raise the block here in case anyone thinks I shouldn't have acted directly. Barring objections, I plan to keep blocking these where I see them. --Yamla (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

It's one of our LTAs, block away as you see fit.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• Good block, no question this is a situation where WP:INVOLVED doesn't apply. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• WP:BROTHER may apply :-) Nyttend (talk) 05:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• Good block, no questions here. Vanamonde (talk) 09:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
• Agreed, good block. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, blocking clear impersonators / LTA accounts like this is absolutely fine - even if they have your username in it. It would be silly for someone to whip WP:INVOLVED at you for something as clear as this... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Jim Michael and User:The Rambling Man

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

---

Withdrawn Power~enwiki (talk) 21:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Jim Michael (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Both caught in an ugly dispute over multiple days related to WP:ITNC and also on their own talk pages, I request a 48-hour cooldown ban for both for edit-warring on 2015 and 2017. The Rambling Man made several false inappropriate comments on my talk page [126] [127]. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC) Requesting for an admin to check for sockpuppets without evidence is highly inappropriate and can be regarded as a personal attack. Unless you have concrete evidence they are socking, there is no need to report someone and ask an admin to check for sockpuppets. That's not how it works. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC) OK, comment removed. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC) TRM has been talking down to me, making demands, following me and threatening me - faking authority. I've remained civil. We disagreed in regard to whether on not to include an event on ITN, so he's been targeting me on RY articles, going against consensus there. Jim Michael (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC) And Jim Michael has been pushing falsehoods (he claims to understand the voting methodology of individuals at ITN), edit warring and breached 3RR. I have not targeted anything, Jim's reverts needed explanation yet he simply engaged in breaching 3RR. I've remained civil. Storm in a teacup. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC) @ Power~enwiki... Ummm "cool down" blocks are a no no. File that away somewhere in case you ever go for RfA. It's been known to pop up in questions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC) I made no such claim. I merely commented on a discussion, not the motivation of specific editors. I didn't breach 3RR - I made 3 reverts to 2015. The first was to remove an article that shouldn't have been there - that wasn't a revert. Jim Michael (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC) Power~enwiki, is there a reason why you've brought this to the dramah boards? CassiantoTalk 21:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC) The (removed) comments on my talk page led me to file here. The dramah needs to be dealt with somehow, apparently a temporary block isn't allowed? I'm happy to move this to the edit-warring notice board. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC) No, and why should it be allowed? Blocking is not the answer in 99% of situations. CassiantoTalk 21:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC) The edit-warring is over - I'm happy to talk in a civil manner on the talk pages of the articles concerned. Jim Michael (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC) Yes, me too, so why this other user decided to request check user etc is beyond me. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC) In other words, this thread was prematurely filed and there was no reason to file one in the first place. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC) I would request that an admin comment publicly on The Rambling Man's now-deleted posts on my talk page, and then close this thread. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC) I propose this discussion be closed immediately, as it appears you two have this under control. As for Power~enwiki, it's very disrespectful to make a check-user request just for safe measure. I know you realize this now, but neither of them have exhibited backdoor behavior. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 21:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC) Agreed. Jim Michael (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2017 (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 nice to know the Federal Aviation Administration is a school

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.

---

204.108.0.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) That IP is just an example. @Favonian: and @JamesBWatson: have decided that an entire /16 range is "the same school network." I'm sure if anyone from the FAA has tried to edit since these two administrators started "school blocking" that range, they have appreciated the little red school house and being told that editing is disabled from their "educational institution." I decided to bring this to AN/I instead of just contacting a the administrators directly because the community as a whole needs to see this. This range isn't even exclusive to a particular state or education-related organization, much less an individual school. This is why these mass long-term rangeblocks affecting thousands of institutions, that exist for the convenience of administrators with an irrational fear that a child may one day successfully write "penis" or "hi" on an article, need to end. It's like email providers that would block all Chinese IP addresses because a lot of spam comes from China; a lot of spam may indeed come from China but not everything from China is spam. A lot of vandalism may indeed come from educational institutions, but not everything from educational institutions (or in this case, places that are unfortunate to share a /16 range with some educational institutions) is vandalism. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 22:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I just looked further through that range, and I'm going to go on a limb and guess this is intended to block the Los Angeles Unified School District, simply because that is the second largest schools system in the continental United States and therefore has a lot of students who may wish to vandalize. Even that is a fairly wild guess, because a random sample of IPs in that range is revealing many possible targets, including school districts across the U.S., colleges and technical schools across the U.S., a city government, some private companies, and of course the FAA. A /8 block on AT&T's 12.x.x.x range would be more specific because at least it would be ISP specific. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 22:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

1. Perhaps you can clarify for me exactly what your point is. It superficially looks to me as though it is something like the following. You think some editors have made a mistake. You think that when someone makes a mistake, it is a good idea to post a contemptuous and sarcastic message about the fact, because you think anyone who can make a mistake is worthy of such contempt. While you were about it, you decided that rather than just commenting on the particular mistake in question, you would take the opportunity to use it as an opportunity to promote the crusade against range blocks of any sort that you have been waging for years. Is that about right, or have I misunderstood?
2. The block of mine that you refer to was made a little over three years ago. My usual practice in such cases is to check very carefully before blocking, and it is a fairly easy matter to check the allocation of an IP range, so the risk of making a mistake should not be very great. However, after that much time I am unable to confirm whether at the time of the block the range in question was, as I thought, allocated to one school network, or whether, as you seem to believe, the allocation of the range was the same then as it is now. Do you have any evidence for how the range was allocated in May 2014? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

PCHS-NJROTC, you've been going on about this personal pet peeve of yours for years and have not received consensus or support for your views regarding school blocks. For admins like JamesBWatson and Favonian, who volunteer their time to limit the vandalism and disruption that occurs here minute after minute, hour after hour and day after day to be "named and shamed" by you ("I decided to bring this to AN/I instead of just contacting a the administrators directly because the community as a whole needs to see this") is misguided at best. Stating the blocks are based on "irrational fears" is outright condescending. If you have a problem with the length of a specific block then discuss it with the administrator who imposed it. If you would like to continue your quest to change the way school blocks are handled then start an RfC and see if there is consensus for your views.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Rangeblocks serve a purpose, but as a Conservapedian who has seen the disastrous effects of a now deceased user known as TK blocking wide ranges on a whim, you are never going to convince me that "school blocking" /16 ranges for more than one year to stop kids from occasionally writing "poop" or "I Love You" on an article is a good idea. How many people have not become editors at Wikipedia because of this block? Read the stories of how many experienced editors got started; most of them didn't just wake up and decide to become an editor. Many people start out editing as an IP, and while some created accounts, I doubt very many of them jumped through hoops to create accounts unless they had an agenda to push. Kids are going to be kids, if we block all of the schools, they will use cell phones, if we block all of the cell phones, they will do it from home. It won't even reduce the vandalism, it will just delay the inevitable to the end of the school day. Blocking the planet didn't stop liberals from vandalizing Conservapedia, and it won't stop school children from vandalizing Wikipedia. Eventually editors here are going to realize that blocks like this are the reason less people are becoming Wikipedians and more articles are being neglected.

I haven't said anything about this topic in a long time, and the reason JamesBWatson even was mentioned in this is because it was only fair to name both who have blocked the range. I'm well aware of the fact that his action was many years ago, but I did not want to be accused of singling anyone out. You are probably right that RfC is the best place for this, but that would still be called out as "name shaming." We all volunteer our time for the project, but we must also consider the consequences of acting in haste (which I admit I have been guilty of myself at times), especially when using administrative tools. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 22:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. You need to convince the community that the damage from rangeblocks outweighs the known and potential disruption of leaving them blocked and that the blocking policies should be adjusted accordingly. This would best be done through an RfC with specific evidence presented demonstrating the harm in such blocks. You are persistently making assumptions about rangeblocks that are completely off-base (e.g. the vandalism is limited to "poop" and "I love you"-type edits and that the admins making the blocks are just pounding the block button without reviewing the evidence) all apparently based on something that you personally experienced on a completely different website. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: the FAA was making edits from that range in 2006. Their IPs are still registered to the FAA, and based on the nature of the edits, they belonged to the FAA when they were making the edits. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 22:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see what Admin action is being requested here. This is some sort of personal dispute and, if it isn't closed by the original poster, it's just going to attract pointless drama. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Lifting the rangeblock and either correcting it to target the intended institution or eliminating it altogether would be an appropriate administrative action at this point. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 23:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, you could have just asked for that, minus all the other nonsense. Maybe you should take that lesson away with you for next time. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I sometimes edit from an IP range that is subject to a school-block (it's part of the UK's JANET network) and it makes absolutely no difference to anything (because I have an account), so I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the "harm" from school-blocks is pretty much negligible. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Request block of User:Henia Perlman

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.

---

• Henia Perlman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The Holocaust (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user, who says that she has been a teacher for more than 20 years, has been making edits to The Holocaust and related articles, but has not followed Wikipedia guidelines, had ignored advice of people that have adopted her and sought to mentor her.

She had been given warnings about not adding unhelpful or uncited content and continues to make edits after a final warning. The last edit was this edit after receving comments from here and here.

I am sure that there is not an intention to be disruptive, but there is also not an intention to try to work with others on the content to ensure that it is appropropriate and follows Wikipedia guidelines, such as being properly cited.

The warnings are posted on User talk:Henia Perlman. I don't remember asking for someone to be blocked before. Is there anything that I am missing?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not an admin, but let's see if we can avoid a block here. I've posted a couple of observations at Talk:Holocaust. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I see that. I hope some headway can be made.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

CaroleHenson, I hope so, too. There are certainly enough people trying to help her, both here, and at French wikipedia. I see your frustration, and that of others, and understand why you would call for a block. I can also see the sincere desire to help on the part of this new user, also, but I also see the disruption in the face of repeated attempts to instruct. I wouldn't be opposed to a short, narrow, topic-based block as a wake-up call given the situation but I just wanted to echo Yngvadottir to see if we can avoid it. My approach has been on Henia's talk page, here. Let's hope something works. Mathglot (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Mathglot.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree, maybe an article ban for the Holocaust article, that can be lifted when Henia shows that she is able to make edits that are policy compliant. I think this article is particularly challenging for a new editor, who may not understand why large rapid changes to the article are being reverted. Editing very broad and lengthy articles like this can be challenging and sometimes more specialized articles are a better experience. Several editors have suggested expanding more specialized articles and I'm inclined to agree that Henia should take a break from this article until she is more experienced.Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Henia would like to have time to present her own version

Thank you so much for trying to consider. I am a new comer, retired from teaching the Holocaust for 20 years (not mentioned in Carole’s message), considered an expert in Holocaust research and education, experienced with how the average reader can understand the wikipedia Holocaust article (thousands of my students read it) with personal Holocaust background, an old lady mentally challenged in some aspects, would like to use her time to constructively contribute to the Holocaust article and other history articles.

From the beginning, as a newcomer my good faith contributions have been immediately reverted, many times, without attempt to talk to me, and using all kind of wiki terms, subjected to rollback, warnings, accusation of being disruptive (I checked wiki: and it does not seem that my conduct was disruptive as a new comer, and threats. It is only lately, that I felt a more truthful attempt to help me out, but because of the past, I didn’t know how much it was genuine. I was let to understand that there is a group of people, carefully watching contributions to the Holocaust article. I understand, I think the reasons. But, it was very clear to all, that I am not a Holocaust denier, as I posted some material about me in the user talk.

The whole wiki experience has been very stressful, especially with the death of my husband, and almost pushed me to give up being involved in Wikipedia. I did ask my previous mentor to help, but I didn't hear from him, after I asked a specific question. So, I just asked all editors, to help me with technology (some have been doing that without my request), as we all want to improve the content of the articles. andI am crying writing all that! I would like to present my own version, in more details.

One can also read the history in my user talk and talk of the article. I am ready to actively listen. I have to go now as I am flying to visit my grandchildren out of town. Thank you for your kind attention. Henia Perlman (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

the only thing I want to point out is that I have no idea where the the idea that anyone was at all thinking that this editor had anything to do with Holocaust denial. That statement is totally out of left field and I'm not really happy with the veiled insinuation that those trying to work with Henia have ever implied, much less said she might be associated with such things. Other than that, I'll let the various talk page and user talk page posts speak for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I am at a loss what to do at this point. It has been quite a unique experience, but hopefully those who have stepped forward might have better luck.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Henia Perlman:, please take a few deep breaths, and don't cry. You can become a good editor at Wikipedia, but there are some things to learn around here, just like when you learn a new language or move to a different country. Lots of people are trying to help you, and I've left you a message at your talk page, here. Enjoy your grandchildren, and write to me on your talk page, if you've a mind to. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 20:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• I don't want to second-guess anyone here, especially since I'm no longer actively watching The Holocaust, but since I had several interactions with User:CaroleHenson/User:Rachelle Perlman last month and have followed the situation off and on from a distance, I feel moved to make a brief comment and a proposal. I'm 99.9% sure she's not only editing in good faith but also trying to work within expectations that, for whatever reasons, she doesn't seem quite able to grasp. She said to me, "It is very difficult for me to behave as a digital native" (permalink). I offered advice in that thread, as did others elsewhere, and she has taken some of it. For instance, she visited the Teahouse, began using edit summaries, and stopped marking substantive edits as minor. So it's not that she's been unwilling to change, but clearly she hasn't been willing or able to change enough, and I don't blame the editors who've been working so hard to improve the article for feeling fed up.
  Proposal: in lieu of being blocked, Ms. Perlman agrees not to edit the article The Holocaust directly for a predetermined interval (at least the remainder of this month but preferably longer), instead proposing all of her changes on the talk page. In this way, she'd still be welcome to contribute but would leave matters of formatting, style, and policy compliance up to more experienced editors. If she's willing to agree to that—and stick to it absolutely—then there would no longer be any preventive purpose in blocking her. If she's not willing to agree or proves unable to follow through, then I guess it's a CIR thing and a ban of some sort may be necessary. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 03:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree - I think that's a good idea.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Support - I think this is a good solution. Paul August ☎ 11:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Support Agreed, this would be a good solution. Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree - Like you, and probably all of us, I'm also 99% sure she's working in good faith and trying to do the right thing, just having a hard time of it. I've made an offer on her talk page to help, and the unstated advice I had in mind is nearly identical with your suggestion above (although checking my crystal ball, e-o-month isn't going to be enough, I'm guessing e-o-Summer at the very least). There's also been offers of help from all sides, including on French wikipedia, where she has been running into the same problems on the same topic . As someone who has contributed to more than one WP, I think an interesting wrinkle to consider for your proposal, would be to try to determine what her intentions are vis-a-vis contributions to en-wiki vs. fr-wiki, as the policies and cultures are pretty different. Trying to learn one culture and set of rules is hard enough as a new contributor (even as an experienced one), without having to learn two of them at once. As she is someone who self-describes as non-tech savvy and raises their age as a consideration, that is a really tough row to hoe. Btw, I don't mean to imply she should lean more towards fr than en necessarily, not at all; rather, that she should consider picking just one to become familiar with first, and then, after she feels fully at ease with the first one (a couple of years, I would guess) then try the other. Regarding her topic of expertise and choice, it's unfortunate that it's one that is known to attract passions and controversy, as it just makes it harder for her here, and I'm actually kind of surprised that it's not covered under sanctions here or here. In any case, I have a lot of specific ideas of how to help her, I hope she takes me up on it at her talk page. Mathglot (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

(Post-script): I re-read your proposal, and there is one area where I might disagree, namely, in the part about raising her ideas on the Talk page. I think this will lead to endless discussion and frustration all around; I believe she should stay away from the article and the talk page, and either avoid the topic entirely while learning the ropes, or come at it from the non-controversial edges on low-visibility pages. The article in question is a member of eleven different projects, and any one of them could provide task lists of things to do. For example, the To-do list at WikiProject Jewish history has any number of articles and categories of articles needing attention [avoid Dreyfus affair however; still controversial a century later]. Imho, that would be a more fruitful way of learning the ropes, while contributing productively to the encyclopedia in a less stressful and less frustrating environment. Mathglot (talk) 19:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Mathglot, Yes, that would be better, if she would agree to it. So far, it's my understanding that she's only interested in writing about the Holocaust. It would be great to get Henia Perlman's input on this.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Henia is respectfully requesting not to block her at Holocaust and other articles

Thank you all for your thoughts and support.

Carole, I am respectfully asking you to cancel your request to block me. You could see that my request for your help with template conflicted with your request to block me. I thank you for your infinite patience.

Mathglot, I welcome your help, so I can continue to be involved in the Holocaust articles.

I have improved, slowly, but surely. I sincerely mean that.

I have been learning to collaborate in a constructive way, and reading wiki rules.

And I am trying to do things slowly: Today, I saw that Ealdgyth couldn’t find some sources, and deleted sentences. I made some research and I think that I found sources supporting the deleted sentences. Tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, I will present my citations in the Talk of the article, and ask Eadgyth if they are appropriate. Not today: because I want to think about them, and make sure that the citations are historically relevant, and “actually supports ALL of the information in the sentence”, like Ealdgyth asked about “euphemism” (I think that I did find a full sentence for that!)

I did truly show “intention to try to work with others”, and get along (I have moved a lot in my life!):

I notice when people corrected my formatting or statements, and I thank them publicly. If I am reverted, I don’t put back my contribution, but discuss it in the Talk of the Article, as Ealdgyth told me to do. After my change of “German-occupied Poland” was reverted, by Ealdgyth , I admitted I was wrong, because I remembered that Poland was divided between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

Thank you all for your kind consideration.

Be well, and be grateful for everyday.Henia Perlman (talk) 23:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henia Perlman (talk • contribs)

I moved Henia's response from the bottom of the page to this discussion.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Carole! I am learning everyday, and I should learn faster!Henia Perlman (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

duplicate proposal by mathglot, hidden to avoid muddying the waters

(To other monitoring editors: I explicitly waive WP:TPO for this message: if you find anything unclear below, or that would help clarify the message to Henia, feel free to reword, edit, shorten, modify or delete anything that leaves a clearer and more explicit message. You have my blessing. --mathglot.) Hi Henia, among the many customs around here, is not to cross-post (that means, putting the same message in several places), like you did here, here, and here. Don't worry about it, this is a minor issue, and Carole fixed up the last one by putting it into proper thread position here. Like I said, this is minor, and the only reason I'm even mentioning it, is because it's illustrative of something going on that you are not aware of: you are breaking a lot of little rules because of inexperience at Wikipedia, and stepping on people's toes, and they are cleaning up after you. Everyone knows this is not out of malice, but out of inexperience, which is why there's been a lot of forbearance so far. Nevertheless, there's a lot more of this than you are aware of, and people are getting a bit frustrated and impatient, which is only human and normal. This frustration and impatience is mounting, and you are the only one who can fix it. (Well, an admin can fix it, by blocking you, but that's what we are trying to avoid here, right?) You are truly at a fork in the road in your Wikipedia experience now, and you must decide which road you want to take: to become a successful editor at Wikipedia by listening to and heeding some advice, not all of which you will agree with, or to continue on your present course and probably be blocked. And you must decide quickly, because that block is coming soon, in my opinion, if you continue on your present course. So, let's not let that happen! This is entirely in your hands, but you don't know what to do, in order to "become a successful editor" here. There are many here ready to offer you help, if you will heed some advice. I believe everyone here trying to help you could guide you to that success, including myself. I have some specific advice for you, which I alluded to above, which I strongly believe will help you become a happy and successful Wikipedia editor in the long term, and will avoid a block. But I don't like to give unsolicited advice, so I want to hear explicitly from you that you want to hear what I have to say. If you want to hear it, you should respond below, without delay. If you agree to hear what I have to say, here is what I would like you to do: Come back to this page and go to the Table of Contents at the top of the page until you see the ToC entry "Henia is respectfully requesting not to block her at Holocaust and other articles" and click it. Edit this section (don't create a new section). Go to the bottom of this section, and start typing. Start each new paragraph with four colons, like this, and then start typing your message, like this: ::::(Text of your message goes here).... and then add your message. I urge you to read Help:Using talk pages first, especially the part about Replying to an existing thread and "Indentation" in that section. Since my message, this one that you are reading now, has a 3-colon indent, your message below this should have a 4-colon indent, as shown above. Make sense? What I'd like to see in your message, is that you'd like to hear my advice on how you can become a successful Wikipedia editor, and that for now you have stopped editing all pages on Wikipedia except this one (WP:ANI), your own talk page and User page, and the talk pages of any users interacting with you. Somewhere in your message, the beginning is a good place, please copy/paste this exact text into your message: {{ping|Mathglot|CaroleHenson}}. At the very end of your message, please copy/paste four tildes, like this: ~~~~. There should be nothing in your message after the tildes. The entire text of your message goes between the "ping" and the tildes. I look forward to your response.

Mathglot (talk) 03:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC) updated by Mathglot (talk) 04:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Mathglot, Henia has been considering the 2 options at my talk page, but we're at a bit of a crossroads about whether or not there is a need to check in with the talk page. She would like a twist on Rivertorch's proposal to continue to post to The Holocaust; I have concerns regarding recent edits to consolidate information in the overview article and just start adding content. Input is appreciated.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

CaroleHenson Thanks; one of my concerns in fact was the cross-posting, and multiplicity of offers in different venues. Since you have something going on at your talk page, I will lurk first, and join if needed. Feel free to ping me anytime. I've shrunk my post above so it's available if necessary, but otherwise it needn't be considered actionable. Mathglot (talk) 04:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Mathglot, Understood. She was having problems with the talk page. I was going to bring it back here when we had a proposal for the community. But, now it appears that we're stuck.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

CaroleHenson Synchronicity; I'm half-finished with a post over there, just looking up the Help links to Talk page threading and indentation! GMTA. See ya over there soon... Mathglot (talk) 04:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

No further response to the 2 options, went ahead and edited again

@Mathglot and Rivertorch: There was no further response by Henia Perlman to the 2 options and Rivertorch's comment to my talk page here about needing to select one of the 2 options. She went ahead and made edits to The Holocaust here, which were reverted by Ealdgyth here with the edit summary: "this is not supported by the definitions (multiple, I'll note) later in the article. It's also a mess format wise. We should not categorically state that the clergy were part of the Holocaust - only the most fringe of definitions possibly include them...".

This does not seem in keeping with the spirit of either option since the edits were made without consulting anyone, nor discussing it on the talk page first. She then posted a message on the talk page, to which Ealdgyth replied in this three edit thread.

Since she does not agree to either of the 2 proposals or working with anyone, it seems to me that blocking is the only option. Perhaps there can be a time limit to the block and see how things go after that.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson, Ealdgyth, and Rivertorch: Sad, but I agree. I think we need one ultimatum, one of those red stop-sign with hand things along with a hand-written message on her talk page (or template, if necessary) to get her attention. I think it should say that the next time she edits the page she will be blocked. (I think a block should include the article Talk page as well, but I may be in the minority.) I'm happy to place such a message on her page, but I'm not an admin so maybe I shouldn't be the one advising of an impending block that I can't carry out. Is one of the people who have been following this an admin, do you know? Ealdgyth, Rivertorch, are you? Does anyone know the stop-sign thing I'm referring to? If she edits there after an ultimatum, I'd go for a 3-day block to start. Sad. Mathglot (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

She's had the series of a warnings, final warning and the one more edit and you'll be blocked final warning messages. The last of which was posted June 18 here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm an admin, but this would be the classic example of WP:INVOLVED (and rightly so), so I cannot take any admin action at all in regards to this. It needs an uninvolved admin. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Changing "genocide" to "ideological persecution" was not a good edit. The revert was a good thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I've given Henia a 31 hour block for her continued unsourced edits after repeated warnings and pleas not to do. I really did not hope it would come to this, however this was needed per the above diffs. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Carole, my bad for not checking her talk page to see that it had already been done, sorry. Fully appropriate block; sad it had to come to this, but I hope it makes her rethink things and take a different approach when she comes back. Mathglot (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Rick and Mathglot. I hope so, but based upon her comments on French wikipedia, there does not seem to be self-awareness. We'll see how it goes. Thanks for your help!–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Sad but inevitable. I think we can probably mark this resolved. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 20:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this thread is resolved from the perspective of the temporary block.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2017 (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.

Contacting an Administrator

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 is a post that is a copy of one i made on C.Fred's talk page here

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Huffyypuffyy (talk) 03:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Since all you have to say to my requests at discussion, im starting an discussion with an Admin. Have a great day and stay cool :)

C.Fred has deleted my "Tatum Jane Brooks" Wikipedia page with "speedy delete" and did not even give me a warning. He did this because he says that the person who the article was written about was not important and i didnt have links to show it. I didnt even have the time to edit my article, since it was only an hour old i couldnt have possibly written the whole thing in that time, including all my links and things, to prove that my person was relevant and deserving of a page. My page was deleted in like 30 minutes, and i left a message on C.Freds talk. He deleted this several times, so i cannot provide a link but im sure its in his talk page history. He then left a message on my talk saying to not attack the editors, and didnt even lightly touch on my concerns. to make a long story short, i do not think he should have the right, and i dont think its fair, to delete a page without even a warning ahead of time to ask a person to change it or improve upon it. I know that my artical followed all of the rules, but i did not physically have the time to write an entire article without saving it to make sure my work wouldnt get deleted periodically. thank you for your help!

• Huffyypuffyy (talk · contribs) Well, an administrator will have to look at Huffyypuffyy's deleted contributions, including Tatum Jane Brooks which C.Fred speedy deleted, but they've clearly made numerous personal attacks on C.Fred's talkpage. Softlavender (talk) 03:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Huffyypuffyy received a speedy delete notice at 01:00 UTC; the article was not deleted until 02:22 after no significant changes were made. As far as the original message ([128]) and reposts ([129] [130]) on my talk page, I read the message. However, since 3/4 of it was a personal attack, I removed it. —C.Fred (talk) 03:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender are you the admin whos settling this? if so i dont see why youre picking his side, i have the right to be angry because this guy didnt even give a warning. look, i get that im new at this but i dont feel like i should be ganged up against because of this, this guy is literally a collage graduate and he thinks he can walk all over me because he has some badges. isnt wikipedia supposed to be for everyone?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huffyypuffyy (talk • contribs) 03:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Huffyypuffyy, you were given a notice regarding the deletion of your article. You are always allowed to recreate the article and add the links. However, I highly suggest you create a draft first and then publish your article. Now, back to another issue. You have got to stop attacking editors. I don't see how a man with an education degree has anything to do with your article. Please see WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. It was unnecessary. Wikipedia editors aren't taking sides. Policy and guidelines are what makes us lean toward a position. And what if somebody agrees with C.Fred? That's not C.Fred's problem. It's yours. It shows that you need to improve your article whether it be the published one, the draft or your draft in the sandbox. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 04:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• Huffyypuffyy (talk · contribs) I'm an admin, and I will be blocking your account the next time I see a personal attack from you. The article was correctly deleted - you yourself admitted that "there is no way i could have possibly added information to make it meet your standards of importance as to not get deleted". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Callmemirela alright, thank you! im new to creating articles on here and i didnt know you could create a draft and then publish it, ill look for that function when i go to make my article again. I can understand how what i said was unprofessional, but then again how cfred handled it was not professional either. id expect a certain level of professionalism when im contacted by a member of a encyclopedia cite, as well as a grown adult with a degree, that i immediately was not greeted with. im sorry if thats just the way editors are in this community

@Boing! said Zebedee thanks for that. in the context of that comment, i meant in the slot of time that i was given, because when my article is threatened to be taken down for "speedy deletion" i am aloud to think that it will be taken down immediately. as i said earlier, i did not know that there was a draft function. i saved my work periodically as one does in case my computer were to blow up spontaneously. i was notified by wikipedia that i cant save without it publishing, so that was a risk i had to take. i was immediately put down when i couldnt even begin to write an article safely without said article being deleted, and when it was threatened to be deleted, for all i knew immediately, i didnt see a point to try to fix it because for all i knew it could have been deleted the very next minute and all my work would have been for nothing. thank you for adding to this thread though, because since i am new to wiki editing on this cite, all comments directed towards me i will use as constructive criticism :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huffyypuffyy (talk • contribs) 08:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Before writing an article, you should read Wikipedia:Your first article for guidelines and information about our baseline standards for inclusion. Not everything or every person qualifies for inclusion in Wikipedia. You should not take the deletion of an article personally — it is not a comment on you as an editor or on the person in question, it's simply a decision by an experienced editor/administrator that the article isn't suitable for the encyclopedia.

I see absolutely nothing from C.Fred that qualifies as "unprofessional" — they left you a standard notice that the article was nominated for speedy deletion and then a standard notice that your personal attacks were unacceptable. We welcome new editors, but as a new editor, you have a responsibility to learn our policies and it is generally a good idea to listen to experienced editors when they make efforts to educate you about those policies. It is not a good idea to aggressively attack those experienced editors. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Another possible approach would have been to approach C.Fred (who seems to be a friendly and helpful sort) in a civil manner and ask for help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, you are using the same argument. A user with an education degree has nothing to do with this. You mention "lack of professionalism", well that goes both ways as well. Your personal attacks lack professionalism and they're inappropriate. C.Fred was well within his Wikipedia rights and per policies and guidelines to notify the article of deletion, notify you of it, delete it when no improvements were made and warn you about your behaviour, which was unacceptable. Like NorthBySourthBaranof said, you have to take the responsibility to read upon the criterias it didn't meet and listen to experienced editors. And per Boing! said Zebedee, you should have communicated with civility and proper conduct. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:13, 23 June 2017 (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.

Refspam and personal threats by Jesuslord4ever

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 is my first ANI case. Please see [131] and [132]. But also [133] (Jesuslord4ever you can finally reach real admins here). Also of interest is the earlier issue discussed here: WT:MED#A_website_called_chronoleaks_that_seems_not_to_be_about_ineffective_methods_of_waterproofing_timepieces. My involvement: I participated to that WT:MED thread, I think that I rightfully reverted the editor's edits and warned the user using standard templates. I later by courtesy linked this editor to the WT:MED thread such that a better explanation for the blacklist of the site could be available. This site was apparently also reflink-spammed by another account before, prompting the blacklist decision which ensued. These links were also not to reliable sources and some were in a medical context. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 06:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any personal threats. Just the incoherent ranting of someone who thinks they can get away with ignoring community standards of behavior by bullying tactics. Not here to build the encyclopaedia. I think PaleoNeonate's blacklisting of the site was not excessive at it appears to be a blog and not very likely to provide a reliable source for anything, particularly not a medical article. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I was not the one who blacklisted it (this should be clear by the WT:MED thread), but I agree that it was a good decision. It's possible that I misinterpreted the rant as a threat, here's the quote which appeared to be a threat: Being admin dont give every right. Working at the NSA does give some one the right to delete the every putin email registed. Or making his mails public to your get what i mean ?. You think you acted right ? Noo your didnt, your acted uporn emotion, and an elite admin does not act on emoting. PaleoMeanate you Pseudo yourself right, remember online your never know with who you are dealing, so be kind to everybody because you dont know if its a test or not which I interpreted as: "You hide behind your pseudoname, but beware, ... incoherent threat of espionage, intrusion and/or decoy...". I'm of course neither an administrator, nor was any action "act on emoting", just application of standard practices, with politeness... In any case, I agree about NOTHERE, this part is obvious. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 13:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Obvious troll is obvious. 204.148.13.62 (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Update: the editor was blocked indefinitely by Bbb23 after another attempt to spam the site on Wikipedia by other means. —PaleoNeonate - 23:52, 21 June 2017 (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.

CSD abuse/disruptive editing/compromised account?

In the space of 24 minutes, Coder m applied a spate of CSD tags to 9 pages, most of which patently did not meet those criteria (A3, for instance, refers to empty articles; none of the tagged pages were empty). Suspecting disruptive intent and/or a compromised account, I performed an emergency block, and then used rollback to remove the templates.

Since all of the tagged pages related to Indian political parties, an area in which I am involved, I am first of all asking for a review of these actions. The situation seems clear cut to me, but if my actions are considered improper, I will self-revert, unblock, and tender an apology.

Second, what is to be done with Coder m? These edits seem totally out of character: they have not, as far as I can tell, used twinkle for CSD tagging before; and seem to have shown constructive intent, at the very least. My current block is for 31 hours, but if this account has in fact been hacked by a vandal, then indefinite would be appropriate. Thoughts? Vanamonde (talk) 09:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I can't be sure of what's happening here, but it's likely that Coder m, an occasional editor with not much understanding of policy and deletion, thought they were legitimately CSD. Your reverts were definitely appropriate, and the block was a good emergency measure. CheckUser could give some indication whether the account's compromised, but I'm not sure it's necessary. My recommendation is to ask them to read the CSD policy and unblock once they've acknowledged that. —Guanaco 09:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• It seems like Vanamonde93's actions were appropriate here. I have no idea what Coder_m thought they were doing - it's something you'd expect from a brand new user, not someone who's been here for years. Oh well. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I've posted an explanatory message at User talk:Coder m. —Guanaco 10:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• Valid use of the tools. Unusual situation, I would have done the exact same thing. The question of why they did this still remains. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
• Wow, that's possibly the most bizarre CSD rampage I've seen - we even had an actress tagged as a non-notable musical recording! It's either a compromised account, deliberate disruption, or serious incompetence. Whichever it is, the block was an appropriate response - I might even have gone for indef myself, requiring an explanation before they're allowed back. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Looking back, we've had excessive tag-bombing from this account in the past, eg this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Two editors writing autobiographies and not communicating

• PeterColemanUSA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• PaulColemanUSA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 32.208.83.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

We have a couple of editors plus an IP writing autobiographies at Peter Coleman (sailor) and Paul Coleman (sailor), adding subjective POV material such as this. There has been some attempt at communication (see Wikipedia:Teahouse#References and sources., Wikipedia:Teahouse#haven't heard back... and Wikipedia:Teahouse#Are "in good order" ?), but competence issues seem to be impeding communication. I'm posting here in the hope that we might get Peter and Paul's attention. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Someone familiar with competitive sailing needs to look these over and decide whether they qualify for notability. I certainly can't tell. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I would assume good faith of inexperienced editors here, one of them contributiong whilst logged out. Having found some sources and made a contribution, I would like to suggest there should be one article “Team Coleman (Sailing)” with the Peter and Paul Coleman pages being redirects.CV9933 (talk) 08:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a competence/inexperience issue too, but the POV edits continue. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I would sooner call it COI and autobiographical. Whether they deserve an article is not totally relevant, it's just the fact that they have a COI and have shown they are unable to act reasonably when it comes to their own articles. And all their edits have been to their own articles or tangentially related ones. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 13:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Now we have PeterColemanUSA making POV additions with an edit summary of "correcting spelling / grammar". Cordless Larry (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

And the same from Paul. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

My guess is that it's not two editors, but one person using two accounts, most probably someone associated with the team. Comparison of time stamps on the contributions shows continuous edting between the two accounts, with no overlaps. "Peter" appears to be the maion account, with "Paul" an afterthought. I would suggest a username block until this is straightened out.Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I have posted a comment on the talk page of "Peter", suggesting that the two accounts be linked, and that they begin to communicate. I note that they did post on the Teahouse, which is encouraging. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Guessing again, based on my examination of their edits, that there's a good probability that the editor isn't either Peter or Paul Coleman, but someone connected with them (younger relative, perhaps?). The absence of an article on the thrid brother, Gerard, is also interesting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, some of my guesses appear to be wrong, as PeterColemanUSA said on their talk page that he and PaulColemanUSA are brothers and not the same person (and he signed as "Peter"). I've asked him explicitly if they are the brothers the articles are about, so we'll see what the response is. In the meantime I've pointed PeterColemanUSA to WP:Autobiography and WP:COI and cautioned him to be as neutral as possible in his editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Boeing720

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

---

On Talk:Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (film), the behavior of User:Boeing720 has, I think, reached a place where sanctions should be considered. Despite being warned not to continue to do so, Boeing has relentlessly attacked User:TheOldJacobite for what he claims is his "ownership" of the article: this because TOJ is upholding our standard practice on film articles to determine who is or isn't a "star" for the purposes of listing them in the article's infobox. (For those unfamiliar with that process, it's generally that if they are listed on the film's poster, they go into the field.) Boeing continues to object that a single actor, who is not listed on the poster, be included, despite several editors (including myself) explaining the normal criteria. Boeing, however, continues to push the issue, as well as to attempt to put into the article his own WP:OR analyses concerning the film's music, with no source to support it.

Boeing's behavior is straightforward WP:IDHT, his continued badgering of TOJ borders on WP:NPA, and he's cluttering up the talk page with his theories about the film. What's worse, he actually had the temerity to post a comment that suggested that the actor was being kept off the star list because the actor is Jewish and that there may be a concerted effort to block him from appearing because of that.

This combination appears to me to be sufficient to warrant, at the very least, a firm warning from an administrator, and possibly something more substantial.

Diffs: [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141]

(Note: All these diffs came after the AN/I complaint he filed about TheOldJacobite's supposed "ownership" of the article was closed.)

Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• Editor notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• Reply - I have attempted to improve the article Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (film). User OldJackobite reverted all, and referred to the talk-page. When I did reply to him at the talk-page, he then began to bombard my personal page. The second time he did so, did I leave a message here - and I was, and still am, concerned about his behavior. Now also about Beyond My Ken - and possibly the so called "task force". The main issue has been the question of David Dencik's casted role in this film. According to OldJacobite, did Dencik not star a role, and should not be mentioned among the other main actors. The reason for omitting Dencik was due to a poster for the film ! When I showed them another poster - with a slightly different casting (David Dencik's name is not written on what appears to be a British poster for this film, but well at a Danish one); they just goes on and on and on and on. Initially both on my talk-page and at the article's. This causes nothing good, and if (that's IF) anything was meant different from disturbing me, it becomes impossible to take to heart, among all the rubbish. I have only defended myself from untrue allegations, including disproving and proving things. And my conclusion about posters are that they are not up to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources - standard, since they for commercial reasons might differ also in between English speaking countries. OldJackobite & BeyondMyKen (consciously ?) confuse this with who might be a "movie star" or not. And don't differ between article and talk-page , but keep on with absurd allegations.

They also appear/(or might) to use dirty tricks, Beyond My Ken wrote this:

I'd also like to point out that in the poster in our infobox, Gary Oldman's name appears above the title, so an argument could be made (and normally I would make it, except for the mishegas that's been going on here) that only Oldman's name should appear in the infobox as a star, since above-the-title billing is a significant indication of who the film's stars are. The other actors, who appear below the title, would then be featured actors. As I said, I'm not going to press that argument. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

(Which I of course replied to). But he then removed it. At the very least did it cause me an hour or more. I'm certain they give each other barnstars if this complaint gives them fuel. But I have not vandalized (as TheOldJacobite began with) nor broken any guidelines in the article. And only defended myself at the talk-page.

I have never during 5½ years experienced anything close to this horrible experience. (please follow the history files) And the plot is written totally without sources, my efforts there included, as well as all other contributors'. But the OR in plot-parts of film articles is a far wider issue, I don't think I ever have read a plot which is based on other sources than the film/motion picture itself. I suggest the noticeboard, if possibly, keep an eye on this "task force" Boeing720 (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

So Boeing720 continues slagging off other editors (this time including me) right here on AN/I, where I am asking for consideration of sanctions for them because of their slagging off other editors. That's pretty ballsy.

As for my comment about Gary Oldman, yes, I did post it, and yes I did remove it shortly after, because I felt it would simply confuse matters, throwing a unnecessary monkey wrench into the discussion, since I had no plan to advocate for that position any further. There was no response from Boeing when I removed my post -- at least I didn't see one -- or else I would have struck it out instead of removing it.

Regarding Boeing's apparent insinuation that TheOldJacobite and I are somehow in cahoots -- well, I recognize his name just from being around for as long as I have (and him, too), and I think we had some interplay way back, but I can't recall whether we were at odds with each other or in agreement. (It may have had something to do with Tolkien? - but I'm really pulling that out of my nether regions.) In any case, while TOJ thanked me on my talk page for a comment I directed at Boeing720 (about his ludicrous idea that an anti-Jewish cabal was stopping an actor from being listed as a star, when there was a perfectly reasonable explanation for it which he refuses to accept), we are not in cahoots, we do not communicate via back channels to coordinate our anti-Boeing720 strategies, or whatever else Boeing is insinuating that our antisemitic "task force" does. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

So Boeing720 says below that he has been trying to "end this mess", which is strange because he keeps replying, and keep disparaging TOJ in every reply. If Boeing720 really wants to "end this mess", I suggest he not mention TheOldJacobite again in any way; if he follows through on that, I will withdraw this complaint. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment and proposal: Oddly, I just left Boeing720 a final warning [142] on Talk:Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (film), unaware that this ANI had already been filed. I suggest letting him bow out and desist from his disruptive argumentativeness on that page. If he does not, I suggest either a block, or a topic ban from both Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (film) and David Dencik. (Alternatively, an admin could simply close both of the relevant threads on that talk page as resolved by consensus.) -- Softlavender (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• Note: The previous ANI thread BMK is referring to is here: [143]. -- Softlavender (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I just want to add, that my reply was to Beyond My Ken. When I saved it, there was a conflict. Many appear to use this page. I had to put it directly below. Softlander, You can also read my reply. Oddly... Boeing720 (talk) 23:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender , actually I'm glad for your contribution here, especially for this link [144]. If you intended well, as I think perhaps you really did - can you understand how it , after following your advice (I had already tried to get the alleged vandalism from JOC explained), feels, when other users then just invent allegation after allegation of OR and other madness ? And if you study my endings of my two or three last comments to Beyond My Ken - can't you agree with me, that I really am trying to end this ... mess. First nicely then by "over and out" ? But as the responses only gets worse, and after "over and out" does he make this formal complaint and want's me to stop contributing. Isn't "over and out" clear enough ? And IF you meant well later, can you understand how difficult it is to be wrongfully accused, without having the last word ? Sincerely Boeing720 (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Boeing720: It's because you keep making false accusations and keep harping on your own ideas of what the article content should be, regardless of policies or guidelines. No one has ever accused you of vandalism, yet you continue to repeat that falsehood. You've never actually said "over and out" and fully meant it; instead you've posted long screeds that make continued accusations against people and continued assertions of how the article should be according to your own personal preferences. Softlavender (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't you think "Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (film)" is very much the same accusation ? Especially as TOJ briefly appeared to wanting to discuss matters at the talk-page, but instead just put an ANI-warning at my talk-page (twice), without any intention of wanting to discuss any thing. (Aside of "please look at the poster"). His reverts included matters as well-referenced statements from Colin Firth, about how he got the role as Hayden and what he thought about the role. I even forgot about the fact that "Karla" isn't mentioned at all in the plot (shouldn't he be ?). And if he disliked all my contributions about the end of the film, could he just have taken that up at the talk-page. Etc. Nothing of what later has happened , had occured - if TOJ only had been constructive himself. When you say "I keep harping on your own ideas of what the article content should be" - I must reply the totally rabid deletion of David Dencik from the other actors with equal significance in the film - Toby Jones as Alleline, Ciarán Hinds as Bland and Colin Firth as Hayden these three are together with Dencik as Esterhase at level of each other, within the scope of this film. (OK as Hayden/Colin Firth is revealed as the mull in the end, perhaps makes his role a bit larger, but still) But that cannot explain the strange omission of Dencik. But that has been solved. And I pointed that out for Ken. Clearly indicating that I'm finished hopefully. But then followed new accusations etc. What else harping have I started ?

And I'm not used to suddenly become bombarded like this. That made me feel I was under crossfire and simply had to defend myself. To be absolutely clear - I have not done any "disruptive edits" nor any OR in the article. I was prepared to discuss anything about this film. While TOJ behaved as if he owned the article, and began "the bomardment". I have ever since been forced to defend my self at the talk-page. And sometimes defense can include countermeasures. But I've tried to be constructive with them. This included proving (which I believe I have done) that posters are not up to our WP:RS standards. And if we indeed have a guidline about posters as reliable sources, why did no one just direct me to it, as I asked for it ? I guess You are constructive however, I hope. And I just want this matter gone. Cheers Boeing720 (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Just a brief adding, Softlavender. I think you are explaining yours and others perspectives. And perhaps also listens to me. But I'm humbly greatful for not reinforcing any allegations while explaining, even though I stand by what I else have written. Boeing720 (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass (agree totally) Boeing720 (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Definitely not. Accusing someone of vandalism must include the word "vandalism", "vandalize", or "vandal". And you've proved my other point by posting yet another long screed that makes continued accusations against people and continued assertions of how the article should be according to your own personal preferences. Softlavender (talk) 22:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I assume this is meant for me. And I'm sad to read it. Do you now say I have accused someone of vandalism ? Please read what I wrote again (I felt I was accused of vandalism, and tries to explain why I felt so. It's not quite the same thing)Boeing720 (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

You missed the boat entirely. Softlavender is referring to the fact that you have complained on numerous occasions that TheOldJacobite accused you of vandalism, when, in point of fact, that never happened. To have been accused of vandalism, TOJ would have had to use the words "vandalism", "vandalize", or "vandal", which he never did. That you keep harping on this falsity is, in itself, a continuing unwarranted disparagement of TOJ, and is of a piece with the fact that you also keep harping on how you think the article should be, despite being informed of the normal Wikipedia policies and guidelines which preclude that.

In other words, just like your bald misinterpretation of Softlavender's comment to mean the he was accusing you of having accused someone else of vandalism -- which he never said or intimated in any way -- you just aren't getting it, and you keep on just not getting it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Without any intended allegation, I think he is strait forward "Accusing someone of vandalism must include..." etc, is formal enough language. If I now would reply yet again to you, then you might continue with for instance "you brought him up again... etc". I do get it. WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass Boeing720 (talk) 03:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Boeing720, the community has wasted enough time on you. Are you saying that you do understand and that you are now dropping the stick? Because if not, the extent of your disruption, and your level of competence (or lack thereof), would indicate that sanctions need to be imposed to prevent further disruption and further waste of the community's time. (Speaking of competence, you need to learn to correctly nest your posts under the post you are specifically replying to, by using one more colon than the post you are replying to. I am now fixing your post above accordingly, and this is the second time I've had to do that in this thread.) Softlavender (talk) 03:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Reply to ANI. Some just continue. I will not go in any more traps. I honnestly agreed with Ken to quit. To drop the stick. Boeing720 (talk) 05:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

On the assumption that Boeing720 will be true to his word, I'll withdraw the complaint, and, in my opinion, this can be closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2017 (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 genre warrior

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 is getting really old. About once or twice a week an IP come along and changes genre's across Eagles related pages the latest IP is 2600:8805:AA03:2100:31A3:2735:13F8:F51D (talk · contribs · WHOIS), each time it's a different IP, I can go through and compile a list if needed. The pages are pretty much the same each time. I don't know much about these types of IP's but is a range block possible ? should I go through and request page protection for all pages involved, IDK so here we are :) Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 04:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

It looks like they're IP socks of 158.123.154.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who's blocked for six months. I'll range block 2600:8805:AA03:3600::/64 and 2600:8805:AA03:2100::/64 each for six months. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 04:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Geez, I found another one, 2600:8805:AA03:2700::/64. For the record, I range blocked that for six months, too. You can contact me on my talk page or ping me if another one shows up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks again, - FlightTime (open channel) 04:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Would 2600:8805:AA03:/48 be appropriate? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I figured I'd block the /48 if any more showed up, but I don't have any objection to someone doing that now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2017 (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.

72.184.130.118

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.

---

• 72.184.130.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

For more than a year now, this IP address has been performing large scale test(?) edits to a number articles, them being:

• Bad Girls Club (season 14) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Love & Hip Hop: Hollywood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Acapulco Shore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Snooki & Jwoww (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Love & Hip Hop: Hollywood (season 4) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm not exactly sure what's going on here, and what they're trying to accomplish. Can someone take a look into this? Thanks. 94.194.139.90 (talk) 04:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what's going on. Maybe test edits. Could be crapflooding. Instead of just blanking pages, some vandals will repeatedly blank and restore pages. This fills up the article history with dozens of useless edits and annoys everyone who has the article watchlisted. This isn't quite as bad, but it's still disruptive. Since it's been going on for a while, and there's a page full of warnings at User talk:72.184.130.118, I gave a final warning. Hopefully that will get the IP to stop doing these test edits or whatever they are. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Thanks for the final warning. Actually, I also just found another IP: 62.28.232.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) making very similar edits (though this is unrelated to the other IP, but it is still "crapflooding", nonetheless); though their edits are entirely in Spanish... I honestly don't understand what people try to accomplish with adding nonsense to articles like this... 2601:1C0:102:29D8:CC06:F9E1:52DD:1E95 (talk) 11:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

JamesBWatson blocked both IPs. In case anyone is interested, MusikAnimal is testing an edit filter that may help alleviate some of these nonsense edits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2017 (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:FabioGMinero

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.

---

FabioGMinero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Continued unsourced date changes after multiple warnings. - FlightTime (open channel) 12:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@FlightTime: Reports such as this are probably better suited at WP:AIV for future reference - regardless, I've blocked for 31 hours -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 12:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@There'sNoTime: Well, I've learned that, by multiple denials (and some STOP's) that ignorant editing is NOT vandalism, so I just come here instead. Reports to AIV that are not pure vandalism can be meet with harsh administrative backlash, much safer here. I will mention that your conduct is very refreshing and I respect your judgment and enjoy our interactions :) - FlightTime (open channel) 12:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@FlightTime: Can't disagree that sometimes people can be less than helpful with reports to AIV which aren't 100% vandalism, but in my opinion what you've reported above is actionable at AIV. Either way, thank you for the report :) -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 12:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@There'sNoTime: I agree, but patrolling admins at AIV need to be told this. Thanx for what you do :) - FlightTime (open channel) 12:53, 23 June 2017 (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.

Addition of unsourced content by Jeanpierre1844

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.

---

Jeanpierre1844 seems to have a history of changing content on articles without Wikipedia and has been repeatedly warned not to do so on their talk page. The user made another addition of unsourced content on Billboard Top Latin Albums after receiving a final warning. Erick (talk) 23:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2017 (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 user

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

---

I have to report persistent disruptive editing by User:Jytdog. On the article of Alternative for Germany for months disagreements concerning certain content details have occured, however it was basically handled decently by the user community. A recent long lasting RfC on the article talk page concluded yet another question raised by the before mentioned user Jytdog. Nevertheless the user decided (albeit he/she seems to be experienced according to edit history and his/her given edit rights) to edit against the RfC decision even showing utter assertiveness in behaving so and showing to other editors as to be seen in history ([145])with edit comment "don't push it." though the content is against the RfC consensus. Recently another user edited the page, ignoring the RfC. Additionally it needs to be mentioned that the user at the time the RfC was held regarding the correct usage of the term ( German nationalism or Nationalism) he/she started to make massive edits in the main article of German Nationalism, possibly (merely "possibly" since i tend to be cautious with insinuations of such kind; yet taken the circumstances into account) to give somehow a broader ground for his/her case in the RfC in the main article of Alternative of Germany. I do not like to engage into any serious quarrel here, nevertheless as this dispute with the user goes for a log time, and behavior even seem to become more reckless especially by the fact him/her ignoring unambiguous recent consensus, (and also his/her threat to once again make an ANI) i bring this situation up here. I noticed the user at his/her talk page. --Joobo (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

• I full protected the article for 3 days. Looking at the RFC, Jytdog does seem to be editing against the close at an RFC on the talk page, one that is recent and one that I don't see the close challenged on. Would like to hear their side of it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Dennis. The RFC was a) about the infobox (which I have not changed) not the body of the article, and b) was badly attended. It was what it was. I didn't bother challenging it because I challenged the last one at AN here and that got little independent feedback (what feedback there was, agreed that that the close was questionable). This close was definitely questionable but again i didn't challenge it and haven't changed the infobox.

I told "Joobo" here that I would be bringing an ANI case later this week (related to this mess.) and this ANI filing by "Joobo"| is an obvious and weak effort to pre-empt. You will hear more from me anon on this matter. Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

• • Then I would strongly suggest you simply agree to leave it as "nationalism" until you form a consensus on the talk page at a later time. Right now, info box or not, the best estimation is that "nationalism" is what the community of editors on that article want, info box or not. Per WP:BRD, I think the burden would fall on you here to form a new consensus. If you agreed to that, then I could unprotect the article and we would be done here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

It has been "german nationalism" in the body for a long time, until this RfC about the infobox, which the 'team' has tried to push though into the body. It is a contentious article. It does not have enough neutral eyes on it. I have tried to get more independent eyes on it. Jytdog (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I suppose my own feelings on this matter are clear, but the Troll accusing me of vandalism ought to start by assuming good faith. -Roxy the dog. bark 18:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany or the village pump is where you get more neutral eyes on it. The shortage you speak of is one of editors, not admin. It only takes one admin to block; it takes many editors to form a consensus. Frankly, I don't give a fig which link is used, but when I see what looks like a legitimate and unchallenged RFC on the matter, then as an objective admin with no preferences, I have to support the side that took the time to start an RFC and get a consensus. I've already explained this. I've given you a pretty easy out here, if you are wise enough to take it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice about WP:Germany - I had not thought of that. Ditto the village pump. I had no further intention of changing the body when the page was protected. I of course accept the "out"; there is nothing that I am "in" at this point. "Joobo" has no case here. As I noted their filing was purely pre-emptive and bad faith, and I will be bringing a diff-ful case against "Joobo" and their gang later this week. Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I've removed protection so everyone can edit based on your pledge to leave that one area alone for now. Now it is on you to form a new consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

• User Jytdog has to be kidding. On his User page he states selfconfidently "I believe strongly in Wikipedia's Five Pillars." but then he cannot even accept the outcome of a RfC eventhough he is an, according to his edit history and user rights, highly experienced user? He even says "It has been "german nationalism" in the body for a long time, until this RfC about the infobox, which the 'team' has tried to push though into the body. It is a contentious article. It does not have enough neutral eyes on it" Apparently he has real problems with accepting something he does not like to accept. If one carefully reads the talk page and edit history of the concerned article most likely everyone would notice at one point that Jytdog continuously tried to push subjective views on the mattter on the article risking WP:LBL and neglecting WP:V. I assumed good faith for most of the time in his actions, I reall did not just saying so; even when other users gave up on that long before that as to be seen on the talk page. He it seems did nothing but accused bad faith in mine or other edits-just cause it did not conformed with his views.

Now he is again stating astounding phrases as "I will be bringing a diff-ful case against "Joobo" and their gang later this week" which are nothing but incredible. What "gang" are you refering to? Do you know what Wikipedia:Civility means? Did you ever hear of WP:CONS when it comes to WP editing (after 100.000 edits)? I have no connection to the other users at all; and mere disagreeing with you does not make us a "gang" or a "team" or whatever you like to vilify any other users as we are. This could actually already count as a personal attack. However, you deliberatly ignored points that were brought up, behaving as by other users claimed like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. What does it tell about your editing style if you push the WP guidelines to the edge, and even if you initiate or want a RfC you still seem to blatantly ignore its outcome. This falls absolutely under WP:STONEWALL. And then not even to mention again the at least highly suspicuous, lets say coincidental editing of the article page of German Nationalism while the RfC concerning the inclusion of its exact term was still ongoing on the Alternative for Germany talkpage.

You can do all you like Jytdog but if someone takes some time and gives the whole thing a genuine look, also combining the parallel edits by you on the Alternative for Germany article site and the edits on the German Nationalism article site, the case outcome most likely does not goes against our "gang" but the kind of editing and behavior you applied over the period of the last couple of months. And quite frankly, i am absolutely flabbergasted that i have such a confrontation with a user of your experience and position of over 100,000 edits here in this project; as one might not expect that at all. But perhaps after such time and such amount of input one starts to believe to neglect certain aspects of this projects guidelines and pillars and gets a "i stand above it all" attitude.--Joobo (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Can't argue with the jist of this. I've seen Jytdog around plenty, and while they are an assertive editor, I haven't seen this aggressive of behavior before. Still, I don't have the full picture, so trying to reserve judgement and hoping he will cool down and accept the consensus, then work towards a different consensus if that is what he wants. Admin can't get involved in the content sides of these things. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

and now canvassing of their compadre, Wormwood/Hayek. This is the kind of thing I will be discussing later but if "Joobo" keeps at it they will hang themselves, as Wormwood/Hakek did at AN last month (diff, already provided above) Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes as he was included in the edits today i gave a notice to him that he should not be surprised for what might be going on. That does not prove your point at all and is once again a mere distraction of the way you behaved the last couple of months. But after all the talk you should know best what you want to do.--Joobo (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Read WP:CANVASS. Please, continue hanging yourself. Jytdog (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Really long entry by L.R. Wormwood
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The WP:CANVASS allegation is ridiculous - this is AN/I, and I am involved. I have set about supplying diffs, so this can be resolved quickly. Per User:Dennis Brown's comment above, I have also seen User:Jytdog around a lot, and he’s done a lot of work to keep POV-pushers off medicine and science-related pages, but his recent behaviour on Germany-related articles has not been especially edifying, and has resulted in an enormous amount of wasted time and misdirection of effort. With regard to what has already been said, User:Jytdog's allegation that there is a "tag team" at work here is fairly serious, and he has provided no diffs to support it. This will be impossible, since I have had no involvement with any of these editors outside of this dispute (AfD and German nationalism). User:Jytdog should therefore attempt to provide evidence, or withdraw the comment. I would also be interested to hear why User:Jytdog believes the recent RfC close is "questionable", given that it is 1-6 over several weeks. User:Jytdog has been involved with several long-running disputes over the contents of the summary box on the Alternative for Germany article. Here in May 2016, here in March 2017, and here last month, finding himself in the minority, by a substantial margin, on each occasion. I am only bringing this here because I want to improve some of his recent changes to the German nationalism article (and to the Alternative for Germany article where he is ignoring the outcome of a recent RfC), and am currently unable because he keeps leaving threatening messages on my talk page diff, and in edit summaries diffdiff. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT Context: Specifically with regard to the dispute on the Alternative for Germany page, the argument pursued by at least three users is neatly summarised here, where I point out that the historiography usually takes the term ‘’German nationalism’’ to refer to the process of German unification in the 19th century, and the ideas and contexts that gave rise to that process. This would also be true of Italian nationalism (and the Italian unification). This point was first made by several users in the course of this straw poll, and was then repeated - entirely for User:Jytdog’s benefit - here, then here, then here, then here, then here, then here, here, and finally here. This is not an exhaustive list, you may read the full discussion. Complaint: User:Jytdog responded to these comments by repeatedly declaring that he didn't understand "the problem". Here, for instance, he simply demands that someone explain: “What exactly is the problem?”. He does the same here with “I do not understand the opposition to this”. This looks very much like WP:IDHT to me. Here, he apparently, and perhaps deliberately, mistakes what others have been saying where he suggests that other users are claiming "that "German nationalism" means only calls for territorial expansion". This is obvious misrepresentation of the comments he "diffs" in support. Other comments consisted mostly of bald assertion, such as here. The only attempt to actually address the substantive argument that myself and others had provided was made by a German IP. It is possible that User:Jytdog genuinely does not understand what myself and others have been attempting to explain to him (which would still be problematic), but I very much doubt it, and therefore I would suggest that the wall of incredulity he has put up is consistent with a deliberate refusal to get the point (WP:NOTGETTINGIT). The same is also true of User:Jytdog’s behaviour on the German nationalism article, where in the edit summary here, he simply asserts that no one has explained their rationale for removing the comment, when I have clearly done so here, and the reporting user has done so extensively, as a cursory glance at the talk will confirm. I have also requested that he point us to the sources he is using for his WP:SYNTHESIS here, which so far he has not done. WP:GAME, WP:POINT, possibly WP:BATTLEGROUND I didn’t feel very strongly about the ‘’”German nationalism”’’ dispute – I thought the point being pushed was fairly pedantic, and I didn’t think it would generate much confusion. This is clear from my comments here, here, here, here, and the fact that I didn’t express a strong view in my RfC vote here. What I did ‘’’’strongly’’’’ object to was User:Jytdog’s decision to re-write the lede for the German nationalism article in order to support his own position in the content dispute on the Alternative for Germany page, which I think is a clear instance of WP:GAME and WP:POINT. User:Jytdog made some fairly substantial changes to the German nationalism article, many of which were useful (post-1945 content), but in doing so he essentially redefined the term. Whereas the opening used to describe ‘’German nationalism’’ as that relating to the German unification and nationalist movement in the 18th to 20th centuries (which is how the term is used by students of German and European history), having read as follows: “German nationalism is the nationalist idea that Germans are a nation and promotes the unity of Germans into a nation state. The earliest origins of German nationalism began with the birth of Romantic nationalism during the Napoleonic Wars when Pan-Germanism started to rise. Advocacy of a German nation began to become an important political force in response to the invasion of German territories by France under Napoleon.” After User:Jytdog’s changes, it now reads as follows: “German nationalism is the nationalist idea that Germans are a nation, promotes the unity of Germans into a nation state, and emphasizes and takes pride in the national identity of Germans; the latter is problematic given the actions of Nazi Germany and ideology of the Nazism.” The relevant diff can be found here. The lede was also revised so as to take the focus away from the 19th century German nationalist movement, and direct it towards the latter part of the 20th century, and the history of ‘’nationalism’’ in Germany in general, as is evident here. He even claimed that his own re-writing of the opening of the German nationalism article validated later use of “German nationalism” further on in the Alternative for Germany article here (“correct WL in article” in the edit summary). This is despite the fact that the closing decision of the RfC (which can be found here) is very explicit – "Consensus is that the article should describe AfD's ideology as "nationalism" rather than as "German nationalism". 6 people voted, 1 for "German nationalism" and 5 for "nationalism"." Ignoring the outcome of RfC votes is always considered WP:TENDENTIOUS. General unpleasantness and WP:BADFAITH Besides the threats and unpleasantness I’ve received (diffed at the top of this comment), there is a general pattern by which User:Jytdog interprets every contribution which does not accord with his own views as a cynical attempt to “cleanse” or sanitise the page. This is all, ridiculously, a dispute over a summary box, between those who wanted it to look like this, and those who would rather it looked this. The !votes and discussion in the closing RfC summarise the main arguments summarise this dispute (available here). User:Jytdog has liberally insinuated that people who believe the summary box should be presented differently are pushing some kind of agenda. Here, for instance, he claims to “revert cleansing”, when he is in fact restoring obvious vandalism. This is an accusation against a user whose username is one letter away from Melanchon, which makes the allegation even more unfair and frustrating. Here he accuses the reporting editor of “playing down the positions of this party”, on the basis that the user disagrees with him that listing 9 items in the summary box, each accompanied with a WP:REFBOMB, is unnecessary and detracts from its purpose per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. He does the same thing to another user here, leaving this on the talk. He also accuses the editor who closed the RfC of “cleansing” the article here. Here (admittedly a while ago now), he insinuates that I am an "alt-right troll". You are welcome to check my editing history if you think that is credible. There is no conspiracy here. The majority of users in each case sincerely disagreed with Jytdog’s preferred presentation of the information, disagreed that things like Climate change denial were political ideologies, and agreed that his use of German nationalism was inaccurate. In sum, I think it would be best if User:Jytdog took a break from editing these pages, and considers in the meanwhile whether he is actually being fair to other users. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC) Note: I was given a block for alleged WP:CIR and WP:BLUDGEON several months ago in a related dispute on the Alternative for Germany page. I have not bludgeoned any talks since, and I hope I am more competent now. Before Jytdog attempts his usual well-poisoning, it's worth noting that (a) that particular incident is the only blemish on my behaviour record, and that Jytdog's block log demonstrates that in his case this is not so, and (b) that I had wanted a WP:FRESHSTART, but I was immediately outed by an involved user here and here, by which time there was an RfC on the page, so I thought I might as well continue there. Whatever he means to insinuate with the Wormwood/Hayek stuff is desperate and unfair. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC) You may have wanted a fresh start, but you were not given one. Your block history on all of your accounts is perfectly applicable. Saying that it was your 'only blemish' is incorrect and deceitful. --Tarage (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC) @Tarage: It is my "only blemish", I have been blocked once. Please withdraw "incorrect and deceitful" immediately, this is false. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 23:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

• I've hatted the above because it is bludgeoning the entire discussion and making it difficult to follow. Leave it hatted please. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I've decided to leave Wikipedia for good in the light of this, and everything is concluded at my end (so User:Jytdog won't have to threaten his ANI report that he's been promising since March that he had no intention or grounds to write). My IP is semi-public (university) for some of the year, and that won't be me. I'm sure I can find more rewarding things to do with my time. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• Given his past history as User:Hayek79, and his misapprehension that changing his user name was in some fashion akin to a fresh start, I very much doubt that User:L.R. Wormwood will actually retire. I would advise editors to be aware of "new" editors on Alternative for Germany, Khan Shaykhun chemical attack, Maria Koc, Stanisław Karczewski, Neoliberalism, Hubert Lagardelle, Threads, Britain First, Edmond de la Fontaine, Edge, Gloucestershire, Marling School, List of tallest structures by country and Union of European Democrats, as well as related articles, as they may well be a re-appearance of this very problematic editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

As though "competence" issues and one instance of being blocked for bludgeon, without prior warning that this would be a possibility, would make anyone a "very problematic editor". I had wanted Wormwood to be a WP:FRESHSTART, but you immediately and maliciously outed me, which gave me no reason not to return to the RfC you set up. The narrative that I imagined simply setting up a new account would be a fresh-start is not true, as they are both aware. This will be my last reply, and I will request a self-block to avoid being drawn back in.

As the user below notes, this is not about me, or whether you can dishonestly portray any of my recent actions as "problematic", and you should stop - both of you - attempting to derail the report. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

This is not about L.R. Wormwood but about the user Jytdog who, deliberately ignores basic WP guidelines, eventhough he is a long time WP editor and selfproclaimed user who cherishes the five pillars of WP. Fairly detailed history of recent month long dispute now highlighted as above by me and L.R. Wormwood. Please read it and if you need, please also verify it yourself. Links and examples are provided massively. Do not make it about something unrelated about a question if a user is actually retiring from WP or not. That has nothing to do with the issue brought up here initially. --Joobo (talk) 12:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

You may not be aware that when an AN/I report is filed, all involved editors, including the one who opened the report, become fair game for comment and analysis. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

"Joobo"

Here in en-WP, "Joobo" was blocked indefinitely back in January 2016 for harassing other people and personal attacks concerning List of Islamist terrorist attacks and Immigration to Germany, per this ANI thread.

They went from here to de-wiki, where they were blocked 7 times since Feb 2016 per their block log there for disrupting topics related to politics. Block #7 was in Feb 2017 for 5 days per this report there, related to pro-Trump (including Melania), anti-Obama (including Michelle) POV_pushing, if I am reading the translation correctly. Block #6 was for 3 days for edit warring against 3 other users on the Alternative for Germany article there, per this report - Joobo was trying to remove sourced content about the party being anti-feminist (e.g diff). You get the point.

They were unblocked on a WP:ROPE basis here in en-WP in mid-March of this year by User:PhilKnight per this thread on their Talk page. It does not appear that PhilKnight looked at their behavior in other projects during the time they were indeffed here (which is an easy thing to omit, and "Joobo" did not mention it either)

In any case...

Here in en-WP their overall editing has been of the same piece of cloth, as was noted in the ANI last year. Looking at their edit count, here is what they are up to here:

• 91 List of Islamist terrorist attacks --(contribs there) (all prior to their initial indef)
• 41 Immigration to Germany -- (contribs there) (all prior to their initial indef)
• 39 Italy-- (contribs there) (mostly fussing with images, some edit warring over them)
• 33 Spain-- (contribs there) (mostly fussing with images)
• 26 Barcelona-- (contribs there) (mostly fussing with images)
• 24 Slovenia-- (contribs there) (mostly fussing with images)
• 20 London-- (contribs there) (images, also adding content about Muslim immigration (diff, diff) and islamic terrorism there diff) note, the struck diff just shifted content about islamic terrorism to set it off in the diff; Joobo did not actually edit that bit Jytdog (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
• 19 Alternative for Germany-- (contribs there) (Their edits here are 100% removing negative content or adding positive content (e.g this).
• 17 Presidency of Donald Trump-- (contribs there) (you can see for yourself, mostly removal of negative content and "unflattering images)

And at Talk, ,and this is where I have been most frustrated with this person...

• 31 Talk:Alternative for Germany-- (contribs there) where you will see that "Joobo" argued in lockstep with Hayek/Wormwood making the bizarre, strawman argument that German nationalism is the same thing as Pan-Germanism and so of course the party cannot be German nationalist, because the AfD does not advocate for taking new territories of german speaking areas in Europe. Facepalm. See diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, etc This is just repeating an unsupported distortion, and providing no sources to support that bizarre definition.
• 28 Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks-- (contribs there) (all prior to their initial indef)
• 14 Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump-- (contribs there) Comments there, as at Alternative for Germany, are one POV - supporting removal of negative content, for the most part.
• 13 Talk:Melania Trump-- (contribs there) They got into a tangle here with someone they had tangled with at the German version of the article (diff) - same argument that led to Joobo's block #7 there at de-WP.
• 12 Talk:Masturbation-- (contribs there) (this is in my view puerile trolling about images on this topic)

Please also see:

• "contribs" to the German nationalism article, which was all edit warring removal in support of the now-vanished Hayek/Wormwood, which somehow stopped when Wormwood vanished a month ago and then restarted when Hayek/Wormwood briefly re-emerged as you can see in the history. Lockstep with Hayek/Wormwood.
• "contribs" at associated talk page where you will find nothing meaningful from them justifying their removal of content - the individual diffs:
  • diff It is fairly questionable if "german nationalism" is viewed as taboo as put in the introduction.... (oy. just oy)
  • diff -- nothing about content
  • diff -- nothing about content
  • diff -- nothing about content
  • diff -- nothing about content
  • diff series -- nothing about content

In my view, the lifting of the indef was unwise, as "Joobo" just carried their disruption to our German sister project, and since they have come back they have continued their behavior here in the topics in which they are disruptive - just adding noise and personal attack, and not helping build quality content in those areas. I suggest minimally topic banning them from anything related to contemporary populism, immigration, or terrorism at minimum, or just re-placing the indef at maximum. Jytdog (talk) 04:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

It probably is not my place to weigh in here, but i also found Joobo very troubling to deal with during the RfC on the Alternative for Germany talk page. He constantly repeated his oppinion, which of course is fine in itself, but never offered any kind of source for his assertion, yet simply claimed he was right and everyone else worong. I did offer a couple of references, which he claimed to have read thouroughly and judged them to not mention the issue at hand. Yet one of the sources used the specific description in the very first sentence. And don't misunderstand me, i don't want to make this about content but describe a very frustrating experience which made it very hard to assume good faith. So i just let it be and left the talk page alone. I am sorry to not give the exact diff here, i... am not quite sure how to do that... So anyway, very unpleasant to deal with as no real discussion was wanted other than reiterating his assertion over and over. I do apologize if it is not my place to weigh in here but as i had encountered Joobo before, i thought why not. Have a good day anyway and i guess i will keep an eye on this if there are any questions or the like directed at me. 91.49.90.45 (talk) 05:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The IP is talking about this comment (with dead on refs describing AfD as "german nationalist") that they made at the Talk page, and this response from "Joobo", which was frankly flabbergasting, denying the additional sources that had just been provided to them: "Preposterous" is the claim that this party is "german nationalist" when there are no sources indicating that. Jytdog (talk) 06:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Jytdog for all the research you did about me (which is actually also massively flawed, as just to take one example, i never was "adding content about Muslim immigration or islamic terrorism" at all in the city article of London but corrected a graphical position and otherwise included multiple sources: As a template was indicating sources were needed in the contemporary history section until couple of days ago) - and how is this helping your case? Since I was unblocked i abided by all the guidelines and cherished the pillars of WP as well as understood what this project is about. I contributed and am contributing, whereas you deliberately neglected rules, ignoring RfC outcomes and even editing massively in one article to influence another one...what a peculiar coincidence right? All you can do now is pointing out to edits by me or L.R.Wormwood or whoever and somehow try to defame us. Yet, at least to me, I do not see how one will actually find something as again me, unlike you, sticked to the WP rules. I am not the one who assumed bad faith in other editors automatically just cause they did not have my opinion. I am not the one almost completely rewriting a political article just so it fits to my view and automatically getting defensive and aggressive if just any single part of the massive edit is then somehow questioned. I am not the one pushing the WP dispute resolutions to the edge to kill the WP flow. I am not the one recklessly insinuating instant NPOV on others just cause I think my view simply has to be the absolute right one... just cause. All you can do for now Jytdog, and what you are doing is to point out to any number of things, however for the actual issue- how you behaved in the two articles concerned. There is not much going for you.--Joobo (talk) 08:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Even here at ANI you are making misrespresentations - again here are two diffs of relevant edits at London - these each emphasize especially arab/muslim immigration: diff, diff - in your organization of the content. Subtle yes but in light of your history, the ongoing interest is clear. The key thing for me is that as I showed above, in your editing and discussion at AFD and German nationalism you have given no valid reasons for changes, denied that the reliable sources presented even existed, and just made personal attacks . You cannot edit effectively in these topics. You were indeffed here on that topic, blocked 7 times at de-WP in the last year, not told the unblocking admin about what happened at de-WP, and have disrupted the 2 articles most focused on it here after you came back, and your city edits consistently touch on immigration. You have edited in lockstep GANG fashion with Hayek/Wormwood. Not to mention coming after me by opening this thread. You have no leg to stand on here. Jytdog (talk) 14:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Is this what you are still doing here called, digging your own grave- Maybe. So, my "interest is clear"? In the first diff you present the absolute mere difference to be seen, is the changing of two positions in the chart. This was for enhanced- visual distinction purposes and for style reasons. That was it. The second diff you show is even more disconnected to any NPOV you accuse (Once again, as you appear to see NPOV in quite everything others do who you do not seem to like very much). Did you even checked it? I addeded sources. Sources in a subsection which had a template on for pointing out that the subsection needs more sources for verification since October last year. That was it. Nothing else, at all- What is clear now? I do not get it, same as me and the other users did not get quite most your actions and accusations you applied and stated for at least the last 6 months regarding concerned articles. You Jytdog simply believe that me, L.R. Wormwood and multiple other users were somehow bad spirited, merely based on the feeling that you got when there was a disagreement with you on some points on the AfD talkpage. Maybe someone needs to tell you that (to an editor with over 100k edits...) Just because someone disagrees with you on something does not mean everything he or she is then doing or since then has done, has automatically evil spirited motives or intentions behind. However that is absolutely what you do. You never once, not one single time questioned your own edits, engaged with any of us in a responsible and decent manner, looked for consensus anywhere at any point or had good faith in what others did. You just see couple of users disagreeing with you- and voila- it is a bad "gang" and "oh look he changed some random chart here- look the socalled "interest" is clear... etc.". You vilify, you libel, you threaten other users just because they are not excactly on your line. Now as you hardly can deny anything you did, you go and try to portray actions/edits by me and other users in a bad light, trying to connect dots where no dots are there in the first place. Done with the hope that other admins see the same "clarity" and "gang" etc. PS: What goes on in other language WPs is pretty much unrelated to the english Wikipedia, as criterias, procedures as well as standards in other language Wikipedias to some extent differ massively. So when you get blocked in the Arab WP or Russian WP or any other language WP. there is no relation to what is going on here. (And as you just added this text complaining "Not to mention coming after me by opening this thread" to yours above mine- just to remind you. I added this thread not to come "after you". I opened, and actually had to open, this thread as you repeatedly ignored a RfC outcome.)--Joobo (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

This is my last response here. I did not change the infobox after the RfC. You continue to make broad stroke personal attacks, based on nothing. This is the behavior that got your indeffed in the first place. The more you do this, the more you make things clear. The record of your behavior and the diffs showing it, are clear. Jytdog (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Third-party witness

Hello; I have witnessed the interactions between Jytdog, Joobo, L.R. Wormwood and others at Talk:Alternative for Germany. What seemed like a benign content dispute degenerated into personal attacks, aspersions and assumption of bad faith. Accusations of "whitewashing", "trolling", being "childish" or "dysfunctional" were thrown around. As I closed an RfC about infobox contents as an uninvolved editor back in April, Jytdog cast doubt on my neutrality in his request for close review. I explained my closing rationale at length but Jytdog would not admit that consensus was simply against him. Later he opened another RfC about AfD ideology, which was closed against his position by another uninvolved editor, Giraffedata.

The content dispute revolved around the definition of German nationalism, a concept that, in the eyes of most editors, does not fit the ideology of Alternative for Germany, which is more accurately described as simply nationalism. The problematic behaviour is that after seeing his views were not supported on the AfD article, Jytdog went to the German nationalism article and attempted to change the longstanding definition of the term to match his own view.[146] This is disruptive, pointy, non-neutral, sanctionable attitude, no matter whether he is right or wrong. Admittedly, Jytdog's well-researched contributions enriched the article, but they are addressing a totally different historical period, and would perhaps be better placed in a new article about Nationalism in Germany.

It saddens me to see that Wikipedia has lost an editor (L.R. Wormwood) due to the poisonous WP:BATTLEGROUND atmosphere that emanated from this incident. I found Jytdog to be a rather polite and articulate editor until he found himself in the minority and started behaving aggressively towards other participants, as if he had a personal axe to grind against the political party being discussed. Many were perplexed by the sudden change of tone, and that didn't help his position. I do not think it's necessary to comment on the counter-attacks regarding Joobo's editing history elsewhere. Finally, I am not advocating for any particular sanction against one party or the other in this dispute; that is the job of our wise admins. — JFG ^talk 18:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I never like to say this about another editor, but your sadness at the departure of L. R. Wormwood is misplaced. I will not go so far as to say he was a net negative to the project, but the needle was clearly hovering in the middle between negative and positive. His WP:IDHT behavior on talk pages was disruptive and exasperating, and offset whatever good work he did when politics wasn't involved. He left of his own volition, a pure WP:DIVA move, and will almost certainly be back under another name, whether he admits to it or not, so I wouldn't be too upset about his departure. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Could be; I have no other experience about this editor. Neither battleground behaviour nor diva moves are appropriate on Wikipedia. Losing a competent editor is nearly always detrimental to the project, regardless of their personal positions or occasional disputes with others. — JFG ^talk 12:23, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

You are not a "third party"; you did not react at all well to your close being challenged, and you never dealt with the overreaching aspect of it.

Your description of my laying out "Joobo"'s year and a half long pattern of disruption across two projects as a "counter attack" is also problematic, especially since this entire thread was pre-emptive by "Joobo" after I told them that I was going to be filing an ANI against them soon, in which I would have presented exactly this data. There is a third editor I will bring in here as well, to give the whole picture. Probably tomorrow or Sunday.

Your description of what I did at German nationalism is bizarre at best but falls nicely in with story that Hayek/Wormwood and "Joobo" are spinning about it. The article had not been updated to include the history of German nationalism after WWII and I filled that in. Lots of articles have these kinds of gaps in time. I did not "change it to fit my definition."

I remain puzzled by the assertion that a party in Germany is not "German nationalist" when that party advocates for Germans to a) take German sovereignty back from the EU; b) take pride in what the Germans have accomplished in the arts, science, philosophy etc; c) specifically walk away from the shame of the holocaust, and d) push out and exclude people who are not "like us" and even return to a Jus sanguinis model of citizenship. Point a) --taking back sovereignty from the EU -- is especially... stark in light of the fact that the EU was created in part to find some way to manage Germany and harness it and its identity to a broader entity. Nationalism has a flavor in every country; Germany's flavor is very informed by Germany's specific history that is described in German nationalism, and that I brought up to date. This is mainstream, common-as-dirt view of German nationalism and claiming that this is my invention or me skewing reality is just kooky at best and dangerously history-denying FRINGE at worst.

Yeah, you are very far from a "third party" or any kind of neutral commenter here. Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

More aspersions, no thanks. I'd be happy to engage with your arguments on the merits if you quit the attitude. — JFG ^talk 00:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

You have shown up here and blown smoke, pretending to be objective; calling you on that is neither attitude nor aspersion. Jytdog (talk) 06:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Are you "pretending to be objective" about JFG's objectivity? ―Mandruss ☎ 08:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

It does not appear to me that Jytdog is making any pretense of objectivity, but presenting the facts and circumstances as they see them. Nor is Jytdog pretending not to be involved in this dispute. That's a bit different from someone coming in and saying "I have witnessed this" as if they weren't at all involved and are presenting an objective third-party viewpoint. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry BMK, I must correct your statement that I am more involved than witness. I was the closer of an earlier RfC on the same article, which was about removing "Climate change denial" from a list of ideologies in the infobox. Prior to my close, I never interacted with any of the editors that participated in discussions of Alternative for Germany, and I never edited that article myself. I was not involved at all in subsequent discussions about German nationalism, which seems to be the focus of the dispute reported here. I may have briefly interacted with Jytdog on some unrelated articles in an unspecified past (the name rings a bell, nothing more.) — JFG ^talk 18:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Closing an RfC would not make you involved, but I believe Jytdog's case is that your response to criticisms of that closing moved you out of that category, and they see possible bias created by that dispute. I'm not settling in on one side or the other concerning your overall objectivity, but I do think that Jytdog may have a case that your current observations are possibly not completely unbiased

In any case, you've made your observations, and Jytdog has countered them, so it doesn't seem as if there's any reason to prolong this particular section of the discussion, which, in any case, is rather in the nature of a side trip off the main road, which concerns Joobo's complaint concerning Jytdog, and Jydog's counter-complaint concerning Joobo and the now-departed L.R. Wormwood.

I myself have not participated at Alternative for Germany since block !voting there resulted in a perfectly reasonable addition to the list of the party's ideology was removed, and I decided it wasn't worth the effort and energy to continue to fight against a clearly ideologically-based block of editors determined to get their way. (This was after the incident where L.R. Wormwood's WP:BLUDGEONing behavior got him blocked and he changed his screenname to distance himself from the original one.) So from my own experience, I can see the validity of Jytdog's complaint about the group !voting on the article, although I don't have a clue what to do about it, except perhaps for someone to deal out some blocks for meatpuppetry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I would like to add, while my contribution surely would be less worth than an experienced editors, that the same thing made me give up on any contribution as well. There is no point discussing things when personal ideology and assertions are more important than sources. The talk page is a mess, plain and simple. At least in my humble opinion. 91.49.67.140 (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: "to fight against a clearly ideologically-based block of editors determined to get their way." Same as Jytdog's attitude. You have a different view on something but a majority sees it differently, and automatically it needs to be ideologically motivated etc. There were reasons presented why to exclude this entry from the infobox, not from the article itself of course, but from the infobox. One major point was, that the entry does not fall under the typical category of "ideology". If really someone would be editing tedentious there, then they would have taken the whole thing out, not only from the infobox. The way you, as well as Jytdog make conclusions about other editors only and merely based on one single disagreement about something is absolutely inappropriate. And the IP here should learn that "sources" does not automatically generate an entry in an article WP:V, in particular if the content of them is highly equivocal.--Joobo (talk) 11:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

And you over and over saying your view is correct without any kind of support from anything reliable, other than you droning on about it, makes you right? Look, in the end i dont care if i am right or wrong, win or lose or however you want to put it. I care about reasonable discussion. When i am wrong, i learn something and thats good. And it is less about the actual sources but your responses to them that were more than questionable. First claiming the description was not used in the sources, then after i qouted the passages you did not say anything about it because it did not suit you. I am unwilling to waste more time bringing up more sources when it is obvious they will be dismissed anyway. And there certainly are more. Yet this should not be about content but behaviour. You are completely unwilling to even consider that your aproach is rather abysmal and not conductive to a cooperative environment. Your aproach to dicussion, clearly ideologically driven, is what made me give up on offering more sources or what else i could have done. I rather "lose" an argument than dirty myself winning one like you did. Now, have a good day. 91.49.68.100 (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, "When reliable sources disagree, maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight.", perfectly reasonable. Problem is, you did not offer any sources to actually disagree with. You offer nothing, there is no middle ground. And the issue on the AfD talk certainly isn't a fringe view. It is rather ironic however that you tell me that reliable sources are needed and not original research. Yes, i wonder who of us offered sources and who original reasearch... 91.49.68.100 (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2017 (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.

Survey

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 to WP:AN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2017 (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.

69.116.155.79

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

---

IP user 69.116.155.79 has broken the 3RR on three different occasions on the 2 (revert 1, revert 2, revert 3, and revert 4), 3 (revert 1, revert 2, revert 3 and revert 4 and 5 articles revert 1, revert 2, revert 3 and revert 4. In his edit summaries you can see that he calls me "dummy", tells me to "bring it on, police officer", and if you can see on the talk page User talk:LRG5784#Edits, that he shows no remorse for his actions, hence the "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude. I have since mentioned that I will not engage in any further conversation with him seeing that he does not fear consequences for his actions, nor does he wish to be a team player, even after another user 331dot got involved and tried to help. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 22:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

now this... —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 12:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The IP user is now temporarily blocked, but they have stated an intention to continue to be disruptive; a longer block may be needed. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Block was extended to a month. 331dot (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Edit war on J. Geils Band discography

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.

---

@Piriczki: is saying that the footnote on J. Geils Band discography should say "104 on the Bubbling Under" because the actual chart said so, even though WP:USCHARTS says not to use 1xx for Bubbling Under peaks. Even though the chart he linked here says "104" for the Bubbling Under peak, this is patently wrong because there is no such position. "104" means "4 on Bubbling Under". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Why is there no discussion on the talk page?[147] AQFK (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@AQFK: Because there is literally no activity on that talk page. No one will ever see it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

They will if someone puts something there and points people to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Not all the times I've tried it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I cited the "Bubbling Under the Hot 100" chart as published in the March 9, 1974 edition of Billboard magazine here which shows the J. Geils Band single "Did You No Wrong" peaked at No. 104. The other guy cited wikipedia. Piriczki (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2017 (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.

Suspected multiple account edit war

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 suspect Funkinwolf (talk · contribs) and Erzan (talk · contribs) may be one and the same person. This edit was made by Funkinwolf today, with the argument there is consensus for the change. I then reverted it, only to have it restored again moments later. As the change is controversial, I then opened a discussion on the talk page, which can be found here. it was then partially restored by Erzan, who was making their first edit on here since December. Erzan then reverted my revert, with a strikingly similar argument to Funkinwolf. Erzan then posted this comment on my talk page. Both have a history of edit warring, and I suspect they may be connected. It is my belief that when the Funkinwolf account was challenged, he/she logged out of that one and logged in as Erzan. Funkinwolf is a relatively new account, but has already been repremanded for edit warring. Do I need to go to the trouble of filing an SPI report, or can this be dealt with here? This is Paul (talk) 13:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

My edits on Wikipedia have constantly be edited by a regular user and this This is Paul. I believe this user is stalking my edits, for whatever reason and trying to enforce his/her will. I wanted to complain but find the process intimidating. But after being accused of this and the feeling of stalking, I have changed my mind. Erzan (talk) 13:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I have requested full protection for the article so that the content dispute can be resolved on the talk page. If you suspect users of sock puppetry, you can report it here: WP:SPI. - MrX 13:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

ok, I'll file a report. Since I'm out of reverts on that page, can I request the temporary removal of the word terror from the background section as there are WP:BLPCRIME issues involved with calling it that when the matter is under sub judice. Either that, or it should be amended to say "suspected terror attack". This is Paul (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Report now filed. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Erzan. This is Paul (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• I guess it would be a stretch to argue that this falls under WP:ARB911. TimothyJosephWood 17:43, 25 June 2017 (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.

Harassment by Govindaharihari

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.

---

Resolved

 – Warnings given. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

To my knowledge, I had never met this editor before, but I talked to Govindaharihari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) today a few times at the talkpage of Kas42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), where s/he appeared suddenly to criticise Sundayclose regarding an NPA warning Sundayclose left at Kas42's talkpage about a PA against FlightTime. I saw that conversation and I commented a few times, to correct the record and to tell Govindaharihari that s/he should not defend PAs. After some more conversation with Sundayclose and FlightTime, Govinda had to have the last word, and replied to FlightTime, calling all three of us "youall", stating: ow welcome Flightime, the three of youall has attacked me personally now, more so imho that Kas attacked youall. I don't mind the swearing and the attacks though, it shows me something about youall.. I let this go and did not reply to that comment, although I am certain, at no time, did I personally attack Govindaharihari.

I thought that was the end of it, but I was proven wrong. A few hours later, Govinda left this trolling message on my talkpage: Hi - Do you know that in five years you have never even attempted to improve the Eastwood article with even a single minor content addition, not even a format improvement or a comma or a full stop? I reverted this edit and gave this user a level-2 harassment warning. In response, the user vandalised my talkpage by adding a link of wmf labs at the top of my talkpage. I subsequently gave the user a level 3 vandalism warning. In response, the user vandalised my talkpage again by copying and pasting my own warning to him/her at the top of my talkpage, destroying part of the code of my talkpage. I followed up with a final harassment warning on the user's talkpage, only for to get this user to vandalise my talkpage again, in exactly the same manner as before. I am not sure what the problem is with that editor, but I would like this aggression to be stopped and, more importantly, an admin to warn this editor about any repetition of such behaviour in the future, either against me, or against another editor. Thank you. Dr. K. 01:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• I am available at this time to respond to any queries about this report. Govindaharihari (talk) 01:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Youall is just Southern US English. It sounds like you both got in a template throwing match. The other editor will need to do a lot more harassing and you will need a very sympathetic Admin. Bringing this to ANi will not solve your problem and may raise more problems. Type 'Withdraw' here and ignore the other editor. Legacypac (talk) 01:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) I know what "Youall" means. The point is I did not personally attack this editor when s/he said that I did. It's in my report. And I disagree about withdrawing this report. Trolling harassment is worthy of an ANI report. But having seen Nihonjoe's warning to Govindaharihari, I am ok with closing it. Dr. K. 01:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• Just to note , the user has also made a failed vandalism report https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=787366653 Govindaharihari (talk) 01:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • It's not a "failed" report. It was just removed as "unactionable". ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Govindaharihari: You've been given a final warning regarding your harassment. Please stop now or you will be blocked. Additionally, I recommend following Legacypac's advice. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Can you be clear and post the harrasment edit, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3) Removing the warning will not prevent blocking if you continue on this path. Anyone who looks at your edits on User talk:Dr.K. can clearly see the pattern of harassment. Playing dumb is not going to help you, either. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• • (edit conflict) Govindaharihari, the childish edit warring on his talk page needs to stop. I say youall sometimes, being a native Texan, so I take nothing from that. The edit warring is block worthy. Just because it is their talk page and not an article, that doesn't prevent us from blocking for you for warring and disruptive editing. I don't care what justification you think you have, knock it off of you will be blocked. What you are doing isn't vandalism, but it is still disruptive. It doesn't take 4 reverts to block you for edit warring. Grow up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Thank you Nihonjoe and Dennis for your intervention. I am ok with closing this report now. Dr. K. 01:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: My perception is that Govindaharihari has been engaging in fairly widespread disruption, harrassment, and trolling or borderline trolling for many months. Unless there is some sort of major attitude adjustment, I think s/he is heading for a block sooner or later. Softlavender (talk) 02:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
• Softlavender is correct, again. I noticed Govindaharihari's unhelpful posturing here and was thinking of adding a comment to the effect that such commentary would be interpreted as support by the editor whose talk page was used for the discussion. That support would encourage the editor to continue their efforts to add nonsense to a BLP (see AN3), and that would lead to a block. I decided my comments would just excite further unhelpful commentary and moved on, however, the predicted block has occurred. Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender's always right. It's most tiresome. EEng 04:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• While I agree with basically all of the above, I do have a serious question for the OP - Dr K; precisely what wisdom moved you to post a template warning to the user talk page of someone who has demonstrated, very clearly, in a recent discussion that you were a part of, that they have a problem with template warnings? Mr rnddude (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• @Mr rnddude: I disagree with the premise of your question. Govindaharihari did not dispute the act of giving a template warning. Please see Govinda's first message: Hi there {{ping|User:Sundayclose}} - when we post such a threatening warning notice on a users talkpage it is usual and helps if you would please post the edit you feel is worthy of this warning template, please could you do that or remove the template, thanks. Plus, I think leaving a nasty message in two parts, the second part with the edit-summary "nada", in which they obsessively enumerate all the things they think that I missed in adding to the article: not even a format improvement or a comma or a full stop? is a clear attempt at trolling/harassment and is hardly an invitation to reasoned discussion. Even so, I initially responded with a measured level 2 harassment template. Dr. K. 17:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• @Mr rnddude: is right - I despise your worthless attacking templates , labelling me a vandal when I am a good faith user with thousands of positive edits that is why I removed them immediately and dumped them on your own userpage, have the worthless attacking templates yourself, too many users go around dumping aggressive templates on good faith users talkpages. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• If you despise messages concerning your behaviour, templated or not, then heed the advice you received from the editors and admins who commented in this thread and modify your behaviour accordingly. Dr. K. 19:36, 25 June 2017 (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.

General 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.

---

Legal threat "Irresponsible editors risk having their IP addresses subpoenaed and risk spending a fortune fighting law suits for their irresponsible action."It is related to the section following it. Toddst1 (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Seems like a clear case of legal threat. Capitals00 (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I noticed this at AIV, and would appreciate feedback from admins on this page. This appears to be a static IP. On the one hand, we have WP:NLT, for which an editor can be blocked. But I also see ownership issues with that IP, and not just the legal puffery on their user page. Toss in edit warring. You've left a note on their talk page also about this being a possible SPI. Multiple issues at play, and I'd like to see what other admins see as a resolution on this. — Maile (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't see a legal threat. I don't think the editor is implying that they could or would subpoena or sue, they are merely attempting to to warn (though not very accurately) others against the risks of editing anonymously. This is akin to warning that you can be blocked for vandalizing and being accused of pretending to be an admin. -- John Reaves 17:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

While not a direct legal threat, there are problems in that the IP does seem to be trying to chill discussion or preempt actions, what you might consider "a lesser included offense of making a legal threat". I would say they need to remove portions that relate to this. He is free to point to the actual TOS and policies, but interpreting them in a way that is threatening isn't kosher. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, Dennis, but I disagree. The litmus test for legal threats (and the like) are whether they are designed to have a chilling effect on editing, and I believe this one fits that criteria. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Preparing to give a rouge editor the brush-off

I'm usually the one saying that this or that isn't a legal threat, but this is. It's meant to scare people. Worst of all, he's called out rouge editors specifically. EEng 17:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

EEng I realize that you have a great sense of humor without peer. But did you possibly mean Rogue, like when a elephant goes nuts? — Maile (talk) 00:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

No, Maile66, I really meant rouge as in WP:ROUGE. Look for it in the diff linked at the top of this thread. EEng 02:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

How dare he go after rouge editors?? They're an important part of the makeup of Wikipedia! -Nat Gertler (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Good one! And to think some people want noticeboards purged of humor. Can you imagine how insufferable this place would be? EEng 04:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I've hesitated to mention this, because I can't provide a diff. Somewhere on all those admin pages we patrol, I've seen this exact warning before. Identical, complete with the bare urls. And one thing I remember clearly from that, is "If you do not believe me, take some time to read the following examples" Absolutely the same. Mostly, I patrol AIV RFPP and the admin Dashboard. So, it was likely on one of those, and I believe sometime in 2017. I just can't remember where it was. The original poster here may not be far off suspecting SP.— Maile (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The only edits in article space by 91.90.13.192 (talk · contribs) are to Gross National Happiness, a term used mostly in Bhutan. It's mostly a content dispute over what should be in Gross National Happiness vs. Gross National Well-being. The anon is way too wound up over this minor issue. This looks like an inexperienced editor problem, not a real threat. Possibly trolling for attention. No visible COI issue. Suggest that WP:DNFTT applies here. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Maile66: Quite sure it was at RfP, as this is my usual haunt, and I remember it too. I, on the other hand, see indeed a legal threat...especially because of the wording "irresponsible editors", which makes it someone who at least knows or has read legalese. So it was intended to imply a threat. Still, for now I would deny, but keep an SPI in mind. Lectonar (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I skimmed over this posting before being drawn to 91.90.13.192's novel that they wrote down below and it is a doozy. Yes, I see a legal threat in their posting, as POLEMIC content littered so much that I can hardly parse through their page. So far as I can see, Toddst1 behaved appropriately, with no personal attacks and proper warnings before taking this to AN/I. I myself would be rather suspicious of AnimaNova if I were in Toddst1's shoes. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 00:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• Toddst1 has been targeting and bullying me with false accusations on my talk page. This is an example where he selectively chose a text out of context to gain the sympathy of other editors. If you read the full talk page and my response to him, you will see the page clearly says "This is not a legal threat against any specific person. This warning is not to discourage legitimate debates. This warning is to rouge editors, bullies, and trolls who abuse the openness of Wikipedia." On the same page it says: I love an intellectual debate. If you disagree, feel free to express your point of view, but always provide independent and reliable supporting evidence. One or both of us will learn something new and that is a good thing. However, do not delete my contribution without first discussing with me or providing a supporting evidence, or you risk being reported to an administrator. I will be courteous to all, but I will not let BS slide. If your contribution violate copyrights and other publishing laws, I will warn you, before I report you to Wikipedia and to the victim. This also applies to any defamatory comments. Bullies and trolls will be held responsible." This is actually inline with Wikipedia guidelines. On the same page, "From a legal perspective, I see many liability issues related to copyright, defamatory and business interference. Kudos to Wikipedia administrators who are able keep up with preventing the abuse by some of its editors. Its mind boggling how they can manage so many users. Now and then, I will study and monitor such issues and hopefully will use my experience to publish a legal article about Wikipedia publishing." As you can see, it is unfair to take one sentence out of context. He engages in similar unfair tactics and abuse the trust of other editors and admins who might be busy and quickly scan the complaint instead of reading the full thing. This is all started with insidious motive to block me because I disagreed with him on an article. To see how he operates and see who is violating the Wikipedia Civility policy. Please also read my complaint on the same notice board section (Toddst1 False accusations, bullying and other violations). I hope you will reconsider your position in the light of new information. Also in the light of fairness and unbiased commenting, if you see that he made mistakes, please speak out. 91.90.13.192 (talk) 00:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• I'm so surprised to see some comments here by other editor who are using sarcastic language and are quick to agree with Toddst1. In the spirit of neutrality, I ask you to disclose if you have made any other supporting edits of Toddst1 on Wikipedia before. I think a senior independent Admin maybe required to ensure this complaint is resolved fairly. I see user Toddst1 has been very active and he might have built support in the editing community and this might cause a systemic bias towards new users like me. 91.90.13.192 (talk) 00:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• I just checked and saw my comments on Toddst1 talk page were reverted by Bbb23 without an explanation. This resulted in hiding my response to Toddst1 false accusations and hurt my complaint by showing only one side of the story. This is so strange. Is Toddst1 coordinating with other editors to protect him. Can an Admin, please, investigate this group behavior 91.90.13.192 (talk) 01:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• I'm an admin, and I investigated my behavior and found it exemplary. I'm just waiting to see if another administrator blocks you because it's likely to happen one way or the other.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
• You are hurting me by removing my response to his accusations. It is unfair to keep only one side of the story and in my opinion is not exemplary. Do you have any connection to, or have you supported him or he supported you on Wikipedia before? 91.90.13.192 (talk) 01:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• Once again, 91.90.13.192, the warnings were fair, but you came out the gate swinging and litigious, I am unfamiliar with Toddst1, but it would not matter even if I were. That being said, you have definitely explained that you are seeing this as a legal conflict, so I am in support of you being blocked now. I hope you will take the time to learn how things operate around here. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 01:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
• I did not say anywhere this a legal conflict, on contrary, I clearly stated this was not a threat towards anyone on my talk page and on in this section. Please do not put words in my mouth. 91.90.13.192 (talk) 01:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• I believe you are mistaken. Amidst your warnings towards Toddst1, you also posted all over your talk page about legal problems that could arise. And, here you're only pressing your rationale further. Whether it was your intention or not, you're giving the impression that you're trying to intimidate others with litigation. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 02:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• Don't forget that the IP addresses of registered users have previously been released by the WMF upon receipt of a subpoena, so a threat of doing that may well be a solid legal threat. What do others think? Black Kite (talk) 00:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• I just checked my complaint on Toddst1 on this noticeboard and saw it was reverted by Black Kite. This user agreed with Toddst1 in his complaint against me and then reverted my complaint against Toddst1 on the ground that it can be posted under this complaint, in concert with DarthBotto But after reverting, he did not post it here. Essentially deleting it, thereby misleading other editors by showing only his complaint, and not my complaint or the way I see this going, resulting in blocking me before I make my complaint against him. Another disturbing issue is that I did not make any legal threat against Toddst1 and I responded to his complaint in this section, BUT to include my separate complaint of bullying here will mislead others to think that I made a legal threat against him in response to bullying. My complaint against Toddst1 is separate and I would like it to be addressed independently. Black Kite, please do not delete my complaint, you are hurting my side of the story. Again, to me, this is a disturbing repetition of group behavior that I believe an Senior Admins and higher ups in Wikipedia should look at. 91.90.13.192 (talk) 01:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Just block him and stop him from wasting any more of our time. --Tarage (talk) 03:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind. Looks like he was an hour ago. --Tarage (talk) 03:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I also note that it's a checkuser block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2017 (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:TheMagnificentist and WP:AWB

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 looks like he made a long string of edits which are out of policy or just plain incorrect. For instance, he has blanked and emptied entire categories with no discussion at WP:CFD, he has taken articles on musical groups and put them into "[x musicians" categories] (which are intended for individual musicians, not groups), and taken schemes of musical genres and upmerged all of them to the top category. This is going to require a lot of cleanup. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Koavf: This is already being discussed above, at WP:ANI#User:TheMagnificentist. Perhaps you'd like to hat this and have some input there? GoldenRing (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:57, 27 June 2017 (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:Ettrig

User:Ettrig has a minority view of where templates like Template:Expand French and Template:Expand German (as well other maintenance templates, e.g. Template:Alphabetize, but he hasn't acted on non-translation maintenance tags). A discussion has been started at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Position_of_.7B.7BExpand_French.7D.7D_etc but Ettrig's view has attracted no support. Nonetheless, he has repositioned tags on well over a thousand articles, and he continues to do this despite numerous warnings (see User_talk:Ettrig#Please_stop_repositioning_language_templates_immediately). I'm involved in this dispute and cannot take administrative action here. Can someone else tell Ettrig to knock it off until he gains consensus? There is also the question of how to undo Ettrig's changes. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Sadly, the discussion died out almost immediately. Last entry was 2017-06-07, more than a week ago. --Ettrig (talk) 05:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Can we start with the remedy proposed by User:Justlettersandnumbers here? Mathglot (talk) 07:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. What is needed is a real discussion about the best placement of this template. Maybe it also needs another form. My argument in condensed form: This template, when placed at the top, is a significant disturbance for the reader. It does not provide important information to the reader, almost no information relevant to the reader. The information provided to the editors is almost always obvious anyway and in a large minority of cases it is erroneous (the french article pointed to is a stub). --Ettrig (talk) 07:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• No-one except Ettrig appears to have expressed any agreement with the idea of moving these templates from their long-standing position at the top, along with other maintenance templates, to the bottom of the article. S/he appears determined to impose their view on the encyclopedia, by modifying the template documentation and then moving the templates. The order of elements of an article is set out in the MOS at WP:ORDER, but there was no discussion of this major change at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout until I raised it there on 5 June. In discussion there, Ettrig appears to be a minority of one - if "the discussion died out almost immediately" it was because of such strong consensus. I would encourage reversion of all these moves, which do not have the community's support. PamD 08:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

This statement was not true when it was entered. PamD themselve had expressed lack of disagreement. --Ettrig (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid I find user Ettrig's attitude less than collaborative, even if he/she has a very valid point that the tag is often misused (and could usefully be removed in those cases). There's been discussion, as linked above, and there has been no support for Ettrig's position. Nevertheless, he/she has continued to make the same edits. It's one thing to be bold, another to to edit when you know that consensus is against you. I did previously suggest a mass revert of the user's edits, but had not at that time realised just how many of them there were, nor how far back they go. This would seem to be a task for a bot – if there's consensus that it should be done? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Collaboration and consensus means that when there is conflict the subject matter is to be discussed. I have tried to discuss, but met no substantive arguments. It has been as above, mentioning of supposed consensus. MOS:ORDER says that elements typically appear in the following order. This is clearly not a definitive instruction. Template:Expand French is not a typical maintenance tag. It does not point at a problem. It points at a perfectly natural state of affairs (when used correctly, which is often not the case), namely that the editors on the French Wikipedia have put more effort into phenomena that are near to them, such as French communes and Quebec. The beginning of an article is very precious space. This is where the reader starts. When this tag is put there, it stands in the way of the reader finding the information she is searching for. This may be warranted when the article has a problem that needs to be fixed quickly or that the reader needs to be warned about. But this is not a problem. It might also be warranted if it stimulates good activities. It does not. I have now seen a lot of these articles (about 2000). The vast majority of them (about 80%) have had this template in more than 8 years. Obviously, a person who can translate from French to English does not need this template to find suitable articles to translate. And if she looked at this article and found it lacking, with that language knowledge it would be the obvious thing to do to look at the French article for material and inspiration. I have now seen a lot of the articles that are tagged with this template. And beleive me, they are not the most important articles to translate. The typical such article is a French commune with 100 inhabitants that has a French article that is a stub. This template harms the reader. It provides no value that counterweighs this. This should be discussed. Voting is not collaboration. --Ettrig (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Ettrig, that you have "met no substantive arguments" is demonstrably false. You may not agree with the arguments that others have presented, but that does not mean they are not substantive. Regardless, there is no need to hash out the actual issue about placement on this page -- WT:MOSLAYOUT is the place for that. The only question is whether it is appropriate for you to be moving them en masse without gaining consensus first. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I will also note that you moved around 50 additional templates after being informed of this discussion here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• So, this is the way this should go: Ettrig should agree to stop moving templates until there is some consensus. Everyone involved should probably put together an RfC on the issue, and work out/agree to wording for that RfC, and then everyone should respect the outcome. Too easy. TimothyJosephWood 21:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

ANI is about incidents involving user behavior, not content disputes. Ettrig should stop moving templates around, now, period, whether or not there is or will be an Rfc. They are entirely independent of each other and should remain so.

Anyone who wishes to may, of course create an Rfc at any time, and they don't need a green light from anybody else about the wording or anything else in order to do so. Creating an Rfc is a proper subject for the MOS talk page, not ANI.

Pending an Rfc that may or may not happen, and may or may not support Ettrig's position if it does, the templates moved thus far should be rolled back, in order to avoid sending the signal to future editors that a unilateral change to an instruction or guideline without consensus along with an accompanying, massive unilateral effort to alter articles to their own PoV would be allowed to remain standing, and that there is thus no downside in attempting it. This impression would be detrimental to the encyclopedia, and could be wasteful of the time of many editors to fix the concomitant damage. Mathglot (talk) 06:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

1. ANI is supposed to be about user behavior, but as often as not is about content disputes.
2. Calm down. This is not Lake Pontchartrain flooding into the encyclopedia. It's template placement, and it's not really going to make an iota of practical difference to our readers where the things are at anyway. You all act like this is some serious material damage to content, when it's an overall exceedingly minor MoS dispute. It is pretty much hysteric pedantry at its finest.
3. There's this accusation floating around that the user themselves added the language to the article, there have been no diffs I've seen of that, and from what I can tell it's been present for nearly ten years.
4. The current language seems to indicate that the correct placement is at the bottom of the article, and I've seen no rebuttal to that other than the idea that people seem to have simply ignored that guidance, and the accusation that behavior in apparent accord with that guidance is somehow disruptive falls flat. You can't claim no opposition when you've made no effort to open the issue to a wider audience other than the user in question and everyone who happens to disagree with them and is therefore aware of the discussion, and do so on an page with 70 watchers, most of which are probably inactive.

Overall, someone should have opened an RfC on this a long time ago, and because they haven't, we've apparently driven an editor with 13k mainspace edits into retirement. Good job. TimothyJosephWood 22:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

(1) Huh? I only raised a user behavior issue here; there is no need to resolve the content dispute on this page (discussions are ongoing elsewhere). (2) I agree that it is not a grave emergency; that is why no one brought this here until Ettrig made over 1000 (and possibly over 2000 edits) along these lines. (3)/(4) The current language was changed by User:Ettrig himself, see [148]. It was left in this condition while discussion occurred, but only Ettrig has expressed agreement with this view. And how can you claim that Ettrig has been driven into retirement? He made 50 of these edits yesterday. Also, Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Layout has 505 watchers, and Wikipedia_talk:Translation has 263 watchers. It is Ettrig's burden to get wider attention on this issue if every other person participating in the discussion opposes his view. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Clarification: I first alluded to User:Abrahamic Faiths being the first to challenge Ettrig's actions back in September. For whatever reason, AF has recently retired. Mathglot (talk)|

As far as I can tell, the majority of what the user did was copy/paste the guidance that was on the templates basically since they we're invented and transferred it verbatim to a related page. I'm fairly surprised that this has made it to ANI and no one seems to have realized that, and everyone seems to think that this user in particular decided this by fiat some time in the last few weeks.

This is precisely why users like me have been adding it to the bottom: because we looked at the template, read the guidance, and did what it told us to do. TimothyJosephWood 00:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Since your points 2 and 4 are about content issues I'm not going to respond to them here.

Regarding your point #3, the template language in question has only been around since August. It was added unilaterally without discussion by User:Ettrig, presumably to justify his subsequent or concurrent mass changes. Your impression of its being older than that is due to misreading or not seeing the transclusion, which picks up the 2017 (current) version even when the file you are looking at is from 2009.

The diffs you requested are available and will prove the point; they can be found at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Expand language diffs. This behavior is not okay, regardless whether the content change is an improvement . Mathglot (talk) 04:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Rereading the above, I'm not sure if that was clear, as I didn't really respond to your specific comments. So, I will now.

• As far as I can tell, the majority of what the user did was copy/paste the guidance that was on the templates basically since they were invented and transferred it verbatim to a related page.
  1. No, that never happened.
  2. The guidance has only been on the templates since August.
• I'm fairly surprised that this has made it to ANI and no one seems to have realized that,
  • That's because there's nothing there to notice.
• ...and everyone seems to think that this user in particular decided this by fiat some time in the last few weeks.
  • August 30, to be exact. Yes, this particular user. Witthout consultation, and edit-warring when anyone challenged. I'd say that's a fair definition of "By fiat."

Mathglot (talk) 05:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

• An RfC has been started here, and the user has agreed here to stop making changes pending the result of the RfC. So I think we're done here probably. TimothyJosephWood 23:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

This is now—what?—the fourth time you have conflated an Rfc concerning a pretty minor MOS content dispute, with an ANI discussion about a user's remarkably diligent and months-long massive alteration of hundreds (now, thousands) of articles to suit the user's PoV against consensus, following a unilateral change to a doc page which Ettrig edit-warred to enforce. Your repeated attempts to link the two either represents a misunderstanding about what a guideline talk page is for, or what ANI is for, or an attempt to obfuscate the issue here at ANI and dismiss a serious violation of user behavior concerning consensus and dispute resolution. So, no: we are not done here.

We will be done here, when the community has had its say about whether such behavior is acceptable, or not. The guideline on consensus says, Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making, and is marked by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies. The behavior of this user is one of the more persistent and flamboyant examples of flouting this core guideline that I have seen in my years at Wikipedia. (I don't doubt that the experienced admins and editors here have seen much worse; but I haven't, as this is my first one.)

I followed your link above, and there is no statement there by the user. Perhaps you meant, this link? I don't see that the user has agreed to stop making changes, what I see is a nebulous comment that makes no such promise but can be interpreted however you like. But if you are right about the user's intent, then let them make an unequivocal statement about that here in plain English. Stopping the unacceptable behavior is the first step.

However, acquiring such an unequivocal statement is not the end of the story, but merely the beginning. My chief concern about this whole issue is the very bad precedent that might be set if we do nothing in the face of such user behavior. I fear that this would send a message in Wikipedia's voice that unilateral doc alteration and massive article change by a lone-wolf editor against consensus may be engaged in with impunity, thus encouraging such behavior in the future.

For a remedy, I call for no block or ban on this user; rather, I call for a rollback (revert, undo, I'm uncertain of the proper terminology) of all changes to articles made by Ettrig since the beginning of this campaign (approximately 2016-08-30, I believe). For this remedy to have any teeth and mitigate future hazard it must be fully decoupled from the ongoing Rfc at the risk of encouraging rogue editors in the future; if we "wait and see how the Rfc comes out" it will only encourage the rogue-on-the-fence to take a shot at it. So that is precisely what we must not do here.

As I said, this is my first ANI, and I'm not quite sure how to proceed, or what happens next. I've stated what I see to be the main issue, I've described the risk I see of damage to the encyclopedia due to Ettrig's behavior, and I've formulated a remedy which I would like to see discussed among interested editors.

Oh, I almost forgot: the rules call for diffs. Well, these aren't quite diffs (I'd have to supply 5,000 of them) but two rev history links should suffice to illustrate the point. Ettrig is a knowledgeable editor of many years' standing, having contributed to innumerable articles^{[Warning: long page]} in any number of topic areas. Somewhere around a year ago, they started on this large-scale campaign of article changes^{[Warning: long page]} to the exclusion of almost any useful improvement to the encyclopedia.

Now what? Mathglot (talk) 05:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and I suppose these two links would be useful here: these represent two attempts to discuss with Ettrig about achieving consensus first and stopping their unilateral actions. One is from last September initiated by User:Abrahamic Faiths, and the other from this May by Mathglot, when I first realized what was happening. Mathglot (talk) 06:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC) updated by Mathglot (talk) 06:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Notes

• What happens now is that you drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. You can't block an editor for an edit war that happened ten months ago, and you can't block an editor for changes that they're no longer making and that can just as easily probably be reversed by a bot. You can't make mass changes the consensus for which is still underway. What you do is take your thirst for vengeance and retribution, put it in a box and throw it in the nearest river because the things that should have been put in place months or years ago are now in place, and if those involved don't respect that, then you come here. TimothyJosephWood 02:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

  I'm all for coming to the defense of an editor under criticism, but I think you're starting to go a little too far. Mathglot has explicitly stated "I call for no block or ban on this user", so there was no need for your statement that we can't block editors for old edit wars. The RfC, which FWIW is likely to go against Ettig, does not mitigate valid concerns about the user's behavior. I think you are unfairly characterizing Mathglot's motives. There is a difference between being bloodthirsty for revenge and seeking for the admins to address what one perceives as problematic behavior. I think Mathglot is doing the latter. Lepricavark (talk) 03:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

From the original post:

1. Can someone else tell Ettrig to knock it off until he gains consensus?  Done
2. There is also the question of how to undo Ettrig's changes. Doesn't require administrator tools. The RfC does seem as if its going to end up in favor of top. How to implement that consensus once its clearly and formally settled is a logistical issue, and not one which requires ANI.

My comment about blocking was in reference to the fact that there's nothing left to do here that requires a mop. I wasn't saying that someone specifically called for a block, but this is ANI, and let's be honest, if the user had continued to make a few hundred of these changes a day with an ongoing RfC and a local consensus against, then that certainly was an option that was on the table. The Village Pump or an enthusiastic bot operator is the place to have the implementation discussion. Other than that, I don't see anything left for this venue. TimothyJosephWood 10:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense. There is a clear consensus that the templates have been placed at the top. I would suggest that Ettrig make no article-space edits until he returns the templates to the top. If consensus were found that the templates belong at the bottom, that could be done by a bot. Moving them to the top would be more complicated, and probably could not be done by a bot. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

You say that "there's nothing left to do here that requires a mop", but there is: the OP's original request.

Regarding your point #1 quoting the OP:

1. Can someone else tell Ettrig to knock it off until he gains consensus? and you added the "{{done}}" checkmark.

But, actually, no, it's  Not done.

It's pretty obvious that when a request is made at ANI to "tell [someone] to knock it off", we don't really mean just "tell them", do we? After all, he's been told already again and again without success. What we really mean, is, to get agreement from them to stop. Despite your claim (23:11, 18 June) that Ettrig had agreed to stop, he has made no such agreement that I have seen. In point of fact, Ettrig has stopped now, as of 06:43, 15 June, but by choice, not by agreement. Ettrig has also stopped various other times by choice, such as from May 5 to May 29 for example, during which no templates were moved. However, despite pleas to stop, he continued to move templates by choice at other times. In particular, during the first week of discussion at WT:MOSLAYOUT to which Ettrig contributed within 15 minutes of its start, for example, Ettrig chose to move another 600 templates while the MOS guideline governing the moves he was making was being discussed and while participating in that discussion. This is truly an egregious lack of respect for consensus seeking, and as strong an indication as one could imagine for contempt of process.

Regarding your point #2 quoting the OP:

2. There is also the question of how to undo Ettrig's changes. You added, "Doesn't require administrator tools." But in fact, whether it "requires" them or not, admin tools are available that are appropriate to the task, and ANI is an appropriate venue in which to ask for admin tools to be used.

So, I would like to formally (re-)request a rollback of all Ettrig's edits involving template positioning since 2016-08-30. This is just repeating what Calliopejen1 already said at the top of this thread, but I feel I have to repeat it in order to counter your comment that "there's nothing left to do here that requires a mop" (by which phrase I assume you mean that administrator tools are either not adequate or not appropriate for remedying the issue). I felt moved to check whether you were correct or not about that, and I see that at Wikipedia:Administrators/Tools, section Reverting, an admin can revert pages quickly with the rollback tool. Reading further, I saw that according to Wikipedia:Rollback section When to use rollback, bullet 5 says to use rollback: To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) which are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia. That seems tailor-made for this case: a misguided editor, doing something harmful to the encyclopedia. So, I judge that there is something left to do here that requires a mop, namely, to employ the Admin rollback tool to reverse Ettrig's widespread edits that are harmful to the encyclopedia. The tool is available to Admins, and it's appropriate for the issue raised here; whether it's adequate to the task (of several thousand edits over 10 months) or not, is another question, and I would like to hear from experienced admins here about that.

And that's what I see is left for this venue.

P.S. By the way, I think you might be misreading why I think a rollback is important here. It has nothing to do with the Rfc, or which side prevails there, which I don't even feel that strongly about. If the Rfc ends up somehow going the other way, I won't lose a wink of sleep. The reason is what I stated earlier, namely, it's about protecting the encyclopedia against a future lone-wolf who might take heart from the lack of a rollback here, and be encouraged to cause mischief in the future on a grand scale, as Ettrig has done here. Let's not let that happen, by sending the right message now. Mathglot (talk) 06:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

What Timothy Joseph Wood said. This isn't even a tempest in a teapot. It's a maelstrom in a thimble. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Editor making disruptive edits to Game of Thrones articles

Withdrawn This was poorly thought out. The majority of the report was originally drafted to be posted on Yunshui's talk page, and was not appropriate for ANI. The content of it is accurate and, if further disruption continues after the present block expires, I might reuse a lot of the diffs at a later date. I originally stuck my entire opening comment to make it clear that I had withdrawn it, but then I realized that doing so could be interpreted as "I was wrong on the substance", which would perhaps encourage more disruption. So I've unstricken it. But someone should close it anyway. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

AffeL (talk · contribs) was blocked for almost a year between 2013 and 2014 before receiving a STANDARDOFFER.[149] He has since continued to engage in disruptive behaviour including, but not limited to, OR, edit-warring, BLP violations, personal attacks, and IDHT (just look at how frequently he blanks his own talk page). His interactions with me go back a little less than a month, but he's been doing essentially the same thing with a lot of editors for a long time, an messing up a lot of articles while doing so.

The following is a brief summary of his disruption in the past week, the last of which led to a block for 48 hours from User:Yunshui, but this almost certainly won't solve the problem given the number of warnings and last chances he's been given. Yunshui advised me to take this here so the community can discuss the larger problem, although I had been considering ANI for some time.

Summary of recent behaviour

Denial of edit-warring charges based on a wikilawyer-ish "definition" of edit-warring.[150][151][152] Copy-pasting the same IDHT response to a legitimate concern about sourcing seven times in a row.[153][154][155][156][157][158][159] Engaging in off-topic commentary about how much more popular Game of Thrones is than its source material,[160] then repeatedly attacking me for responding to said off-topic commentary[161][162] and going so far as to directly claim that he wasn't the one who brought it up.[163] Repeatedly collapsing my FAC comments or decontextualizing them by leaving uncollapsed only my first comment and his first (non-)response, but none of my further responses.[164][165][166] I had actually given him permission to collapse everything except my first comment, but he misquoted that[167] and later admitted to having not carefully read it before acting on it.[168] Not reading other editors' comments is a recurring problem with him. Reinserting counter-consensus content with the rationale that there has been no specific consensus not to include it, even though there had been a standing consensus for almost two years[169][170][171] or with no explanation at all.[172][173] Repeatedly claiming to have done a thorough source review of a long article containing at the time some 146 inline citations in roughly two hours,[174][175][176][177] hand-waving evidence to the contrary as "must have missed that one"[178] and dodging requests to clarify whether he means something else when he says he did a source check.[179][180] (Although he did specify what he meant -- I can to the "Sentence X in our article is an accurate summary of the claim made in paragraph Y of this source Z" thing at the talk page. -- before promising to do it, and he very openly did not do that.) A couple or baseless accusations of sockpuppetry against me and User:Curly Turkey.[181][182] (I explained how it is baseless here, although I really shouldn't have to explain myself to someone who created nine sock accounts to evade their indef block.)

If anyone wants older evidence of disputes with people other than me and Curly Turkey ping me. Another more general problem is his poor sourcing standards. He has a tendency to add sources to articles that don't directly support the content, add "sourced" article content that is at best only partly supported by the sources, and remove maintenance tags by adding sources that don't actually address the issue. This, this and this are particularly glaring examples (note that the latter two are also BLP-violations, engaging in unsourced speculation about the romantic relationships of two actors and the career choices of one other), but the problem is endemic, including in at least one of his successful (!) GA noms. Attempts to broach this issue with him on his talk page have been unsuccessful.[183][184]

I'm torn on how to deal with this. He is essentially a Game of Thrones SPA, so TBANning might be too harsh. Technically an indefinite block is the appropriate sanction for a formerly indeffed editor who was unblocked on condition that they change their behaviour and then failed to do so. Another option would be indefinite 1RR, which would at least force him to use the talk page. Or, better still, 0RR. Softlavender warned him about edit-warring last time his name came up here,[185] and he's not exactly a stranger to ANEW.[186][187][188][189]

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I don't think this is going anywhere. I probably should have said This user is engaged in OR, BLP-violations, persistent edit-warring, wikilawyering, personal attacks and COPYVIO against other Wikipedians, inappropriate removal of maintenance tags, mass-creation of articles on non-notable fictional characters that long-standing consensus held should be redirects to lists, IDHT (regarding multiple warnings and even the unblock-terms of a STANDARDOFFER) and deceptive/misleading practices. He should be TBANned and/or subjected to 1RR. and provided my diffs after each comma, with minimal elaboration. Hindsight is 20/20 (I thought this would play out like the Tristan noir affair on AN a few years back, where for some reason a large number of editors, mostly admins, spontaneously agreed to read a massive wall-of-text I posted and check the background to ensure I wasn't lying). This thread should probably be closed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• I have to be honest, your treatment of the FA [190], particularly in the collapsed section is pretty harsh, Hijiri 88. You seem to be a lot more aggressive, and off-topic than needed. I've only been through a few GA/FA processes, but if you treated me like that, I would have just told you to piss off and given up. That doesn't mean he doesn't have some issues, I'm just saying your behavior there isn't up to Wikipedia standards. Your first paragraph is "it's worth noting that when nominated the article contained a very dubious unsourced claim about Dinklage's career choices, which the nominator added to th lead during the course of this RFC.[1][2] The original nominator (whose talk page I have on my watchlist) was the one who added this unsourced claim to the body last fall, and has a history of questionable sourcing issues, and pushing articles with said issues through the GA process; it wouldn't surprise me if, once one scratched beneath the surface, this FA-nominated article revealed similar problems." so you are automatically making claims against the FA nominator after saying (then striking) "I'm neutral on whether the article should be promoted as is". You seem to have enough of a bias/involvedment regarding him that you probably shouldn't be reviewing his FA nominations. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Until I commented, an article with demonstrable sourcing issues (multiple instances of OR based on a questionable interpretation of primary source data, and a few spots of unsourced content) looked like it was going to be promoted to FA. That's not a good thing. Also, you seem to be ignoring the timeline: I chimed in with a neutral comment, simply stating that the nominator had demonstrated sourcing problems on multiple articles in the past few months, including the nominated article. AffeL responded with a series of off-topic comments about me and blatantly lied about having gone through every sentence of the article and confirmed that they were verified by the source in under two hours. Only then did I decide to oppose the nomination, after the nominator had spent three days insulting me, lying to me, and refusing to do any of the heavy lifting necessary to bring the article to FA standard. It should be pretty clear from this if nothing else that I went to more trouble to check the article's sources than the nominator did. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• The rest of the claims are editor issues but I'm not inclined to block for them as I think much of this was brought upon yourself by your aggressive attitude at FA. The SPI claim, I would respectfully disagree with Yunshui on the block, although the block was certainly within admin discretion and the letter of policy. Two offhand comments could have easily just drawn a strong warning. AffeL is certainly wrong when he says 2 reverts aren't edit warring. Once revert can be under the right circumstances, and his grasp of some of Wikipedia's policies is obviously less than optimal, but ignorance alone isn't usually sanctionable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring all the warnings the same user had already been given, though. He was EW-blocked for a year and was only unblocked when he said he understood what he had done wrong and would not do it anymore. Do you want me to go through his talk page history and dig up all the warnings he blanked without reading? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

No, I want you to stop assuming that because my perspective is different than yours that I've somehow failed to do something right. It's a bit condescending and frankly, unwise. I'm not worried about last year, I'm looking at this FA, and in this FA, I don't think your behavior has been a model for other Wikipedians, which I've already stated. Your further comments have not dissuaded me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Well, you're entitled to your opinion, and I respect that. Wikipedia couldn't operate if people didn't agree to disagree from time to time. If you were some random newly-annointed sysop I would probably question your judgement, but knowing you as I do, I am confident that you looked into the matter appropriately and just happen to have come to a different conclusion than I and some others have. I probably could have done a much better job convincing you and whoever else would have read and replied to a more concise report (see above), and for that I apologize.

We'll see if the problems continue, and if they do ... well, I'm going to, at the very least, run the wording of my report past someone who knows how to write ANI reports a lot better than I do. Even if AffeL's first edit after his current block expires is something atrocious, though, that probably won't be for another few weeks. I've been having a lot more fun away from ANI than on it.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, though, I reject the statement that [I] seem to have enough of a bias/involvedment regarding him that [I] probably shouldn't be reviewing his FA nominations. Having a "bias" against editors for their serially failing to read sources they cite in articles (including the FA-nominated article during the nomination) to check that they verify the content for which they are being cited is not a problem when reviewing FA nominations (in fact it is a requirement), and if editors who have an "involvedment" don't point this out who else would? It would be nice if all FAC commenters were skeptical and engaged in serious critical reading of the nominated articles, but if they don't that's their fault, not the fault of those who do. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• I know its a lot of work, but in the future it would probably be more effective to review the article for sourcing problems if you suspect this, out of respect for other editors who have worked on the nomination, I don't think you should vote oppose without evidence — it is a lot of work, so anyone posting thorough evidence of something like this should probably get a barnstar for bringing it to the community's attention, but accusations like this need evidence. Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: I tried. I went through the first several paragraphs, but that just wound up creating more work, because every time I tagged something AffeL came along, removed the tag, and added another source that had little-to-no relation to the content, or simply removed the content (with a misleading edit summary) so that I then had to consider whether said content was important to meet the comprehensiveness criterion. Anyway, reporting someone on ANI for lying and saying that they did a thorough source review that they obviously did not should (among a plethora of other offenses) should not require having done a thorough source check oneself. The article needed a bunch of fixes to meet the FA criteria, and AffeL (who also edit-wars while pretending he doesn't; see the first bullet point) made life extremely difficult for those of us who tried. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, you should bear in mind how difficult it is to load the majority of those sources, with their pop-ups and automatically-playing videos on even a fast internet connection. No one should ever be forced to source check an entertainment article unless they are trying to get the article promoted. But if I had done the heavy (and I mean heavy) work to get the article promoted, the result would be AffeL taking credit for my work (work that he made for me with his clumsy reading of sources) on his user page and throwing it in my face next time I try to make an edit to the article he doesn't agree with and he reverts me. That's what he has been doing on the other articles I mentioned. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Spam and copyright violations added to article

IP 80.44.141.33 added copyvio/spam content on June 6 to Wyke Farms. Later, user Palomalacy did the same thing and an admin hid the revisions for both the IP and editor. Just today, IP 80.44.141.33 came back to remove the sourced controversy section as inaccurate. I'm not sure of the best place to report this so I'm posting here. SL93 (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Sourced controversy section failed verification; dead link - Listed as published November 2016, but accessed April 2016. Simply an unencyclopedic local article consisting of "He said, she said." I have removed the section. Scr★pIron^IV 19:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

It is the website for several newspapers in Somerset but recently redesigned its site and appears to have deleted everything that was there before. The Western Daily Press tweeted it (https://twitter.com/WesternDaily/status/795694816633954304) on the date it was published; the access date was clearly a typo for 2017. It could probably be found in a newspaper, but I agree it isn't important enough to be mentioned in the article. Peter James (talk) 23:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

User:CodeEditor123

CodeEditor123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Seems to be NOTHERE, but has been here for awhile, regardless recent edits are unacceptable. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@FlightTime: Blocked 31 hours for vandalism, pretty sure it's just going to be a case of not being here but I'm happy to keep an eye out and reel in the rope when the block expires -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 20:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@There'sNoTime: Thank you :) - FlightTime (open channel) 20:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

dispute over speedy deletions

i jonnymoon96 have been accused of making way to many mistakes which if i have you are welcome to reverse my work the dispute is with my latest contributions with speedy deletion Special:Contributions/Jonnymoon96 i have a dispute with MrX here is his quote on my talk page User_talk:Jonnymoon96 Please don't nominate any more article for G11 deletion until you fully understand WP:CSD#G11. You are making too may mistakes and creating a lot of unnecessary extra work for others. Please get a second opinion from an admin or one of the regulars at [WP:NPP]] if you think a particular article should be speedily deleted. Thank you.- MrX 21:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC) to be fair i have made mistakes before also here is MrX Talk Page User_talk:MrX here is our conversion on his talk page "thank you for your work and thank you for letting me know about your contesting Speedy Deletion i appreciate your work Jonnymoon96 (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)" "Thank you Jonnymoon96. You should be careful about nominating articles for deletion because you consider them too promotional, including The Trevor Project and Graphiq. These deletion nominations are not in accord with policy or practice. I suggest getting a second opinion from an admin or experienced editor before doing any more nominations like this. I hope that makes sense.- MrX 21:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)" i have complied with his requests--Jonnymoon96 (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Here's an opinion from an admin. You should stop tagging articles for deletion completely - and you're tagging quite a few. At least some of your nominations (I didn't look at all) for AfD are also inappropriate. You don't nominate an article because it's overly promotional as that's not a basis for deleting an article at AfD. I suggest you work on improving articles rather than trying to get them deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure why you brought this here. If you are complying with his request, then that should be the end of it. --Tarage (talk) 23:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• A look over your deleted contributions is troubling. I'm not sure how POPLINE or Daiya got deleted, for example. They both seem fine to me. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and restored them as I disagree they were proper G11's. If they are to be deleted, there should be a discussion first. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tavix: I restored the talk pages for the articles for you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Nihonjoe! That part slipped my mind. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

No problem. It's easy to overlook. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

How is an article that is overly promotional not a grounds for deletion as I have read Wikipedia policy and have read at articles for deletion and the Wikipedia rules do i make mistakes absolutely but my interpretation seems to be completely different a lot of articles I have sent to XFD have gotten deleted because they were overly promotional the exact reason that people are saying why I should not send them to XFD I am not an admin so I don't have the power to delete articles some articles I have sent to XFD have been kept while others I have sent have not been kept I have helped contribute to articles also is not the point of XFD for people to debate whether people should keep a certain article based on Wikipedia rules and policies so in conclusion while I disagree with the admins on this point I very much appreciate thier feedback--Jonnymoon96 (talk) 02:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Let other people tend to the deleting and you perhaps might focus on your writing skills, being that this is a writing project. That sentence/paragraph is nearly incomprehensible.- MrX 03:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Wow! That was one complete run-on sentence, with nary a comma, semi-colon or dash to slow down the reader; not even a period at the end! I shudder to think that the person who wrote that is actually editing the encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Why also would you nominate an article for speedy deletion [191] and then contest your own nomination eight minutes later [192] ? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Disneylandlover2006

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've questioned at least some of their edits, particularly those that go against a MOS:TV guideline known as WP:TVCAST. The user has been repeatedly adding unsourced tallies of absences of actors in season articles of at least two TV series - specifically, Boy Meets World and Wizards of Waverly Place. (A number of sample diffs: [193] [194] [195] [196] [197] [198] [199] [200] [201] [202] [203] [204] [205] [206] [207] [208] [209] [210]) I have warned the user about the TVCAST guideline disallowing cast absences or episode counts on their talk page [211], and it was reiterated by another editor [212]. But they continued to re-add the absence tallies to the Boy Meets World season articles after being told not to on their talk page. They have made some other significant edits to those articles, but I haven't evaluated them for further disruption, aside from episode summaries they added content to being too long.

While I'm saying they have added absence counts in groups of articles for two TV series, I can't seem to explain their taking them out in others (which shouldn't be there per the aforementioned TVCAST guideline) [213][214]. Their pattern of editing, judging from what I've seen in their contributions, suggests enough of a disruptive nature to them - especially with the recent warnings on their talk page. Plus, a lack of edit summaries with their more significant edits isn't helping. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

In addition to their continued disruptive editing, and their ignoring of all attempts to communicate with them, I am also concerned about their apparent propensity to post WP:COPYVIOs, as per [215] (which they were warned about by another editor [216]). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

And they continue to be disruptive by adding the same content they have been warned not to add (cast absence counts, going against WP:TVCAST, which I mentioned in my original post): [217][218][219]. And Amaury gave them a final warning for one of those edits [220]. User simply WP:NOTGETTINGIT. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

It may not be accurate by technicality, but at this point, I'm just labeling them as a vandal. On top of what was mentioned above, it's also a pretty clear case of WP:NOTHERE. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I haven't really been involved with this editor so unfortunately I can't give much insight, but since it's likely relevant, I just reverted another edit just a minute ago where they reinstated the content which they have been reverted on countless times. Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 17:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Still making problematic edits, as of yesterday – see Talk page: Disneylandlover2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

And here's more evidence of clear disruption, adding back the cast absence tallies at the season articles for the Disney Channel series Shake It Up [221][222][223], where I clearly removed them within the last couple of days [224][225][226]. I recently went thru a handful of articles for Disney Channel TV series to remove the cast absence tallies, which again contravenes the WP:TVCAST guideline, and they have already attempted to restore them in episode articles for at least two other series [227][228]. Additional disruptive behavior in the edits includes WP:OVERLINKING, like [229], when they removed these overlinks prior to that [230]. Their edits are testing the patience of a number of editors at this point, including mine, and I'd appreciate some action being taken. Disneylandlover2006 has already been informed of this discussion, yet refuses so far to participate in it. MPFitz1968 (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Seconded. I agree with Amaury's proposition that this is effectively a WP:NOTHERE (or, at a minimum, a WP:CIR) case – but they've been warned multiple times, have ignored the warnings, and have refused to communicate (see WP:Communication is required) now for days. Based on all of this, some kind of block is in order. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I blocked Disneylandlover2006 for 31 hours. Let me know if this continues. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:25, 26 June 2017 (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.

100.0.243.124

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.

---

Don't know who User:100.0.243.124 has previously edited as, but seems to be attempting to reinstate previous edits to multiple articles. Not such a big deal, but the death threat edit summary [231] is way over the top. Meters (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Can someone have a look at Bardrick please

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

---

He doesn't seem to understand WP:DERRY. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.0.157 (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks for edit warring, 3RR violation and deliberate and obtuse violation of the community consensus at WP:DERRY. Canterbury Tail talk 20:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Came here to make a quip about having a cunning plan before realising it was Bardrick and not Baldrick -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 20:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

😀 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.0.157 (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2017 (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:118 alex

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

---

Hi, would someone block 118 alex for racist personal attacks[232][233][234][235][236] as well as edit warring[237][238][239][240][241],
Obviously I'm not African but regardless it's a still a racist personal attack and is something that shouldn't ever be tolerated here,
Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

User's been notified[242], Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Such behavior is obviously unacceptable. I have indefinitely blocked this user and used revdel to remove the racist attacks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ed - Much appreciated, –Davey2010^Talk 14:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• @Edgar181: Now socking as 1186 alex (talk · contribs). Could someone block that one as well for block evasion? Softlavender (talk) 01:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Re-opening this again: The user is now creating an infinite number of sockpuppets: [243]. Can someone please semi-protect that article, and block the new socks? Pinging Mz7, Edgar181. Softlavender (talk) 04:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Legal Threats by User:Longhart

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

---

For some reason this user User:Longhart has been vandalising my page and making legal threats against me. [244] [245] I have no idea what they are talking about what I did to their page. PackMecEng (talk) 02:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

They've been threatening others the same way. Indef blocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• It looks to me like they may be raising (in a spectacularly ham-fisted manner) an issue with Amanda Long (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). That's based on who they gave the shouty threats to and the history of that BLP. The wording of the threats (and the "my page" wording to someone who has not previously edited their talk page) fits with that. The commonality between the BLP name and username might be the person taking issue with an article about themselves. Some basic BLP due diligence may be worthwhile (WP:DOLT). Murph9000 (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

  Comparing the article from Longhart's last edit to it in December to immediately before the threat rampage does not show any immediately obvious BLP issues.[246] It may just be an extreme case of article ownership, objecting to anyone touching the article. Murph9000 (talk) 03:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

  Looking through the history again, and the threats, I'm entirely convinced it's an extreme case of article ownership. Accordingly, I left a {{subst:uw-own4im}} to warn them of that issue (severity based on their extreme response to it). Murph9000 (talk) 03:28, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Someone needs to explain to her how Wikipedia works and that she does not own her page and that legal threats are not allowed. Her unblock message shows a fundamental misunderstanding of these points. I would do it myself but I have been accused of 'grave dancing' in the past so I'll stay out of it. --Tarage (talk) 04:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I am now convinced that I would have been the complete wrong person to deal with this. Someone who has far more patience than anyone else who has interacted with her thus far should make an attempt, because this is going to take a lot of explaining. She does not understand any of this and is quickly becoming belligerent. --Tarage (talk) 04:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• Is it just me, or is there a notability problem here? EEng 04:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

  Well, the article may qualify under WP:NARTIST #4 if the National Portrait Gallery exhibit can be verified. Murph9000 (talk) 04:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

  For sure there is a notibility issue but at this point, short of someone calmer intervening in this mess, she is going to rage quit. She's already filed like 7 unblock requests... --Tarage (talk) 04:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

  Yeah, I'm not saying that it does qualify, only that the mention of the NPG & Smithsonian stood out to me. Murph9000 (talk) 05:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

A new legal threat has now been made: [247] General Ization ^Talk 05:28, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Yup. For the record, as the target of this latest threat, I'm gobsmacked at the totally unjustified arrogance. I'm also entirely unconcerned about the threat at a personal level, but desire to see the NLT policy enforced because that was completely unacceptable. Legally, I believe I'm covered by Arkell v. Pressdram (1971). Murph9000 (talk) 05:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Their talk page access (and email access) has been revoked. I also declined all of their unblock requests. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:40, 26 June 2017 (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.

Interpreting block evasion and edit warring at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sarawak/archive3

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.

---

Uninvolved admin eyes needed please, essentially to interpret Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Evasion_of_blocks. Essentially this - an editor blocked for personal attacks, Singora has made some valid comments about an article, Sarawak, that do need to be addressed. See [248] for revert-warring of the relevant material. In essence, all editors involved have recognised that the comments are valid and by addressing them the article is improved. Under our block evasion policy the qualifies as (Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits.) Unfortunately, the IP doesn't see it that way, and looking at the IP's talk page leads me to think that their rationale behind this behaviour is to cause the usual mayhem when beneficial edits of blocked/banned editors get reverted. Anyway, the IP's behaviour is becoming frustrating. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) Thing is, Casliber, in this comment, you make no reference to protecting a 'closed discussion'; rather- regardless of the IP's motives- that remark could easily be construed as not only endorsing, but perhaps even encouraging, WP:IPSOCK, which would be unfortunate. IMHO, of course.Cheers, — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 15:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Just because the blocked editor is a friend of yours, with whom you have been discussing the mental stability of people like Dr. Blofeld, does not grant him an exemption from the blocking policy. What is the point of a blocking policy (and Singora's block was confirmed by community discussion), if you, an admin and arb, are prepared to support and enable block evasion? Most users would be blocked for doing it, but you've edit warred and blocked in defence of your friend who boasts on Wikipedia Review about how you and he have discussed the mental state of Dr. Blofeld. You are a long way out on the branch for him. -213.205.194.60 (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I do hope this is not true. Please can someone provide a link? If this is true, this is despicable. Cassianto^Talk 17:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Unlike Singora, Casliber to my knowledge doesn't hang around troll forums like a humungous bad smell. I've not seen him discussing my "mental stability", in fact I've only seen Singora question it and label me every condition in the book. That Casliber is fond of Singora is his business, but as astounding as it is that he's willing to overlook Singora's deep-rooted mental issues and obsession with myself, Cassianto and SchroCat on Wikipedia Review which hasn't subsided in three months, I don't hold it against him. But it doesn't seem right that an editor who has been banned by the community is being allowed to comment in AFDs as an IP, however constructive. If somebody has posted the comments by the IP made elsewhere that is a bit different of course but Casliber might be better off requesting that Singora be given permission to comment on discussions but not edit if he feels strongly about it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I've just had to douse myself in bleach and then scrub myself down with a wire brush for the fear of catching something as I've been forced onto Wikipedia Review in order to bottom this all out. It appears Cas liber hasn't speculated on Blofeld's MH at all; I didn't suspect that he did, and knew he was made of better stuff than this. Unfortunatley, and I say that because speculating on such things in a public forum is sick, it is limited to the fingers of that disgusting piece of filth, Singora. This brings me onto my next "hope not" comment: With that in mind, and with Singora openly admitting that he has edited whilst banned, the onus should now be on Cas, an admin and arbitrator, to block the ip's accounts so this creature can not edit at all. I including this one, too. If not, it comes across as enabling which is very disappointing and, in my mind, brings his status as an administrator and arb into serious doubt. Cassianto^Talk 17:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Then you need to look a bit harder, including in the locked members only section, unless they've deleted the posts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.194.181 (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see why the two are mutually exclusive here. Singora's block-evading IPs should of course be blocked, but that doesn't mean someone can't read their comments in the history of the talkpage and improve the article using that information if they are indeed generally helpful. After all, at least four established editors have owned his edits by restoring them, whether one agrees with that or not. Black Kite (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • It's the blocking that hasn't happened, that perhaps should, that I think is the problem here. Cas is not at fault, although he should pick his friends more wisely. Cassianto^Talk 18:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Here are some of the IPs below but the /24 range is high traffic. Semi protection seems more effective than whac-a-mole with single IPs and rangeblocking isn't the best way to go here because of collateral damage, imo. Another admin may may decide differently.
    • 213.205.194.181 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
    • 213.205.194.232 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
    • 213.205.194.92 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
    • 213.205.194.55 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
    • 213.205.194.60 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
    • I suspect that he will be popping out of more IPs soon.
       — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
      • And yet you've not thought to take action against the block-evading 14.207.36.231? perspective needed!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.194.149 (talk) 19:27 June 26, 2017‎ (UTC)
        • I was taking a closer look at your range and decided that the rangeblock was worthwhile after all. It seems most of that traffic is someone highly dedicated to racing. Rangeblocked one week. I'm heading out for a bit so someone else can evaluate 14.xxx.
           — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
          • I've blocked that one for a month as well. Right, can we all get back to, er, whatever we were doing previously? Ta. Black Kite (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
• There's a great deal of irony that an IP editor that is citing block evasion while edit warring has used no less than 6 different IPs within the last day to keep the edit warring going. I've semi-protected to squash that.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • No irony, just a knowledge of policies. In terms of my reverts, see point 3 of WP:3RRNO ;-p 213.205.194.181 (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
• Can I check, based on policy, whether or not the IP comments should be left on the FAC page or not? They are certainly valid comments but I'd like to check if they should be allowed or not. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I can make the comment instead, Sarastro1, and possibly others. That way, we cure the problem of Singora being in any way associated with it (nice to hear from you again, by the way). Cassianto^Talk 18:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
    • In general, owning a blocked/banned user's comments and running with them/engulfing them and improving the 'pedia is the best way forward yes. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to Casliber's viewpoint that Singora produced FA content and might have some good input in FACs, I know Casliber does genuinely care about content first and foremost. But for all the love of content and wanting to improve the site, what I can't understand is how he can still treat Singora and what he has to say with any credibility after the way he's behaved daily on Wikipedia Review in the last three months, referring to wikipedia frequently as "WikiCrappo", which should send alarm bells ringing in anybody's mind.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• • • • Sigh...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Having spent an inordinate amount of time editing this article, I have a vested interest in getting it past FAR. I would also side with owning the blocked/banned editor's suggestions, i.e. making them your own, as long as it is made clear that the responsibility for them has been transferred. So in this regard, I'm very appreciative of Cassianto's offer to take on the suggestions. If it weren't for the fact that Cas and the other FA reviewers were largely reviewing my work in the article, I would take on those suggestions myself. Blackmane (talk) 04:28, 27 June 2017 (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 The Rambling Man at Talk:2017

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 thread Talk:2017#Al-Nuri Mosque in Mosul was started on 22 June as a result of a dispute as to whether it was appropriate for inclusion. This thread is being perpetuated by The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) (hereafter referred to as TRM) who it appears is unwilling to accept the guidelines in place for this page (WP:RY), or that consensus is to exclude the event. As early as 23 June TRM was asked to desist in the face of consensus[249]. The only argument the user has given that the event be included is that the event is good enough for Wikipedia:In the news and therefore good enough for 2017, despite it being pointed out, repeatedly, that the articles have different purposes and therefore different criteria. TRM has then gone on, at length, to claim the the guidelines at WP:RY are flawed, despite being told, again repeatedly, that the forum for discussing any changes to the criteria is the project talk page, not the thread about a single event. The is now in its fifth day and having been warned that any further time-wasting would result in a trip to ANI TRMs reaction has been to add a sub-header[250] to the discussion in, I suspect, an attempt to deflect accusations that the direction of the discussion is inappropriate. As TRM appears to be interested more in argument for arguments sake than constructive editing in the appropriate forum, despite numerous attempts by multiple editors, I suggest that this constitutes disruptive editing, in particular WP:LISTEN. Note that bringing this to ANI is not defending the guidelines at WP:RY but pointing out that the topic at hand fails (by consensus) those guidelines and that Talk:2017 is not the appropriate place do discuss changing those guidelines. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 11:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

It looks to me like a good-faith editor who's run into a cabal of regulars who like to defend their bizarre existing criteria. I can understand both sides' exasperation, but nothing there looks ANI-worthy to me. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I've also started a thread on how to deal with the primary issue here of not telling our readers the arcane selection methodology adopted by this project (as requested) at WT:RY. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• This doesn't belong at ANI, because it is a content dispute. That said, Power~enwiki clearly has no idea how to create a poll, because this is just gibberish: [251], so you guys need to start over from scratch and create a coherently worded thread or WP:RFC. If there are insufficient participants, then post a neutral query at WT:WikiProject Years or WT:RY, or engage in some form of WP:DR such as WP:3O. Don't bring content disputes to ANI. If there is edit-warring, then warn the user on their talk and then report at WP:ANEW. Someone please close this thread now. Softlavender (talk) 12:01, 27 June 2017 (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.

EddyVadim

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

---

HI That user @EddyVadim: add a non free photo in the article Mihai Tudose. And he wouldn't like to stop his vandalism. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I used a photo that is mine, posted at a news site where I work. This Panam2014 keep reverting my photo out of politically motivated reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddyVadim (talk • contribs)

It is not a proof. The adding does not respect the rules. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Article protected, image removed, EddyVadim blocked indefinitely (a glance at their block log will show why). I have not blocked Panam2014 because reverting violations of NFCC is a 3RR exemption, and that looks like what this is at first glance. Black Kite (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• I have nominated the image for speedy deletion at Commons. Black Kite (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

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

RevDel request for possible 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.

---

Hi, can someone take a look at this removal and determine if it needs reverting and or rev-delling of the ES? Thanks. `d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 15:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted it. Its negative information about the victim from a source that is already cited multiple times in the article (Chicago Tribune for the most part). The edit summary could probably be hidden as its quite offensive towards the editor who included the information originally, however there is a genuine complaint (not specific to wikipedia) involving racism (especially when it comes to the shooting of young black men by the police) that the press over-emphasises and plays up any negative history/social problems etc. Young black men in certain areas are depicted as gang-related criminals, whilst white men are led astray etc etc. Its an ongoing issue with the US press but in this case the removed information is in the public record and written neutrally in the article, so there is little reason to censor it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, OID! d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 16:38, 28 June 2017 (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.

Smatrah -- wants to eat the cake and still have it

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.

---

Smatrah has added original research based upon primary religious sources (Muslim) and has removed original research based upon primary religious sources (Judaeo-Christian). He/she obviously cannot eat his/her cake and still have it, as I have explained at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Religion and sexuality and notified him/her about the discussion. So he/she is knowing that he/she is editing in bad faith. Gone past level 4 warning. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree remove both of them. I am not doing in bad faith. Are you scoring when you say I am doing in bad faith. It is original research so remove both of them. I can say that you are doing with bad faith when you remove one and leave other.Smatrah (talk) 07:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• I am taking the liberty of unclosing this thread, since there has been no evidence provided yet as to what article(s) is/are being referred to, and no diffs of evidence have been provided; therefore there is no way of determining whether this is a WP:CONTENTDISPUTE or a WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. Tgeorgescu, you will need to provide details in terms of article(s) (link them, please) and WP:DIFFs. I am also pinging Smatrah to let them know this has been re-opened. Note to SoWhy: WP:DRN is not the ideal link to refer content disputes to; WP:DR is the appropriate comprehensive link.) Softlavender (talk) 08:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The topic was about edit warring at Religion and sexuality. WP:NORN copy/paste:

This is about an editor crying WP:OR at [252] while himself/herself doing at [253] and [254] the very thing he/she claims to abhor. Please chime in. He/she cannot eat his/her cake and still have it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

We prefer WP:SECONDARY sources because original research is prohibited inside Wikipedia. It is prohibited any use of the Bible, as a WP:PRIMARY source, in order to make points which are not immediately obvious, but rely instead upon interpretation (exegesis). E.g. "according to the Bible, Solomon earned 666 talents of gold" can safely be verified to the Bible. But "according to the Bible, Solomon earned 666 talents of gold, which is bad, because 666 is Devil's number" is not allowed to be verified to the Bible, but its inclusion could only be based upon WP:SECONDARY sources. See WP:SYNTH. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

End of copy/paste.

Other diffs are [255], [256] and [257]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

As extra remarks: edit warring has now stopped, so a block would be moot. But I would like to have a formal confirmation that verifying uncontroversial statements (with attribution) to the Bible/Quran is allowed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: If this is only about one single article, and only FOUR edits, do not ever bring it to a noticeboard. Go directly to the article's talk page and open a discussion there. ANI is for longterm behavioral issues, not for an edit-war which you have failed to even discuss on the article's talk page. Do not ever attempt any kind of report until you have discussed matters civilly on article talk (not usertalk or any other venue). If there is continued edit-warring despite attempts to discuss on article talk, then file at WP:ANEW, not elsewhere. Softlavender (talk) 00:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for telling that uncontroversial statements can be attributed to primary sources. Smatrah (talk) 09:34, 25 June 2017 (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.

AFD abuse and sarcastic comments regading Classicwiki

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.

---

Classicwiki has been making rude comments and making malicious AFDs. He is also on the brink of 3RR. This is all happening at the Long Bayou set of arcticles that I just created. @Classicwiki please stop. Bayouwatch 2 (talk) 00:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I would say that Bayouwatch is fine. He did nothing wrong in creating the articles. You guys need to stop biting the newcomers. Woldpart (talk) 01:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC) — Woldpart (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Hi, I am happy to let my edit history speak for itself and answer any questions admins have. I do worry about Wikipedia:Sock puppetry right now. I invite @Reddogsix: and @Hirsutism: to comment on this discussion as well. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me) 01:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I see no issues with Classicwiki's editing; however, both Bayouwatch and Woldpart's ending has been disruptive and not in line with Wikipedia standards. reddogsix (talk) 01:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

A lot of problems are occurring around this discussion. How about we let Bayouwatch be? 2-1-1 count PIT bottom 9th (talk) 01:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Good idea. I also noticed that you are listed as a puppet in an spi about me. Perhaps you should discuss this here? Bayouwatch 2 (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

This link is relevent to this discussion: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bayouwatch. SkyWarrior 02:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of how the SPI turns out, being absolved of sockpuppetry and even meatpuppetry does not preclude a block for disruption. GAB^gab 02:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

And who makes negative comments and comes to conclusions? (At the checkuser endorsement) I think that Gab should not comment further. Woldpart (talk) 02:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

As a note, all of the Bayou articles have been speedied per A7. Blackmane (talk) 02:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Now all of the socks have been put ina drawer and blocked. MarnetteD|Talk 02:20, 28 June 2017 (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.

Harassment by user Scolaire

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

---

On 17 June, User User:Scolaire posted a threatening message to me on my talk page, in which he took issue with a comment I had written on the same talk page, and notified me that I should remove the comment (from my own talk page!) and "not mention his name again, anywhere, ever". When I did not immediately respond to this provocative message, Scolaire opened a complaint against me on the same day on AN/I, asking that I be indefinitely blocked.

Given the previous history between Scolaire and myself I can only regard this as an attempt at revenge by harassment. The message Scolaire complained about was on my own talk page, and the language Scolaire objected to did not even directly refer to him (as I explained in my reply to his complaint here above on AN/I). Moreover, why was Scolaire snooping on my talk page in the first place?

Scolaire has a prior history of disruptive editing and harassment of other users, which I have outlined in a previous AN/I complaint here.

I ask that Scolaire be issued a non-removable warning on his talk page, to the effect that he has been cautioned against threatening, harassing, and authoritarian behavior. Given Scolaire's propensity to erase criticism, something like this is required so that future users are able to learn about his prior history and are empowered to question his authority. -Wwallacee (talk) 08:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a non-removable warning - see WP:BLANKING. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, but in that case I ask for some kind of administrative caution or warning or sanction to be issued to him, which would be accessible to other editors. What I am saying is that Scolaire's behavior needs to be flagged so that others are not intimidated by it, as has been the case in the past (again, see past history here). -Wwallacee (talk) 10:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Everyone already has access to a user's talk page history, including all past warnings. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Please specify exactly what part of Scolaire's message on your talk page was threatening. I have a feeling that this will go just like your prior ANI complaint linked above, in which nobody else could seem to see what you were seeing. Lepricavark (talk) 11:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Scolaire's message, which can be found in context here, was clearly threatening or bullying in nature. It had the form "do this - or else", and made demeaning comments about my mental health. And when I failed to comply with this threat within the next few hours, Scolaire opened an AN/I complaint asking for me to be indefinitely blocked.

Interestingly, I think that in his threatening message Scolaire revealed the inner reason for his attack on me, when he talked about my supposed "rush of blood to the head when he made a couple of innocuous edits". It was Scolaire who had a rush of blood to the head! As can be seen from his comment below, he had placed my talk page on his watch list, and kept it on there for a whole year, evidently wanting to keep his knives sharpened and await the opportunity to attack me. This is after he had dramatically announced his intention to "retire from Wikipedia" last year, out of frustration because no administrator took action against me at his request. But instead of quitting, he maintained a resentful "snoop" on my talk page, and at the first mention of his name in a year (which only happened because another Irish Wikipedia editor had explicitly messaged me about a related page), Scolaire pounced on me with predatory intention. -Wwallacee (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Scolaire was admonished for this kind of "blood to the head" behavior after a previous ANI complaint lodged against him, not involving me. The administrator at that time told him that he had "a pride issue" and that his talk page harassment of another editor "served no significant constructive purpose," and that the only reason Scolaire did not let go was "because it requires you to swallow your pride." -Wwallacee (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a response to the thread Wwallacee continuing unprovoked personal attacks above. Apparently, Wwallacee has been offline since I posted that complaint, and now he wants me sanctioned for complaining about his continued attacks on me. I will respond to his post in the earlier section, and I'll only say here that I was "snooping" on his talk page (i.e. it was on my watchlist) in case he decided to have another go at me, which he did (obviously thinking he could do it behind my back). Scolaire (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• Jesus Christ, how many simultaneous ANI threads do you two need? EEng 13:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I was happy with one. I never asked him to counter-sue. Is the expletive really necessary? Is it helpful? Scolaire (talk) 13:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I started a new thread because this is a complaint against Scolaire, not a reply to the complaint against me. Basically my contention is that Scolaire's complaint against me was frivolous and that its main goal was to harass me.-Wwallacee (talk) 14:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I have seen no sign at all that Scolaire did anything wrong here, but quite a few signs that you, Wwallacee, did things wrong. You provoked this whole mess, for no tangible reason whatsoever. Please cut it out, now, or you'll have to be blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean by saying that I "provoked this whole mess"? Surely the comment on my own talk page, addressed to another user, and not even derogatory towards Scolaire, can't be construed as a provocation. - Wwallacee (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2017 (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.

Tiruchirappalli International Airport

Could I please get a couple more pairs of eyes on this page? It's not entirely clear what's going on there, but it looks... messy. Thanks, GAB^gab 13:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

May have something to do with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Itskumudhk. GAB^gab 13:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

As a short term solution, I full protected for 3 days. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• • • Good catch, GAB. Comparing a few dozen contribs convinced me that you were correct. Sock blocked, article unprotected. Diannaa had already revdel'ed the copyvios I missed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Anthony Bailey (PR advisor)

Anthony Bailey (PR advisor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page has been subjected to a variety of probable CoI edits under a variety of names and IP addresses. On 10th June 2016 Private Eye ran a story to that effect, after which further editors including myself have repeatedly removed a lot of puffery, of references to the subjects own website (some of which required admin access to that website in order to be viewed), and have inserted some details of the subject's position in the contentious "Delegation for Great Britain and Ireland of the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George". The main registered CoI editors have gone quiet, but IP editors have since last year been busy reinserting puffery and unsatisfactory references, and removing the contentious points. There is extensive discussion on the talk page, and of course a rather long history. The current IP is 2001:8A0:7BDD:FA01:DA9:A4FF:AEED:46A6 and I have put a notice on their talk page.

I'd be grateful if an admin could offer the page semi-protection, autoconfirmed users only, and preferably indefinitely since I doubt if the subject will ever lose interest in it. That won't solve the problem completely - another new editor has just turned up on the talk page - but should keep it within manageable bounds. Hunc (talk) 10:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Hunc: Given the disruptive editing going on, I've semi-protected the page for two months. I'm somewhat against indefinitely protecting articles, as it goes against the whole "Encyclopedia that anyone can edit" thing, but if the disruption continues when the protection expires then of course it can be extended -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 12:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I am surprised that this article is being protected as I have only suggested changes to enhance the article. The predominance of of irrelevant and ill and unrelaiable sourced information on what is supposed to be a biographical encyclopedic text Is what is at issue here. I have attempted to point this out but Hunc (talk seeks not to answer my concerns. These relate to the subjects clear and prominent Antiguan role and the gossip nature of the comments re the Constantinian Order. The nature of the disputed grandmastership is well documented and is referred to in the relevant article. Is it really relevant on a bio page? These are legitimate observations and is by no means an attempt at vandalism Wonderground (talk) 14:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Wonderground: My decision to protect the article isn't anything against yourself personally - you can use a edit request on the article's talk page to request a change be made -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 14:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I am feeling under WikiBullying from User:Timmyshin

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Chang, User:Timmyshin is keep using so-called "dark histories" of me in Wikipedia community against me, trying to use that as a "reason" for deletion (which was actually cannot be used as a valid reason for deletion according to policies and guidelines), despite of other participants' opinions and even consensus. The user's behavior made me have to recall, disclose and explain numerous of my sad memories before. The user's behaviour is also very likely for political reasons as I explained in that page. As a result, it already let me being very depressed and nearly devastated. I have already suffered PTSD including symptoms of depression and anxiety due to my experience of political persecution and harassment, and this WikiBullying is making my symptoms more severe. I hope I could got some helps from here.--Shujen Chang (talk) 05:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

An examination of the AfD shows that you gave as good as you got, so I don't know what your grounds are for feeling "bullied". The discussion has been strong but not uncivil. You're also not extending AGF to Timmyshin by suggesting motivations other then the obvious one that he thinks the article should be deleted on policy grounds. Would you be happy if I did the same, if I suggested that your purpose in coming here was to win sympathy for your position and potentially attract !voters who would help keep the article about you? I don't think you would appreciate that, so please be so good as to not do the same to Timmyshin.

If you are upset by the discussion, then I would suggest you withdraw from it, considering that you've already stated that because of your obvious COI you won't be !voting. Just stay away and let the community reach its consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

That was based on what happened on Chinese Wikipedia before. In April last year Jsjsjs1111 started an AFD on Chinese Wikipedia for the Chinese article about of me, after a report published on WeChat from a local Chinese media in Brisbane closely connected with Chinese Government judging me with numerous misleading information which already brought lots of troubles to me at that time including some death threatens to me from Chinese patriots (such as a person on WeChat said he was familiar with Vietnam gang and will let me "disappear" from Brisbane). Jsjsjs1111 (Weibo ID: 费城染色体 (szjdts)) commented on Weibo for that repot by disclose so-called "dark histories" of mine on Chinese Wikipedia community and saying I was a "psychiatric patient" ("这人我认识，精神病人来的。。。曾经在中文维基百科上因盗号被永久封禁" on 2016-4-24 23:09, which he later admitted on Chinese Wikipedia). Then he submitted the AFD which I just mentioned, and later on an AFD on English Wikipedia. Now Timmyshin is doing the similar thing according to prejudices from Jsjsjs1111 as I mentioned and ignoring my explainations. I did AGF innitially thought Timmyshin was just misled by Jsjsjs1111, but later Timmyshin's behaviours made me have to not to cotinue AGF.--Shujen Chang (talk) 06:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• What does your feud with User:Jsjsjs1111 have to do with me? I didn't want to respond, but let's see: You are pissed he called you a "psychiatric patient", but you also suffer from "PTSD including symptoms of depression and anxiety" and you were "nearly devastated" by my comments which caused "more severe" symptoms? Aren't these psychiatric problems? If you were "nearly devastated" you should see a psychiatrist and not look for more WP:DRAMA. Please read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy. Timmyshin (talk) 07:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• I had a read of WP:DRAMA and it seems actually talking about your behaviours. You are "spreading of conflict and strife" between me and Jsjsjs1111, as in the AFD you are based on his prejudices as I said and always refer what he said to against me. In addition, "psychological problem" is different to "psychiatric problems". By the way, I already had psychologist from QPASTT and had frequently consultations with my psychologist.--Shujen Chang (talk) 09:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• Here's a suggestion, why don't you, @Shujenchang and Timmyshin: both back away from the AfD discussion now, because you've both made your positions clear and I don't see anything more you can offer that will influence the outcome at this stage, and leave it for other editors to offer their opinions on notability? Simply carrying on fighting with each other, with neither one even trying to listen to the other... well, it needs to stop. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll second that. User:Shujenchang and User:Timmyshin should both leave that AfD alone for the duration. You've had your say - at far greater length than is necessary - now leave it alone. GoldenRing (talk) 12:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• Thirded. A combined 161 edits (not joking) on a single AfD should be plenty enough for everyone to get their point across and let others weigh in without needing additional, at this point probably pointless commentary. Lord have mercy on whomever closes that. And besides, the much of this report seems to concern things that have happened off of en.wiki, and there's not really much we can do about that, whether it's real life issues or things on the Chinese Wikipedia.

I could probably add that whatever deletion discussions occurred on other projects is pretty much irrelevant to the English Wikipedia, and it's a tiny bit disingenuous to say that you're not going to !vote on an AfD because of a COI, and then proceed to flood the page with thousands of words trying to sway people's opinions. TimothyJosephWood 13:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• I would concur as well, as an extension of my suggestion above that Shujenchang should consider leaving the discussion; instead, both editors should do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

User:J.T.W.A.Cornelisse anti nuclear crusading

User:J.T.W.A.Cornelisse has been vandalising articles related to Belgian nuclear plants on both the Dutch and English Wiki. After being warned by multiple users on multiple occasions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J.T.W.A.Cornelisse#Doel_.26_Tihange_Nuclear_Power_Plants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Doel_Nuclear_Power_Station https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overleg:Kerncentrale_Doel#Veiligheid

He's now engaging in an edit war:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tihange_Nuclear_Power_Station&action=history

And reverting to islamophobic racism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Doel_Nuclear_Power_Station#nowhere_safer_reactors_.3F

The agenda of this user is clear and its not providing worthwhile, objective content.

MCvarial (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

This all above is written by somebody, who only can see positive elements in nuclear energy.

He has taken away all pleasure in editing wikipedia for me.

He does not allow anything to report about the protests against the prolonged use of the Belgium reactors...

J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Previous ANI for context. Seems like this has been an issue for a while now. TimothyJosephWood 15:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Both of you are heavily involved in an edit war. I see you've taken discussions to the talk page which is good, but even so you've both been reverting while those discussions are taking place. Talk on the talk pages, don't edit war. I've given you both 3RR warnings as I'm not sure if you've had them before but I notice these articles are pretty much the only articles you edit on the English Wikipedia and this has been going on for some time.

Also both of you, this is the English Wikipedia, please make all article talk page comments in English (also keep them to point as the talk page entries I've read have been going all over the place and beyond the scope of those article's talk pages.) Canterbury Tail talk 17:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

We're way beyond talking, the user in question has been vandalising articles for months now. Multiple users have complained its time for some actions against him.

MCvarial (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

At best it is POV pushing, which it very well may be. Vandalism has a very particular meaning on Wikipedia. And anyway, if this at some point has gone through dispute resolution, in particular probably WP:3O, WP:RFC, or asking for outside comment from related WikiProjects, then I'm not seeing it. TimothyJosephWood 18:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Joaquin93 again

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

---

• Joaquin93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive951 § User Joaquin93

Joaquin93 was reported here in April 2017 by Philip J Fry but the discussion fell off the page when he failed to respond to a request to participate here made by Oshwah. Joaquin93 is continuing his disruptive editing, reverting infoboxes to much earlier versions without explanation.[258][259][260][261][262][263][264][265][266][267] He is clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia. Had there not been a previous discussion I would have taken this straight to AIV. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Joaquin93 seems to do nothing but revert articles back to a revision from years ago. For example, on Qué bonito amor, Joaquin93 is repeatedly reverting the article back to this revision from 30 August 2014 (sometimes with a minor tweak). I'm surprised this editor escaped a block last time. It seems like WP:NOTHERE behavior to me, and I'm inclined to block indefinitely. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• They need to be blocked until they explain how their edits are consistent with the goal of building an encyclopedia. - MrX 13:06, 28 June 2017 (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:Cassianto

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

---

This user is abusive. See here and here, just because I reverted their edits (with logical reasoning given in my edit summaries). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Why didn't you try the article talk pages first? Mr Ernie (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Article talk pages are for discussing the article content, not the behaviour of other editors. Content differences do not excuse the abuse here. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The reason I hadn't used the talk pages is because there was one other editor who agreed with me and disagreed with Cassianto, so it seems to me that the onus was on Cassianto to try the talk pages first, seeing as they were in a minority. Note that I only reverted Cassianto twice at Kenneth Williams and once at Sid James, whereas Cassianto has made 3 reversions at Kenneth Williams and 2 at Sid James, and on their last reversions at each article, told me that I am stupid and/or childish. How is this acceptable? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes it was rude, but somewhat predictable. Anyway, I'm open to suggestions as to why Kenneth Williams and Sid James are not comedians, but that is a matter for the relevant talk pages.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Just to note for those discussions, its odd that only "20th century British comedians" were removed, but not other comedian categories that were in there. The action seems a bit unchecked. --MASEM (t) 17:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• I would agree that they're not comedians. They're actors, or comic actors if we subdivide that far. But if we bundle them into comedians, we lose the ability to easily extract the non-acting comedians. A few, Frankie Howerd for one, should be in both. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• Probably more like comedy actors, but comedian is not strictly wrong.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Ooooh Matron! Carry On Cassianto. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

😂👍🏻 Cassianto^Talk 17:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

This isn't great either. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

It's subjective. Get over it. Cassianto^Talk 17:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

No, it's policy. WP:CIVIL still applies to you, even though you don't agree. I think any comparison of CIVIL and your comments will vary according to a subjective viewpoint, but objectively you're still well past it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• I have taken the liberty to assume the responsibilities of the filing user by opening a discussion on Sid James's talk page. I'm disappointed that they've ignored WP:BRD and felt the need to bring this content dispute to the dramah boards so early; still, maybe they wanted an ego massage by the likes of Dingly first, before they entered into any kind of discussion. If they hadn't of edit warred to their own version without discussion, maybe they would have caught me at a better time. I will not comment here any further. Cassianto^Talk 17:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
• Per BRD if an action is reverted the next step is to discuss it on the talk page. However the discuss step was skipped in both of these cases. I understand your point, maybe they are comedians, but the best course of action is to hit the talk page. If that had been done there would have been no further escalation. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I "re-added" material that another user added in the first place; I was not defending my own addition. And the issue here is the abusive nature of Cassianto's comments. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who added it in the first place, you or someone else, the whole point of WP:BRD is that after anyone adds something which is reverted, you need to go to the talk page and come to a consensus. I can't speak for User:Cassianto, but in my experience it is frustrating when editors do not follow BRD and jump in to revert. Now let's please close this needless drama down and get back to improving articles. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Well: I think perhaps 'abusive' is stronging it slightly: it reads to me more in the way of a hypothetical choice, in which you get to decide the answer. As opposed to a statement / accusation being made. Still, on another, previously, discussed note, I see that for every byte and charcter added here, neither this and this have yet been really turned to- this would be the perfect opportunity to start. MHO, of course. Cheers! — fortunavelut luna 18:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned it is an abusive statement, directed towards me. There is no "hypothetical choice" because there is no soft option provided. I see no reason why any courteous and well-intentioned editor should turn on their pc to find an unknown individual telling them in a patronising and aggressive way that they are either stupid or incapable. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@PaleCloudedWhite: This is not useful: you are locking yourself out of the discussion that all editors are tied to undertaking in the end. The important thing is to resolve disputes not to seek satisfaction, as it were: Demanding that this report 'is satisfactorily resolved' is, also, not necessarilly completely helpful. The talk pages call  ;) — fortunavelut luna 19:03, 28 June 2017 (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:HPinjani mass removal of links

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.

---

Looks like User:HPinjani used Wikipedia:Twinkle to remove links from over 50 articles in less than two hours for no discernible reason. Left them a note but what a mess. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Looking further: looks like User:HPinjani=User:SMadhwani=User:Abrish211. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2017 (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.

• Just for the record, I did a mass rollback of the edits which had not already been reverted. Murph9000 (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Folks, please search Dr Sana premji by clicking this a lot for a while, then once in a while. Thank you! Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Anna Frodesiak, can you explain why that needs to be done, and what it has to do with the preceding closed discussion? Also, this thread will be manually archived in about half a day, so if this instruction needs to stay on this noticeboard, it should have its own thread. Softlavender (talk) 05:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Softlavender. Sure, if a few of us check here and there, we may stop articles having this text for a long time, and can quickly block. This can mean frustrating the vandal so he goes away and can mean a lower chance of having to protect articles. Whomever has seen this by now and remembers to do the search is probably adequate. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak, it's still not clear how this relates to the reported user, who was merely removing wikilinks. Who was adding the text you linked? Softlavender (talk) 09:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Ahhhhh, I see. I've mixed up two matters I was working on. The link to search is for this fellow. :) I'm so sorry, Softlavender. I need more coffee. :) Okay, now, if I'm correct, I blocked Abrish211 and then he socked with HPinjani afterward. Black Kite's 24-hr --> indef is what I was about to do to wrap this one up and he beat me to it.

I guess that's that. Oh, and still search that link if you can a couple of times for a day or two. :) Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

JohnBod refusing to follow Wikipedia policy and making personal attacks against users for no reason

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 removed the word "fortunately" from Paestum article, in accordance with the policy "Wikipedia should not take a view as to whether an event was fortunate or not". Edit was reverted by JohnBod. I provided further justification for the edit on his talk page, now he is making ad hominem attacks on me. He is supposed to "comment on the contribution, not the contributor. Never disregard a contribution just because it was made by someone who has not registered for an account". I'm getting sick of him treating me like I am the one not following policy. 120.17.141.170 (talk) 04:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Two editors have reverted you now. You also failed to notify the user in question. I do not believe you are going to get the resolution you want. --Tarage (talk) 05:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

By "personal attack", are you referring to him requesting on his talk page that you stick with one IP address and perhaps create an account? That's not a personal attack- that's common sense. I agree with JohnBod, as I can't even accurately keep track of what you're talking about. On that note, it's proper protocol to notify editors when you're requesting action against them here. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 05:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

My ISP uses dynamic IP allocation, so what? Why should I log into my account just to change one word in one article, esp. when the change is in accordance with settled policy and should be uncontroversial? Please read WP:NPOV etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.17.22.52 (talk) 06:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I was going to respond to your statement, then I read this. I request a speedy close to this discussion. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 07:31, 29 June 2017 (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.

Phallic userpage

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.

---

Quickly delete User:Mattdonedick. 173.236.139.249 (talk) 11:51, 29 June 2017 (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.

Abusive language on a biography of a living person

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:MaxBrowne has repeatedly called Peter Thiel a "creep" in his edit summaries on the Peter Thiel page. I have said it is very inappropriate and asked him to stop but he has once more done it. See the history of the page.

Here is the 1st edit where he calls the subject a "creep": This creep has spent about 12 days in his entire life in NZ

Here is the 2nd edit where he calls the subject a "creep": If he's a kiwi then I'm a Dutchman. And yes, he is a creep

Here is the 3rd edit where he calls the subject a "creep": It is not simply a part of his "personal life" when the decision to grant his citizenship is hugely controversial. And I'll call a creep a creep if I want to.

I do not know the formal process of what is to be done about this so have brought it here in the hope that someone else does. Hrodvarsson (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I've placed a discretionary sanctions alert on their talk page. I'm going to AGF that they aren't aware of the Discretionary Sanctions ARBCom has placed on WP:BLPs.--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

And then there's WP:SUMMARYNO. "Snide comments, personal remarks about editors, and other aggressive edit summaries are explicit edit-summary "don't's" of the Wikipedia Civility policy." Yintan  20:23, 29 June 2017 (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:185.59.158.22

User:185.59.158.22 has made over 5,000 edits in a short time, none of them with edit summaries apart from the automatic section heading. User:Arjayay questioned some of these at User talk:185.59.158.22#Defaultsort but their advice was rejected.

The IP seems to have some previous knowledge of en.wikipedia but a shaky grasp of English. Several RMs they have raised ignore WP:AT and simply cite personal opinion.

I considered a short block to have a better look at this activity but I'm not sure whether policy allows this, or whether it would be effective anyway. Andrewa (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• Hello. Basically I have worked with correct categorizations of the pages. Any problems with my edits? Show wrong diffs please and we will discuss it. Or number of edits is a wrongdoing per your opinion, yes? 185.59.158.22 (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. Please see wp:mixed indents for the problem with the way in which you have! (But please don't fix it now I've replied.)

It's the volume of edits, coupled with a certain attitude (this diff and the notice on your talk page for examples, many other talk page diffs could be cited) that concern me. Taken together with the fact that you are displaying a very patchy knowledge of policies and guidelines, this may represent an enormous amount of work to repair. In the two RMs which you have raised and which I saw in the ellapsed listings section and considered closing, you have completely ignored the article title policy. Andrewa (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

In the article about Diego Maradona, my edit was absolutely correct: [268] Yes, Maradona is a manager of Fujairah as of now. The warning from that user was wrong. Simply he didn't read the last news. Another wrong diffs please? 185.59.158.22 (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

You have not answered that one. Interested in other views on all of this, that's of course why I raised it here. Andrewa (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• Note, the RM disscussions in question are Talk:2017 Men's Euro Winners Cup, Talk:Sevens Grand Prix Series and Talk:European Women's Sevens Championship. All competitions have the new names, and I don't understand why user Andrewa voted against. 185.59.158.22 (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Nor do you understand the talk page guidelines obviously. But more important, you seem to be making no effort to do so. It would be good to discuss this and many other things on your user talk page, but you do not seem to be archiving it, instead just deleting the many previous attempts to discuss things there.

And it is somewhat ironic that you request others to type on your talk page rather than using templates, but do not use edit summaries yourself. Andrewa (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• First or all, my talk page is for me, ok? Non-actual discussion were removed, any problem? You have attacked me without any reason, without trying to talk on the talk pages. Second, I use the edit summaries where it's really nessessary, today's diff for example [269] And third, show the wrong diffs or good bye, don't waste my time. And I will check all your edits tomorrow also. 185.59.158.22 (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• First of all, 185.59.158.22, your Talk Page isn't just for you. It's where any other editor can discuss your edits with you. If you insist on just deleting questions raised on that page by other editors, they will eventually have no option but to raise the questions on a noticeboard like this one. You see how that sequence works, don't you? Second, you should use edit summaries every time, not just when you feel like it. Third, that's up to User:Andrewa, isn't it - it's in his discretion to provide or not provide, But either way, I don't think you just to get to say "goodbye" as if none of this matters, do you? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• Simply read the rules. WP:OWNTALK: Personal talk page cleanup: Although archiving is preferred, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages. I answered all questions from all users and removed the old threads. Any problems with this? 185.59.158.22 (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• @185.59.158.22: Because you are using an IP instead of actually registering for a personal account, the User talk:185.59.158.22 page is not your "personal talk page". Also, you may not remove the SharedIP template at the top of the page. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Why not? Show the rules. And its a not shared ip. 185.59.158.22 (talk) 23:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@185.59.158.22: Well, if it's not a shared IP, then indefinitely blocking it will only block you. Since you seem completely unwilling to work with anyone when they bring up a concern on your talk page, then perhaps indefinitely blocking you is the best option. Editors here, including anonymous IPs, must be willing to work with other editors, and they definitely must be willing to change behaviors that go against establish policies, guidelines and procedures. If you continue down this path, that is where things will go. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

So far, I think my worst fears are confirmed. This is an intelligent and hard-working editor but with no concept of collaboration. They are quite possibly making some constructive edits, but I'm afraid that the overhead of cleaning up after the others is going to be considerable and ongoing. Andrewa (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• Again, please show the unconstructive edits. Try to find one-two at least. Your personal attack is without any reason. Very good 'welcome' from administrator. "Short block" for what? You voted against all my RM propositions without any real arguments. Do you want me to stop any editng in wikipedia? 185.59.158.22 (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • This is not a personal attack, and that unfounded accusation is itself disruptive. (Note that disruption can be unintentional.) Andrewa (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • None of the three RMs [270] [271] [272] were based on the article name policy despite many, many heads-ups in the process asking for this. Anyone can make this mistake and many do, but the response [273] fails to get the point. Andrewa (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Try to read this diff [274] and this post [275] from another users. You have no arguments why competitions' old names are better than new ones. 185.59.158.22 (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
      • Again you are failing to get the point. Irrespective of the subsequent arguments and RM result, the nominations were flawed. Andrewa (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
        • Honestly I don't understand your position. There is no answer to the abovementioned posts? In all threads, you didn't say any words about the competitions itself! ...if the FIFA World Cup was moved to FIFA Men's World Cup, this would never stand and would be reversed. Correct or not? 185.59.158.22 (talk) 00:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
          • Irrelevant. This is not the place to discuss the RM, just your behaviour. The RM was not properly raised. That is not serious. You won't accept advice about doing better in the future. That is serious. You are making thousands of edits per week, and consistently refuse to accept any advice on any of them. That is very serious. Andrewa (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
            • Yes, I am making many minor edits (mostly related to the correct categorization). And what? I check your contribution, but you are making about zero edits (besides some renamings) in the article space during the last months. And what? My RMs are the correct propositions. Some users are in support. And saying "refuse to accept any advice on any of them" is absolutely false. I read all posts related to my edits and answered all of them, until your today attack. And again, show wrong diffs if you find it. 185.59.158.22 (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
              • For all I know most of your edits are great. Or not. That is not the point. Some of them are not so great, and you consistently refuse to discuss this. And if you wish to discuss my behaviour, the place to do that is on my user talk page in the first instance, not here. Andrewa (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
                • I hope I will discuss your behavior on the desysop page in the future. Finally, I only noted that user Andreva have started this topic without any words on my user talk page in the first instance. Bye! 185.59.158.22 (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
                  • No, he left this and this which you blanked.
                     — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
                  • (edit conflict) I posted on your user page as required [276] and you subsequently reverted the notice. I did not attempt to discuss with you on your user page before coming here because of the enormous number of edits involved. There were many other factors in that decision, but it was the sheer number of edits you have made over a short time that decided me on coming here sooner than I would have otherwise. And in view of subsequent discussion here, it was a good decision IMO. Andrewa (talk) 01:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Please, 185.59.158.22, just create an account. It would solve a lot of these complaints, and there's really no downside. —Guanaco 23:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• No, thanks, it's a my choice. But thank you for proposition. 185.59.158.22 (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Since this discussion started, the IP has made only one edit other than to this page and their user talk... again without an edit summary. [277] So it may not be as urgent as I feared, but I think it does require some sort of resolution. I've raised the matter of their talk page usage at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#IP user talk page and would welcome input there. Andrewa (talk) 03:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

And in reply it has been pointed out that Wikipedia:User pages#Removal of comments, notices, and warnings (a section to which the IP has themselves linked in justification of such edits) reads in part A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes: ... For IP editors, templates and notes left to indicate other users share the same IP address and/or to whom the IP is registered, although very old content may be removed. (my emphasis) I will point this out on the user's talk page. Andrewa (talk) 08:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

As the IP has now posted a retired template on their user talk page, [278] I think this incident can be closed and archived.

Thanks to all who have participated. It is not an ideal outcome obviously but in glorious hindsight I can't see how we could hope for any better.

After the archiving has occurred, I intend to clean up the user talk page unless anyone objects or (preferably) someone uninvolved offers to do it. The Shared IP|Datsyuk Valentina Mykolaivna in Ukraine template giving the IP registration should stay indefinitely IMO, and a link to the archived discussion (this discussion) should be added.

The retired template should stay for a while, as the IP claims the address is not currently shared [279] and we have no reason to doubt this, but should be removed at some time in the future... how long?

The rest of the user talk page contents can go IMO. Andrewa (talk) 13:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

As this has not yet been closed or archived, I think I should make a (possibly final) comment.

It seems to me that this is likely to have been a cross-cultural problem. I said at the start that the IP seemed to have some knowledge of en.wikipedia, but on reflection I might have been wrong in this. They may instead have had experience in another Wikipedia... Ukrainian Wikipedia or Russian Wikipedia (or both) are the obvious ones.

Users of other language Wikipedias often assume that the policies and practices (or even rules) are exactly the same here. In fact the broad principles are the same, but there are many important differences across the various language Wikipedias too. Andrewa (talk) 00:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Koala15

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

Koala15 (talk · contribs) is changing sourced content and blanking citations when he disagrees with them. For example: blanking citation and changing sourced content; mass blanking; blanking and changing sourced content; blanking and changing sourced content.

This is the same problem as outlined above with another editor, who apparently got off with several "final" warnings. I am sick and tired of editors who blank citations when they disagree with them, then change sourced content to values not found in the citations because their original research tells them the citation is wrong. Koala15 has been given a final warning for disruption and was told that consensus is that we go by the sources for this content, yet he persists in changing reliably sourced content. Can someone block him please? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I am now involved. I have undone an edit. I am just too lazy to check the other edits. I've been involved with Koala15 ages ago over removing a template tag. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I was one of the last people who left the final warning template on Koala15's page a few days ago- since then, there have been several warnings given. I keep seeing their name popping up on the change logs for film pages and I'm puzzled, as I don't believe it's vandalism-related, but there is a complete disregard for consensus. I don't know what to say, really. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 21:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, OK, I'm starting to see the problem here. Take for example their recent creation Thieves (TV series), which I'm presently looking over. In the lede, Koala15 has "The series aired from September 28, 2001, to December 14, 2001, on ABC." with Variety and The Washington Post sources attached to that. The problem – the two sources only verify the premiere date, not the "last aired date". Indeed, the airdates included in the episodes table for the last two episodes are apparently fraudulent – in fact, Brooks & Marsh (and in a more roundabout way Epguides) show that the show aired its last episode on November 23, which means the last two episodes certainly did not air on the dates indicated in the article (at the very least, they did not on ABC, and there would need to be sources showing that they aired elsewhere on those dates). So, at the least, we have a misuse of sources here, and potentially we have a more serious problem with fraudulent content. And that is just the first Koala15 created article I looked at. Unfortunately, I see something very similar at Local Heroes (TV series). Koala15 is a very prolific content creator. But I'm concerned if this is level of oversight going into the creation of their articles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

They're an amazing content creator and very productive. I just am puzzled as to why they've been bulldozing over edits over the recent past. If they could just communicate, this would probably be an entirely different picture. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 02:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

If it's not out of place for me to comment, I don't think this is a "recent" problem. Koala15 edits a bunch of articles on my watchlist, and seeing edits that are obviously not vandalism, especially by IPs, get reverted without even a brief explanation has long been a common occurrence. Many editors (including myself) have requested Koala15 start using edit summaries, but without much luck. I just scanned their contributions, and at a quick glance, I only saw 1 edit in the last 500 that had a non-auto-generated summaries (I'm sure I missed a couple). Communication would be a good start. --Fru1tbat (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Koala15 is still removing sourcing because he disagrees with them, but now he's replacing them with other sources. The problem is that there's consensus at WT:MOSFILM#Sourcing for production companies that we should use sources that explicitly label content like production companies. He's replacing the sources with ones that don't explicitly label them. This consensus was established to avoid original research. Since Ad Orientem has just recently dealt with an editor who was doing the same thing, I've asked him to take action here, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hrs. This does look like a case of persistent disruptive editing. And I also have to take note that well over 24 hrs into this discussion that have not chosen to make any response. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: I am confused; they immediately resumed the behavior that resulted in the 24-hour block. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 22:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Sigh... thanks for the heads up. Looking into it now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@DarthBotto: & NinjaRobotPirate Ok. I have dropped a note/warning on their talk page inviting them here to discuss this. If the disruptive editing continues w/o any response here let me know and I will reblock them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

What did I do? I didn't do anything to deserve the block in the first place. If your talking about me reverting stuff its hard for me to give a reason for everything I revert. Its mostly vandalism and nonsensical edits etc. I only reverted @DarthBotto: once because he didn't use a source but he seems to be holding it against me. Koala15 (talk) 02:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Koala15. Thanks for joining the discussion. I would encourage you to read the above comments. You can also take a look at the comment left by NinjaRobotPirate on my talk page which expands on some of those concerns. I think one thing I would note, setting aside for the moment the specifics of what a number of editors saw as problematic editing, is that you got warnings posted on your talk, including by an admin, followed by an ANI notice that you ignored and you went on doing what multiple editors on two different pages were expressing serious concerns about. In my experience when I have a bunch of really experienced editors telling me that I'm wrong, there's a better than even chance they are right. But even if I am really convinced that I'm right, and they are all wrong, I'm gonna at least stop doing whatever it is they are getting spun up over until we get it sorted out. Disengaging form the discussion and just ignoring everyone is a really bad choice 99% of the time. Anyways, you are here now and that's a good start. Hopefully we can sort this out and avoid any further unpleasantness. I will let Ninja speak for himself, which might not happen until tomorrow (Monday) given the late hour. Speaking of which I am off to bed myself. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm a little concerned that he sees nothing wrong with his behavior, including blanking and restoring unsourced content, but at least he stopped doing that. Koala15, the problem is that there's consensus that production companies require explicit sourcing. This means they need to be labeled as such by the source. This is to prevent original research, such as what you've been doing. When the American Film Institute says that Sony produced and distributed a film, but the billing block has Columbia's name and/or logo on it, we go by what AFI says. There's consensus that the billing block (which Variety reproduces in their reviews) is not good enough. Variety maintains a database, Variety Insight, which does label the companies involved. I've put in a request at WP:TWL to have this opened up to Wikipedia's use, but it could take a while to get an answer from Variety. If you don't understand any of this, just stop screwing around with sourced content. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Koala15: Come on, man. If you're going to be reverting everything, could you please at least leave an edit summary, so everyone can at least understand your rationale? I keep getting blips on the recent reversions for media articles and you're all over them. And, more editors, such as Beeteegee, are noticing this, as well. Being defiant is a nuisance, but can be understandable, as there are plenty of bullish editors, but without edit summaries, it doesn't fly at all. Just, at least explain yourself when you're doing it and people will assume good faith. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 20:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@DarthBotto: Obviously I have no problem with them, and from time and time again I could make a mistake, but I am also addressing Koala here: edit summaries don't take a long time to fill out. After all, they are brief, and essentially explains why you edited or reverted back. It would've saved me the trouble of complaining about that (although I feel it was simple, was just something I had to mention) on your talk page when I made a new section talking in correspondence about my edits. Beeteegee (talk) 21:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I would also say I've had dealing with Koala, and it's frustrating, because you often are fighting against a wall. and I do feel some of the articles here suffer because of this type of behavior. I know there are a lot of times where I want to help improve an article but then I see that Koala's reverting everything and just won't bother. If I could offer some advice to @Koala15: himself, I'd ask him to wait and be less reactive about reverting edits, and maybe not revert as much as you do, but rather attempt to edit what you like about an article in with what the other editors like about it. --Deathawk (talk) 02:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Técnico (moved from WP:AN)

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.

---

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

A single-page editor is continually making the same argument on Talk:Breitbart News in a disruptive manner. He's been making the same argument roughly once a day for several weeks, and has been warned multiple times to make more constructive contributions, both on his talk page ([280]) and on the Breitbart News page ([281]). He's also discussed this topic on WP:NPOV/N; he is aware of [282] and refuses to listen to the consensus there.

I request he be banned from editing the Talk:Breitbart News page for at least 1 week.

Power~enwiki (talk) 03:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Power~enwiki, I am not a single-page editor. I am not re-hashing an old argument; The archives do not discuss the question of whether leaning contradicts far. There is no consensus about the answer to that question. Técnico (talk) 03:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

According to the User contributions log, you made your first edit on May 28, 2017. (to Talk:Breitbart News) Your first edit not related to that page was yesterday, after a consensus developed against your proposals on WP:NPOV/N. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Power~enwiki, now I am editing more pages. Anyway, there is not a consensus on WP:NPOV/N on whether leaning contradicts far. If leaning contradicts far, then the current Wikipedia article on Breitbart News is clearly violating WP:BALANCE. If you have something constructive to contribute to the question about whether leaning contradicts far, please contribute at WP:NPOV/N. Técnico (talk) 04:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Tecnico, no one is obligated to respond directly to your arguments. A consensus was established a few months ago on the content issue and you refuse to abide by it. Realistically, there is zero chance you will change that consensus. I have humored your arguments long enough; it is time for you to drop the stick before you are sanctioned. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, yes, no one is obligated, but some have responded to NPOVN. A few editors even concur that leaning is not a superset of far. However, there is no consensus about that point there or in the archives. Thus, it is false to say there is. Will you help me to find a consensus about point 6? Técnico (talk) 06:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I request a full ban for 1 week. He's clearly either trolling, or not competent to participate on Wikipedia. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Power~enwiki, please read WP:PERSONAL and please stop attacking me. Técnico (talk) 04:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Técnico: Although discussing editor behavior rather than articles and content should generally be avoided, it is different at administrator noticeboards or on personal user talk pages, when done civilly. Casting aspersions should however also be supported by evidence if the claims are questionable (see the WP:ASPERSIONS information page). These are not personal attacks. —PaleoNeonate - 07:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Técnico says he's not a single-purpose editor, so let's give him the benefit of the doubt and see it. But the re-hashing at Breitbart is a consistent pattern. I support a topic ban of up to one month. If he moves on to similar behavior in a related topic, we can expand the topic ban or consider a full ban. —Guanaco 04:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Guanaco, I am not re-hashing. The archives do not address the question of whether leaning contradicts 'far'. Técnico (talk) 04:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)These new edits seem to me as:

• Hitting the "random article" button
• Making pointless formatting changes (such as adding &nsbp-tags)

SPA is an abbreviation of single purpose account, not single-page account — hence these edits do not change the singular purpose of the account. Instead, to me they indicate WP:BADFAITH and WP:NOTHERE. They might even be enough to indicate WP:SOCKPUPPETRY, as this technique is often not exhibited among newer users.

These issues are in my book more than sufficient for a topic-ban. A 1-week ban will be entirely ineffective and only result in a new report here in 2 weeks time.

A topic-ban solves these issues, and the risk of being WP:OVERSIGHTed and permanently blocked if the behavior persists on a new account should be enough to dissuade the creation of sockpuppets. Carl Fredrik ^talk 04:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Carl, you seem to committing the ad hominem fallacy. If you think that far is a subset of leaning, please explain why at NPOVN. Técnico (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• I support a topic ban although Wikipedia is generally weak when trying to deal with agenda-driven accounts who have learned the art of civil POV pushing, and this noticeboard may want to see a lot more wasted time before sanctions are imposed. I noticed a report at NPOVN. After investigation I left some pointy comments but talk is easily deflected. Técnico is here to counter the consensus position regarding a particular topic, and talk will not stand in the way. Johnuniq (talk) 04:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Johnuniq, there is no consensus on whether leaning contradicts far. Go to NPOVN and constructively contribute. Técnico (talk) 04:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

What should the topic ban cover? Post-1932 politics of the United States, as per the Arbitration rulings? —Guanaco 04:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Guanaco, there is no consensus on whether leaning contradicts far. I haved checked the archives. If there is a rational, reasonable, discussion allowed, then I think we can reach consensus. If you would like to constructively participate in reaching a consensus, please contribute at NPOVN. Técnico (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Technico, enough. We get your point, now move on. Do something constructive, per your own advice. You are advising long-standing users to edit constructively when so far all you have done is refuse to drop the stick and shove your POV into other users' faces. Enough. Move on. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 05:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Callmemirela 🍁, I am not shoving my POV. I am asking for an objective resolution to the question of whether leaning contradicts far. Do you think that leaning contradicts far? Share your analysis of whether or not far is a subset of leaning at NPOVN Técnico (talk) 05:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• support TBANsite ban and indefinite block from Post-1932 politics of the United States. Here to campaign; WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Jytdog (talk) 05:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC) (NB - update per behavior here and MrX's remarks. Jytdog (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC))

Is not part of building this encyclopedia ensuring that it adheres to WP:BALANCE? You seem to be committing the the ad hominem fallacy. If you would like to help us reach consensus about whether leaning contradicts far, please visit NPOVN Técnico (talk) 05:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

We are all talking about your behavior. NPOV means that you set aside what you believe, read the strongest reliable sources you can find, and summarize them in WP, giving WEIGHT to what they say. You are not coming even close to doing that - you arrived with a very strong and very clear POV and have been bludgeoing talk pages and discussion boards trying to force it into WP. This is unacceptable behavior here. Read WP:SOAPBOX (policy), WP:YESPOV (policy), WP:ADVOCACY (helpful essay), WP:TENDENTIOUS (helpful essay). You are not the first person to abuse Wikipedia this way, and you will not be the last. Jytdog (talk) 05:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, what is a good way to have a reasonable, rational, objective discussion about whether or not an article is violating WP:BALANCE? I apologize if I am doing something wrong. I am just trying to do what is correct. There is no consensus about the question of whether something that is leaning can also be far. Técnico (talk) 05:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

You are starting backwards. You are starting with the assumption that Breitbart is X. You have been arguing from the stance. You have not been engaging with the strongest, independent, reliable sources. They are where everything starts here. Jytdog (talk) 05:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, where am I going wrong in the following line of reasoning?

1. WP:BALANCE says, "when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance."

2. CNN is a reputable source.

3. CNN calls Breitbart far-right.

4. The New York Times is a reputable source.

5. The New York Times calls Breitbart conservative-leaning. [283]

6. Leaning contradicts far.

7. Therefore, reputable sources contradict.

8. The New York Times is relatively equal in prominence to CNN. (It can be argued that NYT is much more.)

9. Hence, by WP:BALANCE, we need to describe both points of view and work for balance. -- Técnico (talk) 05:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

This discussion is not yet another place for you to argue this issue. You need to listen to other experienced editors and understand why your arguments are being rejected. More to the point, the issue is settled and it's time for you to drop the stick. If you can't accept that a decision has been made that you disagree with, then you need to find something else to do with your time. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Anybody can cherry pick two sources and play them off each other in this way; it is not compelling. Working in WP especially on contentious topics means doing actual work. Do your homework - find every reference to Breitbart in non-opinion pieces in the NYT and in CNN in the last year, actually read them, and find some way to note what they say with some nuance, honestly. Then try to summarize it, honestly. Presenting the data and the results of that work and inviting others to review it and then discussing, would be both compelling and consensus-building. What you have been doing, even here, is tedious and trivial. I am not responding to you further. Jytdog (talk) 06:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, thank you for the guidance; I need to do more work. I agree. For example, I should have emphasized that The New York Times article is the Times' premeir encylopedic article about Breitbart. The Times article is entitled "What Is Breitbart News?" [284]

I should have also made very clear that I was not rehashing an old argument. The old argument was about whether right-wing also meant far-right. My question is about whether leaning is a superset of far. Thank you. Técnico (talk) 08:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from post-1932 US politics — Técnico, if you're truly here to contribute to the encyclopedia constructively, you'll find some other, hopefully less contentious, topics to edit for awhile, you'll gain a better understanding of our policies, you'll develop skills in discussing and negotiating consensus with other editors, and you'll learn why, exactly, your proposed edits have been rejected (hint: it has to do with WP:RS and WP:DUE). If you really are here only for the single purpose of beating this dead Breitbart horse, then you're not here to build a collaborative Internet encyclopedia and you should find something else to do with your time. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, do you see what I mean? It seems very difficult to have a reasonable, rational, objective discussion. I think it is clear that you can answer at NPOVN my question about point 6. Técnico (talk) 06:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

It is increasingly impossible if one defines "reasonable, rational, and objective" as "agrees with me". Carl Fredrik ^talk 06:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Carl Fredrik, please read WP:PERSONAL and please stop attacking me. Técnico (talk) 07:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, please go to NPOVN and let me know what you think about point 6. Técnico (talk) 06:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban — Although I didn't participate I have been following this discussion. All along, it seemed clear to me that the consensus was to not reopen the RfC and that most reliable sources describe it as far-right. All along, this editor was WP:LAWYERING others like if they were the ones not building consensus or following policy. I think that a topic ban is a good first alternative to a complete WP:NOTHERE block and would allow the opportunity to learn and edit in less contentious areas. —PaleoNeonate - 07:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

User:PaleoNeonate, you are mistaken about the RfC It was about a different question. That RfC was about right-wing vs far-right. My issue is about conservative-leaning vs far-right. Since those two questions seem to be easily confused, my discussions about WP:BALANCE have been getting cut-off. Thus, please base your decision on the truth. Técnico (talk) 07:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• SUPPORT (TEMP) - While I somewhat empathize with new users (I was one once), it seems that from the start, they have failed to recognize the importance (and methods) of building a WP:Consensus. A competent editor on Wikipedia requires things like nuance and the ability to interact, perhaps even tenacity in certain regards, but Técnico has yet to understand the importance of such vital tools. I must support, although, I think things might have been different if they had chosen to try to find compromise and connection, rather than demand and disengagement. Their page does not say much, but it is all they have earned, unfortunately [285]. Perhaps they will listen after responsibility is given, perhaps not. Let them decide. DN (talk) 07:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per WP:SPA, WP:NPOV, WP:IDHT, WP:CIR. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, why ban me for WP:NPOV when I am trying to promote WP:BALANCE? Técnico (talk) 08:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• • Comment My interactions with Técnico were minimal, and I will refer to wiser editors, and or, those that have dealt with them on a more consistent basis. DN (talk) 07:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • 'Comment I also have only dealt with him over the one issue of Breibart being far right or not. But the issue is whether "Conservative leaning" excludes or contradicts "far fight", not about the meaning of the words "lean" and "far" (except in the sense of saying that one does not contradict (based on context) the other).Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support indef topic ban from post-1932 US politics broadly construed. Técnico is indistinguishable from a troll. He disruptively demands that editors continue to argue about content matters that were settled months ago. He shops the same arguments at multiple fora, just as he has done here. He demands consensus against straw man arguments ("there is no consensus on whether leaning contradicts far."). I strongly suspect that he is a sock of a previously blocked or banned editor. I would also support a site ban as I see no evidence that he is here to help build an encyclopedia and the disruption-to-constructive-contribution ratio is too high. The unfortunate reality is that other socks will soon appear on scene to continue to disrupt talk:Breitbart News and well-intentioned editors will continue to feed these trolls.- MrX 12:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support indef topic ban from post-1932 US politics - I've been half way watching the discussion on the BB talk page for a while now. I appreciate their... enthusiasm, but they need to learn that this is a damned big place with a lot to be done, and that arguing ad infinitum about comparatively minor word choice is not a strategy for doing that. Hopefully editing in non-controversial areas is a route to learning that, because eight mainspace edits into ANI is not a promising sign that the user is here to build an encyclopedia. If they can show that they are an asset to the project, then they can always appeal the TBAN in a few months and maybe try again. TimothyJosephWood 12:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment There's no question that Tecnico is showing WP:TE behavior, and that can be problematic, but at the same time, they have not engaged in anything that looks like edit warring (all of 2 edits to the Breitbart article), and while they have opened several threads at the Breitbart talk page, the only venture of the topic outside that was NPOV/N, which definitely isn't forum shopping (that's exactly where dispute on neutrality should get more eyes). This seems like using talk pages for their designed purpose, though I certainly would caution them to avoid rehashing arguments. But separately, I'm finding the people speaking against Tecnico are editors that have shown little love towards Breitbart or other topics in this area in the past, and are operating in a group mindset, most likely unintentionally, circling the wagons around the result of the survey and not allowing it to be challenged, and then turning the tables to call out Tecnico as an SPA and disruptive, and possible a banned sock without evidence. This was all behavior seen from GG that lead to the ArbCom case (which I was at the center of it, so I'm very well aware of the issues with WP:TE), and the trend is all mirroring that. Even with the NPOV/N posting there's some question of the validity of how the selective nature of sources was done, and I think Tecnico needs to use the advice there along the lines of surveying the sources per Jytdog's comment above (06:13, 22 June 2017) to come at challenging the result with strong statistical evidence that supports their point. (Using one or two sources against 38 is not going to cut it, but there's seemingly 1000s more out there to do just that). To that end, I do think Tecnico needs at least an enforceable, if not voluntary, short break from the Breitbart page (even the whole post-1932 US politics) for perhaps 30 days, which would allow them time to develop a stronger argument to present. But trouts around to those refusing to have any reasonable discussion of the point of the matter about the debate. Talk pages can't be walled gardens, and when editors work unintentionally to make them like that, they create these types of editing behavior problems, rather than being more accommodating as we're supposed to be. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

That is well said. Except that Tecnico's reply is a perfect example of the problem - they give a head fake toward the advice, and then keep right on at what they were doing before. And on that note, especially on emotionally laden topics (like alt med or politics) we get people who show up here driven by clear agendas, and when people treat WP like a nail that needs to be hammered (and Technico's actions here are mind-numbingly hammerlike) they need to restricted. This is even more true of alt-right topics where there is an army of online trolls who will just suck of oceans of volunteer time; volunteer time is the lifeblood of this place. "Bite" takes on a whole different meaning when you are dealing in a topic full of vampires. Jytdog (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I know we (WP as a whole) are fighting alt-/far-right outside brigading, a mix of trolls and emotionally invested people. There's no question that the DSes in post-1932 US politics are needed. But you have to ask, why are they doing this in these areas? Personally, I would argue it is because of instead of adopting a more central/middle-ground view, WP presents a more leftist view due to a combination of what are considered reliable sources, and a combination of experienced editors on the site editing in these areas that average out to a leftist view, which has all the potential of creating an echo chamber - we have all the possible elements in place that we could end up as being similar to the walled garden of Conservapedia but on the left side, if we are not careful. That's going to draw trolls and emotionally-charged editors to hassle existing editors, no question, but its also going to draw earnest editors that are trying to break through the echo chamber but can't. That's why I'm not thrilled with the idea of silencing an editor that is asking policy-based questions about a past consensus, particularly since they haven't engaged in any other typical behavior that SPA/IPs that are trolling and not here to build the work typically do. Hence my suggestion of a voluntary time out from post-1932 Politics. Give them time to learn the ropes elsewhere and establish a better argument over a month or so. It they break that time out, or come back without any change in their TE behavior, or requestion without new arguments, then we can talk hard blocks/bans. --MASEM (t) 16:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Masem: I would say your analysis is off. The problem is that the so-called "liberal media" is biased towards reality, and the alt-right is biased towards anything that supports their ideology, which is, generally speaking, not reality-based. We are an encyclopedia, therefore we reflect reality, not any ideology. The right sees this and says "Ah, see, Wikipedia is supporting what the liberal media says, therefore Wikipedia is biased towards the left," but that's only because they see things through the filter of their POV, while we do our very best not to be biased towards anything except what is real and verifiable. The alt-right media are not, for the most part, reliable sources, since they have been shown to have been wrong again and again and again, and have an overall tendency to report whatever they believe, regardless of its relationship to reality. Thus we are forced to use reality-based media, which the alt-right sees as liberal or "leftist", which is actually ridiculous, since no mainstream American media outlet is anywhere near being left-wing -- but, then, the alt-right makes no differentiation between "liberal" and "leftist".

In short, it is wrong to point the finger at Wikipedia as being the genesis of the problem, which originates in the minds of the ideologues of the right. There is no "leftist view" to Wikipedia, that's an artifact totally created in the perceptions of rightists. Our viewpoint is centrist, just as that of the "liberal media" is. The fault is not in us, it is in those who cannot differentiate their ideology from reality. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I side with BMK in this particular (very interesting) discussion. Having focused most of my recent editing on alt-right articles, I can say for certain that most alt-right POV-pushers are angered/motivated much more by what they see as systemic media bias being baked into our articles than by editor stonewalling, wagon-circling, or any other editor conduct. And I think it would be wholly inappropriate for the community to somehow adjust how we apply bedrock policies like WP:V and WP:NPV to reflect the fact that some folks on one end of the political spectrum believe that the libtard media is biased against them. That would not only blatantly violate WP:BIASED, but it would go a huge step further by saying, "Well, this source might not actually be biased, but some people think it's biased so we're going to call it unreliable or give it less weight." Bullshit. It is not creating a walled garden to apply our standard policies and guidelines (such as WP:CONSENSUS) to politics articles. All we can do is to patiently explain our community standards to these people, and if they don't like them they can go elsewhere. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I have no knowledge about Breibart for various reasons, but what bothers me the most from this ANI thread is Tecnico's behaviour here. They are always replying to user who either agrees to the ban or makes a comment about his behaviour with "Why don't your participate in the discussion at [[WP:LINK]]?", which really bothers me. It's unnecessary and excessive. We're not here about a content dispute; we're here about their behaviour. They don't get it, but they still go at it with the same messages. They also keep using the same arguments such as "There is no consensus" and whatnot. It doesn't matter if there is consensus or not, we're here about the behaviour not whether the edit was valid or not. It's not a case of IDHT, it's more like IDGAF. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 16:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• Tecnico is annoying, at least here, but I agree with Masem that this topic ban is a bit much in a short period of time. They don't fit the mold for who we normally topic ban. I also agree that if Tecnico was smart, they would volunteer to stay away for 30 days and brush up a bit on policy here, so this would be less likely a problem in the future. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

We routinely indef or restrict users who are a net negative to the project. This user has wasted a huge amount of other editor's time by obsessing on a single issue that has already been thoroughly discussed over a seven month period. He has refused to drop the stick, repeats the same weak arguments over and over, trolls[286], and has failed to gain consensus for any of his propositions.- MrX 17:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Except that their behavior here seems to be partially created by trying to break through the walled garden that that talk page is. I read those diffs and their talk page contributions, and that seems like someone frustrated that no one has honestly answered their question, only mass refusal to even discuss their questions. If their questions were answered fairly or at least some attempt of compromise, we'd not be here. Yes, they need to learn not to be tendentious, but that seems to be only issue of their behavior in question based on the Breitbart talk page, while a large number of editors are engaging in stonewalling. This is exactly the behavior that led to the GG case. Again, the best solution is for Tecnico to voluntarily step back for a good period, work outside the politics area, and get a feel for how WP works and come back with a stronger argument (if possible) for that specific page, and trouts for everyone else on that talk page for creating a closed, hostile atmosphere. --MASEM (t) 04:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey now Masem, I take exception to being included among the troutees. I have devoted a sickening amount of time to listening and responding to Tecnico's campaign. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Troutbackatcha Masem. If you would quit leaping to the defense of trolls, SPAs, socks, and POV pushers that happen to share your own political perspective, it would go a long way toward dissipating the disruption. The content issue was resolved months ago by us following dispute resolution. We are not required to keep giving up our volunteer time for every random person on the internet who gives not one shit about this project and who wants to WP:REHASH settled disputes!- MrX 19:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't share their POV in any way, I consider myself left of center, nor am I trying to support them in trying to push POV. What I am worried about is the growing tendency of groups of editors with the same ideological mindset in a topic area to push subjective language as fact or at least present it in a way that violates neutrality and WP:IMPARTIAL, and not let that result be challenged. Are there sources that call Breitbart far-right? Absolutely, no question, it should be included at some point. Do all sources call Breitbart far-right? Not from the quick-and-dirty GHIT analysis I did, and certainly nowhere close to a majority. Thus we should be taking WP:YESPOV and simply assigning attribution to the statement, which is not that difficult to ask for. This is where Tecnico I think is trying to go with their line of editing, but they're new to WP, and tangling with established editors. So instead of getting answers, they're met with a wall of replies that block them out of discussion and feed into Tecnico's WP:TE. POV-pushers and SPAs and IPs are bad, but this type of behavior is just as bad. These walled gardens are becoming more common across WP and they do need to be dismantled and prevent that type of behavior. --MASEM (t) 20:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

But the thing is, your exact line of reasoning was fought for and rejected by the consensus in an RfC. As was explained to Tecnico. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the better past RFC to point to is this one [287] 7 months ago (and I would strongly suggest a FAQ on that talk page). I agree that barring any new evidence or different argument, that that RFC should stand, but that does mean that editors have to be open to discussing new evidence or a different argument. Instead, like with Tecnico here, they're being shut down and refusing to allow a challenge. That's the same behavior prior the GamerGate case. But in terms of GG, at least there was some reason to be defensive due to offsite brigading trying to influence the page. While there are IPs and SPAs and all that on those talk pages, many are actually trying to bring some element of valid points that should be discussed, but just like with Tecnico here, they're shut down and chastised, rather that worked with. I'm not saying that Tecnico's own behavior is beyond reproach - the TE-ness absolutely needs to stop, but that's not the only problem in behavior alone going on here. --MASEM (t) 22:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Tecnico's most recent argument argument is strikingly similar to the one squarely addressed the second RfC, which was about whether we should include a full analysis of the different ways various RSs have labeled Breitbart News. Not every slight variation on raised arguments previously rejected by consensus merits discussion, let alone a reopening of the consensus. Realistically there was (and is) zero chance that Tecnico's argument would disturb the consensus. Moreover, you might not have dug this far back through the discussion, but before raising the NYT "conservative-leaning" argument, Tecnico presented a grab-bag of much weaker arguments, including contending that we shouldn't describe Breitbart as "far right" because (1) a far-right blogger said, "I suspect we are seeing the end of Breitbart," and (2) far-right politics are associated with anti-Semitism, and anti-Seminitism is evil and Breitbart has objected to being called anti-Semitic. So no, an editor who is resisting the consensus should not get to take a kitchen sink approach and force extended discussion on each and every point that could have been raised in a previous RfC but wasn't. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

An editor that had not been involved in an RFC completed some time prior has every right to ask questions about it. An RFC is not a binding contract, as consensus can change. I do agree things have come to a head with Tecnico's tendentious editing, and between their talk page and this ANI they should get the message to stop that or potentially face enforceable topic bans, but the rush to enforce the topic ban now on a new editor that is not otherwise causing editing disruption on mainspace is very very BITEY given, on good faith, this is a new editor frustrated with trying to make their point in a hostile environment. Having them back off voluntarily, now that the matter has been discussed more openly, and come back after learning the ropes is hopefully the best solution for all. --MASEM (t) 23:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, he had a right to ask questions — but no one has the right to ignore answers are they see fit, only accepting what is in line with a certain political conviction. This isn't about asking questions, this is about dropping the stick, and asking the exact same question over and over again, demanding answers every time. It is disingenuous to make it out to be anything but WP:DISRUPTIVE, and even newbies get banned if they show that they cannot participate in the collaborative process. Carl Fredrik ^talk 07:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Nobody is "stonewalling." The fact of the matter is that the subject was discussed to death, a clear consensus was reached and everyone now needs to accept that consensus, whether they agree with it or not. What's disruptive here is endlessly attempting to relitigate closed issues; while consensus can change, editors are not required to re-argue every single issue each time a single editor (particularly a single-purpose editor) questions it. We are not running a debate club here, we're trying to write an encyclopedia. The consensus has been extensively explained to this user, but they refuse to accept it. That is textbook tendentious editing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with NorthBySouthBaranof here. Some editors have been quick to silence challenges to the consensus, and in some cases that is unwarranted and creates a backlash among the challengers. But this is not one of those cases. By and large editors treated Tecnico with respect and carefully and thoroughly explained to Tecnico how the consensus-building process worked. It was only after that that Tecnico's continued pressing and failure to listen became disruptive. Different editors have different, reasonable levels of tolerance for such disruption, but I think we are way past the point where editors can be accused of stonewalling in this particular case. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I request the topic-ban mainly for disruptive incompetence; note the sheer number of times he's said "far-right v. leaning" in this thread alone, often in response to a completely unrelated comment. 7 days should allow discussion of the outstanding topics on the board; right now every thread on Talk:Breitbart News is derailed by him and it's impossible to discuss anything. I would also note that, while Breitbart News is under the post-1932 discretionary sanctions, he's only edited the Talk page and I believe the sanctions only apply to article pages. Consensus from the admins appears to be that an indef topic-ban is too much, I see no argument against a single-page ban though. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• No, the DS is not article-based, it's edit- and page-based. WP:AC/DS says: "All edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed. (American Politics 2), so Tecnico's behavior is definitely covered by it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• As nominator, I request this be closed. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, are you asking for an uninvolved admin to close the discussion based on the commentary, or are you withdrawing the complaint? If the former, I concur, if the latter, I disagree - the extent of the commentary has been such that I don't believe it can reasonable be withdrawn at this point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• To be clear, I'm requesting it be closed because t is obvious nothing will happen as a result of this thread the discussion is done. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

If you open a thread on a noticeboard, if it has substantial participation and polling, you cannot simply request a close because you think "it is obvious nothing will happen as a result of this thread." See WP:PRAM. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

And it's not at all obvious. It seems like there's a clear consensus for some sort of topic ban. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment updated. While several uninvolved admins have suggested this isn't action-worthy, after further inspection I agree it isn't unanimous. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Two admins do not get to override a unanimous community consensus. Softlavender (talk) 06:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

And consensus does not need to be unanimous to result in a topic-ban. Admins have no more power to influence the discussion than anyone else — however they may act upon it. For now no one has, but that does not mean no one will. And in fact, neither are you able to retract/request closing of this thread — it will run its course now, and as I see it everything points to an indefinite T-ban being placed. A 1 week ban is pointless for a WP:SPA, as we've seen over and over again. WP:COOLDOWN does not work. Carl Fredrik ^talk 07:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I am unaware as to whether the consensus assessed on this page is supposed to be of all editors, or of un-involved admins. Is there a formal page discussing this? Power~enwiki (talk) 07:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:CBAN. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Support TBAN Holy mother of WP:IDHT. I almost NAC'd this one, but for the fact that it involves a sanction (the consensus scope of which has to be tailored from several subtly different proposed variations--better left to an admin). Hopefully a close is eminent though. I come into any WP:BAN discussion needing and expecting a lot of convincing, and I can't remember the last time the contributor in question did such an efficient job of convincing me all on their own, consistently more and more with each repetitive battleground post.

That said, I'm not sure a TBAN as broad as some of those described above is warranted on the basis of behaviour on this one issue. Tendetious as Técnico's conduct may have been up until this point, bans are meant to be preventative, not punitive, and thus I tend to believe they should be narrowly tailored to areas of proven problematic bebahviour. It seems to me that we might start with a page ban or consider a TBAN relating to political news media; post-1932 political topics is just way too broad (touching on too large a fraction of the encyclopedia's total content) to be considered for more than the absolute worst offenders in this area, imo.

On a side note, looking at that talk page, I see that Técnico is not the only editor to have made needlessly aggressive and inappropriate comments in the relevant discussions. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Well reasoned. I agree that a page ban is more appropriate. Tecnico has been laser-focused from their first edit one issue--namely, getting rid of the two words "far right" in Breitbart News. A long-term or permanent page ban would push them off that issue and accomplish the goal (well stated by NorthBySouthBaranof) of seeing whether they can edit productively in other areas. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Support - page ban per DrFleischman above. I am an uninvolved editor who wandered in from an different entry on NPOVN, which looks like it is getting resolved, slowly. Not an admin and not really familiar with the criteria for various sanctions but a) this account sounds a lot like someone who is paid by the hour and seems very sophisticated as to WP policy for the purported number of edits b) on the other hand, let's throw in AGF and ok, he/she claims to not be a single-purpose account -- let's see. My .02 Elinruby (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2017 (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.