Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive962

User:Emmy Expert, CIR topic ban for image-related edits?

User:Emmy Expert has been making an enormous number of edits, regularly making watchlists, for edits of very little worth, in this case changing images on the supposed premise of "updating" them, but in a completely nonsensical way, and typically without edit summaries.[2] [3] [4] Myself and other editors have spoken to him. He routinely removes our messages on his user talk. [5] On the plus side, he's apologizing and conceding wrongdoing in his edit summaries. [6] [7] [8] [9] On the downside, we're seeing an extreme case of WP:IDHT, as he goes right back to troublesome behaviour [10] [11] and revert wars [12]. Not sure if he's deliberately playing us or genuinely can't help himself in this area, but he's wearing us out. Ribbet32 (talk) 01:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm one of a few editors who has commented on Emmy Expert's talk page, and this edit summary of his was very telling: "I apologize, it’s just that I’m obsessed and dedicated to replace these images with one(s) of more currency of the person; that’s my reason. accept?" I've suggested that this is not a recommended practice, that he only "update" images to more recent ones when he believes they actually improves the article, explain his reasoning, and not revert others who challenge his updates, but my requests seem to have fallen on deaf ears. In many/most cases the new images are literally just more recent photos of similar quality in which the subject doesn't look different, so while there may be no real reason to revert the changes, the sheer quantity is making them disruptive.— TAnthony^Talk 02:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I've noticed this, too. Emmy Expert, you should comment here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Emmy Expert: was notified of this thread, and subsequently blanked the notice [13], followed by returning to the same behaviour [14] Ribbet32 (talk) 00:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

And he's not going to stop any time soon. Since being pinged, still felt the need to change and blow up an image on an FL [15] "I didn't hear that!" Ribbet32 (talk) 02:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment: I've issued a warning to the editor. Alex Shih^Talk 02:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Update

After another warning was issued to the editor about refraining from making another tendentious image-related edit before addressing this AN/I discussion (about the editing behaviour in question), the warning was reverted twice by the editor ([16] [17]) with the initial edit summary I'll try harder to stop. The editor then almost immediately went on to make several kind of edits ([18] [19]) that are identical to the ones that have been questioned in this AN/I discussion. After a block was issued, the editor then changed the time stamp and added caps lock to the block notice ([20] [21]). I would like to ask for some community input. Regards, Alex Shih^Talk 15:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this is going to end well. Emmy Expert doesn't seem capable of controlling whatever urge is compelling these edits, including editing other people's comments. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Or they're trolling you. --Tarage (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Emmy Expert is not a troll, I'm confident of that. At the same time, I don't believe there's some "irresistible urge" to change images on Wikipedia, as until now unknown, undocumented and undiagnosed in the medical community. I think that, until now, the "warnings" Emmy has received have just been words, and now, hopefully, after 48 hours, he'll have learned actions have consequences. Ribbet32 (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Death threat

Dealt with. (non-admin closure) SkyWarrior 02:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

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

---

Here. Emergency have been informed. Sorry it took so long to report here but I can't find an admin to contact privately. Adam9007 (talk) 01:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Blocked and rev del'd. Thanks for the heads up :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Gary Renard redux

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.

---

So following the train wreck of the just-archived ANI, the 4th AfD proceeded and was closed today by User:Alex Shih, with a redirect. I implemented the close. User:Unscintillating promptly reverted, and opened a section on Talk about Article redirected to improper target. When we pointed out to this user there, that the proper procedure was WP:CLOSECHALLENGE or WP:Deletion review they instead opened an RfC at the article talk page, here.

The 4th AfD was borderline out-of-process as several !voters there noted, but this effort to challenge the close is really not good (especially as it leaves the discussion captive only to page watchers and doesn't centralize it as either of the regular challenge processes do). Alex' close was generous, leaving the redirect instead of just deleting, and this is about the worst possible reaction.

Am requesting an admin to shut down that RfC and instruct Unscintillating to follow one of the appropriate processes to challenge the close. Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Always going to happen as that AFD was very poorly handled. But what is happening now (AFD's are not binding) is very iffy. I agree that then user should follow procedure.Slatersteven (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• I am not looking to create another train wreck of an ANI thread. Am asking admins to look and judge and then close this, either way. If admins judge "not in our remit" please say so, and somebody else might frame a different request or this can be withdrawn. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• The redirect has been protected to prevent more reverts, but the history is still intact so that anyone who wants to merge is able to. That seems consistent with the AfD result. It looks to me that the problem is already solved. Reyk _YO! 22:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The issue is the RfC, which remains open. Jytdog (talk) 01:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• My two cents: Alex Shih is an editor with only 10,000 edits, who was sysopped in May 2007 (as AQu01rius) [22] and then promptly disappeared for 10 years [23], returning 5 weeks ago and making a flurry of administrative errors which have caused multiple problems. He should not have closed the ANI; he should not have closed the AfD; and he should not have locked the page. He certainly should not have done all three. We need neutral, experienced, capable, uninvolved admins to make these calls, not someone who barely knows what they are doing and who after the initial action was clearly too WP:INVOLVED to make any further actions. Softlavender (talk) 02:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • My two cents: Softlavender has been exceedingly biased throughout this overly-long ordeal, and should refrain from WP:ASPERSIONS on an admin who clearly acted in good faith. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
    • My two cents: we've got way too many admins coming out of 10-year comas who don't know how anything is done. EEng 03:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Again? Jesus christ. Can we please PLEASE get a system in place where the community can remove the mop? --Tarage (talk) 05:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender, that's a poor, unsupported reaction in a dispute you've been on "the other side of" for a long time. You're as guilty as anyone else of bludgeoning here, if not more, in multiple arenas. Time to back off, really. Yes, there's a problem with long inactive admins making errors, and we need to deal with that, but that has nothing to do with your "issue" here. Stop trying to divert attention from a consensus with which you disagree. You're flailing. -- Begoon 12:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Softlavender I encourage you to file a close challenge and test your claim that the close did not reasonably reflect the consensus of the AfD. I don't think it will succeed but that would be more productive. This is devolving.... Jytdog (talk) 05:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The correct place to challenge a close is at DRV. This discussion is all over the place because people won't use the proper processes. Starting many irrelevant and perplexing "discussions" on the talk page, or making unfounded accusations of incompetence here on ANI, is not really productive. Reyk _YO! 05:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Agree with both the above. If you disagree with the closure of an AFD, Wikipedia:Deletion review is thataways. ANI is for reporting incidents that require administrative intervention, not a general noticeboard for people to vent whenever an admin does something they don't like. I've closed down the RFC as out-of-process; a central location for deletion review is one part of Wikipedia's bureaucracy which does make sense. ‑ Iridescent 08:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Iridescent to be clear, what you did in this dif was to close an RfC that Unscintillating had withdrawn by removing the RfC tag, and Unscintillating had opened a 2nd, more or less identical one below that. User:MPants at work closed that 2nd RfC in this diff, citing what they believed to be your intent. I will not be surprised if that gets reverted; it would be useful if you kept your eye on that. Given that this has been addressed, I am closing this. If somebody wants to talk about some other aspect, they can open a new thread. Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

And now another RFC [24] this is reaching tendentious editing now. One RFC is close and another (slightly differently worded) is opened up.Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)Sorry, he actually has two ruining at once.Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 14 August 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.

I'm late to the party, and adding this comment only about the process; I have no particular opinion about the merits of this specific case, which appears to have been resolved. But: This sort of trainwreck is the very predictable consequence of an AfD that suggests a merge but that does not solicit any participation from the editors of the merge target. I have been repeatedly calling for some time now for it to be a required part of the process that any merge proposal in an AfD be accompanied by a notification on the talk page of the proposed merge target. Nothing like that can be seen at Talk:A Course in Miracles, except for the notice of the completed AfD. Having such notice, and having informed participation from the editors of A Course in Miracles over the question of whether including material about Renard is appropriate (rather than ramming it down their throats as the immutable result of a concluded AfD) would have helped a lot in this case, I think. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

user:David Eppstein fwiw, in this instance Cunard added content to the target article on 9 August 2017 and there was no objection. The AfD closed a full 4 days later. I don't understand whence the opposition arose; the protester has no edits at the target article nor any at its talk page, nor any at the article that was subject of the AfD nor its talk page prior to this. baffling. Jytdog (talk) 07:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. The target for the merge had already been well prepared by Cunard, and spelled out in that very AfD. I take your point that this is sometimes unclear, but in this case it was absolutely explicit. -- Begoon 13:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Irish troubles after end of block

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

---

User:Apollo The Logician (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), having just come off a month's block for editing warring, proceeded to drop in a whole series of controversialist edits (e.g. [25], [26], [27], [28]) and creation of a tendentious category and a micro-article on one incident, all related to The Troubles and the Easter Rising. I'm simply a bystander in this, having come across the category creation first, but it seems to me that this is headed to a bad end if this user doesn't back off and, I would suggest, find some other topic on which to expend his energies. Mangoe (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not punish editors for controversial edits, only disruptive ones.Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I was about to post much the same comment, but I see you've made the whole thing moot anyway. That was a rather obvious result. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• Apollo just created Conchobar O Beig and Conchobar Ó Beig v 2.0 and has used the first account to continue edit warring. I've blocked both of the sock accounts. Apollo copied their 1RR restriction to the Conchobar O Beig account, so I'm not sure whether they believed it was a clean start (which they aren't eligible for), or just messed up. Given the extensive block log and the creation of sock accounts to continue edit warring, I've blocked Apollo The Logician indefinitely.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. I had hopes that they could actually get past the warring and be a productive editor, as some of their edits were actually very useful. Unfortunately the battleground mentality and POV pushing seems to have been too ingrained. Canterbury Tail talk 22:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I support this block. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Good block - blatantly WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and so on. Twitbookspacetube 04:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

• I noticed an unhelpful comment at the bottom of Talk:Implicit and explicit atheism (09:19, 11 August 2017) shortly after it was made (diff). That is a non-actionable and vacuous complaint that has no effect other than to make a claim about consensus that might presumably be used in the future to justify "bold" edits on the article. Apollo is a net negative. Johnuniq (talk) 23:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• In light of this charming outburst, I've removed talkpage access—frustration from a blocked user is understandable and I always turn a blind eye to venting, but this was well over any conceivable line. By a very strict interpretation I could be considered WP:INVOLVED, having been on the receiving end of this charming comment for daring to decline an unblock request during one of his many previous blocks; if any other admin does feel that removing talk page access was inappropriate you have my explicit consent to restore it without consulting me. ‑ Iridescent 22:17, 12 August 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.

Nurseline247 repeatedly reinstates content on multiple character lists, deletes warnings

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.

---

Since they began editing last year, Nurseline247 has made a habit of adding unencyclopedic, frivolous and out-of-scope content to character lists and after it's reverted, they put it back in with misleading edit summaries. I typically veer away from bringing verified users to the noticeboard, but this is not an isolated incident and Nurseline247 has not heeded advice whatsoever-- they have only removed the warnings from their talk page and continued onward.

There are a number of pages in which this has played out. For example...

1. Spider-Man in film: Nurseline247 has repeatedly added content about the animated films to a page strictly reserved for live action productions. They've re-added the content with misleading edit summaries... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 (I may have missed some).
2. Beauty and the Beast: On this page, they keep on re-adding the Direct-to-Video specials that Disney produced that the other editors have reached a consensus not to include, but Nurseline247 apparently doesn't realize that... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
3. Alien (franchise)/List of Alien characters: Before the release of Alien: Covenant, Nurseline247 began adding the advertisements for the film to the franchise page and referred to them as "short films", which was way out of scope. After a number of editors, including myself, removed the content from the page, Nurseline247 simply re-added it to the characters page list, which put it at risk of losing its Featured List status.
4. Frozen (franchise): They keep adding out-of-scope content about Ralph Breaks the Internet: Wreck-It Ralph 2, despite that not being a part of the franchise. 1, 2
5. List of fictional shared universes in film and television: Nurseline247 apparently disagrees with the parameters of what a shared universe is, with other editors arguing it needs to have inter-connected concepts and characters... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
6. Arrowverse: Other editors argue that only characters that cross over between the series should be included, but alas... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and there are more, but I believe everyone can get the idea by this point...

Those are a few of the examples just right off the top, from the last month. Over the last two weeks alone, they have been warned many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many times- with several of those being final warnings- but it appears as if that doesn't warrant adjustment on their behalf. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 01:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I was notified by the filer regarding the thread. I am dropping here my two cents since I am quite involved with the reported user. Nurseline247 has/had (I am unaware of their previous edits) of adding unsourced edits at Spider-Man: Homecoming. I got involved when I saw this edit summary on my watchlist. I have used Twinkle for three now and this statement was false right off the bat. I went out to correct the user per one of the diffs above. Going back, Nurseline247 made a bold edit but was reverted. They then readded the content, which was reverted by me. This was a slow mo edit war per this and this. The content isn't exactly the same with every edit, but it was similar regarding the timeline. My issue with their edits there was that timelines should be discussed at the talk page. It involves original research and it's unsourced. Plus, a user can easily make a mistake with the timeline. I warned them and told them to take it to the talk page. They didn't feel like it. And it appears they were involved in other disruptive editing on other articles. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 01:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

There had been problems with the addition of the name of a minor-level crewmember for the film Alien: Covenant being inserted into the cast section of the Alien franchise page. The name had been previously removed, but the editor Nurseline247 made → this edit re-emplacing the name onto that page. I informed Nurseline247 that this was a crewmember's name which appears approximately three minutes and 40 seconds into the screencredits for that film, and how that position within Covenant's screencredit hierarchy did not warrant the position Nurseline247 was attempting to place onto it by including it in the list. I went on to state on Nurseline247's talk page in this edit herethat the person's role as movement artist in the production of Alien: Covenant was no more important than the hundreds of other artists, assistants, technicians, compositors, etc. found within the screencredits, and that including it in the article's cast list served only to inflate this person's contributions to the film. I ended by stating that it ought to be considered vandalism should that name reappear again on the list in the future. I never received a response on either Nurseline247's or my talk page. Recently, I noticed that what I had added to Nurseline247's talk page and several other editors had been removed (which is that user's right to do), although I placed the WP:OW template on Nurseline247's talk page to let future editors know that not only were my concerns and others deleted, but that they were left unaddressed by that editor. — Spintendo^Talk 15:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

It looks like since this was posted to the noticeboard, Nurseline247 has continued their behavior at the Aladdin (franchise) and Diary of a Wimpy Kid (film series) pages. The I.P. editor 86.46.205.88 added out-of-scope content, including short films, which was reverted at the Diary of a Wimpy Kid page. After Zucat reverted them, Nurseline247 incrementally added the content back. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 19:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

While I have had my issues with Nurseline247 (mostly concerning shared universes), I think they can learn if they receive some appropriate punishment like a longer block.★Trekker (talk) 19:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

If the editor is not willing to communicate, I think a block would be the appropriate action to take. This just might be another simple case of WP:NOTHERE. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Jeez, how long has this been here? In my defense, my edits to Alien (franchise) restoring minor level crew member Badego was simply because the absence of a name meant the Character column did not line up with the Cast. (See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alien_(franchise)&oldid=785944130), an dbecause I believed that Badego did indeed play a neomorph in the film. Now, in regards to Spider-Man: Homecoming, my edits there simply stated what year the film was set in, something I saw as necessary to clarify due to various online disputes I read about the topic. As I said in those edits, the criminal record of character Aaron Davis shows the film takes place in 2017, at least at that point in time, which ret. I'm not sure what the Arrowverse problem is exactly; from the links I viewed, I never added a non-Recurring character to that list. Are you talking about Constantine? Or maybe Harrison Wells?

In regards to "Nurseline247 has repeatedly added content about the animated films to a page strictly reserved for live action productions", I'm afraid that I haven't the faintest clue what you're talking about. What animated films? Since when have there ever been animated Spider-Man films outside of the Miles Morales one that was added to the page by someone else? Were you referring to the "Sony's Marvel Universe" films? True, it has yet to be confirmed whether Spider-Man will be in Venom or Silver and Black, but to my knowledge, it has yet to be denied either, hence why I put TBA. If it has been denied since I edited that page, my bad! Sorry about that.

Back to Alien (franchise), I changed "Short films" to "Promotional Short films", because that IS, in fact, what they were. The Prologues to Alien: Covenant had beginnings, middles and ends; none of the footage in them was intended to be in the final film.

And I know exactly what makes a shared universe, The Earth Day Special and A Million Ways to Die in the West perfectly fit the definitions, as does Hercules and the Arabian Night. I'm sorry I don't atypically read my talk page by the way. But I did take note of what was written there before I cleared it up. Will clarify at Diary of a Wimpy Kid (film series) that Class Clown is a short film. Thank you very much for your feedback.Nurseline247 (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

You've misremembered exactly what changes were made to that cast list. There has never been a dispute over the addition of Bolaji Badejo, rather, the revision that you made shown here is of a person whose name had been removed nine days prior to you adding it again. And while we have this rare opportunity to speak with you regarding your edits, could you possibly elaborate on your page moves shown here and here, one of which has already been reverted and the other which was done w/o consensus? I ask because the reasoning behind your various article redirects performed over the past year (close to 80 of them) are rarely — if ever — expounded upon elsewhere. I believe it's these explanatory moves by you (or a lack thereof) which is bothersome, and that increasing the level of dialogue from you with your fellow co-editors on the changes you make would benefit us all.Spintendo^Talk 17:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

If you look at the poster for Sinister II, you will notice that it does NOT, say Sinister 2 but rather Sinister II. Back to the Future Part II isn't called Back to the Future Part 2 after all. I was just following what the poster said.

On Killer BOB, I wasn't aware of any consensus, it's just that any time I've seen BOB written in text on Twin Peaks, Fire Walk With Me or The Return, it's been in all caps rather than small. Even in that Diary of Laura Palmer book from a while back, BOB is never spelled with anything other than all caps. Are these explanations satisfactory?? Nurseline247 (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

While you're justifying yourself here, you manage to continue to edit war with Zucat at Diary of a Wimpy Kid (film series), doing the exact same thing that prompted scores of warnings. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 20:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• I can comment mainly on the recent edits by Nurseline at Spider-Man in film (and also Spider-Man: Homecoming). At DarthBotto listed and linked, many of the edits to that article added or changed more than they described in the edit summary. While I am not as concerned by this, I am with what these extra edits include. Much of the time it was very excessive and unnecessary table coding, as well as WP:OR material regarding actors and characters they are playing. Also, regarding behavior of material at Spider-Man: Homecoming (see this edit). Not only was this largely WP:OR, Nurseline attempted to source such claims with statements, not reliable sources. Nurseline was warned countless times regarding this behavior, and encourage to engage on talk pages (users or articles') but did not. These edits also alerted me to the user's behavior on other article that was very similar. I've sadly come to the conclusion that the edits by Nurseline are generally more disruptive than helpful and they ultimately may not be here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

It is my understanding that consistency sets the agenda with regards to a film's nomenclature. In the case of Back to the Future, the sequels have been consistently set in Roman numerals in everything from posters to DVD clamshell packaging. This has not been the case with Sinister 2, as seen in packaging used on Amazon or in their promotional materials in other languages. In the case of Killer Bob, it would appear that a consensus should have been sought for the change you made simply due to the longstanding nature of it being disputatious. That being said, when one looks at the pendulum of editor preference for either style over the last 12 years of the article's existence (as shown below) it could be argued that the time had come for the pendulum to swing to the other, all-capitalized style. — Spintendo^Talk 04:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

1. Killer BOB.....2005-2008
2. Killer Bob......2008-2012
3. Killer BOB.....2012-2016
4. Killer Bob......2016-2017
5. Killer BOB.....2017-????

Now you're back at re-implementing the contents you added to List of fictional shared universes in film and television that were previously deleted? Do you have no respect for what people have been advising you about for months? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 01:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Could @Nurseline247 please confirm whether or not they are editing under the username Impending IP? These two usernames share similar edits on similar subjects, even sharing the same idiosyncrasy of marking all edits as minor. Please clarify. — Spintendo^Talk 02:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The same goes for 86.46.205.88. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 03:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't mark ALL my edits as minor; at least I don't intend to. I have full respect for what people have been advising me about, thank you very much! I hadn't looked at the page List of fictional shared universes in film and television; and I saw what you were talking about in regards to certain things not being "shared universes". However, I noticed that several genuine shared universes were deleted from my initial edit, so I re-added them in a considerably neater way. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Now, A shared universe is created when two or more characters come together into one film.

• Casper does exactly this; not only does it feature Ray Stantz alongside the title character, it features Father Guido Sarducci!
• Universal Monsters was connected by more than just "Dracula, Frankenstein and The Wolf Man"; as I put, it also connected Abbott and Costello and both Invisible Men.
• Annabelle, as of 2017, appears in 3 of the four films within the The Conjuring Universe; Ed and Lorraine Warren appear in 2.
• Hercules and the Arabian Night connects Aladdin and Hercules in the same way that Freddy vs. Jason connects Friday the 13th & A Nightmare on Elm Street. It features the characters Aladdin and Hercules and their respective supporting characters.
• Alex Kurtzman (director of The Mummy) confirmed that The Mummy (2017) was set in the same continuity as Stephen Sommers' The Mummy trilogy and its spin-offs, stating the films to be “part of the canon; we're just taking it somewhere new”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nurseline247 (talk • contribs) 03:29, August 9, 2017 (UTC)

Now, A shared sockpuppet is created when two or more usernames come together under one editor who makes edits in their names.

I'll take your sidestep of my question (WP:IDHT) as confirmation that you're also editing under the username Impending IP. Of course, using multiple accounts is your own prerogative (WP:VALIDALT). The expectation is on you to clearly delineate on your various talk-pages that the other accounts exist, using the Alternative account template or other such notification, in order to ensure WP:SCRUTINY. Since you're experienced at page redirects, may I suggest that redirecting one of your account's talk pages to the other one would sufficiently act as notification to other editors.

However, I'm afraid that restrictions on crossover editing of articles and topics might prove too cumbersome for you — if not downright impossible — given this edit in particular. Now that you've been informed of the expectations, I would note for future reference that any innocuous intentions expressed by you regarding crossover editing won't suffice as an excuse, and without any kind of alternative account notifications would likely be viewed unfavorably. — Spintendo^Talk 21:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I've identified another account being used by Nurseline247 — TotalTruthTeller24. Here are range contribution logs for all three accounts. Again, the minor edit idiosyncrasy is key to identification. Similar to the previous two accounts Nurseline247 and Impending IP, TotalTruthTeller24's talk page is also heavily edited to remove what appears to be a continuous stream of complaints — much more so than the other two accounts. I've left AN/I notices on the two additional talk pages identified thus far. — Spintendo^Talk 11:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

In light of this, I will create an SPI case file for these users. I will link back to this discussion. @Spintendo:, once this has been created, since you identified the socks, you should add specific diffs, if you can, between the three accounts to support this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

SPI has been created here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

References

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

Rangeblock question

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:172.58.136.31 was just blocked for 2 days, after 30 attempts to add the same vandalism to various articles, whatever they were adding was bad enough that it was revdel'ed, then the IP began making unblock requests containing pornographic images, leading to the revocation of talk page access. I asked the blocking admin why the block was so short, the admin responded that it was a dynamic IP who is a known IP-hopping porn adder. The admin said blocking the whole range would also block innocent IPs, so the best he could do was a short block but the IP would probably be back to adding porn when his IP changes. So what is the policy on rangeblocks? if this isn't the time for a rangeblock then what is? Tornado chaser (talk) 00:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• The collateral damage is far too big. For example, from the 172.58.X.X range this month alone, there have been over 500 edits from around 100 different IP addresses, most of which weren't our vandal friend - who also edits from other parts of this network as well (it's 172.32.0.0/11, a huge range of over 2 million IPs; it's T-Mobile USA, I suspect their entire network). Some smaller targeted rangeblocks may have some effect, but they're not going to stop him, and anything will affect a number of innocent users. Black Kite (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense, closing. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:45, 14 August 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.

possible sock at Xenios Thrasyvoulou

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

---

An IP (31.6.8.158) has now twice removed a speedy deletion tag at Xenios Thrasyvoulou, this IP has not made any other edits and I suspect them to be a sock of User:Xenios55 (the creator of Xenios Thrasyvoulou who is continuing to edit the page). Tornado chaser (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The page has been deleted by Alex Shih. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

looks delt with, the page has been deleted and I have explained to the user what was a violation of policy. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:09, 14 August 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?

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.

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

There may be reason to hide some revisions for this user.

Regards.

HandsomeFella (talk) 13:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I suggest requesting action from somelist listed at Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests, HandsomeFella. Please see WP:REVDEL. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Already handled by Zzuuzz it seems. Alex Shih^Talk 14:00, 14 August 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.

BLP violation

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

---

Could someone please revdel this revision. Serious unsourced BLP violation. Home Lander (talk) 15:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Also these two others. Home Lander (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done - thanks User:Malcolmxl5. Home Lander (talk) 15:58, 14 August 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:IDHT behavior from Light show

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.

---

Light show (talk · contribs · count) is notorious for making disruptive edits on biographies as noted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive289#Disruptive editing by User: Light show (see that thread for extended details). His most recent campaign is beating a dead horse on Talk:Charlie Chaplin where his points were already proven to be flawed via an RFC. He very obviously doesn't care about the valid counter-points raised and continues to insist his faulty edits are somehow worth keeping, and went so far to start another RFC. TrueHeartSusie3 and We hope have noted he should at least be topic banned from biographies given his past history, and possibly banned from Wikipedia altogether. Within the thread I linked above, a biography topic ban was previously proposed, but never got official closure. It's time to bring the matter up again and get this fully resolved. In short, I also support him being banned from biographical articles for his long-term WP:IDHT actions, and if problems go even further than they already have onto other subjects, then perhaps a full ban altogether. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support The problem has gone on for a long time at Chaplin and also at Marilyn Monroe as can be seen in the thread mentioned above. There were similar issues at Peter Sellers and Stanley Kubrick which resulted in topic bans from these articles. The editor is also topic banned from uploading any images here at en:WP. How much longer do the editors of the Chaplin article need to put up with his complaints re: IDONTLIKEIT and his starting RfCs as an attempt to force content to reflect his views? We hope (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support, per SNUGGUMS and We hope. A second RfC on the same topic so soon after the previous one is par for the course for this particular editor, I am afraid to say. If there is no topic ban, I suspect it would not be long until another 'variation on a theme' thread is started if this RfC fails (as it should do). - SchroCat (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• Dennis, you commented in the previous ANI thread. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support a ban from Chaplin...It's not something I like to see happen and it's not something I feel good about, but he really has been relentlessly negative and difficult with the article. It's been going on for four years now. There have been numerous times when we've tried to explain and/or compromise but he continues pushing the same issues, even though the article was thoroughly researched and went through three extensive review processes. It's started to feel like trolling. --Loeba (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support Per the dob fiasco at Lee Grant (see Talk:Lee Grant#Precise age?). That discussion went beyond satire. It was fairly straightforward and should have been resolved within an evening but instead went on for over two years and 100kB of discussion. The discussion ended up being three times as big as the article. Betty Logan (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support a ban from all biographies - a look at any of the talk pages above will quickly show what a timesink this editor has been over a long period. The Kubrick ANI, linked above, shows that this is a continuing issue - it was closed by Callannec with "Light show is warned that if they continue this disruptive behaviour the ban may be extended or they may be blocked or banned indefinitely". It is time for this to end; it is completely unfair to other editors on these articles to continue to have to put up with this disruption. I will say that this would be really unfortunate, because LS also does some great, uncontentious work on biographies, but I think two BIO topic bans (plus the image one) is probably enough. Black Kite (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support per SNUGGUMS. The last ANI discussion turned into quite the cluster, and we don't need a repeat of that. It's obvious that Light Snow still does not get it, and the amount of disruption that their actions are presenting to the community has become a detriment. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support then as now, for the reasons I stated then. I've been busy, I'm shocked it didn't get implemented at the other ANI. I still feel there is an indef on the way, but a topic ban is a way to prove me wrong if they can get along in other areas. Ban wording should included all biographical edits in addition to biographical articles. I would assume that is what everyone is thinking (ie: broadly construed). Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• Supportper Black Kite and Rick and Dennis. (That's a trifecta I don't think I've ever invoked...) Ealdgyth - Talk 18:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support this has gone on too long and in too many places. WP:IDHT has been the response. MarnetteD|Talk 19:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support Ban from all biographies and biographical edits broadly construed. (EG no editing about subjects of biographies on other articles that may mention them etc) Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Dennis Brown, MarnetteD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Snuggums and everyone else who recognizes this is a long-term, seemingly never-ending issue. -- ψλ ● ✉ 01:18, 15 August 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.

Strangely compromised page

Hi there,

On the page for North Korea, there appears to be some compromise that's only affecting the current version. There's an image element on the page which is 7000x7000, linking to the user "lrhlive" on Twitch. Here's the HTML in question:

<div style="position:fixed;left:0;top:0;"><a href="https://www.twitch.tv/lrhlive" rel="nofollow"><img alt="Arimaa-border.png" src="//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Arimaa-border.png" width="7000" height="7000" data-file-width="18" data-file-height="18"></a></div>

I've saved the source of the page, in case you guys can't see the problem on your end. I can only see the problem in the rendered HTML; there doesn't appear to be any injected scripts causing the issue, and it's not visible in the wiki source code.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_Korea&type=revision&diff=794953630&oldid=794895481

Yonisyuumei (talk) 03:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Someone reverted however I should point out that this edit was done way before 13 July and yet seemingly it was never noticed ? ... saying that it took 3-4 page refreshes for the link to actually work but seems bizarre no one noticed a thing for nearly a whole month ? –Davey2010^Talk 03:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Same thing's happened at Japan. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

There has been an editor making a spree of changes adding that sort of thing. Anyone wanna check the other pages? --Tarage (talk) 04:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The only editor I could find whose edits were causing those changes was GodenDaeg, but I can't see how (the edits are just adding IPA for country names), I see other edits of his that don't have that effect, and he's got over a year of apparently good faith edits. As such, I don't see it being GodenDaeg, even though reverting that edit happened to undo the problem. Another user has asked him to check for malware. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I saw that was the edit causing the problem as well (it was the latest revision at the time), but the rendered HTML included the image element and link. Could be something more sinister going on. Yonisyuumei (talk) 04:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The change causing the problem wasn't to that article, but one that gets pulled in. Here's a hint, anything more is just WP:BEANS. Ravensfire (talk) 04:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I think I see what happened. Thanks for the swift resolution. Yonisyuumei (talk) 04:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Gah, that's sneaky. Apologies to GodenDaeg who was only doing proper edits. --Tarage (talk) 04:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Just to note, the edit that caused this problem was done recently - WP:BEANS and all that, but a common approach. May make sense for a filter to look at edits to a certain namespace where an image is added with an unusual size. Ravensfire (talk) 04:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem seems to have vanished as mysteriously as it arrived. Definitely nothing to do with anything that GodenDaeg did, that was just coincidence. Likewise Ravensfire's hypothesis that it was linked to the North Korea article is also not the case, as country sites not linked in any way were affected, including Italy and countries listed below. Reverting specific edits fixed the problem, with the archived pages having the problem, but now the archived pages are fixed as well. I suspect a back end problem unrelated to any edits that anyone is doing, but that the problem became actualised with edits to a page. It looks like Wikipedia has fixed the problem for now. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 05:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

It's a known vector for vandalism that's happened before, there's nothing mysterious about what happened or anything wrong in the MediaWiki code. It was reverted and rev-del'd, but the hints I posted above should give folks a hint about what happened. Anything more is WP:BEANS as I've already said. Ravensfire (talk) 05:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Ravensfire, I take it that you know a lot more about this than you are letting on? Jameel the Saluki (talk) 05:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not a real big secret. Template vandalism. See my comment below. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 05:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Thankyou for clearing that up. I will know what to do in future. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 06:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Ravensfire Security through obscurity is no security at all. It's not going to stop a determined malicious user and it's just confusing for the rest of us. For anyone else reading this: someone edited a common template to add malicious HTML code that would cover affected pages with a transparent linked image. If this can be done for one template it can be done for another. Now that we know this vulnerability exists, how do we prevent it from being exploited again in future? 2601:644:0:DBD0:F0BF:80DE:142:9ECF (talk) 06:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The obvious solution would be to fully protect all templates that are so widely used. And I thought that was already done! Twitbookspacetube 07:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree that "Security through obscurity is no security at all". On the other hand, I was forced, through circumstance, to leave a front door key in an undisclosed location for someone who needed access recently. I should, and will, find a better way to deal with that. In the meantime, while the key was still there, should a friend have known where I concealed it, I'd still have preferred they didn't just twitter said location. I'm funny like that. -- Begoon 11:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@IP, I completely agree about obscurity is not security, but that's not what's happening here. Security would be using Begoon's solution. I was trying not to "wave the red flag in front of the bull". Someone with half a brain already knows what to do here, but the casual vandal probably doesn't. So I'd prefer not to give every bored person reading Wikipedia detail instructions. As I said, this isn't new, and has been done quite a few times on far, far more visible pages (think main page). Ravensfire (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I saw this vandalism several hours ago and created a Twitch account to inform the streamer through twitch chat. Interestingly, while the viewers and moderator seemed thankful for the fix, claiming that they were framed, the streamer claimed that he hated Wikipedia and said that he would like to "fight every Wikipedia administrator in a ring". I have reported the streamer on twitch, though I doubt it will do anything. Since there are still readers encountering the vandalism, perhaps purging all pages that transclude the template will help, but I don't have the technical knowledge to do so nor ascertain whether such an action will help or not. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 12:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Edits to various nations redirecting to twitch.tv account.

Copy/pasted from an Admin Help template I wrote up a minute ago:

First of all, I'm totally new to the Wikipedia editing business, so please forgive any errors I've made in etiquette or judgement. I recently discovered that the Wikipedia pages for Afghanistan, Algeria, Belgium, Belize, Brazil, Chad, China, Columbia, Costa Rica, Gambia, Germany, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Korea, Nepal, and Norway have been vandalized in a bizarre manner. Somebody has put a blank png image that redirects to a twitch.tv account on each of these pages. The image may be present on other non-nation wikipedia pages, I only the pages in the Wikipedia List of sovereign states. These changes do NOT seem to be the work of a wikipedia editor, it seems to me that somebody has actually edited the code of the website without using an account. Here is a screenshot of the html code I found on the wikipedia page for India: https://i.imgur.com/FqJFs5O.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graxwell (talk • contribs) 04:57, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Just to note (this isn't made entirely clear in the thread above) that there was some vandalism to a template earlier, which has since been fixed. It may take a little time for cached versions to flush out of the internet - you might want to refresh your cache. Editors noticing such things in the future might want to check for recent changes using this link. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 05:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: Would it be a good idea to add "https://www.twitch.tv/lrhlive" to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist? I've got no knowledge of Regex. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why not. The chances are that we won't see it again, but I don't see why not. Allow me. And if there's any advanced edit filter managers around, we could do with some extra problem solving abilities (all relevant information is obvious). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

We should report the vandalism to Twitch, maybe they can ban the user. 2601:644:0:DBD0:F0BF:80DE:142:9ECF (talk) 06:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me for being cynical but one thing you learn as a Wikipedia admin is that bans are rarely fully effective (QED). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

And they haven't actually done anything wrong in Twitch's eyes. Just advertising their stream. On Wikipedia though... Whole different story. Anyway. The page has been fixed, the edits have been revdel'd and the stream has been blacklisted. Time for a close? Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

A close? Well, ok, but only if you think we should leave this HOWTO unfinished, without an actual, detailed and itemised, bullet-pointed, step by step walkthrough on one of our most visible pages.-- Begoon 10:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Problems still persist at Korea. Jarkeld (talk) 10:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem has been fixed. Try purging your cache by pressing Ctrl+F5. The vandalism was made to (Redacted) and reverted at 3:50 12 August 2017 (UTC).―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Good faith withstanding

RudolfRedNose has been making contentious edits on an article page of a BLP [29]; and has a history of multiple accounts at WP: [30]. Recently, they have removed a COI tag on said article with no edit summary or Talk Page reason. I have invited other IP / editors to the Talk Page, but without success. There are multiple IP addresses with COI at present; and I feel that in addition to blocking; there may need to be a protection placed on this page until matters are resolved involving the disputed content. Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll comment on this at WP:BLP/N. Whatever the material at issue is, it should not be included in the article until that discussion is done. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

• I've semi-protected for a week to protect the article from BLP violations and edit warring from IPs and new accounts but dearie me, there's barely a reliable source in that article and that is going to have be sorted out. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

CanterburyUK's conduct regarding Political positions of Jeremy Corbyn and Jeremy Corbyn

The issue mainly consists of contentious coatrack content User:CanterburyUK is adding on Political positions of Jeremy Corbyn#Syria.

This IP edits were twice reverted here and here.

The user twice restored it against WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BURDEN whilst a talk page discussion was ongoing here and here. Multiple editors (User:Dtellett, User:Seagull123, User:Govindaharihari, User:The Four Deuces) have disagreed with the content stating reasons regarding the nature of the content, its sources, or both.

He/she removed tags which were added to help resolve the issues and restored the claim that the quote supports that Corbyn "defended fighters returning from Syria" here.

Regarding his/her conduct, the user made a WP:NPA accusation of hypocrisy against me here. I made him/her aware of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and that this isn't a WP:BATTLEGROUND here, he/she again made the same claim here albiet although wording it as "people might view this as hypocritical" to cover himself/herself here.

The editor is not a new user, has been editing for nine years although, strangely, he/she barely has 250 edits to his/her name. I appreciate he/she may not be fully aware of all the rules and guidelines, however, he/she has been editing long enough to learn. It would appear that he/she has an WP:NOTHERE agenda to not build an encyclopedia but to add as much negative information about Jeremy Corbyn on Wikipedia against the community consensus formed on talk pages and with an WP:IDHT approach with other editors. Tanbircdq (talk) 12:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

• I agree that the section you highlighted failed WP:SYNTH and have redacted it from the article under WP:BLP. Other than that, I'm afraid you will have to argue it out in the talk page. --John (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The consensus appears to have been formed with numerous, experienced editors (some of whom are involved in editing the article) providing detailed, insightful reasoning why the content isn't appropriate for the article. However, I believe the editor has editwared his/her preferred version of the article by restoring the problematic, WP:UNDUE and WP:POV content into the article as well as libellous bias and misrepresentation of sources.

Also, his insults were unbecoming of a talk page discussion let alone Wikpedia, I believe this needs addressing too. Tanbircdq (talk) 11:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

117.247.155.234 changing articles to British English and date formats in contravention to MOS:ENGVAR and MOS:DATERET

Assistance is requested with 117.247.155.234 (talk · contribs) who is changing date formats in contravention to MOS:DATERET. I tried to engage at User talk:117.247.155.234#Varieties of English and date formats, but the problem is worse now. Recent examples can be found at "Shuld not force US system onto a Russian article", "Unwantes US imperialism" and "This format is only used in the USA so inappropriate for this article". Quale (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC) I should note that many editors have difficulty understanding that MOS:TIES applies only to subjects with strong national ties to an English-language country. Russian and Danish subjects would not normally fall under this. For example, most Russian and Armenian persons would write dates in Cyrillic, which doesn't control English wikipedia usage. Quale (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The IP has not edited (17:13) since your warning to 'stop' (17:37) so perhaps he has got the message. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Legal threat about a BLP

Hi administrators. MiInReAs has just made a legal threat towards me, for removing material from a BLP article, James Ibold, which our discussion had determined came from personal notes on the subject rather than published sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Blocked by Alex Shih. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. I have courtesy blanked the legal threat and blocked the user while leaving a note to ask for clarification on the intention ([31]). Alex Shih^Talk 14:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Alex Shih. I suspect that the user has an undisclosed COI, because I don't see how someone who doesn't know the subject personally would have access to some of the information and images they have posted. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Someone want to revdel that Lawyer's address? Its probably his business, but no need to have a real person's info stuck in our history. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Got it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Cristo39 and WP:NOTFORUM

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.

---

Cristo39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm not even sure this belongs here since it's not that big of a deal, but Cristo39 made this comment on Talk:White pride, which I reverted since it was not aimed at improving the article (per WP:NOTFORUM). I made my issues known in the edit summaries and also a notice to the user. I don't feel like dealing with an edit war, so can someone intervene since it appears this user is not here to help. Thanks. nihlus kryik (talk) 07:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Just noting that Cristo hadn't edited for about 6 years, then comes back only to push his view on a talk page in an area they hadn't edited before. Doug Weller talk 08:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Doug beat me to it EvergreenFir (talk) 08:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

"Push his view". Look at all the requests for edits. There's a picture making the rounds on social media making Wikipedia a laughingstock for unbalanced views. Since you all seem to be admins and spend your lives on here, you guys are probably more fit to realize there's a bit of a problem. Chop chop, get to work. Cristo39 (talk) 08:22, 15 August 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 that editors persisting in personalizing edit difference be warned to desist

I came back from a 1 month block undertaking to hew strictly to the letter of the WP:AGF law. At 2000 Ramallah lynching, the following style of insinuating views about my motives from edit to edit started.

• like how certain people who complain often about tag teaming seem to think it's ok for them to do here, NMMGG’s first edit. I.e. Huldra and I are tag-teaming.
• Nishidani practices lawfare in editing François Robere
• Nishidani seems to have no idea how Wikipedia should work François Robere
• Nishidani seems to have no idea (about) the subject matter François Robere
• I've challenged him (Nishidani) on both, and got only a handful of snarky comments François Robere.
• Your being ignorant of a subject doesn't make it obscure. No More Mr Nice Guy.
• NMMGG then took me to AE, fully aware I had reverted an editor who had broken 1R, and who had refused to self-revert. I did not care to make this an AE matter. Notwithstanding this he argued that I was guilty of breaking the spirit of the IR rule, though I had observed it strictly. The case was dismissed, with the closing admin protecting the page for 3 days and stating:’ If disruption continues once protection express, please let me know or bring it back here.’

I regard the following style of comment, following that closure, as disruptive. Robere has generally taken the advice there on board. NMMGG persist in, as far as I can see it, trying to niggle away by baiting his comments with sneers that personalize differences in reading the evidence. Every comment I make on policy or evidence is glossed as suspect because of some putative ulterior motive.

• Oh, and stop being a hypocrite. You're perfectly at ease "complicating analysis of source work" when it serves your purpose. François Robere.
• Nishidani is trying to use semantics to block a legitimate edit here No More Mr Nice Guy.
• my request he desist met with a quip regarding advice I gave to another edit to not repeat an error of writing too much, namely
• Was that an attempt a humor or just a complete lack of self-reflection? Serious question. No More Mr Nice Guy
• I also support FR's version. I also find the phrase "canvasing on this page" very funny. There has been consensus building. Just not the consensus you want. No More Mr Nice Guy. Why I am singled out, is unclear. There is no consensus between the disagreeing editors, only among one party of editors agreeing among themselves, which is not 'consensus building'.
• I agree with everything Icewhiz said about sources above, and have seen Nishidani make the exact same argument when it suited him. No More Mr Nice Guy (Unlike all other editors my arguments are not focused on the topic and evidence, but on some desire to have the evidence suit my personal feelings/beliefs
• I replied:'Another AGF violation. I don't make edits which 'suit me' (sneering at bona fides) I strive to make edits that 'suit' the complexity of the sources. Please focus on this, not the editor. I know you dislike me, but you don't have to rephrase this contempt in every other comment.
• NMMGG replies by trawling up two diffs from 2 years ago to question my editorial bona fides forever after that dispute. Trying to stir an argument by dragging up old diffs when we have complex edits to make is, again, disruptive.
• I ask him again to desist, and focus on the edits we are discussing.
• NMMGG won’t listen, states I raised the ‘topic’ (what topic?), and assures me he will keep doing what I asked him to drop doing, commenting personally.
• As usual, all you had to do is not bring it up. I will continue to feel quite free to respond to any topic you bring into the conversation.

p.s. as the page protection lapses, an editor about to edit states:

• Regardless, I'll try to push this between reverts. I doubt Nishidani will accept it, as it's 'not grammastical' and not supported by sources

Tone might be piddling, that's why I've brought this here, but the tenor of this hostility and insistent distraction from the technical issues (I brought in 15 sources, and their evidence was met with silence, as this ribbing kept up) to guess what my motives are, or intentions are, is self-evident. I don't mind being sanctioned for not observing protocols to the letter: but that is no reason for other editors to persist in badgering me, for one, to see if they can stoke up a reaction. It's very easy to just discuss evidence and policy, and when an experienced editor keeps sneering despite repeated requests that he drop it, the implication is that he does it to a purpose that has little to do with the merits of any article issue. I ask he be given a last warning. It's not a luxury he alone may indulge himself in while the other editors are muzzled by a strict commitment to AGF.Nishidani (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Based on the talk page, I feel Nishidani should be included in any warnings. Power~enwiki (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

This complaint is obviously without merit. If any uninvolved editor has any questions for me, please ping me. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually it is a complaint based on policy, one that at AE and here is regarded as crucial in a topic area where conflict is commonplace.

My complaint regards the specific policies at

Wikipedia:No personal attacks The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or one who has been blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned, as it is to attack any other user. Wikipedia encourages a civil community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia.

For one, dragging up diffs from 2015 to undercut my credibility in 2017 is to reintroduce off-topic an issue from the past, rather than address the issue I was trying to explain (to a third party, not to NMMGG). Kibitzing in this personal mode is disruptive, because it draws the focus off the problem, and makes out the editor is problematical (and therefore not to be taken seriously by the third party). Reread the flow, this is what was going on.

And at WP:AVOIDYOU You are consistently referring to me, with a dismissive tone of malice, in the second person, rather than focusing on the technical merits of the problems raised. I’d brought 20 sources to the page, mostly ignored while NMMGG kept talking about me. Nishidani (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

You keep bringing stuff up, and I respond to that. You brought up your bona fides, I noted those include falsifying sources on the article we were discussing. You said something about me disliking you, I noted that on the very same talk page, you made fun of two people who were lynched and mutilated and then called another editor and me racist. There's a lesson here that you for some reason refuse to learn. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't 'bring stuff up'. I add, invariably, numerous RS to every page I edit. I didn't bring up my bona fides. You challenged it by linking to a discussion in 2015, repeating the bizarre assertion here that I mocked the slaughtered and called two people racists. I would have been banned had that been, not your contention, but a verifiable fact. You brought up your contention about my assumed contempt for the dead in 2015, I didn't. We are editing in 2017, not dwelling on the past, and policy explicitly tells us to deal with present content issues, rather than nag the bone of the pastNishidani (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Nishidani's very first interaction with me was a needless reversion; the second was a 1RR violation notice. He then proceeded to revert every single edit I made on that page in the coming week, and engaged in rather tedious and lengthy discussions on eg. the semantic differences between "erred", "took the wrong turn" and "accidentally" - neither of which he was willing to accept. He has, while doing so, peppered his comments with policy references (NPOV, OR, 1RR...) and little lessons for other, not the least inexperienced editors, which he himself would disregard when given a chance. Were it not for other editors such as No More Mr Nice Guy and Kingsindian, a lesser editor than this humble Wikipedian might have been pining for the fjords by now. On these grounds I stand behind each and every one of my comments; do with it as you please. François Robere (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Robere. This was discussed at AE, and there is no need to rehash it here. I have no issue with you. I cited your comments before the AE case, and noted they rapidly dwindled after that case was closed. The last one is an understandable lapse. NMMGG's persistence in sneering is not a lapse, but continual and defiant of all requests that he desist.Nishidani (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

:::: Before this request came along, I had been thinking of having a word with NMMNG myself, as I have indeed had in the past. If Nishidani thinks that the issue is really with NMMNG (I agree) and not Francois Robere, I suggest that this ANI request be withdrawn: I will talk it over with Nishidani and open an AE request focusing on NMMNG myself if Nishidani still feels like it after our discussion. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 19:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Here is the discussion KI had with me on my talk page, for ease of reference. Interestingly, it too involves a certain someone falsifying sources and pushing a POV. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I brought it here to avoid AE. I'm not out to get anyone. It's not hard to write impersonally: I have adopted this, after two sanctions, and I think it fair that NMMGG be told with some severity that he must focus on productive discussions on the merits of edits, rather than adopting a sneering tone, with remarks that have nothing to do with the issues at hand.Nishidani (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Here are a couple of examples from the past couple of days of you "writing impersonally": [32] (compare with your complaint above that I said you're trying to block a legitimate edit) and [33]. Although I suppose it's an improvement over, say, this followed by this, just as an example off the top of my head. By the way, I wonder how you manage to get the acronym of my handle wrong so often? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks to me like it's just you two talking to each other. Nothing going to come of this, at least nothing good. It might be best if you two simply ignore each other. It's not a perfect solution, but might work to keep the peace, while not much of value will be lost; since there are other people on the talkpage who you can respond to. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

That's the best possible advice I can imagine under these conditions, Kingsindian, but even with long experience of having seen that particular piece of advice being handed out (often in this particular space), I have scarcely ever seen it recognized by the involved parties as their best solution. As to my impression of the specific issues, a review of that talk page suggests both editors are approaching this conflict less than ideally. I'm sure everyone is already aware, but since it hasn't been mentioned in any active discussions on that talk page (and given the heat there), I feel everyone should be reminded that this area falls under WP:Discretionary sanctions. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Please note however that NMMGG brings up again evidence from my preban remarks - he's dragging up the past, and the one remark that is not impersonal dating to the period after my ban has nothing to do with him. It's inappropriate by my own criteria, which I adopted because that was the advice at AE twice this year. I've undertaken since my ban to refrain from what comes naturally, quipping sardonically, and have not done so in NMMGG's regard: he persists. Judgement begins when one, regardless of all else, discriminates to see if differences exist. To waive away a state of evident conflict by saying, 'well, you're all the same' is to suspend judgement and therefore refuse to offer concrete advice to either or both parties. I don't mind being counseled. I do think it unhelpful that no advice is given. As to approaching a topic less than ideally, bringing 15 sources to the page to have them analysed, offering to summarize all of the contradictions in the evidence to allow the other editors to tweak or adjust (i.e. 'work) and sniping or sneering by editors who don't appear to look at the new evidence, cannot be collapsed as both equally acting in a 'less than ideal' manner. That is meaningless. I've tried to turn over a new leaf, and the other chap appears to be raking over mulch. All I request is that he be told to drop the overt hostility. I can live with hostility between the lines, but policy says you shouldn't adopt it openly as the default mode with other editors. In short I'm quite happy to live under any rigid AGF protocol, but I wish this to be seen to apply to all parties, and, here, specifically to NMMGG. Since my past weighs heavily here, one should note he once stated that AGF is not a suicide pact. But lack of good manners has never been interpreted as an exigency for survival, at least on Wikipedia. Nishidani (talk) 07:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

As a third party, I am perplexed at how long Nishidani and No More Mr Nice Guy have gone at one another over a period of years without an interaction and/or topic ban. Both users have been blocked recently for violating the 1RR of WP:ARBIPA. François Robere and Nishidani both violated the If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours remedy on 2000 Ramallah lynching [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]. GoldenRing handled the most recent AE, but it appears their hope for getting along didn't last. I could see recommending dispute resolution, but I fully believe that would wasted at this stage. Someone with more experience is needed to handle this, but I just wanted to make sure other readers are aware of the recent events. nihlus kryik (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the work you put into this, which shows scruple for evidence. However several things are wrong there. I did not break 1R. Robere did, and NMMGG tried to get me sanctioned at AE for what he tolerated in Robere's editing, when it did not apply to my edits.

Whoever looks at this should examine matters chronologically, starting from the premise of my complaint. I was sanctioned, and undertook to drop any tone that could be construed as lacking WP:AGF, i.e., to use impersonal language. I have done so since, save for a lapse, not with regard to NMMGG. At AE this year, not only regarding myself but several others, I/P editors were warned that Discretionary Sanctions were in place, that no breach of them would be tolerated, and that these articles would be carefully followed to see that this stringent ruling was adhered to. I can't see any evidence of administrative oversight since my return: I see evidence, mustered above, of personalizing issues. Now, not to make a call on the evidence at that talk page since 9 August, is to leave ambiguity in the air. It is not a matter of sanctions: it is a matter of laying down the law in a way that applies to all editors, not just myself. It is unfair for me to work under that strict reading, while other editors feel free to snipe. I have been asked to keep my remarks impersonal, and I have since the recent AE block expired. I don't see this assiduous attention to my verbal lapses in the past being applied to everyone on these pages. It's humiliating to have to bring this piddling issue up, but I just want NMMGG and whoever else to work under the same stylistic conditions I am (happily) obliged to work under. The past is dead and buried, at least for me, and dragging it up disorients judgement. NMMGG's 'evidence' even here, all predates my sanction: he won't drop it, and I am simply asking that he be reminded that the explicit policy I cited applies also to him. It's not 'taking sides'. It is establishing parity and neutrality. If it does (which at the moment it doesn't seem to), then this board will be saying,'NMMGG's personalization of the issues' is within some limit, and he may persist in adopting the tone he has decided to use over the last few days' (the tone he has always used, and which, in the past I used as well). Parity in working conditions is all I am asking for, nothing else. Nishidani (talk) 10:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours is a remedy beyond 1RR. When François Robere reverted you, you reverted him within hours. By doing so, you were in active violation of the Arbitration remedy. nihlus kryik (talk) 10:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

You disagree with arbitrators. I've read your remark. There is no need to repeat it.Nishidani (talk) 12:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Its clearly that Nishidani gamed 1RR and reverted just few hours after the limit he also broke ARBCOM restriction when he reverted François like Nihlus Kryik pointed out.François didn'ht broke 1RR as its not clear to what version he reverted too and by my reading his first edit was just an edit and not revert.--Shrike (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me. I ask for attentive independent admins who understand policy, and have wide experience, to discuss evidence. I am not interested in opinions, distractions, misreadings, nor is, I hope, anyone else.Nishidani (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Anyone is able to comment here. Just because you don't like what I or others are saying does not mean you should be dismissive. WP:BOOMERANG. I'd call on the admins to summarily enforce the Arbitration remedy (as written) that has been violated as it is clear Nishidani refuses to see any error on his part. nihlus kryik (talk) 12:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I'ver ratched up around 57,00 edits over 11 years, created roughly 270 articles, and make content edits, introducing in the main what the best available academic opinion has to say about any topic. I don't sit on articles, revert, quip, tweak. I (re)write them with a view to encyclopedic comprehensiveness. Anyone can edit. Anyone can have an opinion. I think it helps if editors actually show a willingness to work hard, and constructively, otherwise this place becomes a pastime, a game. I know the rules, and obey them. I specialize in people who are on the receiving end of colonial development, and expect that the same principles apply to the I/P area that apply elsewhere, where I am very rarely reverted or attacked. It's a tedious burden but I will not renounce my right to apply there the standards I used everywhere, Australians do not get upset when I write up their history of dispossession: it's known, recognized and accepted as a fact. In the I/P area you have to work for days to get an obvious fact in. It's that simple. I don't see why that area should have taboo status, and lead admins to despair. I'm asked to hew to rigorous standards of AGF. Fine. Apply exactly that principle to everyone. Nishidani (talk) 13:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Correct, which is why I pointed out the problematic behavior of other editors as well. However, your edit count means absolutely nothing to me; it does not negate the obvious edit war you took part in. nihlus kryik (talk) 13:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, since you do edit elsewhere, why don't you just avoid the caustic environment of Israeli-Palestinian articles altogether? It seems it would be in your best interest for multiple reasons. nihlus kryik (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

My best interests are not served by working for Wikipedia. I have to turn off 90% of ability to think, research and write in order to conform and contribute. In the real world, one has known peers to assess one's abilities. It's a happy pushover there.Nishidani (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Why is the AE case being relitigated here? I suggest that Nishidani stop defending themselves in a case where a ruling was already made. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree. If Nishidani wishes a discussion from only administrators, with no comments from lowly rank-and-file nobodies (who might contaminate the process with their torch-and-pitchfork-wielding ignorance) then they should file an appeal at AE, or otherwise shut the hell up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I didn't do that for several reasons: there's a lot of complaints at AE recently that look retaliatory, and NMMGG just had me there. I dislike giving the impression that this is an abuse of administrative time just to 'get back'. I don't want NMMGG 'punished'. Wordsmith and GoldenRing repeatedly said personalizing discussions at I/P would be hit by a hammer: I guess they don't read those pages, but wait till a complaint is filed. Second. I'll let out a big secret. I don't know how to formulate an AE request. I'm a complete fucking ignoramus regarding anything to do with anything but the simplest formatting. Anyway, I've better things to do.Nishidani (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

So go do them, and stop bitching. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Lucky man. I can't even get away with exclaiming remonstratively 'For fuck's sake' without it being used in an indictment.:)Nishidani (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

You could have alerted your volunteer meatpuppet [42][43]. He's the top non-admin contributor to AE. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Which illustrates my point. yourvolunteer meatpuppetNishidani (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

He explicitly told you that if you have a problem with other editors, you should tell him and he'll do the reporting (implying that you may lose your temper). How would suggest phrasing that information differently? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

As I say elsewhere, this request is likely to go nowhere. For the article itself, following full-protection (and its subsequent expiration), a draft which I had proposed has been accepted by all sides as a starting point, and further discussion on the disputed points is going on in the sections here and here. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Chelisuk - Competency Issues

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

I have had experience with this editor before. I noted they added a cite to British naval forces in the Falklands War claiming 400 Hong Kong Chinese served as crew for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary in the Falklands War. To anyone familiar with the conflict this is indeed a rather bold claim to make, there were a few HK chinese laundrymen but they didn't crew whole RFA. So I checked the citation and noted it was a history of the RFA from 1905 to 1950. The Falklands War was in 1982. So I removed the cite, Chelisuk immediately edit wars it back [44].

So I ask him how the cite supports his claim User talk:Chelisuk#August 2017, his response is very odd "People cite books all the time without having to justify it.". He links to a google books page, which only confirms what I thought [45] the cite doesn't support his edit. The page is referring to the inter-war period.

I don't understand if he genuinely believes that this edit is acceptable but there appears to be serious WP:COMPETENCE issues here if he does. WCM_email 18:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I included two references, a book, History of the RFA from 1905 to 1950, Amongst other things, the book states 'Round Table class ships, which were exclusively manned by Hong Kong Chinese ratings from their first introduction in 1963 until 1989, when Sir Lancelot paid off as the last RFA crewed by ratings of this nationality.' The period 1963 to 1989 includes the 1982 Falklands War. Here is the link:- https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=pR3OAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA69&lpg=PA69&dq=rfa+chinese+crew&source=bl&ots=nfUP1woscK&sig=GEJIC3nXDexqG74drwLF3FgCauA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwifrN6Qi_PUAhUMJ8AKHYOLAsMQ6AEIPTAG#v=onepage&q=rfa%20chinese%20crew&f=false

I should make clear that all six Round Table-class landing ship logistics ships including Sir Lancelot, took part in the Falklands War. I didn't make this clear to Wee Curry Monster, which may be the problem, but I don't understand why this user has ignored the clear statement in my second reference.

My second reference was http://www.scmp.com/article/596179/war-within This states that 'Most of the 400 Hongkongers working aboard RFA vessels in 1982 were dispatched on the 100 ships carrying 18,000 men to the South Atlantic.' I didn't say 400 went, I said 'up to 400'. In this case, I was trying to reword the original statement, and this may be clumsy wording but nothing false was intended.User:Chelisuk

• This appears to be a content dispute and not ripe for ANI (what use of the admin tools is being requested here???). Sort it out using the normal editing process and by following the steps at WP:Dispute resolution. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

No it wasn't a content dispute, I noted the cite he gave didn't include the material, asked him politely about it and got some very weird response. And even now, what he's doing is WP:SYN and WP:OR, he's taking a comment that RFA in the Far East were crewed by HK Chinese [46] and concluding that this must mean they were in the Falklands too. WCM_email 19:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

What are you asking admins to do here??? To block Chelisuk on the basis of an alleged dodgy edit, which has now been removed via the usual editing process[47]? Not going to happen. If Chelisuk wants to pursue that edit he can find consensus (or not) on the talk page. There's nothing here for ANI. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Visa policy of Qatar

Hi there. I have recently tried to fight off edits by an IP address 182.239.82.14 on the page Visa policy of Qatar where he made several unconstructive edits. I keep leaving him messages and invite him to discuss the issues, but he refused to answer and simply reverted my edits every time. I would not like to get into an edit war with him so now I am asking the administrators to step in. C-GAUN (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Semi-protected for a period of four days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Katie^talk 00:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Appreciate it. Meanwhile, I will try to get in touch with him to discuss this issue. C-GAUN (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Lamon Brewster is My hero

For the last two weeks, blocked user Lamon Brewster is My hero, who has some obsession with Lamon Brewster, keeps returning under 109.240xx IPs almost daily. Examples:

• 109.162.48.235
• 109.240.66.211
• 109.240.73.212
• 109.240.21.16
• 109.240.20.205
• 109.240.53.28
• 109.240.47.180

Could a rangeblock be applied? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

109.240.0.0/17 would take care of the 109.240.x.x edits (not the 109.162.x.x one) but there would be some collateral damage. I don't think there's an urgent need to protect the encyclopaedia to warrant that but I'd leave this open for second opinions. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with not urgent, but the scope of articles is gradually increasing every time they make such edits. It started with one article, but is now up to six—getting them all RPP'ed will be laborious. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, let's get some second opinions. :). We can keep a watching brief on that range in the meantime. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I looked earlier and I agree with Malcolm that the /17 isn't feasible right now. Is the vandal predictable enough for an edit filter to work? Katie^talk 20:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

They are. In every edit, they use the string "[is my] hero". Mac Dreamstate (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

A moved page from sandbox deleted all my edits from when I created the page.

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

---

I created a new live Wikipedia article at 16:07, 13 August 2017, the article being Diallang Jaiyesimi. However, just over 12 hours later at 16:34, 14 August 2017, another wikipedian has moved their basic sandbox to the live page, which erased all the data I had posted with 17 citations included. I have reverted this, am I in my right to do this, as the person who moved their basic sandbox is an actual administrator? I spent a full day literally researching, gathering information. I am the original creator of the page, who posted it live to Wikipedia. Thanks. --Nelly GTFC (talk) 23:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Nelly GTFC: I have notified GiantSnowman per protocol. From the article history, it appears GiantSnowman started his draft version on 10 August, deleted your mainspace article today so that he could move his version in, but then did a history merge so that your edits were restored to the history of the article. Your edits are still there in the history and can still be used. From a cursory glance, what transpired was not exactly how I would have done it in GS's place, since your version looked far more fully fleshed out, but that's more of a matter for hashing out on the article talk page now. --Finngall ^talk 00:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@Finngall: Thanks for the information, I appreciate it. What is the general consensus in regards to pages that have been created? Do sandbox creation dates overrule that of someone who has posted a live in depth article with as much data as can be possibly found? I just find it rather rude that anyone can just remove facts and references/citations just like that.--Nelly GTFC (talk) 01:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@Nelly GTFC: Anyone can remove info, edit info, or remove references as they see fit (making sure it aligns with Wikipedia policy) since no one owns the articles. Given that, I do find the actions of GiantSnowman to be... disruptive given the version you created was much more detailed. This shows the difference between your version right before the merge and the current version, so it appears that most of it has been fixed. nihlus kryik (talk) 01:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) After reviewing the situation at hand and what transpired (and more importantly: what didn't transpire), I'm a little taken aback that an admin would conduct themselves in such a manner. Where was the communication in any of this? I can't seem to find any on the OP's Talk Page, a request on the article's Talk Page itself, etc. WP:CIVIL alone would warrant courtesy in the form of communication. Editing, removing info / references are one thing; completely deleting an entire article that is far more in-depth and referenced to substitute your own article is bad form. When a page goes "live", if it is not in keeping with WP standards, it can be placed up for speedy deletion; or an AfD if a discussion / consensus needs to be taken into consideration. This doesn't seem the case. nihlus kryik could you please reference where in WP policy it says blanking an entire live page and substituting your own (regardless of who owns articles) is considered proper protocol? I find it difficult to believe that even if the admin had started an article a few days before the OP, it gives them the right to carry this action out. If anything they should have merged their content; or edited to better the current article now live. IMHO Maineartists (talk) 02:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

At no point did I say the actions of GiantSnowman were appropriate. My initial sentence was to point out the WP:OWN-ish type comment that Nelly had made. nihlus kryik (talk) 03:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@Nihlus Kryik: Sorry, yes I should of been more clearer. I was indeed referring to the actual blanking/removal of facts and citations/references for the whole article I had created.--Nelly GTFC (talk) 03:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Nelly GTFC It was clear; and so is the situation. No need for further explanation or apologies. Maineartists (talk) 04:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• @Nelly GTFC: Just to be clear, the "deletion" was strictly technical and Snowman should not be viewed as someone who's acting as an administrator, but as a fellow editor who has rewritten an article. I understand that you put work into an article only to have it replaced by a short stub, without explanation. You were completely within your rights to restore the content that was removed. However, just a thing to keep in mind, GiantSnowman was also within his rights to replace the content of an article in the first place. To do so without any explanation is not particularly helpful and significant unexplained removals are usually reverted. However, per WP:AGF, you should've assumed that he had a reason for doing so and initiated a discussion with him, at least to explain why you reverted him. I note that you still have not done that. @Nihlus Kryik: See WP:5P3, WP:BOLD and WP:BRD for "proper editing protocol". Swarm ♠ 05:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

That makes two people who failed to understand my comment (especially because Swarm restated exactly what I said about who has "permission" to edit. I fully understand this WP protocol which is why I said making sure it aligns with Wikipedia policy. I then stated his actions did not fully align with policy/protocol. Please stop misstating my words or implying something I am not. nihlus kryik (talk) 05:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@Nihlus Kryik: I'm so sorry. That was meant to be a reply to Maineartists, but for some reason I copy/pasted your username instead of theirs! My mistake; I actually think your input in this thread was helpful and accurate. Swarm ♠ 06:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@Swarm: Okay, ignore my whining then. lol nihlus kryik (talk) 06:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@Swarm: Thank you for the instructions and links to WP protocol for both myself and the OP in this situation. (Which I am more than familiar with ...) Might I ask: what steps you have taken in educating and reminding the admin in this situation of their editing practices via links to WP proper protocol? The weight of responsibility and assumption has greatly been placed on the OP; while the admin seems to remain non-existent to this discussion, OP Talk page (for their initial edit), or anywhere else for that matter. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 12:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Swarm, I know that you've closed this, but it looks as if admin intervention is still needed, as two pages with WP:Parallel histories have been injudiciously histmerged, and that needs to be sorted out, I believe (at the very least, GiantSnowman's "page creation" on 10 August should be removed from the history). I'm also curious to know under what valid criterion the original page was deleted. It was claimed as G6, but that is very clearly and specifically restricted to "uncontroversial maintenance", and deleting an article without warning or reason can hardly be considered uncontroversial. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I would certainly hope that no-one assumed bad fath and jumped to the conclusion that having created a (possibly worse, in some eyes) page later than another, and then almost immediately notched in up on their UP as their own, then used admin tools to delete the previous page and merge the histories to give what some might perceive as- shall we say- an incomplete story? Because that, of course, would cease to be a content dispute and become potentially a question regarding misuse of admin tools... — fortunavelut luna 14:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

(←) There seems to be some sort of confusion over the use of the admin tools here. Contrary to some of the above suggestions, this was a purely technical, temporary deletion, and nothing was lost from the previous version as the history was immediately restored. The resulting situation was literally no different than if GS had simply copied and pasted his draft over to the new article without explanation (although history merges are actually preferable to copy-paste merges). Is that a good idea on his part? Well, I think most people would say "no" and revert him. Was he allowed to do it? Absolutely. I will repeat: this was not a "judicious" use of the admin tools. It was purely technical. I say that based on the fact that it was logged as technical, and it didn't affect the content beyond anything any non-admin could have done with a single edit. Anything beyond that, such as hinting at a nefarious motive, is a bad faith accusation. The root of this is that GS blanked content and replaced it with his own stub. That is a content issue. The technical deletion involved was immediately overturned, therefore he didn't actually delete anything. It was the content replacement, and not the use of the admin tools, that caused the problem. I fully understand the frustration with GiantSnowman, and you're encouraged to take that to his talk page. He has already been reverted, if you wish to demand answers, feel free. However I will not allow a content dispute to be falsely turned into a witch hunt over a procedural admin action that caused no damage. Swarm ♠ 18:04, 15 August 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.

@Swarm: you are not correct here: "The resulting situation was literally no different than if GS had simply copied and pasted his draft over to the new article without explanation (although history merges are actually preferable to copy-paste merges)." The resulting situation is now that the page history claims that GiansSnowman created the page on the 10th, and that Nelly GTFC then edited it on the 13th and beyond. This is an action only an admin could have done, no one else, and is a (perhaps minor) misuse of admin tools, like Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi sarcastically but spot-on says above. Closing this section without even hearing GiantSnowman's explanation, and without correcting the page history, is not the best solution. This is not a "a content dispute" (or not solely one), this is about what admins may or may not do, and about using their tools for their own benefit in a way no non-admin can do (or undo for that matter). Fram (talk) 07:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Heads up: Named (but not outed) editors in Breitbart piece on WP edits surrounding the Google Memo

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.

---

[48]

Pinging those named: @Nanite:, @Jytdog:, @Aquillion:, @Volunteer Marek:, @NorthBySouthBaranof:.

No apparent outing, but learning the lesson from the Daily Mail issue, it makes to alert those that may see outside attacks for their editing activity. --MASEM (t) 01:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Interesting that the writer of the article is the banned editor User:The Devil's Advocate, but "Due to previous witch-hunts led by mainstream Wikipedians against their critics, Adler writes under an alias." It's not clear if that note means he writes for Breitbart under an alias (which he clearly does) or if he writes for Wikipedia under an alias, i.e. a block-evading sockpuppet. Anyone familiar with TDA's editing might look around for a likely suspect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

It just means that "T. D. Adler" (the author name in the Breitbart article) is an alias, not a real name. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

That could be, but if I'm remembering TDA's editing correctly (and I could be mistaken), I think he's the type of person who would want to come back and mix it up some more. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

If TDA is socking, let's assume he's smart enough not to tell Breitbart and, even if he did, that Breitbart is smart enough not to tell the world. If you're just making a general "look out for possible socking" announcement, that isn't what your comment says and, well, you know what we think about such comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

No, actually, I don't, because a comment that cast an aspersion -- which is the kind of comment some editors look down on, instead of taking them as the possibly justified suspicions of people who have been around the block a time or two -- are those which say "I think so-and-so may be a sockpuppet" or "Such-and-such editor is certainly acting all ducky!". A comment which says: "Hey it's possible that this banned editor might be socking, so be on the lookout, folks!" casts no aspersions, because it names no names, merely makes a reasonable suggestion. As for TDA's intelligence, I make no assumptions about it one way or the other, but given that the article was a mass of misrepresentations, mistruths, and misreporting, it would seem that TDA's concept of "reality" is somewhat contingent on his political biases. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

It is not even an accurate description of what happened, but hey it is breitbart. not reality-based. Jytdog (talk) 05:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Sure, if you want accuracy, better go to Fox News. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Interesting! Hey Jytdog, I think this is the (at least) second time you´re on Breitbart? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Pull the String! Jytdog (talk) 07:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

So strange to be mentioned! By the way, there was earlier another article [49] (in Vice Motherboard) about the edit war on Neuroticism article, with less naming of users. I hope no wikipedian is getting trouble because of this attention. (Regarding the content of the breitbart article, I am inclined to agree that the reliable sourcing requirements can lead to bias, especially on articles related to the culture war. However, I can't think of any superior alternatives that wouldn't compromise the rest of the wiki.) --Nanite (talk) 08:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

That the only place which could be arsed to publish this twaddle is a white nationalist rag one step removed from Daily Stormer is all which needs to be said. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The gravedancing on TDA's userpage is very distasteful. There is no policy which says that banned people's userpages should be blanked. Please leave the userpage alone, or some kind admin can full-protect it. It is extremely unseemly to mess with the userpage of some person who can't respond. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Two quick thoughts -- I had my disagreements with Mr. Advocate, but I quite agree with Kingsindian about the userpage. No good can come of that. Secondly, I would heartily endorse something like a parol evidence rule for Wikipedia: that is, we don't use extrinsic evidence. If there is indeed sockpuppetry occurring, I have faith it will out in time. To go chasing rabbits based on other websites is a path that leads to madness, I should think. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Utterly agree. On a scale of 1 to 1000, for "who would you have back here?", TDA ranks about minus a miilion for me. But this sort of stuff is, indeed, unseemly. -- Begoon 13:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks like page is fully protected, which is fine, the grave dancing needs to stop. However policy says that a ban notice linking to the decision should be on both the user page and user talk page (See WP:BANPOL, section "User pages".) Can an admin add the appropriate banned notices? — Strongjam (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

"Distasteful" and "unseemly" my Great Aunt Fanny. A banned editor is persona non grata, and blanking of their user page should be an absolutely normal consequence of being banned. If the ban is ever lifted, the page can be restored, that's why we have page histories. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I also find the blanking to be distasteful and contrary to the usual practice (cf. ban procedure), and I would like to see the page restored (with the requisite {{banned user}} tag. Per BRD, until consensus is established for blanking, it ought to be reverted to the stable version. Rebbing 14:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

As the protecting administrator, I'm happy for any other admin to revert to the unblanked version of the user page. To do so and protect the page doesn't overly sit well with me, so I'll pass on doing it myself -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 14:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted and added {{banned user}} to both user and talk pages. GoldenRing (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

What's odd is that there is a banner user template on the page, but it's not showing for whatever reason. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I thought that odd. Checking the docs for {{banned user}} shows it suppresses the noticed for arbcom banned user. No idea the reasoning for that. I thought the reason for the notice was to make it plan to anyone who wanted to discuss that users edits with them that the user could not respond. — Strongjam (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the template doesn't display if the 'by' parameter is 'the Arbitration Committee'. I'll try to find out why. GoldenRing (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

For the record, that's on purpose, in the hopes of avoiding "badge of shame" behavior. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

As the user page and talk page are both protected, I cannot place an "mfd" tag on it, nor can I request a fully protected edit on the talk page. Would someone please edit through the protection to add {{mfd}} to the top of the page? I will continue with the rest of the MfD process. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The MfD page for all of you who want to contest the deletion (and anyone who might agree as well), is here. I don't plan to make any argumentation beyond the deletion proposal itself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

{{mfd}} added per your request. 28bytes (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, although I see that I'm hugely in the minority. If that trend continues for another day or so, I'll probably withdraw the MfD, if someone hasn't already SNOW closed it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The article is really awful, and presents an ideologically skewed view of what occurred. To be fair to Breitbart they do mention at the bottom that TDA was in personal disputes with a number of other actors here, but a reputable news site would have realised that is a good enough reason for him not to write the article, and had someone with some distance write it using TDA as a dial-a-quote. That being said, what sort of stuff Breitbart publishes isn't really an administrative matter for us. There doesn't seem to be any real evidence as far as I can see that TDA is socking, and we ought to leave that there. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC).

My concern in bringing it here was nothing related to TDA (I didn't even make the connection until this thread), but that there potentially could be off-site attacks on the named editors in that article, given what happened when we banned the Daily Mail (driving one editor named and outed by the DM) into retirement. --MASEM (t) 05:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, and that's a valid concern, I just think we got a little sidetracked above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC).

Proposal

The entire point of the Breitbart piece (and the Motherboard piece) is that substantial edits have occurred to the article. I suggest that the template identifying press coverage should have a parameter reflecting the state of the article both at the time of the media article and just prior to the edit war. I made such a proposal on the template talk page and invite anyone who has opinions to weigh in at the template talk page --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:44, 15 August 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.

long-term IP hopper tagging drafts with AfC to delete them (and apparently not a fan of mine)

I could use some help sorting this out. Though some admin action seems like a good idea, I'm not quite sure what sort of action would be effective.

An IP hopper has been tagging other people's drafts (apparently those he/she thinks should be deleted) with AfC submission templates for quite a while now. I opened an ANI thread when I first noticed it last year and though I had to revert once or twice since then, I haven't thought about it much.

But now after reverting a few more yesterday, I see another IP with interesting edit summaries. It seems the user has a particular interest in me that I was not aware of. See User talk:82.40.180.42/Usage with the various "rhodoreaction"/"RR"/"rhodoedits" (that list is transcluded on 13 other pages). I came across that user page when trying to compile a list of IPs that have done this over the last year or two. Might as well ping the only two registered users who have edited that page: RHaworth and Sgroupace.

Again, I'm not sure what course of action would be best. Not sure how they could be blocked; an LTA page seems like overkill; I have a weak suspicion about socking, but not enough evidence to name/insinuate (and to be clear, I'm not thinking of anyone I've named above); an edit filter likewise seems like a big much... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Isn't even using open nodes to the internet or something, office-shared router or something is my guess, who knows. It feels like socking since IPs generally don't really get concerned with drafts or anything, and playing around is mostly inconsequential. In retrospect, rhodoedits can be a pretty cool name for your alt account. --QEDK (愛) 14:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. I was thinking "rhodoreversion!" might be a good template for me to use if I could only format it in a text bubble written in a comic book font... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Bumping this before it's archived. Would appreciate advice on where to mention this if not here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Might be time for a rangeblock

After going through the AIV page history, I found IPs belonging to this range that were getting blocked:
Sorted 8 IPv6 addresses:

2600:387:2:803::58

2600:387:2:803::7b

2600:387:2:803::92

2600:387:2:805::a5

2600:387:2:809::5e

2600:387:2:809::85

2600:387:2:809::c0

2600:387:2:811::ba

Total affected	Affected addresses	Given addresses	Range	Contribs
32 /64	32 /64	8	2600:387:2:800::/59	contribs
17 /64	16 /64	7	2600:387:2:800::/60	contribs
	1 /64	1	2600:387:2:811::/64	contribs
10 /64	8 /64	4	2600:387:2:800::/61	contribs
	1 /64	3	2600:387:2:809::/64	contribs
	1 /64	1	2600:387:2:811::/64	contribs
4 /64	1 /64	3	2600:387:2:803::/64	contribs
	1 /64	1	2600:387:2:805::/64	contribs
	1 /64	3	2600:387:2:809::/64	contribs
	1 /64	1	2600:387:2:811::/64	contribs

It might be time to block 2600:387:2:800::/59 and see if that helps. —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 02:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes they were repeatedly reporting administrators, then I started reverting them so they started repeatedly reporting me. Lol. Home Lander (talk) 02:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• These six IPs, likely one person, each made one edit to AIV between 01:40 and 02:10. They were all blocked and the page was semi-protected for a few hours. That seems to have taken care of things. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• I was blocking them several hours earlier, and since. It seems to me like quite a busy range, so I've adjusted a relevant edit filter instead, for the time being. For the record, this is the LTA vandal from Georgia[50]. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 05:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks zzuuzz - looks like the filter is working. Home Lander (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
    • zzuuzz you talking about me again??? :) Drmies (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
      • @Drmies: All I'm sayin is that I've never seen you in the same room together ;) On balance I'm tempted to block this range for a while if it carries on much longer. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
        • Well, I've never seen you, so for all I know you're Bbb23 or ScienceApologist. Hell, I seem to be Volunteer Marek, so maybe you are too. That rangeblock doesn't hit me, I think, until I get to the traffic light at my university, ten miles closer to Georgia than my house, and I shouldn't be editing Wikipedia while driving anyway, haha. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Misformatted arbitration 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.

---

At the end of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Arthur Rubin and WP:ADMINACCT there appears a separate request for arbitration: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#topic-banning Supermann from all pages related to film for one year. The request involving and submitted by User:Supermann does not appear in the list at Template:ArbComOpenTasks. I don't know the best way to fix this. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

In the future, I would make the request at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, but I went ahead and added it for you. nihlus kryik (talk) 03:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

It's a malformed nonsensical request by Supermann, who was recently topic banned and is now appealing to ArbCom for...something. Blackmane (talk) 06:52, 17 August 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.

Article recreation

Article Daniel Cepeda was recently created by editor User:JasmineJaye (talk). It is clearly a copy of Wikipedia's article on Money. The editor has also attempted to blank Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Cepeda to avoid being hit with a g4 or A11 speedy delete. Requesting action be taken, if it has not already been done. I would recommend liberal use of salt. SamHolt6 (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for disruptive editing, protected the AfD for a few months and salted the article. Aside from blanking various things (including this discussion) after being warned this clearly says they're not here to be constructive. Hut 8.5 21:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Reporting User:Tarage for Cyberbullying

Nothing to see here Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:Tarage is constantly making hurtful, untruthful, and rude comments about me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NetWitz (talk • contribs) 07:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC) Please provide more information. Per the guidelines at the top: Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting. Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page. I see no attempts at either one of these. (Please do not construe my reminder as validation in your complaint.) nihlus kryik (talk) 07:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC) You got blocked for this behavior and the first thing you do after getting unblocked is to run back here and make more shit up? Away with you. --Tarage (talk) 06:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC) Also socking. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC) Adorable. Block them both. --Tarage (talk) 06:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC) I did not make anything up, and you a rude for accusing me2600:8801:2D01:64D0:B834:3D91:9EC8:B6D (talk) 06:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)NetWitz You just keep digging don't you. Add the IP to the list to block. --Tarage (talk) 06:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC) Why are you being such a hurtful rotten bully to me? NetWitz (talk) 06:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)NetWitz This is a revenge complaint for another thread earlier on this page. Close. EEng 07:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

John McGowan article recreations

An article titled John McGowan (Canadian rock singer) has been created by User:Timmytimah (talk). I thought the name sounded familiar, and sure enough the article has been deleted multiple times over the past few months (example, John McGowan (singer). I am not the best at navigating the deletion log, but I am sure that more variants of this page have been created. Salting one or two articles does not seem to have stopped the spam, so I request further action be taken. SamHolt6 (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I nominated at least one for CSD, and just did so to the most recent iteration. Sock-puppetry and willful ignorance of notability rules. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 16:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I just called out one of the sockpuppets myself ♠Dinah♠ 🎤 16:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Tagged and blocked, thanks guys. Alex Shih^Talk 16:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Seattle tour company

• Argosycruises (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Argosy Cruises (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 68.178.121.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - corp IP according to WHOIS
• 216.206.111.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - corp IP according to WHOIS

Cursory examination of these accounts/IPs shows that they are WP:NOTHERE to contribute, rather spamming a certain Seattle tour company for a number of years with repeated warnings. This could have been filed as an SPI, I suppose, but it's really so obvious maybe we can skip that and just proceed to next steps. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit-warring at AIV

There is some edit warring going on at AIV. The main people include User:Adam9007, User:kjelltyrid, and User:Coldandspicy. I just want to notify anybody, and I don't want to get involved in this dispute, but somebody should take a look at it. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 00:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I pretty much explained the situation in a nutshell, here. 2601:1C0:10B:7D6D:19FC:80A1:3B49:6D26 (talk) 00:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Oshwah just blocked User:Kjelltyrid for 36 hours. As for the other users reverting at WP:AIV, I don't know what'll happen with that... 2601:1C0:10B:7D6D:19FC:80A1:3B49:6D26 (talk) 00:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The issue began when Kjelltyrid filed an AIV report against Adam9007 for "aggressive vandalism on Henrik Steffens Professor with insertion of a blatantly false claim about the article being a duplicate when it's clearly not." This was in response to a CSD tag that Adam9007 added restored to Henrik Steffens Professor (an article the user started and was expanding) after it was originally added by Ukpong1 and then removed by Kjelltyrid. Both Adam9007 and Coldandspicy were removing the AIV report that Kjelltyrid added, and were attempting to add their own AIV reports against Kjelltyrid as well. In the end, I found that Kjelltyrid repeatedly removed Adam9007's CSD tag on the article and was also edit warring in a disruptive fashion (both on the article and at AIV), and I blocked the user for 36 hours for disruptive editing.

User:Adam9007, User:Coldandspicy: Remember that if things start going down this route at AIV (someone reports you and you believe or know it to be false, yadda yadda yadda...), instead of removing the report, you're welcome to add a response and input to it instead. This will avoid the edit warring and disruption on AIV that happened just a bit ago :-).

I think that about wraps this report up. Issue resolved :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: It wasn't my CSD tag; I was just restoring it because he (the creator of the page) removed it. Adam9007 (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah, my bad Adam9007. I apologize for the mistake in my response. It was Ukpong1 who originally applied the CSD tag on the article. I've redacted and updated my statement above in bold. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I thought Kjelltyrid's report on Adam9007 was a fake report attacking Adam9007, and my instinct is to revert that kind of report. Cold and Spicy 01:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Coldandspicy: That's what I thought too. Were we being naïve? Adam9007 (talk) 01:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

If there's any place that's going to see an insta-block for edit-warring or inappropriately removing reports, it's AIV - even the most stupid of reports, and users should pretty much never remove themselves from AIV. It's too busy for admins, trigger-happy admins with an appetite for blocking someone, to look too deeply and start lengthy discussions while there's edit-warring going on. If the situation isn't extremely clear, leave things in place and just add a simple comment. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring at AIV... Reminds me of a video I saw; a couple of kids decided to sneak up on a sleeping cat and suddenly yell in order to scare it. It was a skunk... --Guy Macon (talk) 04:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Adam9007 - I wouldn't call it "naive", lol. I don't believe that her report was true or had merit (obviously...), but I do believe that Kjelltyrid felt that her AIV report was legitimate and that she felt that you were engaging in "aggressive vandalism" - obviously not true; the user is just new and doesn't understand the rules yet. After she edit warred on the article with the CSD tag removal, she went to AIV. Once she saw you removing her report at AIV, those actions further instilled upon her that you were vandalizing and trolling - after all, you were now removing her report, right? You gotta see things from her perspective and understand that she's new... what would you had done if you were in her position and saw all of this? As Zzuuzz said above, edit warring at AIV isn't a good idea. There are admins (unfortunately) that will see the edit warring in itself and, instead of looking into the matter to find the root cause of the problem, will simply block everyone. It's not the wrong thing for such an admin to do, since edit warring was occurring - It'll just throw those involved into the pit before anyone has had a chance to explain and can end up putting a ding on your reputation. Just respond to the report and explain why it's wrong and discuss it. It's a much better way of handling the situation ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The response I made above made me realize that the block I placed upon the account was too harsh given this user's tenure. Per the message I left the user on her talk page here, I've decided to unblock the account. We must be understanding and put ourselves into this person's shoes; she's new, she doesn't know all of the rules yet, and I believe that she felt that she was legitimate with her report and decision to revert the removal of it at AIV. I can't hold her to that harsh of accountability. I think her block length was sufficient given this perspective. Feedback, thoughts, disagreements, and community input is welcome should anyone feel the need to comment. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah:Thanks Oswah for intervening in the issue. Zazzysa (talk) 05:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Ukpong1 - You bet! Always happy to help :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

RileyBugz - It's a bit late now (so, no big deal - lol), but do remember that you must notify everyone involved in an ANI discussion with a notice on their user talk pages. I just realized that my messages to Kjelltyrid are probably going to confuse the living heck out of her since she wasn't notified of this ANI discussion. Again, no biggie - figured I'd let you know though :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Is there a template or something that one can use? RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 11:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@RileyBugz: You'll find that near the top of this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

User getting politics into Wikipedia

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.

---

Hey I want to report the user ( ZxxZxxZ ).

I saw some of his contributions and found some suspicious things..

He removes things that offend his country ( iran ) and add lines that offend a country that is an enemy of his ( Saudi Arabia) From a qatari-owned news channel ( Knowing that qatar is an enemy of Saudi Arabia which means most likely it's fake news with the aim of offending Saudi Arabia) as his sources. For example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/794850202 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technical Peace (talk • contribs) 21:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The diff in question seems like a simple re-ordering of paragraphs and a slight re-wording. Do you have anything more damning? --Tarage (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

You also failed to inform them of this report, which is required. --Tarage (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

...And you ALSO posted on the AIV board. This is getting into boomerang territory. --Tarage (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

This is by far my favorite: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ZxxZxxZ&diff=prev&oldid=794996524 "If you are Qatari/iranian/turkey i hope that you don't get politics into Wikipedia". Technical Peace seems to be a SPA intent with pushing a pro Saudi Arabian POV. --Tarage (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

So is this not obvious https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/794850202 ? Technical Peace (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with that edit. --Tarage (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

And I'm sorry for not complying with some of the rules since i thought what i told him is enough, and I'm not trying to " push a pro Saudi Arabian POV " i requested from him to not use the Qatari-owned news channel as his sources due to an obvious reasons Technical Peace (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC) And is there any reason of you removing my edit on Red Sea ? Technical Peace (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Al Jazeera is currently an accepted reliable source on Wikipedia. Also I removed your edit because it was not notable for that article. --Tarage (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

It's reliable http://www.pif.gov.sa/media/projecttheredsea_en.html search about it

The reason why i requested him to not use Al jazeera because it's owned by Qatar's government and you probably heard about the crisis. And i hope that you don't count as an enemy . I only want to make Wikipedia a better place . Technical Peace (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC) I hope that you read https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/794850202 because I think you wouldn't continue the argument if you did. Technical Peace (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC) I just went to the page that he edited and found out that an anonymous has edited he same way as before. I swear I'm not that anonymous person so suspicious eh? Technical Peace (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you don't think it's a reliable source. It is considered by Wikipedia to be one. I have read that diff three times. It's fine. --Tarage (talk) 22:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

(e/c) Please describe what exactly you think is wrong with the edit you keep linking to. Perhaps the problem is with Special:MobileDiff (which is nearly impossible to read, and maybe confused you); if you look at it in desktop mode, the diff shows ZxxZxxZ moving a couple of paragraphs around and slightly rewording them. What, specifically, is wrong with it? It's not good enough to keep just linking to the edit. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Will my issue isn't on this page exactly as i stated. And this is not related but i hope that you don't take Al jazeera news as a reliable source on anything related to KSA Technical Peace (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC) Sorry but i have to go for now since it's 1:32 AM here tomorrow we'll talk. ( tomorrow for you ) It isn't a critical issue tbh I don't care if he says anything bad about SA since we lived all of our live living with people who are against SA. Technical Peace (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Then why did you keep linking to that same diff over and over? I spent several minutes looking at it in detail to see what you're complaining about, only to hear "my issue isn't on this page exactly". I guess this thread can be closed as a waste of time. Please have some respect for other people's time and effort. We will certainly not "talk tomorrow", as I am done with this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

User is an SPA boardering on WP:NOTHERE. If they come back tomorrow and do this nonsense I request a block. --Tarage (talk) 22:52, 17 August 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.

Bypassing redirects in violation of WP:NOTBROKEN

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 months now, User:Grouches101 has been bypassing redirects in violation of the guideline WP:NOTBROKEN. Despite many clear warnings from at least four users[51][52][53][54][55][56][57], the behavior is continuing[58][59]. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Poster boy for How Not To Be A Wikipedia Editor. WP:NOTHERE section "Little or no interest in working collaboratively". After two years of unheeded inquiries, attempts to help, and warnings, I don't think the typical 31-hour first block would be enough. An effective "Guidelines, schmidelines. Stop bothering me!" is just not acceptable. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

User:There'sNoTime had closed this discussion with "Editor appears to have left the project, and hasn't edited for 19 hours (since this report was made). No admin action required until they start again" but I have reopened it as this seems counterproductive: there is zero evidence that they have left the project (they only edit a few times a day anyway, the current gap is way too small to suppose "leaving the project") and this closure means that someone has to open a discussion here while the other editor is actively editing, not a few hours later, which is not really the best way to serve the project or to help the OP. Fram (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Fram: Bad close on my behalf - apologies all, but I'm still not seeing any admin action needed here. What do you think we should do? An editor violating NOTBROKEN is hardly a big deal, but them not wanting to communicate does fly in the face of NOTHERE and suggests a block may be in order. I read Why are you telling me this? I told you before I'm gettin the hell outta here. Goodbye & good luck!! from their talk but admittedly disregarded the timestamp, so I was entirely incorrect in saying they've left. They're rather clearly not up for discussing it, but it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth to block over NOTBROKEN -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 12:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the reopen. I count 112 edits in the 12 days since their two emphatic declarations of retirement. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@There'sNoTime: As you yourself suggested, a block would be for NOTHERE (and generally wasting a lot of good editors' time), not for NOTBROKEN vios. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Point taken, I'll bow out of making any decisions on this one given the above muck up, but I would at least give them the opportunity to respond to this thread -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 12:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

It appears they are declining the opportunity.[60] ―Mandruss ☎ 04:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: That's unfortunate. I have issued a warning to the editor. Alex Shih^Talk 16:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

• Apparently User:Grouches101 has started making these edits again. Here they changed [[Mufasa]] to [[List of characters in The Lion King#Mufasa|Mufasa]], and they made similar edits on other articles today. I don't see any indication of willingness to discuss the issue or respect the community consensus. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• Will someone please block this clown? EEng 21:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• This really doesn't seem like something that requires admin attention at this point; piping links isn't disruptive to the point of requiring action. But, say, if someone wanted to propose that Grouches101 should be subject to a community sanction of some sort for this behaviour, and if the community expressed support for that sanction, then an admin could enact that consensus. Some kind of topic ban, for example. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector: If you don't think the user should be blocked, how would you recommend getting the behavior to stop? Discussion and warnings haven't worked. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

  We've blocked people for this before. People forget that there's often a reason to prefer a redirect over a direct link, because sometimes the redirect becomes its own article. Not to mention it's just a waste of everyone's time checking their clogged-up watchlists. EEng 23:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

  You really haven't made the case for WP:NOTHERE in my opinion, this editor is clearly intending to edit constructively. Alex Shih appears to be dealing with this in a most appropriate way. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say he was NOTHERE; I said he's wasting people's time making counterproductive edits. It's great that Alex Shih gave a warning, but he's been warned over and over and even now keeps doing it. What do you suggest we do now? EEng 00:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Wait. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

For what? EEng 01:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

It appears to have stopped. I also provided more explanation at his talk page. nihlus kryik (talk) 01:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: The NOTHERE case was at the heading "Little or no interest in working collaboratively" and couldn't be much stronger. Perhaps that should be moved to WP:CIR, I don't know, but collaboration is not optional. This may be water under bridge in this case (finally), we'll see—but this is worth noting for future reference. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• Pardon me for saying that we could have just saved time and trouble by blocking him. [61] EEng 01:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• Two more of these edits today: [62][63]. The first one has the edit summary "My last edit here, just making it the same as the others. So long FOREVER Wikipedia". —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Seven edits since their second emphatic retirement in less than 3 weeks. Have they said anything at all to indicate that they intend to alter their behavior? If not, do we just cross our fingers and hope they will? Can editors simply choose not to respond to ANI complaints? What is the meaning of life? ―Mandruss ☎ 17:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Life is a cycle of repeated returns to ANI, each visit to which is an opportunity to gain wisdom and atone for our lousy wikikarma. This dreary cycle ends when either we've attained enlightenment and enter nirvana (i.e. pass RfA) or – better – we attain the eternal rest of an indefinite block. Go in peace, my son. EEng 18:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

FYI, user has requested to be blocked. Not sure why they're asking me though. nihlus kryik (talk) 02:25, 18 August 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.

Administrator abusing power

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

---

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

---

DoRD has been abusing his administrative powers. He blocks established users who have never vandalized Wikipedia for no reason. Also, his username is a violation of username policy as a promotional username promoting the Department of Redundancy Department. He should either be blocked indefinitely or have his administrative powers revoked. 2600:387:2:809:0:0:0:54 (talk) 19:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The username is not a violation of username guidelines.

Can you identify some examples of improper blocks?--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

This is the latest IP to harass DoRD today, now blocked. Acroterion (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

He blocked Coldandspicy who has never vandalized Wikipedia. 2600:387:2:809:0:0:0:7A (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

For reference, User talk:Coldandspicy#Blocked. Plus, they're almost certainly evading an older block. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

This IP blocked too. Acroterion (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Wait, did he promote the Department of Redundancy Department by promoting the Department of Redundancy Department in a promotional way? Can't have that. A block isn't good enough (isn't good enough). Lock him up, incarcerate him, and jail him, for life until dead. Dumuzid (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Wait, did he promote the Department of Redundancy Department by promoting the Department of Redundancy Department in a promotional way? Can't have that. A block isn't good enough (isn't good enough). Lock him up, incarcerate him, and jail him, for life until dead. pbp 19:43, 19 August 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.

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

Re-addition of unsourced original research to Goodwood, South Australia

Since 14 August User:Phygoo has continued to re-add unsourced original research to Goodwood, South Australia. (See: diff 1 diff 2 diff 3)

While it's not linkspam, Phygoo may have a COI as this material consists of real estate puffery, and it's possible that he may be trying to spruik or sell property in the area. (In 2015 Phygoo made similar unwarranted peacock edits to Park Holme, South Australia, see diff 4, which have since been removed.)

Some of this material in the Goodwood article was added in 2016 by User:Kswikata, (see diff 5) and it's possible that this may be the same person, as Phygoo now seems to be also claiming it as his own research.

I've reverted all but the most recent re-addition (while trying to be civil and avoid 3RR) and put appropriate warning templates on his talk page (subst:uw-unsourced1, subst:uw-blog). He hasn't replied directly to these messages. but has instead made implied threats in his edit summaries (and on my userpage, see diff 6, which he reverted half an hour later, with another lengthy edit summary, see diff 7.)

Somewhat paradoxically, his latest move has been to award me an anti-vandalism barnstar (see diff 8), which I assume is an effort to avoid further action on my part, and to game the system.

His latest re-addition to the Goodwood article has since been reverted by another editor. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 07:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

If they revert that again, then there's a good chance they'll be blocked on WP:3RR if nothing else. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

There are now seven warnings on his talk page (including one by me; i am the other editor Buhudhara mentioned above), with four of them put there after his most recent edit. I'd suggest we close this, see what he does next, and go to the edit warring board if he continues the same behaviour. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 18:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Report of malicious edits by user ID: FuzhouneseMinpride on wikipedia page "Subei People"

I, as Subei People, am requesting administrator's attention to recent malicious edit to wikipedia page "Subei People", which is the page describing my homeland.

I have made substantial contributions to "Subei people". It was once full of discriminative worlds, unreasonable slander and narrow minded description.

However, user ID: FuzhouneseMinpride, deliberately deletes much of my contribution (my effort to make this page less discriminative and narrow minded).

He maliciously changed one of the notable people in "Subei People"page from Zhou Enlai, a respectable Chinese Premier to what he said, "one of the most infamous traitors in China's history." Here is an analogy: Someone change the "Notable people" section in "USA" page from George Washington to Dean Arnold Corll, "one of the most infamous American serial killer".

I sincerely hope that you could pay attention to this explicit malicious edit on my hometown's wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamikaze2017 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• OK, there is nothing to this: Kamikaze refuses to actually engage in conversation (on article talk page or user talk page) with the editor, and it's their edits that are really troubling; see the article history. There is no reason to escalate to a noticeboard and Kamikaze needs to be more mindful of such basic policies as WP:NPOV and WP:V. Drmies (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Reporting User:Toohool, User:Ravenswing, User: Sandstein, User:Yosemiter for cyberbullying

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.

---

Those users are bullying me and stoping from creating a Wikipedia page for City National Arena for no valid reason whatsoever NetWitz (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)NetWitz

@NetWitz: Please notify each editor you have mentioned as per the requirements of this page. For reference, this request was first made here which I removed. There is also a ANEW report regarding this editor (here) which I have closed by fully protecting the page -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 20:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• We did not stop you. You made it City National Arena, then had ownership issues with it by reverting whenever I tried to clean it up no matter what. The subject had been discussed to see if it was even noteworthy of mention, much less an article, on Talk:Vegas Golden Knights#Vegas Golden Knights practice facility. The article was deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City National Arena. You then continued to have an edit war with everyone and created City national arena, City National Arena (NHL Practice Facility), and City Aational Arena. If you would just cooperate and stop beating a now very dead horse, you would stop getting warnings. Yosemiter (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
• I note that on the ANEW report, NetWitz's response was "That is a complete lie, I've been trying to discuss about it and nobody responds." That is not in fact true. This was discussed extensively on the Vegas Golden Knights talk page, on the page for the AfD, and on more than one user talk page. NetWitz is obviously not getting the answers he wants to hear, but a number of editors don't seem to be inclined to set aside either notability criteria or consensus just because he's so very heavily invested in this practice rink being mentioned on Wikipedia.

  That being said, full protection of the Golden Knights page is a poor idea and an overreaction. This is a National Hockey League team about to enter its first season, with training camp starting in a couple of weeks, and rather from enjoining many dozens of editors from making good faith edits, it would be preferable to prevent the one heavy edit warrior here from editing the page. Ravenswing 20:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• Your comments are noted - I will revert my full protection (restoring the move semi-protection that was in place beforehand) and block NetWitz as suggested at the ANEW report -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 20:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for your prompt reconsideration! Ravenswing 20:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Ravenswing told a boldface life, I had asked further questions and they have yet to be answered!! Also, City National Arena is not just a practice rink, it's the headquarters of the Vegas Golden Knights, and will feature their official restaurant!!! I demand Ravenswing be removed from Wikipedia for his (or her) very rude attitude and behavior.NetWitz (talk) 05:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)NetWitz

You got blocked for this behavior and the first thing you do after getting unblocked is to run back here and make more shit up? Away with you. --Tarage (talk) 06:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Also socking. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Adorable. Block them both. --Tarage (talk) 06:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I did not make anything up, and you a rude for accusing me2600:8801:2D01:64D0:B834:3D91:9EC8:B6D (talk) 06:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)NetWitz

You just keep digging don't you. Add the IP to the list to block. --Tarage (talk) 06:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Why are you being such a hurtful rotten bully to me? NetWitz (talk) 06:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)NetWitz

Why are you sockpuppeting? --Tarage (talk) 06:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I just reported you for cyberbullying on Wikipedia2600:8801:2D01:64D0:7C98:12E:23D7:DE49 (talk) 07:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)NetWitz

And I have added another IP to the sock puppet investigation. --Tarage (talk) 07:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I am not sock puppeting!!! NetWitz (talk) 07:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)NetWitz

Adorable. You'll be banned soon. --Tarage (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

You know, Tarage, some editors seem to enjoy this ANI business too much. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by your persistent snarky haranguing of defendants, no matter how guilty they are. A defining characteritic of a bully is picking the easy targets, at Wikipedia or anywhere else. Lay off. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Considering he filed a report on me, no. I don't cower before people like him. --Tarage (talk) 08:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Nobody has asked you to cower before anybody. See straw man. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• Eeeesh. NetWitz, I expect you won't listen to this. It's not as if you've listened to anyone so far. But ... well. Doesn't cost me anything to try. It's not that you're unique: we see a lot of people who scream "Rude!!" any time they're told something they don't want to hear, and "Cyberbullying!" at anyone who dares suggest that the rules apply to them, and "It wasn't me!" any time they're caught redhanded doing something they realize they shouldn't be.

  And there's one other syndrome we see often as well: the inexperienced editor who continues to insist that he alone is right, and everyone else is wrong. That's been the case here. Not one single editor's taken your side. Several administrators now have confirmed your rulesbreaking. Leaving aside the merits for a moment, what do you think the odds are that a dozen editors and admins are going to suddenly slap their foreheads and cry out "My god, we've been so horribly wrong!!"

  I'll quote myself from your talk page, a few days back: "Wikipedia has certain rules, among them guidelines and policies governing notability. These rules are applied and enforced through consensus; in case of a dispute, editors talk among themselves to arrive at a consensus decision. The nature of a consensus-based system is that sometimes consensus runs against you, in which case your only option is to lose gracefully and move on." That is good advice I continue to urge you to take. Ravenswing 09:38, 18 August 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.

Book sources (ISBN) link correction

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.

---

Sorry not sure where to request it... The page Special:BookSources/9781300973294 has an incorrect link for Google Books.

Current link:

 https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=isbn:9781300973294

Correct link:

 https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=9781300973294

Obviously "9781300973294" is just an example ISBN.

Thanks in advance for your assistance :-), Nux (talk) 07:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed. Thanks for the heads up, Nux :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:56, 17 August 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.

Tired of having a sockpuppetry case hanging over my head

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

---

Can an admin please close Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Renamed user jC6jAXNBCg. Although I think the editor who opened the case was acting in good faith, the connections between accounts are based on flimsy pretexts. A checkuser was completed over a week ago and found no connection between any of the listed accounts (including mine). World's Lamest Critic (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Still waiting. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Recommend you to close this thread since you do not require separate administrator intervention, it'll be taken care of at SPI. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 16:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I mean this with all due respect, but foot-stomping often has the exact opposite effect from the one desired. Just a thought. Dumuzid (talk) 18:12, 17 August 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.

I was falsely accused of being a sockpuppet. A checkuser was done over a week ago. I assume that the admins who regularly work at SPI are reluctant to touch the case. So I'm asking here because I don't like having this hanging over my head. If I thought it was going to be dealt with in a timely manner I wouldn't be asking here (and it obviously has not been dealt with in a timely manner). World's Lamest Critic (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

So this was closed. Then re-opened. And then closed again. — fortunavelut luna 14:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

This project (and SPI) is run by volunteers. The cases we take, are often at random and mostly in order to increase efficiency, dealing with small cases swiftly and so on. I sincerely recommend you wait for someone to take it on. Patrolling admins can only offer advice at best to your case and will eventually require assessment by SPI clerks at some point. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 17:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

user:Ruben192 keeps creating 100% unreferenced articles

Resolved

 – Blocked 31 hours by Alex Shih. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Ruben192 (talk · contribs) keeps pumping completely unreferenced articles into wikipedia, restores removed unreferenced text as eg here and is not engaging into discussions despite numerous warnings in their article talk page. I guess time to block them to get their attention. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism: TV station articles

User 98.22.136.242 keeps vandalizing articles on TV stations by adding incorrect information about digital subchannels. I undo them, but more of these edits pop up. Recent example KMSP-TV: [64] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

98.22.136.242 just undid one of my edits. KOCO-TV: [65] And another one, caught by Mrschimpf at KQCW-DT: [66] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

(Non-Administrator comment) You may wish to try AIV- Administrator Intervention against Vandalism. Jip Orlando (talk) 23:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I tried that, I was declined. They told me to go here. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not really obvious to me what's going on here. I don't know anything about Oklahoma television stations, and the content isn't sourced. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

98.22.136.242 keeps adding information about "new" subchannels, despite no official confirmation from the station. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

He's at it again: KSBI: [67] KCEB (Tulsa): [68] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

AIV report done after their newest edits; 31h block applied. We can close this up now. Nate • (chatter) 04:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

98.22.136.242 is back at it, as soon as the block ended: KMBC-TV: [69] I think a longer block or outright ban is in order. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The same thing's happening, this time from another IP: 107.77.161.11 with WFAA: [70] [71] [72] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Accusations of vandalism-only account and being a troll

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.

---

Joseph2302 recently filed this report claiming my account to be a vandalism-only account. He was then enabled by admin Floquenbeam (who previously told me "fuck you, asshole"), departing with "If you and he want to argue/fight/try to get each other blocked/etc, be my guest" despite me not having done anything wrong. Joseph2302 then closed the discussion calling me a "troll". I realise that some admins aren't doing anything to help me, but I'd like to hope that at least one of you out there would actually do something about this. Incidentally, Joseph2302 has deliberately vandalised Ipswich Town F.C. in the past (I'll need to work to find that diff). The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

In what way did Floquenbeam "enable" me? And your block log clearly shows you're a disruptive editor. Yes I've made mistakes in the past (I moved Ipswich Town F.C to Tractor scum), but there's no evidence that I'm a disruptive editor unlike you. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Another accusation of being a troll. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

TRM: Ignoring and moving on and away from this editor...have you tried that? -- ψλ ● ✉ 19:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Winkelvi I don't go anywhere near this user. I deliberately ignore it since its deliberate vandalism (which went completely unaddressed), now two or three personal attacks (which are going completely unaddressed). Why is this my doing? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

This is the guy who was told by User:Newyorkbrad after initiating a bizarre ANI thread against User:Ritchie333 in May to "not ever do anything like that again." It seems he has not heeded this warning.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Joseph2302: Unless I am missing something, I don't see anything wrong done by TRM. All I see is you violating WP:NPA, WP:HARASS and WP:AGF numerous times, and then disrupting noticeboards (aka WP:NEEDSMOARDRAMA). nihlus kryik (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked Joseph2302 for 36 hours. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Jauerback he is still making personal attacks in his unblock attempt. Can you revoke his talk page access? --Tarage (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

GoldenRing beat me to the punch with the request and revocation. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Without prejudice to the block being extended if anyone thinks it necessary. GoldenRing (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I also won't have any problem with any changes to his block. However, I'll be offline, so hopefully there won't be any further need for me to participate in this discussion. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Side note: Floquenbeam wasn't enabling anything. They saw the report, figured it was a mistake, saw Joseph2302 was serious, and backed out immediately as they didn't want to be part of this. 129.9.75.194 (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• No, Floq didn't figure it was a mistake: they said it was wrong and disruptive. Don't quite see how one gets "enabling a personal attack" from "Please try harder not to be silly and disruptive. TRM is not a vandalism-only account, and reporting him at AIV is 100% guaranteed to be a minor waste of time", esp. not after this, "oh for crying out loud". Was Floquenbeam supposed to have let the AIV report stand? Drmies (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I think what the The Rambling Man is getting at- perhaps, not tryng to mind read- is that if an admin (any admin, impersonally) sees an egregious personal attack take pace (to the extent that they acknowledge it as being so), it would be logical to expect the admin to respond with administrative action, that's all. — fortunavelut luna 12:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Side note: no, this is an admin sidestepping duty because of the target of the personal attacks. It's pretty obvious, if they didn't want to get involved they should have stayed out of it from the start. The edit summary at AIV demonstrated it wasn't a "mistake". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

This is also you continuing to harbor a grudge against Floq. We don't need you to keep reminding us that he called you a name and swore at you once. That's not relevant to Joseph2302's foolish behavior. TRM, you seem to be perpetually complaining that the admins don't respond fast or forcefully enough to attacks on you, but have you considered that you are probably contributing to this problem by holding grudges and being quick to criticize and complain? It doesn't make sense to antagonize people and then complain when they don't rush to your defense. Lepricavark (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

You again? You should offer Floq the same advice, there was no need for him to get involved, AIV gets plenty of admin traffic, and would have soon been serviced adequately by an admin who wouldn't have side-stepped the issue, creating this drama board post for you hawks to come circling. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Floq warns someone for attacking you and you try to turn him into one of the villains. Oh, by the way, you created this drama board post for us evil hawks to come circling. Not everything is Floq's fault. Lepricavark (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Convenient that you missed the point. The long term involved admin could and should have left it to an admin with the balls to do a proper job. "Evil hawks"? You said it. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

IMO, the admin you describe would indef you because the constant drama that surrounds you, to which you contribute far more than you would admit, is too much of a drain on the community. Which, given your tendency to play the victim, might be exactly what you want. Lepricavark (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Your opinion doesn't seem to match any sense of logic, but thanks for it anyway. I'd spend more time improving articles and less time lurking around the drama boards if I were you. To avoid drama, Floq should have stayed away from making a half-arsed job which he himself admitted was just left unfinished, creating this time sink. Any other admin would have been more able to do the job here.!The Rambling Man (talk) 06:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd spend more time improving articles and less time lurking around the drama boards if I were you. I could say the same thing to you. You complain about drama board time sinks, yet you constantly create them. You say you this isn't a grudge against Floq, yet you keep bringing up an old slight at every chance you get. You regularly rail against the admins in general, yet you sound so confident that any admin besides Floq could have handled this case. And now you want to evaluate my logic. Lepricavark (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Wrong, while this errant user claimed I had a vandalism-only account, and while the attending admin (who has been involved with me in the past and really should have known better) did half-a-job, I've improved many articles, actually performed a number of GA reviews and promotions.... you on the other hand? Don't come telling me to do something else when this could all have been sorted if an admin had done the job properly. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Your interpretation of events ("half-arsed job") is totally incorrect. The only reason there is a problem is that you also completely misinterpreted Floq's comments at User talk:Joseph2302. Carrying a grudge for this long is not good for you or the community. Your current path leads to Kumioko's destination. No one at Wikipedia cares who was first to spit in the other person's porridge. Just stop. Johnuniq (talk) 08:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Not at all. You should stop. Floq did not need to get involved, only to walk away. Plenty of other admins service AIV and do it properly, Floq's partial actions just antagonises the problem. This is not a grudge, it's just a fact, so don't get confused. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

No admin should feel obliged to involve themselves in this type of drama, especially when an ANI case can easily resolve the issue. I support any consensus action against User:Joseph2302, but feel it's ridiculous to suggest that Floquenbeam is in any way at fault here. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, TRM reports a personal attack, and rather than a quick close, he gets asked why he can't just ignore them? That's not how personal attacks go. This is what contributes to the toxic atmosphere at Wiki and especially at ANI. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Just ignoring is, I've now realized and discovered, the best tactic when dealing with someone who is trolling. What contributes to the toxic atmosphere in Wikipedia is contributing to things escalating. It's the same as on the playground when you were a kid: ignore the bullies and eventually they will go away because the fun for them is in the chase and the responses they get. No response = no fun. -- ψλ ● ✉ 21:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

So an established editor breaks policies continuously and you just recommend that people ignore them? Why would we need policies then? nihlus kryik (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I recommend that the editor who feels they are being attacked ignore them, yes. Personal attacks are immature behavior. Immature behavior doesn't need immature behavior in response. Such a response will only escalate and increase incidents of the immature behavior. If it administrators notice it and do something about it, fine. But to make a huge issue of it and go on and on at talk pages and noticeboards...it only gives the attacker more reason to continue either now or later on. It also gives other editor trolls more ammunition to use at a later time, possibly at a noticeboard discussion started as a complaint about the attacker. There are a lot of immature people in Wikipedia who like the anonymity it provides so they can take out their aggressions or sadistic impulses on others. I've learned this the hard way. From something I borrowed from another Wikipedia and put on my user page a couple of years ago: "...be mindful of...how the opposition will stalk and target your articles, try to get you involved in an edit war, and make up a rationale for blocking you. Don't be fooled by this game. To avoid falling for this trap...Understand that some editors have antisocial attitudes, others are drunk or on drugs, and still others have psychological problems that we can't address. Above all, remain true to yourself and stay above the fray...". Running to an admin board for every infraction you (think you) see or perceive isn't the answer. And, admins don't really appreciate it, either. Wish I had realized this sooner, to be honest. -- ψλ ● ✉ 23:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Gee, if only there was some sort of official stance on civility. An... oblong shaped object. Maybe with some fancy carving on it. Used to support the whole of Wikipedia? We could probably use five of them. Not sure. Maybe that's something we should look into. --Tarage (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I propose derailing this thread by diverting the discussion to the question of whether a pillar is oblong or cylindrical. EEng 02:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. Seems to me that individual pillars deserve the right to their own geometries, and we should not bully them by trying to determine/impose our opinions or stereotypes. -- Begoon 04:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Priceless. Enigma^msg 04:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Sad to see the history and culture of our great five pillars being turned into oblongs. You can't change pillars, but you can learn from them! Pillars, Talk pages – what's next, Visual Editor? Flow? So foolish! EEng 05:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

It can't be oblong as that is a 2 dimensional shape, now if you were to say a rectangular prism.... Also, what if the pillar had a polygonal cross section? Are we discriminating against pillars with hexagonal, heptagonal or even octagonal cross sections?? -Blackmane (talk) 06:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I knew all that stuff but humor comes first. EEng 06:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• Joseph2302 should be indeffed per the absurd report linked in the OP, and the "bizarre ANI thread" linked above by Pawnkingthree. Those links, plus their reaction which required revocation of talk page access, show that Joseph2302 is unable to contribute in a non-disruptive fashion. TRM should receive a massive trout for misinterpreting Floquenbeam's action to revert the absurd report and the subsequent discussion at Joseph2302's talk. @TRM: Not everyone is on the lookout for an opportunity to poke their opponent. Floq undoubtedly remembers the old discussions with TRM, but Floq does not keep pots boiling—Floq saw some nonsense, reverted it, and spoke gently with the user. TRM really had to work hard to assume bad faith in what Floq said, and bringing up the old fuck you is pathetic. For those familiar with TRM's history, the fact that someone told TRM "fuck you" merely indicates that TRM regularly gets under people's skin. TRM's ability to get under people's skin is what needs attention. Johnuniq (talk) 06:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll agree that this present episode is deeply unimpressive - and it was me who declined to unblock and disabled TP access. However, I'm not convinced that an editor with 40k edits and relatively little form (judging from his block log) is a net negative ripe for being indeffed. GoldenRing (talk) 09:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
    • GoldenRing, I want to be with you--but this is really deeply unimpressive to an extent that you wonder what the hell someone was thinking. They should have known this was going to be the result. Johnuniq, well said. Drmies (talk) 12:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
• TRM's talk page was edited by an IP today to insert a description of TRM as worse than Hitler. This ridiculous personal attack was reverted by admin Bencherlite but no warning was issued to the IP nor block imposed. No matter what TRM has done nor how many editors and admins he has annoyed, I believe that swift action is appropriate when any editor declares that another is worse than a man responsible for millions of death. EdChem (talk) 12:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• EdChem, yes it was ridiculous. I saw no need to feed the troll by leaving a warning, and no need to block a dynamic IP with no other edits of a similar nature. Bencherlite^Talk 16:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• Bencherlite, you reverted the IP's PA three minutes after it was posted. How did you know that whoever made the edit wouldn't post more bile somewhere else a few minutes later, perhaps somewhere not on your watchlist? Did you consider that a block of the IP would demonstrate to other editors that such posts are not tolerated, no matter who they are made against? It may be unfair, but my first thought on seeing the reversion but no block was that a similar post to most other users would have been met with a block and to wonder whether the reason for no block was because the attack was made against TRM. I can well understand not posting a warning because of the troll-feeding, but not blocking can be taken as sending a message which I hope you did not intend. It's too late to block now, of course, and there have been no further edits from the IP, which I recognise does fit with your decision... and, of course, your reversion was absolutely the right thing to do and was appreciated. I do believe, however, that a block on the IP would have been desirable. EdChem (talk) 08:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• LOL, you think I'm on the side of people who attack TRM? That's an interesting take on things. Bencherlite^Talk 08:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe the IP saw this? That aside, the original post at IAV is just plain odd. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Are you in... flavor country?! ;) — fortunavelut luna 13:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

It's a big country... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I make that {{checkuser needed}}. GoldenRing (talk) 13:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: What are you needing checkuser for here? If you want me to publicly link an IP to an account, I can't do that.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

 Clerk note: Tag disabled as it has been addressed by a CU. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 17:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Just finished my block, and seen this thread. I 100% wasn't the person who posted that terrible post to The Rambling Man. There's a difference between the posts I made, which were wrong, and that post, which is horrifically grossly insulting. That IP should be given a long block IMO. Comparing a Wikipedian to one of the world's worst every human beings is wholly unacceptable. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:52, 19 August 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.

Duplicate articles

Not sure if anything is wrong here, but there's the possibility that the duck may be clearing its throat in preparation for a quack: This image was uploaded to Commons yesterday, just 30 minutes later a different editor uploaded a complete biography using that image to Mohammed Muntari Tageo, 5 minutes after that, the same user made a copy of the article at Mohammed muntari tageo. Working back to WP from the Commons user there were also user pages that looked like article biographies as well. As I said, I'm not sure if this is anything more than a duplicate article problem, an article being reposted after deletion or something else. - X201 (talk) 08:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Possible template vulnerability used in Azad Hind to redirect to a Twitch channel/external website

I was attempting to click on a link on this article when I was suddenly redirected to some sort of satirical Twitch channel. Apparently, somebody managed to insert a page-long image that links to an external website. Editing the article's source doesn't reveal any suspicious links, so I presume that the vulnerability resides inside of a template used within the page, and I'm not good enough with reading/editing Wikipedia templates (even though they must be simple enough to use) to locate the vulnerability (perhaps the vulnerability resides within the MediaWiki software itself?). This could be dangerous, as the external link might be an IP logger or even worse, and prevents normal usage of Wikipedia.

You simply have to click anywhere inside the contents of the article to be redirected. The website's sidebar and top bar are normally usable as the link's reach doesn't leave the article's div tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WaryLouka (talk • contribs) 14:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

A remnant, I think, of some vandalism some days ago. Try purging the page's server cache by making a null edit on the page if you see it again. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

It seems to be gone now - That being said, however, I feel that the incident around twitch links in templates does need to be dealt with. Twitbookspacetube 15:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, yes, I purged the cache by making a null edit... --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

It's still there. I just had this issue on the exact same article and was going to come here to report it. 81.98.14.109 (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

By the way here is what the page HTML source code looked like to me a few minutes ago. It is not longer appearing for me either. 81.98.14.109 (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, it's no longer appearing for you? Perhaps it was a lingering caching effect. :) (I did purge a few more times...). The ext link has been blacklisted so it should not be appearing on the wiki again. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The spoof here was covering the whole page a transparent png; is there a reason not to size-limit img= things? Do we need 7000x7000 images anywhere? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Entire template space is semi-protected

Nope. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

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

---

I would like to propose that the entire template space move to a minimum standard of semi-protection. Twitbookspacetube 15:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support Twitbookspacetube 15:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose this is trying to fix a leak with a hammer. Power~enwiki (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Power, doesn't solve anything really. ansh666 17:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose This is an overreaction. The incident has already been dealt with, any remnants can be cleared up very simply. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Overkill. It has already been added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. nihlus kryik (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose IP and new users do make useful and productive changes to templates. There are better ways to handle this issue. Ravensfire (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

DYK nominations are the obvious examples. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, yeah, and when I find the editor who created that ridiculous structure for DYK I'm going to throttle them. EEng 01:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Alternative proposal : Audit templates and TE protect above a threshold

I like the idea of template editor protecting these sorts of templates; they are obviously high use, and vandals are likely to go for the ones that have the highest visibility. So, do we have an audit of the most widely transcluded templates (infoboxes and Twinkle-compatible templates must be high up the list)? And if not, can we make one. Once we know that, we can start identifying what should be protected, and act on that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

We have Wikipedia:Database reports/Unprotected templates with many transclusions (highest). — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

See WP:HRT. nihlus kryik (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem is edits that add large images or layers to templates by IP or new users. Would it be possible to create an edit filter to look for those and prevent them from happening, directing the user to the template talk page to request the edit there? Ravensfire (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

It's certainly possible to create an edit filter which checks when IPs (or any class of users) add images (or external links) to templates, tagging the edit, blocking it, warning the user or so. However, I do not think it'd be possible to check if the image is large or not, since technically you're referencing to the image location and not embedding the object in the edit itself. --QEDK (愛) 15:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Unilateral undo of a consensus move

A couple of weeks ago, there was a discussion to move Nagorno-Karabakh Republic to Artsakh Republic, as the country had changed names. Consensus was obtained and the move was approved on August 7. Then people industriously performed the needed changes and moves.

Today, Norvikk (talk · contribs) appears out of nowhere and decides to move them all back. When I complained on their talk page, they reverted me, so now I come here.

I note that this is not Norvikk's first brush with edit warring, nor their first time declining to participate in any discussion; an edit summary from them, [73], translates as "Nobody wants to participate in your "fucking discussion", maybe that's why you can not discuss it." So, they're charming and willing to work with others.

I'd like more eyes on this, both because we probably need to deal with this user in a way other than "pretty please," and also because this is a lot of busy work they've created for us. --Golbez (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

They have now vandalized my user page. --Golbez (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

And they blanked this section. Surely we're at the level of not-here? --Golbez (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• Totally NOTQUITEHERE, I think. This and this is actually consistent with this ediotor's M.O.- that of a blatant IDHT-unilateral-MyWayOrTheHighway attitude. Overiding and ignoring a community-established consensu? Dictating the contents of another editor's user page? Dictating what may or may not be posted at a community discussion board? No way is that a collegiate behavioural pattern, and one way or another, it needs to be discouraged immediately. — fortunavelut luna 14:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I see User:Floquenbeam has successfully attempted to discourage that behaviour for at least 72 hours. — fortunavelut luna 14:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

They've contributed a lot to en.wiki, so I don't think NOTHERE applies. But this is clearly disruptive behavior (the moves, plus screwing with Golbez's user page, plus blanking this section), so I've blocked for 3 days to prevent further disruption. I don't think this solves the problem of this thread; we should decide what to do at the end of three days, and we should decide if the block needs to be longer to prevent re-reverting the moves (which I assume are going to be fixed by then) when the block expires. This block is only a temporary solution to the immediate disruption. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, I prefered the NOTQUITEHERE to the other ;) It's odd though. See, they've been a useful member of the community for 2¾ years, with no blocks (as touched on above) and sound editing, it seems. Then this February went on a mad 3RR one, and now this. I wonder if there's something going on we could find out from them? That, of course, would need asking... — fortunavelut luna 14:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• If we are assuming that 99.53.112.186 is the same as the registered user, there have been CheckUser blocks on that IP address, so it's probably worth while to get a CheckUser involved. It's an AT&T Lightspeed IP address and could be dynamic, so that's something that will need to be taken into consideration. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 14:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding; that IP helped by reverting the disruption on this page, and actually has a long history of good work. No one thinks that IP is Norvikk. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

176.181.72.89

It seems that 176.181.72.89 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been committing cross-wiki sneaky vandalism since May 2017. All of the IP's edits were reverted by other users. Could someone please block the IP? Thanks, 153.206.109.8 (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Don't forget to inform the user of the ANI case, I have done so this time, but in the future it is important to inform a user of an ANI case as soon as you report them. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Antisemitism

Could someone have a look at the Antisemitism in the United Kingdom page. There are two editors determined to include a picture of Jeremy Corbyn. The picture was added only two weeks ago, shortly after the 2017 UK general election. There was no discussion and no consensus was sought. There's little evidence of a consensus for such a controversial move. Garageland66 (talk) 08:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

As this is a content dispute, I have fully protected the article for one week and advised editors to gain consensus for the inclusion of these images. I don't believe any other admin action is necessary at this time -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 08:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• Well, says User:Philip Cross, it fits "as the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn has been implicated in a tolerance of antisemitism by very many sources"--a ridiculous excuse for a BLP violation. One wonders (maybe) why Cross picked only Corbyn, when all major parties were indicted in the recent report. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I am with my honourable colleague Drmies here. I don't wonder at anything anybody does or says here any more, but I would be prepared if necessary to exercise a technical measure to prevent any such damage to our project. --John (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Thank you. I looked at this a few hours ago and was going to post some thoughts but really I just think people who continue righting great wrongs in such an absurd fashion should be given a final warning and then indeffed. Johnuniq (talk) 23:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
• What Phillp Cross said is correct and the fact it hardly appears anywhere is an obvious NPOV problem (not opining on Corbyn's picture on that page, but the general coverage of the issue in this encyclopedia). Corbyn even had to commission an inquiry about it due to the pressure from the media, yet none of that appears on his page or the Labour page. Funny that, eh? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • [74] here they even call it Labour Anti-Semitism. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's a RS that states that the Labour party linked to increase in anti-semitic acts in the UK. [75] hiding behind PC policy is just wrong, here's another RS, where a third of voters stated they will not vote Labour because of alleged anti-semitism, clearly Labour and Antisemitism in the UK is relateable, [76] Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

However Labour != Jeremy Corbyn. Its inappropriate to link a living person in that way absent reliable sources that do. That *Labour* has an anti-Semitism problem (allegedly) has been well covered. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

How about this? The same percentage of Jews said they'd vote Labour as Muslims who voted for Trump, linked directly to Corbyn.

This is not the place to go over the content issue, but it's obvious noting criticism of how Corbyn deals with antisemitism is not a BLP violation. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

By the way, the fact nothing about this stuff appears in any relevant article despite years of coverage in places like the BBC, NBC, Guardian, etc, is an obvious WP:BIAS issue. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh that's just because Wikipedia is run by socialists... Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Socialist activists, please. -- Begoon 13:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, those pesky Jews who want to edit Wikipedia and include mention of increased antisemitism in the world, and antisemitism with regards to Labour and how it's affecting the party. Shame, really. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh. Well at least you're neutral. I was joking, I have no position, but nailing your flag to the mast is ok too. I don't edit those articles. I have better things to do. They're full of people who make comments like you just did. Not a war I want to join. -- Begoon 15:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

You don't want to join the war, just take a drive-by shot. What's not neutral in what Sir Joe just said?

You guys can make fun of this as much as you like, the fact remains that editors try to add information about this issue to various articles and those attempts are almost always blocked, despite the fact there's a very large amount of coverage in the media. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I was kicked off a page because I posted a different opinion about Sweden. It is true though, that antisemitism is now tolerated by the left, both in the UK and in the US, and it's a shame that Wikipedia is not allowing mention of that in articles where it can rightly belong, merely I guess for trying to be PC. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, all those left-wing demonstrators in Charlottesville chanting "Jews will not replace us!" were quite a spectacle. Oh, wait... Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for proving our point. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate articles

Not sure if anything is wrong here, but there's the possibility that the duck may be clearing its throat in preparation for a quack: This image was uploaded to Commons yesterday, just 30 minutes later a different editor uploaded a complete biography using that image to Mohammed Muntari Tageo, 5 minutes after that, the same user made a copy of the article at Mohammed muntari tageo. Working back to WP from the Commons user there were also user pages that looked like article biographies as well. As I said, I'm not sure if this is anything more than a duplicate article problem, an article being reposted after deletion or something else. - X201 (talk) 08:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Possible template vulnerability used in Azad Hind to redirect to a Twitch channel/external website

I was attempting to click on a link on this article when I was suddenly redirected to some sort of satirical Twitch channel. Apparently, somebody managed to insert a page-long image that links to an external website. Editing the article's source doesn't reveal any suspicious links, so I presume that the vulnerability resides inside of a template used within the page, and I'm not good enough with reading/editing Wikipedia templates (even though they must be simple enough to use) to locate the vulnerability (perhaps the vulnerability resides within the MediaWiki software itself?). This could be dangerous, as the external link might be an IP logger or even worse, and prevents normal usage of Wikipedia.

You simply have to click anywhere inside the contents of the article to be redirected. The website's sidebar and top bar are normally usable as the link's reach doesn't leave the article's div tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WaryLouka (talk • contribs) 14:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

A remnant, I think, of some vandalism some days ago. Try purging the page's server cache by making a null edit on the page if you see it again. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

It seems to be gone now - That being said, however, I feel that the incident around twitch links in templates does need to be dealt with. Twitbookspacetube 15:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, yes, I purged the cache by making a null edit... --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

It's still there. I just had this issue on the exact same article and was going to come here to report it. 81.98.14.109 (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

By the way here is what the page HTML source code looked like to me a few minutes ago. It is not longer appearing for me either. 81.98.14.109 (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, it's no longer appearing for you? Perhaps it was a lingering caching effect. :) (I did purge a few more times...). The ext link has been blacklisted so it should not be appearing on the wiki again. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The spoof here was covering the whole page a transparent png; is there a reason not to size-limit img= things? Do we need 7000x7000 images anywhere? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Entire template space is semi-protected

Nope. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

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

---

I would like to propose that the entire template space move to a minimum standard of semi-protection. Twitbookspacetube 15:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support Twitbookspacetube 15:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose this is trying to fix a leak with a hammer. Power~enwiki (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Power, doesn't solve anything really. ansh666 17:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose This is an overreaction. The incident has already been dealt with, any remnants can be cleared up very simply. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Overkill. It has already been added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. nihlus kryik (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose IP and new users do make useful and productive changes to templates. There are better ways to handle this issue. Ravensfire (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

DYK nominations are the obvious examples. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, yeah, and when I find the editor who created that ridiculous structure for DYK I'm going to throttle them. EEng 01:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Alternative proposal : Audit templates and TE protect above a threshold

I like the idea of template editor protecting these sorts of templates; they are obviously high use, and vandals are likely to go for the ones that have the highest visibility. So, do we have an audit of the most widely transcluded templates (infoboxes and Twinkle-compatible templates must be high up the list)? And if not, can we make one. Once we know that, we can start identifying what should be protected, and act on that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

We have Wikipedia:Database reports/Unprotected templates with many transclusions (highest). — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

See WP:HRT. nihlus kryik (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem is edits that add large images or layers to templates by IP or new users. Would it be possible to create an edit filter to look for those and prevent them from happening, directing the user to the template talk page to request the edit there? Ravensfire (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

It's certainly possible to create an edit filter which checks when IPs (or any class of users) add images (or external links) to templates, tagging the edit, blocking it, warning the user or so. However, I do not think it'd be possible to check if the image is large or not, since technically you're referencing to the image location and not embedding the object in the edit itself. --QEDK (愛) 15:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Unilateral undo of a consensus move

A couple of weeks ago, there was a discussion to move Nagorno-Karabakh Republic to Artsakh Republic, as the country had changed names. Consensus was obtained and the move was approved on August 7. Then people industriously performed the needed changes and moves.

Today, Norvikk (talk · contribs) appears out of nowhere and decides to move them all back. When I complained on their talk page, they reverted me, so now I come here.

I note that this is not Norvikk's first brush with edit warring, nor their first time declining to participate in any discussion; an edit summary from them, [77], translates as "Nobody wants to participate in your "fucking discussion", maybe that's why you can not discuss it." So, they're charming and willing to work with others.

I'd like more eyes on this, both because we probably need to deal with this user in a way other than "pretty please," and also because this is a lot of busy work they've created for us. --Golbez (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

They have now vandalized my user page. --Golbez (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

And they blanked this section. Surely we're at the level of not-here? --Golbez (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• Totally NOTQUITEHERE, I think. This and this is actually consistent with this ediotor's M.O.- that of a blatant IDHT-unilateral-MyWayOrTheHighway attitude. Overiding and ignoring a community-established consensu? Dictating the contents of another editor's user page? Dictating what may or may not be posted at a community discussion board? No way is that a collegiate behavioural pattern, and one way or another, it needs to be discouraged immediately. — fortunavelut luna 14:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I see User:Floquenbeam has successfully attempted to discourage that behaviour for at least 72 hours. — fortunavelut luna 14:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

They've contributed a lot to en.wiki, so I don't think NOTHERE applies. But this is clearly disruptive behavior (the moves, plus screwing with Golbez's user page, plus blanking this section), so I've blocked for 3 days to prevent further disruption. I don't think this solves the problem of this thread; we should decide what to do at the end of three days, and we should decide if the block needs to be longer to prevent re-reverting the moves (which I assume are going to be fixed by then) when the block expires. This block is only a temporary solution to the immediate disruption. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, I prefered the NOTQUITEHERE to the other ;) It's odd though. See, they've been a useful member of the community for 2¾ years, with no blocks (as touched on above) and sound editing, it seems. Then this February went on a mad 3RR one, and now this. I wonder if there's something going on we could find out from them? That, of course, would need asking... — fortunavelut luna 14:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• If we are assuming that 99.53.112.186 is the same as the registered user, there have been CheckUser blocks on that IP address, so it's probably worth while to get a CheckUser involved. It's an AT&T Lightspeed IP address and could be dynamic, so that's something that will need to be taken into consideration. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 14:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding; that IP helped by reverting the disruption on this page, and actually has a long history of good work. No one thinks that IP is Norvikk. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

176.181.72.89

It seems that 176.181.72.89 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been committing cross-wiki sneaky vandalism since May 2017. All of the IP's edits were reverted by other users. Could someone please block the IP? Thanks, 153.206.109.8 (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Don't forget to inform the user of the ANI case, I have done so this time, but in the future it is important to inform a user of an ANI case as soon as you report them. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Antisemitism

Could someone have a look at the Antisemitism in the United Kingdom page. There are two editors determined to include a picture of Jeremy Corbyn. The picture was added only two weeks ago, shortly after the 2017 UK general election. There was no discussion and no consensus was sought. There's little evidence of a consensus for such a controversial move. Garageland66 (talk) 08:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

As this is a content dispute, I have fully protected the article for one week and advised editors to gain consensus for the inclusion of these images. I don't believe any other admin action is necessary at this time -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 08:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• Well, says User:Philip Cross, it fits "as the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn has been implicated in a tolerance of antisemitism by very many sources"--a ridiculous excuse for a BLP violation. One wonders (maybe) why Cross picked only Corbyn, when all major parties were indicted in the recent report. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I am with my honourable colleague Drmies here. I don't wonder at anything anybody does or says here any more, but I would be prepared if necessary to exercise a technical measure to prevent any such damage to our project. --John (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Thank you. I looked at this a few hours ago and was going to post some thoughts but really I just think people who continue righting great wrongs in such an absurd fashion should be given a final warning and then indeffed. Johnuniq (talk) 23:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
• What Phillp Cross said is correct and the fact it hardly appears anywhere is an obvious NPOV problem (not opining on Corbyn's picture on that page, but the general coverage of the issue in this encyclopedia). Corbyn even had to commission an inquiry about it due to the pressure from the media, yet none of that appears on his page or the Labour page. Funny that, eh? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • [78] here they even call it Labour Anti-Semitism. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's a RS that states that the Labour party linked to increase in anti-semitic acts in the UK. [79] hiding behind PC policy is just wrong, here's another RS, where a third of voters stated they will not vote Labour because of alleged anti-semitism, clearly Labour and Antisemitism in the UK is relateable, [80] Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

However Labour != Jeremy Corbyn. Its inappropriate to link a living person in that way absent reliable sources that do. That *Labour* has an anti-Semitism problem (allegedly) has been well covered. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

How about this? The same percentage of Jews said they'd vote Labour as Muslims who voted for Trump, linked directly to Corbyn.

This is not the place to go over the content issue, but it's obvious noting criticism of how Corbyn deals with antisemitism is not a BLP violation. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

By the way, the fact nothing about this stuff appears in any relevant article despite years of coverage in places like the BBC, NBC, Guardian, etc, is an obvious WP:BIAS issue. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh that's just because Wikipedia is run by socialists... Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Socialist activists, please. -- Begoon 13:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, those pesky Jews who want to edit Wikipedia and include mention of increased antisemitism in the world, and antisemitism with regards to Labour and how it's affecting the party. Shame, really. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh. Well at least you're neutral. I was joking, I have no position, but nailing your flag to the mast is ok too. I don't edit those articles. I have better things to do. They're full of people who make comments like you just did. Not a war I want to join. -- Begoon 15:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

You don't want to join the war, just take a drive-by shot. What's not neutral in what Sir Joe just said?

You guys can make fun of this as much as you like, the fact remains that editors try to add information about this issue to various articles and those attempts are almost always blocked, despite the fact there's a very large amount of coverage in the media. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I was kicked off a page because I posted a different opinion about Sweden. It is true though, that antisemitism is now tolerated by the left, both in the UK and in the US, and it's a shame that Wikipedia is not allowing mention of that in articles where it can rightly belong, merely I guess for trying to be PC. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, all those left-wing demonstrators in Charlottesville chanting "Jews will not replace us!" were quite a spectacle. Oh, wait... Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for proving our point. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Carmaker1 aggressive edit summaries, again

Hi. Despite two previous incidents on the same issue (1), (2), Carmaker1 is still making aggressive Edit Summaries:

• "I am tired of ignorant, that remain too thick to realize production dates have NOTHING to do with MODEL years that are merely designations, NOT timelines based in real time. STOP using them for timelines or I'll simply report you for disruptive editing"
• "To clueless IP user 99.42...., please don't anymore unproductive changes to this article"
• "Stop wasting my time"
• "As usual SteveofC00 has an lazy inability to understand model years and thinks..."
• "Stupid wording. Why can't some of you figure out how to use prepositions..."
• "Miss me with that "citation needed" nonsense 1292"
• "1292simon it is so obvious that"
• "It is not "confusing", I don't give damn about..."
• "Some of you continue to stubbornly ignorant of model years usage"
• "Stupid vandal"
• "I really shouldn't be saying, but is utterly disappointing that there are users who are allowed contribute such contradictory information. They have no business editing here, if such simple info cannot be submitted correctly"
• "Editing things like this is a waste of time"
• "Please get the damn timeline right. I was totally thrown off, by the inability of someone else to CORRECTLY list the..."

I think something should be done to stop the personal attacks and hostile environment for other editors. 1292simon (talk) 09:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Well in the past few days, I've written "This article is crap. Time for at least a decent intro" and "not notable my arse", neither of which were directed towards any editor but more an exasperated sigh before I tackled some improvements to that article. I need context. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie. I don't want to get into whether its ok to slag off an article or not, but either way the hostility directly at others editors is a more serious issue, I think.
Regarding the context, the examples above are all quite recent, so the context can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Carmaker1. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Carmaker1 is getting repeatedly fed up with new users and IPs making either factual errors in articles or changing contentious content away from what was agreed by consensus. I don't know what you want me to do other than just remind him to dial it back a bit? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Carmaker1 has far more patience than I. I find the "aggressiveness" understandable under the circumstances, and I find the complainant's accusations of "personal attacks" to be absolute horseshit. This is a frivolous impeachment, and a waste of the community's time. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Possible Edit War

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amazinganime4&diff=795981876&oldid=793631046

I have to complain in the strongest possible terms about user Amazinganime4, who continually and without any real reason changes or mis-edits my contributions to sections of LIST OF POKEMON: SUN AND MOON EPISODES. The edits he or she does are minor but unnecessary and demonstrate that he or she possibly does not use English as a primary language. I have asked this user to desist and have informed him/her that I would bring this matter to your attention, but have apparently been ignored.TonyPS214 18:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Checking... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Edits and content aside: the messages you left on Amazinganime4's talk page here and here look to demonstrate behaviors consistent with ownership of content; Amazinganime4's edits to the article include simple changes to numbers and grammar (diff), and your first message stated how you've "run out of patience" with the user (even though you have not communicated with this user before) and proceeded to tell the user to stay away from your changes. This is not how Wikipedia works; there is no such thing as ownership of content. All editors are equally welcome and encouraged to contribute to any and all content on Wikipedia. Absolutely nobody on Wikipedia has special or more control or "rights" to edit content than anybody else. If the information that the user is modifying is not correct, that is a different issue and this should be discussed on the article's talk page. But telling someone to "buzz off" because they're modifying something you've added or are working on is not acceptable and goes against Wikipedia's principle of complete and total open collaboration and expansion to it's content. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

TonyPS214 made a report to WP:3RRN about this case; I have declined it since there's no 3RR violation and the report was poorly formed anyway. I also reverted TonyPS214's most recent undo at the Pokemon page in question and reverted his undo of the other user's blanking of their talk page. only (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

This user (User:LuisSuazo300) has been constantly disrupting the pages Marcos Llorente, Borja Mayoral, Real Madrid Castilla, and 2017–18 Real Madrid C.F. season. For instance, please take a look at this. He then proceeded to justify the reasons for his edits on the talk page of User:Kante4 as: "Like I said, Marcos Llorente is not ready to be with the senior team do you understand, he needs to go back to Castilla and improve himself and this is why coach Zidane made a huge mistake for calling him to the senior team, he should of said "nope, in order for Marcos Llorente to be with the senior team, he needs to keep improving himself on Castilla." Warnings have been exhausted, and it seems like he's just doing it to enforce which players he thinks the squad should be composed of, not what the actual squad is. — Anakimi_lambaste   21:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: Appears to be an editor with a history of similar conduct. I have blocked the editor in question for 2 weeks based on recent disruptive editing and the subsequent incivility ([81][82]) Alex Shih^Talk 02:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Confederate monuments list

There is a lot of editing going on at List of monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America, including some trying to change the list-article to cover schools and parks named after Confederate leaders. The list-article has been in place since 2010, with current title since 2015, and IMHO it is clearly out of scope to add those. There has been some back and forth at Talk page, including at a discussion section about proposed name change / scope change, which is at least partly productive. I myself stated that I was following wp:BRD and removing the off-topic additions, and I expect that there should be discussion first.

However, it has gotten out of hand now. In this edit just now an editor accused me of vandalism, which is absurd, and there were other accusations that way in edit summaries and at the Talk page. I don't want to term it edit warring so far. I removed stuff and after it was all restored I removed it once more, with direction to the Talk page, and I don't plan to restore it now myself. But the list-article has been trashed, in my view, and is now non-encyclopedic. I suggest it would be appropriate to restore a neutral version of the article and freeze it, and force discussion by RFC or whatever, at the Talk page. I hope some attention can be given there. I may not be able to respond/participate much more myself. --doncram 23:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I would advise that any matters dealing with this be passed to the Foundation for office action. I just don't feel, at our pay grade, it is safe or advisable to deal with.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Wehwalt: What a ridiculous statement. The current article's already pretty long, so it would make sense to spin off a new list of public facilities (schools, parks, buildings -- but not monuments, statues) named for Confederates. If there's no such list, someone start it (I would but I don't even have one thing I can put on it). EEng 00:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I am referring to administrative actions and you are not. That is within the terms of what the OP is asking for.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm referring to potential administrative actions too. If you're too afraid of the drooling knuckle-draggers to use your tools, step back and let those made of better stuff do it instead. EEng 03:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Are these the knuckle draggers with torches or the knuckle draggers with other objects? I ask because you clearly have lifelong experience in the area.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Huh? For an admin you don't shine at this kind of repartee. EEng 21:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

A bunch of editors added memorials like schools and highways and one editor took them all out, changing the lede in a number of places. A spinout might be ok with consensus, but we create the spinout and then remove the content from the origional while adding a hatnote pointing to the spinout. I agree this repeated removal of valid content across multiple edits borders on vandalism. It's hard to restore the removed content due to intervening edits. Legacypac (talk) 05:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• Not a complicated problem. List inclusions are based on the defined criteria for the list. 'Memorials' is a not a great definition criteria because schools, roads, fountains, libraries etc are all named as memorials. Some even have 'memorial' in the name. This is not unique to the US. If the criteria is meant to include 'memorials' in general then there is no issue, if the list is meant to only include things like statues, then it clearly needs to say that. The answer is hold an RFC. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• I have left a talk page message at WP:MIL about this discussion, because it's their baliwick. We are living in tumultuous times in regards to these memorials, and it isn't going away anytime soon. I agree that an RFC should be conducted on this. I also agree that the size of the list at 215,683 bytes is already too large for some users with older systems to edit. I'm for breaking it up and doing that division in coordination with the Military History project. A lot of the current editing is being done by autoconfirmed users. One way to do this, again in coordination with the WPMIL, is to fully protect the main article, and making a sub-page for editors to work on. But, let's hear from the WPMIL on this. A lot of those folks are not in America, so give them time to respond. — Maile (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin, but here's what I'd do:
  1. Gold-lock this article for a few days until there's consensus for what stays and what goes.
  2. Probably spin off an article about former monuments. pbp 22:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Old News please close there is no one arguing about the scope of this page now and many editors are working happily on it. One of the better group editing experiences I've had. It is now by far the most complete and accurate list of its type in existence, having far surpassed the report it was initially built off. There is already Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials and a growing number of pages on individual monuments. This whole ANi topic can be safely closed. Legacypac (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

BLP vio in edit summary - needs to be removed

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.

---

[83]. Calling a living person a "racist" without sources or any kind of backup is a clear cut BLP violation. At the least, the edit summary should be oversighted (or rev-del or whatever). The user who made it should be at the very least warned.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, the "sources or any kind of backup" were clearly provided on the talkpage (see here). That is my considered opinion. Quis separabit? 14:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

No such sources were provided. You did not provide a single source which "backs up" calling this person racist. This needs to go.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Is your issue with the content, the edit summary or both? We generally don't cite statements in edit summaries. Some of her comments [84] could easily fit the description in the edit summary and are represented and well cited in Symone Sanders . Toddst1 (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

My issue is with an editor calling somebody "a racist" in an edit summary. That's not hard to understand.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

This isn't your first rodeo. How did you miss the prominent notice, in a red box, in over-sized type, in bold, and accompanied by a bright red warning symbol telling you that this is not the place to post suppression requests?--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to email anyone.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

This term "racist" is getting thrown around way too carelessly in the real world. While there's not much we can do here to straighten out the real world, the least we can do in not to jump on this mindless bandwagon. I rev-deled the summary.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:31, 20 August 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.

SPA at Alawites

يوسف_عاشق_الجبل (talk · contribs · count) has been adding the same unsourced line in the article Alawites since 2016 (1-2-3-4-5-6), despite reversions by multiple editors. After asking why, I got some vague answer about sectarian lies, so for the time being I left it in with a citation-needed tag. But now even that has been reverted. Case of WP:TRUTH and WP:IDHT. --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Mass indiscriminate addition of {{C-SPAN}}

Kev519 has for the past 3 days has been adding the {{C-SPAN}} template and links to many, many articles, without edit summaries, discussion or response to queries for an explaination. Consensus should be sought for this type of editing at the very least. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment: I have issued a warning. This has been going on for a while, so the next edit of similar kind (appears to have stopped for today) will result in temporary sanction. Alex Shih^Talk 03:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
• FYI, these are links to what appears to be a CSPAN archive of films/videos on various people e.g. in the Malcolm X article,

Appearances on C-SPAN

I don't see the problem. I noticed these additions for a few articles on my watchlist, and they're all appropriate External Link material. Since most editors don't know these resources are available, I think it actually makes sense to simply add this template to articles whose subjects have such archived CSPAN material, and other editors, in the few cases where the article doesn't benefit from the addition, can remove it. I sampled twenty of the article to which the addition had been made three days ago, and in no case has it been removed. This is pretty compelling evidence that in most case it's a useful addition.

I think Alex Shih's warning re "mass indiscriminate addition of information" is overkill and inappropriate. EEng 03:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, except that this place runs on consensus. The warning about process was correct. I think the links may well be a good addition but getting consensus before launching a campaign like that is wise, as is pausing to ensure consensus when people say "what's up with this". Jytdog (talk) 03:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

This place also runs on boldness, and I think this is a good bold move, easily undone in the cases where it's not an improvement. EEng 03:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes WP is a heady brew of libertarian and communitarian ideologies - it would fall apart without boldness and without consensus. As one of the most relational people here, i would expect you to be sensitive to the problem of people being nonresponsive, EE. ... Jytdog (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, he should respond, and he should use an edit summary (maybe, "suggested EL -- feel free to remove if not helpful for this article"). I'm relational? EEng 04:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

yes, Mister Sensitive! Jytdog (talk) 06:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

You're projecting. EEng 11:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think that while the addition of the links is somewhat useful, ignoring the multiple comments on his talk page is problematic behavior, especially if consensus is reached to undo his thousands of edits. nihlus kryik (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• At the very least he needs to use an edit summary for each addition. As to whether the indiscriminate mass edits themselves are useful, that's debatable. Softlavender (talk) 03:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

PA is irking me

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

---

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) said this, which I saw a few hours ago. I pointed out something here, thinking that, well, he would retract it. He didn't.

Although I usually just let PAs against pass by, I am really, really pissed with the implication that I am anti-semitic, which comes pretty much from nowhere and is chilling because that sort of mud sticks. Can someone please tell Norton not to bandy around things like that before doing their homework? There is absolutely no basis to it, either in my real life or in what I do on Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's pretty low, Mister. But I thought you'd got a good handle on it: E.g., @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): implies someone is antisemitic on no basis; so @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) gets told to Fuck Himself Off. The system works. Although I do not necessarilly blame you at all for wanting some official eyes on it- in the spirit of preventing similar suggestions in future, I suppose Sitush? — fortunavelut luna 16:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Some people perhaps don't get so riled by being labelled an anti-semite. I know the "he started it first" idea is childish, but he did and telling him to fuck off is not actually labelling him etc. I live in an area that has the second-highest density of Jewish people in the UK. I would be absolutely hammered if this baseless stuff got out. - Sitush (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Would Stamford Hill have the highest, would you say? — fortunavelut luna 16:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Eh? What is your point? Now he is piling it on with insinuations of hatred about other things. I'm seriously pissed with this. - Sitush (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

No, just idle curiousity, sorry- often wondered on a 253. Yes, the implications there are rather egregious. It's effectively envelope-pushing (in)civility, and certainly casting WP:ASPERSIONS upon an editor's motives. Mind you, RAN does seem to have form when it comes to that kind of incollegiality. — fortunavelut luna 16:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• Since asking for/demanding apologies is a waste of time, let's do it this way instead:

  User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) will be blocked indefinitely if he ever says, or implies, that someone is an anti-semite. He will remain blocked until he agrees never to say something like that again, and can get the reviewing admin to believe him. This is not because we can't call things by their true names here; it is because apparently he is incapable of understanding the meaning of this very charged term.

The point being, it's OK to call actual anti-semites "anti-semitic", but if you don't understand the term, or (worse) are using it to score rhetorical points, then you can't do that here. Whether, as a human being, RAN owes Sitush an apology is not a matter for WP. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Forgot to metntion here, but I've {{rpa}}'d the original insult that started this whole thing off, and {{collapse}}'d the resulting comments at the AFD. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree that, after all, apologies aren't guarantees, whereas this way should achieve that. Seconded. 'Implies' is the equivalent of 'broadly construed,' here, I suppose. — fortunavelut luna 17:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

RAN's response is not encouraging; I'd switch the first sentence of that proposal to just "RAN is indeffed." GoldenRing (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I prefer the warning first, but will not lose any sleep if we do it your way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not encouraging, indeed! if they cannot see that you cannot dictate after the event how a remark is to be taken by those it is directed at. CIR, IDHT, are intimated. — fortunavelut luna 17:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Support block and talk later. This is an editor who flies to this page when he believes he's been insulted with post after post about the incident. He wants consideration when he thinks he's on the receiving end, but appears to care less about what he says to others. Deja vu from one year ago today. BTW-Has he been notified of this thread? We hope (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Notified. Reminder, @Sitush: when you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. nihlus kryik (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Nihlus Kryik: He knows. They know. The subject was notified, some time ago. Just bear in mind, because someone hasn't used a template, it doesn't mean it's not there. There is, after all, more to WP than templates, I hope :) Or at least, should be. — fortunavelut luna 18:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Sitush did notify Mysticdan (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my bad. I missed it in all their friendly banter. :) nihlus kryik (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• Well, I'm not going to let this thread archive until Norton responds here. As others have said above, he does have form for making wild accusations. Somehow, he needs to learn that it isn't acceptable. - Sitush (talk) 07:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• I agree. When lines are crossed, people need to account for their actions, and just ignoring the community at ANI in the hope it dies a death just isn't appropriate. - SchroCat (talk) 12:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not a very good sign at all, I agree. — fortunavelut luna 12:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• I'm a little surprised no one seems to have noted this comment, which likely prompted RAN's explosive remarks. It's probably not a good idea to suggest that one's own draft comments would have been misconstrued as antisemitism. To me, that's just asking for trouble. I certainly don't believe that Sitush is antisemitic, nor do I think RAN should have made such an assumption based on the comment I've linked. My point is that trying to preemptively head off such an accusation is not a great idea. WP:BEANS and such. Lepricavark (talk) 04:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• RAN may have misinterpreted Sitush's remarks, but that was over two days ago and the personal attack has not been retracted. There has been zero evidence to suggest the PA had any foundation. The only editor who said "I am not antisemitic, but..." is RAN—Sitush did not say that. Johnuniq (talk) 06:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• I am merely making the point that everyone is ignoring that this was prompted by an ill-considered remark that was misconstrued, perhaps intentionally. I think context is important and therefore I pointed it out. I'm not denying that RAN is in the wrong, and he really should respond to this thread here and acknowledge that he is in the wrong, but it is a good idea to show Sitush his mistake so he can avoid it in the future. Lepricavark (talk) 11:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• My point was that it is necessary to be extremely careful when commenting on topics such as this because it is so easy for something to be misconstrued. (For example, if I had suggested that people such as her sometimes engaged in their educational talks as much for her own personal therapy as for education then I would get into a lot of trouble. Note the word example, please - I've nothing to support it and no reason to think she did.) My remark was not an admission of anti-Semitism etc but, if anything, the opposite. - Sitush (talk) 11:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• I completely agree that it is necessary to be careful, but I don't think you were careful enough when you wrote that you were concerned about being accused of antisemitism. RAN certainly made a large leap in his interpretation and it is true that your comment was not equivalent to "I am not antisemitic, but...", but when you say your words might be misrepresented as antisemitism, it opens up a door you don't want to open. Of course you aren't antisemitic and RAN needs to acknowledge that. Lepricavark (talk) 11:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• The only credible comments above are those calling for an indefinite block. People can say unfortunate things and not be sanctioned provided they acknowledge their mistake. Ignoring this ANI discussion and doubling-down on the original accusation (see diff and RAN's talk) is unacceptable. Apologies are never required at Wikipedia but if, more than two days after the original accusation, an editor cannot withdraw their attack they are actively (right now) accusing an editor of antisemitism. That is an ongoing PA which requires an indef to prevent further disruption. Johnuniq (talk) 06:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

  The only credible comments above are those calling for an indefinite block. I suspect that is specifically directed at me, which seems awfully harsh given that I said nothing which would stretch the limits of credibility. Lepricavark (talk) 11:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• User:Sitush has a long history of personal attacks/unacceptable language, as well WP:CIVIL violations, despite being a very valuable editor who dares to touch highly toxic topic areas in systemically racist non-English-speaking societies, with great skill. I don't know why they are climbing this particular hill, risking airfoil action, over what isn't even clearly personal. Perhaps applying battleground techniques applicable in places with real wars, to articles about little old ladies, is a bit over the top. Nfitz (talk) 08:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• Nfitz, did you even see what was said originally? You've been sticking your oar in all over the place recently and I wonder if the same applies here?. I have no idea what "airfoil action" is, btw. - Sitush (talk) 09:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Originally? It was something about an apple wasn't it - somewhere in Archive 1. But I came in at this which didn't seem to be aimed at any particular individual. I'm fine with your actions, etc. I merely think you need to stop dropping the F bombs unless entirely appropriate. This is the same oar I normally drop - that WP:5P4 is a pillar, and thus takes primacy over more minor things, like what is at worst a subtle jibe for someone using language that while perhaps correct, is going to raise eyebrows with some perceiving inappropriateness. Given the number of times people drag you here over trumped up charges, I'd think you'd simply turn the other cheek. Nfitz (talk) 09:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

It was not a subtle jibe. Civility is definitely a pillar, but it doesn't only cover swear words. Lepricavark (talk) 11:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The words were obviously intended as a direct accusation of antisemitism. Scanning the page shows that very clearly, but any doubt is erased by noting that the accusation has not been retracted. The word-twisting of "you all" is transparently false as the implication of antisemitism only matches 'I just know someone will be waiting to shout "anti-semitism"' immediately prior to the antisemitism attack. Johnuniq (talk) 11:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Nfitz, the fact that I do usually turn the other cheek seems to have escaped your attention. That, though, is an indication of how much RAN has irked me. - Sitush (talk) 11:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment Still supporting block and talk later. RAN has made himself scarce here since this ANI post. You can't get him off this page when he believes he's been wronged and expanded it to Jimbo Wales' TP. There he made an unprovoked PA re: another editor being a cross-dresser; he's not an innocent when it comes to slinging PAs. We hope (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually I mis-spoke. I identified Norton's title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FRose_Van_Thyn&type=revision&diff=795670099&oldid=795602885 comment as what was originally said. Actually, it was only in response to Sitush's previous, somewhat condescending, comment which was the first mention of anti-semitism. I don't know why the topic even got raised. The response in turn, seemed pretty mild, unless one fails to follow WP:AGF and takes it personally, when it doesn't particularly read that way. I don't know how it's obvious, given the use of the word used for a second-person plural pronoun. It's possible, but it's not obvious. I'm not sure what the first diff tells us ... 3 follow-up posts in a long complaint he made? Hardly seem unusual. The second one - unprovoked PA, accusation of being a cross-dresser. I think that you've completely misread that, the context is to his earlier comment about blaming women wearing dresses for getting raped. He then compares letting people use the F bomb because they were provoked, to domestic violence against women. Blofield ultimately asks what can I do about it, and Norton jokes "you shouldn't have worn the dress". This is not an accusation of cross-dressing - it's a metaphor. But hang on - how could a simple comment about someone wearing a dress be a personal attack? Why do you think there's something wrong with men wearing dresses? It's commonly enough accepted - it's not like any normal person would care if someone was trans or not - though how does it even mean that ... there's no context, perhaps it was Halloween, or perhaps someone is bucking for a Section 48. Heck, there's no indication in particular of what Blofield's gender is - I assume it's a known fact, but I don't know which of the many genders they are. I don't understand why the skin is so thin here; looks to me that there is simply a reaction to comments that are more jibes and humour, than personal attacks. Nfitz (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you could try not reaching so far afield-you've fallen off the limb some time ago. We hope (talk) 10:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• This is a wholly unsatisfactory situation. @Floquenbeam: At this stage, with RAN's explanations deafening by their absence, do we assume that the personal attack is still extant per no retraction? — fortunavelut luna 11:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know; ANI is almost completely useless for decisions like this. My personal inclination, as given above, is to not demand a retraction/apology, but to instead make it very clear that it cannot ever be repeated. It's not like anyone with a brain thinks RAN is right, and FWIW I did redact it, and RAN hasn't edited in 1-2 days so the idiocy is not being repeated. But I don't want to just do that when it appears others think a block right now is in order, since I don't get to over-rule them all. Like I said, such a block would not make me terribly upset. But no one is actually making the block either. So the worst of all possible outcomes is it slides into the general background slime of ANI and nothing happens, but that's often the default occurance. If ANI worked more like an OTRS-type system, an admin could come along, say "I've got this one", deal with it (probably to no one's complete satisfaction) and move on. But waiting for consensus and drive by comments and voting and seeing when RAN decides to edit again is exhausting, and leads to nothing happening (to everyone's complete dissatisfaction).

@Sitush:, if you would be grudgingly OK with the warning I posted above, I'll do it and close this. If not, then one of the admins who think a block is in order should come back and actually do it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with most of your analysis. Thing is, I think RAN's response here is not good enough. But I don't think it's one of those situations where an admin can just indef someone on their own initiative. So if I see consensus here to block him, I'll do it. I don't see it. GoldenRing (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, well at least a slide into the general background ANI slime has been averted: [85]. I'll leave any further action up to others. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Floquenbeam, how is this unanimous? There's little indication that it was a personal attack - and the history of personal attacks demonstrated in the case was very, very poor - (a joke about a dress is a personal attack?). If there was such a history of personal attacks - maybe. The complainant however, has a very long history of being uncivil, and swearing unnecessarily at people. A very long history such as in May 2012 September 2012 August 2014 September 2014A September 2014BJuly 2017. And he did it again in this discussion where User:Sitush told someone "F... Off" in what was otherwise a reasonably civil conversation. This is a clear, demonstrable, and repeated offence, which I think should lead to sanctions. Or perhaps a thicker skin, so one can take what one dishes out. Nfitz (talk) 16:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, make that "nearly" unanimous. Everything else still holds. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: it would be a very grudging acceptance on my part. Despite what is said below, RAN did not disengage - he repeated the thing on his own talk page. I've read also that this is not the first time he has suddenly not been able to edit Wikipedia when he has been brought to ANI, so while I have to AGF in theory, in practice I am unconvinced. Especially since he somehow found the time to speak with Feyd Huxtable at some length about the issue. I'm also now pissed with Nfitz who, again not for the first time, is getting involved in stuff they admit to not understanding and, as BMK says below, again being ridiculously contrarian. They've done it with, for example, Doug Weller in the recent past and, I think, they're heading towards a temporary ban from posting at ANI due to issues of competence.

I'll accept your decision, Floq, because I know you to be one of the best admins. But, yes, it is very grudging because, however much AGF I try to apply, I think the system is being gamed. - Sitush (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I didn't see much in replying on the issue again, as it appears that consensus doesn't agree with me, however today Sitush come back here the next day and seems to have made several comments here that concern me.

* First he challenged Norton for not posting to Wikipedia, but could communicate to another user; however if he's travelling on business, he might be in the position, like me, where every action taken on the Internet is logged, and personal use of company resources is monitored and actioned; or perhaps during the most popular vacation time of the year, he's on vacation, and had enough sense to leave his computer at home!

* Secondly, a diff above I'm accused of again getting into stuff I admit to not understanding. That has to be one of the most misleading accusations I've seen. What Sitush is referring to here, is that on a User talk page, I had the gall to try and compliment him to say he is a valued editor, who dares touches highly toxic topic areas in systemically racist societies, with great skill. To which he pointed out that Caste issues aren't racist issues; and I accepted that, noting my ignorance in the topic area (an area I've never edited or commented on before!). Exactly how the use of an incorrect adjective in a user-space comment, in a topic area I don't participate, can be used as an example of competence I don't know!

* Finally I apparently have done similar before with Doug Weller - although I have no recollection of this, and cant find any evidence we've even ever interacted on Wikipedia in over a decade, other than a minor observation of a sock I reported to him, that I was aware he was chasing.

Meanwhile Sitush got what he wanted. The defendant has been harshly warned. Meanwhile, he hasn't edited for days, so there's no risk of imminent damage or destruction. So why are we still here? Consensus seems clear. Move on. Nfitz (talk) 07:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• "ANI is almost completely useless for decisions like this" - Why? There is almost universal agreement (Nfitz comments aside) that it was a personal attack either directly or indirectly implying Sitush is an anti-Semite. As an administrator Floq, your remit includes enforcing Wikipedia policies both using your judgment, and as the community interprets them. Standard procedure for where egregious personal attacks are made and identified as such is to demand retraction and block if the editor who made them refuses. Other options taken by admins in the past have included blocking for a fixed period and removing the PA themselves, blocking indef until they agree not to make similar comments in the future and so on. All would be justified given the attack, and RAN's subsequent unsatisfactory response. Anything *less* than a hefty block (with or without unblock conditions) is making a mockery of the various policies for civility, personal attacks, the 5 pillars etc. A simple 'you are blocked until you agree not to say, imply or otherwise insinuate another editor is an anti-semite' would be enough, if RAN is still resolved not to retract it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah had not seen the follow up you made on RAN's talkpage. 'Don't do this again or be blocked indef' is also one of the options available. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi y'all. I'm a long-time wiki friend and admirer of RAN. When I saw the ANI on his talk this morning, I took the liberty of emailing as I think it can be more effective to have a quiet word sometimes rather than posting public advise. I said the statement could be seen as an attack against Sitush, which would be both obviously untrue & very offensive, and I advised a withdraw. Unfortunately RAN has just advised he is traveling for the rest of the month and he may not be able to edit for a while. He wanted me to post that his remark was not in anyway intended to imply Sitush was a racist. Like many of us, RAN has been distressed by Charlotteville, and wanted to point out the optics of deleting a famous Jew at this time. Also he wanted to suggest that however true it might be to say "I'm not racist but" or "some of my best friends are" , those statements are basically no 1 or 2 in the racists playbook under denial tactics.

RAN knows his choice of words were not the best, and said he would have immediately apologised for the impression he gave, if Sitush has responded in any other way than saying "F" off. That made him want to dis-engage. Most would think being sworn at is totally trivial compared to implications of being a racist. But RAN is not the only hugely productive editor that really dislikes the "F" word. Hopefully when RAN completes his travels he can apologise direct to Sitush if that is still required. Obviosly I strongly oppose any block,and hope this can now be left to archive. PS - great call by Floq just to warn and not block even though they was not privy to this information. That sort of restraint and tact is why Floq is (AFAIK) regarded as one of very best admins. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

RAN's attack on Sitush was particularly offensive and the doubling down then expounded it. A couple of editors appear to be attempting to justify RAN's appalling behaviour by claiming the use of the F-word is worse. Really? What an odd world when the use of the F-word, which is pretty common in UK use, is perceived as more offensive than racial abuse. I respectfully suggest that those who are offering ancient diffs of Sitush's supposed indiscretions check RAN's long standing restrictions for copyvio and his willingness to throw accusations and initiate ANI reports and/or stir drama on, for instance, Jimbo's talk page - I am not including diffs as they have all been supplied by others in earlier comments. I seldom comment on ANI preferring not to get involved but feel sufficiently strongly to Support block because in my opinion overall RAN is not a net positive and this is just the latest in a long list of poor judgement. SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

That's quite a misreading. Only myself and one other raised the F-word issue. In my case I specifically pointed out most would not see the F word as worse- "Most would think being sworn at is totally trivial compared to implications of being a racist". IMO Sitush was totally justified in cussing RAN. But if we want a truly collegial environment, welcoming to a diverse group of editors, it's good to be aware that not everyone has the typical British attitude to profanity, so it should be avoided where possible. As for your comments about RAN not being a net positive, his copyvio issues were largely related to excessively long quotes, and haven't been happening on any scale for more than 10 years. Not sure why you complain about ancient history being raised for one editor and then raise ancient history for another? RAN has made tens of thousands of good edits, naturally there's a few concerning diffs in the mix, but considering he's generally collegial and has been hugely productive , he's obviously a net positive. Can't even believe anyone would want a block now it's been made clear no PA is intended. Oppose block. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The suggestion that there is racial abuse is just absurd. I'd wonder if User:Sitush was trolling a bit, by using such classic defences, that are normally seen as evidence in the opposite direction ... but I actually wonder if there might be some English-language competency issues, so maybe not. And hang on, I'm British, and Fuck off is most certainly not in common British usage, not among relative strangers in a forum like this; perhaps with your mates in a pub, in the right context. Besides, civility is one of the pillars here - it's clearly a personal attack. Unlike the alleged anti-Semitic comment, which I don't see how one would conclude is anti-Semitic, give it was Sitush that raised the anti-Semitism issue in the first place. Nfitz (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

"I wonder if Sitush was trolling a bit..." Really?, you really wonder if Sitush was trolling, or are you -- as seems to be your habit on AN/I -- saying the most contrarian thing you can think of to add a little spice to the discussion and get yourself noticed? You think that, given his background, after being called an anti-Semite and being angered by it, his response in laying out the reasons why he wasn't an anti-Semite weren't intended to show why the charge was ridiculous, but to "troll" RAN?

In the future, could you perhaps make sure that when you stir the pot your claims at least pass the laughability test? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Hang on, you've changed my words. I explicitly used a conditional present tense, not a present tense. Therefore, no I don't wonder, but I would wonder it, if I wasn't assuming good faith and wondering if there English-language competency issues. Given the complainants generally thick skin historically, and willingness to toss out substantial abuse themselves, it's THIS that offends him? And I'm not allowed to ever ponder if they were angling for something? And now they are calling it "racial abuse"; the defendant clarified they were using the pronoun you in the second-person plural, not single -a and they did this BEFORE the ANI complaint.. Elsewhere User:Sitush tried to turn my comment of not wanting to make a too much of a roadmap for ANI into Perhaps it should have been an ANI. Then you would have been put in a position where you would have to explain the "roadmap", whatever that may be. which is what made me wonder about the language competency issue (given the lack of recognizing idioms and lack of awareness of common memes) This is why I'm explicitly NOT wondering if they were just fishing a bit. And "most contrarian thing you can think of ... to get yourself noticed" - simply because you disagree with me, doesn't mean you can fail to AGF and assume I've got some nefarious motive all the time; my motive is to make an honest observation, that people seem to be really over-reacting to what looks relatively innocent, rather than a personal attack. Perhaps when you people's comments; if it looks like some attack of some kind, you should count to ten, sit down, and think that if there was no malice in the content, what were they trying to say; and then it might become apparent there is a different meaning than the one you assumed. Your might want to keep out for the verb tenses as well. And why not address the substance of my comment - that there was a very clear personal attack by User:Sitush; I don't know why everyone is so willing to ignore such a blatant personal attack from someone who has a very long history of doing similar. Nfitz (talk) 04:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

When you have to Wikilawyer that much... And if you don't want people to characterize your behavior in negative ways, stop behaving in negative ways. I'm obviously not the only editor who's noticed this propensity in you, so rather than getting your back up, you might take a deep breath and indulge in some introspection. Consider that there just might be some amount of truth in the characterization. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Nfitz, with each comment you descend further and further into the abyss of sheer nonsense. RAN's remark about antisemitism was clearly directed at Sitush. How you can miss that is beyond me. Sitush's language in his response to RAN was certainly not ideal, but if you cannot understand that a reckless accusation of antisemitism is more serious than an angry response by the recipient of such an accusation, you have completely failed to use common sense. Lepricavark (talk) 03:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, how you can assume that is beyond me. Which is more likely, that an editor who has not only been here for 13 years but is one of our most prolific edtors, without (as far as I know) any such reckless accusations of anti-Semitism, suddenly knocks off two of them in 2 days, or that they were merely passing comment, perhaps with some humour, of the use of such classic memes. We are required here to read comments assuming good faith; so if there's leeway to read something different ways, how would one choose something that is either less likely, or very insulting - let alone both; and if that doesn't cover it, there's Occam's razor. It's not the best edit in the world, but I think this has gone way too far. I simply don't see the reckless accusation of antisemitism - and I don't understand the reaction, if one thought it was. I don't even know why one would be that upset. If someone accuses you of something that's just completely out of lunch, I simply point to the error in their assumption, and/or confirm I am understanding their words correctly. Why expend the energy taking something personally, that might not be meant that way - particularly given the national trauma that was (is?) ongoing regarding this subject? Why not simply AGF and take them for their word, that it wasn't personal. Nfitz (talk) 05:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

You've done this before, taking the assumption of good faith to absurd heights. At some point, a thing is what it is, and you have to stop pretending it's something it's not because you've been told you have to: usually about the time you've twisted yourself into a pretzel. What matters is not what's "more likely", but what actually happened. You really need to stop being a contrarian for its own sake and deal with the facts on the ground. (The reality of a rock is that when you kick it, you hurt your toe, even if you assume with all of your might that it won't.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Only if it's Solid Rock rather than Soft rock  ;) — fortunavelut luna 06:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Booooo. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

"Fuck" is pretty frequently to be heard on British Television. Any anyone watch Gordon Ramsay on American television? If it isn't used there why is he allowed to use it (or is it censored?). But let's not rely on anecdotes. Let's see a study[86] where "A UK-based linguist created maps based on geotagged data from Twitter that show the usage rates of several popular curse words across the US" It even has a "fuck map". What is obvious is that if you live in some states the word is used rarely Twitter. Live in other states, it's pretty common in Twitter. And fuck is used on US cable tv, right? In any case, living in Britain you can still often see or hear the use of "fuck" coming from Americans. Ok, I know it wasn't just "fuck", but compared to an what Sitush obviously thought was an accusation of anti-semitism? Sure, the first should be avoided but it isn't anywhere near as big a deal as accusing someone of antisemitism. Doug Weller talk 17:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

"Fuck" is common enough (though certainly not heard on terrestrial US television much - they even beep "fuck" after midnight, and the only non-accidental nipple I've ever heard of was in Schindler's List)! Even though you can change your dial near the border, where our biggest [[87]] network ran Sopranos uncut in prime time, and they can show casual nudity 24/7. But what I said wasn't about "fuck", it was about "fuck off". If it was only fucking that was said, I wouldn't have said anything about it (nor did I mention this one before). But what was said, in an AFD, was Fuck off], which unlike the simple casual use of fuck or fucking, is a clear personal attack for which there has yet to be an apology - despite the other party having quickly clarified that it wasn't meant as a personal attack, and repeating a second time that "was not in anyway intended to imply Sitush was a racist". However, the consensus here appears to be that it is a personal attack; action has been taken, so might a well move on and close the thread Nfitz (talk) 07:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

If not on "terrestrial US television", what about on "extra-terrestrial US television"?

BTW, on the question of "Fuck", I recommend that everyone read The F-Word which is quite amusing, although best read in small doses -- like while on the toilet. We really must keep our wits about us concerning that word: after all, we don't want to inhibit David Mamet's work, do we? Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Just for clarification terrestrial television is a commonly used British expression (I believe both Doug Weller and myself are Brits); here in North America we tend to say over-the-air television (OTA), ie, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CBC, CTV, etc., instead. I'd have thought that extra-terrestrial US television would be alien-television, which is presumably any foreign TV, like BBC or Univision :) Nfitz (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC

Thank you for that, the term was unfamiliar to me. As for "Over-the-air", perhaps it's an age thing, but I'm more familiar with it being called "broadcast television". Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• I just want to interject at this point that if "PA is irking me" I would suggest going to "MA", per WP:OTHERPARENT. EEng 08:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Agree that the circumstances per FeydHuxtable would make a block of RAN undesirable at this time. And after all, it's not RAN's fault that Nfitz keeps idiotically insisting that Sitush needs to be sanctioned for telling RAN to fuck off. Can we please consider the RAN issue closed and instead look at Nfitz's behaviour here (and here and here, where he pointlessly pesters users by repeating his already wordy comments)? I'm sure there are ways you can help Wikipedia, Nfitz, but commenting usefully on ANI doesn't seem to be one of them. Do you even notice how people are getting increasingly irritated at you, suggesting you "take a deep breath and indulge in some introspection" or that "you have completely failed to use common sense"? You wonder if Sitush was trolling "a bit"? You wonder about Sitush's language competency? At least, that's how I read your less than crystal clear "makes me wonder language competency issue, given the lack of recognition idioms". I won't throw "language competency" back in your face for that phrasing, because that would be rude, but I do wonder if you take the trouble to proofread your posts at all. Your ""Fuck off" is a clear personal attack" has impressed nobody, and yet you keep repeating it, without explanation (what's personal about it?) and without, to all appearances, consulting the personal attack policy. Now, after you have personally made the thread so much longer than it need be, you belatedly concede we "might as well move on and close the thread". I hope that means you're done bloating up this thread, pointlessly poking Sitush, and wasting time. No need to respond. Of course I don't mean to prohibit you from responding to me, but if you do, please let that be that. Altogether, you might do well to cut back drastically on your commentary at ANI before somebody opens a thread to propose banning you from it. Bishonen | talk 10:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC).

• Keep insisting he needs to be sanctioned? I only raised that once; by the time I returned that evening, it was clear there was no consensus for that. I said I didn't think Sitush was trolling, but perhaps that was unclear with my grammar. I proofread all my comments earlier today and I am actually horrified at how poor the grammar and spelling were, not to mention the missing words - I will start proofreading closer. I thought that telling someone to "fuck off" in response to what they write, is an insult; obviously consensus is against me. I was done with this on Friday. I only returned on Saturday because of Sitush's comments were so misleading; and while here, I simply clarified that it was only the phrase "fuck off" that I thought was the insult, not a simple adjective "fuck" (or noun or adverb really). I'll try and be less verbose. Nfitz (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• That would be appreciated. Drmies (talk) 22:15, 20 August 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.

Inappropriate changes to the list of catholic scientists

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

---

There are some articles in need of attention. E.g. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Lay_Catholic_scientists. The modifications done by Akasseb do not paper neither required nor appropriate. I fear this is some kind of vandalism aimed to hit this particular religion. It would be helpful to go deep into it.--Pra1998 (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:BRD? I see no attempt to truly discuss this with the editor besides your immediate call for administrators in reply to his reasoning on the talk page of the article. I see no need for an administrator to be involved. Also, when you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page, which I have done for you. nihlus kryik (talk) 20:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Here is my response to Pra1998, as found on the talk page of the List of Lay Catholic scientists: It escapes me why you have written this here. No scientists have been deleted in an absolute sense. Rather, all the of the churchmen-scientists were removed from the List of Lay Catholic scientists because of double counting (they are all on the List of Catholic churchmen-scientists). Also, I have a vested interest in making sure this is done right: all of those scientists were originally added by me (take a look at the edit history). I am also the main contributor to the List of Catholic churchmen-scientists. Furthermore, beyond my history with these articles, I have a deep knowledge about the historical relationship between the Church and science (I've been studying it for a decade) as well as a graduate degree in theology.Akasseb (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

It is all ok. Sorry for bothering.--Pra1998 (talk) 21:13, 18 August 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:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning

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 bot reverted my legitimate edit to "Curtis Lazar" and left a "vandalism" warning on my talk page.

GoFlamesGo (talk) 01:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)GoFlamesGo

Actually, it isn't malfunctioning. Although your edit wasn't vandalism, it wasn't appropriate for an encyclopedia, and I wouldn't even call the bot response a false positive. I further note that your conduct at Johnny Gaudreau is less than exemplary. Acroterion (talk) 01:39, 20 August 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.

AlexTrevex Pt. 2

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.

---

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

Following up on this report, after a stern warning from Beyond My Ken, the editor is still engaging in the same type of disruption; posting short, extraordinarily poorly-worded diatribes against skeptics/scientists and promoting pseudoscientific subjects, particularly alt-medicine. Diffs: [88], [89], [90] and [91]. The description I gave represents 100% of this user's edits. They don't have even a single edit to article space, just these little mini-diatribes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks like someone who isn't here to build an encyclopedia to me. Also looks like someone who is randomly concatenating fortune cookie messages. A Train^talk 20:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed the lack of edits to articles. I'd say the combination of that and the talk page comments adds up to WP:NOTHERE, WP:NOTPROPAGANDA, WP:NOTBLOG, and, not the least WP:FRINGE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

What's fringe about Mermaids exist. Barack Obama saw them in the government lab? [92] EEng 21:45, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

"Government labs" are an old wives' tale. They've been debunked by The Skeptical Inquirer, as well as Carl Sagan, Richard Dawson and Allan Sherman. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• I'm startled to see such behavior from the host of Jeopardy! EEng 21:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Scuttlebutt is that he became unbalanced (literally) when he shaved off his moustache. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

OK, the mermaids put me over the top. Because he is either a fool or a troll, but either way someone who is WP:NOTHERE to help build an encyclopedia, User:AlexTrevex should be indefinitely blocked from editing English Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
• Indefinitely blocked. The mermaid thing was enough to push me over the edge, too. I've left instructions on how to appeal his block should AlexTrevex desire to contribute constructively instead of using Wikipedia as a soapbox. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:00, 21 August 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.

Annoyance by claims of no changes made

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.

---

• 80.181.119.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Redmary73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Template:Weapons of mass destruction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Both the IP and the user have been non-stop annoying my Talk page and clogging my email with messages such as "Please fix your mistake" or "I can't see Italy in the list" even after I answered the edit request the IP made. This, to me, does not make sense, and I even tried to tell them to refresh the page/purge the cache, but they keep doing it. I don't understand! jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Update: IP claims I am "avoiding" the issue. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I asked him to add Italy in the list of Weapons of mass destruction article.Italy in fact has the referred article Italian nuclear weapons program.He said yes but he acted the oppsite.You can judge easily.Or he lied or he is unable.80.181.119.244 (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment: The User/IP asked for a change to the template Template:Weapons of mass destruction with an edit notice. Jd22292 performed it. The user then took to his talk page to repeatedly ask why it wasn't done. The issue is that the user was reading the page Italian nuclear weapons program and it had not refreshed yet. I purged the page. The update is now visible. -- ferret (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I want to see the article if has Italy.80.181.119.244 (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Here is the diff of the change. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

IP: Please stop messaging Jd22292, the change was made. The article has to be refreshed before it shows, and I have performed that. Jd22292: If you're aware of page purging and had an idea what page the editor was talking about, it'd probably be best to just help them and purge. Purge is not a feature most editors know about. -- ferret (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I have also purged Weapons of mass destruction. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

 Note: Other pages that have the template transcluded will also need a purge to reflect the changes. The purge has not happened on each. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I saw ,you are right and i beg your pardon.I saw Redmary73 didn't last in write you.80.181.119.244 (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• This should safe to close. The IP has acknowledged that they made a mistake and unless Redmary73 plans to continue insisting that Italy was not added the main issue have been resolved and all parties should move on.--76.65.42.75 (talk) 21:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

You are right and i beg your pardon.You did really a good job!80.181.119.244 (talk) 21:58, 20 August 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.

ElRon lives!

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

---

We all thought that L. Ron Hubbard died in 1986, but here he is editing Wikipedia as User:L Ron Hubbard! What are the odds? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

This template L Ron Hubbard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) makes it easier for others to check on this editor. MarnetteD|Talk 18:53, 21 August 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.

Removing ref improv templates & adding non-RS by User:WikiEditCrunch

WikiEditCrunch (talk · contribs) has been removing {{refimprove}} from articles without making any improvements or adequate explanation:

• The Doors: "Template removed:Plenty of sources;All check out;Outdated template"[93]
• Babelsberg Studio: "Outdated template:Enough references"[94]
• Meredith Corporation: "Page has enough references for verification"[95]
• Robby Krieger: "Enough verification refs"[96]
• Roll with It (Oasis song): "Enough sources" (actually dmy temp, refimprov was next)[97]

However, it is a series of removals, reverts, and addition of problematic (non-RS, not-in-source, etc.) references to The Ocean (Led Zeppelin song) that prompted this report. As commented on Talk:The Ocean (Led Zeppelin song)#2017 referencing problems & user:WikiEditCrunch:

"The article has sections of unreferenced text, including quotes. Some sentences read like commentary and appear to be WP:Original research. WikiEditCrunch has been removing {{refimprove}} without adding WP:Reliable sources that support the text and they have added some links to user-generated websites (all bare URLs). Specific edits include:

• 20 July 2017 – removed refimprove with no changes to article; edit summary: "Deleted unnecces template";[98] was reverted.
• 20 July 2017 – removed new refimprove & added two bare URL inline cites to "It was deleted from the set list thereafter" sentence (neither ref mentions this); edit summary: "Issue resolved:Added additional sources".[99]
• 16 August 2017 – added "Live performances" section without refs & improperly linked album.[100]
• 16 August 2017 – removed new refimprove & dmy templates; edit summary "Bot mistake";[101] was reverted.
• 17 August 2017 – removed new refimprove & added two bare URL inline cites to ""The Ocean" refers to the sea of fans seen from the stage at Led Zeppelin concerts, to whom this song was dedicated" (neither user-generated website ref mentions this is RS); added bare URL inline cite to "In concert, Plant always updated the lyric to reflect her current age, as captured on the Led Zeppelin DVD which features a performance of the song at Madison Square Garden in 1973" (apparently OK); added bare URL inline cite to "It is also part of the bands live concert soundtrack album The Song Remains the Same (album)" (duplicated a link to a video that was already in "External links"); edit summary: "Added more sources;Enough refs".[102]

The user has been warned twice on their talk page with {{uw-tdel2}} & {{uw-tdel3}} (see User talk:WikiEditCrunch#7/17). Refimprove templates will continue to be re-added and problematic sources removed as necessary.

— /s/ Ojorojo 17 August 2017"

Since then, we have been going back and forth.[103] I tried adding a RS referenced quote about "the sea of fans" (from the original source), but WikiEditCrunch reverted/replaced it with a user-generated source.[104]

WikiEditCrunch has been editing for 2+ years and has rated/assessed a lot of articles. They should be familiar with WP:Identifying reliable sources, WP:Citing sources, WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE, and basic copyediting (The Song Remains the Same (album) is written as The Song Remains the Same in articles, punctuation, spacing, etc.). However, these and other policies/guidelines are not followed. And now, they've added {{uw-disruptive1}} to my talk page?

—Ojorojo (talk) 23:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: Being discussed with the editor. Alex Shih^Talk 01:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

WikiEditCrunch continues to add bare URL citations to sources that don't appear to support the text.[105] Additionally, they have once again removed {{refimprove}} ("Thre article is now well sopurced with reliable/independent/known sources."), despite the fact that there are several statements in the article that are not referenced ("Some speculate that ...", "Others are of the opinion ...", etc.). At a minimum, they should be restricted from removing any reference/citation/source related templates from articles. (see also their Request for page protection for The Ocean (song)[106]). —Ojorojo (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Kazakh tennis

Laura Shalabayeva and Anastasiya Zakharova have been created and then deleted as non-notable about three times now. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JulianLeeberher09/Archive. They have now been recreated again by TwoLittleCat2 (talk · contribs). I am assuming that this is another sock. Is there another way to prevent this from continuing? Note from the previous investigation that the user is using minor changes in spelling of the names to create these articles. Adamtt9 (talk) 02:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Saw Shalabayeva when patrolling CSD. I've salted. StarM 03:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Endless disruptive edits, and total refusal to discuss their edits

Appah Rao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been discussed here before, in a report that by most here was seen as "just" a content dispute, but this is not about content disputes, but about a total refusal to collaborate with other editors, discuss their edits on the talk pages of the articles edited, and get consensus for their edits. Appah Rao obviously dislikes the use of "decisive" in the short summary in the infobox of articles about historical battles and wars, all over the world, and just removes it, without ever discussing the change (I looked at their contributions but didn't find a single attempt to discuss their edits on an article talk page...), and edit-warring over it against anyone reverting them (see their contributions, all of their many edits, many of which are reverts, removing exactly nine bytes removed "decisive", as did quite a few of their other edits..). And not even discussing it afterwards, when being contacted on their talk page (their talk page history is full of attempts by other editors, me included, to make them understand how things work here, posts that are quickly removed by them...). And they've been doing it since their first day here: their second edit removed "decisive" from the outcome of the Battle of the Philippine Sea, which very much was a decisive American victory, and my previous contact with them was about their repeated removal of "decisive" from the outcome of the Ottoman–Safavid War (1623–39), which also was a truly decisive victory since it ended a long period of almost continuous wars, and brought 150 years of peace to the region. A discussion where they made false claims about what had happened, and when confronted by me over it, just deleted my comments, but let their own lame-ass excuse stay on their talk page. Their contributions, with ~180 edits on articles, most of them removing "decisive", and only seven on article talk pages, some of those being undiscussed moves of articles about French regions, that were promptly reverted by other editors for being moved to totally wrong names, clearly shows that they're not here to collaborate, only to push their own agenda. So the sum total of their activities here is that they're just a big time-sink for other editors, here only to "right great wrongs" (why else would anyone systematically remove "decisive" from the infobox of every article about a war or battle they see?), and not to collaborate with others, and build an encyclopaedia.... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: To clarify what the original poster is saying, this is a common problem faced by WP:MILHIST: Arbitrary removal of "decisive" from the term decisive victory simply because of personal taste, when the historical outcome has been clearly established by reliable sources. It is a content dispute only when it is being done with one subject/area of interest, but it is certainly not a content dispute when it is being done indiscriminately across wide different areas of interest without the regard to the context itself. The issue is currently being discussed with the editor. Alex Shih^Talk 01:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to give a free pass, were it just a matter of the pattern. As you say, it does suggest someone who is making changes on the basis of some highly idiosyncratic semantic standard, without due consideration for what the sources say on the matter. But even so, were they discussing/dropping the matter in any instance where they were reverted, I would probably be inclined to call it a good faith (if perhaps less than ideal) approach. But it's the edit warring that elevates this to outright disruption and that's the behaviour which I think most pressingly needs to be addressed. Well, that and (if I am reading the above correctly) removing other user's comments from talk pages in violation of WP:TPG.

All that said, from the discussion on their talk page, it doesn't look like the user is completely entrenched and unwilling to adapt their approach; from discussion there, it looks like they are content to add citation needed tags. That strategy itself might still lead them into some conflict (especially if they try to mass-paste it across the same span of articles they've simply been removing the term from up until now), but I think it still offers some cause for optimism, because it demonstrates that Rao is doing this from the perspective of an editor, with a rough policy argument in mind, not just some compulsive need to remove the word because it doesn't equate with their perspective. Hopefully the user transitions that to a more engaged and discussion-oriented approach. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I've also noticed some editors who feel that such adjectives are POV in historical articles. I think it is much too cramped an approach.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Anon reverting my edits out of spite

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.

---

Current IP 2602:304:788B:DF50:95CC:313F:A69C:59A9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
January to August IP 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is my first ANI so bear with me. When I revert this IP (s)he goes into my contribs and reverts something from me.

At Watchmaker analogy I reverted [here] and [here]. (S)he proceeded to revert me [here].

I had similar problems with this anon last March. Also starting with me reverting him at Watchmaker. Different IP but the same person. fwiw here is a discussion on my talk page. These are my warnings to him User talk:2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B#Bebop, here are the diffs [one], [two], [this one he was right].

Also note when editors come on his talk page he's more often than not confrontational and snippy.

My issue here is that he's starting this behavior anew and I'm quite certain the community has strict policies about this kind of disruption.

If I don't present my case well here - let's hope I don't get too much practice. SlightSmile 21:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:HOUND is what you are looking for. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

RE Watchmaker, I would suggest when someone is removing un-cited WP:OR that you not reinstate it unless you are in the process of providing a citation - as one of the defenses to a hounding accusation is that it is perfectly acceptable to check another editor's contributions if they are making problematic edits. No comment elsewhere as I have not gone into either your or their editing history. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Whatever argument, WP:OR or otherwise a disruptive editor uses, it is a judgement call to revert or not. One could argue (s)he's gaming the system. Even if he's right and I'm wrong at Watchmaker, I have never seen this hounding behaviour being tolerated.

We've all seen IPs and new editors come in here and think they're the boss. His bad faith reverts of my edits is unacceptable and I refuse to start being intimidated by this kind of combative behaviour. If I did one tenth of that, go into editors' contribs who revert me and revert something out of spite how many seconds would it take you to block me. SlightSmile 11:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

How is he hounding? All I see is a content dispute on Watchmaker analogy, which the IP was correct on, and some other reverts that were quickly handled. Also, the IP edits substantially on pages you have not. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 11:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you NK. I see it now he's a regular at the miracles article. His revert is still iffy and out of spite but I won't push it on that one. Please note the two reverts in March [one] and [two] are definitely unacceptable hounding. I can't make an ANI on something that far back, but if it starts again I expect the people here to step in for me. He made it clear on his talk he would do tit for tat reverting. Editors shouldn't have to take that kind of harassment. Meanwhile I withdraw my complaint. SlightSmile 12:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

That is not hounding. Hounding would be following an editor on every single page they edit and undoing it all, or showing up in every single talk page the user contributed to. Neither one of those is the case here. It is merely a content dispute. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

At Watchmaker we could argue whether or not it is content dispute. That section had been there for years and along comes the boss who's gonna kick some ass. Combative behaviour. Do I have to paste the March diffs from my 12:22 post again! If it doesn't officially qualify for hounding it's definitely a form of disruption. Look again. How many seconds did you say it would take the community to block if I went into an editor's contribs? SlightSmile 14:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Two reverts is not hounding. Please assume good faith. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Good faith that's a good one. Know anymore funny jokes? SlightSmile 14:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Look at my talk. I did tons of assume good faith. SlightSmile 14:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

So are there more than these 2 reverts (from March)? Are we missing some other "hounding" or "harassment"? I'm a bit lost here, I confess. Is there some connection between the March edits and the recent edits that convinces you that this is the same person "hounding"? WP:SPI will investigate that for you, if so, although it would need good behavioural evidence by now. -- Begoon 12:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

There's no doubt it's the same person. I realize that three reverts, two of them months ago seems trivial but as I noted, they assured me on their talk they would do tit for tat reverting if I should revert them while (patrolling is that the word?). I've seen editors blocked for less. It's not the three reverts in themselves, it's more like, is this the start of a pattern. As I stated above I withdraw my complaint for now but what's my recourse if they do it again. When has this combative behaviour become acceptable? What am I missing here. SlightSmile 14:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

We have come across each other maybe 3 times in 6 months. if that is hounding, you might as well close the whole project as people edit topics of interest and see each other often while editing these common areas of interest. The questionable behavior is on the filers part, they reverted to include what is clearly WP:OR which is in the first diff and then left a snarky edit summary (which was later reverted by another editor for... clearly being original research). As far as the discussion on my talk page months ago, they left a snarky comment there too, so they got a snarky comment back, it is after all my talk page. I follow no one around, the only editor I have ever had a serious disagreement with it Apollo the Logician and he battled many other editors. My edit history speaks for itself. 71.136.189.245 (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey nice to see you again. Note I gave up the word hounding long ago. I'm not going to start digging up diffs on your combative behavior at Watchmaker and apparently neither are the admins here. The Watchmaker issue seems to be resolved anyways so it's unlikely we'll meet again but if we should cross paths for whatever reason you are not to go into my contribs to make a point. SlightSmile 18:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

That would require one to assume I went into your contribs to make a point in the first place. Too bad you didn't go back to the first edit in the Watchmaker thread where you reverted me in support of Apollo the Logician, (who is now banned). Apollo was also the one who made the section unencyclopedic [[107]] and you followed it up with another revert after I returned the article to the long term stable version by telling me "Personal analysis - write a book" in the edit summary [[108]]. That is ACTUALLY how we first met. So if you want to accuse other people of bad behavior, at least have the competence to include the full story. I don't have anything else to say, I will assume it is a big misunderstanding. I can assume good faith. 71.136.189.245 (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

All good. Nothing more here. SlightSmile 18:44, 22 August 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:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning 2

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 bot reverted my legitimate edits to Johnny Gaudreau and gave me a vandalism warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoFlamesGo (talk • contribs) 02:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Nah, he's working just fine. You were reverted by more than one editor who told you not to add that information and to discuss the matter. You did the opposite of that. While I would not fuss at a human editor identifying your edit as vandalism, you did behave in a way that would reasonably make a clever bot think you were engaging in vandalism. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The OP made the same complaint about another of their edits in #User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning up the page, where they were told that their edit was inappropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I assume User:Beyond My Ken meant inappropriate? Given they got blocked for it there. DMacks (talk) 04:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thanks - fixed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:13, 22 August 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:Edwardx

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 continuously tagging pages which passes notability. Even though the user has many years experience , he is not even looking at the refeneces to check whether it is reliable or not. Quoting some recent incidents Tagged Prod, this page has enough and more reliable references including interviews, radio interviews etc , Previous tagged CSD , when removed with reason, placed Prod even though it has enough reliable sources These 2 articles are related and One article was created by me. Being an user with around 11 year experience as per the wikipedian's front page, the user is not follwing Wikipedia guidelines for placing tags in pages.Interesting thing is that many articles created by this user is also tagged for deletion by other admin. Those were created without following guidelines of wiki. This is not good for wikipedia and it must be warned. Any one is free to talk to me at my talk page BetterSmile:D (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC) BetterSmile:D (talk) 17:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence of him mis-tagging articles that someone besides you did not make? Because that's gonna be the thing that distinguishes whether he's mis-tagging articles or you're just assuming bad faith and making a revenge post. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Are we supposed to assume Bettersmiley's name and interest in this article is just a startling coincidence? An article that was created by a sock and edited almost exclusively by other socks? Are we also to assume their keen interest in this dude by the same sock farm is also a coincidence? I think not.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:28, 22 August 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.

Some admin action required for Zapad 2017 exercise

User talk:Vladimir serg has been continuously reverting the artcile to outdated and totally inadequate version, without any explanations, or discussion. The account is solely used for reverts of this artcile.Axxxion (talk) 13:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Yo Axxxion, it's a clear content dispute at the moment, and they generally don't get covered here. But since that editor soes seem to have been engaging in a slow-burning edit-war, you might like to file a report at WP:WPANEW. About which behaviour, incidently, they have now been advised upon. Cheers, — fortunavelut luna 14:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, Thanks for your intervention. But I disagree with your interpretation of the situation with this article: there is no actual dispute here: very easy to see that if you will take a closer look at what has been happening there for the past several weeks. For there is no real editor behind the account User:Vladimir serg, which is in reality a single-purpose account used exclusively for mechanical reverts of just this particular article to the text, which in turn is a machine-translated Ru WP version of the corresponding article from late June, whereas the article needs regular update, as it is about an event that is to happen. These reverts are in effect disruptive activity, pure and simple. The article needs semi-protection status, which is also called-for due to the fact that the topic is potentially politically loaded and controversial.Axxxion (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Besides, there is an obvious Wikipedia:Civility issue with this account′s last (and only) posting: [109]. All attempts to engage the person behind this account in any discussion have been futile. Most likely he has no English-language competence, in the first place.Axxxion (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Voltron: Legendary Defender unregistered user problem

Hi there! This unregistered user 2601:545:8202:4EA5:4C05:5527:3B3A:3B36 keeps adding non-essential details to the article's episode summaries. I have explained why i reverted the edit, but it does not seem to take and the user has resorted to name calling. I'm unsure how to progress.--Refuteku (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

You, of course, are presenting only your side of events. You labeled my editing "vandalism" BEFORE I applied any epithets, which is in fact what led me to it. And the evaluation of my edits as "non-essential details" is purely your subjective opinion. I also provided corrections to passages poorly constructed by even an objective measure. 2601:545:8202:4EA5:4C05:5527:3B3A:3B36 (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I should indeed have used the term "disruptive editing", that is correct. Now about the episode summaries. The character Pidge's gender had no relevance to the plot as none of the characters performed any plot related actions due to this revelation. And most of your grammar corrections were unsuited for an encyclopedic article.--Refuteku (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

No, "disruptive editing" is NOT correct. And your assessments are still your subjective opinions, despite your attempt to claim otherwise. For example, "continually" was the correct word to use, rather than "continuously"; but you first dismissed my entire edit within 3 minutes, clearly without careful consideration. 2601:545:8202:4EA5:4C05:5527:3B3A:3B36 (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

No, it's correct, since you have refused to discuss your edits in a civilized manner. Continually and continuously can both be used, if that's what you are hung up about. It's better to revert a large edit entirely, and then add the proper stuff from it afterwards which is now have done. This is preferably done by the first user, but as you started of by being aggressive i figured you were not interested in that.--Refuteku (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I have not "refused" anything! You never offered the opportunity; you only reverted "vandalism". You are DEAD WRONG about "continuously/continually", not that, as you well know, that is really the only issue. Your summary reversions put lie to any notion that I am a sole, or even initial, aggressor here, "not interested" in discussion -- which raises another issue: your continual distortion of the situation. 2601:545:8202:4EA5:4C05:5527:3B3A:3B36 (talk) 17:45, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• One of the more entertaining page histories I've seen in a while [110]. And continually is decidedly the right word. EEng 17:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Continually it is then :)--Refuteku (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

If only there were some way these disparate editors could combine their efforts to form, say, a giant robot with a blazing sword. But I digress. Dumuzid (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

lol, well, the effort needs to come from both users.--Refuteku (talk) 18:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

A plague on all their houses, but especially Refuteku's. Most episode summaries, especially of animated series, are pretty much "non-essential details" themselves, and srguing about individual summaries is so plainly content dispute that it's hard to see Refuteku's accusations of vandalism against an apparently new editor as the actions of a reasonable, good faith editor -- especially without the slightest effort to use the article talk page. Violating WP:BITE does more damage to Wikipedia than adding a few words more than a guideline calls for does, by any rational measure. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I see, well i do apologize for using the word "vandalism". I was slightly annoyed by the all caps "Leave it alone" revert the user did. I think it was after the second revert that the user wrote on my talk page and i tried to make it clear why i reverted the users additions. Albeit i did not explain it from all angles in my response. And i probably should have told the user to stop editing until we reached a conclusion.--Refuteku (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's what this all boils down to: As Wolfowitz points out, there are no hard and fast guidelines about what is vital or appropriate content for a plot summary (it would be impossible for the community to construct a one-size-fits-all standard for a vast array of narrative works) so it is up to involved editors to discuss these details and form a consensus or reasonable compromise solution. You have instead decided to immediately engage in an WP:Edit war over the matter and then, when this didn't work, flown here in the hope that we would impose your idiosyncratic interpretation of the plot of a cartoon most here will not have seen. You've missed about twenty dispute resolution steps inbetween this most trivial of content disputes and filing a complaint at ANI. You made no effort to so much as begin discussion this on the talk page, let alone avail yourself of a WP:Third opinion or other community process for breaking the deadlock, if it came to that (though, frankly, if you two are incapable of coming to a compromise on this matter, Wikipedia as a process is not going to get any easier for you). The IP can be forgiven (briefly, if the behaviour does not persist) for engaging in the initial edit war, but you have been here for more than 11 years it seems, and even with very intermittent activity, you ought to know that edit warring is not permissible.

This is clearly a content dispute. Were it my call, I'd be half attempted to hand you a 24-hour WP:BOOMERANG block for edit warring, violating WP:3RR first and then coming here to complain about an IP you are clearly displaying WP:BITE towards, who has violated no policy with their additions and has only become disruptive insofar as they emulated your edit warring behaviour--then send you both back to work more constructively on the content issue, pulling in outside perspectives if you really can't agree on whether it's worth mentioning what "Princess Allura's mice" are up to. Instead iw ill simply urge you to undertake that effort at discussion now, before you end up earning yourself such a sanction.

Also, though I don't want to give you the impression that this is the correct space to debate content matters, I think you should expect (if you can't compromise and need to bring in other opinions--which would be a further waste of editorial time, but i suspect that is where this is headed) that you will probably not get your way on some of those edits; the revelation that a major character has a secret identity of an alternative gender seems like the kind of detail that warrants half a sentence's worth of mention, whatever story it takes place--and in this particular case, a quick Google search suggests that this twist reveal has actually become a bit intertwined with the show's WP:NOTABILITY: [111], [112], [113]. Again, please reserve your commentary on that issue for your forthcoming (and I'm sure very grounded and reasonable and within scale and perspective) arguments on the talk page, and don't delve into it here; I'm simply trying to point out that I think you're going to need to be flexible here. Regardless, discuss what is best for the article and stop trying to impose your preferred version as mandate. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Blocked in violation of policy

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.

---

Dear administrators,

Recently, I found that a number of article about galaxies contained fanciful names invented, apparently, by an amateur astronomer from Belgium. These names have no legitimacy, no recognition and no place in any encyclopaedia article. So I began to remove them.

At 00:02 on 29 July, I made this edit. At 00:05, the edit was undone by User:Winhunter. At 00:06, they left me a message accusing me of vandalism [114], and at 00:07, they blocked me for 72 hours, claiming vandalism [115].

WP:VAND says "On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge." It later says "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism."

It is not possible to perceive my edits as vandalism. They were clearly not intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose. They were clearly a good faith effort to improve the encyclopaedia. Nor were they misguided, disruptive or wilfully against consensus. Indeed, they had been explicitly endorsed by a consensus [116]. So the block was obviously wrong.

The administrator who placed the block has made less than 200 edits since 2010. Approximately 30 of these were on 29 July this year, when they went on a spree to undo my edits. They broke sort ordering in a table that I'd fixed, replaced incorrect punctuation that I'd removed, and of course replaced nonsensical galaxy "names" in a series of astronomy articles.

The administrator was vaguely questioned about the block [117], but has not responded. Given their extraordinarily sparse editing history, it seems unlikely that they ever will. They have not edited since their spree of reverts ended in the small hours of 29 July. The block was obviously incorrect, and the failure of the administrator to explain or account for their actions seems to me to fall far below the standards you expect. So I raise it here for your awareness. I think that an administrator who barely edits in a decade and then places such an obviously wrong block is a problem. I hope that you agree. 2.25.45.251 (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• I'm gonna have to agree with the IP here. The block, in my opinion, was unwarranted. In particular, what's more troubling is that the blocking admin clicked the block button after the second warning when it is normally after four warnings unless the user is only here to truly vandalize. The IP's edits were seriously not vandalism at all. And 72 hours is seriously harsh. All of the IP's edits were WP:BOLD. Also, to revert all of the IPs' edits was also really unnecessary unless you have good reason (e.g., sock). In terms of content, I agree with the IP. The source used to name NGC 523 comes from a blog and the names are not known per consensus at the WikiProject page. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 21:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
• Agree. Someone needs to go back to admin school, and in the meantime needs to account for his/her actions. EEng 21:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• @Drmies, Anthony Bradbury, Berean Hunter, and Winhunter: Pinging the admins who made the blocks. — Maile (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
• Not to stir the shit, but I'm here to thoroughly agitate the fecal material. I just want to say that I'm not surprised an edit summary with the phrase "removed idiotic dithering and insults. just how stupid are you?" resulted in a block, though to be fair, there's something to be said for letting a recently blocked editor vent a little. But we have to give admins the same leeway we give other users; if an admin blocks after being called stupid and accused of "idiotic dithering" for trying to give good advice to someone, we should show said admin a bit of patience, too. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • That is a separate matter. I said that when my appeal against the block was treated with contempt and trolling, something I plan to discuss once we have established whether the block could have had any possible justification. I do not think shit stirring like this is helpful. 2.25.45.251 (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Also don't selectively quote me please. The edit summary continued it takes virtually no brainpower to distinguish between vandalism and my good edits, and to recognise that the block was an extreme violation of policy. but you don't even have that.. This was 36 hours after I had been blocked for no reason, and after two administrators refused to help. 2.25.45.251 (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's how ANI works. We look at ALL of the aspects of the case, not just the ones you'd like us to look at. While I understand your frustration at the block, you need to understand that civility is required. Your best course of action would be to apologize for it, or at the very least make clear that you understand that it's not acceptable. Note, I am not saying Winhunter's block was valid, but you both have issues in this case that need to be addressed. --Tarage (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Taking a look at my block log, I'm of the mind that it's a lot more helpful than insulting an admin trying to help you. The fact that you're still calling that help "contempt and trolling" is probably not helpful, either. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

No admin was trying to help. What makes you claim that they were? 2.25.45.251 (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Berean Hunter was offering you advice, and has even indicated that they were sympathetic to your situation before you blanked your page with that insulting edit summary rant and caught a block extension for it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

That is simply not true. They did not offer any advice, nor indicate that they were sympathetic to my position. They stalled and refused to lift the clearly unjustified block, and said " I'll remove this from my watchlist and let another admin consider your case". 2.25.45.251 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

It is true as anyone can see in the diff I posted. If you feel like Berean Hunter wasn't helpful or sympathetic, then I suggest you try to wrangle your feelings into something based on the real world, and not on the assumption that everyone who doesn't immediately jump to your defense with guns blazing is actually out to get you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• That was a poor initial block, and WH should respond the next time they log on. Unfortunately it may be a while, as WH doesn't appear to be very active. WH is responsible for the poor initial block, and the IP and other blocking admins and reverters share relative blame (by some formula I don't plan to come up with) for the ensuing flameout. Advice: Don't block too quickly, don't assume all IP's are vandals, don't react too aggressively, don't punish someone venting on their talk page, don't revert something you don't understand just because you see other people doing it. That said, I'd say this is something that Wikipedia is best known for.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh lord that opens another can of worms. I'm not going to touch that one. Regardless, this is yet another troubling instance of administrators going well beyond their bounds with seemingly no means for the community to enact corrections. I realize there is a pending case in arbitration for something similar, but I have little faith that it will result in anything but a 'this is a one time issue' statement. We need better. --Tarage (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay I agree with Floquenbeam here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A._K._Chesterton&diff=prev&oldid=791125842 is enough evidence that this is who we're dealing with. Someone needs to block ASAP. --Tarage (talk) 22:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I really do not understand what you're saying here. Was that edit a bad edit? It seems to be it was a good edit that improved the article. I think the previous was very jarring, using the present continuous tense when the guy's been dead for more than 40 years, and using five words where one would do. I think that any capable editor would wish to make the same or similar change. But you think I should be blocked for making this edit? 2.25.45.251 (talk) 08:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd also add the advice: don't insist on hearing from the blocking admin first, when that person typically shows up infrequently, especially when it becomes so obvious that the block was incorrect. All in all, I'd have been pretty livid too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll just put this out there as well; an admin who (prior to reverting all of the IPs edits) had 19 edits to Wikipedia in 2017, two in 2016, and four in 2015. Black Kite (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

For sure, it was a bad block for the wrong reasons, but given the above, it needs to be reinstated. --Tarage (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I keep seeing new things to comment on. Assuming this is not who I think it is, then I really think the long 1RR restriction imposed as a condition for the current unblock is unfair. Not sure how an incorrect 3 day block morphs into a 3 month 1RR restriction in order to get unblocked. Perhaps if it was also applied to WH and to the people who automatically reverted the IP again - people who actually reverted incorrectly, unlike the IP - but somehow I don't think that's likely. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I just restored the IP's edits in Contemporary Latin per WP:MADEUP and WP:SELFREFERENCE, which should have been pretty clear-cut. Like Floquenbeam, I'd be pretty pissed off if I were the IP, making good faith efforts. It's no excuse, but certainly a reason to fly off the handle. Kleuske (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I second Floquenbeam and Kleuske. All in all, it was a bad block from the first blocking admin. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 22:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Agh - that's really not good either. Whether or not the IP editor is BKF (at this point it doesn't really matter), I think there are a number of things that a number of editors could learn from the whole situation. But it did all stem from the original bad block, from an admin (and I'll say it again) with 25 edits to Wikipedia in the last three years. Black Kite (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Black Kite, I agree completely. I wish we didn't have such a trigger-happy Recent changes patrol who are biased against IPs, and this block...yeah. I went back through the archives of my talk page: I have been in the middle of mindless reverts on the one hand and insults on the other hand since at least 2011. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• Alright, first let's get a factor that could possibly conflate the analysis out of the way here: If you dig far enough back into the IP's contributions, you do begin to see a pattern of needlessly inflammatory language in edit summaries: [118]. That's something the user is going to want to address regardless of the outcome here.

That said, most of these comments are stale and none of them (as far as I can tell) were involved with the issues involved in the content dispute or the block. Certainly, no incivility issues were cited by the admin, as they should have been if they were contributing factors to the block. And that's just the tip of the iceberg with regard to this admin's inappropriate approach here. First off, they lept straight to a level three warning, assuming bad faith and perhaps forestalling otherwise productive discussion. Or at least, under normal circumstances it might have forestalled discussion, but Winunter doesn't seem to have cared for discussion regardless because, less than a minute later and for unexplained reasons, they changed their mind and blocked the IP altogether, without giving them a chance to process the warning and/or make a case for why their edits were not vandalism. And putting aside any possible, attenuated argument for how the IP's edits may have been disruptive in some form (and I don't think they were, in this instance) they clearly were not vandalsim. Even if said edit had been inappropriate (and they actually seem to align with our verification and sourcing policies, as well as consensus discussions on the matter), they were pretty clearly made in good faith to add permissible content, and thus not even in the remotest since WP:vandalism as the term applies on this project.

In short, Winhunter's behaviour here seems completely sloppy, if not outright WP:disruptive. And their failure to account for any of it is not particularly reassuring; far from being a context to assume that they may have legitimate reasons for having taken the actions that they did, the fact that they may once again have gone into dormancy is actually strong additional cause to consider stripping them of the bit. We simply can't have admins empowered with the block hammer who make highly questionable choices in how they implement it, without sufficient explanation, and then just disappear into the aether again immediately. Indeed, the particular details of this case raise the question of whether it is advisable to allow a user to maintain such tools at all, after such a prolonged period of inactivity. Admins need to be completely up-to-date on community guidelines, be reasonably well-practiced in how to implement them and be regular, recognizable, and constructive contributors to the project in general. I sense we are about to hear yet more complaints about how the community ought to be able to desysop without needing to appeal to ArbCom, for the second time in as many weeks; I'm neutral on that issue, but I will say that this instance makes a much stronger case than the one that can currently be found at the top of the page.

The one place where I will call out the IP is in their approach to that talk page discussion. Yes, they have cause to be frustrated here, but Drmies and other admins, having discovered the facts here, ultimately gave them a method to exit the mess and restore their full editing rights. All they were requested to do was repeat the unblock request (presumably for reasonable pro forma reasons) and instead chose to register their ire. That does raise the question of how they will cope with disputes or administrative matters in the future, I think. Nevertheless, I do think they deserve an apology for having been dropped into this mess in the first place. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that imposing 1RR as a condition for unblock is unreasonable when there's enough blame to go around, and should be removed. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

The whole behaviour and general gameplay of this editor is the likely cause of the grief. The first and second blocks were really justified by saying things like "Don't be stupid." [119] and "just how stupid are you? it takes virtually no brainpower to distinguish between vandalism and my good edits,..." [120] (then delete it all just to avoid scrutiny!]. Editors here are all volunteers and should not be subjected to such behaviour, and it avoids the trumping policy of all - WP:GF - good faith. The pattern seems to me easily construed as deliberately WP:disruptive.

I also responded to the various complaints of the reverts made by me here.[121]

NOTE: I do suspect this unregistered User might be just another sockpuppet of the now indefinitely blocked Tetraquark [122], who also deletes Talkpage information they don't like or even blocks, turn quickly highly combative at any even minor slight, also edits astronomical pages (especially towards images), and equally shows similar poor and rude behaviour. (For a non registered User, they seem to know an awful lot about Wikipedia policies. e.g. Quoting WP:IG) Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

No, he for sure is for sure the BKF vandal, which is why I am concerned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Best_known_for_IP --Tarage (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Do either of you have any evidence to back up these suspicions? If not, WP:ASPERSIONS, if so WP:SPI. Kleuske (talk) 01:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Check out his edit history where there are numerous removals of phrases like 'best known for' with edit summaries straight out of that LBA page. If you want actual diffs I'll post them later tonight. It's pretty obvious. --Tarage (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

In that case, WP:SPI is the correct place to post the diffs. Kleuske (talk) 01:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That was my initial thought as well, Kleuske (see my comments immediately below). But now that Tarage has linked to that longterm abuse page for the editor in question, I daresay the case is pretty strong and more than satisfies the WP:DUCK test, based on the contributions I have looked at since coming upon this thread. Unfortunately, SPI is going to be of less use than usual, since the use rin question does not register and hops from IP to IP. I do, however, agree that SPI should be the next stop: a sanction can still be implmented there, even without a CU, based on behavioural evidence (which i think is strong in this case). Filing at SPI will also allow exploration of the socking issues to be disentangled from the inappropriate admin actions being discussed here. Plus an admin action is more likely to be prompt at SPI, especially in light of the fact that admins may be hesitant to be the latest to reverse this editors status after the back and forth of the last 24 hours, if they first dsicover the situation via this mess. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Fine, I'll leave it to you then. --Tarage (talk) 05:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I do not recall removing "phrases like 'best known for'", and struggle to see in any case why you would think that could be called vandalism. It's quite ironic on a thread about being blocked with a false accusation of vandalism though. If you can find an edit of mine that you think was deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, only then you can accuse me of vandalism. You will not find any such edits. 2.25.45.251 (talk) 08:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I am pretty confident that you never act with the explicit intention of obstructing or defeating the project's purpose, for what it's worth. However, I also suspect you may have a substantial and fundamental disconnect with the collaborative nature of this project. Snow ^{let's rap} 10:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Haha, pretty sneaky sis! But this isn't my rodeo! It's your theory, and though you have me more than half convinced after sharing that link, if you're really confident, you're going to have to propose the action yourself. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That theory sounds like a matter for SPI. I will say that there is apparently a second line of speculation as to this user being someone else above (at least, there is reference to such positions, apparently drawn from another discussion that is not being linked to here). I will say that certain elements of this IP's behaviour and knowledge of process do suggest an experienced editor to me, but without more substantial editing, I am not willing to assume that they are anything other than what they claim to be: a moderately experienced non-registered user who ran afoul of particularly under-experienced admin and then lacked the patience to negotiate the situation as easily as they might have. And I suspect most community members here will feel the same, pending deeper evidence.

OhanaUnited, I initially shared your perspective and almost called on Drmies to reconsider repealing that restriction. Then I did a little more digging and saw the full context of how that came about. Bear in mind especially that Drmies' initial posts on that talk page were to validate the IP's position and call for all blocks and restrictions to be removed. Other admins/community members(both involved and uninvolved) then agreed, and the IP was asked to resubmit their unblock request, and was given back talk page access for that purpose. At this point the IP used that ability to speak their mind again to immediately balk and complain about the unfairness of having to take 15 minutes (at most, surely) to format that request. It was only at this point that Drmies changes their stance and implemented the 1RR restriction, while also removing the block. Even considering the frustrating and unfair context in which they were initially blocked, that was an impressive display of shooting themselves in their own foot. I'm not sure that 1rr is exactly the most targeted possible sanction here, given that edit warring does not seem to be their issue. But I suspect the intended preventative effect here was to make the editor think twice about acting impulsively when dealing with their fellow editors. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• I was pinged here as the blocking admin? I'm the unblocking admin, who disagreed to some extent with the initial block or at least the given block rationale; I'm the one who (with Anthony) broke a lance for the IP editor. I used to do that in the old days for some other editor whose name escapes me (though Floq might remember)...no, I can't come up with it now. Anyway, I imposed the 1R restriction because it seems to me that trouble starts when the IP gets reverted and then strikes back. Snow Rise, your comments are quite to the point and I appreciate them. If the community thinks that the restriction is too much, that's fine: overturn it. But do note that I have not reverted any of their edits, that I believe I have advocated for them (here and in a slew of messages on the ArbCom mail list, where this user posted with ever-increasing urgency, and that I offered assistance, saying that they could ping me if they got reverted. Mind you, I didn't even need for them to request to be unblocked again--I was just hoping they'd say something reasonable. User:OhanaUnited, in these circumstances, I don't think my restriction was unreasonable. At any rate, have at it, y'all--I did my bit by supporting the IP's initial case and unblocking them, and at the same time trying to protect all sides with a restriction that will require the IP editor to reflect and give them the opportunity to call in the cavalry--but I won't be surprised if this backfires spectacularly, given how the temperature seems to rise when this editor shows up, no matter how solid and positive their edits are. Please don't ping me anymore in this ANI thread: it's not a concern of mine. If the IP wants to ping me to point at some revert or other, my door is always open, of course. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • But I wasn't blocked for reverting anything, or striking back after reverting. I was blocked for vandalism, when I had clearly done no such thing. I am glad to see that the consensus here seems to be quite strongly that the block was not valid. I am extremely heartened to see that someone suggested I deserved an apology for it. I am less heartened to see I'm accused of being various sockpuppets but whatever.
  • As for what I said when asked to make one more unblock request: what was the need for it? I'd been blocked for vandalism, blocked for being angry about that, and then blocked for no actual clear reason for *three months*. I'd followed all the appeals right up to mailing the arbitration committee, which was crazy given how obvious it was (confirmed here) that the original block was wrong. And then someone says "I'll unblock you, but only if you ask me to one more time." It seemed really pointless. I stand by that.
  • And as for editing restrictions, well I'm not likely to edit any articles for a while anyway. You'll notice I have not edited any articles since being unblocked. The whole experience of being blocked for "vandalism" when making perfectly good edits was extremely unpleasant, and doesn't particularly make me feel like fixing errors I find, far less refixing them when other people have unfixed them, having been accused of "disruption" when I did that before.
  • Anyway I have found this a very useful and interesting discussion. Thanks. 2.25.45.251 (talk) 08:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Saying "I was blocked for vandalism," is not entirely true. The first two instances you were plainly blocked for saying things like "Don't be stupid." [123] and "just how stupid are you? it takes virtually no brainpower to distinguish between vandalism and my good edits,..." [124]. You then multiplied the mistake by then delete it all just to avoid scrutiny!

I see these blocks as a reflection of your own poor aggressive behaviour and the utter contempt you exhibit to others (including me.) This is clearly the needed evidence of "disruptive editing." None of your excuses above at all addresses your own poor behaviour, and your near continuous inflicted 'insults' to other Users if they disagree with you. Wikipedia is for editors in collaborations not those acting like vigilantes. (Some wisdom: Showing an inkling of contrition here would help your cause considerably.) Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Vandalism it plainly says: "On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose,..." The word 'behaviour' here is important, and hasn't been addressed by this IP User at all. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

This editor accuses me of aggressive behaviour while aggressively undoing my reverts and slandering me, restoring to articles things that they themselves had described as "abhorrent" and (incorrectly) "vandalism", and responding aggressively when I asked them why they did that. They are yet to provide an answer. I do view them as a problem but that's really a separate discussion. 2.25.45.251 (talk) 09:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Go right ahead. You are falsely accusing me of something. You were blocked not just because of the edits but because of your behaviour. If someone reverts an edit once, twice or three times, right or wrong, you should attempt to seek consensus. You did not do this at all. Instead you started throwing insults. End of story. Get it. Arianewiki1 (talk) 11:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Arianewiki1, the IP was first blocked for supposedly vandalizing Wikipedia. Of all the three blocks, only one was regarding civility and NPA. The other was for disruptive editing. I don't know if you're insinuating that the IP was vandalizing, because that is entirely false. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 16:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Hooo boy, if somebody filed an RfA like Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Winhunter 2 today, they'd get WP:SNOW opposed out of the door. How times change. Meanwhile, I have been in 2.25's shoes myself as I used to edit logged out at my local library for security reasons - see User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 45#The war on IPs continues, and I seem to recall I was pretty pissed off when I got hit with a two year block. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

The first one is even more telling, but in both Winhunter expresses a very personal take on fighting vandalism, clearly identified as arising out of their frustration as non-sysop to be able to stop them more immediately and effectively. In fact, at every opportunity and before all other factors, they identify their reason for wanting tools to be the ability to rapidly block vandals. That's pretty telling under the present circumstances. It seems these days, in the few minutes they can spare the project every few years, the user now has no time for warnings or discussion before blocking on their vandal assumptions. Not withstanding the fact that I'm low on AGF for the IP, we do owe them for bring this to our attention and I think this matter should be referred to ArbCom, regardless of whether or not the IP gets boomerang blocked for socking. Snow ^{let's rap} 10:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• IMO this is why admins should need to earn their wings every year, and not just by making X admin actions; they can't just disappear for over a decade and then swoop in and do stupid $#it with the tools and get away with it. There needs to be a requirement that admins make at least X number of actual edits (not admin actions) every two years or they are de-sysopped. We've been skirting around this problem for way too long and I've seen way too many absentee admins do stupid stuff. Softlavender (talk) 10:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

That would help considering the other contributing factor of this issue: editors who became admins in the early days of Wikipedia, when the requirements for a RfA candidate were much lower. Cjhard (talk) 11:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I would survive a reconfirmation RfA, I've made too many enemies. I suspect if you tried to make it policy, the turkeys would gather round and prevent a vote (or a !vote) for Christmas, even though in principle it's a good idea. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, I think those voting against a reconfirmation RfA based on nothing more than a personal grudge would be identified as doing so and would be discounted when establishing consensus, just as the case would be in regular RfCs. But you're not wrong that it would perhaps be more of an issue. That's something in favour of Softlavender's idea of an increased minimum standard of activity to maintain sysop status: it provides an objective standard, avoiding the axe-grinding issue completely. Cjhard (talk) 12:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I mentioned this possibility above, and though I can't recall having seen it anywhere before, I can't fathom that it has been suggested repeatedly over the years. It's definitely a more reasonable solution than recurrent RfA's in my opinion. That's just begs for disruption and bad blood from a completely needless airing of grievances, which the most disruptive editors will be most certain to turn out for. But a minimum standard of activity? That's completely called for. I'm surprised we don't have it, except to say that the community probably wasn't thinking in the longterm as we originated and perpetuated the process; only with time has the need become obvious. Seems like something that is ripe for VPP, if you ask me.Would need broad support from existing admins though, to survive the community process. Snow ^{let's rap} 12:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• SPI clerk comment - based on the IP's behaviour here and the non-CU technical evidence available to me, I can't reason a situation where this IP is any other than the Best Known For long-term abuser, who is banned by the community. If you want, compare in particular the IP's archived diatribe on their talk page with their comments in the linked ban discussion. While I respect that several admins here have taken it upon themselves to overturn what does appear to have been an inappropriate series of blocks, along with whatever's going on behind the veil of ArbCom, the community ban has been neither appealed nor overturned, and as such I have re-blocked the IP for 3 months to enforce the banning policy. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Ivan. --Tarage (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Admin acct

"That is simply not true. They did not offer any advice, nor indicate that they were sympathetic to my position. They stalled and refused to lift the clearly unjustified block, and said " I'll remove this from my watchlist and let another admin consider your case"." (link)

My responses show that is patently false and the fact that they cherry-picked a sentence from within a post that contains evidence that contradicts them is telling.

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4

I would still like to hear from Winhunter regarding the IP's initial concern. Has anyone emailed him?

BKF will have an additional ax to grind with me. His employer contacted me last week and I supplied them with lots of details. They identified him. Different managerial levels are involved and he has received formal counseling that he is not to use their network to edit Wikipedia again to which he has agreed. They are interested in him being a "good neighbour" from here on and it is ironic that I had just written someone looking into the case an email reply detailing the standard offer, how he should contribute elsewhere for no less than six months with an account and that he would have to request a ban appeal from the community. They intend to monitor the situation. That said, since the IP hints at inappropriate admin actions on my part, I'll refrain from commenting further on a possible socking connection here.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• I've emailed Winhunter.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not certain that this is the user described in Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP (if he doesn't scream abuse at my sympathetic reply above, it isn't), but if it is, he is community banned and should not be editing Wikipedia at all. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I have to support Arianewiki1 above - Behaviorally, this really looks like TQ. Scr★pIron^IV 18:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

He's been blocked as a sock of BKF. --Tarage (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh fair enough. He'll be back on another IP soon enough. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Berean Hunter thanks for your email, apologies I was busy during the week so couldn't respond to this thread earlier. I do recognize I could have actioned the original block in a better way so thanks for everyone's feedback. Noticed the thread is now concluded though if anyone require additional information from myself please feel free to reach out. -WinHunter ^(talk) 05:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm reaching out. What does "I could have actioned the original block in a better way" mean? EEng 05:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm open to suggestion for improvement. At the time I saw the continuing removal of similar data across multiple pages for the same subject which made me feel he was a repeated vandal. I could have explained the reason of my block a bit better at the time of the block and also see if I could have used a more appropriate warning . -WinHunter ^(talk) 05:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• Respectfully WinHunter, those responses are insufficient to address the questions being asked by the community members here. This thread is not in fact "concluded" and I dare say that it's an indication of your inexperience with this community in the decade since you became an admin that you don't realize that. The IP was banned for being a likely sock of a user banned for behavioural problems, but that doesn't let you off scott free for your involvement in this matter. You instituted a block for another user for vandalism, even though most every editor who has reviewed those edits agrees they are not WP:vandalism in any sense relevant to this community's guidelines. More seriously, you applied the block without any warning, discussion or effort at clarification with the user in question, (unless you count a level three template slapped to their talk page less than one full minute before you blocked them anyway). Then you immediately disappeared as the situation exploded, leaving other admins and the community to deal with the fallout of your actions while the user disruptively worked their way through every community process they knew of (both on the site and off), armed with a legitimate claim of admin abuse which only amped up their existing persecution complex and gave them an excuse to game the system.
  • I admit I am not an active Wikipedian, though I did not intend to "disappear" and when someone emailed me I immediately login over my iphone and tried to respond with my thinking at the time. I am not saying I did the right thing at the time and I do apologies for all the trouble as a result of that action, I was trying to explain my thought process and mentioned that I am open for suggestions for improvement. I am happy to review the latest policies again to refresh my knowledge and if the community still find next admin actions unsatisfactory I am more than happy to let the community to decide my future.--WinHunter ^(talk) 15:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

You say: "At the time I saw the continuing removal of similar data across multiple pages for the same subject which made me feel he was a repeated vandal." Well...why? Legitimate users remove content across multiple related articles as a matter of daily business here; that is not sufficient cause in even the remotest sense to use your privileges to block. You then go on to say "I could have explained the reason of my block a bit better at the time of the block and also see if I could have used a more appropriate warning." But the reality is that you didn't provide any explanation of your block, beyond the erroneous "vandal" in the block summary, nor did you provide any real warning or make any real effort to discuss the matter with the user that you decided (on apparently no hard evidence) was a vandal. You got lucky this time that your random block happened to be a banned user, but the community is now reasonably asking if your lack of involvement here over a long period of time makes you a problematic steward for our most significant (and thus potentially disruptive tools). Sorry to be so strident about it, but your answers are not particularly reassuring me, because they seem to indicate you don't know basic proceedure for our WP:BLOCKing policy. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• (ec)Winhunter, please go to Arbcom and hand in your admin tools. You are very lucky that the IP you blocked turns out to be a banned user, but the reason you blocked them was absolutely wrong. "the continuing removal of similar data across multiple pages for the same subject" is not vandalism if the editor is correct and the data needs removal. These kind of edits need discussion, not the admin hammer, and that you still defend your block indicates that you have not learned anything from this episode. Coupled with your almost complete lack of edits and admin actions for years and years now makes it clear that you are no longer to be trusted to act as admins should. Fram (talk) 06:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• Agree with both of the above, in particular the call to resign. As I said on another thread, "We seem to have a mini-epidemic of editors in positions of trust who don't know which way is up, possibly due to limited experience editing articles and discussing with other editors." An admin with 3600 article edits and 350 article talk edits??? [125] And how does someone with that few (not-deleted) article edits accumulate 3300 deleted edits? Plus, he still doesn't doesn't seem to understand what he did wrong. EEng 14:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The reason of the high delete count is I decided to volunteer over recent years to helpout on WP:CSD as I have more limited time after my day job, and I hope you would find most of those deletions uncontroversial (like user request for their own userpages / obvious advertising etc). As I responded to another editor above I am happy to learn from this experience and review the latest policies, and if my next admin actions is still unsatisfactory I am more than happy to let the community to decide on my future. --WinHunter ^(talk) 15:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, that explains the deleted edits, but that leaves everything else. You still seem unable to enunciate what you did wrong in this case, which is _______________________________ (fill in the blank, please). EEng 16:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll do you one better. "The reason I need to be an admin is _____________________." --Tarage (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Winhunter, your failure to engage these concerns is extremely troubling. EEng 23:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

• Agree with Fram and EEng. As a fellow Hong Konger, I would also like to ask you to hand in your admin tools. Removing inaccurate contents is something everyone does, IP or registered. Your revert could be viewed as repeated insertion of "Introducing deliberate factual errors", which ironically is grounds for yourself being blocked. I also think everyone here agrees that the resignation of WinHunter's admin rights, if that happens is considered as done "under the cloud". OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Kick to ArbCom with community recommendation

There is clear consensus from this discussion and the comments above and below that administrator Winhunter's recent block and failure to adequately respond to inquiry is a dereliction of administrative accountability. As neither the community nor its administrators are empowered to act in this situation, the community requests Arbcom's urgent response. (Amended close, original here.) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

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

---

It seems that WinHunter is either unable or unwilling to provide significant explanation or engagement regarding the substantial community concerns relating to the problematic way in which WinHunter has approached the use of their privileges--as well as other concerns regarding whether they have sufficient experience, perspective, and engagement in the project to be serving in an administrative capacity. At present, WinHunter seems to either be trying to ride out the scrutiny, or else the handful of brief and insufficient responses above represent the sum total of their ability and desire to explain actions which, consensus in this discussion seems to clearly hold, were deeply problematic (and if I can add my own impressions, indicative of a lack of even the most basic understanding of our blocking policies).

However, ultimately the removal of tools is ArbCom's purview, so I don't see what more is to be accomplished here. We could long-term block WinHunter, but that does not seem the most transparent way to address the root issue, nor do I think we should prevent the user from possibly returning to the project to contribute productively in other capacities (unlikely as that seems given the user's lack of activity over the years since getting the bit). I therefore propose that we resolve to open a report with ArbCom, but that the report be coupled with a link to this discussion and a strong community endorsement that ArbCom investigate the issues here (and, depending on the result of this poll, a strong recommendation to desysyop). I was hesitant at first to suggest such an approach on the basis of one major incident, but the responses above have been wholly insufficient to assuage my concerns as to whether the user is an appropriate steward of the ban hammer, and I don't think I'm the only one. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• Addendum: Since WinHunter has said that they are willing to accept community consensus on their future role as an admin (without specifying a particular community process), we can also consider asking them to voluntarily relinquish their tools, if the poll suggests they should, thus saving some time in the process. If they are unwilling to part with the tools on the basis of the community consensus here, then we can proceed with the request for review by ArbCom, no harm done. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support (as nom). Snow ^{let's rap} 01:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support WinHunter clearly has no real need for the tools, and no good idea about how they should be used. Please voluntarily tyurn in the bit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support - I'll take a look over this and file a case if consensus supports it. Twitbookspacetube 02:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Like Snow said, wait and see if Winhunter has the courtesy to simply resign ("under a cloud", of course). EEng 03:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Considering their behaviour so far, I seriously doubt it. But I'll give it a week or so. Hopefully the knowledge that another ADMINACCT case is heading there should be enough to get something out of them. If their response is anything like what it took Arthur a couple of months to produce, i'll be filing the case anyway. Twitbookspacetube 05:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support per Snow and BMK. EEng 03:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support. And this should serve as a wake-up call for all admins that they can no longer dish out blocks with impunity if they cannot satisfactory justify their actions. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I do not concur with your sentiments. I do not believe that "all admins" need a "wake-up call", but that the vast majority of admins do a decent to very good job. They don't need or deserve to be lumped in with an egregious example such as this one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, just to be clear, I wouldn't be making this proposal, but for the fact that the issues are particularly egregious; I can't ever recall seeing another pattern of facts surrounding the improper use of blocking privileges quite like this. There are occasional sloppy or involved blocks that stand to have some scrutiny, but the distinguishing factors here are this user's tangential involvement with the project, single-minded reasons for wanting to be an admin, and lack of basic familiarity with the relevant policies. If not for that highly specific combination of factors, I would not have made the proposal--and I I'm not sure that all three apply to so much as a single other active admin. None that I've come across, certainly. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: "Vast majority of admins do a decent to very good job". That part I agree. But within last 30 days alone, we have 2 admins, including this one, who failed to satisfactory justify their actions (the other being this case which I'm sure you're aware of its existence because you commented on it). And these are the only complaints that surfaced because the affected party knows where and how to complain. Think about how many newbie biting incidents that didn't get reported and this number would have gone up. Two in a month isn't something we should be proud about. At any rate, admins have to be accountable for their actions and that's a given when they decide to run for it. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Of course admins have to be accountable, and most of them do so willingly. As for 2 in a month - since there weren't 2 such last month or the month before, I'd say it's just random, the normal distribution of disconnected events, uncorrelated to the quality of our admin corps.

Look, I know there are some bad admins out there -- believe me, I've run into a few, and it's shocking simply because it's so rare. Most of the admins interactions I've had have been perfectly normal and justifiable, and if I'm being called to task, I've generally deserved it. We have 1,250 admins, over 500 of whom are active, and I'd be surprised if there were more than a couple of handfuls of bad ones, at the very most. So, I still think you're wrong about the necessity of a "wake-up call" to all admins. What we need is better procedures to get rid of the handful of bad apples, not swatting our admins en masse on their noses with a rolled up newspaper. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

That more or less sums up my position; the fact that we've had two public discussions about possible admin misconduct this month doesn't add up to me to say much about admins on the project in general. I find most act with restraint; indeed, if there is a problem these days, it's in getting an admin to act definitively on a pressing matter--but that's another discussion altogether. I certainly didn't intend this proposal to be a wake-up call for anyone; the facts are just particularly compelling that there is are basic competency/engagement problems, in the present case. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support. The user's inactivity, combined with their recent poor decision and poor response, suggests that they shouldn't be an admin. Perhaps this should serve as a lesson for us about having inactive admins. If you aren't a reasonably active contributor, you probably shouldn't be making administrative decisions. It's like any volunteer situation—while volunteer help is always welcome, you don't want some guy who only pops in a few times a year to be ordering other volunteers out of the building. Everyking (talk) 05:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support. The IP was first blocked for supposedly vandalizing Wikipedia. From the beginning, it was clear that this block was wrong, and wrongly done. And should have been reverted by the blocking admin, as soon as the consensus became clear on this matter. Perhaps (understatement) the IP has to be blocked for other reasons, by another admin. But it remains that WinHunter messed the situation... and failed to clean it. Don't keep the mop, if you don't understand what cleaning could mean. Pldx1 (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support on the stipulation that part of the case also be able the community's ability to restrict/revoke mops for behavior like this. --Tarage (talk) 01:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom has no jurisdiction over the community's ability to desysop. The only non-ArbCom solution is to block the admin. 207.38.154.23 (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Then who does? --Tarage (talk) 01:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The community itself. It would require a policy change, usually via RFC. ArbCom is not supposed to make policy, rather enact it. A community desysop procedure does not exist, although I share your opinion that it should. -- Begoon 02:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support as per BMK. Bentogoa (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
• Proceed with caution I can only assume the author of this proposal has never actually dealt with an Arbcom case; the part about "with a community recommendation" is almost cute. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you intending to attempt to sound as if you are talking down to somebody there, from a place of superior / more worldly perspective, simply because you have gripes about ArbCom? No, I've never been a party to an ArbCom case, and quite happy to be able to say that. But like any other member of this community who has been around as long as I have been, I'm hardly ignorant of how matters are handled/unfold there. Or of the passive-aggressive contempt that flows in their direction from some corners of the community, regardless of the context in which their name is invoked. In any event, as I see it, we don't really have an alternative course of action here. Only ArbCom is empowered to de-sysop, so this matter has to be handled through that channel;the best we can do is share a link to this discussion and a comment about how concerned the community is with this particular user having privileges.

If you have a better course of action to suggest, I'm all ears. But I don't see what your comment contributes, at least in terms of actual substance with regard to the proposal. At least, I don't understand what "proceed with caution" would mean in this context, as a response to the proposal. The worst that can happen is that they don't act, and we have to consider another sanction if this user proves problematic. Maybe I'm missing something, but it just looks like you're taking the opportunity to register your low regard for ArbCom, but without actually say whether the proposal should be endorsed or not, or providing some alternative course of action. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support per Snow Rise. Cjhard (talk) 04:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose based on eventual outcome. Don't want Wikipedia to become best known for feeding its own trolls. Trout to Winhunter is good enough for me. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 06:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment The fact that Winhunter continues to pretend he doesn't know anything's going on here should cement it for anyone still not convinced: he is absolutely not someone we want as an admin. EEng 02:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support. There also needs to be a clear reform of the way administrators have been able to retain and use their tools even in spite of vast inexperience and absences of nearly a decade or more. I've seen this problem arise several times in the past few years; it is insupportable and needs to be fixed with new and stringent activity & knowledge requirements for admins. (For example, while I find it understandable that an admin might be away from WP for a year, if one year stretches beyond more than two years of virtual absence, I personally think the tools need to be removed [pending a new RfA], even if they used the tools a few times in that period.) Softlavender (talk) 02:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think the problem is absence per se, rather that very long absence takes us back to the time when RfAs were more, um, promiscuous, shall we say. Admins minted back then who have been active most or all of the time since have stood the test of time, but cases such as this one don't have that experience to reassure us that they should ever have been admins in the first place. EEng 05:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

It's mainly the long absence, since most early-minted admins have either grown up with the project and have at least learned on the job (or they have been de-sysopped). Those who split for a decade soon after being sysopped have no clue what they are doing and no sense that they should learn, or be held accountable, or why. Softlavender (talk) 05:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I think we're saying the same thing. EEng 08:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

---

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

• Note that in light of the discussion below and my amendment to my close, I have emailed the Arbitration Committee to review this discussion in light of WP:LEVEL2. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Close discussion

• I think the close is inappropriate, and we should keep this thread open until we either hear from Winhunter or decide what to do as a community. EEng 20:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

To what end, though? We've already pretty clearly established that Winhunter isn't going to offer a satisfactory reply (it's been six days since the last one) and that nearly everyone who has commented here is, erm, uncomfortable with their status. The next steps are just as I said: either resign or Arbcom (or the third option that nobody really cares that much, which is not apparently the case). We can't force an administrator to resign, and we also can't force an administrator into a backdoor reconfirmation RfA which I fear this is turning into. I could file the Arbcom case on behalf of the discussion, but I'm not going to. There's the seeds here for a discussion about a community desysop process or revised activity requirements, for example, and I'd be pleased to see such a discussion, but this is both a bad venue and a bad frame for it, and a bad way to try to establish precedent. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Ivanector, respectfully, both your close and your response here suggest that you read neither my proposal nor the majority of responses to it thoroughly enough. I pretty clearly acknowledged that the community is not empowered to de-sysop Winhunter. Indeed, the very crux of the proposal is that we therefore forward the matter to ArbCom, which is one of the "alternatives" that you then propose in your close, despite the fact that this is exactly what the community members here are explicitly endorsing. Further, during the nine days this discussion has been open, no editor other than you yourself has so much as whispered the notion that we force this user to go through another RfA, and I don't think it was on anyone's mind until you mentioned it. That's a completely novel idea that has never been attempted before in the history of this community and I think we would have noticed if someone were suggesting it. It certainly was not remotely part of my proposal or hinted at in any response, so your concern that that this is "where this is headed" seems entirely unfounded.

I don't mind this being closed without a direct sanction (that was afterall, exactly what the proposal was suggesting) but I do think it is appropriate that the close reflects the community's strong condemnation of this misuse of tools; that could prove useful at ArbCom--minimally useful, I will grant you, but seeing as the use of such wording was basically the exact purpose of the proposal that was endorsed by the community here (as you say, anyone could have taken this to ArbCom at any time) and given that the !vote was a WP:SNOW result, I feel like your close missed the point of both the discussion and the community consensus, and unintentionally whitewashes the community's deep concern out of the close, which is supposed to be a summary of that consensus. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

There is an option the community can enact: an indefinite block. Indefinite blocks have been used when someone disappears to avoid scrutiny. If WinHunter decides to reappear and provide accountability, the community can decide whether to proceed with an ArbCom desysop request. If not, the bit will expire due to inactivity and I can't imagine the bureaucrats returning the bit to a user who lost it while blocked. 207.38.154.23 (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Tools do not, from the best of my knowledge anyway, expire after a period of inactivity. But if they did, I am certain the strategy you suggest above would have been employed a time or two here. Probably with some degree of contentiousness though, as it would be sure to be seen by some as a backdoor desysop in violation of ArbCom's present sphere of authority. It would still be niece of admins could time themselves out in that respect, but to the best of my knowledge, there is no need to see a crat about restoring full tool functionality after a long absence. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:INACTIVITY 207.38.154.23 (talk) 01:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Huh. Thanks for that. Even so, I think that blocking an admin just for the sack of forcing their tools to be taken away through a technical/procedural process, would be viewed as an inappropriate manipulation of the process by too much of the community--even editors who might otherwise support that same user being desysopped by a community vote (if that were an option). Under the present circumstances, I continue to think that ArbCom is the appropriate venue here, under current policy. though, notably, a lot of the community at late seems to be considering the notion of whether the removal of tools should be something that can be mandated by a community vote. I'm kind of inbetween on that notion myself, but regardless, ArbCom is our only option if we want to be perfectly transparent about what we are trying to achieve. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Snow Rise, I appreciate your proposal and did read it before closing anything here, along with everyone's commentary, but I think the conversation is misguided. The (only) procedures for removing advanced permissions from an account are via Arbcom; this exact situation (an administrator makes poorly judged actions and fails to respond) is covered by WP:LEVEL2, which is a procedure which does not take into account an endorsement by the community at all. All that is likely to be accomplished here is delay, which works well against arbitrators seeing a situation as requiring serious intervention. And as I've said, I'm concerned that proceeding with this discussion allows the establishment of a half-baked precedent for community-directed rights removal, which is a discussion which needs to be more carefully considered than what we can do here right now. I don't think for a second that your proposal is in bad faith of course, but I do think you should get on with the LEVEL2 process sooner rather than later. Out of respect for the discussion to this point, I'll rework my close. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Ivan, I appreciate your taking the time for both the response and the subtle amendment to the close. I am in full agreement that a broader discussion about what the do about de-sysop procedures ought to take a place in isolation to any one particular case of alleged misconduct. I also agree that any such discussion ought to take place in a more contemplative and carefully organized (rather than reactionary and ad hoc) fashion--and by necessity in a broader community forum than ANI. Frankly, I did not expect that multiple people would see the proposal as as a jumping off point for a broader community discussion on the state of ArbCom's sole remit on that role, but I guess I should have factored in the tension that has existed on this page on the topic, just recently. Personally, I have very much mixed feelings about whether or not sharing that role with the broader community would be a wise policy change, but given the atmosphere of late, I suspect it's just a matter of time before someone starts to seriously agitate for it. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

People have been seriously agitating for it for 10 years. Proposals even make it as far as RfC once in awhile. They never gain consensus. 207.38.154.23 (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Replace negativity-focused wikipedia compliance process with the positivity-focused wikipedia compliance process: I stumbled upon here while reading how wikipedia works. I start with an apology and self-declaration. I am not very experienced. I am not an admin. I do not even know if I am allowed to comment here, or if I am qualified enough that would make my comments permissible in your judgement. Apologies if I am trespassing or intruding in the unallowable territory. This is amazing how much time is spent and how many people get involved in disputes, blocks and revokes. I wish wikipedia was a nicer place to be. While clicking through wiki article links posted by others above, I came across Removing administrator rights which says if an admin has not made any edits in a year then revoke their admin rights. About the revoking the ban, if someone is so passionate enough to rejoin, let them come back specially if the sufficient time has passed. If he has not apologized, then may be he is too scared to apologize if he feels it might be held against him. Assure him that he needs to come clean, pour his heart out and it wont be held against him, etc. I think block is like imprisonment. If there is repeated imprisonment, without rehab, detox and counseling, then it may not cure the objectionable behavior. Better way to retain the passionate but "frustrated abusers" is by having a formal wikipedia mechanism to put the person through "mentoring", "onboarding", "shadowing the experienced editor" and "positive counseling" (not just negative warning and blocks/jail) and "community service" (get them to assists others making same mistakes, learn by teaching) and so on. Wikipedia's way of keeping vandalism and bad behavior out purely seems to be based on bombarding each other with warnings and blocks, no loving compassionate counseling. Those who are more experienced in playing this negative behavior, while being pleasant to their powerful colleagues, seem to win. Everybody else either has to be submissive and be corrupted by this negative-way of being successful and become part of this rot, or be thrown out (experienced ones can smartly frustrate newer ones into lashing out) or quit to retain their peace. Wikipedia principals are good, guidelines are nice but confusing and useful only for the experienced wikipedia power-players (at least publish an order of priority of wiki guidelines e.g. use consensus before using BRD, use gentle explaining before issuign warning, do not use warning unless you have mentored the person, and so on), processes are efficient but bad because they seem to "encourage narcissist behavior" (warn warn and warn at the slightest pretext, provoke them smartly into lashing out and play victim of attack and block), system is designed this way that only narcissists 9who are smart enough to pleasantly disguise it) stay, survive, thrive and rise. I remember reading in some guideline that calling some one narcissist is basis of ban, I am not attacking or calling any individual narcissist. Apologies, if I spoke too much. I only intend to draw your attention, and I beg you please can we do something to change this system. You have more experience, power, leverage, network to make this change happen e.g. do not warn but mentor, use positive reinforcement, ban or restrict negative behavioral modification tools/processes (currently they are excessive). Apologies too if that mechanism already exists. If it does not exist, then I assume all or most of you above are admins or very experienced editors. I request you to please take it up to set up this kind of positive onboarding and positive behavioral modification process. About these two guys, give them both "loving compassionate chance with proper counseling". Though the admin might have broken rules by not being active for a year, inform him that if he does not regularly use his account then his admin rights will be revoked, inform him in a pleasant way, not in the usual wikipedia bossy-warning-bully way. Same for the blocked guy, put him through some counseling under the wings of one of the designated experienced kind-hearted patient non-preachy non-bossy volunteer admin to learn the ropes for 3 months. Please include all. Let us not kick, jail, kill anyone. Conquer them with love. Let me know too if I am disturbing in not-allowable forum, and i will shut up. Thanks for reading, for your patience and kind consideration. 222.165.9.81 (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

PS, Just noticed, while I was typing my comment, the discussion has moved on and case closed. Apologies for my comment above (submitted almost simultaneously with closure verdict). Thanks for the understanding. I am just a reader-learner. 222.165.9.81 (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Triple-Two, first off, welcome to the project. To answer some of your inquiries: You are permitted to post in this space; any user is allowed to, permitted they are participating productively in a discussion, abiding by our general community guidelines, and just generally not acting in WP:disruptive fashion. That said, in this particular space, it's usually best to keep your comments more focused upon the specific issues being explored here rather than making more generalized and prolonged arguments about the manner in which the project operates. However, there are a bevy of other spaces where this kind of discussion does take place: you may be interested (as starting points) in spaces like WP:WikiProject Editor Retention and WP:Village Pump; to adress other issues with a learnign curve that you note, the Wikipeida directory, editor's index, the help page, and the Teahouse, (a space for mentoring newcomers) may all prove useful to you.

At the core of your commentary is a laudable notion that new members of this community ought to be welcome into it with warmth, gratitude and encouragement. I think you will find that this vision is shared more in common with your fellow Wikipedians (especially amongst long-term consistent contributors) than you seem to be assuming. There are many spaces which address the issues through the type of lens you seem to be encouraging; we have numerous WP:MEDIATION and WP:DISPUTE RESOLUTION processes that editors can avail themselves of, as well as multiple mechanisms to solicit impartial additional views on editorial issues--you are correct that are not highly visible to newcomers, lost amongst the deep mechanics of the community processes here, which take time and familiarity to parse through. Sadly, while there is always room for improvement, I think that the complexity is partly just an inherent result of the scale and complexity of this project, and not merely the result of poor priorities or design by this community.

In the same vein, I think you are perhaps assuming too much about the motives and perspectives of the admins and community members who work with the processes involving blocks and sanctions. Keep in mind that this space is specifically reserved for persistent or serious issues, so of course one sees a high level of contention. There are countless thousands of little collisions on the project on any given day that are handled with tact and mutual respect and encouragement and never arrive here or an an admin's talk page. The strong lines sometimes drawn here by the community also don't mean that experienced editors here lack sympathy for new contributors. You will find that most discussions end with an assumption of WP:ROPE or even more positive outcomes. And when it doesn't go that way, it isn't because the community wishes to punish someone, but rather because we want to prevent further disruption. Take the present case: you suggest that we should give a warning to this admin that they cannot do as they did, and then let the matter go at that. But I'm afraid you don't seem to fully understand the issues here. Having admin tools is a major responsibility here, and those privileges can only be used in ways that are, by design of community consensus, highly constrained. The admin in the present case, who has been long absent from the project and got his tools at a much earlier time in this project's development, has shown highly questionable judgement in the use of those tools and then has compounded this by being almost completely unresponsive the community's concerns, and seeming to have an insufficiently clear understanding of what the problems with their conduct are. The community has to look into such issues, but it's not a punitive inquiry in any sense: notice that the discussion is focused on the loss of the problematic tools, and not a block or any other such sanction.

All of that said, I hope you continue to embrace a compassionate and sympathetic approach to your interactions on the project, should you stay with us. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• @Ivanvector and Snow Rise: Other arbitrators haven't weighed in on this, but I'd recommend that the best way forward here is that someone submits a case request. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I believe Twitbookspacetube previously expressed a willingness to attend to that, if further sufficient engagement from Winhunter was not forthcoming. I'm a less than ideal choice, given my availability over the next couple of weeks, but if Twitbookspacetube has reconsidered and no one else is available--or if someone feels strongly that I'm the most appropriate person, having made the initial proposal-- I'll try to find the time for a bare bones filing. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm a bit busy at this precise moment, but I'll take a look through this quagmire and put something together. Twitbookspacetube 04:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Twitbookspacetube; given the user's general lack of activity, I wouldn't call it a pressing issue, but I nevertheless appreciate that someone is willing to file the matter with ArbCom at least somewhat contemporaneous with the closing of this discussion. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks all. As I said I'm disinclined to file a case request myself beyond a summary "the community requests a case" sort of thing, and won't have time anyway in the next few days to a week or so. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The case is so filed at [126]. Twitbookspacetube 03:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring at Hobyo

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

---

Not sure how to report this, as the template for discussion at WP:AN3RR calls for information I can't supply. Two editors, User:Mohamed958543 and newer editor User:Faarax200, have been edit-warring at Hobyo, with dozens of reversions and re-additions today. User:Mohamed958543 is calling it reversion of vandalism, but all I can see is a content dispute:[127], [128], etc.. On day one of Faarax200 editing, they went into dispute resolution over Galkayo: [129], which I can't see in the archived discussion for some reason. But the pair of them have been edit-warring ever since. Faarax200 knowingly logged out to edit, but per Talk:Hobyo#Faraax200 Vandalism this seems to have been in good faith. Mohamed958543 has been blocked for disruptive editing before [130], and I've warned him about 3RR at his talk page and the article talk page, but he's continued right on after the warning: [131], [132], deleting referenced content with no rationale apart from repeated edit summaries along the lines of "Stop ruining the page! you made this new account for Vandalism". Not sure which is the best version to roll back to. Collective wisdom gratefully received. 146.199.101.199 (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

For the admins:

Page: Hobyo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User: Mohamed958543 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User: Faarax200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

— nihlus kryik  (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• I have blocked both User:Mohamed958543 (4 days) and User:Faarax200 (2 days) for edit warring at Hobyo. They each continued to revert after being notified of this report. The total is now up to 20 reverts or more. Most likely, not enough people watch these articles or know anything about the issues. EdJohnston (talk) 03:24, 22 August 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.

Copyright violation by Wikipedia...Dr Mukesh Hariawala

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 Administrators,

My attorneys have reported that Wikipedia is displaying my picture illegaly on a page which is not my profile. I have asked the profile author to put page for " Speedy Deletion " .

I confirm that DO NOT give copyright permission to Wikipedia to use my picture on any of their pages or their sister websites.

Remove it immediately.

Location : https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dr._Mukesh_Hariawala_in_2012.jpg#mw-jump-to-license

I do not wish to be logged it but you can cummunicate with me directly at

(Redacted)

Thank you.

Dr Mukesh Hariawala — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.248.176.187 (talk) 09:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Note: See also this thread at WP:AN: [133] and this AfD: [134]. -- Begoon 09:52, 22 August 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:Sandman789 and Money Mike Sandberg

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:Sandman789 has been repeatedly creating an article that has been speedy-deleted as A7 and sometimes as G11, using various forms of the name, presumably using the various forms of the name to game the system on salting, and has been removing speedy deletion templates. At this point, a block is in order to stop the repeated re-creation, and the removal of speedy-deletion templates. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

There may be a conflict of interest, because Sandman789 may be Sandberg, but that doesn't affect that there is disruption. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

If a non-notable article is being repeatedly recreated despite repeated warnings, I agree a block is in order. The username seems to also indicate an obvious COI. He is also hosting a WP:FAKEARTICLE about himself on his userpage, in violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST. That needs to be wiped as well. Softlavender (talk) 04:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I am not creating a "fake article".

There is nothing I am doing that is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandman789 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 23 August 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.

Warning!

A vandal friend of mine is about to attack many many pages! Please can someone pay very close attention to the recent changes logs and revert when it happens. I'll attempt to do the same but I can't stop them by myself. I will need help. Thanks, 219.76.18.73 (talk) 11:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

That's about as useful as saying "there'll be weather tomorrow". We get many vandals trying to attack many pages every day, so your friend won't be doing anything outstanding. Just report them to AIV when you have more useful information. I'd also suggest, if you're concerned, that you unfriend your friend and encourage your other friends to ostracize them. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Protect my user and talk 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.

---

Please protect my user and talk pages to the "autoconfirmed user" level. huji—TALK 10:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• {1} I assume an admin is going to want to know "Why?". (2)Is there a reason you can't ask for this on WP:RFPP, where protection is generally asked for, except in emergencies? Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• My bad, and my apologies. I should have looked further than I did. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Done. It really doesn't take much digging to see why this is required and urgent, though I will shortly also revdel the offending edits. @Huji:, take care and get in touch if you require any further assistance. GoldenRing (talk) 11:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: much appreciated, and thank you for taking the extra 10 seconds to investigate, revdel, and understand the urgency huji—TALK 14:32, 21 August 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.

Mathematician makes a mistake and starts personal attacks

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

---

Hello,

User:Joel B. Lewis launches a personal and un-professional attack against me despite having made a rather obvious mistake in reverting an edit of mine regarding the Master theorem. The key citation is "don't be an ass", followed by gibberish that is contradicted by The Art of Computer Programming, page 110, in a section that was written by D. Knuth himself. It would be beneficial if measures are taken against this sort of unfriendly behaviour, and further it should be taken good care that the passage in the article remains correct, possibly by alerting an expert admin. --Mathmensch (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• So why are you bringing a content dispute to ANI?

Why are you claiming that your change is supported by Knuth, when Knuth isn't even cited on this article?

So far, you have made an uncited change, then were (quite correctly) reverted by another editor with the summary "Not obvious to me that it is a counter-example", which is entirely reasonable, per WP:BRD. You have not given the supporting source you claim. You have not discussed this on the article talk: page. Instead you've reinstated your change, still unsourced. Your comments on a user talk: page (not the best place to start) of "And acknowledging and correcting one's mistakes is of supreme importance." / "I see you misunderstood the Θ {\displaystyle \Theta } \Theta notation." are hardly likely to encourage any reasonable debate.

If you want to make a change, then the onus is on you to explain why this change is an improvement and to support it with source(s) (and yes, Knuth would be seen as WP:RS) - especially when you've been reverted once. It is not good behaviour to run off to ANI complaining about another editor being "unfriendly", when you've begun by impugning their own technical competence. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, let me explain.

First of all, I'm bringing the insult to ANI, and not necessarily the content dispute, which is so basic that the other author's action could be mistaken for vandalism. Obviously, I did explain what was wrong with the article, namely that $f=0$ is a trivial counter-example. I put that into the summary line of my edit.

I mostly disagree with your criticism of my behaviour. I was trying to explain to the author his mistake. Being a mathematician, he could (and should) easily have corrected it. This is why I left a message on his talk page. And if someone insults me, I'm going to notify the admins. I'm sorry, but I'm not your verbal punching ball.

The statement in the article was false, and I corrected it. In the current version of the article there is not the slightest mention any more of the claim (or its falsity), whence a reference to Knuth is unnecessary. (Furthermore, the whole thing is well-explained in the article Big-O notation.)

Further, a mathematical counter-example can easily be verified by any mathematician, and every mathematician will confirm that even though Mr. Lewis is a mathematician, in this particular case his claims are just false (e.g. that I would not allow for zero functions in the definition of the Theta-notation, by corrrectly stating that the lower bound must be non-trivial; otherwise, the $\Theta$ notation would be superfluous anyhow, since it would be equivalent to the $O$ notation).

Then, I have given a supporting reference to my claim (as you yourself acknowledge), namely Knuth's book (and the wikipedia article), and at least the former is the reference on the subject.

And finally, where on earth did I impunge anybody's technical competence?

Please read up what I actually wrote; would save me lots of time. --Mathmensch (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Andy Dingley for the clear and correct summary of events; I have nothing to add. --JBL (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I now corrected the theorem in a different way.--Mathmensch (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be a personal attack. "Don't be an ass" is just another way of saying "Don't be a WP:DICK" or "Don't be a jerk". However, I can say that the tone of that entire paragraph does seem very heated and borderline WP:UNCIVIL. Other than that, this is a content dispute, so I advise both Mathmensch and Joel B. Lewis to remain civil when discussing this disagreement. That's all I really have to add; I don't opine that administrative action is needed at the moment. DarkKnight2149 17:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

"I'm sorry, but I'm not your verbal punching ball."'

Nor is JBL yours. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with others that this seems to be a content dispute that doesn't belong at ANI. Yet despite that, the article talk page is empty of related discussion which is never a good sign. If you want to bring a content dispute to ANI, you should at least make sure the article talk page isn't empty i.e. the whole situation isn't so basically flawed it's not even worth us looking at. Please don't bring up any discussions on editor talk pages, I don't particularly care. I also agree that others that "don't be an ass" is basically a variant of don't be a dick, and while as the page used to say, such comments should be made with care no one is every likely to be sanctioned for a single such comment barring other circumstances (e.g. a iban) so it's also something pointless to bring here. In other words, this doesn't belong at ANI. Note that because we don't deal with content disputes, there's rarely any point explaining in depth why you were right and the other party was wrong in the content dispute even if you feel someone else has unfairly characterised your role in said dispute and there's particularly unlikely to be any point when as I said, the whole thing is so basically flawed because the article talk page is empty. Nil Einne (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless anyone has anything else to add, I'd say that an administrator closing this discussion is entirely justifiable. Mathmensch and JBL need to work out their differences elsewhere and resolve the content dispute in a civilised manner, preferably on the Talk Page of the article in question. Until the situation gets much worse (which would likely be bad for both users), there's nothing that can really be done here. DarkKnight2149 18:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Calling someone an "ass", a "dick" or a "jerk" is definitely a personal attack. It is about time that the silly myth about these personal descriptions being acceptable was put to rest. It is always possible to criticise someone's edits without criticising their person. That said, this case can be closed with a warning to both participants to use more civil language. Zero^talk 10:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

If I were a mathematician though, I would much rather be called a dick than an incompetent mathematician. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

This looks like an aspersion's Richter scale. dick: 1; mathematician: 3; incompetent mathematician: 5; incompetent dick: near infinity (that's the meaning of an open scale). Pldx1 (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

There's literally a guideline dedicated to "don't be a dick". It isn't necessarily an insult as much as it is a description of how they are behaving. But, as previously mentioned, the entire paragraph is borderline WP:UNCIVIL regardless. DarkKnight2149 20:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• I second the comment by Zero wholeheartedly. All of these comments dismissing the complaint outright are really not helpful. Please provide helpful advice for users who come to ANI in good faith or don't comment at all. This user quite obviously is not trying to drag the content issue onto ANI. That being said, context is everything, and the "don't be an ass" thing was obviously provoked. The idea behind WP:NPA is to "focus on content, not contributors", and rather than attempting to resolve the content dispute through good faith discussion, Mathmensch, you blatantly insulted JBL's intelligence. We're all human, and I don't think any of us here would not respond with some level of "personal attack" after being so blatantly condescended. Here's a very simple concept: treat others the way you want to be treated. Don't insult people, and maybe you won't be at ANI complaining about being personally attacked. Swarm ♠ 19:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Both users are uncivil and this is a content dispute. So, as previously mentioned, both Mathmensch and Joel B. Lewis need to drop their attitudes and resolve this in a civilised manner. And if or when they can't do that, intervention will be needed. DarkKnight2149 20:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Darkknight2149's Proposal

We haven't heard much from Joel B. Lewis in this situation. So, here's what I propose:

Regardless of who did what or what has already been said, I motion that both users calm down and continue to discuss this disagreement, but with level heads (ignoring any unsavory comments the other user may or may not have said before) and no immediate administrator intervention. If this dispute continues to heat up, both users are to be topic banned from that particular article for 24 hours. After the ban expires, the two users will have another opportunity to get along in resolving this issue. If incivility continues after that, more Topic Bans are to be implemented with increasing severity until it's indefinite, they get along, or they drop the stick.

So, to @Joel B. Lewis: and @Mathmensch:, I ask - Are the two of you willing to give the other the clean slate and discuss your differences, regardless of who said what? That is the ideal solution and, if you two still can't reach a consensus, you can always request a third opinion without going at each other's throats. DarkKnight2149 21:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support - As nom. DarkKnight2149 21:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• I'm against anything that equates Joel B. Lewis's comment with Mathmensch's comments. Yes, Joel could have been a saint and not responded in kind, but that's asking a little much of a mortal human. Mathmensch was condescending and rude from the beginning, and then came running here when he was able to provoke a reaction. That behavior shouldn't be rewarded by treating both editors as equally responsible. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Floquenbeam: All that matters now is that Joel B. Lewis keeps his cool. If Mathmensch does it again, administrative action will certainly be taken. Same thing goes in reverse, or if they are both equally uncivil to each other. This particular quarrel has passed and has been archived. Resurrecting it now will just cause further argument. DarkKnight2149 00:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Floquenbeam. Darkknight2149, I really don't have anything to add to what Andy Dingley and Floquenbeam have said, and I am satisfied with the closure of the discussion. --JBL (talk) 01:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Um... I think Mathmensch just retired because of this... DarkKnight2149 01:11, 24 August 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:FuzzyCatPotato

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.

---

FuzzyCatPotato (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a member of the Board of Trustees for the RationalMedia Foundation and has blatantly been involved in conflict of interest editing on the RationalWiki article and on other articles by inserting links to RationalWiki, and I fear he is not here to build an encyclopedia. In January 2017, I noticed a link to Rational-Wiki added to Michel Chossudovsky that I thought was inappropriate, so I removed it per WP:BOLD, and left {{uw-coi}} on his talk page. He reacted defensively, reverting @Fyddlestix: and me when we were trying to remove the inappropriate link. He posted on the talk page, which is fine, and consensus was established per WP:BLPEL. Oddly enough, a community-banned RationalWikian troll known as Keegscee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appeared to interfere in the situation. FuzzyCatPotato once again added a link to Rational-Wiki in July 2017 on the vaginal steaming article. A few days later, I noticed the link and removed it per WP:ELNO but did not notice who added it. I did notice he was the one who posted it when reviewing my own edits in August 2017, so I left an escalated warning template on his talk page about promoting his wiki, following the standard procedure I would follow with any person repeatedly promoting an organization they are affiliated with. FuzzyCatPotato responded extremely defensively and sarcastically, stating "Spamming" I am shaking in my boots, accusing me of being a "Conservapedia editor demanding "respect", implied that he sees this as a war in his edit summary at EL/N, made a blatantly uncivil and disruptive comment on my talk page that he later reverted claiming it was the "wrong website" and later blamed on a friend, and made nonsense edit on his own talk page which he later reverted with the edit summary "fuck off" which is presumably directed at Wikipedians he disagrees with. A large percentage of FuzzyCatPotato's edits are related to Rational-Wiki, he describes his Rational-Wiki account as his "real" account on his user page here, and adding insult to injury is a suspicion of paid editing by @Beetstra:. At least four of the voters in RationalWiki's most recent AfD were affiliated with the website, and if there is ongoing paid editing or meatpuppetry, FuzzyCatPotato is at least involved in it. FuzzyCatPotato's most recent edit was to try and WP:Wikilawyer an excuse for continuing to add R-W links after the matter had previously been discussed, after previously claiming he would not interact with me anymore. I believe FuzzyCatPotato's overall behavior is disruptive and that he should be blocked or banned accordingly. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 01:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
FYI, I am unplugging from the situation and Wikipedia as a whole effective immediately (at least for two weeks) due to summer courses, leaving trust in the community to solve this matter. I invite any Wikipedian to WP:TROUT me should I do otherwise. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 02:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, though I would never encourage any editor to remain engaged here when their other obligations are demanding their time, it's less than ideal to make a broad ranging (if apparently actually factually accurate) behavioural complaint against another user and then immediately disengage from the project, since we may require additional information to contextualize and analyze the accusations. If you really cannot edit at all in the next two weeks, I guess that's just where we are at, but I must tell you that it greatly decreases the liklihood that definitive action will be taken to restrain the editor, even if they are genuinely disruptive. It's also not impossible that your own involvement might ome under scrutiny while you are not here to defend your involvement, just to give you a head's up.

That procedural observation made, I do see the problem being raised here with this clearly COI editor. There seems to be a clear lack of perspective and respect for Wikipedia's content standards, where they conflict with what this user considers to be the WP:TRUTH of matters. Of even more concern are the PA's/trolling, particularly where they are at their most WP:BATTLEGROUND, as with this edit, and the following sequence of comments/reversions, no matter the textbook Wikipedia:My little brother did it claim. More digging will be necesary here, but already I am inclined to believe a topic ban may be the minimum required to address the WP:NOTHERE, WP:COI, and WP:DISRUPTIVE behaviours.

An SPI is the next logical step, though, since an indef will be the almost certain result if it turns out that there is a sock party going on here, and there's no point in debating the seriousness of the other behaviours and what sanction should be applied to prevent them, if the indef for abuse of multiple accounts is going to be the ultimate outcome anyway. Since you are the most concerned editor here and the one with the most familiarity with the purported disruption/socking/gaming, I'd encourage you to either put together the basic evidence for the SPI for us to consider--or even file it yourself, if you are confident that there is enough to make the WP:DUCK argument, and assuming you have the time before taking your break. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

My only involvement here was at Michel Chossudovsky - the incident there ([135][136][137][138]), while odd, was eventually resolved and is pretty stale now. These, much more recent edits [139][140] are also pretty odd, but Fuzzy has self-reverted both of them and apologized. So assuming that we AGF and Fuzzy has learned their lesson there (ie, no more letting your friends use your account, no more decidedly un-funny "joke" posts) I'm not sure there's anything to be done there either.

The core of the problem seems to be the - thus far unresolved - question of whether RW can be used as an EL. See two separate ongoing discussions here and here, which (to my surprise) don't seem to have a clear consensus just yet. Personally I'd think it's obvious that RW is wholly inappropriate for use as a source or EL anywhere on wikipedia, but I guess that's neither here nor there. Those discussions should be allowed to conclude and both FuzzyCatPotato and PCHS-NJROTC need to abide by that consensus, whatever the result. Assuming they do that, there should be no further cause/reason for further drama or disruption here. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, regardless of the prudence of using those links on those articles, if PCHS's concerns about sock/meat puppetry turn out to be verifiable, you can bet there will be blocks. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, I was just plain confused by that bit. Where is the evidence? Keegscee is mentioned above but isn't FCP, and it's not surprising that people active on RW would turn up to !vote to keep an article on their own site. A COI issue, sure, but it doesn't mean they're socks. Am I missing something? All I see here so far is innuendo... Fyddlestix (talk) 05:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• The situation is more balanced than may first appear. User:PCHS-NJROTC proclaims the editor is a member of Conservapedia, and has been since 2009. For anyone new here, the folks at Conservapedia and Rational-Wiki have, shall we say, diametrically opposing views. FuzzyCatPotato has a COI which the user acknowledges (example). However, PCHS-NJROTC's campaign to oppose Rational-Wiki has exactly the same COI. I noticed the fuss at a couple of pages on my watchlist and my guess is that FuzzyCatPotato has allowed exasperation to gain the upper hand a couple of times, and that is why a couple of recent diffs in the OP show silly edits. However, the shotgun OP is very weak—why make me look at Special:Contributions/Keegscee only to discover the user was indeffed over seven years ago? Johnuniq (talk) 05:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

[COIN: RW editor, RW mod, RW boardmember]

The above complaint is multifaceted; let's do line-by-line.

Conflict of interest:

• This is unrefutable. I have an obvious conflict of interest. Indeed, I note so in virtually every post I've made to this website.
• However, I do my best to avoid WP:NOTHERE in terms of WP:NPOV. Example 1: When PCHS-NJROTC asked for more negative coverage from reliable sources in RationalWiki, I stepped up and added three such sources, for which PCHS-NJROTC commended me. Example 2: PCHS-NJROTC suggested discussion move from Talk:Vaginal steaming to WP:ELN and I did so.
• However, I think my COI is sufficiently strong that I shouldn't add any links to RationalWiki outside the RationalWiki (and possibly Conservapedia?) articles. I will not do so, regardless of what WP:ANI decides.

Sockpuppetry:

• User:DefinitelyNotFCP is not me: (I reverted them from adding RationalWiki.org, b/c consensus at Talk:Michel_Chossudovsky#RationalWiki_link was against.)
• User:Keegscee is not me: (SPI finding)
• If PCHS-NJROTC wishes, I welcome an SPI.

Disruption:

• WP:BATTLE: PCHS-NJROTC cites this edit summary, which states: "must every comment be another salvo in your war?" For context, I recommend this comment. I was and am annoyed by PCHS-NJROTC's use of discussion policy as a way of "telling people off" (eg, [141][142]). PCHS-NJROTC added a comment for no reason other than to say "nuh uh, YOU'RE the real bludgeoner!"
• Wikipedia:My little brother did it: PCHS-NJROTC points to [143][144] and [145][146] as disruptive. PCHS-NJROTC clearly does not accept my (admittedly unprovable and thus flimsy) explanation & apology. From the viewpoint of ANI, this is probably good grounds for a short-term block. *shrug* So be it.

Paid editing:

• ??? Honestly not sure where this comes from. I'm on the (nonprofit!) RationalWiki board -- we don't have the money to pay one, much less multiple, Wikipedia-writers. But if PCHS-NJROTC has evidence more solid than an evidence-free assertion by another Wikipedia user, then they may go right ahead.

Wikilawyering:

• I don't know what this refers to.

A final note:

Though PCHS-NJROTC does not note so here, PCHS-NJROTC has a substantial personal bias against RationalWiki. In his own words, PCHS-NJROTC is "biased against their wiki" to the degree that he is "against almost everything Rational-Wiki promotes". In PCHS-NJROTC's words, RationalWiki is my "mothership"; a "hate site"; the cause of "numerous fecal hurricanes on Wikipedia" for "the last seven years"; content created by teenagers -- indeed, "most of them are juvenile"; and "more like E{ncyclopedia }D{ramatica}" (a low blow). This bias led to PCHS-NJROTC falsely accusing User:David Gerard of WP:COI for a copyright issue with Freeman on the land. This bias was also why I initially dismissed PCHS-NJROTC's concerns on my talkpage.

Summary:

A short-term block for disruption to my own and PCHS-NJROTC's user talk pages is probably in order, as is a ban on adding links to rationalwiki.org to other articles. All else is baseless.

Thanks. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 07:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Having followed up on the context of each diff the OP provided, I haven't been able to find evidence of any recent socking associated with the present contest of wills. Yes, there are some extremely stale issues associated with numerous editors with an association to RationalWiki, but nothing connecting with FCP. FCP does have a rather large COI and could arguably stand to contribute to other areas if they want to prove that they are WP:HERE, rather than focusing on an organization for which they sit on the Board of Trustees, but they have not hidden the conflict and no evidence has been submitted to prove they are being disruptive to the level necessitating sanction. Those trolling comments certainly push the line, and I think FCP ought to read WP:COMPROMISED, because they very easily could have ended up with their primary account blocked (still could, technically speaking). It also calls into question just how responsible and professional an organization RationalWiki is, that one of its board members is either publicly trolling here or had a buddy who was willing to such, that they let use their account. I'd not want to have to explain that to the Board, if they became ware of this. But that said, and for our purposes on this project, I am willing to AGF on those couple of bizarre comments and I don't think they would amount to sanction in any event.

Under normal circumstances I would say we could stand to wait a little while to let PCHS-NJROTC substantiate their claims a little more. But since that user has made it clear that they planned to check out of Wikipedia for a couple of weeks starting immediately, that doesn't seem like a fruitful approach. Given the ambiguous and unsubstantiated nature of the claims made against FCP, no likely further involvement from the OP, the perspective of other editors (who are much more neutral than either the OP or FCP appear to be) who present an interpretation that suggests this is at least a two-way street, and the fairly even-tempered mea cupla of FCP, it is my opinion that this thread should be closed fairly quickly, with a thorough trouting for both editors, but probably no other action required. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

(RMF board member here) The complainant is on a mission against RW, as detailed above. His spurious COI complaint against me was because I reverted a violation of copyright on his part. This complaint is more of the same, which is why the cites are so shoddy and spurious. I suggest a neutral editor examine the evidence and close it — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Gerard (talk • contribs)
I am going to go ahead and reply since several people seem to desire my response, but I don't desire to spend the day watching this. Blocks are preventative, not punative. To clarify, the paid editing suspicion was raised by @Beestra: and he is the one that would need to provide insight on that. I am not saying that FCP is Keegscee, but they are from the same site and I fully believe the Rational-Wiki community collaborates to influence Wikipedia, as supported by the fact that another board member came to his defense in this discussion. There's also a description of an interesting organization that sounds an awful lot like a meatpuppetry ring on Rational-Wiki's article on Wikipedia. Some people have pointed out that I am a Conservapedian, and while that is correct, I have been a Wikipedian longer, have made more contributions to Wikipedia, I learned about Conservapedia only through Rational-Wikian shenanigans on Wikipedia, and unlike FCP, I do not go around promoting Conservapedia on Wikipedia except to acknowledge my involvement on my talk page. People bring up my dislike for Rational-Wiki, but honestly who here does like groups who have been responsible for disruptive behavior? I think bringing that into the equation here is a clear indication that some people think this is a WP:BATTLE, but I'm frankly not interested in a war with them; I'm interested in the integrity of the encyclopedia. FCP has acknowledged that his actions are block worthy, but he has also promised to change his behavior. Blocks are preventative, not punative, so I think the question is whether we are to believe he will change. Based on his response, I would recommend WP:TROUT for now per WP:AGF, possibly a topic ban, and an immediate revisitation of the issue if he does not change. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 12:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC) Something else I am going to add is that the first {{uw-coi}} template was honestly to help Fuzzy, not to slap him/her. In round two of Fuzzy's links, I was (and still am) annoyed, and I'm annoyed that he would push the issue as a COI editor. I don't have a problem with Fuzzy being here as a RationalWikian, but he needs to follow our rules and assimilate to the culture of Wikipedia. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 13:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC) (No smart ass pun intended; I just realized the similarities to political arguments)

"There's also a description of an interesting organization that sounds an awful lot like a meatpuppetry ring on Rational-Wiki's article on Wikipedia." You can in fact link to RW to demonstrate your claims about RW, you know. So please back up such claims. (I asked you to do so when you tried it on with your copyright violation, and you didn't then either.) You have yet to make a supported claim for action, and appear to be attempting to cover up such with sheer weight of verbiage. You have supplied nothing to show that FCP did anything wrong, and you really need to do so. Supply actual evidence, rather than piling on more claims - David Gerard (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Here and here. I don't like messing around with links when editing from mobile devices. I know very little about that organization in all honesty, but I am skeptical of any non-WMF/non-community based efforts to get people to edit Wikipedia a certain way, and Rational-Wiki seems to be promoting it, or at least in favor of it. You seem awfully defensive of your fellow board member who is here because he did something undeniably (and admittedly on his part) stupid, David. 74.5.231.189 (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The accusation that Guerrilla Skeptics on Wikipedia is in any way associated with Rationalwiki is a frequent one, but in several years of it I know of zero people involved in both. (As per the second link.) Unless you can actually produce some. Also, there's no evidence Guerrilla Skeptics on Wikipedia has done anything wrong and that there would be anything wrong with being associated with them.

You're still not substantiating your claim at all, just stacking unsubstantiated accusations even higher - David Gerard (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. All those links do us provide coverage of Wikipedia's own policies from a "skeptics" point of view and celebrate the fact that the MEDRS/scientific contet policies align so well with their objectives already. They do not organize or encourage gaming, vandalism, trolling, or disruption in any way. There's a tempest in a teapot discussion of whether or not another group entirely had edit warred on a single article, four years ago, but zero incitement to replicate that that behaviour--in fact, the very tone of the coverage seems to suggest that the editors of that Rational Wiki article would disapprove of such a thing. Frankly, offsite speculation about a four-year-old edit war that doesn't relate to the present dispute in the slightest doesn't much interest me. If someone wants to go check out Rupert Sheldrake to make sure disruption is not an ongoing issue there, that's fine, but I see no way in which those links provide even indirect, tangential or circumstantial support for the claims they are being affixed to regarding FCP or an alleged rational wiki conspiracy.

It seems increasingly likely that there is no hard evidence at hand to support that notion, which seems to be pure supposition on PCHS's part, based on the fact that there are a large number of editors from RationalWiki commenting on the article about RationalWiki--but, as Fyddlestix points out above, there would hardly be anything surprising about that being the case, and it doesn't require a sock/meat conspiracy to come about. Frankly, I'm beginning to feel like we are playing a shell game every time PCHS is asked to substantiate their claims and I strongly feel they should consider WP:DROPPING THE STICK on this (and better yet would be a quick close by someone who has not yet commented here) before this starts to enter into WP:BOOMERANG territory. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I would second closing it per WP:AGF + WP:TROUT anyway because the accused acknowledges that he needs to adjust his behavior in COI editing and refrain from trolling or allowing other people to use his account to troll, which are the chief issues prompting this thread. It would indeed be difficult to prove WP:MEATPUPPETRY (the paid editing issue was raised by someone else, I have no idea what prompted him to believe that, and he has yet to comment here). PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 01:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

A few things on your comments there: First off, there is no "accused" here; this isn't a trial in even the most remote sense. Second, What FCP actually said was that both your behaviour and theirs could have been less bombastic. I'm inclined to agree; the community is having to AGF with regard to both your approaches. Lastly, while you keep invoking Beetstra's name here as the source of the socking allegations, that user didn't file this report and hasn't commented here. You are the sole editor putting forward this vague assertion of an off-project conspiracy to vandalize the project (which claim you have repeated even through your most recent comments below), which you further say FCP must definitely be involved with, but without providing anything that looks even remotely like what we would consider evidence of such a strong claim. You can't vaguely cite another user from ages ago about some half-formed suspicion which they are not even themselves forwarding and then expect it to be taken seriously as context that proves that we should be closely scrutinizing the activity of another editor. That's not how this process works.

If you have anything concrete to suggest that FCP has socked or coordinated organized vandalism, gaming or disruption (either through on-project channels or off), then by all means supply it in the form of diffs, user comparisons, external links, or any other form of evidence used in the usually methodology for establishing these things. If you can't do that (and it seems pretty likely at this point that you have nothing that is compelling at this level), then I agree with others who have commented above that you are basically peddling innuendo without evidence here, and you should drop this line of discussion. Yes, you're right, it would be extremely difficult to prove meatpuppetry in this instance, but that doesn't mean you get to just make/imply such accusations again and again without evidence. I suggest your further commentary here avoid it altogether; you can't continue to introduce it into the discussion with a sly reference to an editor who is not even involved here and expect us to not notice that its you who is implying this supposed conspiracy without any real evidence. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• As an uninvolved administrator, the impression I get from this thread is that a Conservapedia admin has crossed paths with a RationalWiki Trustee, both of which projects happen to have opposite views, and goals fundamentally incompatible with this project, and yet this neutral project happens to have become the site of their battleground. Unfortunately, we can't preventatively action users unless they've obviously violated our policies or consensuses, and this does not appear to be that kind of situation. It appears to be two ideologically-opposed users trying to get each other suppressed. Short of a two-way interaction ban, I don't see how we can realistically take either side, and would advise both users to quite simply leave each other alone as there is apparently no way you will be agreeing anytime soon. If you're really that unable to avoid each other, on this big project, I fear the community will have to impose a restriction. Swarm ♠ 01:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I could care less about getting into a fight or winning a fight with anyone from that site on Wikipedia (as a matter of fact, I find their WP:BATTLEGROUND reactions to be annoying). I could care less if FCP is blocked as long as he doesn't act disruptively (and those trolling edits are irrefutably disruptive, regardless of who committed them with Fuzzy's account). I actually would rather avoid indefinitely blocking him if at all possible because I think he will get mad and create socks if he is blocked indefinitely like Keegscee did. I just don't want people from Rational-Wiki (or Conservapedia, or any other organization for that matter) introducing links or content that are at odds with Wikipedia policy (WP:RS, WP:ELNO, WP:BLPEL, WP:NPOV, WP:ADV, WP:SPAM, WP:OR etc.), and I don't want them vandalizing or trolling either. The integrity of the encyclopedia is the top concern for me as a Wikipedian; Conservapedia, my own ideology, self glorification, etc is second to that when I edit here. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 01:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm also going to add that I think you hit the nail on the head when you said both sites' objectives are fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia's neutral encyclopedia project. That's what brings us here today, the addition of links to RationalWiki escalating to a point that I have felt that a RationalWikian was being disruptive. Although I might not get involved in the situation if only to avoid off-Wikipedia consequences, a Conservapedian doing the same thing would be just as wrong. I think the simple solution would be to just spamblacklist both sites with a whitelist exception for the links on the sites' own articles. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 02:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

As James Baldwin put it, "I can't believe what you say because I see what you do." You've had a thing about the Rational Wiki folk for a while now, with spurious COI reports, block shopping, and most of the other sorts of behavior we see from editors who let strongly-held views cloud their judgment. In light of your recent efforts the "I'm not interested in picking a fight" line rings hollow. A focused topic ban on Rational Wiki and its editors would spare the rest of us this ongoing dispute and ultimately would be for your own good. It would remove the temptation to go too far in what is clearly a hot-button topic for you while allowing you to contribute in other areas. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I do take issue with Rational-Wiki, just as I take issue with blatant vandals (and they are known in reliable sources as a pro-vandalism site, at least historically), but I'm not interested in a fight. Certain people make it into a fight. The recent issue with the link at vaginal steaming should have been a simple matter of a link that violates policy being removed and User:FuzzyCatPotato reading the policies I provided to him, but instead he decided to respond in a smart ass way (ooooh, I'm shaking in my boots, to paraphrase). I have made very few edits to the RationalWiki or Conservapedia articles, whereas FCP has made many. Spam blacklist both Rational-Wiki and Conservapedia, or issue a decree regarding RationalWiki and Conservapedia editors making edits related to either of the two subjects per WP:COI (as Swarm points out, it's a two way street) and my interest in having anything to do with those sites' coverage on Wikipedia will vanish, and at that point I would have no opposition to a topic-ban. Unless consensus is established in favor of the link at vaginal steaming (which I do not foresee; it will either end in consensus to remove or no consensus), you bet I would object a topic ban if there's nothing in place to stop people from adding links to R-W and Conservapedia, and I would appeal to WP:ARBCOM about it. I don't care about a fight and never have, I care about maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia, and as supported by Keegscee's case, at least some RationalWikians have been a threat to that. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 02:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

If your interest is in the content outcomes and not in suppressing the voice of an opponent, then I suggest you take the content matters to any one of the numerous forums that can handle said issues. There are certainly spaces where you can propose that Rational Wiki be blacklisted. I don't give you great odds based on such a broad-ranging proscription, especially if the evidence you provide (alleging that allowing links to that Wiki are inherently disruptive) have a similar quality to the "evidence" you've provided of behavioural problems in your opponent above. But the option remains open to you to make such a proposal. And really, it is probably your only option, since most the community who have responded here (who were previously uninvolved in the dispute) seem to be in agreement that this is a content dispute, at its core. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

There's on-going threads at WP:EL /N and Talk:Vaginal steaming. There's a few WP:USEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT arguments, as well as a WP:OTHERSTUFF/WP:HARMLESS argument, but everything else points to WP:ELNO. I don't engage with the Rational-Wikians about it (outside of necessity) or try to start fights over it, but I have been scrubbing blatant violations of WP:RS and WP:BLPEL and likely violations of WP:ELNO for seven years with no objections that I can remember except from Rational-Wikians. The exception is the one I removed from Freemen on the land, which I removed because I didn't see the correlation between that article (or previous versions) and the Rational-Wiki article (or previous versions), but since the community disagreed, I dropped the stick (even though I personally think the article needs to be firebombed and rewritten since it is apparently a paraphrase of a non-neutral publication with admitted incompatibilities with Wikipedia policies). I'm sure it's obvious that I'm agitated at the moment, but it's frustrating to see someone who refuses (until this AN/I post) to back off per WP:COI. If the community took issue with my removal of the links, I'd have stopped years ago, but until now, there's been almost nothing but support.

I brought this to AN/I mainly because his (or his friends') blatant troll posts and incivility were troubling to me as I worried that the situation was going to escalate, but he has taken responsibility for his actions since the posting of this AN/I and I am content with accepting that, unless he engages in more blatant disruption. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 04:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• I just want to chime in that I've been involved in this, and PCHS-NJROTC started out on a great first foot; they were engaging and interesting and civil almost to a fault. That lasted about a day. Things went downhill from there. He brought up creationism in a discussion about the relative accuracy and usefulness of RW, proceeded to argue about it, and try to win me over, then (I'm guessing when it became clear that he wasn't going to win me over) proceeded to accuse me of proselytizing "anti-Christian nonsense". After that, he proceeded to berate me for beating a dead horse when I was providing some clarification to another editor, condescendingly lecturing me about "responding to every comment that disagrees with" me, and then immediately start bludgeoning another editor and misrepresent the process of the discussion in an obvious attempt to sway any closer (the correction I later added was to but one false statement among several). I started out thinking I'd met a great new Wikipedian, and by the end of it just felt disgusted with the whole thread, as well as the editor. So I can't speak to whether FCW has been disruptive at all, but I can tell you this: PCHS has been. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree that we both deserve a good WP:TROUTing for allowing that off-topic rabbit hole to continue like that. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 12:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban for PCHS-NJROTC from all RationalWiki topics and from commenting about the actions of editors that PCHS-NJROTC has publicly acknowledged as being associated with RationalWiki. Plenty of people are available to clean up unwarranted external links, and PCHS-NJROTC's attention is disruptive and not required. This is per Shock Brigade Harvester Boris above. Johnuniq (talk) 06:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I have an idea for a compromise that will settle this, and my proposal will be forth-coming this afternoon when I have time to put it together. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 12:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• I support a topic ban on RW for PCHS-NJROTC. The fact that he is still commenting here after claiming to have pressing RL matters to attend to strongly suggests that they are too emotionally involved to be able to contribute neutrally in that subject area. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic banFrom all Rationalwiki discussions and topics on Wikipedia. It's clear that PCHS-NJROTC has a problem with them, but the perceived issues are all in his head. Bringing it here and continuing on, like the ARBCOM proposal below shows the need for such a topic ban. Valeince (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
• Weak Support I felt this response was an overreaction at first, and there was not significant enough disruption here to warrant a topic ban, and so I hoped that the thread would be closed before the matter went farther, as it arguably could have been days ago. But the ongoing WP:IDHT on these issues, and especially the bizarre proposal below have swayed me to the position that this editor is going to keep worrying at this bone and treating this topic area as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Their assertions (that there are mass disruption issues relating to editors who are connected to a Wiki that they are clearly ideologically opposed to) have not been made alongside sufficient (or really any) evidence to substantiate these claims, and yet they continue to propose community inquiry/action against particular editors and now vaguely-defined groups of editors. At this point, a topic ban is looking like the most narrow and targeted means of moving this user along, hopefully towards some more productive work. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I felt this response was an overreaction at first, and there was not significant enough disruption here to warrant a topic ban This has been my experience, as well. I watched this thread evolve for a bit before I jumped in, because I was unsure as to whether the exchange between I and PCHS would even help. But eventually, I decided that it provided important contextual information about PCHS's state of mind wrt the original content dispute: It seemed less rational and more ideological, especially after he accused me of trying to proselytize to him. I felt much the same way about the proposed topic-ban; it seems like overreaction, given that PCHS certainly seems to be pushing for what he believes is right. But as we all should remain aware (and which I completely forgot at first), we're not here to do what is right, but to do what is best for an encyclopedia. It was seeing the proposal he made in response to Johnuniq that 'set my head straight', as it were. It's just so obviously an attempt at trying to steer the discussion away from him, and back towards those he feels should be punished. After reading the proposal below, it strongly reinforces my belief that what is best for both PCHS and WP as a whole is for PCHS to stay out of any discussion or article concerning RationalWiki. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support I can't add anything to what Snow Rise has said, really. PCHS has, unfortunately, dragged this from a simple point of discussion to a demonstration, in full public, that he cannot edit neutrally and non-disruptively in this area. I wish he hadn't done that, but now that he has, I can't see an alternative to supporting the indefinite topic ban. Sorry. -- Begoon 06:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose FuzzyCatPotato, who is on the board of the so-called Rational Wiki blog (and is known by the same screenname there) has been adding links to Rational Wiki throughout Wikipedia, e.g. [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], and [152]. These are just a few examples of this problematic behavior. This is clearly is promotionalism and violates Wikipedia's core policies. PCHS-NJROTC was correct in pointing this out and now other Rational Wiki editors who have accounts here are trying to have him topic banned. How does that make any sense? The real issue here is FuzzyCatPotato's shameless advertising of his blog on Wikipedia. Rational Wiki is the farthest thing from a reliable source and proudly defames people by their real name (e.g. [153]), which is nothing less than slander and libel, with an intention to hurt people in their real life. There is no way that any RW blog links should be present on Wikipedia. desmay (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Desmay, I feel that you may be conflating two issues here. Had I been party to the EL discussion at Vaginal steaming, I would have opposed the addition of the links myself, especially now that I've had a look at the RW page being linked to. I don't think (in that instance anyway) that the link is appropriate. But that is a content issue, not a behavioural one. I don't think FuzzyCatPotato's intention in adding those links is promotional; that is to say, I'm fairly certain that they believe the link improves the Wikipedia article. They may have bias in that respect, but the effort to add the link is itself an act of good faith (and note that the issues has divided opinions even amongst experienced and uninvolved editors at WP:ELN).

That said, let's be clear: there is disruption on both sides of this complaint (that is, with both FCP and PCHS). The difference between the conduct of the two is that FCP has owned up to their issues, identified why their comments were inappropriate, promised that they will not be repeated and given us every opportunity to WP:AGF about their behaviour from here in. PCHS, on the other hand, continued, through their most recent comments, to double-down on their disruptive behaviours by making assertions of socking/meatpuppetry by other editors without sufficient evidence (consider a form of WP:personal attack on this project), apparently WP:OUTTING still other editors, and making wild claims about a RationalWiki conspiracy and then attempting to validate this claim with reference to users who have not been on the site for more than seven years, and discussions that are even older than that. Even once it became obvious that this behaviour was leading them towards a topic ban, PCHS continued to dig themselves deeper by proposing actions that are so completely far out of whack with existing community policies that they not only have no chance of being adopted, they also give us reason to believe that this user has so little sense of perspective on this topic that they cannot contribute without disruption.

Look, I suggested repeatedly for this thread to be closed before PCHS earned themselves a WP:BOOMERANG, but things just moved too fast--mostly because of their insistence on making some pretty wild claims with too little (or really no) evidence to back them up. So believe me when I say that I would love to see this thread closed no-action. But at this point, it's not going to happen until PCHS reverses course here. A contributor simply cannot be making the kinds of broad assertions of bad faith activity, such as PCHS has made repeatedly in this discussion, without proper evidence. Nor are our contributors allowed to WP:OUT other editors (even long-absent users) with regard to their identities and other online activities. Nor is it helpful to suggest we start tracking User's off-site activities to enforce an ideological filter between them and their favourite areas to edit upon, just because they happen to contribute their time elsewhere online. And yeah, from the looks of talk page discussions, I suspect I would agree with PCHS nine-times-out-of-ten on those external link debates; PCHS seem to have the right end of the stick on policy, in that regard. But sadly, issues have moved beyond that. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I respect that you're trying to assume good faith but Rational Wiki editors, by their own admission, attack and edit other Wikis on an ideological basis, as reported in the LA Times [154]. I don't understand how one could honestly think that linking to another ideological Wiki is appropriate. Would links to Conservapedia be permitted on Wikipedia articles? Many of the editors that are active on the Rational Wiki specifically edited Wikipedia's article about Rational Wiki in order to try to show that it was notable. In the past, the Rational Wiki article redirected to Conservapedia, since Rational Wiki was built in order to vandalize and stalk editors on Conservapedia. Unlike PCHS, who keeps his affairs at Wikipedia and Conservapedia separate, I cannot help but suspect that these editors are collaborating offline to influence the decision of this ANI thread, especially since they view PCHS as an ideological enemy (by their own admission). This thread should be closed as you recommended because it's tainted by an outside influence trying to achieve their own ends. desmay (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm an editor at RW. Care to provide diffs of where I "...attack and edit other Wikis on an ideological basis..."? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

MPants, I believe your aggressiveness here is exactly what Desmay is talking about. Desmay, I can understand where the uninvolved editors are coming from, but I appreciate your support and believe you have correctly seen the situation for what it is. Some people here have been turning this into a battleground, and I am just as frustrated by it as Snow. I watch for abuse because I know it happens, just like vandal patrols (something else I'm involved in) watch for blatant vandalism because they know it happens, and just like police watch for speeders because they know it happens. If another user questions link removal, I start a discussion rather than edit warring. If any of that is WP:BATTLEGROUND, then what is WP:Counter Vandalism Unit, which is portrayed as a defender of the wiki? The problem is that (at most) half of the people here are WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia, and the other (at least) half are here to be street fighters. The street fighters crave drama and run the encyclopedia builders away. I have been here nearly 10 years, helped bring an article to GA, have created widely used templates, spearheaded a WikiProject, and anything that happens here is met by people who want to fight. Quite frankly, I'm tired of all of it; we are volunteers, and if there's no sinister motive, there's nothing really to gain from contributing here but wikistress. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 03:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

PCHS, I'm not sure what reasonable editor would construe a request for evidence to be "aggression". I believe your interpretation of my comments as "aggressive" is a symptom of the reason why a boomerang is the only response to this thread under consideration. Indeed, I can't help but notice that you're still swinging that stick you claimed to have dropped by arguing with everyone who disagrees with you, rather than accepting that the pretty clear consensus here was arrived at for good reasons. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Snow: if you notice, I suggested closing it when FCP acknowledged he had done wrong. Then David Gerard came in out of nowhere with his two cents. I'm not going to say I was wrong to speculate possible off-wiki collaboration, but I will say there's no grounds for a block at this point. I understand your frustration as I am also frustrated (which is probably why I have acted as I have lately), but as long as all parties WP:DROPTHESTICK (which is something I am actively seeking to do at this point) I don't see how any further action here benefits the project. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 03:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support Temporary Ban For Both Gosh what a mess. Since both seem to be using wikipedia as a battleground, perhaps it would be best to simply do a temporary ban on both the RationalWiki and Conservapedia editors (FuzzyCatPotato and PCHS-NJROTC) for a month or two. This will hopefully reset both to seek more compromising in the future here on wikipedia since these are very polarizing topics they are dealing with and WP:COI seems to be relevant here. After the temporary ban, they can resume editing on those topics.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 23:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with that (at least on my part) as long as it doesn't show up on my block log. If it shows up on my block log, I will be requesting WP:VANISH as soon as the block expires. The reason for this is not to pout, but because this account is, unfortunately, tied to my real life identity (which I chose to do to neutralize repeated OUTING), and I care not to be associated with a contaminated block log. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 03:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. The issues with inappropriate links to RW being inserted into articles identified by PCHS are real and there doesn't seem to be any particular disagreement with that. As far as I can tell, several editors with RW affiliation have mounted a concerted counter-attack here and PCHS has not responded well to that. AFAICT, the "socking" allegations are actually them observing that an AfD on the RW article was well attended by editors affiliated with RW and wondering out loud if there were meatpuppetry going on; I think I'd be asking the same question. The "compromise" proposal below was no doubt ill-conceived and ill-advised, but as it's been withdrawn I'm not seeing the ongoing problem. I can't see how all that adds up to a boomerang. What would a topic ban be preventing, exactly? Preventing PCHS from removing external links that are contrary to policy? Why do we want to prevent that, exactly? GoldenRing (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

My own "RW affiliation" is pretty transparent: I registered there after PCHS started the RfC, and my edits there have consisted of a single article-space edit and a brief back-and-forth with another editor. So the rather obvious implication that I was motivated to endorse the suggestion because of my RW account is completely spurious: All the diffs I gave above to support my initial comments predate the creation of my RW account. My problem is with PCHS' handling of our original discussion, which shows an ideologically-based opposition to RW (as well as to WP:V wrt subjects that contradict his religious beliefs), as well as his behavior in this thread, which shows a marked level of tendentiousness. I'm not sure where you got the idea that Swarm opposed the idea of a TBAN, because their most recent (and only) comment was actually to say that both editors could drop the stick or face sanctions. Well, Fuzzy has dropped the stick, and PCHS has repeatedly claimed to want to do so, but you can see that he's still gripping it with his latest round of replies. That sounds a lot more like an implicit support, though I wouldn't deign to put words in their mouth. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Compromise solution (probably will require ArbCom intervention, probably best to wait for the on-going content dispute to conclude first though)

Withdrawn per WP:DROPTHESTICK

Extended content

There seems to be a general agreement that disputes between RationalWikians and Conservapedians are not beneficial to the project, and as Swarm pointed out, both Conservapedia and Rational-Wiki are incompatible with Wikipedia. While both Conservapedians and Rational-Wikians could be productive contributors to this encyclopedia project, the really have a WP:COI when editing anything to do with Conservapedia or Rational-Wiki, and it is easy for a WP:BATTLEGROUND situation to spawn. For example, the Rational-Wiki article's first AfD was weighted by at least five Rational-Wikians, two additional people I think I recognize as Rational-Wikians, and at least four Conservapedians. Additionally, these admittedly biased websites have no legitimate place in Wikipedia besides their respective articles and brief mentions on user pages. Therefore, I propose: Known Rational-Wikians and Conservapedians will not edit anything related to Rational-Wiki or Conservapedia or mention those sites anywhere on Wikipedia except their own user page. Any user found to deliberately conceal their activity at these sites to avoid scrutiny will be subject to blocking. Non-RationalWikians and Non-Conservapedians will be limited to one post per discussion on the talk pages of these site's articles (to discourage WP:BLUDGEONing) and a 1RR will be enforced. (Assuming there is not consensus to keep linking to R-W) No editor will add links to rationalwiki.org or Conservapedia.com except on those site's articles. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 20:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC) My suggestion: topic-ban the single editor who is throwing around unfounded accusations and piling more on top when asked to justify his claims, which would be you as documented above - David Gerard (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC) This seems wholly unnecessary - and completely unfair to any RW or Conservapedia editors who might be out there and manage not to cause this kind of disruption. As long as individual editors comport themselves well here, there's no problem to fix. So I particularly object to the bit about "concealing their activity" on other sites. If they're editors in good standing and don't cause disruption, their activity on other sites is none of our f-ing business. All that is required here is for the two (maybe 3?) of you to behave yourselves: don't post external links that are inappropriate, don't make personal attacks, don't use wikipedia as a battleground. If any of you can't do that, then the problem can be solved with topic and/or interaction bans. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC) PCHS, to put it bluntly, this is never going to happen. We don't penalize or presume the worst of our fellow contributors on this project because of their alleged affiliations, political or otherwise. We can, and will, sanction specific users as necessary to prevent further disruption in a target area, but only after they have demonstrated their inability to contribute constructively in that area. What we don't do (or do anything remotely like) is create editorial restrictions for some vaguely defined ideological class of editor, based on either expressed beliefs or their status as volunteers with other groups. We absolutely and without question will not be digging into the off-site activities of our volunteers in order to try to enforce such an ideological filter on their activities here. And frankly, the fact that you thought this might actually be a viable proposal here suggests that you desperately need to familiarize yourself with some of our community's policies on the degree to which you are allowed to reference another user's off-project identity in either content or behavioural matters. In fact, if your identification of any of the users above stemmed from anything but their own self-identification here on Wikipedia (for example, if you are linking the activities of RationalWiki/Conservapedia accounts with community members here at Wikipedia) then you are already grossly in violation of WP:OUTTING and this needs to stop now. This is really unfortunate; you might have avoided the WP:BOOMERANG here at any of a number of points the last couple of days by simply quitting while you were ahead and backing away from your self-defined battleground here. As it stands, you are now facing a likely topic ban from this area. If you continue to list users here for their offsite connections, even where they have not as yet made any kind of policy violation, you will probably end up with a longterm block. Snow let's rap 02:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC) Also, I was just about to ping each of the users you mentioned above. It's absolutely the last thing I wanted to do in a situation like this, given it could further swamp a thread that should have been resolved within an hour. But insofar as some of these editors may have been WP:OUTTED by your mentions here they would have had a right to have those comments revdelled, if they chose. But before typing out the ping template, I decided to follow up on their user pages, to see how many might have self-identifed their affiliations there. Which is how I discovered that of the nine editors you mention (as proof that this area is especially susceptible to disruption and requires extreme preventive measures), not one seems to have edited Wikipedia in the last couple of years. Six of the nine haven't edited Wikipedia in seven or more years; not one of the users you identify as a RationalWiki editor has edited here in the last seven years. Your behaviour and outlook here is beginning to look bizarre and WP:Battleground in the extreme. Snow let's rap 03:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC) The dispute on linking to RationalWiki (or Conservapedia) should be discussed elsewhere. PCHS-NJROTC appears to be voluntarily suggesting that he be topic-banned from pages on "other wikis", and is close to boomerang action regardless. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC) To be clear, I am not agreeing to any one-sided topic ban and pledge to bring any such action to the WP:Arbitration committee for review if need be. I don't care about fighting or winning, but I do care about the integrity of the encyclopedia; inappropriate links and citations have been worming their way in for years, all non-idealogically fueled arguments are against Rational-Wiki links at this point, and unless there is clear consensus for WP:IAR, Rational-Wiki and Conservapedia's only place in Wikipedia is on their own respective articles and brief mentions on user pages, and unless someone else is stepping up to the plate to continue scrubbing the links, removing me from the picture allows them and blatant vandalism referencing RationalWiki to stay. Beyond rather blatant violations of policy (which is unfortunately being made controversial due to a few editors' ideaology clouding their judgement), I have little interest in the dramafest that editing the articles about either site would bring; in fact, my main content focus has been institution-related articles (schools, hospitals, cafeteria, companies that work with institutions, etc), which is why I am a member of WP:WikiProject Schools and I helped spearhead the creation of WP:WikiProject Hospitals. Most of my other activities are policy related. Policy enforcement is a thankless job as it is, and if the community is seriously going to sanction me from enforcing policy for pointing out that someone pretty blantantly was trolling (supposedly due to WP:COMPROMISE), essentially just because another RationalWikian trustee along with some other people who support them ideologically got upset that I embarassed them here by pointing it out along with the fact that RationalWikians have been disruptive before and another user thinks they may be engaaging in paid editing, then I must question whether Wikipedia is even a project worthy of respect or endorsement. A lot of people pout, but I have been a member here for nearly ten years and have seen a lot of people come and go; I contribute because it is cool to be part of a project that I feel makes a difference, but with an increasing number of outside forces editing Wikipedia to push agendas, and people who are apparently content with that, how much longer will we continue to be a respected resource that makes a difference? If you want to restrict Conservapedians and Rational-Wikians from editing those sites' articles or adding links to those sites, I would support that, but I adamantly oppose any action that would prevent me from ensuring Wikipedia policies are followed beyond those two articles. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 02:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC) Heck, I would be alright with just something officially stating no external links to Conservapedia or Rational-Wiki except those topics' own articles and on user pages, no reuse of those sites' content due to incompatible POV policies, and no use of either one as a source. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 02:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Admin attention requested

THis thread has gone on long enough. Everyone's had their say. Would an admin please take a look and make a decision? Pinging recently active admins: @GoldenRing, RickinBaltimore, Ian.thomson, Swarm, and DMacks: Apologies for the mass ping. I'm not sure how else to attract some attention. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I've commented above and won't close this. I've avoided this discussion so far and so read through it with fresh eyes. I don't see any consensus. Five editors have supported a topic ban, but at least a couple of them have an admitted RW affiliation and unless they made blindingly good points (which I don't think they do) I'd discount them on those grounds. That leaves two or three supporting a TBAN, three opposing it (counting myself and Swarm, whose comments oppose it even if they haven't strictly !voted) and one supporting something else. As I say, no consensus. GoldenRing (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

A "No consensus" close is as good as any, but I can respect you not wanting to close after commenting. That being said, I've responded to you, above. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• I'm looking over this and coming to a decision but if someone else wants to close it in the meantime, have fun. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Closing remarks

• Re a topic ban on RationalWiki for PCHS-NJROTC: I'm seeing that this idea is popular and I understand why (not just "WP:BOOMERANGs are fun to watch," either). As for evidence, I've only been shown that the problematic behavior has been going on about a month and can see most of the drama in this thread ultimately starts with PCHS-NJROTC. That PCHS-NJROTC is fine with both he and FuzzyCatPotato being topic banned tells me that, assuming he's not just looking for a Phyrric victory, he realizes on some level that he done messed up. @PCHS-NJROTC: a topic ban alone does not show up on the block log (though violations of the ban would).

Re a topic ban on RationalWiki for FuzzyCatPotato: I'm seeing some decent reasons raised for this but no consensus. @FuzzyCatPotato: and (although no one has really mentioned him adding links) @David Gerard: My normal reaction to seeing people adding links to websites they have a WP:COI with is... well, there's a reason I can type Template:uw-causeblock and Template:uw-spamublock in my sleep but copy and paste most of my other warnings and block messages. That said, y'all actually contribute to the site and seem to get y'all shouldn't add any more links. No comment on whether or not it's appropriate or inappropriate for our articles to include external links to RationalWiki but (at the risk of stating the obvious) I'm gonna remind you it is inappropriate for you guys to add them.

As such, I'm inclined to close this with just a warning to both parties. For different reasons, PCHS-NJROTC, FuzzyCatPotato, and David Gerard should probably act like they've been topic banned from adding, removing, or changing external links to RationalWiki in articles, and instead discuss the appropriateness of their inclusion on a given article's talk page. Or at least like y'all have a WP:1RR ban in place for those. It might also be useful if y'all act like there's an interaction ban between PCHS-NJROTC and FuzzyCatPotato and between PCHS-NJROTC and David Gerard (but not FuzzyCatPotato and David Gerard). I'm not actually enacting any bans, however, but will likely !vote "support" if I see this come up again. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:56, 23 August 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.

E.M.Gregory's behavior at AfDs

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

---

As you can infer, I am here to report E.M.Gregory's behavior at AfDs, particularly his WP:UNCIVIL edits and habit for WP:BLUDGEONing the process. The issue has a long history; here are a few instances of editors addressing his excessive comments: [155] [156] [157] [158] [159] [160] [161]. Even when he is not called out on it, Gregory can still be found blugeoning the process as far back as 2016, mainly in terror or political discussions (diffs can be provided if needed; a simple AfD stats check may suffice however). Here are also examples of Gregory's tendency to cast aspirations, make comments on editors, or be uncivil in order to taint the discussion: [162] [163] [164] [165]. He suffers from a bad case of WP:IDHT and always continues commenting at the same rate. When he is not doing this, however, Gregory can be highly productive content editor which is why I propose a three month tban from AfDs related to politics and crimes. He can appeal the ban in three months on the condition he is not bludgeoning other AfD discussions.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

EMG is a skillful editor and has a knack of expanding articles to meet AfD objections. TGS and I have been bested by EMG in many AfDs. But EMG has a habit of drowning AfDs in a flood of comments. See this AfD for instance, where they make an astounding 34(!) comments. No one else is even close. I even told them to give a rest when they were half-way through (at 18 comments), but they don't listen.

Examples can be multiplied easily. Just look at any AfD which they participate in.

I suggest the following solution: let EMG make !votes on AfDs, but forbid any follow-ups. In other words, the are allowed exactly one comment on any AfD. I recall that this solution was used for behaviour at RfA by a certain editor who I am not naming here. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

If this is implemented, in my opinion, two or three would be a more reasonable limit than one. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

How would this even be enforced though? I agree that Greg has made some very good points in AfDs, but at the same time he heavily overdoes it by commenting on everything and anything. In the end and what should be very clear is that he is ticking editors off and so the only thing I can think of being punitive would be at least a one month topic ban. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Not merely in the spirit of compromise between you- but could I suggest two? That would give him a 'right of reply' yet would (hopefully) decrease the temptation to always have the last word. And don't we consider, on principle, the third edit to be the wheeling one? — fortunavelut luna 11:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I fully agree with up to 3 edits per AfD but as I said I don't know how that would be enforced? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Assuming for the moment that sanctions are necessary: "zero" or "one" are clean and easily enforced. "Zero" corresponds to a topic ban, "one" corresponds to a !vote explaining their reasons. Since EMG often makes persuasive points at AfDs (though I mostly don't agree with them), I think "one" is better. In my view, nobody needs a right of reply at an AfD: the discussion is about the article, not the editor. So I don't see any real reason for increasing the "one" to "two" or "three" or whatever. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The RoR might be explanatory, perhaps, of the previous point. — fortunavelut luna 13:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I think two is a good agreement then here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I will support a two-comment limit. His initial input is not disruptive, just the continuation of it. There is no reason half an AfD page or more should be devoted to Gregory's comments. Other editors have a right to weigh-in without a response from Gregory reasserting what he already said or "updating" his current state of mind on the discussion on a daily basis.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Having closed a few AfDs where E.M.Gregory has participated, I can vouch for the fact that his style of participation makes it harder to adjudge consensus. I think that Kingsindian's proposal (with Guy Macon's amendment) would be reasonable. A Train^talk 14:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Your comment made me curious since I can't remember interacting with you, probably for the simple reason that you close discussions long after I have left. I ran an interaction search and The AfDs that you closed: were Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beheading of Bhausaheb Maruti Talekar (where I made 1 comment,) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monica Day (1 comment,) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mustafa azad (1 comment); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somos Los Otros NY (1 comment); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reem (singer) (1 comment); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Institute of Carpet Technology, Bhadohi (3 comments as I attempted to source an under-sourced Indian post-secondary technical college); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katharine Gorka (2 comments); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umbrella repair in Hong Kong (unsourced stub that is actually about Unbrella repair in Hong Kong, 1 comment, your rolled it over); and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oren Kessler (think tank foreign policy wonk) - here I did make multiple comments; you closed as "no consensus." Frankly I am puzzled as to understand in what way my comments on the pages you closed made it "harder to adjudge consensus."E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

What your survey is missing is discussions that I have relisted, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tapuah Junction stabbing (2010), where you made 51 edits. Being able to make concise arguments is an important part of working collaboratively. A Train^talk 20:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

'So, yes, I have strong opinions on terrorism.' Actually, you have strong opinions on one type of terrorism. That is evident in your topic-focus.Nishidani (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Convenience break 1

• Responding

• In general, what I do at AfD is to search for sources on topics that appear plausible, routinely sourcing paltry article. Most of the hundreds of articles that I have found at AfD and sourced, are on fairly minor topics, uncontroversial, like last week's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Wood (journalist). But there attempts by fans of a subject to delete an article about a notable subject, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew C. Whitaker. Others are about people who are, for sundry reasons, hated by other people. Take, for example Dorothy King, a rich girl popularizer of archaeology and vocal opponent of the idea that the British Museum ought to send the Elgin Marbles to Athens. It takes time and an enormous amount of work to defend an individual or topic intensely hated by most editors who follow the field she writes about. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorothy King (2nd nomination). It is, however, is very simple for an editor to delete such a page since most of us WP:AGF and take the Nom at his word. Fair enough, not only because most Noms at AfD are good editors playing straight, but because an enormous number of articles are stared every day on wannabe rock bands, minor athletes, non-notable films and the like. The editors who bring such articles to AfD deserve our admiration even though every once in a while even an extremely diligent editor like Bearcat - who monitors new article on wannabe politicians - will miss real notability in a minor politician. But the fact that most AfD nominationa are non-controversial discoveries by good editors weeding out the PROMO means that an editor with an animus can slip in areicles on topics that dislike. And, of course, we all make mistakes. Here's one I caught, that might easily have been deleted merely for having been a thing a few years ago, although I'm sure Nom was acting in good faith Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Soccer War (book).

• I regard AfD as a sort of intellectual pastime, screening today's list of new AfDs or topical lists to spot notability editors missed as well as unpopular topics with real notability. I am blessed with access to powerful archive searches, and some experience scanning academic jargon, which enables me to regularly check topics in ancient history (like people who were notable in the 1990s) where ediors running good-faith google searches often miss notability.

• However, what has brought me to ANI is not the diligent, steady work I do sourcing, upgrading and arguing "keep" at literlly hundreds of pages like pages like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne Chaney Jr., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eamon Delaney, or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Bensoussan. What brings us here is the fact that I regularly edit terrorism related pages, and this makes me hated by TheGracefulSlick. I believe that terrorist attacks that generate national and international coverage pass WP:NCRIME. TheGracefulSlick argues strongly that many WP articles on terrorist attacks need to be deleted. I think that we first met at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Minneapolis shooting. Certainly we have been clashing regularly all summer, but I think that most of the terrorism-related AfD articles where we have disagreed this summer have been kept.

• One of the articles where I argued this summer to keep and Slick argued to delete read, in part " this is an obvious WP:NOTNEWS event that is better explained in a list." (here: [166]) This is typical of his comments at terrorism-related AfD pages. Slick returned to the page to let off a little steam [167], then, as the discussion trended keep, accused us all of bad faith, took his marbles, and left in a huff [168]. Well, we all lose our tempers sometimes.

• What was truly troubling is that although that AfD was closed by Sandstein as keep ("The result was keep"), in June, this week slick returned to the scene to make the same argument she made at AfD, i.e., that the article should be merged to a list. Since, if he had brought it back to AfD, the discussion would probably have been closed as keep on procedural grounds, I viewed GracefulSlick's Merge proposal as a sort of AfD-by-stealth, and said so here: [169]. And so The Graceful Slick brought me here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• Actually, what brought you here was the constant WP:BLUDGEONing of AfD discussions. I certainly do not hate you. I hardly even know you. Did you not read my opening comment?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• Another article that Slick rather aggressively brought back to AfD only a month after it closed a Keep was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Malmö Muslim community centre arson. Article was created, by me, almost a year after the attack because an important arrest of a ISIS operative in Germany threw a whole new light not on ISIS's work instigating attacks outside the Near East that had been presumed to be lone wolf. It shows the way in which GracefulSlick is so incensed by the existence of articles on terrorist attacks, that he sometimes seems to be unable to read and comprehend the actual information and sources in the article he is attempting to delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• I just notiiced on a 3rd example of GracefulSlick's highly problematic behavior with regard to recent terrorism-related notability discussions. Here Graceful Slick blanked a page: March 2017 Île-de-France attacks, (here: [170]). When her blanking was reverted by User:User2534, Slick suggested that the page be merged. Because this attack is one in a series of what are now 6 or 7 2017 terrorist attacks on police and soldiers now patrolling the streets of French cities under the State of Emergency, and because each of the other pages on these attacks had been kept after being brought to AfD, it appears to me that both the blanking of the page and the proposed merge are inappropriate for a page that was bound to be contested if taken to AfD. I do feel that this attempt to restrict my editing is an indirect way to "win" at terrorism-related AfD discussions by blocking an editor with whom Graceful Slick disagrees on the notability of terrorism-related articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• The flaw in Kingsindian's proposal is that there are many AfDs on somewhat arcane topics such as the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Malmö Muslim community centre arson. If you look at the talk page for the article Talk:2016 Malmö Muslim community centre arson#ISIS involvement, you will see that my arguments were based on reading of entire sources, an amount of work that even very good editors weighing in at the AfD, like, Knowledgekid, were not able to spend the time to do. Editors working at AfD regularly and understandably do not always choose to read entire, lenghty articles.

When, as at the 2 AfD discussions (both closed as keep) this summer about the 1026Malmo ISIS-relate arson attack, I have read long, complex sources, I can often weigh in with information that other editors have not seen.

This was the case recently at alt-left, a topic that I spend several hours yesterday reading and managed to revise a terrible attack page into a pretty-solid, NPOV version - that was rapidly mucked up by a highly problematic editor. Nevertheless, I kept arguing because I had seen and read WPSIGCOV in the WaPo and by Peter Beinart in The Atlantic and a convoluted essay by intellectuals including Leon Wieselier-type cultural critic James Wolcott written months before Trump's appalling remarks, and other editors at the AfD seemed unarare that the term had ever had such coverage. Ultimately, the alt-left is a trivial insult, notable, but likely to soon be of interest only to intellectual historians.

Islamo-Leftism, on the other hand is a serious topic that editors attack for similar reasons of animus, outrage and ignorance. I do not regret the many times I weighed in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamo-Leftism, or, frankly, the times I have returned over the course of 2 or 3 days or 2 or 3 weeks to weigh in, often on older topics that require sourcing to old books (I recall once requesting that an article related to a specific ships captain involved in piracy in the strait of Malacca at AfD be rolled over while I checked the sourcing in the article citing a book that had to be brought to the main library I use for offsite. Solid, turn of the century source even if I don't recall the pirate captain's name.

So, yes, I have strong opinions on terrorism. But I am also willing to do actual work validating and invalidating articles at AfD, and I regularly do this by commenting, then coming back in a day or so, searching, reading sources, often striking changing my iVote, making multiple comments and doing the kind of actual sourcing that few editors do at AfD.

This draws fire at terrorism-related pages. And from Kingsindian who has been gunning for me since we met at Susya when I was very green.

But this is how I work and I not only think that my edits at AfD have been valuable to the project, but that requiring that I make one or two comments and stop will prevent me from being able to follow the method that has made me useful: I scan for articles that may not have been properly gauged by Nom, run my own keyword searches, and make a comment. Then revisit in a day or two, and, if other editors disagree or no one else has done the work and the topic is one I think I can handle, I dive in and source it, often surprising myself enough to change my iVote. But regularly making multiple comments as I work - or when I want to sum up what i have found and return to my day job for a day or so. (other edits are due to poor keyboard skills, i.e. the sheer number of my edits on most pages deceives since about half are correcting my own typos or misspelled links). But, yes, if I am to be useful on complex and unusual topics at Afd, I do need the freedom to make multiple edits.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• Please add some paragraph breaks so this can be more easily read. Huge blocks of text are quite difficult to read online. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk)

• done.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks, but it needed paragraph breaks and not indents. I've corected that, keeping your break points. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• E.M. Gregory deserves kudos and medals for their great work in all their AFDs I have seen. It is tremendously valuable to have someone actualy take the time and apply expertise to salvage articles. I don't follow terrorism topics, but from the above I gather that some with set views in that area are frustrated by the facts and sources that E.M.Gregory brought to bear. I tend to believe E.M.G. ws right and they were wrong in those AFDs then. Sure if you are bent on deleting a topic and EMG shows up then you have probably lost your quest. But EMG only shows up when they have the right info. --doncram 00:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• @Doncram: this isn't about being "right". Gregory's input is appreciated but no one needs to read the same thing dozens of times. He bludgeons anyone who dares to have a differing view which is not fair to editors who have legitimate opinions about the article(s) in question.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

E.M.Gregory does little but bludgeon the AfD process. Here are three recent AfDs in which we both participated:

• WP:Articles for deletion/Tapuah Junction stabbing (2010) Gregory made 41.3% of the edits to the page, adding 36% of the page's text.
• WP:Articles for deletion/Meir Ettinger Gregory made 12.8% of the edits to the page, adding 19% of the page's text.
• WP:Articles for deletion/2011 Gothenburg terrorism plot Gregory made 51.2% of the edits to the page, adding 40% of the page's text.

This ought not to be acceptable behavior, especially his obsessive need to (incorrectly) summarize the discussion every day. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Convenience break 2

• I Oppose any full-ban on AfD participation. I'm Neutral on a proposal to limit E.M.Gregory to one comment per AfD on political topics. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• @Power~enwiki: the proposal is leaning toward a two-comment limit. Also, this part of your edit summary, "If editors push this further, boomerang action may need to be considered", is uncalled for and unhelpful, especially since no one has aggressively advocated for banning Gregory from anything.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support two-comment limit on all further AFD related to politics and crimes for a period of three months Oppose - Per S Marshall who notes that the editor has agreed he does sometimes get carried away and per Lankiveil and my own comment to their post where I stated I could oppose if the editor took some measure. E.M.Gregory has stated on this ANI discussion that; "I do acknowledge that I can get carried away in the heat of debate" and " I will try in future to keep my commenting at AfD strictly on point". Lankiveil's post made me realize that, while there may not be a consensus for the ban from commenting more than two times at AFD, there does seem to be a pretty good consensus that the editor has become disruptive enough that there is concern. Even oppose votes seem indicate that some behavior is at least out of the ordinary and outside the standard approach. Graham's hierarchy of disagreement (which is something we use to gauge someone's argument during disputes) places much of what they say in the ad hominem level. One level from the bottom. Using this on a constant basis can be disruptive but not everyone agrees whether that is a bad thing by itself. Consensus may have come to an acknowledgment, not just from the editor but from the community in general. Pretty sure that is discouraging enough to make the editor at least realize they are now on the radar of many experienced editors, even some that are supportive of their contributions to the AFD process. Lankiveil made me notice that even a straight oppose opinion does hold some consensus agreement on the behavior of the editor and they even go as far as suggest they limit their responses (as many as they like) to a single post space. Perhaps the outcome would be a consensus for some other form of limitation or be a strong piece of advice such as mentioned to avoid another ANI.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

(older comment) I agree with TheGracefulSlick who stated; "His initial input is not disruptive, just the continuation of it". Also of note is that the approach becomes adopted by others with less experience. It becomes off putting and I believe dissuades others from adding their !vote and opinion.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Nonsense. I have read through several of the complained-about AFDs and see nothing wrong. The "evidence" here starts with a diff to another editor's tendentious complaint within an AFD, within Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tapuah Junction stabbing (2010), in which EMG's participation is constructive and others' participation is perhaps dubious. For example the AFD nominator participated too much at the beginning, or at least more than I would have preferred. EMG offered housekeeping-type help, such as asking about previous AFD and then providing link to it. Over a long time there was eventually some bickering (in which EMG offered new info while others repeated themselves without new info IMHO) but it was fine overall. To censor one editor (the most constructive one IMHO) in the absence of general limits on AFD participation would be pretty awful. If we were to do that kind of thing, then that would be a great way for any one of us identify one or two editors who tend to disagree on inclusionism-exclusionism scale so that we would "win" more AFDs. --doncram 13:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support voluntary corrective feedback  I was a target of E.M.Gregory at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teresa May (actress) when I was accused of WP:BLUDGEON when I pointed out that E.M.Gregory was using old research for his claims.  Since a lack of current research is not explained by another editor's participation in an AfD, he has been swept up in the heat of the moment and abandoned the force of reason. 

  The three-month proposal with any of these edit count restrictions is very practical and it should not imply that E.M.Gregory is required to prove that there is any behavior change by the end of that period of time.  The negative feedback is likely to be constructive for his career.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• I think this discussion has been derailed by incivility denial, but I can accept that the commitment to "try in future to keep my commenting at AfD strictly on point" is a key response to a key problem and is a good way forward.  I echo the comment of User:Sport and politics just below mine to comment on the contribution, not the contributor.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Having had the misfortune of being involved in an AfD's with E.M. Gregory, i found the comments devolved in to commenting on the contributor and not remaining focused on the content. Bludgeoning is a correct term to describe the actions of E.M Gregory. Sport and politics (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

here here are two more examples of recent E.M. Gregory behaviour at a recent AfD where a wall of text has appeared, and it is an example of how hard it can be to know establish a consensus on an AfD. Sport and politics (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support a different restriction. Someone above mentioned an example where EMG commented 34 times, but here is an AfD where the count seems to exceed 40. It is completely ridiculous that someone is allowed to dominate an AfD like that. However the really annoying thing is not the number of times he edits the AfD but his habit of responding in place to everyone whose opinion differs from his. Instead of limiting him to a maximum number of comments, he should be required to keep all his comments, no matter how many, to a single subsection. (Actually I wouldn't mind if everyone had some such restriction.) Zero^talk 19:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I hope you realize that by not supporting the actual proposal under consideration, but instead proposing something completely different, which is unlikely to receive additional support from other editors, you are subverting the current proposal and making it less probable that the behavior of the editor in question will be controlled (which appears to be your bottom line), not more probable. Sometimes, just like in real life, you don't get to have your ideal solution, you get to choose between what are (in your opinion) less than ideal fixes, and you back the one that seems best to you. Not doing so runs the risk of getting no solution at all. I do wish people would think these things through instead of just throwing stuff out there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• @Zero0000: can you consider supporting the restriction more editors are agreeing with instead of your seperate proposal?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I support any restriction that prevents EMG's current mode of behavior. So please count me in favor of the majority opinion in favor of restriction. Zero^talk 08:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support some sort of restriction on EMG's comments on AfDs, preferably limiting EMG to one comment. I would also support a TB on AfDs if there is enough support for that option. This problem behavior has been going on a while. My first encounter with EMG was at WP:Articles for deletion/Barron Trump (2nd nomination), where EMG pummeled everyone who disagreed with comment after comment, often repeating the same point again and again. Then EMG had the audacity to accuse others of WP:IDHT. I really don't know the quality of EMG's edits apart from AfDs, but this obsession with endlessly countering every comment of disagreement is very destructive to the consensus process. Sundayclose (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support a two- or three- comment per AfD restriction. E.M.Gregory's manner at AfD makes collaboration more difficult, which is behaviour that a collaborative project should discourage. A Train^talk 20:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support a two comment (or similar) restriction per AfD, to stop the WP:BLUDGEONING. I almost started a discussion like this myself, but I had hoped E.M.Gregory would take the hint when other editors, including myself, suggested that refrain from making so many comments. Examples of excessive comments: 42 comments, 31comments, 42 comments, 48 comments. - MrX 22:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support, given the evidence that the editor can't seem to control their behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

But mostly it's frowned upon. –Beyond My Ken (talk)

Helpful ant not disruptive [1]

• Support per BMK directly above. Softlavender (talk) 00:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose There is no reason to argue with him. If he i addressing issues with articles, that's a good thing. I haven't seen arguments that his content creation is bad and other editors appreciate his comments so they can see how an article has changed from its listing. It's only annoying to those that disagree with him. That's not disruption and it's not a reason for a sanction. --DHeyward (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• You seem to be rather missing the point. It's not EMG's content creation which is the locus of the problem here, it's his bludgeoning of people who disagree with him on AfDs. I can see how that would be annoying to those who differ with his viewpoint, can't you? After all, we're all Wikipedians, whether we agree with EMG or not, and simply taking an opposing position from EMG does not mean that the editor is fair game to be bludgeoned.
  And however do you come to the conclusion that "There is no reason to argue with him"? Are you saying that he is invariably correct at AfD, and that once he speaks there is no point in any other Wikipedian commenting to disagree, since there is (you say) no reason to argue with him? How, I wonder, did he come by this fantastic ability to be constantly correct? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• I am not missing the point and quite aware of the underlying reason for this complaint. It's not just comments at AfD as those that are frustrated also seem to have disputes regarding content and focus. Otherwise the content area regarding terrorism would not have been mentioned. Secondly, no I am not saying he is right and therefore needs no reply. I am saying there is no reason to respond or argue with statements in an AfD. To use your reply as an example, the first part of your reply was a patronizing statement questioning my understanding. It was needless but a curt reply asserting you are incorrect is sufficient. There is no need to further discuss how incorrect you are even if you reply again. We could go 'round and 'round generating lots of comment but simply not replying is sufficient. The last comment in a thread isn't the "correct" comment, it's merely the last one. Your comments don't invalidate my view. Irritating commenters are stopped by simply not replying after positions are made clear. As a rhetorical question, if this ANI entry were a complaint about "BMK's follow-up comments at ANI being disruptive," how supportive of sanctions would you be especially if it was filed by those that you have been in dispute with? Your need to comment on my oppose is exactly the behavior this sanction is trying to thwart but whether it's disruption or participation is in the eye of the beholder. Your passion is participation at ANI and that is fine. EMG ha a passion for retaining articles on terrorism. I am reluctant to restrain participation especially if the result is better articles. No one has put forward any evidence that he is tilting against windmills and arguing against consensus. A I recall, one of the metrics put forward for admin 'good judgement' is how often their !vote matched the AfD outcome. If EMG's !votes are matching the outcome, he is not being disruptive, he's building the encyclopedia using good judgement. --DHeyward (talk) 06:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but your analysis is weak. For one things, considering the personal matter you brought up, participating at AN/I is not my "passion". Of my edits, 73.16% are to articles, and less than 4% are to AN/I. My "passion", as you put it, is to improve the encyclopedia in any way that I can, always primarily at the article level. AN/I is simply a sideline.
  But more specifically to this issue, your ≈statement that "No one has put forward any evidence that he is tilting against windmills and arguing against consensus" is, once again, completely missing the point. Bludgeoning can occur whether or not the bludgeoning editor's opinion is upheld by consensus or not: it's not the result which determines whether bludgeoning has occurred, it's the actual ongoing act of responding to a large number of comments, thus creating a negative atmosphere in the AfD which inhibits participation by other editors. In other words, at least in this instance, the ends do not justify the means. Bludgeoning is never justifiable. If an AfD is being trolled or overwhelmed by canvassed participants, EMG should seek out an admin to deal with the problem, or post about it on one of the noticeboards, they should not attempt to shout down the opposition by personally controlling the discussion. "If EMG's !votes are matching the outcome, he is not being disruptive" is simply totally and completely incorrect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• If you believe Bludgeoning is never justifiable (emphasis on never), why are you bludgeoning me over my oppose opinion? I already said you need not reply and my point was obviously clear. Please stop making my case lest you find yourself at ANI by someone that opposes your bludgeoning. --DHeyward (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• This is not bludgeoning, this is what is called "a discussion". Wikipedia works by WP:CONSENSUS, and it's virtually impossible to reach a consensus without having at least some discussion. If you're intersted in rolling the dice to find out what happens if you file an AN/I complaint about me for having a discussion with you, please be my guest.
  As opposed to a valid discussion, WP:BLUDGEONing, especially as described here, is something else entirely. If I replied to each and every "oppose" !vote, or almost every one, repeating much the same argument each time, and then replied again to the responses I got, that would be bludgeoning. You seem to be saying that if were to do that in this discussion, in favor of a sanction of EMG, and EMG is not sanctioned, then that would be bludgeoning because I did not agree with the eventual consensus, but if I did it and he was sanctioned, that wouldn't be bludgeoning, because my view was the consensus one. That would make bludgeoning sort of like Schrödinger's cat, constantly in a state of uncertainty until the final result was in after the box was opened.
  In any case, since we're unlikely to agree, I think you are right and we should leave it that we disagree. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Your constant replies to my oppose, and other comment in this ANI and numerous others, is indeed exactly what the essay covers. You have a need to get the last word in on my oppose opinion. My opinion is rational, explained and shared by others yet you continue to reply. It's not different than the "bludgeoning" as it's being applied to E.M. Gregory. You call it discussion and apparently believe it's productive even though your comments are unpersuasive and have now taken on a form of strawman where you incorrectly characterize what I said in your words and then attack your own characterization. Why? I didn't feel a need to comment on your support or even challenge your patronizing {tq|I hope you realize...}} comments in another editors opinion even though you do realize that you have no idea what the closing admin needs to realize out of that opinion. You have responded to numerous comments here even though you don't require clarification because you are not in a position to decide anything and it doesn't appear you are seeking input to form your own opinion, just discredit others or drum up support for your own. In short, you behave in the manner which you criticize EMG, pin a rose on it and call it different even though the smell is remarkably similar. It is not different yet you justify your behavior while asking to sanction another. I am consistent in that I believe you may participate in any way you please just as EMG should be allowed to participate. If you wish to muzzle him because you don't like his comments, consider a muzzle fitting based on your own behavior. They are not different except in your mind. --DHeyward (talk) 01:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support per A Train. Seeing a stack of EMG comments on an AfD makes it so much harder to judge actual consensus and close properly. If he could express himself more concisely I think more people would actually read and listen to him. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Firstly, there is certainly no case for any kind of topic ban preventing EMG from AfD participation entirely. Most seem to agree on that. Secondly, if the "problem" is as stated, and EMG makes useful and insightful comments, but then makes too many follow-ups, then this is not a good solution. By restricting him to one or two comments the incentive will be for him to wait until late in the AfD, so that he can address all other comments "in one go", thus removing the advantage of having his useful input available early on, and possibly resulting in a large, wide-ranging comment, itself requiring a number of responses. That's far from ideal. In any case, having looked at the examples given, I don't find the behaviour at all as disruptive as portrayed. On the occasions where he makes many comments the debates are long, and his comments seem well explained, relevant and not combative. Additionally, I share doncram's concerns that this type of approach could become a dangerous precedent for those wishing to "hobble" an "opponent" -- Begoon 06:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose having read through all of this, a restriction is too harsh. The OP is trying to throw them out of AfD which is telling. Agree with User:Begoon we should not be letting people hobble an opponent like this. The editor is a smart editor and I'm sure he will be more careful in the future to avoid behavior that can be fairly seen as repeating objectionable behavior. Legacypac (talk) 09:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

  @Legacypac: a brief read through this thread will show I am not trying to throw Gregory out of AfD. I actually supported the two-comment restriction awhile ago and haven't advocated my original proposal. And Gregory has been repeating this behavior since 2016. I am pretty sure that is enough time to be more careful after all the warnings he received. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose any restriction lasting more than 3 months Too valuable an editor for us to risk de-motivating with unnecessary sanctions. Oppose even a time limited restriction as too harsh if they’ll concede it would be good to cut back a bit on the badgering. EMG makes a good case about why his freedom to post multiple times helps us reach a good evidence based consensus. I echo Doncram about him deserving medals, and find Begoon's argument persuasive. Except to say he can be combative on occasion. In the Teresa May AfD he had the gall to accuse the phenomenal Unscintillating of bludgeoning! He also claimed my keep vote was arguing from false premises. When I posted a link to prove conclusively that was not the case, he didn't retract his claim. Insults from deletionists are water of a ducks back, but having an almost ARS quality scholar question my veracity was somewhat hurtful. No matter how outstanding a scholar you are, you can still make mistakes. Wikipedia helps protect against individual mistakes by collective decision making. While limited badgering can be helpful, taken to an excess it's disruptive, as Grace & the supporters explain. Have faith that good AfD closers can recognise innacrate assertions in the delete votes; they don't have to pointed out explicitly every time. All that said, EMG is a very appreciated editor overall, and I really hope feedback on this page is not dis-heartening. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - I struck out my original proposal since a few editors are confusing my support for the comment restriction with it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
• Here [171] is a link to the strange series of AfDs on Teresa May, non-notable porn model/actress, a page repeatedly re-created, and defended by people at least some of whom enjoyed or were politically motivated to want to have a hatnote atop the Prime Minister's page redirecting to a porn actress. It was a strange discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• I see you are still working from old research.  At the 2016 AfD you successfully created a twodabs solution to avoid a hatnote on the prime minister's article.  I proposed your exact solution at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_March_9#Teresa_May, but in that discussion you turned your back on your own solution.  And it is a 100% red herring to characterize an association between Theresa May and Teresa May as Wikipedian POV attempts (and which is another example of you disparaging Wikipedia contributors when there are better ways to express your viewpoint).  As per the book by Theresa June Rosa Prince quoted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teresa May (actress), it is more accurate to say that Theresa May saved her political career and became prime minister by associating herself with Teresa May.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• I had forgotten entirely that the porn actress somehow figured in a real political campaign. What I clearly do remember is that even extensive archive searches could not turn up notability for the porn actress/model as an actress or model, but tabloids ran photos of nude Teresa May" when Theresa May became a major political figure, that the former porn model was able to make money selling nudie photos taken when she was young, and that part of the discussion or point of those AfDs was to address the perceived unfairness of repeated attempts to drape a nude model across the top of the Prime Minister's Wikipedia page. I fear we're drifting off topic here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• I do acknowledge that I can get carried away in the heat of debate, although not as often as some editors seem to think, and despite the factthat I have been the target of trolls, of a series of sockpuppets created to HOUNDDOG and provoke me into losing my cool, of regular visits to my talk page by odd IPs attempting trip me up with invitations to make strange edits. dislike my position on terrorism, and by editors who disagree with my position on the notability of terrorist attacks (which, by the by, are only one of the topics where I edit regularly by adding content and sources) and who often seem to be trying to provoke me into saying something that will get me bumped. I deeply appreciate the willingness of editors whom I have not met at AfD to come to this page and expend valuable time looking at the arguments and evidence. And I will try in future to keep my commenting at AfD strictly on point.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Then why not impose a voluntary restriction on yourself? Is there really anything you can say in 34 or 40 comments that you can't say in 2 or 3 or 5? Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

That isn't a bad idea..in fact E.M.Gregory you might actually counter to the nominating editor TheGracefulSlick that you would voluntarily restrict yourself to no more than two comments on just the two subjects mentioned, politics and crime for three months, if the other editor agrees to the same. This might allow the other editor to demonstrate that they are not attempting to just "hobble an opponent" as I believe I see it written. At this point I think a voluntary restriction even without that would gain you a heck of a lot more faith from your fellow editors. But perhaps this is too much to ask.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Earlier above I asked E.M.Gregory how he feels about a voluntary restriction and, if so, what kind of restriction he thinks is appropriate. I hope we get a reply because that could help move this issue toward resolution. Sundayclose (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Mark Miller and Sundayclose Gregory's participation here seems unlikely. In fact, he is now badgering me at this merge discussion. Apparently following standard WP:MERGE talk procedure is illegitimate.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Weak support for a 3 or more comment limitation. About the 34 comment example, while it may be true that no one was close, the situation seems a little more complex than the pure number would suggest. There are longish back and forths between EMG and multiple other editors in that discussion. Under the "two to tango" concept, I'm generally reluctant to criticise only one party for long back and forths since ultimately if the other editor wasn't responding, then the first editor would just be talking to themselves which would be obvious (and also is very rare). The fact it's multiple isn't the best of signs. Still I don't consider that a great example of the problem. More concerning to me is the sheer number of !vote EMG responded to which is rarely a good sign. As for the possibility EMG will just wait and post lots of followups in one go, well all the comments here suggest to me we should be able to think better of EMG than that. Nil Einne (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• I actually think an omnibus response would be quite acceptable. One of the primary problems with WP:BLUDGEONing, in my view, is that the ongoing commentary from the bludgeoning editor could have the tendency to inhibit comments from editors who have yet to participate. They look at the fact that practically every post is getting a bludgeoning response, and they decide to just avoid the hassle and pass the whole thing by. I don't think you get that effect if the editor who would have bludgeoned had instead posted a single comment dealing with multiple comments. They might even be able to fashion it into a single coherent argument rather than individual hammer strikes, which I think is a definite improvement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support to address repeated and disruptive WP:BLUDGEONING. Had I joined this conversation earlier I would have recommended the restriction be limited to "terrorism, mass casualty, and political AFDs" as this seems to be where the disruption occurs and a wider than necessary restriction is undesirable. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• As I explain above many,many of my edits are the result of my notoriously poor keyboard skills: I often return, sometimes more than once to fix a link or a word that is misstyyyped or or repeaeated. More to the point, however, is that free confess to occasional BLUDGEONONG, what I am doing at these pages is not repeating myself, but bringing new sources, carefully reading policies and citing them, improving the article then making a WP:HEY comment, sometimes making a second HEY comment, revisiting and reversing an iVote, and, more lately, I have taken adding "fact checking" comments when an editor in a discussion makes a clear assertion in a discussion that is verifiably inaccurate. Moreover, many of the complaints here are by editors with whom I disagree on one of the many topics that I edit on: terrorism. I edit in this area more than I might choose if it were not such a hotly contested area. For those who don't know, an article will be brought to deletion on the grounds that it is insufficiently sourced, then I or someone goes in and sources it, at which point it is tagged as oversourced and the AfD discussion turns to some new topic. Take a look, for example, at Murder of Georgios Tsibouktzakis and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Georgios Tsibouktzakis, two pages the editing of which would have tried the patience of a saint. I am no saint, but had I been restricted to 1 or 3 or 4 edits Father Georgios woulls have no page, despite due to the fact that politician Marwan Barghouti was convicted of ordering his murder, and there are editors who JUSTDONTLIKEIT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

E.M.Gregory, you can cherry-pick pages where you comment all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the overall and overwhelming pattern in your comments on AfDs is to bludgeon by repeating the same points over and over, not "bring new sources" or fix your typing errors. Trying to pretend that your behavior is "occasional BLUDGEONING" so that it can be excused doesn't help your case here. You bludgeon more than any editor I have ever seen on AfDs. That being said, I hope you can continue to make constructive edits and, regardless of any administrative outcome of this discussion, that you will restrict your comments on AfDs to one or two. It's time for you to err on the side of caution. Sundayclose (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• I just revisited Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barron Trump (2nd nomination), the only AfD where you and I have ever interacted. Other editors are free to take a look at this and other AfDs I have edited, but Sundayclose's assertion: "the overall and overwhelming pattern in your comments on AfDs is to bludgeon by repeating the same points over and over, not "bring new sources" is flatly untrue.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I also encourage other editors to look at that AfD and reach their own conclusions. I also would like E.M.Gregory's response to a suggestion above to impose a voluntary self-restriction on commenting at AfDs, and if E.M.Gregory agrees with that suggestion, to state what kind of self restriction. Sundayclose (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Is there something analagous to the Editor interaction analyser that would list all of the AfD disccussions in which an editor participated?E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Try this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - We need more participants at AfD, not less. I've always found his replies to be helpful and constructive and he often improves articles brought to AfD when no one else bothers to try and improve them. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: this is complex and nuanced issue. Do not hit it with a large blunt instrument. E.M. Gregory is a productive content writer and diligent researcher whose contributions to AfD are, overall, a net positive. He has acknowledged, above, that he gets overinvested in some AfDs. Now give him time and space to change.—S Marshall T/C 17:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• @S Marshall: he has had since 2016 to change. Why does this require more time? We are not throwing him out of AfD. If anything this will make his arguments more concise so he doesn't feel the need to comment 30 to 40 times.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. I have seen this most recently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alt-left. But the thing is, he convinced me of his position. (I dislike with his initial response in that discussion; but the subsequent responses are fine.) This is not bludgeoning; this is careful response to arguments. We should be having more of this - i.e. actual argumentation - at AfDs, not less. StAnselm (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The comments are informative. QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: read through WP:BLUDGEON. It does not matter if his comments are informative. He uses dozens of them to dominate an AfD and intimidate other editors with different opinions. How are you okay with that?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Many editors ignore comments made by others and ignore policy. QuackGuru (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

So you are saying in ever single example presented here it was just opposing arguments ignoring his comments and policies? Even though there are constructive responses and eventually pleas by editors for him to stop badgering the process.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Did other editors focus on content or did they also focus on the editor? QuackGuru (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you read the diffs and find out? I know Gregory has directed many comments toward me to taint the discussion. I apparently have a bias toward Israeli victims because I nominated an article about an attack in Israel for deletion. I have been called an aggressive advocate for deletion of said articles and my ability to understand reason has been questioned. So, to answer your question, yes other editors, being Gregory, did focus on the editor, instead of content.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I agreed with one comment and it was pretty much accurate to me. The editor's initial comments are not disruptive, just the continuation of it. This is about behavior not content. Did QuackGuru want to address the behavior issue to help with the consensus or just add the !vote?--Mark Miller (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I noticed many editors comment on the editor rather than solely the content. For example, many editors comment about an editor on the talk page but refuse to comment on actually improving the article. Then I notice editors try to ban them after they ignore policy. QuackGuru (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not following your here but I will say that comments about the editor seem to be about the editors behavior which is what ANI is for. If there are content disputes that would be for Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard and not this board. If what you mean is, that no one is commenting on his content that might be why. The last part seems like an accusation but again, I'm not entirely sure what you are actually saying here.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The last part example was a general comment. I was not making specific comments about any editor. At AFDs editors sometimes comment on each other rather than on the article and AFD. Then things get too heated and we end up here. QuackGuru (talk) 00:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: can you just explain more clearly why you are opposing a comment restriction? No one is questioning the informative nature of Gregory's comments. However, you must admit 30-40 comments is disruptive. Don't you agree editors who have constructive counter-arguments should be able to express them without WP:BLUDGEONing? You also have to realize how off-putting it is for users to see an excessive amount of comments from the same editor, especially if they disagree with him. They more than likely will not even !vote to avoid the hassle; that is not creating a collaborative environment.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I limit my comments because I don't want someone to accuse me of disruption even when there are problems with multiple articles. I know the problems with multiple articles on my watchlist will continue for many years because they have. I know if I fix the problems I will end up at AN/I. Comments in the AFD does not prevent others from commenting or voting. If editors want a comment-limit at AFDs then it can be applied to all editors. A new section for limits on AFD discussion can be started at WP:BLUDGEON for all editors.

Generally speaking, I have seen editors mention a policy violation on the talk page and others reply by ignore policy. QuackGuru (talk) 01:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

"I know if I fix the problems I will end up at AN/I." Oh....I see....no actually I don't. I understand what you are claiming but I can't see how that is true. Are you under sanction restrictions or is this a general attitude about contributing to Wikipedia? Is that really fair? "Comments in the AFD does not prevent others from commenting or voting" Sometimes, just the rapid replying can cause edit conflicts and could dissuade input from just not wanting to be a part of what may look like an argument and then get caught up in disruptive behavior by replying.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

If I try to fix the problems at alt-left by reverting I will get blocked or banned. Policy violations are a "content dispute". Edit warring gets editors into problems even if they are right. QuackGuru (talk) 04:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Punitive punishment or not I really hope that Greg realizes that he is ticking other editors off. We get your point, you don't have to repeat the same arguments over aND over and over again ad nauseum... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, despite the fact that I do not often agree with this editor's interpretations, and despite the fact that I do find their bludgeoning to be quite annoying. I would encourage them to perhaps consolidate any rebuttals into single postings in discussions rather than responding separately to each and every argument that they disapprove of. Admins do read the comments when closing discussions, especially difficult ones, and it is in most cases not necessary (and quite annoying) to deal with the tactics that this user often employs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lankiveil (talk • contribs)

Not sure about others but I know I would be willing to change to oppose if the editor agreed to that much.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, Malik Shabazz, Kingsindian, and Guy Macon: you all helped form the two-comment restriction or commented before the convenience breaks but did not express support or opposition to it. Could you do that here to help better determine consensus? Thank you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I'm concerned that WP:Bludgeon, an essay, is the main argument for action a if it were policy or even a guideline. Essays are supposed to invite reflection, not to be used to "bludgeon" editors. --DHeyward (talk) 03:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I would say the essay was the main argument. The reporting editor stated that it was "particularly his WP:UNCIVIL edits and habit for WP:BLUDGEONing the process". While WP:BLUDGEON is an essay, WP:UNCIVIL is policy. The essay seems to refer to the editors "habit" that effects the process, so it appears to me the essay referred to something that was only a part of the issue.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The remedy proposed is limiting his participation to X number of comments. That's a response to "bludgeoning" not incivility. Nobody get X number of incivil comments. The inference is that multiple comments become incivil because it annoys people. But that definition is only in the essay. The essay is good for self-reflection but he cannot control how people feel about his comments. There's lots of buggery on Wikipedia but unless it rises to incivility, harassment or disruption, it's not a policy violation. There's no evidence that the AfD process has been harmed. No evidence that the outcome has been negatively affected. Some editors are annoyed which is why this discussion isn't about civility or disruption since annoyance at AfD wouldn't, by itself, be a policy violation. The sanction proposals would be quite different if this were about civility or disruption rather than bludgeoning. --DHeyward (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLUDGEON is simply pointing out and defining a particular kind of WP:Disruptive editing, just as WP:Tendentious editing does, and WP:Disruptive editing is a behavioral guideline which admins quite frequently use as a blocking rationale, so I see no particular problem with WP:BLUDGEON being cited here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Unfortunately there are AfDs in which multiple responses are necessary due to one or more of the participating editors deliberately misrepresenting or ignoring policy due to personal preferences. This can result in situations where only one editor has the time or patience to respond to such comments and their comments can quickly balloon into what appears to be bludgeoning, but in reality is a justified rebuttal of questionable arguments or refusal to respond to points raised. In my experience, the topic area that E.M.Gregory edits in (Israel-Palestine) is more likely than most to have dubious arguments made in AfDs, often en masse by editors with the same POV, so it's not a surprise that they have participated in several AfDs where they have made numerous comments. Number 57 10:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I think the work of EMG in the AFD area is helpful and not disrupting. His answer usually directed to certain user comment. If someone don't want to read it they can just skip it.--Shrike (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• To my utter unsurprise, this has turned into a political discussion, where people are claiming that the "opponents" of EMG are trying to get him because of politics and not behaviour. If ANI is to disallow complaints brought by "opponents", perhaps one should shut down ANI altogether, because that's the way most disputes start. You know, people have to actually disagree about something. Let's dispense with irrelevancies, and focus on the absolutely undisputed facts about bludgeoning.

  Let's look at this ongoing AfD about "alt-left". EMG has made 33 comments on the AfD; nobody else is even close. He has made the same point about SIGCOV 5 times, about WORDISSUBJECT 6 times, and has made "note" comments 7 times. This, this, this, this and this is repeated badgering of "delete" !votes. The last one even acknowledges that EMG is repeating their previous points.

  Perhaps someone can tell me how one can have a sensible discussion in an AfD if everyone (or even a significant number) in the AfD behaved this way. What is so important in EMG's points which can't be made just once or twice? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

See, I don't see the problem with this. The reason is - and I know this is hard to believe - not all !voters read through all the previous arguments. So I can understand that he is replying with the same arguments to repeated !votes. StAnselm (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

If everyone at an AfD replied to every comment they disagree with, it would mean total chaos. But this total chaos is what you are supporting. Or is it just EMG who should have such a privilege? Zero^talk 10:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, the chaos comes from people !voting without reading the discussion, or sometimes even the policies they cite. I think that might have been the case with the WP:NEO arguments in that particular discussion. No-one should !vote in an AfD if they don't want their !vote scrutinised. StAnselm (talk) 01:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your response but it has no relation to EMG's behavior. What he responds to endlessly is opinion opposed to his own; that is the only visible criterion. Zero^talk 03:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Nothing I can add to what's already been said by those opposing this proposal.SMarshall and DHeyward make particularly convincing arguments. User:Joefromrandb
• Oppose - E.M Gregory does occassionally get carried away, but, his comments at AfD are generally helpful not disruptive. If you don't like his comments, skip over them. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't see a major user behavior issue here to warrant any kind of sanction whatsoever. Coretheapple (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose EMG may be passionate but he is not being disruptive. He has said he will try to keep his AFD comments "strictly on point" in future and I am sure there will be no shortage of editors willing to make sure he keeps his word. WP:BLUDGEON is just an essay and should not be used as a basis for a community sanction – that sets a bad precedent. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• Question I have no opinion concerning the appropriate manner for dealing with Gregory's behavior, but are the editors who say they see nothing wrong with his behavior honestly saying it's okay for one party to contribute 35% or 40% of the text in a so-called community discussion, to rebut every single opposing comment? You don't see anything wrong with that? Really? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Not in AfDs. These are not widespread "community" discussions. They are usually about four of five people on average. Some get no comments and thus have to keep being reposted. If this were a wikipolicy discussion that had 500 participants and one person contributed 30% of the text, yes, THAT would be an issue. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: Really? Ok, take this AfD, which is definitely not a discussion between 4 and 5 people: about 35 people took part. EMG made 38 comments in the AfD. I did a rough text count. There are about 10,000 words on the page. About 25% of them were by one person: EMG. Now, consider a situation in which if even 10 people in the discussion wrote as much as EMG did. The discussion would be longer than Animal Farm which is about 30,000 words long. Does anyone think that this is an acceptable outcome? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Too many comments on an AfD should not be among the top 1,000 areas of concern on Wikipedia. This is the stupidest ANI I have ever been involved in. I could not care less how long an AfD is or who created what percentage of the text. As long as the replies are civil and on topic, and not are not created by socks, who the hell cares? And I notice that whenever EM Gregory replies, he is not even pinging people most of the time. So it's not like they are constantly being alerted to a new reply and being drawn back to the conversation. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree that excessive commenting on AfDs, as defined by an essay, is not an appropriate reason to carry out a community sanction. Excessive commenting is not optimal, but that alone is just not sufficient, when not combined with offenses that actually violate a policy. Coretheapple (talk) 16:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - I've always thought E.M. Gregory a valuable asset at AfD, which is a thankless and difficult area to work on and requires people like E.M. who are thickskinned and willing to engage to further explanations. I don't see how being longwinded is something that needs to be sanctioned. AfD discussions are not political debates where everybody gets exactly the same time to make their point. In my opinion, E.M. goes above and beyond at AfDs and there have been a couple of times where he went out and found good sources that saved articles from being deleted. Like other people have said above, people do not need to read every reply.... tl;dr can come in handy. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Question - Wikimandia you may not have an issue with Gregory excessively expressing his opinion to every single voter that opposes him but do you have an issue with him accusing editors of having a prejudice against Israeli victims? In some of the AfDs about Israel-based incidents he uses that as a way to manipulate the discussion and personally attack anyone who votes delete. When pressed to provide diffs to prove the existence of such a bias, he failed to do so and refused to redact his statements. Is there no issue with that as well?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oh come on. If he actually committed a personal attack, then THAT should have been reported and dealt with on the spot, especially if there were repeated personal attacks. What you described does not sound like a personal attack but a weak argument if he could not back it up. So no, I don't care. And there are plenty of people topic banned from Israel-discussions - if he were actually a disturbance on that topic than that would be the discussion here but it's not. And your reply here to me is exactly what you are accusing E.M. of doing! E.M. is a huge asset to AfD which desperately needs good editors. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Per DHeyward, Mark Miller, Pawnkingthree, and Wikimandia - mostly DHeyward. I think it's also worth noting that the filer is complaining about EMG bludgeoning whilst bludgeoning in this discussion. -- ψλ ● ✉ 03:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Additional discussion at AFD should be encouraged, not discouraged.--Jahaza (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support voluntary restriction by E.M.Gregory on the number of comments at crime / terrorism / politics related AfDs. Especially, as it comes to ad hominem arguments such as "This is a highly POV nomination, which follows a highly POV rewrite of the article by editor Pincrete" (AfD:2016 Malmö Muslim community centre arson) and "the insistence by wikipedia editors that attacks by Palestinians should receive special treatment" (AfD:2017 Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing), among others. Such arguments at AfD are not appropriate and poison the discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Close

Someone should close this. It's not going anywhere. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:53, 24 August 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.

Need Help to "Move" (Rename) Page "Major and the Monbacks" to "Super Doppler"

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 band Major and the Monbacks officially changed their band name to "Super Doppler" on June 7, 2017 via a Facebook post from their official band facebook page . I would like to change the wikipedia page name to "Super Doppler" but do not have access to "Move" (rename) the page from my account. Currently, the wikipedia page titled "Major and the Monbacks" is affecting the SEO and searchability of the new band name and a google search of "Super Doppler" automatically links to the Major and the Monbacks name. The page needs to be changed so that it reflects the new band name.

The band released their new record 'Moonlight Anthems' on June 16, 2017 under the new name Super Doppler before embarking on a US Tour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbfriedman757 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Another urgent matter. Jesus. EEng 14:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Wikipedia uses the most common name for a topic. The Virginian-Pilot article and the FB post would be good for noting that they've changed their name, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:48, 23 August 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.

The problem with Zapad 2017 exercise persists

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

---

At least, semi-protected status for the article is called for to protect it from the disruptive activity of the single-purpose account User:Vladimir serg, which is used solely for mechanical reverts of just this particular article to the text that is a machine-translated Ru WP version of the corresponding article from a few months prior: such as this. The person behind this account does not do any actual editing, just reverts, no way to engage him in any discussion. Obviously, no English language competence there.Axxxion (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Looking at their contribs, Vladimir serg's only Talk page note is here which is not promising - they just wrote Your version "Zapad 2017 exercise" is nonsense}}. Their first edit note (on their third edit to the article) was previous version is nonsense.

They don't seem to understand collaboration much and are editing aggressively.

They are at 3RR already and have been warned for edit warring. I opened a discussion on the Talk page asking them to respond there. If they continue as they have, one more and you can bring them to EWN which will lead to a block; if they keep doing it their blocks will longer and then they will be indeffed. You are unlikely to get action here, now, in my view, but maybe an admin will judge they are NOTHERE already. Jytdog (talk) 16:43, 23 August 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.

Chris Troutman

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 shortened this header from Please report me to WP:ANI. Be sure you spell my name right. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC). Nyttend (talk) 22:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Chris Toutman has asked me to "report him". I have been communicating with him today and he actually has been somewhat attacking. Please note these examples:

I noticed you made a null edit on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, so I can only presume you're illiterate. Reading is such a key skill on Wikipedia. I'd go back to those institutes and get your money back. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

No need to smartmouth. Im doing the best I can while working Mark0880 (talk) 18:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks WP:CIR Chris Troutman (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC) It is a requirement in Wikipedia to remain civil. Please adhere to this guidline. Thank you, Mark0880 (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880

I asked for assistance from Mr Troutman and got another snide reply.

But that's what I was trying to get help for. That blurb bio is copied out of the book, onto Amazon. Amazon is not the author of the bio. The bio is in the book. Not sure how to handle that Mark0880 (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880 It doesn't matter. I found the content on Amazon. If the content actually came from the book, then you stole from the author of the book, not Amazon. The point is that you stole content and that content is copyrighted. Even if you had copied words from public domain (like Shakespeare or Chaucer) you'd still have to attribute the source. Please explain why you don't understand what plagiarism is. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I am unsure how to proceed however I do know we need to remain civil, and Ive done all I can to foster that today to no avail.

Mark0880 (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880

You need to provide WP:DIFFs. Copying and pasting is the least effective way to prove what he said (or write articles for that matter). Without diffs, anyone who is going to help is going to have to go through Chris's contributions, go through your contributions, and look for the relevant parts themselves. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

You also need to notify Chris you've reported him here. Which i've done for you on this occasion. Amortias (T)(C) 22:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Nothing to see here. I think Mark took Chris's invitation to report a bit too literally. There was some biting going on, but Chris has agreed to back off. StAnselm (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

  [ec with StAnselm] The bit about illiteracy isn't particularly nice, but Chris' point still stands: copying copyrighted text without permission is a legal matter, and saying "the point is that you stole content" is entirely appropriate here. As a matter of policy, we delete pages consisting mostly or entirely of text taken from elsewhere (as long as there's no proof of permission), and while this occasionally leads us to delete stuff needlessly (a few people put up their own writings here after they put them up elsewhere), your words demonstrate that this isn't the case here. Aside from copying free text (either it's in the public domain, which is common, or someone's released it under a Wikipedia-compatible license, which is rare), please write everything in your own words, aside from the limited circumstances where quoting someone else is necessary. Even then, such a quote is appropriate only in limited circumstances, typically when you're discussing the quote itself. Nyttend (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Seconding the "nothing to see here" aspect. Although there might be a tiny wp:boomerang coming over the horizon.

Chris' point is the crucial one here - plagiarism is a problem for WP, so we're really strict against it. Also the notability of the bio is dubious (there might be something to support it, but not from what I've seen so far).

That said, there are better ways to communicate this to you. And there is no excuse for this. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

And so Im still looking for assistance in how to post that bio from the book. Any assistance is appreciated. Mark0880 (talk) 22:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880

• On the whole, you can't.

General bit of WP advice - don't start out by creating new articles. It's too hard - start by working on some existing articles, until you really have a handle on the key policies, like respecting external copyrights on source materials. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

[again, an edit conflict] Once again: do not post that bio from the book. Unless you're in one of the few countries without copyright relations with the US (Afghanistan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, or San Marino), you're breaking your country's copyright law by posting it, and even if you are in one of those countries, your action of putting it up here causes us to break the law, so no matter where in the world you are, don't do it. Nyttend (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mark0880: If I understand, you want to use the blurb as a bio article. You can't, for reasons mentioned above. It doesn't matter if it's a blurb out of the book, or a blurb Amazon made up. It's a copyright violation. — Maile (talk) 22:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

How are bios to be written then? I see them all over WP Mark0880 (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880

In your own words. The same principle applies to all other kinds of articles. Consider the Williamson County Courthouse (Illinois) article, which I wrote recently; my source said These commissioners were to meet at the town of Bainbridge, and after being qualified, to proceed to locate the said seat of justice, and I converted that to the original officials were responsible to ascertain a location for the seat. This wasn't legally required, since the source is in the public domain, but it was helpful, and doing the same kind of thing is absolutely necessary when copyrighted material is your source. Nyttend (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, I've written hundreds. :) You would need to put all the information in your own words. BUT, as I've told you already, this particular article is not going to get up because of notability concerns. StAnselm (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) I've just left a message on your page about that. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mark0880: Looking at your edit history, I think I see the main misunderstanding between you and anyone else here. Even though you've been with Wikipedia since 2008, you've never created an article. And your editing has been mostly on one or two pre-existing articles. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but it sheds a little light on why you are confused about creating a biography. I would suggest you read Wikipedia biographies of anyone and notice the footnotes on them. If those sources are online, you'll get an idea of how editors pull the information from sources and write it in their own words. I'm sorry things got kind of rough for you on this, but I don't think anyone really understood you are trying for the very first time to create a new article. Here's a link for you Manual of Style/Biographies. And hopefully, other editors might be a little more patient when answering you. — Maile (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• I've explained the situation as simply as possible for Mark0880 on his talk page, and Chris has already agreed to back off. I suspect trouting Chris might exacerbate things. Unless one of them presses this further, I think this will be closable soon. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

This is why it's important to assume good faith and follow the site etiquette on civility. thank you. Mark0880 (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880

Don't make it about the other person, don't make it about winning. As Yoda (almost) said, "Winning leads to drama, drama leads to disruption, and disruption leads to blocking." Ian.thomson (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'm hoping it will be OK to close this, does anyone second that? I've deleted the offending article, Chris has agreed to back off, Mike has realized that he needs to change tactics and is seeking help with that, and I left hand written advice on both user's pages. I think we can all put our sticks down before any perfectly healthy horses cease being so. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: I second the closure. Nothing further to add here. Alex Shih^Talk 23:48, 23 August 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.

• I just want to say than whenever anyone calls me illiterate, I just show them my parents' marriage certificate and that shuts them right up. EEng 05:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Geez, EEng, don't you know nothin'? You're thinking of "illegitimate", "illiterate" means that you don't pick up your litter -- shame on you! Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

How stupid can you get? You're thinking of littoral. Literal is someone conversant with the metric system. (Liberal is someone who still uses pounds and ounces.) EEng 12:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Someone conversant with the metric system is "grammatical", and "liberal" is someone who thinks everyone should have a book. DMacks (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

DMacks, that was A+. EEng 15:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

So, is a conservative one who prefers jam? Blackmane (talk) 00:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Destructive edits by user Baapkabaap

The user is 2 year old but recently active. The account seems to be making destructive edits and attemps to change history and minute details including changing an hindu religious infobox to muslim possibly with the intention to provoke or attack.

Btw, A warning has already been given to the user by SarahWelch but the user is ignoring it. Please look into it. Thank you.

His wiki page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Baapkabaap

His wiki contribution: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Baapkabaap — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShotgunMavericks (talk • contribs) 11:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Personal attack and character assassination

Dear administrators, I would like you to block Volunteer Marek for character assassination and personal attack. As you can see here, he is using a personal attack to argue against one of my suggestions (I started a poll and discussion on including a list of the sources used in the memo). It was a suggestion, nothing more. Of course you can have a different opinion, but you should state it with arguments and not with cyber bullying. He indicates I am a "they" and that I am part of the alt-right movement - so basically claiming my suggestion shouldn't be considered because I have the wrong ideology. Furthermore I must say that I do NOT identify with the alt-right movement, I see myself as a left-wing with special interest in equal rights for both genders (feminist and masculinist). And you can clearly see that I am NOT part of the alt-right movement: I have created the article called Gay concentration camps in Chechnya and write about feminist, LGBT and masculinist issues. Please block him for this inappropriate attack on my person (temporarily) and please delete the character assassination permanently. I am not the first he did this to, as you can see here: "Please abstain from using terms as "sketchy-ass accounts", "starting up shit", "garbage" anywhere in WP. It is against the Wiki spirit. (OTOH, granted, we are all sometimes guilty of similar transgressions, see e.g. my Block log.) [[User:Zezen|Zezen]] ([[User talk:Zezen|talk]]) 04:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)". Here another user who claims to be attacked personally.

PA "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream."--Rævhuld (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

If an accurate description of your editing practices comes across as character assassination, you have only yourself to blame. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz You are not even an administrator, so why are you writing here? Indicating that I am part of the alt-right movement is not really an accurate description. A proper description of what I am writing about is: gender issues, LGBT content and political incidents.--Rævhuld (talk) 13:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Because anyone is allowed to comment here, not just admins. And when placing a comment here, be advised that not only the person you are requesting to be looked at behavior is analyzed, but yours as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Rævhuld: Second HW's comment. You should read WP:NPA is some detail, and I particularly draw your attention to 'Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack.' Whilst you may have provided a degree of justification, it is weak enough to suggest that little or no effort had been put into reading the actual policy and seeing if VM's remarks correlated. There will be no blocks (well, not of VM, anyway), and no deletions. Further investigation reminds me why your username is familiar. Raevhuld, your userpage is chock-full of complaints, criticisms and pieces of worthy advice, although of course they are not there now due to your fondness of the {{archive now}} template. — fortunavelut luna 12:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: You should read WP:NPA is some detail, and I particularly draw your attention to 'Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack.' Whilst you may have provided a degree of justification, it is weak enough to suggest that little or no effort had been put into reading the actual policy. My userpage is not chock-full of complaints and I have never been blocked.--Rævhuld (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Precisely. The reason your userpage is not chock-full now is because you immediately archive them. So, more accurately, "your 'Archive 1' is chock-full of complaints, criticisms and pieces of worthy advice" which you seem to have delighted in not taking. And, please, it is unnecessary to quote chunks of people's posts back like that, if all you mean to do is ping them. — fortunavelut luna 13:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, the archive is more balanced. Even if you take out the automated notifications. His *recent* contributions are certainly more problematic, but given anything related to the alt-right at the moment is causing all sorts of tiresome arguments. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, but which recent edits are problematic? The most "problematic" edits I did was criticizing genital mutilation using peer-reviewed articles and trying to change the article homophobia into gaycism. Both are very left-wing posts.--Rævhuld (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I am archiving everything that is older than a week. I like to have a clean talk page with only the recent talk page discussions. And I have linked to the archive page at the very top very clearly with a huge symbol. So what is the problem? You make it sound like I am hiding something. If I would hide something, why not just delete all comments I dislike, just as other users do? I mean, Volunteer Marek's talk page is totally clean, and if you read his log, you can see, he has been deleting a lot of things he disliked. Not to mention that he hasn't linked to an archive (does he have any?)--Rævhuld (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

No one is required to keep archives of their talk pages (it helps), and implicitly, their talk page history serves as an article; removing talk page messages is completely fine with the understanding that the editor thus has acknowledged the talk page message was given to them (eg [172] this means that we will assume VM is aware of this discussion because VM wiped your courtesy message). --MASEM (t) 13:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

But it is totally ok to criticize me for archiving my page?--Rævhuld (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

No, and no-one did :) I did, however, comment upon the large quantity of negative feedback, and was forced to reiterate the archiving purely because you (somewhat disingenuously!) claimed to have a clean talk page. The only point I was making was, of course you have- because the contents is not there anymore. Just FYI. — fortunavelut luna 13:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

First, you need to provide diffs, not just a link. I looked at that section and can't see anything like you suggest. As others have said, without clear diffs, it's impossible to tell and could be treated as a personal attack against VM.

However, in the broader sense, calling out a specific editor as alt-right or any other type of ideological position left or right (when said editor hasn't clearly stated that) as a means to dismiss their contributions or suggestions is a PA "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream.". I'd also consider in the current climate that specifically calling out someone alt-right falls under "Comparing editors to Nazis, dictators, or other infamous persons. (See also Godwin's law.)"). If these are the case, that's commenting on the contributor, not the contributions, and that's not appropriate at all. --MASEM (t) 13:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

You can see a diff here. Kind regards.--Rævhuld (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Masem: It was this post, which Raevhuld now keeps removing from the talk page. as you can see, it never accuses them of having any political preferences, merely that their editing suggests a particular interest in some subjects over and above others. Playing tha ball rather than the man, as it were. — fortunavelut luna 13:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Because indicating that I am part of the alt-right movement isn't attacking the man, but playing the ball. For sure. Why couldn't he just argue against my suggestion without attacking me personal? And how are my edits alt-right? I am writing about gender equality and LGBT and terrorist attacks. How is that alt-right!? And why do you need to interpret my edits ideological, instead of just criticizing my edits? You are just trying to attack me very broadly and vage instead of actual criticizing my suggestion.--Rævhuld (talk) 13:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Saying you "immediately started editing articles related to alt-right, "man's rights" (sic) and terrorist attacks" is saying nothing more than- that you immediately started editing XYZ, etc. No personal attack, and saying so does not make it so. Why don't you close this thread now? I think we've talked it through enough, haven't we? — fortunavelut luna 13:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

But it isn't true. The only articles related to alt-right was those about terrorism - which I actually took a very protective status towards Muslims on. What about the many other articles I wrote about women's, men's and LGBT issues? And how is indicating that I am part of the alt-right movement actually an argument against my suggestion? I am NOT part of the alt-right movement, but your way to argue sounds very alt-right to me.--Rævhuld (talk) 13:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Please do not attempt to WP:GAME WP:NPA, thank you. — fortunavelut luna 13:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I would agree it falls off the bright line of an NPA (and thus inactionable). I have some other concerns but don't immediatel have time to write out at the moment. --MASEM (t) 13:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Couple of the comments I wanted to make earlier :

• I would think this article could be considered under the GG 500/30 sanctions if an admin felt it that way. It's an intersection of tech and gender related issues, which I think could broadly fit under GG DS.
• I do think we need to balance the accusations of sock puppetry against legitimate new(ish) editors here. GG was one thing: it wasn't as mainstream, so the flood of new editors there pushing for the alternate views were likely from niche forums (4chan, reddit). The Google Memo, on the other hand, is clearly mainstream, and while I am sure that the same niche forums brigading here, from the broader public response to the Google Memo, there are definitely large numbers of people that agree/support its views, despite the slighter majority that have denounced it (eg the broader picture given in the RSes). To that end, as an open wiki, I can see a valid reason for people to come here and question about any POV issues they may see in the WP article on the topic, in contrast to the GG space. I think editors needs to be keeping a more open mind here and not presume every visitor to that page that is new and/or apparently a sleeper is trying to maliciously affect the article, and some of the behavior from VM and others presuming any editor asking about contrary views being an SPA or the like is not appropriate. Inactionable at this point but the start of the same trend that GG was on.

That said, some of the follow up comments here from Rævhuld are a bit concerning, and certainly some of VM's observations aren't out of line. --MASEM (t) 19:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I've also been subject to Volunteer Marek personally attacking me.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Chamber

And great! Another sketchy brand new account - just like A1Qicks, just like Raevehuld, just like Ari1891adler, just like several others. You guys are burning through your sleeper accounts.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC) 1

They're voting because they're confusing Wikipedia with whatever alt-right GamerGate subreddit they came from. The first two are newly created sketchy SPA accounts. The third one... I guess tha... never mind, just click "edit count" and then take a look at their contributions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC) 2

Really? You sure it's not the sudden appearance of all these sketchy-ass accounts with less than 100 edits starting up shit on the article and brigading the talk page? Oh wait...! Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC) 3

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Samsara#Google_memo_article_protection

I wasn't talking to you brand-new-single-purpose-account-with-six-edits-created-just-to-push-POV-on-articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC) 4

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyakakushi46 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek Continues:

*Comment Note that both User:A1Qicks and User:Keyakakushi46 are single purpose accounts with fewer than 50 edits. The latter appears to have been created solely to brigade this vote and talk page, the former looks like a straight up sleeper account.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

If participating in your first page is suddenly against the rules then how do you suppose you could ever get any new users? Of course it isn't but this rule seems to be specifically interpreted in such way just to discredit me. These comments Volunteer Marek makes do not further the discussion and are clear personal attacks.

More from Marek:

A brand new single purpose account knows how to throw WP:ASPERSIONS around. Right...... Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Could an admin tell him to cease this? It's is against WP:NPA and WP:CIV is borderline harassment at this point. I've asked him to stop everal times now. Keyakakushi46 (talk) 10:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• And so the pile-on begins... I took a look at the discussion the most recent VM detractor linked to, and while it's arguable that VM is a little too free with the accusations, what's not really arguable is that the accusations are spot-on; This is a highly suspicious account with a dubious ability to improve the project. There's also something to be said for giving a little leeway to an experienced editor who is responding to constant accusations of hypocrisy, POV pushing and lying by an account with fewer edits than I have pounds in my trousers (Relax: I'm taking about my hammer). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@MPants at work: I think Rævhuld was confused about who you replied to since you didn't indent your comment at a ll so it looks like it is directed at him. Keyakakushi46 (talk) 10:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Captain Obvious. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Spot on? So indicating that a person like me, who is a LGBT supporter and writing for women's, men's and homosexuals rights part is part ofthe alt-right is spot on? No, that is just bullshit. Especially if you take into account how many alt-right trolls I had to deal with here on Wikipedia. --Rævhuld (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Did you read my comments or just fly off the handle as soon as you realized I was defending VM? I was obviously responding to the comment above mine. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I also wonder if this is related to a now deleted SPI that was raised recently regarding VM. Wondering if we have a sock farm on our hands in a different way. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

If you look at my account, you can see, that your fantasy is far away from reality.--Rævhuld (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• I have no dog in this fight, but this: [173] is not helping. Maineartists (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

That I suggested to add Hjernevask to "See also"? Or that I politely pointed out, that VM seems to have a vendetta against my person? He claimed that my suggestion was "disruptive"--Rævhuld (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Can someone please tell Raevhuld to stop messing around with my comments on the talk page? Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Can someone please tell Volunteer Marek that saying things like "don't be ridiculous" or using the term "stupid" all the time is offensive and users who are attacked have the right to remove it?--Rævhuld (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• There is clearly an issue with sleeper accounts, clearly SPA canvassed from off-site etc alt-right activists showing up at the moment. No comment if VM is justified in this particular case, but as a general theme its causing a number of issues across various articles. The POV push to remove describing Alt-right figures as 'alt-right' because they are only now realizing that to large portions of the public 'alt-right' means 'white nationalist/supremacist/racist/misogynist/homophobic' etc is hitting a lot of biographies. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

As the article founder of the Gay concentration camps in Chechnya article, I am clearly not alt-right. All my contributions have to all time been very left-wing - I stand up for LGBT and equal rights. And when I write about terrorism, I am actually not attacking Muslims, but rather the opposite:protecting them. Non the less, attacking me is neither all right nor an argument in this debate. If you think one of my contributions are wrong, you are welcome to debate it on my discussion page or pinging me on the discussion page of the article. As long as you don't call me names or claim that I would be part of the alt-right movement.--Rævhuld (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Only in death: The concern with our usage of "alt-right" is that we use the most mild definitions (e.g. opposition to political correctness) when applying the label, but the most severe definition in the article ("reject mainstream conservatism in favor of white nationalism"). The majority of subjects we describe as alt-right are not described in RS as supporting white nationalism. This is a legitimate and serious BLP problem. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

That however is not an issue of our making. If reliable sources describe someone as alt-right, that is not a BLP violation to describe them as such (depending on circumstances either attributed or LABEL). That the alt-right do not want to be lumped in with white nationalists is a problem of their own making by embracing a political ideology that has a wide array of negative associations. There is a relevant discussion at Milo Yiannopoulos talkpage regarding 'Alt-lite'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem of internal inconsistency is entirely of our making. Policy allows discretion. When that discretion is pushed to one end in our description of the ideology and the other in our description of individuals, a solution within policy exists and it becomes our responsibility to solve it.

There is another relevant discussion at the NPOV noticeboard (link). James J. Lambden (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• Raevhuld now appears to have resorted to trolling: Unnecessary templating ([174], [175]) and refactoring of comments ([176], [177], [178], [179]) such as this are little short of disruptive. — fortunavelut luna 16:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Trolling. Please read the article. I removed personal attacks, or do you really think it is all right to call people stupid or ridiculous?--Rævhuld (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

If you make a stupid argument, VM is under no requirement not to point this out. The fact that you insist upon reading "this is a stupid comment" as "you are stupid" does you no favors. It should be obvious to anyone that smart people can make stupid comments. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Calling people alt-right, even though they obviously are left-wing, and stating that an argument is "stupid" or "ridiculous" without trying to disprove it is clearly a personal attack and disruptive behaviour and against WP:TONE.--Rævhuld (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

They could have meant alt-left and got the terms confused in regards to someone who is left-wing. Calling an argument stupid or ridiculous without trying to disprove it is not a personal attack unless it is directed at someone, whether that be you or another edit. I agree that is however disruptive and not constructive. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• Raevhuld is upset but should not be editing others' comments.

VM is disrupting the talk page with personal comments: (personal), (personal), (personal), (personal), (personal), (personal), (personal), (personal), (personal), (personal), (personal), (personal)

Raevhuld should be reminded not to edit others' comments.

VM should be reminded that article talk pages are only for discussing article improvement. James J. Lambden (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Raevhuld should also be reminded, in the bluntest clearest possible way, to desist from behaviour that could be easily perceived as trolling. GoldenRing pointed this out to them, but this has not seemed to deter them from continuing in exactly the same manner. — fortunavelut luna 17:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

He wrote his opinion and I asked him into it. How disruptive ... and yes, I wrote on your talk page, because you called me a "troll" with no actual evidence for it. I called you out on it, saying that you could just write on my talk page if you think I am doing something wrong. Oh no, how disruptive. It seems like you are very disruptive yourself.--Rævhuld (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree. But if we focus exclusively on the actions of upset editor and ignore the actions that cause them upset we pratically guarantee a continuous stream of upset editors. That is no way to minimize disruption. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Really, I do not think that being 'upset' is much of a justification, since the most disruptive behaviour they have demonstrated actuallyonly began after this ANI thread turned in way the OP did not want! — fortunavelut luna 17:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Could you get concrete on that? Which disruptive behaviour did I do? Calling out on bullies isn't disruptive. A guy bullying people for being new or just in general writing mean things to people instead of staying cool and focused, that is disruptive behaviour. Meanwhile you seem all too willing to ignore this particular user and all too willing to attack me.--Rævhuld (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I did not say it was justified. I said it was an all-too-common reaction. When the all-too-common reaction to a policy violation (WP:NPA) creates disruption, focusing exclusively on the consequences and ignoring the cause guarantees future problems. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

James, everyone here knows you hate VM. You're not going to get support for this. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 01:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me the dislike goes both ways. On my talk page at least, James J. Lambden appeared to be the milder mannered of the two. Samsara 12:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Raevhuld

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 blocked Raevhuld for 48 hours, essentially to stop the stream of time-wasting templates. User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, you were so very right about templates and I apologise for responding to your wisdom with low wit. I propose that this user be blocked indefinitely, with an unblock when they can convince myself or any other uninvolved admin that they can edit collaboratively. GoldenRing (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support - That editor has been nothing but trouble since the start, just as I said he would be, here on ANI, almost six months ago. Sometimes I wish people would listen... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

And here's another ANI-report about Rævhuld (not by me, though) that was never acted on. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support - I tuned off to this editor as soon as I read this comment awhile ago about Germans -- and we all know what this was referring to. He occasionally makes constructive edits but I do not believe they counteract such odd behavior.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support - I was expecting this a little sooner, as I have been keeping an eye on him since long. Few diffs concerning the accused can be found on Mz7's talkpage, a link to the conversation with Mz7 can be found here: User talk:NeilN#My old discussion_with_Mz7. —usernamekiran(talk) 02:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support - the comment editing is clearly disruptive in a bannable way. I would rather support a 2 week ban, but see no reason to believe the editor is willing to be cooperative. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support Per other editors. Stikkyy t/c 05:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support (somewhat obviously perhaps); but I'd like to emphasise that I actually think GoldenRing was restrained in their response, as, going by Raevhuld's response, they still don't understand the issues. — fortunavelut luna 06:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support the indefinite block proposed in this section. Thanks, GoldenRing, for the initial action and for bringing it back here for further consideration. I think your proposed action is necessary, given the history. -- Begoon 06:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I have responded to his unblock request, declining it, and have extended the block to an indefinite one. Their edit history shows to me that there is a history of harassment with them, however it's coming FROM them, not towards them. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
• Uh, what did the editor do which was so egregious that it merited an indef block, especially with zero entries in their block log prior to this incident? If the editor has simply lost it in the reaction to this affair, perhaps one can keep the length to one week or something. But indef seems extremely harsh. Before implementing an indef block, other remedies like topic bans and IBANs ought to be considered. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

  Did you read what was linked in the first 3 support !votes and look at the user's entire editing history and talk page/archives? My !vote certainly wasn't about the editor "simply los[ing] it in the reaction to this affair", and I'm certain that RickinBaltimore's action was not either. The editor has been consistently disruptive, from their early edits right up until this point in time. An indefinite block can be appealed, and if they can convince an admin they understand the issues and will not repeat them it can be lifted. A fixed time ban which simply expires does not provide this step, which is just as likely to be useful for the editor as for the community, in the long term. -- Begoon 02:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support temporary block, strong oppose for indef block - Indef block at this stage is way too harsh in my opinion. If he simply lost his cool, give him a 3-4 week or so block and if he does this again, then indef him. Jdcomix (talk) 16:42, 20 August 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.

Indef block due to which contributions?

I would like to learn more about the contributions that led to this indef block. RickinBaltimore? Samsara 11:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Samsara, be happy to chime in. As stated earlier, there have been concerns regarding this editor's behavior going back about six months. (see here: [181] and here: [182]). Additionally, there was this comment that TGS mentioned prior: [183] that was a bit conerning to say the least, in essence hinting that the admins on the German Wikipedia were Nazis. They have been disruptive over all, and definitely not anywhere near a net positive for the project. Other concerns were raised about the editor in May as well with relation to their editing. (See here: [184]). It's my opinion, and of other editors, that they aren't here to build an encyclopedia based on this on going behavior.

I will say however, that of course I'm transparent when it comes to my work, and if it's deemed the block is in the end too harsh by the community as a whole, I'll scale it back of course, however I don't think that's in the best interests of Wikipedia. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The standard offer is always a choice as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

And that I wouldn't be opposed to of course. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: Why escalate from GoldenRing's originally proposed block condition of "unblock when they can convince myself or any other uninvolved admin that they can edit collaboratively" to "standard offer"? Samsara 18:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, they're pretty much the same thing, except the standard offer outlines it better. You can still send an unblock request a day after being given the standard offer, and if that unblock request convinces the admin who takes it... Voila. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The user's unblock request was further proof that they failed to realize their problems. They only convinced others to believe the temp block was not enough.

What was the reason why I was blocked? I don't know. I just reported Volunteer Marek, who personally attacked me and other users - like instead of coming with arguments, he assumed the ideology of left-wing me and wrote "ridiculous" or "stupid" under comments. Furthermore he attacked users for being new. But instead of actually blocking bullies, Wikipedia just blocks people being bullied. Without even giving an actual reasoning. Great. Rævhuld (talk) 08:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

— nihlus kryik  (talk) 19:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The standard offer was proposed after the unblock request was denied, so without further actions from the user. The standard offer includes a six month waiting period that was not part of the originally proposed block conditions. Samsara 19:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

As the essay itself states, standard offer is just a suggestion, there's no requirement to follow it. ansh666 19:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

User:QuackGuru and Judeo-Christian related 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.

---

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

User has recently started making these kinds of posts in Judeo-Christian related articles and talk pages:

• "Adultery and forced sex with Bathsheba" and "David is a rapist" where he is caught cherry picking to push a rape interpretation when (as was quickly demonstrated by other users, sometimes with the very sources QuackGuru cited to begin with) scholars are quite divided on the issue.
• Citing a vanity-press published work to argue against the notion of a creator deity (not simply young earth creationism, but something that, by definition, is outside the boundaries of science)
• Citing a 1829 work for the "scientific view" (which he soon started treating as only the view held only by non-religious persons) regarding a metaphysical belief.
• "God is a Rapist?" - where he engages in misrepresentative WP:SYNTH to push the idea that Jesus was the product of rape. This wasn't a good-faith suggestion of incorporating material about Pan(d/t)era into a relevant part of the article, this was trying to portray followers of Abrahamic religions as rape-worshipers.
• Arguing that the Jesus article (which explains what atheists think of Jesus and does not claim that anyone outside of Christianity believes Jesus is divine to begin with) doesn't explain the non-religious view, which he tried to resolve by replacing the content on atheism with undue weight on New Atheism.
• Responding to a warning to quit disrupting an article with "I will continue"

Please see Talk:Jesus for more.

Between the WP:ADVOCACY to portray the followers of the Abrahamic religions as rape-worshippers, the WP:UNDUE emphasis on New Atheism, and the continual disregard for WP:RS he's showing, a mixture of WP:IDHT, WP:CIR, and/or WP:TEND (I know not in what proportions) apply here. Regardless of whichever worldview one is being a sectarian for, regardless of whichever group of people is being vilely misrepresented, we don't allow that kind of sectarianism to get near our articles.

This behavior is very recent but given this user's prior history for similar behavior on other topics, maybe he could use an earlier heads up to change course. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

QuackGuru's recent history includes extended tendentious discussion at WT:V. Details in my comment below. See also his extensive block log. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• The content I recently added to Bathsheba is still in the article per talk page consensus. And another editor added the same content I added to Bathsheba to the David article.

• I discussed what was the issue with the Xulon Press source after the content was removed.

• I did discuss the controversial issues at the Jesus talk page after I read many sources. I was not trying to portray followers of Abrahamic religions as rape-worshipers. That's absurd. There are things that are not clearly explained in the article. The same as other pages. See Talk:Bathsheba#David is a rapist.

• The article is unclear and I am discussing it on the talk page.[185]

• See Talk:Jesus#Failed_verification. The content failed verification. I provided a source to verify the claim. The source was removed with the edit summary "rv WP:UNDUE. Everyone who isn't a Christian rejects Jesus's divinity". The revert does not clearly explain why the edit was reverted. Providing a source to verify the claim is not WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue does not apply to content that failed verification. The source stated "New Atheists"[186] not atheists in general. I made a small change to the content in order for it to pass verification using the source presented.

• I was not responding to a warning. I was stating that I was continuing my editing on another page by providing a link to another article.

• Ian.thomson Stated "I'm focusing on disruptive behavior."[187] See WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE: "Try to avoid discussing conduct issues on article Talk pages." I previously explained on the talk page to focus on content. See WP:FOC: "Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct; comment on content, not the contributor." QuackGuru (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah, this explains QuackGuru's ill-fated attempt to rewrite WP:Administrators. I assume that this was the secret underlying dispute that QuackGuru wouldn't disclose and was trying to win when he tried to add an oddly-specific line to WP:ADMIN a few days ago: [188], Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Replacing sourced content with failed verification content. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

So, WP:Gaming the system? That level of deliberation makes it hard to assume good faith. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, that attempt to insert the block-the-admin-for-a-year is one of the silliest, most ham-handed things I've ever seen an experienced editor do. EEng 18:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• This enough leads me to question QG's intentions. Gaming and POV-pushing are absolutely clear. I recommend the editor to back off this topic area completely for a while until they lose this malicious momentum. It isn't too late to apologize and move on. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 18:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I spotted the failed verification content just today. This edit was made on 19:32, 16 August 2017. It is completed unrelated to this revert made on 15:44, 20 August 2017. This edit was made on 15:40, 20 August 2017. Check the dates. This is a new dispute. I added a source to verify the content and made a small tweak to the content. The content still fails verification. See Talk:Jesus#Failed_verification. QuackGuru (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
    • There's no way to tell if there's a real connection and I'm not going to agree or disagree with you. But since you made that edit to WP:ADMIN, and then proceeded to carry out controversial actions along the same lines, the first and clearest assumption is some hidden POV pushing agenda. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 18:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
• I've had my own run-ins with QuackGuru, and I would heartily welcome his absence from any of the articles I edit. But I think this is rather more complicated than POV-pushing against Christians and I would advise against closing this thread early or imposing a simplistic solution.

  QG's basic modus operandi is to defend the scientific viewpoint against the unscientific one by paying close attention to the scientific sources, and when he does it in articles about medical content this is viewed as a net positive by the community, because it tends to exclude people who want to push homeopathy or acupuncture from being able to edit in medical topic areas. That's the main reason why an editor with his rather extensive block log is still unbanned: he is source-focused and he prefers the scientific sources to the in-bubble ones. Taking that approach into articles about Abrahamic religions strikes me as a little unwise, but it's consistent with all of QG's well-established behaviours.

  I actually think that what we need here is a way to distinguish Quackguru's valuable and useful behaviours from the unproductive ones that make him really really annoying to deal with. The thing he does with "failed verification" tags is a longstanding behaviour, and I think that underneath it all he doesn't get the fundamental concept of verifiability. He's got a history of using {{fv}} tags on individual words. I think he doesn't see that verifiability is on the level of facts, theories and concepts rather than words and phrases; and won't listen to that if you tell him because he assumes you are the one pushing the unscientific POV. I also think he doesn't get the fundamental concept of source reliability, because he acts as if the most skeptical source is always the most reliable one. But what he isn't doing is intentionally pushing a POV. That's not him. These behaviours are motivated by a genuine wish to improve the encyclopaedia ---- combined with an unfortunate tendency to inappropriately personalise content disputes by classifying editors as "scientific" or "unscientific" and treating the "unscientific" ones as hostile. Forget I spoke.—S Marshall T/C 18:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Please see Talk:Jesus#Failed verification. Adding a source to verify a claim should not be a problem. The problem is when the source is removed and the content still fails verification. QuackGuru (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• You see, Quack, this is exactly the kind of thing I mean. Someone wrote "Atheists reject Jesus' divinity", and you tagged it with {{fv}}. And you don't understand why that calls your editorial judgment into question.—S Marshall T/C 19:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• After reading the source it did not verify the content. And then I added a source to verify the content and made a small tweak to accurately reflect the source. See WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION: "Material that fails verification may be tagged with {{failed verification}} or removed." Rather than leave a tag I added a source. QuackGuru (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

S Marshall, you confirm my impression of what I've seen of his presence on other parts of the site, which is why I haven't suggested blocking. Hopefully, a notice from the community that he should focus on other topics would be enough. Otherwise a restriction like (as you mention below) a topic ban might be necessary. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• He won't do what you tell him to do. You're going to need something logged and enforced. Expect him to conform to the letter of the restriction while trying to circumvent of the spirit of it, so if we do go down the topic ban route, we'll need to define the scope of the ban very carefully. It may be better to identify specific problem behaviours, rather than a range of articles, for him to avoid (or a combination of some behaviours and some specific articles). Awilley has extensive experience of this user and what he says is worth reading closely.—S Marshall T/C 21:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• If QuackGuru doesn't appreciate the problematic nature of some of his contributions, a block is certainly called for. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• No, do not block Quack. At most the remedy should be a topic ban from articles about religion. On medicine, we need him. Changed my mind. We don't need him that badly.—S Marshall T/C 19:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Seconded re not blocking for now. Were this a user who had not demonstrated any usefulness elsewhere, I'd probably be filing this just to confirm that it was OK for me to have already pulled the trigger on a WP:CIR/Trolling block, but QG has shown some usefulness on particular topics. I can't say that a topic ban from all religion articles is necessary yet. Broadly construed, that would overlap with quackery related articles since some quacks love to use religion as a shield. So far, there's only been issues with stances on Biblical matters but there is the question of whether or not the behavior will spread to other religion articles. "Bible-related articles" would end up covering some pages that don't necessarily concern religion (e.g. Philistines). "Bible-related religion articles" still has occasional overlap with quackery if broadly construed as possible, though an amendment "except where modern medical practice is concerned" would fix that in any case. Though this is only if a topic ban proves necessary. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

It looks like he will move on to other articles about other religions. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I am trying to resolve this dispute regarding the content. See "Ian.thomson, do you have a suggestion on how to resolve this dispute since the current content fails verification?"[189] I think it can be quickly resolved by adding one source to verify the content since the source at the end of the sentence does not verify this part. QuackGuru (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• I would support a topic ban from religious articles. QuackGuru's single-minded approach and tenacity combined with numerous competence issues make them a pain to work with in any capacity. They are amazingly tendentious and daring to disagree with them results in so much WP:SOUP that it's usually easier to just edit elsewhere. That said, I think an outright block/ban would go too far, as QG's knowledge of medicine-related sources is valuable to the encyclopedia. I appreciate their efforts to expose quackery and defend science, and I applaud people who look at religious belief with a critical scientific eye. But QuackGuru's hamfisted approach is not going to improve articles about religious belief, and the degree of their misdirection can be seen by their bizarre proposal to add the following sentence to the Lede section of our Jesus article: "According to science, Jesus is not God's son." Thank you, science, for clearing that up. ~Awilley (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I made a proposal but did not add it to the article. @Jytdog: explained on the talk page your POV reversions to the David article. I partially reverted your changes. Because there is disagreement does not mean an editor should try to topic ban another editor. My edits did improve articles about religious belief. If an editor reverted my edit I did discuss it. QuackGuru (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment But surely we can hardly allow QG's "hamfisted approach" in areas where it suits us but ban it in others? Surely what we must do is hold them to the same editing standards as everyone else, and if that is impossible, dispense with their services? This is what we generally do. --John (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @John, it is my view that QG is a net-positive on medicine-related articles despite being annoying and sometimes disruptive, and a net-negative on religion-related articles. ~Awilley (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• I have been watching QG's entrance into this topic with some.... well watchfulness. QG often gets involved in articles where there is some long-term POV pushing that is harming the neutrality of our content, and generally QG has been on the side of the angels, which is why the community has continued to tolerate their somewhat "beserker" tactics. In the case of the David/Bathsheba stuff, it is absolutely true that QG eventually arrived at very well-sourced and excellently neutral content dealing with the very terse biblical text about David and Bathsheba, which had consensus from everyone at the talk page. I don't think there is need for any action here. The OP said that the purpose of their post was to warn QG not to take the tactics too far, and I believe that has been accomplished. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Basically all of QuacksGuru's comments at Talk:Jesus have been designed to bait or troll other editors ... comments such as "God is a rapist" and "Jesus is the bastard son of a rapist". Because of that particular comment I warned him for inappropriate talkpage usage two days ago. He keeps posting provocative / controversial stuff to the talkpage that he knows will never get added to the article, but tries to disguise his trolling by adding stuff like "thoughts?" or "hmm, do you guys think this should be included?" ... he's just gaming the system to avoid getting an autoban. I think as a troll that has no intention of improving the article he should be blocked from commenting there. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 04:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Here are the two sources.[190][191] I understand you think the sources are not useful for that article. QuackGuru (talk) 04:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe try addressing the concerns of the people in this thread instead of doubling down on the baiting and insincerity. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 04:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• QG is an overall positive to the project. They closely follows sources which is generally a good thing. Agree with the concerns around them adding FV tags as sometimes it is appropriate to paraphrase more. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on religion, broadly construed. The observable gaming, baiting, clearly disruptive editing, POV-pushing, and the single-minded behavioral problems all add up to the need for a specific sanction here that will hopefully still leave QG free to edit medical and scientific articles. As others have noticed, he won't do what someone tells him to do, so a specific logged and enforceable sanction is needed. QG is a problem editor and has been blocked over a dozen times, but he has not yet reached net negative and still has use in some areas of Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 08:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support Site ban based upon recent behavior. If he is unwilling/unable to listed an ANI, he will never do so when editing an article. Second choice; Ian Thomsons's suggested topic ban ("QuackGuru is topic banned from religious articles, talk pages, and topics except where modern medical practice is concerned or where the discretionary sanctions for complimentary and alternative medicine apply.") BTW, shouldn't that be "religion articles" instead of "religious articles"? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC) Modified 04:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support Topic ban from Religion broadly construed. Unlike Guy above, this is not an 'unwilling' issue, its an 'unable'. Sorry, anyone who has dealt with QG for more than 5 minutes knows two things 1)QG is always right, 2)QG will never change his position once taken. The argument may change, if you present evidence he will just fall back to another reason why he is right. Anything short of a broadly construed ban across the entire topic will result in wikilawyering and attempts to game the system so he is in the right - as the change to the policy RE admins amply shows. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support Topic Ban from religion articles per above. Agathoclea (talk) 10:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support Topic ban from Religion broadly construed according to the wording suggested by Ian Thomson,since it is felt the editor is useful in other areas, for reasons given above by others. Yesterday Jytdog said "The OP said that the purpose of their post was to warn QG not to take the tactics too far, and I believe that has been accomplished" but this is not the case as QuackGuru is still fighting to put a "Failed Verification" tag on the statement "Atheists reject Jesus' divinity" [192]. So silly, juvenile, a waste of everybody's time and needs to stop and stop now.Smeat75 (talk) 11:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I am not fighting over it. I simply added a tag because the content failed verification. I discussed it on the talk page. I requested a source for the content that failed verification. See "Per policy that content still fails verification. I recommend a source for the content. See WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION: "When using templates to tag material, it is helpful to other editors if you explain your rationale in the template, edit summary, or on the talk page." That's what I have done."[193] Your edit summary was "Undid revision 796515523 by QuackGuru (talk)rv silliness"[194] There should be no problem with spotting FV content and recommending a source for the content. Following policy is not a waste of time. Do you understand the content FV? Banning an editor for spotting content that fails verification is not helpful to improving the article. Adding a tag is not taking tactics too far. QuackGuru (talk) 11:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban from religion articles based on users inability to comprehend or addresses the concerns raised by others.--Moxy (talk) 11:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• support topic ban from all religion topics, broadly construed. The inability to understand and listen to others is a major problem. The extreme rigidity may be an asset elsewhere, but it is not helpful in this case and QGs inability to see other arguments is on full display here. If the people editing in the medical area can put up with this IDHT behavior, more power to them. Other good faith editors shouldn't be forced to. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• I'm not sure if I support this proposal or not, but I will say that it has been my experience that QC's ability to determine whether content is supported by sources is highly suspect. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support Ian Thomsons's suggested topic ban - Specifically that; "QuackGuru is topic banned from religious articles, talk pages, and topics except where modern medical practice is concerned or where the discretionary sanctions for complimentary and alternative medicine apply". Whoever said we need a scalpel and not a sledge hammer is right. Also nice analogy. They can always ask for the ban to removed after a period of time.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on religion articles, broadly construed. QG has essentially ignored the negative feedback in this thread. Simply telling him that his editing is problematic has obviously not been effective, so we need to take tougher action. I understand and appreciate the arguments against the "broadly construed" part, but doesn't it send a mixed message to QG to tell him that his editing approach is okay with medicine articles but not ok with religion articles? Tendentious wikilawyering is a problem and it's a slippery slope if we only chose to address it in certain areas. Lepricavark (talk) 22:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

"Broadly construed"

• No. "Broadly construed" is a mistake, and is insufficiently thought through. As Ian Thomson has rightly said above, there are real areas of overlap between the medical articles and the religious ones, such as Faith healing. If we're going to install a topic ban then the boundaries should be more carefully drawn than "religious articles, broadly construed". There should certainly be an exemption specifically permitting QG to edit anything in Category:Supernatural healing and Category:Alternative medicine, and I would urge that the correct wording for any topic ban from religion should be "narrowly construed". Forget I spoke.—S Marshall T/C 12:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Proposed topic ban phrasing of "QuackGuru is topic banned from religious articles, talk pages, and topics except where modern medical practice is concerned or where the discretionary sanctions for complimentary and alternative medicine apply." I specify "articles, talk pages, and topics" instead of just "pages" because we don't want him banned from WP:FTN whenever a thread about a religious topic comes up though we don't want him handling religion matters there. Specifying modern medical practice (instead of medicine broadly construed) should prevent behavior like editing the Cronus page to point out the medical impossibility of children surviving being eaten by their fathers, Aphrodite to point out the medical impossibility of being born from castration, or Athena to point out the medical impossibility of being born as a grown adult from one's father's forehead. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• honestly, I don't think QG is an asset anywhere. He may have the right POV, but his behavior is a great example of how not to appproach collaborative editing. I support the broadly construed wording, and the only reason I'm not pushing for a full site ban is that the various medical editors do not support one. But there is no need for such uncollaborative editing behavior and IDHT actions to be allowed elsewhere. His editing behaviors are not helpful and tend to waste other editions time. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I spotted content that failed verification. I requested a source to verify the content I discussed it on the talk page. There are other issues I discussed on the talk page. For example, Jesus's self-perception is not clearly explained in the article. I found a source that says "The Christian Trinity was not taught by Jesus. Nor did Jesus ever say that he was the Son of God. Only the disciples wrote that Jesus is the Son of God."[195] There may be better sources or other sources that explain it more clearly. QuackGuru (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Requiring a source for "atheists deny the divinity of Jesus" is unreasonable and disruptive. You are taking our policies to extremes and pissing people off in the process. When everyone is telling you that you are doing something wrong, stop arguing that you are right. Accept that you are indeed doing something wrong. Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Blueboar. This particular argument is so far beyond pointless that it resembles trolling. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Blueboar, I tried adding a source, but it was removed. Then I thought adding a tag for others to help find a source. It appeared editors have acknowledged the content failed verification. Numerous articles have tags in them for years. Why is it disruptive here but not on other articles that have tags? I spotted content that failed verification on another article and discussed it on the talk page. Is that also disruptive? QuackGuru (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

QC, you also changed the text to specify "New atheists". As if traditional (or "old") atheists do accept Jesus' divinity? No, that's just silly. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I could not find a source to verify the exact current wording. I made a small tweak in order for it to be more accurate. I am also fine with just adding another source without changing the current wording. QuackGuru (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

You don't need a source for the statement that Atheists reject a claim of divinity. There are no sources contradicting it, it's common knowledge and it's true by definition. Indeed, it's what makes atheists atheists. There is no source needed, and even if it did need a source, you could have gone to Atheism and taken your pick of the four citations used on the first sentence. I don't see anything defensible about this edit, or your position. It looks like nothing more than either willful disruption or a bad case of you really not getting it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Before adding one of the sources at Atheism they can be read to check to ensure they support the claim "Atheists reject Jesus' divinity". The sources at Atheism support the absence of belief in the existence of deities in general. In order to use a source it should state specifically opposing Jesus' divinity. I don't want to add a source that could be perceived as failing verification. QuackGuru (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

<facepalm> ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

What is the reason you are arguing over this? After this discussion your behaviour towards me has changed drastically. QuackGuru (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Nice of you to link to an example of you making a rather ironic personal attack in your edit summary. You're doing a wonderful job of making me reconsider abstaining from supporting the topic ban. Oh, and to answer your question: Because you have -once again- taken a complete non-issue and used it as an excuse to pick an argument with another editor, then proceeded to resort to a line of argumentation that would get you kicked out of a freshman rhetoric course. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I cannot speak for ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants, but for me I am torn. Part of me wants to strongly praise you for the fine work I have seen you do on various pseudoscience and fringe theory articles. Part of me wants to criticize you for your obvious trolling on various religion articles. And part of me just wishes you would dial in down a couple of notches in pretty much all of your interactions with others. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

You said "Part of me wants to strongly praise you for the fine work I have seen you do on various pseudoscience and fringe theory articles." That's not what I remember you said about me before. I remember years ago you criticized me at the fringe noticeboard for cleaning up one of the alt-med articles because I did not have consensus. Many of these articles were littered with primary sources and unreliable sources. I was surprised you reverted back to an old version. It was in 2013‎. I'm not going to bother digging up the diffs. That was a while ago. I noticed editors who have disagreed with me in the past are showing up here. QuackGuru (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I was not aware that to you "part of me wants to strongly praise you for the fine work I have seen you do on various pseudoscience and fringe theory articles" means "I am never allowed to disagree with you". Now that I know this, I have zero desire to praise you in any way. You might want to take the fine advice found at Law of holes. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm showing up here for no other reason than to say (1) delivery matters, (2) sometimes things aren't always what they seem, and (3) the little reed, bending to the force of the wind, soon stood upright again when the storm had passed over. ~Aesop ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Per Ealdgyth. Its religion on all pages or nothing for me. If there is an intersection at a specific article of religion and medical, the topic ban on religion should prevent editing in that area. No loopholes. The above couple of comments should suggest why leaving exceptions is a bad idea. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• I agree: No loopholes. We need to not create a loophole for bad faith editors who are predictably going to go "You can't revert me because %_alternative_therapy_% is part of my religion!" The reason this whole problem is so complicated ---- the reason Quack wasn't site-banned years ago ---- is because he does genuinely good work dealing with, well, quacks. (His account is really well-named.) Articles on medical topics are watched by relatively few editors and are under constant siege from people who want to push their favourite brand of snake oil. Quack's skepticism and genuine knowledge in that topic area are valuable and if we're going to hamstring him in this way then there really isn't a reason to keep him around. But we'd need to take two or three good editors off their other work to keep an eye on Quack's watchlist.

  The Wikipedian tendency to attach "broadly construed" to topic bans is to be avoided in this case. It's a problem that needs a scalpel rather than a sledgehammer. Nope, changing my mind about this.—S Marshall T/C 16:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• "if we're going to hamstring him in this way then there really isn't a reason to keep him around" - you may find people would actually rather take that option. "he does genuinely good work dealing with, well, quacks" - to be accurate what he does is act badly towards everybody, but the way he acts badly has a positive outcome when directed at quacks. If I shoot 1000 people, it doesn't make it right just because some of them were criminals. I cant see a benefit in putting a topic ban on him if its not going to be as wide as possible given his wikilawyering and tendentious editing. The only other restriction I would support is a blanket 1rr *everywhere*. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• I've got to concede that that's a reasonable position, and that Quack's edits immediately above are really undermining my attempts to keep this contained.—S Marshall T/C 17:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• There is a lot of stories I could tell. I will pick one that pissed off some editors. There were too many citations for one sentence at Vani Hari. Four citations was overboard. Only in death does duty end disagreed. I eventually fixed it by removing the citations that failed verification and replacing them with citations that passed verification. I did not get reverted after I fixed the problems. S Marshall, you mentioned I genuinely good work dealing with, well, quacks. That's only part of the story. There are problematic skeptics adding misleading content. I keep editors on both sides honest. I know that gets some editors pissed off at me because I followed policy and focused heavily on the content. I read the sources and ensured the content was neutral and sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• hey, TBAN train. Above I noted that QG gets involved where there is entrenched POV pushing.

Please take a breath.

There is a legitimate point of view that QG is representing in some places here - a feminist one , which holds that images and metaphors about sexuality and gender, specifically around Mary but more broadly many others derived from the Bible, have contributed fundamentally to rape culture in Western civilization. Some of these things are not just minor references in passing texts but core notions in some Christianities.

Looked at with irreligious eyes, Jesus is a bastard and God can be described as a rapist with respect to Mary, and the Bible describes God using rapist language elsewhere. Above QG here cited Susanne Scholz (a feminist biblical scholar and professor at Southern Methodist; she doesn't have an article here but is cited in our article Rape in the Hebrew Bible) and QG cited here Jane Schaberg who is in turn citing Julia Kristeva who describes the Virgin Mary as "one of the most powerful imaginary constructs known in history of civilization". (getting into a bit of TMI here, I found myself in Catholic churches at statues of the pieta after 9/11.... Mary is a powerful construct)

The story of David and Bathsheba can be read as fitting into countless examples of powerful men taking the bodies of women. "Grab 'em by their pussies" much, anyone?

The statement, "Atheists reject the divinity of Jesus" is somewhat of a begging-the-question formulation. Kind of like saying "Sarah Palin rejects death panels." or perhaps "Jytdog rejects the claim that pink unicorns like to eat marigolds". One reads anyone of those three and says "Well yes but that is kind of a strange thing to say...."

These are somewhat sacred cows I know.

I have worked through the years on some content related to the Bible and other religious topics. There are large swaths of WP that have been captured by True Believers; and places that are expressions of faith in WP's voice rather than being encyclopedic content. (that last sentence is an example parallelism, a hallmark of poetry in the Hebrew Bible btw)

I wouldn't raise these issues the way that QG is, but ~some~ of the !votes here appear to me, to be more knee jerk reactions written in a lack of awareness of these very legitimate lines of critique, or just not seeing them, than they are about what QG is writing per se.

So let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream, but breathe, ya'all. RIghteousness is not a simple thing sometimes. Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• As Jytdog points out above, this is in some respects not as straight-forward as it superficially appears to be. I agree with those who see QuackGuru as a net positive to the encyclopedia, but it appears to me that precisely those qualities which makes QG valuable in medical articles makes them problematic when they are applied to a much more complex social and historical phenomenon such as religion -- and I say this as a longtime atheist (lapsed Catholic) myself. Religion can be dealt with in the same fashion that QG deals with medicine, but really only in POV writings such as those of Richard Dawkins. I may or may not agree with Dawkins' take on religion, or I may or may not hew somewhat closer to Stephen Jay Gould's view of "non-overlapping magisteria", but wherever I stand it's a personal viewpoint which is essentially not provable in the same way that scientific facts are, or can be, proved (by the scientific definition). It is for this reason that QG's entry into articles about religion is problematic, as he attempts to apply the same ultra-strict standard to a subject which is not amenable to that, and has no defining authority similar to WP:MEDRS. (Note that WP:Religion is a failed proposal.)
  The upshot of all this is that I support Ian.thomsons's suggested topic ban, which reads "QuackGuru is topic banned from religious articles, talk pages, and topics except where modern medical practice is concerned or where the discretionary sanctions for complimentary and alternative medicine apply." I think this strikes a good balance, allows QG to apply his strengths where they will be helpful to the project, but keeps QG away from articles which -- quite apparently -- they don't know how to deal with appropriately. QG is essentially a one-trick pony, but that trick is a powerfully good one when applied appropriately, and the encyclopedia benefits enormously when they do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oh, I did want to mention that while Jytdog makes a valid point about religionists in many cases forcing religion articles to be (essentially) the equivalent of "in universe" articles, freezing out non-believer views which would make those article more rounded and less skewed toward the religious viewpoint, I'm very certain that QG's approach to editing those articles is the worst possible way to go about changing that. Someone who wishes to make religion articles less, well, religious, needs to take a softer approach, and be a good listener, a good rhetorician, and a person able to strike compromises between a hard-core believer position and a hard-core non-believer one. Those articles need to be opened up incrementally and with great tact and respect. QG is not that person. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken thanks for engaging with what I wrote. I have imagined this thread being on Chinese WP, with all the references to "religion" changed to "acupuncture." I would expect it to be pretty much exactly the same, with accusations of "trolling" etc. The capturing of large swaths of WP by a Christian POV just is what it is, as is the Christianish perspective of many editors. From an abstract perspective QG should not have to be any more delicate with their fence-rattling in challenging Christian bias nor in raising a feminist perspective on Christian subjects, than they should have to be on alt med things. But part of WP:CLUE is "knowing what works" and what you wrote about approaching it more delicately is just the way things are here in en-WP. This is very third-rail-y. Yep. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

There's a rather distinct difference between interpretation of religious belief and medical science. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Ian.thomson this is true -- very true -- but it is also true that it just as possible for page to be "captured" by advocates for a Christian POV as it is for a page to be captured by advocates for alt-med, and there is no difference in the kind of violation of NPOV that both represent. Circling back to the difference.. the means of resolving the problem are much different especially as the relevant literature is so different, and that is where strategies/tactics that BMK discussed above, and that I think you are concerned about as well, come into play. I am not unsympathetic to your opening this thread. It just not a black and white thing to me. But I should have noted the difference in subject matter and sources and how that changes the negotiation more clearly. You called that out well. Jytdog (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

To show you what I mean about capture, not that long ago the lead of David looked like this. That is horrible and getting that fixed was way more of a struggle than it should have been. Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The means to fix such a POV in an article on more subjective topics is to present a variety of interpretations with due weight. If it is necessary to overhaul the article, outline it from professional academic tertiary sources that give an overview of the more noteworthy interpretations. The way to not do it is highlighting just the bits with the most shock value from cherry-picked sources (many of them completely unreliable beyond WP:PRIMARY quotes) that sometimes only tangentially connect to some undeniably uncommon interpretations and presenting those interpretations as scientific facts. That difference, QG's apparent inability and unwillingness to acknowledge that difference, plus the continued "can do no wrong" attitude QG displays (which is simply incompatible with the sort of cooperation needed in editing articles on subjective topics), are why people are supporting a topic ban.

If you have evidence that the Christianity article is horrendously skewed by a POV that needs to be fixed, by all means present (on the talk page) some tertiary sources to demonstrate what perspectives are not given due weight. I even grant that it could use more material covering feminist perspectives, as I am familiar that there's plenty of sources feminist theology and feminist interpretations of theology out there and I think it'd be great to see them given due weight in the article -- but I know that there's a hell of a lot more to it than trying to empirically claim "God is a rapist" like some MRA parody of "feminazis."

I don't see it as black and white either. The gray is a mixture of "he may not have the mindset needed to properly collaborate on subjective topics" and "he is useful on empirical topics," and "some of our articles deal with subjective matter" and "some of our articles deal with empirical matter." Beyond that, the former or current state of articles doesn't really matter because this is a behavioral matter and not a content dispute. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

See here. Jesus' self-perception is not mentioned in the article. If historians are unclear or disagree that can be included in the article. Rather than just focus on improving the article you accuse me of disruption. I focused on the article.[196][197] It is a behavior problem to comment on the editor on the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 21:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

That you assume that a historical figure's self-perception is so easily grasped shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how history works. Unless we have something written by a historical figure, we don't truly know what they thought of themselves, only how other historians interpret that figure. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I did not say or think that Jesus' self-perception is so easily grasped. Please stop putting words in my mouth. I explained if historians interpretation of Jesus' self-perception are unclear or disagree then that could be included. You appear to be against including any historians interpretation of Jesus' self-perception. Sources I have read say similar things like: "The Christian Trinity was not taught by Jesus. Nor did Jesus ever say that he was the Son of God. Only the disciples wrote that Jesus is the Son of God."[198] We can work together and find better sources and clarify this point in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Unless I am greatly mistaken, there are no "historical interpretations of Jesus' self-perception", since the only writings we have about Jesus came from people who never knew him, and were working with received mythology passed down orally through time, larded with a great deal of total invention and fabrication by the writers who wished to present a particular view of the man. So what we have are interpretations of someone's perception of what Jesus' self-perception may possibly have been if he did the things people who never knew him write that he did. That's fine if you're discussing the mythical Jesus and not the historical Jesus.

A great deal of time and energy has gone into trying to distill some small grains of fact from the Gospels, and there has been considerable improvement in our knowledge of the historical man, but we are nowhere near the point where anyone can say with finality that the historical Jesus absolutely did X or absolutely did not do Y. Herein lies your problem: history is not science, biography is not science, religion is not science, so attempting to deal with the putative biography of a quasi-mythical quasi-historical religious figure as if it were amenable to the same techniques that one uses in science is simply absurd, as there are no answers, only more or less convincing arguments -- and what is "convincing" is different from person to person. Your attempt to deal with this subject matter as if it is -- to pick up on a trope in this discussion -- either black-or-white is fundamentally flawed and unworkable in this context. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, a historical figure's self-perception is only known if they wrote something down about themselves. That's something that one has to understand to get beyond any introductory studies in the humanities. Asking for historians' interpretation of his self-perception is asking for their interpretation of something they don't have. This is not something you approach as you would an empirical matter, which seems to be the only way you know how to approach things.

You started off approaching this using sources that largely rejected WP:RS to push the ideas with the most shock value, after trying to rewriting policies to suit your needs. It would be obvious to someone the least bit capable of contemplating how others might see things why people might think you're trolling or at least POV-pushing. That you keep citing that source from AuthorHouse despite having already been told that it's not reliable only further calls your competency with this topic into question. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I did not say to use AuthorHouse in the article after I was told it was unreliable. I was using it as an example in this thread. I was explaining what sources I have read said. I said above "We can work together and find better sources and clarify this point in the article." That means I want to find better sources. See "If there is no academic consensus on the matter then we can include different interpretations or views regarding Jesus' self-perception."[199] Historians have commented on Jesus' self-perception. I gave one example to show it is possible to find historians commenting on Jesus' self-perception. QuackGuru (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Quack -- you're in a hole. Stop digging. Please.—S Marshall T/C 22:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

We've been in many disputes before. I thought you were going to comment here eventually. Are you trying to make me look bad? QuackGuru (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

QG: At the risk of stating the obvious, the only one here who is making you look bad is you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

And that is perhaps the real problem here... Quack is a tenacious "Wiki-lawyer", especially when he feels he is right... to the point where his tanacity becomes disruptive. He needs to learn to stop digging when consensus is against him. Blueboar (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I have been in many disputes with you too. This was a new dispute regarding Jesus' self-perception. I'm sure I or others can find better sources. Is it a problem to using better sources for Jesus' self-perception for the article? QuackGuru (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: Read this whole thread carefully and think about how people besides you see things. Imagine that it is about someone else covering a topic you're willing to admit you know nothing about. This is not about article content, this is about your behavior. Notice that the closest anyone is coming to defending you (a minority that somehow includes me) is pointing out that you have good intentions, that you're helpful in other areas, and there are problems in the articles -- no one is agreeing with your tactics. Almost everyone has stated that your behavior is problematic and more users than I'd like to see are ready to have you topic banned from all religion articles.

If all the traffic is coming your way, you're in the wrong lane. From an outside perspective, you are in the wrong here. Whenever I see a user without your history cause this sort of uproar on ANI, that user always got at least a topic ban, if not an indefinite block or even a community ban. That some users (including myself) have pointed out that you're useful in medical articles is not an excuse to keep fighting, it is your chance to back down before an uninvolved admin decides you're just not worth the trouble. That S Marshall and I have argued that any topic ban should exclude medical topics would demonstrate to anyone with an iota of awareness that we are actually trying to balance helping the site with helping you as a member of the community.

If you are not willing to (or worse, cannot) consider what any other member of the community has to say except when it's backing you up, you do not belong on a collaborative project. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Agree with BTMK and S Marshall. Ian.Thomson's suggested wording is far better. Black Kite (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• "BTK"? I've seen "BYK" before, which I've always assumed meant "Beyond Your Ken", but "BTK is a new one on me. "Beyond Their Ken"?, "Beyond Thy Ken"? "Benighted Tacky Ken"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• Er ... oops. Black Kite (talk) 07:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support religion topic ban. Just his continued hammering and failure to listen in this thread is enough evidence for that. Elsewhere I recall his behavior fitting the patterns he is showing here. Legacypac (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• support tban as framed by ian. QG is not going to demonstrate the necessary CLUE here. QG you have done buried yourself here. Jytdog (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment This is, again, one of these ridiculously over-complicated TB proposals. TBs are about a subject and edits related to that subject. Not pages. When did this whole pages TB become a norm? Normally with a TB you could edit a page that had some content related to a TB so long as your edits didn't broach the subject of your TB. There's worries that broadly construed could, say, stop QG from commenting on FTN because there's likely to be some religion related content on the page. Just simplify this: QG is topic banned from all edits relating to religion broadly construed. Which I'd Support. Capeo (talk) 02:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support either religion topic ban or Ian's wording. I don't know much about the user's history to able to tell if he can edit articles involving both medicine and religion without intentionally causing trouble or controversy.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• Just going by the behaviour on ANI alone, I support the broadly construed topic ban. Blackmane (talk) 03:11, 22 August 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.

Site-ban discussion

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

---

I've closed the discussion above and imposed the topic ban for which there was clear consensus; I don't think we are yet seeing consensus for a site ban, but the discussion does seem to be trending that way so I'm leaving this section open to see what develops. GoldenRing (talk) 08:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Noting that some earlier comments in the now closed section (above) apply to this discussion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• QuackGuru has an extensive history of IDHT, of waving his hands around about this or that problem (such as allegations of OR and non-verifiability), of demanding sources from others for even the plainest statements, but disdaining to support his claims or point to specific cases, of being deaf to what he doesn't want to hear.

E.g., his attempt to unilaterally change the WP:ADMIN policy (see WT:Administrators #Replacing sourced content with failed verification content for other endeavors) can be traced back to some recent discussions at WT:V (see WT:V#Re-start and WT:V#Problem with wording), which in turn appear to have been his attempt to get some leverage in a content dispute at Chiropractic (see Talk:Chiropractic/Archive_38#Too_many_problems_with_recent_changes_to_lede) for a sample.

In all these cases QuackGuru is often in the situation (such as noted above by Blueboard [15:42: 21 Aug]) where everyone present is telling him something, but he adamantly refuses to hear. While some editors might agree with some of his results, the problem is that he is not amenable to the process, being too full of his own self-rightousness, and this diminishes the work everyone could be doing. I concur with all the above comments, but especially Ian's: QuackGuru does not belong on a collaborative project.

Support a ban on this, and ALL other topics and policies, including talk pages. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• I'd support a community ban as outlined above by User:J. Johnson and I challenge anyone to read the tortuous discussion above and seriously argue QG is a net asset to the project. --John (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support a community ban as outlined by J. Johnson for the reasons outlined by them and Only in Death. That Quack's inability to collaborate with others may sometimes yield positive results in certain topics doesn't excuse that behaviour when it does yield positive results. Cjhard (talk) 21:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Withdrawing support and opposing site ban, based on QG's response to this thread. I do so without striking out the part about bad behaviour which yields positive results, as I believe that the principle applies and QG should be reminded to cease this behaviour, rather than only applying it in non-religious topics. Cjhard (talk) 11:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Update: Continuing CIR issues on Talk:Jesus. The fact that QG is still continuing his inane claims and time-wasting assertions on Talk:Jesus and on this ANI thread raises some serious WP:CIR issues and serious concerns about how much time-wasting the community can and should put up with before an editor reaches net negative. Apparently the OP's desire to give QG "an earlier heads up to change course" has not had its desired effect, and given that entrenched bludgeoning and time-wasting is this editor's MO, I think we need to address the fact that WP:CIR applies here, not just tendentiousness on religion articles. Softlavender (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Softlavender is right. The history of Talk:Jesus shows unequivocally that even as the AN/I consensus snowballs, this user is still not getting the message; his block log is a disgrace; and Arbcom warned him in 2015. I withdraw all my objections to a site ban.—S Marshall T/C 23:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Yes, I think there is a competence issue here, on a number of levels. I was surprised to see QG make an edit citing a blatantly self-published source (and then feeling the need to post it at WP:RSN) and then following it up with another citation to another blatantly self-published source. StAnselm (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support for his continued actions in the face of community admonishment and censure from Arbcom. WP:NOTGETTINGIT. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 09:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Tentative oppose QG has done positive work over the years within the medical and science topic area. I do need to see an immediate assurance that the issues mentioned above will stop and not resume. I believe that with such an assurance a site ban would be a net negative to the project. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Normally I would advise waiting to see if the TBAN did the trick, but [200] strongly indicates that it won't. If, after six months, QG posts an appeal that shows that he understands why he was site-banned and is willing to change I would be willing to open up a discussion regarding whether to give him some one-stike-you-are-out WP:ROPE. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose: per this comment:[201] --Guy Macon (talk) 12:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• tentative oppose per Doc James, QG is an asset to Wikiproject Medicine his opinions are valuable there(however QG should give assurance that the issues mentioned above will stop)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Tentative oppose for now. QG was informed about the TBAN today at 9:03 (UTC). If he violates the TBAN on purpose, I will support a site ban but we should at least give him time to demonstrate if he is willing and able to abide by such a restriction. Regards SoWhy 10:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. I am taking this feedback on board seriously. Medical and science topics is where I make most of my positive contributions. I realize that sometimes I push things too far and do not drop issues when consensus is against me. I will do my best to change this behaviour going forward and avoid not getting it. I understand it is better to stop writing, listen, and read carefully what others are saying even when I feel strongly that I am right. I will make a strong effort to see their side of the issues, and work on finding points of agreement and move on when consensus is against me. I agree to fully follow the topic ban above. QuackGuru (talk) 10:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks QG. Glad to hear you are taking these concerns seriously. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, out of process This discussion is out of process. Site bans are not a first step, but rather, they follow violations of other measures. The topic ban on religion just began today. QG has not violated that topic ban. If there is a violation then take further steps, but after a remedy is in place that should end the discussion. I have spoken up on behalf of QG in the past where they engage with controversial medical topics in a way that has led to constructive Wikipedia article development. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• I'm don't know what's going on here and at this point I'm afraid to ask. Yes, there's an extensive block log. Yes, he's legitimately helpful in medical articles. Yes, he didn't listen to anyone while the topic ban discussion was going on. Yes, he has promised to take the feedback in a way that shows awareness of the issues. I'd just like to state that when I said "you do not belong on a collaborative project," it was an if/then statement (with an admittedly implied "then") that was bolded for emphasis, not a !vote. As such, the bold statement in this post is my !vote regarding a community ban. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment In the discussion above, I found a clear consensus for a topic ban on religion. The point of leaving this section open is that it was not clear to me whether there was consensus that the disruption outside that topic merited further sanctions (almost certainly a site ban). So comments of the "wait and see if the topic ban is violated variety are missing the point. The point of this whole thing is to prevent disruption; the question for this section is, "Does removing them from the topic of religion sufficiently prevent disruption, or do they have a track record of disruption in other areas that needs to be addressed with further sanctions?" For my money, the answer is that the topic ban is sufficient for the time being (especially given the response from QG above). But I don't get a super-vote. GoldenRing (talk) 11:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bluerasberry, Guy Macon, Doc James. Doesn't seem like a necessary step at this point. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose site ban at the moment but Support topic ban from everything except medical and science articles and their talk pages (or something better that someone else writes that does the same thing). To my mind, the two major contributing factors to the disruption that QG causes are: 1 Their view on sourcing, citing and verifiability is radically different from the vast majority of the community (but appears to be closer to the consensus as to how medical articles are referenced) and 2 They appear to be incapable and/or unwilling to communicate in such a manner that will alter anyone's existing opinions regarding these topics (but appears to be capable of working somewhat more collegiately with those who hold views already closer to their own). Most of the recent discussions I've either been involved in or witnessed that illustrate these have already been referenced above, but I can supply a few more if anyone's feeling particularly bored or masochistic. The events at Jesus, David & Bathsheba are entirely unsurprising to me, as they demonstrate the idiosyncratic interpretations of policy backed up with a willful refusal to engage or moderate their viewpoint. If QG was to start editing the article on Golf tomorrow I have every expectation that every line would be tagged as requiring verification, including that grass is green. However, QG does appear to be able to offer useful content and research within medical articles, as their views are closer to existing consensus and even those who work with QG there and who are obviously somewhat exasperated seem to think that they would be missed. So, why not let them stay there and leave the rest of the wiki alone? Scribolt (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: per Guy Macon. Editing in the medical field, I have always found QG to be someone who wants to improve the encyclopedia, even if his means sometimes leave much to be desired. I believe his assurances given in his response to this proposal, and will be quick to remind him of the likely consequences if there's even a hint of him not living up to his promises. --RexxS (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Neutral on site ban, but propose extended topic ban to include policies. QG has been disrupting the discussions at Wikipedia Talk:Verifiability, Wikipedia Talk:Identifying reliable sources, and other policies for weeks, making proposals which often make little sense or seem focused on countering arguments made by only one or two editors in disputes in which he is involved, and then when asked to provide diffs to demonstrate that the problems are sufficiently widespread to justify policy modification either walking away from the discussion, attempting to divert, or becoming oppositional, generally after vast amounts of discussion have been expended trying to pin down and discuss his proposals. This is compounded by the fact that he has, as noted above, said that he disagrees with the most fundamental concepts on which Wikipedia is based: "Dose the existing consensus mean the article improved? Consensus does not remove original research. Consensus does not do anything to improve any article. WP:ONUS as part of consensus is tantamount to obstructionism. What is really consensus? It is a way to tell others to shut up." diff. I agree with Doc James that QG has been a useful editor in the MEDRS areas, especially in countering fringe topics, so I'm going to remain neutral on the site ban, but I would recommend that the topic ban be extended from what has already been established above to also include "the text of policies and guidelines, the talk pages of those pages, and any other creation, modification, or deletion of policy or guidelines, or discussion relating to creation, modification, or deletion of policy or guidelines, broadly construed, but not including discussion at any noticeboard such as Reliable Sources Noticeboard seeking clarification, application, or enforcement of existing policy or guidelines without modification." Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I am open to hearing any problems which anyone would raise. I do not want to make a big deal out of contesting a topic ban on policies, but also, I do oppose such a ban on the basis of a case with examples not being made.

I am responding to TransporterMan here to confirm that I see the issue raised. I would like to think that this could be put aside for a while because this conversation is already overly heated and because we just got a new topic ban remedy in place which I think will cool some tension. However, if a topic ban on policies is to be discussed, then I would like to see that matter examined independently. Again, I expect any editor which jumps into contentious spaces to have a history of conflict. I expect civil behavior everywhere but when anyone enters a vexatious topic space I feel that they should expect to encounter vexatious bureaucracy and that banning the bureaucracy or bureaucrats will not make a topic less contentious. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as per Doc James: QG has done positive work over the years within the medical and science topic area Cloudjpk (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support It's looking like a site ban is not going to pass, even though it is warrented and would he imposed on most other editors for all the disruption. Legacypac (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose ...best not to ban....much harder to follow socks....best keep an eye on them.--Moxy (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comments in the above section. QG can be problematic in certain circumstances, but overall he's a net positive. I am also heartened by QG's comment above, which shows what I think is real thought as to the potential downside of their methodology. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• oppose site ban. still does valuable work in their core area. Jytdog (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose the TBAN is probably sufficient. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary considering topic ban has been enacted. Blackmane (talk) 00:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose A topic ban was just enacted and an acknowledgment of acceptance from QG that it wasn't unwarranted. I see no point in jumping to a site ban from that. Capeo (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
• A couple comments:
  1. My compliments to whoever wrote this formal apology. It goes directly to the heart of the problem and eloquently ticks all the boxes that admins look for in apologies (acknowledgement and understanding of the problem, specific commitments to change, etc.). It is one of the better apologies I have seen on Wikipedia, and perhaps its biggest shortcoming is that it doesn't sound anything like QuackGuru, who in my experience has never demonstrated that level of situational awareness, introspection, and general cluefulness. It is certainly a dramatic turnaround, and I sincerely hope that QG will make a concerted effort to understand and live up to the commitments they made by clicking the Submit button on that post.
  2. I weakly oppose a site-ban as I still feel they are a weak net positive at articles regularly edited by medicine-focused editors like User:Doc James. I would change my mind if QG fails to live up to the aforementioned commitments.
  3. I would support some sort of Wikipedia policy space ban, as QG's sole interest in policy and guidelines seems to be driven by disputes in which they are involved. For example, see these thinly veiled attempts to stack the WP deck against (admin) User:Ian.thomson in the current Jesus dispute: [202] "For content that failed verification, the sky is blue is not applicable" and [203] "An admin who repeatedly replaces sourced content with failed verification content may be blocked for up to a year." I also think a site-wide WP:1RR restriction would be helpful, although it would largely overlap with their current 1RR restriction at articles related to alternative medicine. ~Awilley (talk) 01:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose siteban. I support extension of the topic ban to policy pages, given the obvious attempts at "gaming" there. And yes, per Awilley, if I ever have a need for "the perfect apology", I want that author. -- Begoon 07:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose siteban at this point in time. A further discussion of such a siteban should look at behaviour after the mentioned apology. I support an extension of the topic ban to policy pages for obvious reasons. Agathoclea (talk) 11:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
• Opposing site ban per Doc James et al. From the time I spent lurking articles under WikiProject Medicine, QuackGuru is a net positive to the community, if only for his contributions to those particular topics. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that he will address concerns regarding WP:IDHT per his comment. I also weakly support a proposed ban on policy edits per TransporterMan and Awilley. --autacoid 11:52, 24 August 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.